The Sopwith Admiralty Type C was an early British torpedo-dropping floatplane that Sopwith designed and built in 1914, a single-engined tractor biplane that proved unable to lift a torpedo. The Admiralty ordered a special torpedo-carrying biplane in February 1914 and three similar Type Cs in July, specifying folding wings, bomb gear, a gun and radio. The three, powered by a 200 hp Salmson piston engine, were completed in October and went to RNAS Calshot for evaluation in November 1914. The special version had failed to lift a torpedo and the Type Cs were little better, failing to take off under load. One was accepted in February 1915 but sank after a forced landing days later, and the two survivors were withdrawn from service at the end of 1915.
Facts
Engine Class Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source Sopwith Admiralty Type C (Wikipedia)
Of Make
Source Sopwith Admiralty Type C (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source Sopwith Admiralty Type C (Wikipedia)Lead, manufacturerQuote, Lead, manufacturer
designed and built by Sopwith Aviation to drop torpedoes
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source Sopwith Admiralty Type C (Wikipedia)Lead, country of originQuote, Lead, country of origin
was an early British floatplane
Sources
1. Sopwith Admiralty Type C (Wikipedia)
Design and development
three were delivered to the Royal Navy in November 1914
Lead
was an early British floatplane designed and built by Sopwith Aviation to drop torpedoes
Design and development, engine class
Salmson (Canton-Uneé) piston engine
Design and development, power
200 hp (150 kW) Salmson (Canton-Uneé) piston engine
Design and development, status
were withdrawn from service at the end of 1915
Lead, manufacturer
designed and built by Sopwith Aviation to drop torpedoes
Lead, country of origin
was an early British floatplane
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.