Talk:Sopwith Special torpedo seaplane Type C

170?

Ther article says the aircraft was "170", Robertsons serials book say that 170 was aSopwith Tractor Biplane with a 100hp Green engine! It also says that 157, 158 and 159 where Sopwith Type C floatplanes with a 200hp Canton Unne, it also says 157 was the torpedo-carrying experimental seaplane! MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm! I checked G&T: 170 is what they say so it's not my typo. They repeat this no. several times (in the Special piece and the Mockup), so it's not a one off on their part. Could well be wrong, of course. I don't have the Putnam Sopwith book or anything systematic on the RNAS apart from Thetford. I'll look for some of these serials in the last and in G&T, reporting back.TSRL (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to G&T, RNAS no. 157-9 were Admiralty Type C, aka FTS.200 in agreement with Rob; also that they have Salmson 2M7 (ie Canton Unne) engines. They have a engineering drawing of this type - it seems no photos exist - which carries the FTS.200 designation on it. It's not the same aircraft as in their photo of the Special, as its engine is conventionally in the nose. From G&T, Sopwith used the Salmson in three different types. There were also three types with Greens: their Mockup (no RNAS serial given), the type DM (Daily Mail competition/circuit machine), s/n 151, and the first Bat Boat, though not Green by the time it joined the RNAS as s/n 118 and a pusher anyway. Not yet found anything with s/n 170 apart from the Special (unlikely, I know, in G&T).TSRL (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed Peter Lewis' British Aircraft 1809-1914 has a brief piece on the Special: he calls it the Torpedo seaplane Type C and uses the same photo as G&T. No s/n given.TSRL (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, Bruce Robertson is normally a reliable source but it is obviously a time of confusion! MilborneOne (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The http://www.ukserials.com/ site appeared to have copied Robertson's book altough they dont mention that 157 was anything other than a normal Type C. MilborneOne (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty certain that the Special, ordered on contract CP02007/14X2800 was a one-off, specially built for experimental torpedo dropping and that the other, later, Type Cs (that is a puzzle) on CP37385/14X7331 were a threesome. Torpedoes are not mentioned in G&T's account of the latter. So if 157 was not the Special, but just one of the three that lost out to the Short 184, and the Special was a tractor biplane, which is not disputed, the only available tractor biplane on ukserials/Robertson? for the 170 slot is the Special. In that case Rob is wrong only about the engine. The Mockup was a Green powered TB, but no-one has a serial for it. Confusing times, as you say, usually with the Navy involved; Shorts are another nightmare.TSRL (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that work TSRL as you say evidence shows that 170 is correct - I wonder where the 157 info came from! MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hodgkinson/Hawker-BloodLine.htm has the Sopwith Type C - two-seat biplane torpedo seaplane powered by a 200hp Salmson armed with a 900lb torpedo, three built! MilborneOne (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/sopwith_special.php has an image of 170 an interesting text that agrees with your last. It says the 'Special Tractor Biplane Seaplane' 170 was ordered first followed by the three Type Cs 157 to 159. It says they none of them could lift the torpedo, do we have/need an article on the Type Cs? MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We do know some things for sure, from G&Ts account: contract no.s, something of the specified requirements, start and rough completion dates, November at Calshott, failure and abandonment. Also that there were the three, 157-9. Beyond that, in the absence of photos or contemporary descriptions we are left with G&Ts tentative association of the aircraft shown in the drawing labelled FTS.200 with the final Type C. They are clear that the dimensions they quote are from these plans (no weights nor performance), as does the seating and engine information (200 hp Salmson). Even the difference in engine layout I pushed above depends on the final aircraft looking like FTS.200! We know 170 was earlier and distinct (contracts, timings), but just how different remains unsure because of the lack of images. I'm still a little puzzled/concerned by the use of the Type C designation for both. Also, to a lesser extent why the later aircraft have lower s/ns. It might help to understand how the Admiralty contract numbers worked.

So I could rough something out in my sandbox, or you could have a go, then come to a judgement about airworthiness. I suspect that G&T(2001) have as much as anyone; they are/were not Sopwith specialists but did time with its order book, contracts and some diagrams. They will also have seen the earlier histories. It's always possible more has turned up in the last decade, but not very likely. I've not seen King's (1981) Putnam book yet but hope to do so soon and could feed in anything extra.

For context, G&T say the Sopwith Type D (no.160) is "something of a mystery ... " !TSRL (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Anybody have the late Ray Sturtivant & Gordon Pages 'Royal Navy Aircraft Serials and Units 1911-1919' from Air-Britain a fairly recent book I believe might have some clues. MilborneOne (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Francis K Mason's The British Bomber since 1914 (1994) states that "very little information of a reliable nature survives about the Sopwith Type C", although it does suggest that there were three of them, and that they were classed as "bomb carriers", although they seem not to have undergone formal trials with the RNAS.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed -upon-Thames, not -upon-Hull! King's Type C is the subject of this article, no.170. Can't find any mention of No.157-9 in his book. Sturtivant and Page (arrived this morning) have both 170 and 157-9, though they only call the latter Type C. Like G&T, they have them at Calshott Nov 1914, but their dates are more detailed. These tests seem real enough. Their very detailed study confirms the early contract/late s/n of 170. So we have a reasonable history but only G&T's association of drawing FTS.200 and the Type 157 (let's say) to describe the aircraft.TSRL (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

My copy of Sturtivant and Page arrived yesterday! as you have seen I have started Sopwith Admiralty Type C for 157-159 using data from it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AB must have wondered what was going on! Two sales in a day! Mind, you get a lot of pages per pound. I've tried to blend in the little extra that G&T have, avoiding their speculations. To make who says what clear lead to some minor rephrasing. The only new oddity that emerged was G&T's start date vs. S&P's order date (April and July respectively). Mind, Contract CP37385/14 must have had a lot of subparts, as there are several different types and different start dates with that contract number. I'll have another look.TSRL (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the failure of many knowledgeable researchers to find photos, diagrams or specs, we probably have as much as we ever shall know, though maybe someone might link and explain the odd dates and serial order one day, I wonder if it's worth making the comment that this data has been sought by many but not found? Also, it might be helpful to transfer at least part of this discussion to the Type C discussion page, so that other editors can know where we have looked and avoid repeating our chases. I still find it surprising there are no pics: you'd expect it for a few one-offs by transient manufacturers, but here not one but three of a type by a well known company, which undertook Service tests, have passed unrecorded. Mind, how would you know if a particular old photo was the Type C ... ?TSRL (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Another date divergence: G&T say that "Instructions for the three machines [Type C] were issued to the works on 15th April 1914 ..." Their transcription of the Sopwith Order Book has the Type C entry dated 14 May 1914; not necessarily a conflict, I suppose; they may be dates of different parts of the build/purchase process.

I've added a note to the Talk:Sopwith Admiralty Type C page, linking to this one.TSRL (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)