How robust was the Sopwith Pup?

[Barry Hickson]

I am interested to find out how robust was the Pup.
The Strutter appears to have been pretty strong & with the Pup being almost a scaled down version I wondered how it faired in combat & life at the front.

[Barry Hickson]

G'day All!
Just giving this a nudge in the hope of some input.

[Willi Von Klugerman]

The Pup was a very good fighter when it debuted.Compared to what the RFC had it was a major improvement.It was maneuverable and light and for a time outclassed what Germany had until early 1917 when the Albatros fighters went in force.Hope this helps.

Cheers!

[R Gannon]

By comparison to the Albatros D's; under powered, under gunned and having to them over their own side of the lines. But that said, the Pup squadrons gave a good account of them selves.

Cheers Russ

[Epee]

I never recall reading anything that indicated the Pup was fragile.

[dglewwe]

Some firsthand anecdotal evidence might be found in http://www.amazon.com/Sopwith-Scout-.../dp/030493139X ?

My own off-the-cuff, uniformed guess would be that the lighter wing loading allowed pilots to accomplish what they needed to do (turn inside an Albatros?) while putting less stress on the airframe. Assuming the strength of the construction was of the sort typical of the time, the Pup would/could appear to hold up under the stresses of combat flying better than heavier aircraft?

dunno...

[ONEALM]

Having helped build a Pup at GAAM, I was surprised at the flexibility of the wings. The thin section means a rather smaller spar depth and if you take the wing tip in hand and shake gently as if shaking a blanket, you'll clearly see movement in the wing down the length of the spar.

All wings have flex in them to a degree. I was surprised to see how much the Pup had. It does not imply weakness, but I suspect at high speeds, as a pilot you may want to just keep looking straight ahead :-)

For what we do with the airplane at the museum, it's plenty robust - overly so in fact. But as a combat aircraft it struck me a having a fragile wing cell. Here's a shot of the right upper wing panel (upside down) under construction.



When I compare to the SPAD wings we have under construction, the effect is amplified. You can see why pilots reported no qualms about diving a SPAD vertically without worry of losing the wings.

The horizonal tail is large as you know and a little willowy, but not a worry. The fuselage I cannot compare since ours is steel tube.

All that being said, I have never read contemporary reports of structural issues with the Pup, so whatever we posit here, I would more trust the reports of pilots who flew the aircraft fully loaded in combat conditions.

[Catfish]

For what i have read, the Pup was superior to the Albatros types of the time, especially of course when it comes to turning, but only up to 2000 meters/appx. 6000 feet of altitude – most probably due to the rotaries limitations at altitude (?)
From all pilot's accounts, it must have been a joy to fly..

I have not read much of Pups shredding their wings in dives, anyone?
And, b.t.w. did rotary planes vibrate more, or less, than their inline cousins?

Thanks and greetings,
Kai

[Volker_Nemsch]

.
Hello!

Probably the Sopwith Pup had the best compromise between available powerplant, lightweight (but stable, high quality craftsmanship) construction and a relatively big wing area.

I never read about any real complaints in connection with this aircraft. I never heard a negative remark about the flying qualities of the Sopwith Pup. But if you look at some data of other WW1 fighter you see the difference in the relation of weight and wing area.

Sopwith Pup / 358kg / 23,6m²
Sopwith Triplane / 500kg / 21,5m²
Sopwith Camel / 420kg / 21,5m²
Nieuport 17 / 375kg / 14,7 m²
Spad XIII / 566kg / 21,1m²
Fokker D.VII / 670kg / 20,5m²
Pfalz D.III / 695kg / 22,2m²
Pfalz D.XII / 716kg / 21,7m²
Fokker D.VI / 393kg / 17,7m²

Especially the last mentioned aircraft could have been the German equivalent to the Sopwith Pup (at least in my opinon), although a totally different aircraft when it comes the structure of the aircraft. But the Fokker D.VI simply appeared a bit late…

.

[Alien]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I have not read much of Pups shredding their wings in dives, anyone?

I have a vague recollection of once having seen something about a Pup having lost its wings, but I surmise that it was due to combat damage.

Originally Posted by Catfish

And, b.t.w. did rotary planes vibrate more, or less, than their inline cousins?

I'm no expert but I believe that vibration problems depended on the specific engine and on its installation, not on whether it was rotary or inline.