# Sopwith Pup vs. S.E.5



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 14, 2009)

Which was better? Which was more capable of taking on the Fokker VII?


----------



## timshatz (Apr 14, 2009)

Faster, higher flying. Way more horsepower. Two guns. Inline engine. Relatively easy to fly. My vote is definitely for the SE5a. 

Like the Pup. Heard it was easy to fly. But would rather fly the 5 against somebody trying to kill me. At least I could run away if I had to. Didn't really have that option with the Pup.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2009)

Didn't you mean to compare the SE5a to the Camel? The Pup was a much earlier machine.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 14, 2009)

I have heard the Pup was a better dogfighter than even the Camel. It also didn't have the vicious stall the Camel had, which killed many novice pilots.

Here is a qoute from the Manfred von Richthofen on the Sopwith Pup.

"We saw at once that the enemy airplane was superior to ours." Manfred von Richthofen, after encountering the Sopwith Pup in combat.

I assume this was before the Fokker VII had entered on the scene, but this quote still shows the qualites of the Pup quite well if even the Red Baron was impressed with it.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 14, 2009)

The two machines aren't comparable though - it's like comparing the P-51D to the P-36 and asking which is better for fighting Ta152s...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 14, 2009)

I disagree, the P-36 was more than a 150 mph slower than than the Ta-152. 

The Sopwith Pup on the other hand, was only 5 miles slower than the Fokker D. VII.

The Fokker D. VII was a great plane, but it wasn't unbeatable, just like the Ta-152.

A better comparision to the Ta-152 would be the Spitfire IX, a excellent dogfighter, much slower than the Ta-152, but probably still able to hold it's own against the German fighter.


----------



## Glider (Apr 14, 2009)

In that case it has to be the SE5a by a country mile. But its like comparing an Me109e against a Spit XIV, or a Spit Ia against a 109K. One is a very good fighter for its period, the other a very good fighter for a much later period of the war.

Both these aircraft were easy to fly, one had agility the other twice the firepower, was about 35% faster, dived even faster, climbed better had about 150% more power and could take more damage. No contest.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 14, 2009)

I agree in terms of speed the S.E.5a was better than the Pup.

In that case it was superior to the Fokker D. VII as well. 

Fokker D. VII: 116mph

S.E.5a: 138 mph

In terms of speed, the Fokker D. VII was at a disadvantage.


----------



## Milos Sijacki (Apr 15, 2009)

I choose S.E.-5a because of those characteristics that Timshatz mentioned and I would only repeat.

Sopwith Pup was also a good airplane was armed with only one machine gun and was slower, but it was an earlier model of the war.


----------



## Waynos (Apr 15, 2009)

The Pup was easier to fly than the Camel but the Camel was by far a better fighter. Half-decent pilots also used the engine torque of the BR 2 to flick the Camel into a roll and turn that nothing else could follow (strictly one way however!)

The SE 5a easily beats the Pup but its a much closer run thing against the Camel, which also had its two guns concentrated on the nose cowling and thus fireable at the same time without resorting to a jury rigged trigger pull for the Lewis on the SE's upper wing..


----------



## timshatz (Apr 16, 2009)

Never liked that Lewis on the top wing. Always wondered how much drag that put on the airplane. Thought it wouldn't take much to drop another Vikers into the fuselage or even rig the Lewis down there. Make the airplane just a little bit cleaner.


----------



## Glider (Apr 16, 2009)

I know that it wasn't possible to put a second gun in the fuselage due to the way the engine was installed. Re the top gun I certainly agree about the drag but some RNAS Camels had a similar top gun. This was because they had to defend the fleet against airships and the preferred method of attack was to fly below them and use the top gun against the belly of the airships.

In fact some Camels were used for home defence with two guns angled upwards, maybe the first Schrage Musik?


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 16, 2009)

Albert Ball used wing-mounted Lewis guns to great effect, pulling the gun all the way back down the mounting rail until it was pointing almost straight up, then raking the exposed and undefended belly of his victim. Drag from the weapon doesn't seem to have had a huge negative effect on aircraft performance, from what I have read...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 16, 2009)

I knew about Albert Ball doing that trick with the upward shooting. But he was a one of a kind. Anybody who can fly a rotary engined airplane (torquey as all hell) and hang underneath an enemy, raking them with machine gun fire, is a true wonder. He wasn't much on tactics either. Just flew in to the middle of them and fought it out. 

Ball was truely amazing.

I remember reading that McCudden (or somebody of his caliber) had put the spinner of a Roland on the front of his aircraft and claimed the speed went up by 5 or 10Mph. He was always tinkering with his airplane. 

Thanks for the info on the engine Glider. Always wondered about that. Though the Lewis was a leftover from the generation before. Agree the 5 was a draggy airplane, but figured every little bit helped. 

It also struck me as a good candidate for a single winged fighter. Strengthen the bottom wing, expand the area of the wing at the same time. Figure out a way to retract the gear (like they do on Mooney aircraft or possible the Wildcat, some crank operation) and it seems to have the qualifications of a pretty fast single wing bird. Couldn't really do that with a lot of WW1 aicraft but maybe you could with the Se5A.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 16, 2009)

The SE5a actually had an inline powerplant (Hispano-Suiza 8b or Wolseley Viper). I hadn't heard the story about McCudden before but it wouldn't surprise me - he was a mechanic for some time before becoming an observer and than a pilot, and was much better acquainted with his machine than most pilots. I would agree that Ball was no tactician - but as a gifted and highly aggressive amateur, he was beyond compare. 

Not sure the SE5a (or any other WWI bird) was structurally capable of having retractable gear, or had the power to carry such a weighty mechanism. Would be interesting to see how the SE5a would work as a monoplane, I think it would need a dramatically improved powerplant to maintain it's performance though...


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 16, 2009)

Slightly OT, but related to Ball and the SE5... Could this be the first a/c with a weapon firing through the prop shaft?

Austin-Ball A.F.B.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## timshatz (Apr 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Not sure the SE5a (or any other WWI bird) was structurally capable of having retractable gear, or had the power to carry such a weighty mechanism. Would be interesting to see how the SE5a would work as a monoplane, I think it would need a dramatically improved powerplant to maintain it's performance though...



I figure with a 250Hp engine, it should be able to handle the gear, provided it wasn't too heavy (and that might be a long shot, given the materials available). Then again, maybe a fixed gear with no common axle would work. Something similar to fixed gear aircraft common in the 30s. 

Question that popped into my head is how the weight and balance would be affected by the loss of the top wing? Possible move it back as I believe the Se5 had a forward stagger.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Slightly OT, but related to Ball and the SE5... Could this be the first a/c with a weapon firing through the prop shaft?
> 
> Austin-Ball A.F.B.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fast enough, that is sure. But very odd looking airplane. Reminds me of those airplane amusement rides they have for little kids. Has that same portly look.


----------



## Glider (Apr 16, 2009)

I have to agree that it was a huge slab sided beast, never seen anything like it at all.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 16, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Could this be the first a/c with a weapon firing through the prop shaft?



I don't think so BT. The *"D"* version of the Vickers F.B.16 beats it, according to one source, by a month. You can just make out the 'hole' in the spinner in this photo...


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 17, 2009)

I stand corrected then 8) The AFB never saw service, did the Vickers? If not, I wonder which was the first type to use this weapon arrangement in combat?


----------



## HoHun (Apr 17, 2009)

Hi Bombtaxi,

>If not, I wonder which was the first type to use this weapon arrangement in combat?

The Spad S.XII, I guess - a Spad S. VII derivative with extended wingspan and a 37 mm cannon firing through the propeller hub. I believe Fonck flew this type for a while.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 17, 2009)

In looking at this match up, the Pup was a lot lighter than the S.E.5 and my guess more maneuvable. The S.E.5 was over 20 mph faster and had better armament. With equal pilots I'd put my money on the S.E.5 and avoid a turning fight.

No doubt the S.E.5 was the more advanced of the two and represented the future or aerial combat.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 18, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> The Sopwith Pup on the other hand, was only 5 miles slower than the Fokker D. VII.



G'day SW. Historically the Pup was never going to meet the Fokker in combat as the RFC retired the Pup from the Western front in November 1917 and the Fokker D.VII didn't reach squadrons until April 1918. 



timshatz said:


> Anybody who can fly a rotary engined airplane (torquey as all hell) and hang underneath an enemy, raking them with machine gun fire, is a true wonder.



G'day Tim. Was Ball the only pilot capable of this stunt? Others must have tried it. I also wonder how many kills Ball achieved with this technique? J.M. Bruce in his book "Aeroplanes of the RFC" describes the number as "several" and only while using the Nieuport 16? 







BombTaxi said:


> The AFB never saw service, did the Vickers?



G'day BT. No, the Vickers never saw service. I've read today that the original S.E.5 design had the MG positioned also to fire through the propeller hub but in the end it never eventuated. Ball's S.E.5, A4850 (the one he died in) originally had a downward firing Lewis positioned on the cockpit floor. He also had the windscreen removed and the seat lowered.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 18, 2009)

Thanks Henning and Graeme 8) Didn't know about the downward firing MG on Balls SE5, there can't have been much room in the cockpit with a Lewis and drum between your feet?!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 18, 2009)

ok, ok, I should have done the Camel instead of the Pup!


----------



## timshatz (Apr 20, 2009)

Graeme said:


> G'day Tim. Was Ball the only pilot capable of this stunt? Others must have tried it. I also wonder how many kills Ball achieved with this technique? J.M. Bruce in his book "Aeroplanes of the RFC" describes the number as "several" and only while using the Nieuport 16?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Apr 21, 2009)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> ok, ok, I should have done the Camel instead of the Pup!



I would still go for the SE5a over the Camel. It was faster in a straight line and stronger giving it better dive and climb characteristics which only helped. As an aside it was also a lot easier to fly. 

The RAF considered the Camel to be out of date at the end of the war and was being replaced by other types such as the Snipe.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 21, 2009)

timshatz said:


> BTW- I think it was the N17, not the N16.



Hi Tim. Bruce only mentions Ball and his Foster trick with his Nieuport 16 entry and so I assumed that it was this aircraft he achieved those victories with. I guess he flew a number of different Nieuports. This is one he flew, a Nieuport 16 A126 (N1133)...





All RFC Nieuports from the 16 to 23 had the Foster mounting...





...so I thought that a lot of pilots would have tried the technique. I also assumed that since he didn't like the S.E.5 at first and actually sought permission to retain his Nieuport, that few if any of his last S.E.5 victories would have been achieved with the method we're discussing? 

At first I thought his Nieuport didn't have the Foster mounting which I guess would have been even a lot harder to swing down and aim accurately?...








Glider said:


> The RAF considered the Camel to be out of date at the end of the war and was being replaced by other types such as the Snipe.



From what I've read and considering the Fokker D.VII timeline I agree with the Snipe choice Glider.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 21, 2009)

The Nieuport had a rudder without a fin. That makes it skidding very easily and quickly. Also, it makes it very manuverable in terms kicking the rudder back and forth. Would help a lot with the manuver of hanging up underneath the apponent and moving your aim point around.

The SE5a did have a rudder with a fin. Not the same level of instability.


----------



## Waynos (Apr 21, 2009)

But on the other hand the SE5a was not a sesquiplane and had four large ailerons, so swings and roundabouts?


----------



## Colin1 (Apr 21, 2009)

timshatz said:


> The Nieuport had a rudder without a fin. That makes it skidding very easily and quickly


Wouldn't that also make it a bit squirrelly for gunnery?

It must have been easy as hell into a spin and hard as hell out...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Wouldn't that also make it a bit squirrelly for gunnery?
> 
> It must have been easy as hell into a spin and hard as hell out...



Yeah, probably murder considering it also had a radial engine that spun, putting all sorts of gyroscopic forces on it. Further, and I've read this from people who flew them in the 80s, these things were absolute murder on the pilot. Bumpy, uncomfortable, vibrating, wind blasted. You name it, these guys came down after 2 hours and they were beat to crap.

Easy to spin but probably not that bad to get out. Once you figured it out, that is. Could spin in and out almost by choice. 

The Fokker DR1 also had no fin and a radial engine. Famous for it's instability. 

Gunnery, good question. For a few, it was probably a benefit (guys of unusual ability like Ball). For others, it may've reduced them to the level of get close and blast 'em. It works.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 22, 2009)

The basic instability of several WWI fighter designs was the reason that most successful pilots closed to point blank range before opening fire. It also made these planes wickedly maneuverable dogfighters, and deadly machines to fly in. I recently read a history of the RFC which put into perspective how many pilots, rookies and veterans alike, were killed through accidents, often caused by failure of the aircraft, both structural and aerodynamic. The Morane Type N parasol acquired a particularly nasty reputation as a pilot killer (Mapplebeck was killed performing aerobatics in one) - but had an equal reputation as a deadly fighter in the right hands...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

Always think about the Camel when somebody mentions a pilot killer. But there were others. 

The DH2 had very thin wings. Used to come off if stressed. The D series of Albatross had problems with the wings coming off during high speed dives. DR1 had a problem with the top wing leaving the airplane (or at least parts of it) in flight. And there were many others. 

I remember reading one story in A.G. Lee's "No Parachute" about a flight of Pups coming back after a patrol when the wings on one of them folded back, in flight, at 10K. Lee wrote that he saw the pilot standing in the wreckage as it fell, trying to figure out if he should ride it down or jump.

All in all, you had to hand it to those pilots back then. Not only were the other side trying to kill them, so were their own aircraft.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 22, 2009)

I think most, if not all, WWI designs were somewhat prone to structural failure. Bear in mind that prior to 1914, dogfighting was unknown, and the RFC banned aerobatics as being unnecessary and dangerous. Fast foward just two years and you have the beginnings of fighter tactics - Ball is attacking his prey from the blind spot below, the Eindekkers are using a prototypical form of boom 'n' zoom, and the Dicta Boelcke are setting the broad outlines of aerial combat for the next 30 years. Two years later still, and you have developing full-squadron tactics over the Western Front. All of these tactical developments fundamentally changed the way aircraft were handled, and the way that airframes were placed under physical stress.

Somehow, airframe design had to keep up with all of this. I find it amazing that in four years, we went from the BE2 and Taube to the Snipe and DVII. It can hardly be surprising that in an almost brand new field of engineering, developing in a combat situation, there would a rate of failures we now find horrifying. I just amazed that there were not more, all things considered. 

And certainly, there is an element of myth and misconception in some of the pilot killer reputations. The DH2 was something of an 'F-104' of it's day - while much maligned throughout the RFC as a 'spinning incinerator'. Lanoe Hawker certainly disagreed, and having taught his own colleagues how to fly the type, even taught pilots of other units too...

EDIT: Correction to my last post, I believe Mapplebeck was killed in a Bullet, not a Type N, and it was the Bullet whose reputation I was alluding to.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 22, 2009)

Good post BT. Good in bringing up the aerobatics angle. Also the progress aspect.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 22, 2009)

Cheers Tim. I think we all sometimes forget just how experimental this technology was during WWI - the whole of aerial warfare was essentially conceived in the space of four years, and in some respects, very little has changed since then, although of course the machines themselves have developed exponentially ever since. That is always something to bear in mind when discussing the challenges faced by pilots of that era.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2009)

Its also worth remembering that th pilots of the day were writing the manual. I used to have a pilots manual for 1915 describing how to fly and there was a chilling para about flying in cloud. 
IIRC It described how the instruments reacted and finished off by saying that they believed that the aircraft might have entered a spin in the cloud but were not sure. Due to this flying in cloud was banned. 
Wish I could find it now.

I also have a reprint of Practical Flying a Complete Course of Flying Instruction printed in 1918 for the RAF. This I have found and its interesting how things have progressed over the three years.

My favourite section is 'Installing Confidence' First part is titled, After a Crash.
Gives you some idea how common accidents were.


----------



## Graeme (Apr 22, 2009)

Glider said:


> I also have a reprint of Practical Flying a Complete Course of Flying Instruction printed in 1918 for the RAF.
> My favourite section is 'Installing Confidence' First part is titled, After a Crash.
> Gives you some idea how common accidents were.



Sounds like a good read Glider. Heavily illustrated with "Dos and Don'ts" or more of a policy and procedure manual?


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2009)

No, its very detailed being 237 pages long, covering everything from theory and practice of flight to the medical aspects and what clothing to wear. 
It also has about 50 pages of adverts a bit like an early Janes Fighting Ships. 
If anyone want to know about the latest thinking circa 1918 it would take some beating.


----------



## timshatz (Apr 23, 2009)

Graeme, still the stuff they tell pilots today. Don't turn back. And still, to this day, plenty do.

Didn't McCudden die because he tried to turn back?

I've seen a bunch of pages from that book. Very cool stuff, good instruction all of it. No idea where I saw it though.


----------



## renrich (Apr 23, 2009)

Interesting discussion with many good points being made. I might add that the first powered flight took place in 1903(?) over a course of a few hundred yards and an altitude of a few feet and 14 years later dogfights are being fought many miles away from base and thousands of feet above the ground. Amazing!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 23, 2009)

It sure is. 

I'm not sure what Orville Wright thought of it! 

Wilbur Wright did not live to see WWI, while his brother got to see the first jets in action.

All that terrible fighting from the invention of those two brothers. But what can we say, we love them for what they invented.


----------



## BombTaxi (Apr 23, 2009)

Very little was thought of the military value of aircraft until the RFC's vital reconnaissance work during the BEF retreat from Mons. As late as 1912, both the Army and Admiralty were dismissive of the utility of heavier-than-air machines, although they recognised the long-anticipated potential of lighter-than-air craft - indeed, there had been numerous 'zeppelin scares' in Europe and the UK prior to the war. 

On the subject of progress, the Germans in particular made huge leaps in the four years of the Great War. They took lighter-than-air craft to their logical limit, then developed strategic bombers to replace them, as well as putting all-metal aircraft into service before war's end. And they also developed pioneering tactics - the _Jastas_ were two decades ahead of the RAF's 'Big Wings', and the 'Fire Plan' to destroy London with heavy bombers eerily predicted the strategy developed by an ex-RFC fighter pilot named Arthur Harris, which came to fruition over Hamburg 25 years later.

As an aside, Harris wasn't the only ex-RFC man to have a major influence on the course WWII - Hugh Dowding, Portal, and Sholto Douglas all learned their trade as combat pilots in the RFC, and their decisions shaped a large part of the air war in the West during WWII...


----------



## Marcel (Apr 24, 2009)

Graeme said:


> Sounds like a good read Glider. Heavily illustrated with "Dos and Don'ts" or more of a policy and procedure manual?



I think he means this book:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/world-war-i/practical-flying-raf-manual-1918-a-6717.html


----------



## Graeme (Apr 24, 2009)

Marcel said:


> I think he means this book:
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/world-war-i/practical-flying-raf-manual-1918-a-6717.html



Thanks for finding that Marcel!


----------

