Quadruplanes and beyond…

Sopwith Pup

Excellent post, thanks for the detail, but calling the Pup ‘not really manouverable’ because the Camel was more so is like calling Stalin a ‘nice guy’ because Hitler was worse… 😉 The Pup was a highly effective Scout and fighter – loved and rated by its crews. The Camel was better (a generation later) but while highly manouverable, some of this was due to engine torque – making it demanding, able to turn in one direction like lightning and positively slothful in the other, and effective in the hands of skilled pilots but sadly often a deathtrap in the hands of a less skillful pilots.

I know the Sopwith Pup was a highly admired aircraft, and served with some air forces into the ’20s. It was the basis for the Sopwith Triplane as well, I believe. The Pup had quite a large wing area, so I’m not certain what sort of effect the elimination of stagger implemented on the WB.III had on performance. I understand the Pup was basically a forgiving aircraft, one that could tolerate some excesses from its pilots, but was still a great performer nevertheless. The Camel, on the other hand, could easily be flown so close to the edge of its stability envelope that I’m certain any change, including stagger, would have had major impact.

but, then again, the Pup was a stable aircraft to begin with, not really maneuverable like the Camel was.

Excellent post, thanks for the detail, but calling the Pup ‘not really manouverable’ because the Camel was more so is like calling Stalin a ‘nice guy’ because Hitler was worse… 😉 The Pup was a highly effective Scout and fighter – loved and rated by its crews. The Camel was better (a generation later) but while highly manouverable, some of this was due to engine torque – making it demanding, able to turn in one direction like lightning and positively slothful in the other, and effective in the hands of skilled pilots but sadly often a deathtrap in the hands of a less skillful pilots.

The Barling and Tarrant were well covered in James Gilbert’s ‘World’s Worst Aircraft’. An entertaining collection of villans, and an entertaining read.

Cheers!

Barling Bomber

Again, it’s only a triplane, but it’s an unusual one. The Barling Bomber was designed as a heavy, long-range stragegic bomber for the U.S. Army Air Service. Altough it had six engines, it could not attain sufficient altitude to cross the Appalachian mountains for its flight from Dayton, Ohio to McCook Field in New Jersey. It had to be disassembled and shipped over land in pieces, instead. A similar aircraft was the Tarant Tabor, whose designer was also responsible for the Barling Bomber. It also had six engines, but two of these were mounted high between the middle and top wings. The thrust of these two engines caused the aircraft to nose over on its first attempted flight, killing both crew members on board.

Beardmore WB.III

My favourite error in aviation.

Many great a/c were pooh-pooed at first because they didn’/t ‘look right’.

And as for ‘freakish backward stagger’ – Beech 17 anyone? Airflow interference between wings was little understood (still isn’t sometimes today!) so arranging your wings ‘right’ was quite a trick. But Mk.1 eyeball would have nothing to do with it.

The Sopwith Pup was rebuilt without stagger for RNAS use so the wings would fold. Anyone know what difference it made?

Cheers

The Beardmore WB.III was the folding-wing version of the Sopwith Pup, extensively modified for carrier use. The Pup itself was tested off early British carriers; it was in fact the first British aircraft to land on a ship under way at sea. The WB.III featured a lengthened fuselage, unstaggered wing cellule, emergency floatation gear, modified bracing struts, folding wings, and a folding undercarriage. The aircraft actually served with the Royal Navy on three carriers, as the Beardmore S.B.3. Several were also supplied to Japan. The lack of stagger must not have had a major impact on performance, but, then again, the Pup was a stable aircraft to begin with, not really maneuverable like the Camel was.

Triplanes are interesting, but there have been many weird and wonderful aircraft with four or more wings, as well. I’ll dig up all of the photos and profiles I have. Anybody else interested? Here’s two of the strangest I’ve come across, for a start. The Caproni CA60 Transaero had nine wings and eight engines. It took a brief hop over Italy’s Lake Maggiore on March 4, 1921, but crashed shortly thereafter. The Fokker V 8 single-seat fighter could be described as both a quintuplane and a tandem-wing aircraft. Anthony Fokker actually made an abbreviated flight in it in October, 1917, but after one more flight, no further development ensued. I’d be glad to provide more info on both if anybody’s interested. As I said, I’ll dig up some more photos and profiles and post them. If you come across any really interesting triplanes, you can sneak them in, too. Let’s see what weird planes we can dig up.

The Ca60 didnt crash, he made a quick hop on the Lake and received some minor damage when touching water again, it was put on hold but was destroyed by a fire soon afterwards.

Alex

‘Tis True

My favourite error in aviation.

Many great a/c were pooh-pooed at first because they didn’/t ‘look right’.

And as for ‘freakish backward stagger’ – Beech 17 anyone? Airflow interference between wings was little understood (still isn’t sometimes today!) so arranging your wings ‘right’ was quite a trick. But Mk.1 eyeball would have nothing to do with it.

The Sopwith Pup was rebuilt without stagger for RNAS use so the wings would fold. Anyone know what difference it made?

Cheers

Yes, you are correct. The Blohm und Voss BV-141 was a German asymmetric recon aircraft, and it looked extremely weird. It performed quite well, however, and failed to see service only because the Reichsluftministerium thought it looked odd. I can think of another two backwards-stagger planes that were not bombs- the de Havilland DH-5, and the Sopwith Dolphin. I do believe, however, that the combination of forward stagger on the bottom two wings combined with the excessive backwards stagger on the top wing was the key factor in the Nieuport Triplane’s poor aerodynamics. This is also the feature that makes it appear so bizarre!

Man, you can tell that just by looking at the thing!

My favourite error in aviation.

Many great a/c were pooh-pooed at first because they didn’/t ‘look right’.

And as for ‘freakish backward stagger’ – Beech 17 anyone? Airflow interference between wings was little understood (still isn’t sometimes today!) so arranging your wings ‘right’ was quite a trick. But Mk.1 eyeball would have nothing to do with it.

The Sopwith Pup was rebuilt without stagger for RNAS use so the wings would fold. Anyone know what difference it made?

Cheers

More Examples

I think Horatio Phillips gets the prize for the most wings ever on an aircraft. I believe I recall a photo of one of his planes with even MORE wings! Here’s a Friedrichshfen FF 54 quadruplane fighter prototype, in 1917. And it may only be a triplane, but it’s truly weird- the Nieuport Triplane. The freakish configuration, with the top wing staggered back behind both the top and the middle wings, proved to cause poor handling. Man, you can tell that just by looking at the thing! More to come…

Looks more like a mobile shelf!

They came with a little flufy thing on stick to clean them 😀
phil.

Looks more like a mobile shelf!

Horatio Phillips Venetion Blind. 😀
Phil.