Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Pics of the Sopwith Triplane Pics Here!


  • Please log in to reply
117 replies to this topic

#41 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:02

When Fokker D.VII was made, devs did not have correct engine data of mercedes DIIIau to model it. Now they do have it, so maybe they change it in future but it is not very important issue at the moment. Now all get back to topic which is about Sopwith Triplane.
  • 0

#42 150GCT_Veltro

150GCT_Veltro
  • Posts: 715

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:09

I'm not a "Triplane lover" but considering this quality i've to buy it however! :o

Superb work guys!
http://www.150gct.it...ro/Triplane.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.150gct.it...ro/Triplane.jpg

http://www.150gct.it...o/Triplane2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.150gct.it...o/Triplane2.jpg

P.S: very good news for D.IIIau. Thank.
  • 0

#43 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:14

Does anyone know if the Triplane and Pup engines had any ability to "throttle" by killing ignition to some cylinders and so reduce the revs, or was it all down to the blip switch?

Cheers,

Nick
  • 0

#44 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:22

Depends on engine. IE if modelled Triplane use same 130hp Clerget as Camel, then yes :) Not so sure about Pup 80hp Le Rhone.
  • 0

#45 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 24 September 2010 - 10:30

Awesome stuff!

Thanks for posting them, Jason. I'm sorry, though, Loft's screenshots are definite winners here :D

Love it, can't wait to fly it!
  • 0

#46 Flashy

Flashy
  • Posts: 1086
  • LocationSouth Africa

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:00

I can just see this plane is going to result in me being killed a lot! At the moment, whenever I see a Triplane, I know to run away. But after this is released, I am going to have to get closer to see if its a Tripe or DR1, and I see much death in my future from mistaking them! Cant wait! :P
  • 0

Just because I can give multiple orgasms to the furniture just by sitting on it, doesn't mean that I'm not sick of this damn war: the blood, the noise, the endless poetry...


#47 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:45

I am going to have to get closer to see if its a Tripe or DR1, and I see much death in my future from mistaking them! Cant wait! :P

yep, that would be fun…
  • 0

#48 Der_Sevtl

Der_Sevtl
  • Posts: 1079

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:45

Just one Machinegun *phew!*
  • 0

#49 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:55

Just one Machinegun *phew!*

Yes. Would be hard to bring someone down but on the other hand they were very maneuverable planes.
In case youv been sarcastic - you need to spend more time in nieuports to feel how long it takes (if ever) to bring someone down with one MG. ;)
Ok "lucky shots" are always possible.
  • 0

#50 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:57

For some reason the Tripe looks so fragile! If I had a plastic model of it, I sure wouldn't dare touching it! :roll:
  • 0

#51 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:13

For your reassurance, Neoqb used conservative data (but historically accurate allied test data) to model these planes. They are not "uber" by the numbers, but just like history, they are superior, in ways that matter in combat, to the contemporary Albatross series fighters.

I would go so far as to say you could measure all other planes performance in RoF based on the performance of these two.

The engines in the two planes (produced in the greatest quantity) were 80hp Le Rhone for the Pup and 130 Clerget for the Triplane. Both of these engines have the ability for throttling like the Nieuport 11 and Camel.
  • 0

#52 SYN_Mike77

SYN_Mike77
  • Posts: 1161

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:16

drool
  • 0

#53 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:19

Well Im always open for 1vs1 dogfight. Me in Alb DII vs equally skilled "german pilot" in Pup or Tripe. I will say this again (and again) - its the pilot not the plane. All planes are very very accurate in their FMs and will be even more after FM fixes. Pitty some guys are unable to read between the lines of betatesters posts. Let them finish the upcoming fighters and bombers first.
  • 0

#54 veltjens

veltjens
  • Posts: 392

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:31

VERY exciting!

I know these birds will be terrific!

S!
  • 0

#55 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4150

Posted 24 September 2010 - 12:49

Fanbloodytastic!

(Note to self: Ignore all FM posts).
Cheers.
  • 0

#56 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:20

Looks nice.
  • 0

#57 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:37

For some reason the Tripe looks so fragile! If I had a plastic model of it, I sure wouldn't dare touching it! :roll:

It was fragile that's why they only made`147 of them.

777 will sell more than the Sopwith Company ever did in the first day I should think (It costs less for us than the RNAS though).
  • 0

#58 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:41

For some reason the Tripe looks so fragile! If I had a plastic model of it, I sure wouldn't dare touching it! :roll:

It was fragile that's why they only made`147 of them.

777 will sell more than the Sopwith Company ever did in the first day I should think (It costs less for us than the RNAS though).

I can easily imagine that, and I find that quite funny actually, if not ironic :D

Nice to see the new extra skins for the Tripe Loft!
  • 0

#59 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:51

Triplane was canceled because it was difficult to repair (fuel and oil tanks were inaccessible without substantial disassembly of the wings and fuselage). Also spare parts became difficult to obtain during the summer of 1917. At the end, Camel was at the horizon. Yes it had some "structular weakness with which pilots dealed with adding additional wires. The wings sometimes collapsed in steep dives. In first production models. This defect was attributed to the use of light gauge bracing wires in the 46 aircraft built by subcontractor Clayton & Shuttleworth. Several pilots of No. 10 Naval Squadron used cables or additional wires to strengthen their Triplane".

Those modifications would be more effective if made in factory but the Camel was on horizon so they canceled the tripe. Since DRI was a copy of a triplane it had very simmilar problem with wings (structural weakness).
But if you read the reports structular failure was not often. In both DRI and Triplane this problem wasnt so emphased (although DRI had more troubles and more frequent failrues) but bad reputation can spread in godspeed without real backup.
  • 0

#60 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:52

its the pilot not the plane.

Everything else you say is fine, but no platitudes, please. Aircraft type is a decisive factor when pilot skill is close to equal; otherwise the RNAS would never have ordered the Sopwith Triplane, tvrdi. ;)

I'm guessing the Sopwith Triplane will be fast, with a decent roll rate, a great turn rate, but fragile in a dive.
  • 0

#61 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 13:55

its the pilot not the plane.

Everything else you say is fine, but no platitudes, please. Aircraft type is a decisive factor when pilot skill is close to equal; otherwise the RNAS would never have ordered the Sopwith Triplane, tvrdi. ;)

I'm guessing the Sopwith Triplane will be fast, with a decent roll rate, a great turn rate, but fragile in a dive.


Fast? its relative…vs which plane your comparing? ;) Roll rate, yes. Turn. Well it had a simmilar design as DRI so expect simmilar problems and advantages ;).
And believe me - pilot factor is most importan…I as a decent pilot was blown up so many times by an ace in a inferior fighter. Please dont tell me its not a pilot.
  • 0

#62 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:00

Triplane was canceled because it was difficult to repair (fuel and oil tanks were inaccessible without substantial disassembly of the wings and fuselage). Also spare parts became difficult to obtain during the summer of 1917. At eh end, Camel was at the horizon. Yes it had some "structular weakness which pilots dealed with additional wires. The wings sometimes collapsed in steep dives. This defect was attributed to the use of light gauge bracing wires in the 46 aircraft built by subcontractor Clayton & Shuttleworth. Several pilots of No. 10 Naval Squadron used cables or additional wires to strengthen their Triplane".

Those modifications would be more effective if made in factory but the Camel was on horizon so they canceled the tripe. Since DRI was a copy pf triplane it had the same problem with wings (structural weakness).
But if you read the reports structular failure was not often. In both DRI and Triplane this problem wasnt so emphased but bad reputation can spread in godspeed without real backup.

It was only used by the RNAS as well as the RFC stuck with the Pup. (I'm really looking forward to them both).

Having to go to the depot for repairs is a big flaw in an aeroplane made of fabric and wood- should be a fast turnaround of minor repairs. Spare parts were hard to get as well - 1 squadron actually dismantled 3 of their planes to use for spares and reduced their compliment by 1/6 to be able to keep 15 operational planes flying.

Again though the DR1 was only produced in relatively low numbers I think a peak of operational DR1s was c160 so very small numbers compared to it's peers.

The triplane experiment on both sides was ultimately a failure although they live on in popular imagination thanks to MvR and a nostalgia for multi-winged aircraft (And 777 studios making a great simulation of them).
  • 0

#63 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:06

Fast relative to its contemporaries, i.e. Albatros D.II, D.III, D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa, etc.

I as a decent pilot was blown up so many times by an ace in a inferior fighter. Please dont tell me its not a pilot.

Of course that happens. But most of the aircraft we fly, while having performance disparities, are not so far apart that pilot skill cannot play a role. I've also had it happen the other way around plenty of times, where I shot down a superior pilot only because I had the better plane. ;) Anyway, both pilot skill and aircraft performance can be decisive. Let's get back to the Sopwith Triplane.
  • 0

#64 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:11

Fast relative to its contemporaries, i.e. Albatros D.II, D.III, D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa, etc.

I as a decent pilot was blown up so many times by an ace in a inferior fighter. Please dont tell me its not a pilot.

Of course that happens. But most of the aircraft we fly, while having performance disparities, are not so far apart that pilot skill cannot play a role. I've also had it happen the other way around plenty of times, where I shot down a superior pilot only because I had the better plane. ;) Anyway, both pilot skill and aircraft performance can be decisive. Let's get back to the Sopwith Triplane.

Well, it wasnt much faster than Albatros D.V., DIII and DII (10 kmh max, and that was more important in RL than in dog furballs of ROF ;) ). But as we know Alb DV is a bit slower in game than it was in RL and Pfalz DIIIau reached 185kmh (we have only DIIIa version).
  • 0

#65 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:14

http://www.theaerodr...th_triplane.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/aircraft/gb … iplane.php

says 117mph. That's as fast as the Fokker D.VII in RoF.

Edited for metric conversion. :)

Another edit: I'm not going to get involved in flight model disputes. I'm only concerned with how it will stack up against the aircraft we already have in-game.
  • 0

#66 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:21

http://www.theaerodr...th_triplane.php

says 117mph. That's as fast as the Fokker D.VII in RoF.

Edited for metric conversion. :)

Another edit: I'm not going to get involved in flight model disputes. I'm only concerned with how it will stack up against the aircraft we already have in-game.

and in game Fokker DVII is with Merecedes D.IIIa engine and has correct speed…I hope one day we will get DIIIau version :)
  • 0

#67 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:25

Reports of the time state that the Triplane was better than the germans had at the time.
  • 0

#68 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:30

Reports of the time state that the Triplane was better than the germans had at the time.

Define better. Surely it wasn't better looking than the Albatros. :P

On the other hand, the pics I've seen of its RoF implementation are very appealing.
  • 0

#69 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:30

Reports of the time state that the Triplane was better than the germans had at the time.

True, only with Dr.I germans came on par (or suprassed it in certain areas). What i expect Triplane to be is very close perfomance with camel/Dr.I. Now Camel/Dr.I should probaply be slightly better in turn/climb, but not much.
  • 0

#70 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:32

also one should not forget that some planes are better performers up high which pup and tripe were not…according to the history docs and recals….as someone said earlier (B ;) ) ROF dogs are often fought down low….camels and DRIs in great numbers…..in WW1 fights were more bnz like than TNB, often on higher alts…DRIs and triplanes were hardly seen in great numbers…if ever….even the camel didnt last long as some guys would think…high alt perfromance became essential later in the war…

but lets imagine a situation:

4 DVIIFs vs 4 Triplanes/camels - online - COOP or dogfight with well distanced aerodromes…Who will win if both teams have experienced pilots? In most cases fokker guys…

its same with SE5a vs DRI on example….

although for 1 vs 1 fight I will always pick DRI or triplane/camel…and even then Im in trouble if a guy in a DVII or Spad13 is well above me….and a good gunner…
  • 0

#71 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:40

I for one will never be below 10000 ft in my DIII from now on….ever :shock: :lol:
  • 0

#72 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 24 September 2010 - 14:46

Camel lasted a fair while - c4500 produced as opposed to c300 Dr1 and c140 Tripes. And it accounted for more enemy planes destroyed than any other fighter.

(nb those numbers are from the top of my head and may not be 100% accurate)
  • 0

#73 WillyVonWonka

WillyVonWonka
  • Posts: 299

Posted 24 September 2010 - 15:38

Absolutely beautiful! I can't wait…Thanks for 777/neoqb and Sopwith for such magnificent planes. :shock: :D
  • 0

#74 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 24 September 2010 - 16:10

Same here, been looking forward to this since the simhq interview some time ago.

~S~
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#75 WF2

WF2
  • Posts: 1485

Posted 24 September 2010 - 16:31

Click Here to read …. Enjoy!

Image
  • 0

#76 =MR.FOX=

=MR.FOX=
  • Posts: 577

Posted 24 September 2010 - 16:34

amazing.
  • 0

#77 ST_ami7b5

ST_ami7b5
  • Posts: 2137

Posted 24 September 2010 - 16:35

Wonderful, Womenfly2!
Thanks a lot!
  • 0

#78 Dooga

Dooga
  • Posts: 422

Posted 24 September 2010 - 17:45

Pitty some guys are unable to read between the lines of betatesters posts.

Some people are unable to read the lines.

Don't concern yourselves too much - I'd say as usual, the happy majority is just too busy enjoying the game to bash things in the forum all the time.

It's going to be fantastic to have more variety in the sky. That's the main thing I'm looking forward to, although I'm undoubtedly going to enjoy flying these planes as well.
In my case, 1.014 will result in me spending weeks and months in front of RoF, playing through the Career mode with all the planes I'm interested in. I hope my wife doesn't divorce me…
  • 0

#79 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 24 September 2010 - 17:52

Bravo, WF2!
  • 0

#80 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 September 2010 - 18:38

It's going to be fantastic to have more variety in the sky.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to late 1916 setups not being a one-sided slaughter-fest (sopwith pup).
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users