# Monoplane,biplane or triplane?



## Readie (Nov 19, 2011)

Leading on from the rotary v inline thread.

If you were a fighter pilot in WW1 which plane design would you choose to joust with?

A monoplane ( eindecker)

A biplane

A triplane

and why?

Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Nov 19, 2011)

Biplanes were most common during WWI so I've got to assume they worked best during that time frame.






German Aviation: Fighters 1916
I've always like the looks of the Albatros series as they were streamlined. So many other WWI era biplanes look like a box kite with an engine attached. The Albatros was produced in large numbers (for WWI) and was powered by a reliable Mercedes D.III inline engine.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 20, 2011)

The Albatros series were beautiful aircraft, but that beauty was apparently only skin deep.  The pilots liked them because they were a advance on the Fokker eindeckers and Halberstadt D2's they had been flying. But lower wings soon started folding when Albatross went to the D3, ( the aircraft in davebender's picture ) When it happened to Richthofen on Jan. 17, 1917, plus he found out it had happened 3 times on the same day to Jasta Boelche pilots, who weren't quite as lucky as him. He went back to a old Halerstadt D2, and flew it for two months, until Albatros somewhat fixed the problem.
Albatros replaced the D3 with the D5 in May of 1917, which while faster, was slower in rate of climb than the D3, and still had the lower wing flutter problem. Aerodynamic flutter wasn't well understood at the time. It wasn't that the lower wing was weak, it had a single spar that was too far back in the wing, and would begin to flutter from aerodynamic pressure at speeds usually encountered in steep dives. If the pilot noticed the buffeting from the flutter and slowed down immediately he might prevent wing failure. 

Richthofen disliked the D5 so much he wrote his friend Oblt. Falkenhayn in July, 1917, " The DV is so obsolete and rediculously inferior to the English that one can't do anything with this aircraft. But the people at home have not bought out anything new for almost a year, except for this lousy Albatros, and we have remained stuck with the DIII. "

And of those dependable Mercedes engines Jasta 11's ace Von de Osten had this to say in a interview in 1974. " The SE-5's were our nastiest opponents due to their speed and their climbing ability. Because of their excellant British engines, they were much better that our aeroplanes. You could tell this immediately since they hummed so evenly when in flight, while our engines rattled like one of todays VW engines." 

Since i'd be on the allied side I think i'd pick the SE-5a, with the Wolseley assembled direct drive HS, since the Germans seem to think so much of it. Though I think the Fokker DVII is the better all round aircraft. Neither one beauties, but they delivered what was needed.


My source for these views was Osprey SE5a Vs Albatros DV by Jon Guttman.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 20, 2011)

I would choose the Tri-plane. My understanding is that they were much more manuevarable than most planes of the period - something that I would think one would need to survive another day.


----------



## Readie (Nov 20, 2011)

The triplane arrangement may be compared with the biplane in a number of ways.

A triplane arrangement has a narrower wing chord than a biplane of similar span and area. This gives each wing plane a slender appearance with higher aspect ratio, making it more efficient and giving increased lift. This potentially offers a faster rate of climb and tighter turning radius, both of which are important in a fighter. The Sopwith Triplane was a successful example, having the same wing span as the equivalent biplane, the Sopwith Pup.

Alternatively, a triplane has reduced span compared to a biplane of given wing area and aspect ratio, leading to a more compact and lightweight structure. This potentially offers better maneuvrability for a fighter, and higher load capacity with more practical ground handling for a large aircraft type.

The famous Fokker Dr.I triplane was a balance between the two approaches, having moderately shorter span and moderately higher aspect ratio than the equivalent biplane, the Fokker D.VI.

Yet a third comparison may be made between a biplane and triplane having the same wing plan - the triplane's third wing provides increased wing area, giving much increased lift. The extra weight is partially offset by the increased depth of the overall structure, allowing a more efficient construction. The Caproni Ca.4 series had some success with this approach.

These advantages are offset, to a greater or lesser extent in any given design, by the extra weight and drag of the structural bracing, and the aerodynamic inefficiency inherent in the stacked wing layout. *As biplane design advanced, it became clear that the disadvantages of the triplane outweighed the advantages.
*
Typically the lower set of wings are approximately level with the underside of the aircraft's fuselage, the middle set level with the top of the fuselage, and the top set supported above the fuselage on cabane struts.

I wouldn't chose an early monoplane despite the success of of the Fokker Eindecker.
I'm torn between the tri biplane design...
Ummm

John


----------



## mikewint (Nov 20, 2011)

The eindecker would be the future of fighters but the German version suffered from serious handling problems. It fared very well initially due to its sycronized machine guns. The tri-wings also suffered from wing problems, some due to shoddy construction but there was an inherrent lift differential between the upper and lower wings (2.5 to 1). So it has to be the Bi-plane such as the D VII until materials technology could catch-up with stress demands


----------



## Readie (Nov 20, 2011)

mikewint said:


> The eindecker would be the future of fighters but the German version suffered from serious handling problems. It fared very well initially due to its sycronized machine guns. The tri-wings also suffered from wing problems, some due to shoddy construction but there was an inherrent lift differential between the upper and lower wings (2.5 to 1). So it has to be the Bi-plane such as the D VII until materials technology could catch-up with stress demands



Pretty convincing Mike.
Bi Plane then ?
Could be a toss up between the Nieuport, Spad, SE5a , Pup or Camel.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/ww1-military-aircraft.asp

This is an interesting list. Some of the planes are new to me.

John


----------



## davebender (Nov 20, 2011)

Many WWI era airframes had structural flaws. Some aircraft engine models were unreliable. A cracked wing spar or malfunctioning engine will kill you just as dead as the enemy. So I would put reliability as the most important characteristic for a WWI era aircraft.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 20, 2011)

At least with a blown engine you had a chance of making a landing, but most times you die when there is structural failure. No WW1 aircraft was reliable on the level that we expect of aircraft today, and some were known to be almost deathtraps.

When you read the day to day accounts of units at the front, or preparing to go to the front, you will notice lots of instances of wings folding, or someone being forced down because of engine failure. It took brave men to go up in those machines.


----------



## Readie (Nov 21, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> At least with a blown engine you had a chance of making a landing, but most times you die when there is structural failure. No WW1 aircraft was reliable on the level that we expect of aircraft today, and some were known to be almost deathtraps.
> 
> When you read the day to day accounts of units at the front, or preparing to go to the front, you will notice lots of instances of wings folding, or someone being forced down because of engine failure. It took brave men to go up in those machines.



It did Tom. I have nothing but admiration for the early pilots.

http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/node

Early seamen navigators/ explorers hold the same respect. Setting sail literally into the unknown...

John


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and offer this in favour of the monoplane, purely as devil's advocate, of course. During the Great War there was an official prejudice against the monoplane by the British hierarchy; this was based on a series of incidents involving Bleriot XIs in 1912, which apparently suffered structural failure. The argument in favour of biplanes stated that the Warren Truss box structure of a biplane was more rigid, therefore safer than monoplanes. The Bleriot and most monoplanes of the era were equipped with wing warping for lateral control, requiring a degree of flexibility of the wing structure. An inquest into the incidents by Louis Bleriot and officers of the RFC came to the conclusion that the monoplane design itself was not at fault, but this was ignored and the biplane became king (simply put). There was also the apocryphal tale of an RFC officer scaring the bejesus out of himself whilst flying the Bristol Bullet, a monoplane fighter.

When Frank Barnwell's Bristol M.1C fighter first appeared in 1916 it had a top speed of over 30 to 50 mph over its German contemporaries, but it was not adopted universally by the RFC because, it was stated, that its landing speed was too high for operations in France. This has often been considered as merely an excuse for official prejudice against it for being a monoplane. nevertheless, the M.1s were sent off to places like Palestine, where they floundered about, rarely encountering any real opposition. As a fighter it was far superior to the Fokker E III (even the Airco D.H.2 was superior to the Eindekker) and was easily the equal of the Albatros scouts it might have encountered over the Western Front, had it appeared there.

Other companies built monoplanes but got around official scepticism by building them as parasol monoplanes, such as the Morane Saulnier designs, which were also used by the RFC. Because of the perceived prejudice against monoplanes, a biplane variant of the Morane was especially built for the RFC; the woeful Morane Saulnier BB.

The excellent little 'Bullet'






:8


----------



## evangilder (Nov 21, 2011)

Additional wings can provide additional lift, however, between the wing and the structure to support it, you also have induced drag. Some of that could be overcome with more power, but engines of the time weren't advanced enough to give good power. It was always about trade-offs and from what I read, it went back and forth on who had better fighters and scouts.


----------



## Readie (Nov 22, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> The excellent little 'Bullet'



That would not have looked out of place in 1930. Very advanced design and a good choice.

John


----------



## Njaco (Nov 22, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> I'm going to throw a spanner in the works and offer this in favour of the monoplane, purely as devil's advocate, of course. .....



I dunno. How did this one fare?


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 22, 2011)

That's a early 30's Dewoitine ( I think ) from the movie The Blue Max.

The Bristol Bullet was a fast little bugger, 130mph on only 110 hp. But I wonder how manuverable it was ? Could it's structure stand the stress ?


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 22, 2011)

Njaco said:


> I dunno. How did this one fare?



Didn't he crash it?


----------



## Njaco (Nov 22, 2011)

Bingo!!


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 22, 2011)

It fell apart in the air, after that he was just along for the ride.

I read the book and saw the movie, they end completely different.


----------



## Readie (Nov 25, 2011)

First World War.com - The War in the Air - From Triplane to Camel, the War's Best Fighters

The Fokker D VII ?

Biplanes ruled the roost in WW1 it seems

John


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 25, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Bingo!!



It was a Morane Saulnier. If it was a Bullet, that wouldn't have happened!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 25, 2011)

Readie said:


> [The Fokker D VII ? Biplanes ruled the roost in WW1 it seems



Indeed they did, and the D VII was probably the best the Germans built, it was the only aircraft type speically mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 25, 2011)

I would definately choose the Fokker D.VII...it was such a good design great performer, it was indeed forbidden to remain in the German's possesion after the armistice.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 5, 2012)

Without any solid evidence supporting my case, I guess I would go with what most air forces stuck with during the war that being the biplane.
It is my understanding that monoplanes did not have the sufficient lift to be competitive against nimbler biplanes and triplanes and the later needed a somewhat highly qualified pilot in the lines of Von Richthofen or Voss to exploit their superior maneuverability.


----------



## RabidAlien (Jan 14, 2012)

Reading all the different arguments put forth above, I'd have to say it all boiled down to a person's personal preference for death-trap of choice. For me...the triplanes always just looked so frikkin cool!


----------



## nuuumannn (Jan 15, 2012)

> For me...the triplanes always just looked so frikkin cool!



Aaaah, but which one would _you_ choose? The little Sopwith or the little Fokker?


----------



## RabidAlien (Jan 15, 2012)

I'm most familiar with those little Fokkers you see in all the movies. I'll have to Google the Sopwith triplane. Sorry, I'm not as up on WW1 as I should be.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 15, 2012)

The only problem with a triplane was it was too slow to break off combat if you were outnumbered or at some other disadvantage.
As Werner Voss found out when he ended up in a combat with with 5 SE5's. He had no choice but try to fight them all until one finally one got a fatal burst in on him.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 15, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The only problem with a triplane was it was too slow to break off combat if you were outnumbered or at some other disadvantage.
> As Werner Voss found out when he ended up in a combat with with 5 SE5's. He had no choice but try to fight them all until one finally one got a fatal burst in on him.



The Dogfights episode "The First Dogfighters" states that his Fokker triplane possessed, apart from being more agile, a superior rate of climb than the faster SE5s which would had enabled Voss to disengage from the combat and seek friendly lines; something he supposedly refused, eager to score at least one British plane.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 15, 2012)

Dead men tell no tales, there's no way even the fine scholars at the history channel could know why Voss stuck around and fought against 5 other aircraft.

The Dr I had a slight rate of climb advantage, but it falls off faster with altitude, and with aircraft of that era you could have some big variances in performance from aircraft to aircraft, and day to day. A sparkplug could foul on a rotary engine in midflight.

Voss was a fighter pilot to be respected, but I don't think he survived as long as he did by not being able to size up his opponents. I doubt that he was arrogant enough to think he could outfight 5 of Englands best. He just couldn't get a break to get away, level, in a dive, or a climb.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 16, 2012)

"Dead men men tell no tales"... Direct and truthful saying.
The documentary, not that I take everything on THC as irrefutable truth, states that on several occasions Voss disengaged from the fight to orbit on top of the British planes and then, "eager to get more one or two SE5s dove into the fray once again".
Regardless of the real motives for Voss to stay in the fight, capable to disengage or cornered by the SE5s and fighting for his very survival, it's true what THC says, truly one of the epic air battles of WWI.
that young German flyer which died so young has my respects and admiration.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 16, 2012)

"Dead men men tell no tales"... Direct and truthful saying.
The documentary, not that I take everything on THC as irrefutable truth, states that on several occasions Voss disengaged from the fight to orbit on top of the British planes and then, "eager to get more one or two SE5s dove into the fray once again".
Regardless of the real motives for Voss to stay in the fight, capable to disengage or cornered by the SE5s and fighting for his very survival, it's true what THC says, truly one of the epic air battles of WWI.
that young German flyer which died so young has my respects and admiration.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 16, 2012)

I'm wrong about the number of British aircraft involved, there were 7. All from the 56th Squadron.

I read several accounts of the dogfight from the different participants, I haven't run across that version yet. But I will say that when I read the different views, it's like they're describing different events. But that's not unusual in combat recollections .


----------



## TheMustangRider (Jan 16, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> I'm wrong about the number of British aircraft involved, there were 7. All from the 56th Squadron.
> 
> I read several accounts of the dogfight from the different participants, I haven't run across that version yet. But I will say that when I read the different views, it's like they're describing different events. But that's not unusual in combat recollections .



I hear you, several accounts of a single aerial battle or any other event in which there are more than one witness tend to leave almost different conclusions.
I may be wrong but I believe Dogfights relied on pilot James McCudden's account (don't know if written correctly) for their analysis of the battle.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 16, 2012)

I still think dogfights show was a little bit of eye candy , but it's what sells in the biggest market, Was y29 the biggest dogfight of Boddemplatte I have a little doubt. Missing Barkers VC flight against at least 20 ? To put in some guy I've never heard about and I believe I've heard or read of most


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 17, 2012)

Has there ever been anything in print from the German's side of Barkers's dogfight ? Or any other views at all, other than Barkers?
I can't remember a source, but Barker's details have been "questioned".


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 17, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> Has there ever been anything in print from the German's side of Barkers's dogfight ? Or any other views at all, other than Barkers?
> I can't remember a source, but Barker's details have been "questioned".


It apparently was witnessed by thousands


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 17, 2012)

From the ground ?

If I remember right, it was on the Italian front wasn't it ?

I see I'm wrong, it was when he was sent the western front after his Italian assignment.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 17, 2012)

From the ground ?

Technically he lost, but he shot down 4 ( I think ) before he was downed.

I think I need to refresh my memory on that fight.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 14, 2012)

tyrodtom said:


> The Albatros series were beautiful aircraft, but that beauty was apparently only skin deep. The pilots liked them because they were a advance on the Fokker eindeckers and Halberstadt D2's they had been flying. But lower wings soon started folding when Albatross went to the D3, ( the aircraft in davebender's picture )



To quote a friend who has flown a couple of D5 reproductions "Looks like a rock star, Flies like Ozzie Osbourne" Apparently they are awful to fly, even when comapred to other WW1 machines. 
The lower wing is also pretty weak, with most of these aircraft, you can move them around on the ground by pushing/pulling on the bottom of the struts, but not the D5, the lower wing can't handle the stress. This probably helped in their reputation as a fragile aircraft.

But personally, I think I'd go for a bi-plane over the other two, generally speaking. More proven that the contemporary mono-plane, but less drag than the triplanes.


----------



## shackleton (Mar 18, 2012)

I would go for a Bristol but not the speedylittle bullet. I would go for a Bristol Fighter with a gunner to keeping his eye on whatwas happening behind but with a performance as good as contemporary German fighters. If I chose a monoplane it would be the Fokker DVIII flying razor blade which entered service to late in the war to show how good itwas.


----------



## nuuumannn (Mar 25, 2012)

Hi Guys, I thought y'all might be interested in some pics of surviving monoplanes, biplanes and a Triplane in the Grahame White Hangar, my favourite part of Royal Air Force Museum. These were taken in 2009, so don't include the recently unveiled Sopwith Dolphin. 

Starting with this one, my personal favourite of the RAF Museum's collection, the Bleriot XXVII. A classic in design with its elegantly faired tail section into its fuselage and its hooded cover over its exposed engine. A rare beauty.







Avro 504.











Another view of the speedy Bullet






The awkward looking Caudron G-3 and its bungee supported undercarriage, making manoeuvring it on the ground a chore.











Gunbus reproduction.











Arn-REE-Oh Aitch Dee Wun, there's a rumour that this and the RAFM's Farman in store at Cosford are going to go to New Zealand in a swap with a Albatros D Va and RE.8 built by the Vintage Aviator Limited.











A beautiful Pup repro built by Desmond St Cyrien in his workshop but notoriously claimed to be an original that was found in a non existent airship shed near Paris.











The formidable S.E.5a. Looks like a real fighter should.











1 Half Strutter; the first Multi Role Combat Aircraft.






The Tabloid repro, neat little Zeppelin killer.






The infamous Tripe with its two deadly machine guns, when most fighters were only sporting one.











Lastly, the Vimy reproduction named "Triple First" after the type's historic long range flights in the early 20th Century.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Mar 26, 2012)

Amazing photographs!!!
I must add than I'm delighted to take a look at these great detailed pictures now than I'm engaged in reading _The First Air War 1914-1918_ By Lee Kennett. A great book packed with a substantial analysis of the overall evolution of air power throughout the Great War.


----------



## wheelsup_cavu (Mar 28, 2012)

Cool photos. 


Wheels


----------



## woljags (Mar 28, 2012)

I would choose a by-plane with a large deep wing area compared to the body size[SE5a,Sopworth Pup],the best fighter of the war in my view was the Fokker D7 again the same idea,from the little i know of early monoplanes and Triplanes they both had weakness's,the monoplanes being harder to turn than both by/triplane due to stall speeds and the triplanes due to weak structures,what do you other chaps feel/think


----------

