fitzee Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 A while ago on this forum someone asked why the Sopwith Triplane wasn't more popular. I recently came across a photo of the "Sopwith Rhino" A rather odd looking machine. Check out this website of Triplane designs and more... http://www.pigstompers.net/Triplane-Madness/trimad.htm My question is, did the "Rhino" see active service? Fitzee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Denham Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 Only two examples of the Rhino were built (X7 and X8). They underwent trials at Martlesham Heath in 1918 but development did not progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 No only 2 prototypes were built. On reason why this bomber was not taken up was that it used the same Puma engine as the Dh9. There were not enough for both aircraft and as the Dh9 had the wings and tailplane of the existing Dh4 it was much easier to get this into production. Looking back one might say why produce two crap bomber types when one would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 Another unsuccessful Sopwith triplane http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/1114252/SopwithT.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzee Posted 16 May , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 May , 2007 Centurion Can't imagine why that one never got off the ground! I like the gunlayers "nest" Nice job! Fitzee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 The Sopwith L.T.T.Tr of 1916 certainly flew, but only as a protoype. It was intended as a long range fighter that could also double up as an anti zeppelin fighter (in which capacity it was intended to replace the Lewis in the upper gunner's position with a 2 pounder Davis recoilss gun). It was unofficially known as the Sopwith Egg Crate. It was actually one of the more sensible multi seat anti zeppelin fighters prototyped. You'd like to see my drawings of the Robey Peters Gun Carrier, or the Supermarine Night Hawk* quadruplane etc? * Sometimes Night was replaced with a word that rhymed with night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzee Posted 16 May , 2007 Author Share Posted 16 May , 2007 It seems DeHavilland never ventured more than two wings in his designs. It struck as interesting that Sopwith copied the elongated aileron horns that we associate with the fokker DR1. Fitzee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 It seems DeHavilland never ventured more than two wings in his designs. It struck as interesting that Sopwith copied the elongated aileron horns that we associate with the fokker DR1. Fitzee Wrong way round. The Sopwith Triplane came before the DR1 (despiite a lot of 'spin' by Fokker to the contrary. It percipitated a triplane fenzy amongst Central Powers designers but the DR1 was the only one to see real service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 16 May , 2007 Share Posted 16 May , 2007 No only 2 prototypes were built. On reason why this bomber was not taken up was that it used the same Puma engine as the Dh9. There were not enough for both aircraft and as the Dh9 had the wings and tailplane of the existing Dh4 it was much easier to get this into production. Looking back one might say why produce two crap bomber types when one would do. Is this fair about the DH9? Surely it was only crap because of the engine. Ok the engine is quite important. As an airframe design it improved on the DH4 with easier communication between the crew. Once the DH9A came along, they had the best of both worlds. As to Fitzee's site: some of these designers should have known better. What were Fokker thinking of with five wings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squirrel Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 I remember seeing a TV programme many years ago about Tommy Sopwith. One of the sections showed aircraft designs being chalked full size on a wall and the use of fairly rudimentary drawings to build from. This was during WW1. Sir Tommy stated that " if an aircraft looked right, it flew right". I would suggest that he did not look too carefully at some of these! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 I remember seeing a TV programme many years ago about Tommy Sopwith. One of the sections showed aircraft designs being chalked full size on a wall and the use of fairly rudimentary drawings to build from. This was during WW1. Sir Tommy stated that " if an aircraft looked right, it flew right". I would suggest that he did not look too carefully at some of these! I gather that the L.R.T.Tr. was "one of those aircraft that Sopwith never recalled with pride - which would account for its reported rapid relegation to a Brooklands hanger" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Is this fair about the DH9? Surely it was only crap because of the engine. Ok the engine is quite important. As an airframe design it improved on the DH4 with easier communication between the crew. Once the DH9A came along, they had the best of both worlds. The engine was the thing about the DH9 - The Americans built a version of the Dh4 with the cockpits changed to put the pilot back to back with the observer but kept the original engine (later they used Liberties) this worked fine and was designated Dh4b. Although just too late for the war Dh4bs (and a reworked version with metal frames etc) stayed in service until the 1930s. The DH9a was not merely a DH9 with a new engine - they changed the wings as well. As to Fitzee's site: some of these designers should have known better. What were Fokker thinking of with five wings? Despite what Fokker said in his autobiography 'Flying Dutchman' he was not an ace designer (although he was a superb test pilot) and much of the design work was done by his chief designer. The last of these Rhienholt Platz was resposible for the DR1, DVI, DVII and DVIII. He tried to talk Fokker out of the five wing monster. Fokker it seems wanted five wings in a stack bu t Platz produced a three wings at the front, two wings in the middle design to try and maintain stability - this probably saved Fokker's life. Fokker took the beast up for its first and last flight. On landing he dismounted somewhat shaken and ordered the aircraft to be hangered at once - no delay. It never left the hanger again. Flying Dutchman is a "cracking good read Grommit"just don't believe any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 and much of the design work was done by his chief designer. The last of these Rhienholt Platz was resposible for the DR1, DVI, DVII and DVIII. Oh dear - you've been reading the Putnam book by Weyl! Platz was a welder, not the chief designer. The Putnam book has always been recognised as very unreliable. The author seemed to have a problem with Fokker. This topic has been rethrashed elsewhere at great length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Oh dear - you've been reading the Putnam book by Weyl! Platz was a welder, not the chief designer. The Putnam book has always been recognised by whom? as very unreliable. The author seemed to have a problem with Fokker. This topic has been rethrashed elsewhere at great length. Where please ? My comments are in part based on the fact that there are clearly two major phases in the design of Fokker aircraft. An original period which produces aircraft that appear to be considerably Morane Sauliner derrivative (and I don't just mean the fighters but also the stuff provided for Austro Hungary) and a second phase which produces a series of aircaft that are almosr completely different from the first phase. Platz as I understand it joined Fokker as a master welder in the first phase to oversee the tube stell construction and became to some extent a self taught designer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Post your statement on ""The Aerodrome" and the Fokkerophiles will eat you for breakfast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Post your statement on ""The Aerodrome" and the Fokkerophiles will eat you for breakfast No I'm on this forum - please present your references/evidence . I note that Paul Leaman's comprhensive Fokker Aircraft of World War One also has Platz as the designer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzee Posted 17 May , 2007 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2007 From Leon Bennetts book"Three Wings for the Red Baron" "Fokker's actual hands-on designer remains unknown. It certainly wasn't mathdead Anthony,for 1917 Idfleig requirments included a sophisticated stress analysis, well beyond the abilities of even gifted amateurs Responding to the need for a creditable designer, Fokker's chief welder-draftsman Reinhold Platz shyly accepted the post-war limelight. Enjoying the popular appeal of an "aw shucks" hero, Platz's calm acceptance of design credit has muddied the waters,for if design means choosing dimensions, he couldn't have done the job. At issue wasn't his powerful intuitive feel for design, but his ability to assess stress rigorously, a matter of fairly advanced mathematics.Years of special courses were a prerequisite and neither Platz or Fokker had the necessary background...If the true designer is ever located,he/she will almost certainly turn out to have been an applied mathematician in full cry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inniskillingmcnulty Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 My Grandfather was a RAF pilot instructor during WW2. He flew Sopwith Camels amongst others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 From Leon Bennetts book"Three Wings for the Red Baron" "Fokker's actual hands-on designer remains unknown. It certainly wasn't mathdead Anthony,for 1917 Idfleig requirments included a sophisticated stress analysis, well beyond the abilities of even gifted amateurs Responding to the need for a creditable designer, Fokker's chief welder-draftsman Reinhold Platz shyly accepted the post-war limelight. Enjoying the popular appeal of an "aw shucks" hero, Platz's calm acceptance of design credit has muddied the waters,for if design means choosing dimensions, he couldn't have done the job. At issue wasn't his powerful intuitive feel for design, but his ability to assess stress rigorously, a matter of fairly advanced mathematics.Years of special courses were a prerequisite and neither Platz or Fokker had the necessary background...If the true designer is ever located,he/she will almost certainly turn out to have been an applied mathematician in full cry." Unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water. I used to work in the aerospace industry many years ago. The complex stress analysis was always done by specialists reporting up to the designer (in modern times with the aid of computer software). Whether the designer was Platz, Fokker or Willy Stupmf they wouldn't have to be a mathematical specialist. I would also point out that the German aircraft industry was in general fairly ignorant about stress. There was a very good example in the failure of Albatross ever to bottom out the cause of repeated failures of the bottom wing of the DIII and DV (especially when OFAG built DIIIs did not have the same problem) The cause was in fact because the Albatross built wing was too flexible and flutter occured at certain air speeds but Albatross kept on reinforcing the wing with supplementry struts etc and planes kept on crashing in dives. They could do the static loading calculations well enough but didn't have a handle on dynamic stress. Its possible that some of the problems with the Fokker DVIII may have had similar roots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzee Posted 17 May , 2007 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2007 The premise of Bennetts book is Richthofen hated the Albatros for exactly the reason you stated.Especially after January 24, 1917 when in combat with an FE2, at 900 ft his lower wing failed. He managed to land the machine saying it was nothing short of a miraclee. On April 8, one of his pilots flying a DIII lost one third of a lower wing and managed to land. After examining the wing Richthofen wrote a report pointing to a combination of excessive rib loading and slow flutter as the culprit. Subsequently he was convinced the Triplane was the safest machine in the air and used his influence to get Fokker and his team to design one.[ I believe the Germans mistakenly thought Albert Ball met his fate whilst at the controls of a Triplane]Bennett contends Spad was producing the safest and most efficient machine[and in my opinion the meanest and sleekest looking] but the Albatros makers looked at captured Nieuports to try and solve the design flaws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeW Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Centurian, please present your references/evidence . I note that Paul Leaman's comprhensive Fokker Aircraft of World War One also has Platz as the designer Me? I have no particular interest in the Fokker Dr1 - I merely report what various Fokker "experts" have stated. I can certainly put you in touch with Dan-San Abbot if you're brave enough! Your second point, much as I like Paul, his Dr1 book has been panned mercilessly by the likes of the late Paul Grosz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 The premise of Bennetts book is Richthofen hated the Albatros for exactly the reason you stated.Especially after January 24, 1917 when in combat with an FE2, at 900 ft his lower wing failed. He managed to land the machine saying it was nothing short of a miraclee. On April 8, one of his pilots flying a DIII lost one third of a lower wing and managed to land. After examining the wing Richthofen wrote a report pointing to a combination of excessive rib loading and slow flutter as the culprit. Subsequently he was convinced the Triplane was the safest machine in the air and used his influence to get Fokker and his team to design one.[ I believe the Germans mistakenly thought Albert Ball met his fate whilst at the controls of a Triplane]Bennett contends Spad was producing the safest and most efficient machine[and in my opinion the meanest and sleekest looking] but not exactly the most manouverable but the Albatros makers looked at captured Nieuports to try and solve the design flaws The safety of the DrI was nothing to do with it being a triplane it was those rigid cantilever wings. There were plenty of unsafe triplane designs - not the least the Albatross DrI. An often forgotten triplane is the Pfalz DrI designed as a replacement for the Fokker Triplane. It should have been significantly faster than the Fokker (whose Achilles heel was its relatively low speed) but none of the evaluation machines sent to front line squadrons could achieve the performance achieved by the prototype. Richtofen flew one of the evaluation machines and rejected it. It appears that the engines on all the evaluation machines did not deliver their rated power output, as all the engines were supplied by Fokker's engine factory one has to wonder! I looked at the triplane issue some time ago and the following extract covers some of this A captured Sopwith Triplane was displayed to the German aircraft industry on. 27th July 1917. They were asked to develop aircraft that were capable of competing with the British aircraft (a similar approach had been taken with the Nieuport 17 and spawned a number of imitations and near copies of which only the Siemens-Schuckert D1 saw any service). Some manufacturers had already started to produce their own triplane designs. Austro Hungarian designers had also taken notice. The effect was startling as almost every German aircraft manufacturer devoted (and wasted) time and resources in producing their own triplane fighter. By the end of 1917 triplanes had been produced by AEG, Albatross, Aviatik Berg (Austro Hungary), Brandenberg, Euler, Kondor, LFG Roland, Pfalz, Sablatnig, Schutte-Lanz, Siemens-Schuckert, W.K.F (Austro Hungary) and, of course Fokker. Many designs seemed to assume that there was some intrinsic virtue on having three wings and merely took an existing biplane fighter and replaced the wings with a clumsy triplane configuration. In such cases the results were that no significant improvement was achieved in either performance or maneuverability (and these were often actually degraded). Only in the few instances where the aircraft had been designed from scratch to take advantage of the triplane configuration were any gains made. Foremost amongst these was the diminutive Fokker Dr I. the only one of the first wave of German triplanes to enter service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 May , 2007 Share Posted 17 May , 2007 Whilst on the subject of triplanes I enclose some I prepared ealier - 2 triplanes and a quadplane http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/1114252/DFW.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/1114252/Rolland.jpg http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/1114252/Euler.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now