Sopwith Triplane N5486

StephenLawson · 9 December 2003, 08:30 PM

In reference to the snow bound tripehound (that still exists today by the way) We have several reports of the old gal being involved in several combats in 1919. She arrived in Russia in 1917 and as we go into the winter of the Russian revolution she's seen in several shots. The most popular is one with skis and no Vickers. As she sat in 1994 in her all top surface green and all lower surface lt blue with red stars everywhere. The Vickers is still absent. Makes me wonder if she was just a testbed for the type and never in combat. Remarkable that she's still with us and in such good shape. The wheels she has today are preposterously small. Anyone out there know the rest of her story? She even has the early type horizontal tail surfaces.

MikeW · 10 December 2003, 10:21 AM

Stephen,

I have a number of photographs of this particular triplane, both with wheels and with skis, and in the possession of the RFC contingent, what was left of the Imperial Russian Air Force after the Czar was knocked off, and the Bolshevic Red Army.

In every photograph it was unarmed which tends to imply that it was used as a trainer.

The photograph of it in Bolshevic hands bears no relationship to the state depicted in several profiles, or indeed, to the sorry "restoration" in the Russian museum.

There is a lot of internet crap concerning involvement in combat by the Red Army, but unless someone presents me with concrete evidence, I am sticking with the trainer theory.

Mike

StephenLawson · 17 December 2003, 04:14 PM

So Lt. Marion Hughes Aten (an American) serving with No.47 (A) Sqdn RAF was a liar? In April 1919 Aten shot down a Bolshevik Nieuport over the Volga river for his first aerial victory later that month he said that he shot down a red Russian triplane. It seems his British commander saw to it that this was credited as Aten's second confirmed victory. His memories were published in 1961 in the book 'Last Train over Rostov Bridge.' I wonder if the PRO has any info on this unit. HHHhhhhmmm. Info from Jon Guttman.

MikeW · 18 December 2003, 12:07 PM

Stephen,

to continue our conversation from the models section - I have no feelings about the integrity of Marian Aten - I've never met the man.

Are you calling Lothar Von R a liar? He claimed to have shot down a triplane as well if I recall correctly.

Aircraft misidentification during combat was common - there are numerous instances of RFC and RNAS pilots engaging Triplanes during the period that the Germans had grounded the things.

I also find it hard to believe that a largely untrained and undisiplined ground crew could arm and keep a Sopwith Triplane flying through 1918 and 1919 in hostile weather conditions, when the RNAS with full workshop facilities was hard presssed to keep Naval 1 fully equipped in November 1917.

The two following reports are extracted from Russian web sites:

April 1919 - No. 47 squadron RAF escorted a bombing raid on the Bolshevik headquarters at Tsaritsyn, and reported being attacked by a Red Army SPAD and Sopwith Triplane. The SPAD was shot down, and the Triplane broke off the attack.

May 1919 - General Denikin, supported by Camels, DH9's and RE8s of the RAF's No. 47 squadron, plus two White army squadrons, initiated an offensive against the Soviet southern front. The Red Army airfield at Urbabk was attacked, but found to be defended by a Red Army patrol led by an "all-black" Sopwith Triplane. Two White Army DH9's were shot down during the engagement, whilst the defender's lost five aircraft. During the attack, the airfield sustained little damage.

The site that these two reports originated from goes on to mention a number of Sopwith triplanes flying with the Red Army, a statement that can easily be disproved.

Maybe the Triplane was used in combat, maybe it wasn't, it's probably impossible to prove at this time - however, the likelihood of it remaining serviceable for two years without airframe spares seems to me to be very unlikely indeed.

Regarding your last statement, I believe that there is very little at the PRO on 47 Squadron during its interventionist period.

Was not "last train over Rostov Bridge" largely discredited on this Forum earlier this year? I can't comment on the book, not having read it, and not having the source material to compare it against.

StephenLawson · 18 December 2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeW@Dec 18 2003, 01:07 PM
[b] StephenLawson ; to continue our conversation... Are you calling Lothar Von R a liar? He claimed to have shot down a triplane as well if I recall correctly...

I also find it hard to believe that a largely untrained and undisiplined ground crew could arm and keep a Sopwith Triplane flying through 1918 and 1919 in hostile weather conditions, when the RNAS with full workshop facilities was hard presssed to keep Naval 1 fully equipped in November 1917...

Maybe the Triplane was used in combat,* maybe it wasn't, it's probably impossible to prove at this time - however, the likelihood of it remaining serviceable for two years without airframe spares seems to me to be very unlikely indeed...

Was not "last train over Rostov Bridge" largely discredited on this Forum earlier this year? ...

MikeW; Nice dodge but we're not taking about Lothar v.R. the two instances have nothing to do with each other.

With every Sopwith F.1 airframe the US air service purchased direct and not as a replacement a whole store of spare parts was included. I note from Dan Abbott that the German purchases fom their factories were treated in a similar manner. Why wouldn't the British have sent spare parts along to Russia with N5486? Also as an export machine guns were probably not part of the purchase. We note that the Sopwith Triplanes loaned to France had the typical over the top 'T' pull handle for the Vickers and appear to be French originated installations. I can completely agree that N5486 arrive in Russia and served in the white Russian service without armaments. In red army service it is possible that she was fitted with a separately purchased Vickers. It could easily have be a French manufactured version. Does anyone have an image we could blow up of N5486 with the red stars? If she is or is not armed it may be decernable.

As for her maintenance by peasants, forgive me but this sounds a little slanted. There has to have been some intelligent riggers and fitters in the red army for them to have maintained the Nieuports and later Fokker types. Technical manuals were sent with purchases. As for the Triplane it seems that it would be easier to keep up one than the 18 examples in any RNAS squadron. I can heartily agree that the Russian website you quoted has some bad information.

In another posting Mr. Frank Olynk wrote: '...If the reference to a black triplane in (Tsaritsyn area) South Russia in 1919, refers in any manner to Marian Aten's so called claims, I think it can be discarded... The problem is that 47 Squadron had barely arrived, and the Squadron Record Book states that Aten arrived from London on August 19, 1919. Frank.'

In the Book the claim was I believe for a black Fokker D.VII in Aug. 1919. The triplane was claimed and confirmed in April 1919. The two are separate events. As for the record of RAF 47 (A) sqdn I have no doubt that it is in error. You see Lt. Marion Hughes Aten (an American) went to Canada to join the RAF Soon after his arrival in 203 sqdn he was injured in a crash landing. He was still in the hospital on Nov. 11, 1918. Ray Collishaw (his old commander) persuaded 'Bunny' Aten to join the forces going to Russia. It was in Aug. 1919 that he put in the claim for the black Fokker biplane that had brought down Aten's South African flt. ldr. Major Samuel Marcus Kinkead.

MikeW · 18 December 2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Does anyone have an image we could blow up of N5486 with the red stars? If she is or is not armed it may be decernable.

Of course I have a decent photograph - that's why I can say that it wasn't armed in Red Army Service. It's also why I can say with absolute confidence that the cowl and side panels were still in natural ally finish.

Quote:

Nice dodge but we're not taking about Lothar v.R. the two instances have nothing to do with each other

Excuse me? They both sound like a plausible mistake made under combat conditions.

I'm sorry but you have confused me with regard to Aten's claim - you say he arrived on August 19th 1919, but made the claim in April 1919 - I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

When the October revolution took place there was a state of anarchy for some time - I really would be surprised if an aircraft and all of its spare parts managed to stay together. I think you'll also find that anyone bright enough to write his own name stood a very real chance of being shot rather than employed as an aircraft mechanic.

Perhaps it really wasn't as bad as I have just painted it, but I still think an untrained person would be hard pressed to install and time Scarf-Dibovski interrupter gear. The triplane was a difficult machine to service and keep trued up, Naval 1 had a full complement of trained fitters and the Depot to fall back on but still had difficulties in maintaining full strength.

One final point - it's very dangerous to quote as fact, material taken from a book, unless there is corroboration from prime sources.

StephenLawson · 18 December 2003, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeW@Dec 18 2003, 03:10 PM
[b]

Quote:

'...I'm sorry but you have confused me with regard to Aten's claim - you say he arrived on August 19th 1919, but made the claim in April 1919 - I'm sure that's not what you meant to say...'

.

Remember you said that the book had been discredited I simply posted where that came from '...In another posting Mr. Frank Olynk wrote: '...If the reference to a black triplane in (Tsaritsyn area) South Russia in 1919, refers in any manner to Marian Aten's so called claims, I think it can be discarded... The problem is that 47 Squadron had barely arrived, and the Squadron Record Book states that Aten arrived from London on August 19, 1919. Frank.'

StephenLawson · 18 December 2003, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeW@Dec 18 2003, 03:10 PM
[b]

Quote:

Of course I have a decent photograph - that's why I can say that it wasn't armed in Red Army Service. It's also why I can say with absolute confidence that the cowl and side panels were still in natural ally finish.

Just as I'm sure you meant to say alloy.

StephenLawson · 18 December 2003, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeW@Dec 18 2003, 03:10 PM
[b]

Quote:

One final point - it's very dangerous to quote as fact, material taken from a book, unless there is corroboration from prime sources.

The basis for this thread was to gain information. I have no problem quoting a book from someone who was there. If the info is shall we say 'less than credible' then we should explore that. As we appear to have been doing. Free discussion is what the forum is about. Directly speaking what do we have from Collishaw on the subject? Dangerous to quote? 'Damn the Tropedoes! Full Speed Ahead!!'

The point is Aten claimed a FokkerTriplane shot pieces in April 1919. He was there with the contengent of RAF 47 (A) Sqdn early in 1919 not in Aug.1919. He says it was confirmed as his second. Why would the the Fokkervich' or 'Sopvich' Triplane he shot down, be in combat in the first place if it were not armed? I'm just asking a question here. The answer most probably is 'we don't know.' Either Aten was:

A. Mistaken
B. Telling tall tales. By the way he didn't identify it as a Sopwith he called it a Fokker Triplane. Not quite like the previously mentioned Lothar v. R. claim.
C. Telling the truth.

Sounds like the makings of a poll to me. Where are those records of RAF 47 (A) sqdn? Wonder if Collishaw's papers will tell us anything.

MikeW · 18 December 2003, 11:46 PM

Stephen,

Quote:

Just as I'm sure you meant to say alloy

Ally is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation for aluminium in the UK, sorry if it offends you.

Regarding Collishaw, well, I have every respect for Collishaw but he "bends" the truth somewhat in Air Command - this, I should say, is in respect to his time with Naval 10, but I suspect much of the work does not stand up to rigourous scrutiny.

What's the point of a Poll? You'll believe what you want, and I will continue to believe what I want unless I see proof to the contrary.