3 Different Triplanes - Page 3

**Don Boose** · #21 06-18-2010, 03:26 PM

Many thanks for the info, Ron. I figured it was only a matter of time before you weighed in.

Your speculation may well be correct, although I had my heart set on a Sopwith sesquiplane -- indeed, in my mind, Roman der Kampfflieger was going to develop it as an obscure WWI aircraft and you were going to do a recolor as the little-known Cheddington-Bixley variation (which had an Oberursel engine taken from a downed Turkish Fokker E-III) and Sky was going to do a very artistic pointillist version as flown by Aspirant Pierre-Georges Seurat and Leif was going to build a 1/16 superdetailed version and Swampfox was going to develop it for flight simulation and . . .

Anyway, midship the rudder and have a great Navy Day.

Former Naval Person

**Swampfox** · #22 06-18-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Boose

Thanks for letting us chat in your thread, Swampfox.Don

No problem, I'm learning something new and that's all I want. Talk away.

SFX

**Swampfox** · #23 06-18-2010, 05:10 PM

I don't know if I'm hijacking my own thread but if you don't mind my getting involved with this conversation......

I looked at my book Vintage Warbirds no. 5, The Sopwith Fighters by JM Bruce and on page 24 and 25 I came across these images of N5431. I don't know if they'd be useful to your quest for more info on this a/c.... I scanned them with the original captions. I hope they are readable. If not and your interested in the caption info, let me know and I'll rescan at higher res.

Sorry for butting in.....

SFX

**EricGoedkoop** · #24 06-18-2010, 05:14 PM

From The British Fighter Since 1912, courtesy of Google Books:

And another photo:

**rmks2000** · #25 06-18-2010, 05:29 PM

I just looked at the Paulhan triplane that was mentioned earlier. Now that would be a cool model to build!

http://www.bamfbamrs.be/Bamrs/battaille-en.htm

**Don Boose** · #26 06-18-2010, 06:51 PM

I think SFX and Eric have solved the puzzle. Based on this, Tripe N5431 and the Mouse (Alcock A.1) were two different airplanes, one a triplane and the other a sequiplane as described in the Wiki article (clearly the vertical tailplane wasn't from a Camel). All this seems to make sense and to be consistent with the earlier reporting.

I am embarrassed by my lack of research, since I own both the books cited. But I admit that, being quite busy, I did not descend to the basement to do a hard copy search. Thanks to you both for your perseverence in tracking down this information.

And the Battaille triplane was indeed an elegant early airplane. It would fit in well with the FG Early Flying Machines collection.

Don

**Leif Ohlsson** · #27 06-19-2010, 12:47 AM

I'm happy to say that this forum, through Eric, has come up with the best material on the Alcock A.1 Mouse. This is the best that the Aerodrome has to offer. It is essentially the same as Eric's information, but the photo provided here is much better.

The "Mouse" really wasn't a pretty airplane, now, was it?

-Leif