Strutter
 

For some reason I hadn't noticed that a replica Great War aeroplane is being built in Scotland until it was featured on BBC TV Bews today.
I'm old enough to have some idea of the types that were in service even though that was 20 years before my time and I'd never heard of a Sopwith "Strutter" before.
What I have heard of is the Sopwith "1½ Strutter" which I expect was named after an unusual arrangement of struts in the wing installation. Perhaps someone can explain what a "strutter" is supposed to be. Am I alone in being irritated by it being called that?.
From what little we saw on the News it has a nice post-period radial engine with self-starter instead of the original's hand-swung rotary which may be a necessary mod. these days.

Why should you be irritated by 'Strutter' Allan ??
Both 'Strutter' and '1½ Strutter' were used as an unofficial designation ;)

Sopwith Two seater was its official RFC Designation (amongst others :) )

Still on the beeb.
Good luck to them , I hope it flies soon.

​​​​​​​Presumably if the engine was misfiring it would have been called the 'Stutter' ;)

I think you are looking for meaning where none exists - "1½ Strutter" was indeed a reference to the upper wing being attached by a combination of long and short struts, no more than that. I suspect that the unofficial name proved more convenient than referring to it as the Sopwith Two-Seater (some variants were in fact single-seaters).

A similar more recent usage would be describing the 727, TriStar, etc as a "3 holer".

A description that puzzled the heck out of me for years as I had no conception of engines being referred to as 'holes'. Neither, I suspect, did may others.
I did wonder if it meant some biplane with 3 open cockpits for the crew to lurk in, maybe some derivative of a long-range Wapiti or similar.

Some nicknames really are so esoteric they mean absolutely nowt to those not involved.

On the other hand the one and a half strutter was a name I have known since my earliest days of aviation interest and the meaning was completely, intuitively self-evident, struts being an integral part of a biplane's anatomy.
Utterly unlike 'holes'.

3 Holer = 3 x Intakes :)

I'm really irritated! We wouldn't say, "Hawker Hurri", or "North American F-100 Super", so why is "Strutter" being used? I've seen it on modelling forums too. I've also seen people trying to justify its use!

No they weren't: "Strutter" is a lazy modernism. All WW1 aircraft are 'strutters' for goodness sake!

So please stop inventing a history for some modern laziness.

I am not inventing anything LOL
Perish the thought that mechanics/pilots in WW1 might want to trim down a long and over fussy nickname.
Now let me see - on a daily basis am I going to say (in full) 'One and a Half Strutter' or perhaps I might shorten it down to just 'Strutter' :)

Officially the RFC called it 'Sopwith Two Seater' but there will have been other unofficial names used - nothing ever changes.
Also perish the thought that the guys who have invested thousands of man hours in building this beautiful replica aircraft but did not spend 5 minutes researching some of its 'names'

The strutter nickname was because of the layout of some of the struts - it should really have been a 'proper' 2 bay biplane but sopwith built it on the structurally 'light' side.
Not all WW1 aircraft were 'strutters' ;)

One-and-a-half-strutter: not 'strutter'. Can you name a WW1 aircraft which wasn't a 'strutter'?

Incidentally, the two-seat 1-1/2-Strutter was also known in period as the "Sopwith 2-Seater", which by the daft convoluted logic shown above, would be called "Sopwith Seater", which is equally as nonsensical as "Strutter".

So only 'Strutter' if you're the sort who's OK saying 'loop-the-loop' and describing every military pilot as an 'ace' or 'Top Gun'. Save it for the Daily Mail.

[QUOTE=Pypard;11356809]One-and-a-half-strutter: not 'strutter'. Can you name a WW1 aircraft which wasn't a 'strutter'?

Fokker Eindekker perhaps? Short on struts but well equipped with wires - and a samson post, which is a sort of strut I suppose.

The Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter was a particularly bonny beast ! Looks quite lightly built, compared to some later machines.

The 'strutter' or 'One and a Half Strutter' specifically refers to the layout/configuration of the fuselage to top wing Struts on this aircraft - which was unusual.
You only have to spend a couple of seconds googling to find this out - it was a large aircraft to have this strut layout ;)

[QUOTE=biscuit74;11356816]Yes even the Eindecker was strutted - and seated! But again, using modern laziness, I guess we should call it the Fokker Decker.

The 1 1/2-strutter was one of the first aircraft to feature a dedicated bomb bay as I recall.

tea cup...
 

storm in a?

Wasn't there a 'strutter' in the film Oklahoma?
I think the sound track goes like 'when I drive them high steppin' strutters'.

Not a storm in anything. If you excuse things with 'life's too short' cop-outs you may as well give up with all types of learning. Accuracy is key to recording history and excuses are no excuse.

It's still wrong, whether you think it's trivial or not.

Whatever...
 

Good thing we have you to set the world right.

I will sleep so sound tonight.

Do you call all your friends and loved ones by their full fore, mid and family name each time you speak to them or about them? Never use a nickname? Call a chevrolet, a chevy, with a 327 under the hood? Must call out "cubic inches" displacement each time? With a 4 speed 'trany and a posi-trac in back? OMG! I'm otta control!

If you're a Mustang driver, shouldn't you be quoting a '351C' rather than one of those terrible GM engines.

If you have followed a B727 to the holding point you will see why it's a 3 holer. (3 a** holes).

And yet you are still missing the point of why it was referred to as a 'One and a Half Strutter' - it was specific to this one aeroplane type ;)
I have explained it to you twice now but you have totally ignored it !
Most discussions on this section of the forum are adult and polite - there is absolutely no need for anybody to go into full Jet Blast mode ;)

I know why it's called a 1 1/2-Strutter: that was never the point of the original post. It was about why people are calling it a "Strutter". I think my posts make that apparent.

Whatever anyone says or makes excuses for, "Strutter" is incorrect.

A picture says a thousand words, the W.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e5f9c793ab.jpg

Makes the Tiger an N Strutter? ;)


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0466b90dfa.jpg

N strutter is the Geezer in the front seat in East London telling ya wot to do innit...

My point was that describing the "1½ Strutter" as simply the "Strutter" was akin to describing a "3-holer" as simply a "holer", that's to say utterly meaningless.

So quite analogous, really. :O

Terminology used by a fraternity is moot, unless you are part of that fraternity. What I mean is, when you are part of the team associated with, say, an aircraft type, the vocabulary takes on a life of its own. You refer to things in the context of how it fits in the team's overall world, as long as that terminology is precise enough to be understood by colleagues, and generally as concise as possible.

eg; a Shorts 360. To the manufacturer or aviation journalist , it would probably be described as such. Or as SD3-60. Or as SD360. In my experience on a regional airline it was a defined, verbally or in writing, as either a 360, a Shorts, a Shed, an SH36, or a Sh**-Heap. If we had operated different versions, we would probably have referred to them only as a dash-number.

The term used is always going to be enough to define the subject, without excessive ink or syllables, so I could imagine that, within the context of the workforce, "one and a half strutter" could be abbreviated to "Strutter". Six syllables become two.

Of course, when I referred earlier to "journalism", I specified journalists who understand what they are writing about. Its interesting to note that the BBC News website currently has a feature on 60 Years of Loganair, one picture captioned "A Sports Skyvan ........".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-63505252

Except that '3 Holer' is not an abbreviation for the Aircraft name per se.
Almost every aircraft I worked on in my 45+ years as a techie had some form of abbreviation or nickname (as Duncan posted above),the only aircraft type which was not abbreviated had such a short name - it really was not worth it :)
It is normal human behaviour to abbreviate everything down to the minimum amount of syllables otherwise one is having to cope with long drawn out mouthfulls of syllables on an hourly basis :) - aviation is most certainly the spiritual home for abbreviations/acronyms

To return to one of pypards earlier rants

He surely does realise that almost every aircraft in history has had a 'nickname' or abbreviation.
So 'Hurri',Spit,Mossie,Whirly/Crikey,Lanc are just a few off the top of me head.

Very well put Duncan.
Abbreviation is definitely not just a modern 'thing'.

regards LR

and summarises my original point, I'd say.

Then finish the matter…
 

One must specify further: an interplane strut, or cabane strut, parallel struts, I-strut, N-strut, V strut, Warren truss struts, all which can equally be called braces.

regarding 351 vs 327: I’ll take either one. The one I grew up with and had the fondest memories of was a 283 which was in a ‘55 Belair Chevrolet, two door sedan, white to be as accurate as possible. Today I use a BMW with a very imprecise 2.0L engine, or motor, or power plant, whichever is most accurate.

"Strutter" is the same sort of linguistic construction that requires the addition of "ie" to any English cricketers name. It's the sort of "between mates" shorthand

I've never heard or read of the word before - it was always spelt out as the full name in everything I've come across. But I guess those working on the replica can call it what they damn well like. It's only a copy after all

To be fair to the Replica building team - when you look on their FB page +Hangar 32 website - they use both forms of the unofficial name ;)
I find it quite amusing that people think abbreviations are a modern 'thing'.
I also find it quite amusing that they think the replica building team have 'invented' this abbreviation :)
As I posted previously - the team have done thousands of manhours of work on this beautiful replica and previously were based at East Fortune where they would have had access to much information about the history of this Sopwith Aircraft.

Though you seem to have invented the notion that someone said they did.

Except WWW is six syllables where World Wide Web is only three

I'm 100% with Pypard.
This is the first time ever in the fat end of 55 years as an aviation fanatic that I've ever heard this aircraft being called a "strutter". In all literature is solely and universally a "1 ½ Strutter" .
It was named that becaue the rigging architecture involved one and a half braced and strutted bays as opposed to the more usual one, two or more.
Calling it a "Strutter" merely suggests it walks in an imperious manner.
This is a completely new aberration and is simply incorrect. You can't go just inventing new nicknames for historic matters or you'd have King Henry the Bonker/Harry the Syph and the War of the ee-bah-gums (or maybe the Ecky-thump bash). It's equivalent to calling a Spitfire a "spitty" or a Lancaster a 'lancy' or a quadrowizard. It isn't clever, correct or least of all right.
What do afficiandos of such revisionist claptrap call a Ju52? A three-puff? A three wheeler? A trike?
Frank Zappa might well have favoured Rotoplooker for an Apache but I really shouldn't go into that...
And what of the Pup? A dawg, pooch or God helpus a Cock-a-kraut or a Soppy-poo like their similarly revisionist and risibly named dogs wh remain mongrels nonetheless?

Let's stick to the correct names and not let moden and historically ignorant keyboard warriors bowlderise them, shall we?

... well, anyhow... FFS

The key point of interest is that these chaps have built a wonderful Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter reproduction (apart from the engine) and I, for one, am very much looking forward to seeing it fly.

My only concern is that the modern engine might not deliver enough power, modern horses obviously being more feeble than their earlier brethren. A big, slow turning (maybe 1300 rpm) prop fitted to a Clerget is going to deliver more thrust than something smaller whizzing around at 2450 rpm

There is a valid point to be made about the fundamental difference in sound and smell between a relatively whizzy(!) radial replacing a sedentary castor-oil spewing rotary though I think fears about the relative weakness of modern horses is unfounded; modern engineers have a far sounder handle on what's required than their predecessors ever did.

Think how people would howl if the latest Spitfire build appeared with a PT6 or some kind of geared-down automotive V8.

Horses for courses where possible though I do recognise that for a flying replica rotarys do present massive practical problems.

The 'Strutter' and Ships Strutter were probably of course RNAS in origin.
JM Bruce MAFRAes,FRHistS was happy with the name.
John McIntosh Bruce was known to all as Jack. He was Keeper and Deputy Director of the Royal Air Force Museum until his retirement in 1983. He was the foremost authority on British aircraft of World War One.
This picture from Windsock Data File 34 (author JM Bruce)


https://i.imgur.com/jZ9hKZW.png

Happy New Years longer ron - or can I just shorten that to Ron? :)

I Googled that Windsock publication yesterday and found a decimal Strutter!


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d170a1bcf6.png