Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter at East Fortune

There seems to be a lot of confusion with BE.2s: often BE.2cs were converted to later spec but still referred to as BE.2c. Also a lot of supposed BE.2e airframes show up on photos as BE.2c or earlier. I have seen a lot of RFC returns with “Betuee” (BE.2e) but never “Betug” (BE.2g) as above: you live and learn.

Talking about official nomenclatures – this Army Form 3354 has been incorrectly filled in – put that man on a fizzer ; )

Here Sopwith 1 1/2 strutter 7792 is typed in as a laconic ‘Sopwith’ despite having loads of room for 1 1/2 strutter ; )

What made us laugh though was No7204 – described as a ‘Betug’ – we think it was a Be2e (possibly converted to Be2g ?)

Also Lts Brand and Slingsby might have become well known in later years.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250907[/ATTACH]

rgds baz

As my old instructor used to say, “RTFQ!”, viz, “The key to not using the shortened term is that contemporary publications (both official RFC reports and commercial magazines) refer to other types of aircraft as, “2-strutter” (Halberstadt for example) or “single-strutter”. In that context, the term “strutter” makes no sense; or leans towards the inference that said aircraft is a single-strutter.”

:very_drunk:

I think you still misunderstand what I said SJ
I have never said that it was not called 1 1/2 Strutter !
I was merely saying that some people referred to it simply as ‘Strutter’.

no big deal

rgds baz

Finally remembered to reply to this: “record” refers to many primary, contemporary sources, but here’s a start:

Flight magazine of 6th July 1916, regarding the RFC enquiry, reported that,

“Mr. Pemberton-Billing [aircraft manufacturer, founder of Supermarine and Member of Parliament] continued his evidence at the meeting of the Committee on June 27th….. One of the naval pilots told him that, if he were starting on a bomb raid or reconnaissance over the enemy’s lines, and were given a choice of machine, he would select the Sopwith “1½ strutter,” with Le Rhone engine, as giving him the greatest confidence, and that he would have less confidence in the RAF [Royal Aircraft Factory] engines than in any other.”

The term is also mentioned in the “Special Qualifications” section of Air Ministry Form 60 (RFC Officer’s record card) for many personnel (again, 1916 period onwards), either as “ 1½ Strutter” or “One-and-a-Half-Strutter”. These records were maintained and updated by Air Ministry officials at the time.

It’s also referred in that way in a number of pilot’s flying log books for the 1916-1918 period, as well as a number of WW1-era semi-official publications such as rigging notes, School of Military Aviation support material; and handwritten notebooks of pupils (sources various, including IWM, RAF Museum and National Archives). The official rigging diagram does however refer to the 2-seater version as “Sopwith 2-Seater”.

The key to not using the shortened term is that contemporary publications (both official RFC reports and commercial magazines) refer to other types of aircraft as, “2-strutter” (Halberstadt for example) or “single-strutter”. In that context, the term “strutter” makes no sense; or leans towards the inference that said aircraft is a single-strutter.

Hope this clarifies.

What ‘record’ would that be SJ ?

AFAIK its official titles were

Sopwith Type 9400 (R Navy)

Sopwith Two seater (RFC)

Anything else was unofficial/nickname – if one has to call an aircraft by name day in day out then most people will go for the short version.
I used to fly with an ex RFC pilot – he most definitely called it ‘Strutter’ – please note I am not saying 1 1/2 strutter is wrong – I am saying that ‘Strutter’ was in normal usage at the time.

rgds baz

Disagree if you want to – but the records suggest differently. As I said, “Strutter” makes no sense anyway. But I’m just trying to set the record straight, so call it anything you like.

Gents please – it’s a 1-1/2-Strutter (‘one-and-a-half-strutter’)!!! “Strutter” makes no sense, considering its derivation (unless you call all aircraft with struts “Strutter”, which would be confusing!)

And yes I know it also has a Sopwith type number, but you won’t find many WW1-era references to that, and none at all that mention the term “Strutter”.

I would respectfully disagree SJ – I would say that ‘Strutter’ would have been a quite normal ‘name’ for this a/c during WW1.
The shorter the better for a/c nicknames.

rgds baz

Sadly the APSS have known for some time that they would out grow any space the museum could realistically provide to display the aircraft on a permanent basis, plus as has been pointed out, it was built to be a flyer.
It’s disappointing to read that their Radar displays would be moving out as well, though in fairness they do live a rather cramped existence in the shed they have been using. Not having a proper “public access” door didn’t help either.

I wish them well in finding somewhere, preferably not too far from East Fortune.

Gents please – it’s a 1-1/2-Strutter (‘one-and-a-half-strutter’)!!! “Strutter” makes no sense, considering its derivation (unless you call all aircraft with struts “Strutter”, which would be confusing!)

And yes I know it also has a Sopwith type number, but you won’t find many WW1-era references to that, and none at all that mention the term “Strutter”.

Mr. Whitton:
A beautiful piece of work your Strutter is, clearly built from the original plans with a radial vs. rotary powerplant for reliability. The one we have at the Great War Flying Museum in Brampton, Ontario, Canada incorporates a steel tube fuselage and a Continental O-670 (tank engine) for power. It is a nice flyer and has been a great revenue generator for the museum. Best of luck finding a flying home for her. Mk.1
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250647[/ATTACH]

STV News in this morning were doing a piece on the Strutter and the search for a new home. Hopefully it will be on the STV Scottish News tonight, Wednesday 11th.

Any chance the strip at Archerfield could be utilised?

What is the reason for the APSS being given notice to quit?

My understanding is that the Society are concentrating on making a positive move forward to enable their fantastic creation to fly and to establish an independant operation. The museum has no access to an airstrip and the Strutter needs a building to be fully completed in and a grass strip to fly from. The museum has neither of these.

Nothing nasty regarding the move, the article explains why..
http://www.apss.org.uk/images/EEN13_12_16.jpg

That sucks!

What is the reason for the APSS being given notice to quit?

A recent announcement. 🙁

Some sad news from the Aviation Preservation Society of Scotland.
They are having to move out of the National Museum of Flight at East Fortune Airfield after over 40 years of restoring aircraft and providing massive assance to the museum. They are looking for a new plot of land in East Lothian to establish workshops and to display and fly their wonderful Sopwith 1-1/2 Strutter, which is approaching completion.

Further information, including a summary of the donation options, can be found here, together with some other photographs from this excellent project:

http://www.globalaviationresource.com/v2/2015/02/09/aviation-feature-apss-sopwith-1-12-strutter-project/

I guess it could be retrofitted with a rotary at some stage in the future if one came along