Sopwith Triplane

[Jonathan Saunders]

I was browsing an air war book the other evening and it led me to wonder why the triplane was not more popular in the British forces. As I understand it the Sopwith Triplane was the original with the concept copied by others, notably Anthony Fokker and the DrI, and presumably a plane favoured by many German pilots including Manfred von Richtoften, because of the agility the triplane had in flight.

So why wasnt it popular with the British? It was only used by the RNAS - no RFC/RAF squadrons that I am aware of flew the Triplane.

[FAAAEd]

So why wasnt it popular with the British? It was only used by the RNAS - no RFC/RAF squadrons that I am aware of flew the Triplane.

Although the Triplane was very successful during its brief service with the RNAS by late 1917 it was probably appreciated that aircraft like the Camel with two synchronised guns firing forward provided a decided advantage as the time allowed for hitting an opponent became ever shorter.

Also e.g. the Camel had a faster initial climb and the Triplane, although very manoeuverable, I think, had some structure imposed limitations in some manoeuvers requiring careful handling.

Having said that of course, the Camel was notoriously tricky to handle near the ground.

[MikeW]

The triplane was originally intended to have the AR1 (Bentley) rotary and twin vickers guns. The Bentley was delayed and Sopwiths went with the 130 horse Clerget in the end.

The model performed incredibly well with the RNAS but ultimately was too stable (wouldn't dive properly) and was a pain in the backside to rig. There were also many rumours of weaknesses and a number of modifications appeared - some unnofficial. If the machine had been delivered in numbers in 1916 (only one was in service for much of the latter half of 1916) the RNAS would have cleaned up!

The War Office did order triplanes for the RFC but cancelled them and went for SPAD 7s instead (that's a complicated story in itself). The RFC used a single machine at Orfordness experimental station where it performed sterling service and was also used on Home Defence Duties - there is an unsubstantiated rumour that the RFC Triplane got a kill, no claim was ever submitted because the pilot had been on a training flight and had been under strict orders to avoid contact!

The Camel was obviously going to be a more agile fighting machine and the RNAS immediately placed orders at the beginning of 1917 or thereabouts - that was really the deathnell for the Triplane.

A small number of twin gun triplanes were built, Collishaw thought they were wonderful but most everyone else that flew one complained they were overweight and didn't perform well enough. As soon as Collishaw left Naval 10 his twin gun example (his 3rd Black Maria) was relegated to being the CO's "hack".

[Borden Battery]

Here is a short website article on Collishaw and his Triplane. - Borden Battery

Raymond Collishaw - World War I Fighter Ace

A simple website with a short overview history of a Canadian fighter pilot. Collishaw flew "Black Maria" a Sopwith Triplane from "Black Flight" of 10 Naval RNAS. He remained with the RAF after the Great War, was active in the Second World War with the RAF and finally retired again to Canada. [CEF Study Group - Nov 2005]

http://www.constable.ca/abolishment

[Jonathan Saunders]

Thanks for you replies. I am still confused why the Germans used the triplane more extensively than the British. Was it because the triplane was better suited to some form of aerial tactics that the Germans employed?

Also I think I am going to ask another question on SE5a or Camel on a new thread, should you wish to add a comment.

Many thanks,

Jon S

[MikeW]

I don't think they did use the triplane type more extensively than the British - when the Sopwith started to run rings around the German fighters of the time, the Germans had lots of prototypes made but only the Fokker was any good. Similarly, the Allies had a number of Triplane prototypes, three Sopwiths, a couple of Nieuports, an Austin, Armstrong Whitworth, Blackburn, Bristol, lots of different Curtis types, Levy Besson etc. etc. - they just were not very good. The Italian Caproni however, did make it into service.

I suspect the Fokker Dr1 wouldn't have made it into service if it hadn't been for the support of MvR.

Mike

[Bob H]

IIRC the reason no more Sopwith Triplanes were produced was that the Camel was faster, better armed and as manouverable but much easier to build and maintain.

The Fokker Triplane was not produced in great numbers but has kept its fame from association with MvR.

Regards

Bob

[Jonathan Saunders]

Thanks to all who contributed a reply.

Regards,

Jon S

[Borden Battery]

It is not very often the thread originator provides a thank you at the end of the thread. Thank you in return.

Borden Battery

[MikeW]

Borden Battery,

Curses, it's not the end of the thread now

Thank you for keeping it going.

[mickdavis]

Interestingly, the RFC did plan to use the Triplane and placed orders for the type with Clayton & Shuttleworth. Initially, 100 serial numbers, A9000 - A9099, and later another 106, A9813 - A9813, were allocated to the type. The later block may have superseded the first, with the balance possibly relating to the six twin-gun machines N533-N538.

The RFC gave up its claim on Triplanes in return for the receipt of SPAD S.VIIs intended for the RNAS. RFC forward planning in December 1916 had envisaged that 81 Sqn and 54 TS would form to be the first of its units to receive the Triplane, at Brattleby (Scampton) and Castle Bromwich respectively. Each was intended to receive 6 of the type, plus six Bristol Scouts and 6 Avro 504s. The first operational unit was to be 65 Sqn which was to work up at Wyton. N5430 did reach the RFC at AES Orfordness and, at one stage, was incorrectly marked A5430. It ended its service life with 78 Sqn at Sutton's Farm - presumably acquired by some officer with clout.

[stan]

Here's a quote on the matter from various notables (one, the first to say "b****r all" in a Grub Street book) taken from "Australian Hawk Over The Western Front" the bio of Major RS Dallas who got most of his victories on triplanes:

Another interesting comment is that:

The machine received a mixed reception when it appeared on the Western Front, the R.F.C. pilots in particular taking a great dislike to it. R.F.C. squadrons offered to exchange their Tripehound, as the Sopwith fighter became known, for the R.N.A.S. Spad. Their main objection to the new scout was that it was considered structurally weak and that the wings would fold up if the plane was put into a steep dive.

Such a change is of course unlikely to have occurred at squadron level. The true explanation of the Triplane/SPAD story can be found in Bruce's account:

....what happened was the calling of a conference at the Admiralty on 14 December 1916, with Gen Brackner representing the War Office. It was on this occasion that the Admiralty agreed to hand over to the RFC half of the production of SPADs provided for under their current contract....A further conference held on the 26 February 1917, agreed that all the Army Sopwith triplanes should be handed over to the Navy and that the Navy would then hand over all their SPADs to the Army instead of half. In fact it is doubtful whether any handover to the RNAS of a triplane built for the RFC ever took place, even on paper, for the total number of triplanes delivered to the RNAS was much too small to have incorporated any aircraft intended for the RFC. (Except perhaps for the six built with twin Vickers guns and taken on by the RNAS as N533 - N538.

Mike Westrop adds:

As far as I can tell (and I've gone into this very deeply), the RFC got exactly 75 SPADs out of two batches that the RNAS ordered (the rest were cancelled), and the RNAS got b****r all. They were supposed to get 100 or so triplanes that the War Office had ordered, but they didn't. The War Office order for the triplane was so late in being placed that the Camel was on the horizon and the RNAS were thinking ahead. There were SPADs with RNAS serial numbers but I suspect they were just for evaluation; certainly there was no equipping at squadron level.