Sopwith's Three-Winged Marvel | The Sopwith Triplane

[@petewood2350]

There is a very good interview with Tom Sopwith from the late 70s early 80s, worth watching.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I'll have to check it out. By what I've read he is a very interesting man. Thanks for the recommendation 👍✈️

[@joeschenk8400]

Another favorite and important aircraft...thanks!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Awesome 👍✈️

[@EffequalsMA]

Love the App with Triplane, Pup and 1-1/2 Strutter. Great planes each.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

They were indeed 👍✈️

[@philiphumphrey1548]

Very good. I suppose the main drawback was three wings equals more drag than two, so what is gained in ability to climb fast and turn in a tight circle is paid for in less speed.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️ I know that speed was an issue with the Fokker Triplane, however while researching I didn't find this to be a significant issue for the Sopwith Triplane. The German Albatrosses were faster in a diver, but in normal flight it doesn't seem to be a massive drawback.

[@JamesAlexander14]

Speed isn’t always the answer in close quarters dogfighting. Manoeuvrability, is the key. If you can outfly your opponent and sit on his tail, then the battle is one. That drag can contribute to that manoeuvrability, whereas speed can only get you back to base faster and use more fuel.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

@@JamesAlexander14 While that is true, in the Pacific in the second world war the Americans had the problem that none of their fighters was a match for the A6M Zero at slow and close quarters dog fighting. So they avoided getting into that situation, they could use the superior speed of Hellcats or Corsairs to run "boom and zoom" passes at the Zeros without slowing down enough to get tangled in a turning match.

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

@@JamesAlexander14 Speed lets you choose when to fight and when to flee.

[@barrierodliffe4155]

@@grizwoldphantasia5005 Maybe but speed doesn't always work, take the Me 262, faster than a Spitfire but the Me 262 never shot down a single Spitfire while Spitfires did shoot down Me 262's. The Sopwith Triplane was quite successful and copied by Fokker but the Triplane was replaced by the Camel, both outclassed the Fokker Triplane.

[@MrPPCLI]

There's a reproduction of the Triplane at the Canadian Aviation and Space museum in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. I had the pleasure of seeing it quite a few years back...

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Nice, that would have been quite interesting to see. It is quite an interesting machine

[@richarddixon7276]

Thanks for another informative video , enjoyable as always . Happy New Year ,here's hoping for clearer skies and soaring subscribers in 2023. Catch You next episode .

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️ Likewise, all the best for 2023

[@philipdove6987]

The Sopwith triplane at the Shuttleworth collection in the UK is a genuine one although built in the 60s,70s and 80s. Tom Sopwith himself saw it and declared it to be a genuine Sopwith triplane!

[@AntiqueAirshow]

I didn't know that Tom Sopwith said that. Quite amazing and must be a great compliment to those that put in all the hardwork to get it flying 👍👍

[@Flashman36175]

Thanks nice presentation. You informed me about why they made the second reduced size stabilizer. While I knew they started with the larger Pup size stabilizer and changed to the smaller one never knew why or when. They also went from a wicker seat of a Pup to a metal "armed" seat, oh though maybe all had the metal. Thanks.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks, glad it was helpful. Yes I have read similar about the seating, but can't properly remember now the exact details around it 👍✈️

[@asic45]

Very interesting - thanks !

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

It may be spelt Clerget, but the French want it pronounced Cler-Jay.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Ah yes that make sense. Thanks for the pickup. 👍✈️

[@ianbell5611]

Thank you Great video. Again I'vw learn't something. Cheers

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thanks 👍✈️

[@peregrinemccauley5010]

British is Best . Englishman Stringfellow, actually designed and built a quarter size Triplane with flaps, ailerons, landing gear etc, in the 1860's . He designed and a comparable Biplane and Monoplane as well. They all flew, albeit sluggishly, hampered by low horsepower steam engines. A couple have survived and are in English museums today.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Ahh that's interesting I didn't know about that. In Australia we had Lawrence Hargreaves whose designs in the late 1800s were good gliders, but without a suitable engine available he wasn't able to achieve powered flight. However in the late 1900s early 2000s (can't remember the date) a group of uni students built a replica and got it to fly under its own power. Shows how engine development severely limited these early pioneers.

[@johnjephcote7636]

I like the sturdy struts. I bet it could turn on a sixpence. Can't wait for Airbus to reinvent the triplane concept...one could be airborn before leaving the apron.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It's maneuverability sure was one of its biggest strengths in combat. This was also the case with the Fokker Triplane. That would be very interesting to see and who knows what they'll do next 👍✈️

[@bernienufc3166]

some great info there thank you

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️

[@glennandrews9688]

Great thank you.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈️

[@ianmorris4922]

2:38;2 strikes and you're out! It's pronounced 'Clerjé' m8. Lovely vid of a lovely aircraft,cheers😊

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Apologies. I do try my best to get it correct, but I do struggle with some of the names. Thanks for correction. Thank you 👍✈️

[@ianmorris4922]

@@AntiqueAirshow You are most welcome Tom,excellent channel imhaho.Thanks m8☮️🩵🖖♂️

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Thank you 👍✈@@ianmorris4922

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi. Rigging the three wings to the correct angle of attack must have been a nightmare for fitters. I made a small rubber powered model triplane. It rises quickly, flies slowly, and has a glide angle of about 30 degrees. All that drag. Chocks away, P.R.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

Very true, it wouldn't have been easy. I feel the third wing in general would make things generally more complicated. Nice, that's is very interesting 👍✈️

[@philliprobinson7724]

@@AntiqueAirshow Hi Tomato Eins. I guess they were experimenting, theory is one thing, but trial-and-error empiricism usually wins the day. Complicated indeed! Six ailerons that go out of adjustment as wood expands and contracts. This is why the DH 82 Tiger Moth only had ailerons on the lower wings. The disadvantage of that is it effectively halves the size of the ailerons in relation to the wing area that must be pushed up or down. Everything is a "trade-off" Cheers, P.R.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@philliprobinson7724 Yes that is very true. And sometimes theory doesn't hold up once released to the unpredictability of the real world. That is interesting, but yes it most certainly is

[@philliprobinson7724]

@@AntiqueAirshow Hi. The wind tunnel was an effective way to weed out the "nearly flews". The first of those was built by the Wright Bros. Cheers, P.R.

[@AntiqueAirshow]

@@philliprobinson7724 Indeed it was, and no doubt has been a valuable tool. I didn't know that, I'll have to have a look into it ✈👍

[@edwardvincentbriones5062]

Have you played Dogfight: The Great War by Rock Solid Arcade?

[@AntiqueAirshow]

No I haven't. I'll have to check it out. I have played a little bit of Rise of Flight though

[@edwardvincentbriones5062]

@@AntiqueAirshow its a flash game, so youre forgiven

[@650thunderbird]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@AntiqueAirshow]

👍✈️

[@simon-c2y]

it looks so fragile...

[@AntiqueAirshow]

It sure does. Something about the triplane design makes it seem more fragile than a conventional biplane. Still, it held up very well in combat and was fully aerobatic 👍✈️

[@MrDino1953]

Such a stupid idea for a plane. They already had terribly weak engines and adding more wings only increased the drag. It seems they had no grasp of the physics involved and just designed by intuition.

[@Flashman36175]

It was better then the Sopwith Pup (a biplane) which it was based on (Though most Pups had a little less power). Higher aspect ratio wing (Span vs Cord) are much more efficient; it has a very small cord compared to the Pups, with the same span.. Visibility is also much better vs a biplane. At the time they did not think 120hp was a "terribly weak engine." Remember lift is drag. also compare the airfoils used by the British (thin low drag)compared to the Germans (thick high lift). I personally think it has a lot more parts so it would be harder to build and maintain. Most of the design of airplanes is based on materials,construction methods available and cost. In many cases, planes fell apart due to poor wood, wood bonding or other structure problems. As far as physics, well aeronautics still can not totally settle on really why a airfoil makes lift, maybe in another hundred years there will be agreement, if there are any people left.

[@paulshubsachs4977]

The idea was no more 'stupid' than nature's evolutionary adaptations. And Bentley's BR.2 version of the old Clerget design was as tough as it could be for the times. Please learn a little more respect for the pioneers who started the paths to our current 'grasp of the physics' lest we too will be seen as dinosaurs by some future breed of instant experts.