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.
Sign In
