Nieuport 17 - Which guns were the standard

[Doug]

All very intresting posts

[Nicola Zee]

Can I throw something into the discussion on a similar "armchair general" topic? Not exactly the same, but when talking about the performance of aircraft 100 years after the fact, using anecdotal information, we are all just speculating. Unless someone has reasonable head-to-head comparisons from the time period, I would hesitate to start throwing rules around.

As an example. Lately, someone posted a story about a replica Sopwith Camel being put through its paces. The conclusion from the pilots of that replica was that there was no significant right-hand torque from the engine, and that there was no difference in left or right turns. Stunned shock?! What? All the pilots that flew it and wrote biographies, and all the novice pilots that died trying to fly a Camel were wrong? And, IIRC, they didn't mount the replica engine the same way, using a radial not a rotary engine. The replica builders didn't think that made any substantial difference in the performance.

Well, without a head-to-head comparison, even the replica builders are guessing, or are discounting every pilot that flew the originals in WWI. Personally, I believe the original pilots, and discount the replica builders.

No head-to-head comparison, no valid comparison. IMHO.

PS: I am going through a few books, and have come across anecdotes of Sopwith Triplanes having a ceiling of 20,000 ft?! Also, in that reference that the 110hp Clerget engine allowed a speed of "nearly 100 mile an hour at 15,000 ft" and performed exceptionally well at height.

Within that reference, the twin-gunned Triplane is mentioned, with Collishaw flying it from the latter part of July to the beginning of August (perhaps two weeks). Up to that point, the information was that the Triplane was regularly on patrol around 16,000 ft. It is the source reference of my first reference about the up-gunned Triplane.
Source: The Brave Young Wings, Ronald Dodds, Pgs 60-67

Also, this:
Attachment 217634
Source: Osprey Publishing - Sopwith Triplane Aces of World War1, No. 62

Note in the Osprey reference: "...although there was a definite loss of performance about 10,000 ft, it was relatively slight..." Does that sound like it needs to be dropped to a U maneuver deck and reduced climb rate over its entire flight envelope? It may not need more than the climb rate reduction above 10,000 ft, if anything at all.

So to summarise, we have 2 conflicting views depending on the Clerget engine.

1. No major impact on performance due to a bigger engine
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 3 <--?

2. A major impact on performance
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3 and 'U' movement deck
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 4 and 'D' movement deck

In theory, we could incorporate both views.
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) A Gun Climb Counters 4 and 'D' movement deck
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 3

To do this we would need to know if the Climb Counters of 3 represented the initial Clerget engine or the more standard 130hp version. We need to know the base line from which we are starting.

Am I confident of what this answer is? No, I am not.

Please can the debate about the right turn torque of the Camel be moved to a separate thread?

[Added repeat of Quote]
I very much liked your quote from Collishaw from Osprey Publishing - Sopwith Triplane Aces of World War1, No. 62
So, for the posters who have been distracted, I have repeated it here.
'It may not have been feasible to have equipped the early Triplanes, which had the 110 hp Clerget, with twin Vickers..'

['Warspite']

However you just cannon discount the plethora of comments & stories from a multitude of WW1 Pilots stating the bias of the Camels Right Hand turn.

You also cannot discount the alleged death rate. Figures suggest that one in four pilots who trained on the Camel died in flying accidents. Sounds bad but that is also set against the global statistic that more British and Empire pilots died in training than ever died in combat. Approx 14,000 dead in WW1, 8,000 odd of which were killed in training. It was safer at The Front than at a training squadron.

Ask any pilot today to carry out a 'dead stick' (power off) landing and he/she would throw up hands in horror. Gliding in and landing without power is normally deemed too risky. So why were Camel pilots prepared to do it?
Because if a gust of wind, etc, flipped them to the right at low altitude they might not be able to recover.

['Warspite']

I can't comment on aircraft carrier construction related to planes. I will let better informed Forum members jump on that.

My other historical background is in naval warfare and naval construction. Author D.K. Brown (himself a former naval constructor) has explained the history of aircraft carrier construction in his book, The Grand Fleet.
Short version is that this was the first time ever that wind tunnel smoke tests were used, in this case to determine airflow around the carrier's superstructure and how this might affect aircraft while they were landing.
The second thing is that pilots (who at the time flew all the Sopwith types for the RNAS) were asked which way they like to abort their landings in an emergency and they all stated 'to the left' or port side. Thus the right (starboard) carrier island was born. The only nation to ever diverge from this tradition has been the Japanese when they built the sisters Kaga/Agagi and Hiryu/Soryu. It appears that each pair were identical and the Japanese feared pilots might be confused. Thus one ship in each pair had the carrier island moved to the port side.

Barry

[Nicola Zee]

As the debate about the Camels Right Hand turn bias is interesting and unlikely to abate any time soon, I'm going to start a new thread entitled 'Penalties for adding an additional gun'.

Just to add fuel to the fire and to the thread trundling off in a direction with nothing to do with adding a gun...

I think OldGuy59 and Warspite are right. We tend to forget with simulations that the planes were flown by humans and not robots. If humans found it felt easier to turn right then maybe we need to reflect that even if it was just a weird perception thing

[Ken at Sunrise]

I had no idea when I asked:

I was looking at the older Nexus Ni 17 and it appears that there are several versions [...] I'd like to know which was most common.

Thank you,

That I'd stir something up quite like this.

[Nicola Zee]

I had no idea when I asked:



That I'd stir something up quite like this.

So far this has been a restrained and fairly low key discussion!
Sometimes it's tears before bedtime and people going off in a huff!


In any case, unless you have objections, I'm going to start a new thread on the specific penalties incurred for adding an additional gun.
Maybe it won't end up de-railed

[Added Link]
I've started a new link:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...355#post436355

[flash]

So to summarise, we have 2 conflicting views depending on the Clerget engine.

1. No major impact on performance due to a bigger engine
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 3 <--?

2. A major impact on performance
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3 and 'U' movement deck
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 4 and 'D' movement deck

In theory, we could incorporate both views.
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) B Gun Climb Counters 3
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 110hp) A Gun Climb Counters 4 and 'D' movement deck
Sopwith Triplane (Clerget 130hp) A Gun Climb Counters 3
.....

From what I've read most operational Tripes used the 130 Clerget 9b engine, the 110hp Clerget it seems was fitted in the first prototype N500, the second Sopwith prototype N504 was fitted with the 130hp engine. At least one other was tested with the 110hp Le Rhone but even though it climbed better than the Clerget (110 or 130 not specified) it was not adopted as there was little performance difference overall. (Profile 73 Sopwith Triplane p.5)
This publication also suggests that of the half dozen twin gunned Tripes only N533 (Collishaw's) & N534 in Naval 1 saw operational service, by which I guess they meant combat. Both these were 130hp Clerget powered machines.
As the chap that flew it says it made a relatively slight loss of performance I think I'll leave it as is.

[Ken at Sunrise]

[...]
As the chap that flew it says it made a relatively slight loss of performance I think I'll leave it as is.

As will I.

[Nicola Zee]

From what I've read most operational Tripes used the 130 Clerget 9b engine, the 110hp Clerget it seems was fitted in the first prototype N500, the second Sopwith prototype N504 was fitted with the 130hp engine. At least one other was tested with the 110hp Le Rhone but even though it climbed better than the Clerget (110 or 130 not specified) it was not adopted as there was little performance difference overall. (Profile 73 Sopwith Triplane p.5)
This publication also suggests that of the half dozen twin gunned Tripes only N533 (Collishaw's) & N534 in Naval 1 saw operational service, by which I guess they meant combat. Both these were 130hp Clerget powered machines.
As the chap that flew it says it made a relatively slight loss of performance I think I'll leave it as is.

As this thread has now move on from its original topic, I've started a new link:
http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...355#post436355

You've made good well-informed comments. Overall I believe you are suggesting the net effect is that the performance for the 2 gunned tripe should be the same as the 1 gun tripe.

So, was there any 110hp 2 gun tripe that flew in combat?

[Flying Helmut]

The only nation to ever diverge from this tradition has been the Japanese when they built the sisters Kaga/Agagi and Hiryu/Soryu. It appears that each pair were identical and the Japanese feared pilots might be confused. Thus one ship in each pair had the carrier island moved to the port side.

Barry

The Japanese had entirely different reasons for siting their islands as they did.

Akagi and Kaga were NOT sisters - Akagi was converted from a Battlecruiser hull, and Kaga from a Battleship They were very different beasts, and looked significantly different.

Similarly, Hiryu and Soryu were NOT sisters - they differed considerably in dimensions and displacement, and were easily distinguishable from the air.

The reason the Japanese sited the islands to port on Akagi and Hiryu was to aid their deployment;
Alone among the Naval powers who operated carriers, the Japanese organised theirs into "Carrier Divisions" of 2 ships, not 1. Finding that two carriers, sailing line astern, would be so far apart (to prevent their aircraft landing cycles from overlapping, causing chaos!) that they would be unable to communicate by signal lamp; also, an excessive number of escort vessels would be required to form a protective "ring" around such a vast formation.
Sailing in line abreast, two right-handed island carriers would be closer than if line astern, but, still, one ship's aircraft landing circuit would overfly the other ship, and aircraft collisions would be likely, if not inevitable.
Siting the island to port on one ship, and to starboard on the other, would allow the two carriers to sail in close company, well within signal lamp communication range, and encircled by far fewer escort ships than any other arrangement.
With the port island carrier on the right, with a clockwise landing circuit for its air group, and the starboard island carrier on the left, with an anti-clockwise circuit for its planes, both would be free to operate planes at will, without causing interference with the other ship.

The downside only became apparent when aircrew losses caused consolidation of survivors, and absorption of replacements.
"Port-island" pilots had great difficulty adapting to starboard-island carriers, and vice-versa; the accident rate increased dramatically. All new pilots were trained for starboard island flight decks anyway, so after Akagi and Hiryu were lost, the experiment was not repeated.

[Flying Helmut]

From what I've read most operational Tripes used the 130 Clerget 9b engine, the 110hp Clerget it seems was fitted in the first prototype N500, the second Sopwith prototype N504 was fitted with the 130hp engine. At least one other was tested with the 110hp Le Rhone but even though it climbed better than the Clerget (110 or 130 not specified) it was not adopted as there was little performance difference overall. (Profile 73 Sopwith Triplane p.5)
This publication also suggests that of the half dozen twin gunned Tripes only N533 (Collishaw's) & N534 in Naval 1 saw operational service, by which I guess they meant combat. Both these were 130hp Clerget powered machines.
As the chap that flew it says it made a relatively slight loss of performance I think I'll leave it as is.

So, a far better solution would be to ignore the half dozen (or fewer) Tripes which saw action with twin guns, and simply fly them all as the manufacturer intended, with just the one.

['Warspite']

Akagi and Kaga were NOT sisters - Akagi was converted from a Battlecruiser hull, and Kaga from a Battleship They were very different beasts, and looked significantly different.

Similarly, Hiryu and Soryu were NOT sisters - they differed considerably in dimensions and displacement, and were easily distinguishable from the air.

I have just checked my sources including Conway's and Ian Allen. For 'sisters' read 'half-sisters'. My error. And yes I was aware that Kaga and Akagi's hull origins differed. Wiki calls Soryu and Hiryu 'near sisters'.

The signal lamp explanation for the origin of the left and right islands is at odds to my information and - more over - to the physical facts. Signal lamps (even in daylight) are functional all the way out to the horizon line and beyond, far wider than any supposed cruising formation or limitations imposed by aircraft operations. Later US carriers operated in close formation, and with more aircraft, without difficulties.

[Flying Helmut]

I have just checked my sources including Conway's and Ian Allen. For 'sisters' read 'half-sisters'. My error. And yes I was aware that Kaga and Akagi's hull origins differed. Wiki calls Soryu and Hiryu 'near sisters'.

The signal lamp explanation for the origin of the left and right islands is at odds to my information and - more over - to the physical facts. Signal lamps (even in daylight) are functional all the way out to the horizon line and beyond, far wider than any supposed cruising formation or limitations imposed by aircraft operations. Later US carriers operated in close formation, and with more aircraft, without difficulties.

Bad weather limits visibility - he Japanese technical manuals of the time make this VERY clear.

"Later US carriers...................." Yes, and SO DID LATER JAPANESE!!!!
I said above, the port island idea was an EXPERIMENT, which was unsatisfactory, and dropped. Shokaku and Zuikaku, the first Japanese first line fleet carriers designed and built from the keel up, both had starboard islands, and both were in service, and in action at Pearl Harbor, long before the US began operating carriers in pairs. And even then, US doctrine was to keep each carrier separate from each other, and to steam away from each other if attacked, as at Coral Sea and Midway.

Later, the large US carrier forces had the advantages of radar control and quality ship-to-plane radio communication, neither of which was available to the Japanese.

Every Japanese carrier had its name sigil painted on the flight deck, and all fleet carriers had a stripe pattern in red and white painted on the after end of the flight deck, highly visible on approach by air.

The very idea that the Japanese "feared pilots might be confused" is utter hogwash. If that were true, why did no further ships receive port-side islands? Why didn't either one of the 'kakus?

[john snelling]

This is when playing with points can be a lot of fun! Instead of 2 Albatros D.IIIs (158pts) taking on 2 N17 "A"s (152pts) have them take on 3 N17 "B"s (168pts). One could also make up the difference in ace skills!

Albatross D.III J/A/14 79pts
Nieuport 17/23 I/A/12 76pts
Nieuport 17/23 I/B/12 56pts

[OldGuy59]

So, a far better solution would be to ignore the half dozen (or fewer) Tripes which saw action with twin guns, and simply fly them all as the manufacturer intended, with just the one.

Which is one reason I bought 5 Little Tripes, making up one as the Black Maria for Collishaw's single-gunned mount.

Collishaw flew this plane (N5492) from 15th of June to the 21st of July, achieving 18 victories (highest number in a single plane).

...

To do this we would need to know if the Climb Counters of 3 represented the initial Clerget engine or the more standard 130hp version. We need to know the base line from which we are starting.

...
'It may not have been feasible to have equipped the early Triplanes, which had the 110 hp Clerget, with twin Vickers..'

My information was that production Sopwith Triplanes were all 110 hp Clergets. I am speculating that a few planes may have had 130 hp engines, but that the twin-gunned Tripes definitely had them.

It is possible that individuals in the field may have added an extra gun to their planes, in which case, that would be on a 110 hp plane. I don't know of any, but I don't have an extensive library of WWI books.

[Nicola Zee]

Which is one reason I bought 5 Little Tripes, making up one as the Black Maria for Collishaw's single-gunned mount.
...
Collishaw flew this plane (N5492) from 15th of June to the 21st of July, achieving 18 victories (highest number in a single plane).


My information was that production Sopwith Triplanes were all 110 hp Clergets. I am speculating that a few planes may have had 130 hp engines, but that the twin-gunned Tripes definitely had them.

It is possible that individuals in the field may have added an extra gun to their planes, in which case, that would be on a 110 hp plane. I don't know of any, but I don't have an extensive library of WWI books.

Regardless of the on-going debate, there does seem evidence there was a period when Collishaw flew a Tripe with a single gun before he added an extra gun.

So, a big thanks for the plane card for Collishaw's single gun version of the Tripe. I made my own but yours is much nicer and I hope you don't mind if I borrow it. Plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery.

[OldGuy59]

Regardless of the on-going debate, there does seem evidence there was a period when Collishaw flew a Tripe with a single gun before he added an extra gun.

So, a big thanks for the plane card for Collishaw's single gun version of the Tripe. I made my own but yours is much nicer and I hope you don't mind if I borrow it. Plagiarism is the most sincere form of flattery.

He didn't add it, it was a factory production, and only trialed on the front line for two weeks.
Link: The Aerodrome.com - Collishaw 28 April - 21 July 1917, 32 Victories in one of two single-gunned Tripes (N5490, N5492), only two in a twin-gunned Tripe (N533, 27 Jul 1917).

Enjoy the card.

[Nicola Zee]

He didn't add it, it was a factory production, and only trialed on the front line for two weeks.
Link: The Aerodrome.com - Collishaw 28 April - 21 July 1917, 32 Victories in one of two single-gunned Tripes (N5490, N5492), only two in a twin-gunned Tripe (N533, 27 Jul 1917).

Enjoy the card.

Thank you for that correction. The more specific info that is gathered the better.

[Angiolillo]

An example of a Sopwith Triplane modified in the field to receive a second machine gun is N5431, to which we dedicated a card in Wings of War (Recon Patrol booster pack). As a pilot we choosed Mellings, who shot down a seaplane with it on 30 September 1917.

['Warspite']

Bad weather limits visibility - he Japanese technical manuals of the time make this VERY clear.

"Later US carriers...................." Yes, and SO DID LATER JAPANESE!!!!
I said above, the port island idea was an EXPERIMENT, which was unsatisfactory, and dropped. Shokaku and Zuikaku, the first Japanese first line fleet carriers designed and built from the keel up, both had starboard islands, and both were in service, and in action at Pearl Harbor, long before the US began operating carriers in pairs. And even then, US doctrine was to keep each carrier separate from each other, and to steam away from each other if attacked, as at Coral Sea and Midway.

Later, the large US carrier forces had the advantages of radar control and quality ship-to-plane radio communication, neither of which was available to the Japanese.

Every Japanese carrier had its name sigil painted on the flight deck, and all fleet carriers had a stripe pattern in red and white painted on the after end of the flight deck, highly visible on approach by air.

The very idea that the Japanese "feared pilots might be confused" is utter hogwash. If that were true, why did no further ships receive port-side islands? Why didn't either one of the 'kakus?

I would suggest that we have both heard different stories covering the same issue.
What we can both agree on is that it was an experiment and one that was never repeated - which was my original posting point: that only two carriers ever deviated from the Sopwith-inspired norm. Yes, it was a failed experiment.

Barry