Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57

Thread: Sopwith Pup

  1. #1

    Question Sopwith Pup

    New here. Would like to know if anyone is using the Sopwith Pup and if so which maneuver deck you are using for it. Any other special rules apply? Thanks

  2. #2

    Default

    From what I remember pup is 12 hp, D deck maneuver (Dr1) with B guns. I think it has a climb rate of 4 and a max of 12. (I'll check later and edit if wrong). A really fun little plane, fragile but nippy.

    Hope this is correct and helps,
    Andrew
    BALM
    Last edited by BeneathALeadMt; 09-30-2017 at 13:36.

  3. #3

    Default

    welcome to the drome mike!!!

  4. #4

    Default

    Hi and welcome from Alberta.As for Sop' Pup D deck B gun 12 hp

  5. #5

    Default

    Welcome to the Forum, Mike.

    Name:  WWF_SopwithPup_11SqnBelgium.png
Views: 283
Size:  721.2 KB
    Mike
    "Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
    "Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59

  6. #6

    Default

    On behalf of the Squadrons based here in Dear old Blighty welcome to the Drome Mike.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  7. #7

    Default

    Welcome to the aerodrome Mike. The Pup is a fun plane to fly. My wife and I have had many a great battles with it vs an Albatros DII.

  8. #8

    Default

    Welcome to the Aerodrome, Mike, from here near Norwich in the United Kingdom. Ares have not released a Sopwith Pup model yet but we would like them to do so. However, there are models available from other sources.

  9. #9

    Default

    Hi Mike, welcome from England. Another welcome present:

    Run for your life - there are stupid people everywhere!

  10. #10

    Default

    Welcome to you, from Bristol.
    Although the Pup has not been released by Ares, I have a few from Shapeways and a metal kit from Red Eagle.
    This is a great little aircraft and the D deck has a couple of surprizes for Albatross D2 and even D3

  11. #11

    Default

    Thanks so much for all the replies and info. I am building a couple Valcom models to add to my collection and this greatly helps getting them in the game!

    Thanks again,
    mtw

  12. #12

    Default

    Welcome to the 'Drome, Mike!

    I too have 'Valom' Pups in my to-do queue, plus one or two 'Shapeways' prints of the little beastie.

  13. #13

    Default

    Sorry Mike focused on answering rather than welcoming you so...... Welcome from South Wales to the most relaxed and gentlemanly (Chaps of either sex) forum around. Let us know how the pups turn out.

    Andrew
    BALM

  14. #14

    Default

    I wonder if Ares release a Pup whether they'll change the deck ? There was a school of thought that the D deck didn't match the performance of the Pup and some added sharp left turns to augment the deck. (creating essentially a slower version of the O deck), others thought that was too much.
    Some of the newer decks did not exist when the D deck was nominated of course - Of the current decks the W deck might fit well, it has the speed and a sharp turn each way but lacks the broad sideslips of the D. Will be interesting to see.

    For reference:

    Deck D (22) – Average speed - 3.5cm - (arrow is 50% of the card)
    3 straight
    2 hard right turn (90°)
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep
    1 climb
    1 dive

    Deck O (24) – Fast speed - 4.7cm - (arrow is 80% of the card)
    3 straight
    2 hard right turn (90°)
    2 hard left turn (90°)
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep
    1 climb
    1 dive

    Deck W (20) – Average speed - 3.5cm - (arrow is 50% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    1 hard right turn (90°) - steep
    1 hard left turn (90°) - steep
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 climb
    1 dive

    "He is wise who watches"

  15. #15

    Default

    So is the Pup more like a Dr.I triplane or a Hannover Cl.IIIA?
    Karl'
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    So is the Pup more like a Dr.I triplane or a Hannover Cl.IIIA?
    Karl'
    It's more about whether it can turn slightly better than it's Albatros D.II/III opponents in both directions. W deck gives it that option.
    What's probably needed is a slower version of the F deck (You could make one from D or I deck with the 90 turns from the W deck).
    For reference:
    Deck F (22) – Fast speed - 4.7cm - (arrow is 80% of the card)
    3 straight
    1 hard right turn (90°)
    1 hard left turn (90°)
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep
    1 climb
    1 dive

    There's room for a Z deck - I'm interested what that might be.

    "He is wise who watches"

  17. #17

    Exclamation

    I always thought the Pup should have been given 13 Damage points as from all the pilot reports I have seen it was a sturdy & manoeuvrable Aircraft that did not suffer from the problems of the Albatross D.III & V or the Fokker Dr,I.

    "Its a fine line indeed between going out in a Blaze of Glory or having Crashed & Burnt!"
    Member Australian Society of WW1 Aero Historians

  18. #18

    Default

    Thirteen sounds OK. What German aircraft would be ideal to pair Pup?


  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan-Sam View Post
    Thirteen sounds OK. What German aircraft would be ideal to pair Pup?
    Albatros D.II or D.III

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    I always thought the Pup should have been given 13 Damage points as from all the pilot reports I have seen it was a sturdy & manoeuvrable Aircraft that did not suffer from the problems of the Albatross D.III & V or the Fokker Dr,I.
    I haven't seen anything to classify the Pup as particularly "sturdy" - reliable, yes; easy (a delight!!!) to fly, and very manoeuvrable, but that was owing to a light airframe, a light weight rotary engine and a very large wing area, not structural strength.
    As an aside, everything I have read about the Albatros series has placed emphasis on its particularly strong and robust fuselage (reputedly the plywood frame was so strong as to not require internal bracing) yet they still only have the same (or fewer) damage points of their contemporary opponents.

  21. #21

    Default

    I'd have to do some reading for anecdotal evidence, but my thought is more for the W deck than the a shortened F. Easier to do, and I'm not sure about the wide SS. Maybe an inquiry to any repro Pup pilots, if a channel can be found?
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I'd have to do some reading for anecdotal evidence, but my thought is more for the W deck than the a shortened F. Easier to do, and I'm not sure about the wide SS. Maybe an inquiry to any repro Pup pilots, if a channel can be found?
    Karl
    A slower version of the F deck would provide the extra agility seen in N.17/Dr.1 (decks I & D) that the W deck doesn't have; some will consider a slower version of the O deck with the extra 90 turns each way to fit the bill as the Pup could turn very quickly.
    Something different from the D deck is needed I feel, it's interesting to speculate what that could be.
    Last edited by flash; 10-08-2017 at 09:11.

    "He is wise who watches"

  23. #23

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    I haven't seen anything to classify the Pup as particularly "sturdy" - reliable, yes; easy (a delight!!!) to fly, and very manoeuvrable, but that was owing to a light airframe, a light weight rotary engine and a very large wing area, not structural strength.
    As an aside, everything I have read about the Albatros series has placed emphasis on its particularly strong and robust fuselage (reputedly the plywood frame was so strong as to not require internal bracing) yet they still only have the same (or fewer) damage points of their contemporary opponents.
    Tim I think the Albatross damage points were to reflect the problem they had with the lower wing breaking.
    They sort of fixed that with the extra bracing on the Va.

    "Its a fine line indeed between going out in a Blaze of Glory or having Crashed & Burnt!"
    Member Australian Society of WW1 Aero Historians

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    I always thought the Pup should have been given 13 Damage points as from all the pilot reports I have seen it was a sturdy & manoeuvrable Aircraft that did not suffer from the problems of the Albatross D.III & V or the Fokker Dr,I.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    I haven't seen anything to classify the Pup as particularly "sturdy" - reliable, yes; easy (a delight!!!) to fly, and very manoeuvrable, but that was owing to a light airframe, a light weight rotary engine and a very large wing area, not structural strength.
    As an aside, everything I have read about the Albatros series has placed emphasis on its particularly strong and robust fuselage (reputedly the plywood frame was so strong as to not require internal bracing) yet they still only have the same (or fewer) damage points of their contemporary opponents.
    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    Tim I think the Albatross damage points were to reflect the problem they had with the lower wing breaking.
    They sort of fixed that with the extra bracing on the Va.
    The damage points seem to be about the right fit for the Pup & Alb's with 12 & 14pts respectively, particularly if compared to each other and their contemporaries when they were designed. The Alb's were clearly much stronger than most and the Pup was one of the strongest British machines produced at the time.
    M.S N - 10pts; Nieuport 11-10pts; Nieuport 16- 10pts; N.17/23 - 12pts; DH.2 -14pts

    "He is wise who watches"

  25. #25

    Default

    I usually fly the Pup on the D deck, but I add a single hard left (90°) turn to account for the low wing loading/ large aileron.
    The torque effect of the rotary aids the right turn, but hinders the left hence the imbalance in favour of right turns.
    Adding two lefts, but making them steep and leaving the rights normal would also work.
    I read somewhere that MvR rated the Dr1 as more manouverable than the Pup, it had a better rate of climb, but was the manouverability down to the machine or the pilots? We were fielding a lot of inexperienced chaps when the Pup was in use!

    Lest we forget

  26. #26

    Default

    Perhaps some games testing with different deck ideas/combos and posting the results might be a worthwhile endeavour?
    See you on the Dark Side......

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    I usually fly the Pup on the D deck, but I add a single hard left (90°) turn to account for the low wing loading/ large aileron.
    The torque effect of the rotary aids the right turn, but hinders the left hence the imbalance in favour of right turns.
    Adding two lefts, but making them steep and leaving the rights normal would also work.!
    Except it doesn't work like that -- the effects would push the nose up, or down; not left, or right. That notion was debunked scientifically years ago; pity the fellow involved died in the crash of one of his WW1 acft. recently, or we'd have the book on the subject by now....

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skafloc View Post
    Perhaps some games testing with different deck ideas/combos and posting the results might be a worthwhile endeavour?
    Good idea. No promises but I will try to make time for some testing.

    "He is wise who watches"

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Except it doesn't work like that -- the effects would push the nose up, or down; not left, or right. That notion was debunked scientifically years ago; pity the fellow involved died in the crash of one of his WW1 acft. recently, or we'd have the book on the subject by now....
    As I understand it, as you turn hard right, the torque effect tends to shove you down, keeping speed high but risking a spin. Turning left pushes the nose up bleeding off speed and risking a stall.
    The cumulative effect is that right hand turns, not taken too far i.e. 90°-180° become classed as good fast turns, while the left hand turns get the reputation of being pilot killers.
    Luck and the ability to understand what is happening to you lets some pilots become " acrobatic aces". The lack of these two qualities tends to make you dead.
    I am not a pilot and the best available data tends to be the anecdotes of men now long dead, not trained in scientific analysis of what they did in the heat of battle, so realistically we will never know what a skilled pilot in wartime could wring out of a 'plane with a characteristically short service life

    Lest we forget

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    As I understand it, as you turn hard right, the torque effect tends to shove you down, keeping speed high but risking a spin. Turning left pushes the nose up bleeding off speed and risking a stall.
    The cumulative effect is that right hand turns, not taken too far i.e. 90°-180° become classed as good fast turns, while the left hand turns get the reputation of being pilot killers.
    Luck and the ability to understand what is happening to you lets some pilots become " acrobatic aces". The lack of these two qualities tends to make you dead.
    I am not a pilot and the best available data tends to be the anecdotes of men now long dead, not trained in scientific analysis of what they did in the heat of battle, so realistically we will never know what a skilled pilot in wartime could wring out of a 'plane with a characteristically short service life
    That is my understanding as well. The torque effect causes the plane to be seriously out of trim and so makes doing a balanced (ball centred) turn much more difficult.
    We sometimes forget the planes were flown by humans and it was humans who had to contend with the various planes quirks and weaknesses.
    What was possible in theory (equal turns in both directions) may not have been so possible in practise.
    So - in game terms - right turns are tighter than left turns.

    [Added]
    I also like your ideas for an adjusted D deck.
    There was a torque effect for the pup but not as extreme as the Dr 1 - if for nothing else because of the much larger and more effective rudder size.

  31. #31

    Default

    Not time for a game but can compare the turns quickly:

    This shows three aircraft moving from the same start point two cards into a right turn move - an Albatros D.II (V deck) compared with Pups with a D deck and a W deck playing sharp;sharp & sharp;right turn respectively. (ignore the W card under the Alb that should have been removed)
    Name:  2 Move Compare.JPG
Views: 127
Size:  281.0 KB

    This shows the same three aircraft - both Pups starting with a Sharp Right turn, D deck following with its second; all ending on Right Turns.
    Name:  3 Move Compare sharp first.JPG
Views: 127
Size:  273.2 KB

    This shows the same three aircraft - both pups started with a Right Turn, both played a Sharp Right on the second card, D deck played a Sharp Right on the third
    Name:  3 Move Compare sharp 1 and 2.JPG
Views: 128
Size:  259.0 KB

    It can be clearly seen that the D deck Pup can out turn both the others to the right, the W deck Pup (with cdl fin) will out turn both the others to the left - John's extra Left Sharp will allow his Pups to out turn the Alb to the left and match the W deck Pup.

    So what could it mean ? Well here's a couple of examples in one demo:
    W deck Pup on the left, Alb D.II center; D deck Pup on the right

    Both D & W deck Pups can sharp turn in this way round but won't get a shot as the Alb turns right, into the D decks attack.
    Name:  SAM_9508.JPG
Views: 125
Size:  288.2 KB

    The D deck can play its second sharp turn & can shoot at close range, The W deck plays a left turn and can shoot at long range
    Name:  SAM_9509.JPG
Views: 126
Size:  267.1 KB

    The D deck has to play a right turn and has no shot, the W deck can play a Sharp Right turn and get another long range shot (+1)
    Name:  SAM_9510.JPG
Views: 126
Size:  270.0 KB

    Conclusions - if you're flying Albs against Pups with any of the suggested decks - be careful - if you're flying Pups go with something that can sharp turn both ways.


    You can see John's Pups in action here; https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...042#post459042
    Last edited by flash; 10-13-2017 at 10:30.

    "He is wise who watches"

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnbiggles View Post
    As I understand it, as you turn hard right, the torque effect tends to shove you down, keeping speed high but risking a spin. Turning left pushes the nose up bleeding off speed and risking a stall.
    The cumulative effect is that right hand turns, not taken too far i.e. 90°-180° become classed as good fast turns, while the left hand turns get the reputation of being pilot killers.
    Not quite -- I'm still waiting for Peter Garrison to publish the book on his researches with Javier Arango, but Arango's untimely demise seems to have delayed said project. That said, the article Garrison published in _Flying_ a few years back showed that even with the various effects, the turns rather didn't vary much between left and right; the only noticeable effect was at the *very* start of a turn, and even then it was only maybe 10 degrees or so. (_Flying_, Apr. 2014 was the issue.)

  33. #33

    Default

    Arango was a sad loss, he had some interesting things to say about the different types he was able to fly.

    One of my favorites is the Sopwith Camel. It’s marginally stable, but if you get to know it, it’s so much fun. It climbs at double the rate of any other airplane, it turns in nothing, it maneuvers—you just think and it goes there—and once you get used to its peculiarities of flying sideways and not doing what you expect all the time, it’s a very nice airplane to fly.”
    Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/history-o...2e5G5FHGduE.99
    ....pilots claimed that the Fokker Triplane climbed “like a monkey,” although its rate of climb was actually average. Like other thick-wing Fokkers, however, it could fly in a more nose-high attitude without stalling than the thin-wing Sopwiths and Nieuports, and the appearance of climbing steeply may have convinced other pilots that it was climbing rapidly.
    Sadly he had the ultimate WW1 pilot experience flying his N.28. Cause is as yet unknown it seems.

    "He is wise who watches"

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Arango was a sad loss, he had some interesting things to say about the different types he was able to fly.
    There was discussion of the Camel's handling in the article -- short version: The Camel has *zero* inherent stability; any deflection in any direction is going to be massively exacerbated. Pretty-much-every acft. of the era was like that; one of the reasons the RE8 was such a failure was: It was *too* stable, so could not dodge attacks. (Garrison theorizes one of the reasons so few pilots actually scored kills in WW1 was: The airplanes were skittering around so much, trying to line one up was nearly impossible.)

    I have a sneaking suspicion Arango's demise was a result of the godawful flight characteristics of the period-authentic acft. he was flying.

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    ..I have a sneaking suspicion Arango's demise was a result of the godawful flight characteristics of the period-authentic acft. he was flying.
    There was mention of 'staggering engine' noise from a wit but maybe science debunked his theory. I'm sure the NTSB will get to the bottom of it eventually.

    "He is wise who watches"

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    There was mention of 'staggering engine' noise from a wit but maybe science debunked his theory. I'm sure the NTSB will get to the bottom of it eventually.
    Anyone with any knowledge of the topic knows better than to put any stock in Witness Testimony:

    https://www.schneier.com/blog/archiv...reliabili.html ....

    So definitely wait for the NTSB report.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    Anyone with any knowledge of the topic knows better than to put any stock in Witness Testimony:
    Well, you have to start somewhere - without it you may not even find the wreck ! But I know what you mean, even expert witness testimony can be unreliable as many law enforcement agencies are finding out years after the event.

    "He is wise who watches"

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Well, you have to start somewhere - without it you may not even find the wreck ! But I know what you mean, even expert witness testimony can be unreliable as many law enforcement agencies are finding out years after the event.
    It does show the validity of the _Babylon 5_ quote: "Understanding is a three-edged sword -- Your Side, Their Side, and The Reality."

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    It does show the validity of the _Babylon 5_ quote: "Understanding is a three-edged sword -- Your Side, Their Side, and The Reality."
    Boy, are we getting a hard lesson in that quote over here this year
    Karl'
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by csadn View Post
    It does show the validity of the _Babylon 5_ quote: "Understanding is a three-edged sword -- Your Side, Their Side, and The Reality."



    id paraphrase that to a more traditional version saying that "understanding is a 2 edged sword, your side, their side and reality is THE POINT." (you see what i did there?).

  41. #41

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    The Sopwith Pup had the lightest of all wing loadings, around 4.8 pounds per square foot which was well below the Fokker Triplane and virtually half that of the Albatros. It could also hold altitude at height, at altitudes where the Albatros had to trade height for speed in a tight turn.

    The DH 2 is closest to the Pup at 5.7 pounds per square foot.

    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...178#post218178

    Barry

  42. #42

    Default

    Good gen Barry - something for the Wiki perhaps ?

    "He is wise who watches"

  43. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    The Sopwith Pup had the lightest of all wing loadings, around 4.8 pounds per square foot which was well below the Fokker Triplane and virtually half that of the Albatros. It could also hold altitude at height, at altitudes where the Albatros had to trade height for speed in a tight turn.

    The DH 2 is closest to the Pup at 5.7 pounds per square foot.

    https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...178#post218178

    Barry
    A good point.
    The great thing about this thread is we are all contributing to the issue from completely different angles - as always! - but there is clearly a convergence in all the posts.
    The D Deck is not quite sufficiently good for the pup!

    To keep things simple I like johnbiggles fix
    I usually fly the Pup on the D deck, but I add a single hard left (90°) turn to account for the low wing loading/ large aileron.
    But I'm OK with other options and I'm happy to mod my Sopwith Pup card and deck accordingly.
    As flash's helpful pictorial example shows the W deck can equally work and produce a historically reasonable result versus the Albatros.

    So, what's the conclusion?

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    As flash's helpful pictorial example shows the W deck can equally work and produce a historically reasonable result versus the Albatros.
    except for the speed; both sides reported the Albatros as faster than the Pup at operational altitude, able to escape from it or chase it down as required, but the grouping of speeds into bands removes this factor.

  45. #45

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    636
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    except for the speed; both sides reported the Albatros as faster than the Pup at operational altitude, able to escape from it or chase it down as required, but the grouping of speeds into bands removes this factor.
    A recent reading of a Pup pilot's account agrees with this. The Albatros was more streamlined and heavier while the Pup's rotary cowling acted like an air scoop and retarded both speed and speed build-up in a dive. The pilot said that Pups liked to get altitude on an Albatros and then use it. At higher altitudes the Albatros was floundering in turns while the Pup was not. He also noted that clearing gun jams above 15,000 was virtually impossible due to shortage of oxygen. In the same vein another pilot complains of the near impossibility of putting a Lewis gun back into the upper position on a Foster mount while above 15,000 feet. [it should be noted that USAAF bomber crews went on oxygen around 12,000 to 13,000 feet]

    Remember also that even a Camel could be outdived by an Albatros and this was the Albatros' only good escape manoeuvre. However given the Albo's wing weaknesses it was also a dangerous route to take and Albo pilots were told not to dive more than 1000 metres in one go (or was it 1000 feet?).

    As a general rule of thumb, aircraft with heavy water-cooled engines dived better than those with the lighter air-cooled rotary engines.

    Barry
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 10-17-2017 at 05:19. Reason: error

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    A recent reading of a Pup pilot's account agrees with this. The Albatros was more streamlined and heavier while the Pup's rotary cowling acted like an air scoop and retarded both speed and speed build-up in a dive. The pilot said that Pups liked to get altitude on an Albatros and then use it. At higher altitudes the Albatros was floundering in turns while the Pup was not. He also noted that clearing gun jams above 15,000 was virtually impossible due to shortage of oxygen. In the same vein another pilot complains of the near impossibility of putting a Lewis gun back into the upper position on a Foster mount while above 15,000 feet. [it should be noted that USAAF bomber crews went on oxygen around 12,000 to 13,000 feet]

    Remember also that even a Camel could be outdived by an Albatros and this was the Albatros' only good escape manoeuvre. However given the Albo's wing weaknesses it was also a dangerous route to take and Albo pilots were told not to dive more than 1000 metres in one go (or was it 1000 feet?).

    As a general rule of thumb, aircraft with heavy water-cooled engines dived better than those with the lighter air-cooled rotary engines.

    Barry
    All good points.

    The Pup was definitely slower than the Albatros.

    So based on speed is this two votes for the D* (modified D deck) then?

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    except for the speed; both sides reported the Albatros as faster than the Pup at operational altitude, able to escape from it or chase it down as required, but the grouping of speeds into bands removes this factor.
    There was only a couple mph in it up to 10-11k and the Pup was the quicker, it was up in the 15k range it really began to struggle and the Albs seem to have had a 10-12mph advantage - all before wear taken into account ! Both were slower and would fall out of the average speed band at those levels but to take all these things into account would probably require three decks per plane !
    I think the Pup needs a sharp turn both ways, whether it's one or two I'm undecided. One is OK but two may make it overpowering even though it looks right. The problem is that currently in this speed band only D & W decks have 90 turns; only the W has one in each direction but they are 'steep' which can be limiting, and W doesn't have the broad side slips (also steep) the other 'agile' decks have, so if Ares do produce a Pup & go this route they'll have to produce a new deck for it.
    Slower versions of the F & O decks fit the bill as explained previously, to achieve something near JBs idea they could knock out a slower version of the M deck with two right & one left sharp turn; it has an extra broad side slip but what the hey !

    Deck M (24) – Fast speed - 4.7cm - (arrow is 80% of the card)
    3 straight
    2 hard right turn (90°)
    1 hard left turn (90°)
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    2 broad right sideslip - steep
    1 broad left sideslip - steep
    1 climb
    1 dive

    "He is wise who watches"

  48. #48

    Default

    To get the left turn, I scan the D deck right turn card, mirror flip it on my computer then print it.
    What Ares do at whatever time they see fit to produce a Pup is up to them but for the time being, I'm happy and DR1s are nervous

    The folowing link is to an OTT episode, turn 13 gives a description of the 90 left in use against a DIII
    http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...-Jan-15th-1917
    Last edited by johnbiggles; 10-17-2017 at 13:06.

    Lest we forget

  49. #49

    Default

    Actual top speeds -- another matter which needs to be Scienced.... :)

  50. #50

    Default

    I think I'm rather in favor of a single left 90; the Snipe has a single left 90, and the only plane that has 2 left 90s (with 2 right 90s) is the Fokker D.VII, with "legendary" maneuverability.
    There are a lot of factors that are difficult to be accounted for in the WoG game engine so sometimes (actually, a lot of the time), we have to use our guts.
    Moreover, a pair of left 90s would, I think, give the Pup too much advantage over the D.IIIs.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. How to fly a Sopwith Pup
    By tikkifriend in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-30-2016, 14:59
  2. National: Sopwith
    By Nikobeg in forum Italian Wing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 07:18
  3. Sopwith Pup
    By sucklingpig in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 02:44

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •