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.

US Aircraft in VPAF Markings

I have many pictures of U.S made aircraft in VPAF markings, would you like that?

Sure! Do you have any pictures of French-made aircraft in Vietnamese markings? Those would be great, too.

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.

‘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!