# WW1 aircraft



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2017)

*World War I, Aircraft Comparison; Morane-Saulnier Type AI, Mo.S.30 E1; SPAD XIII (S.13); Sopwith Dolphin (5.F.1) Mk.III Prototype; Bristol Fighter F.2A (Brisfit); Nieuport 28 C1; Sopwith Camel F.1; Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a; Salmso*


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2017)




----------



## Elvis (Oct 31, 2017)

Man, that Nieuport was such a clean design.
Beautiful planes.
I understand the Bristol fighter was actually quite feared by the Germans.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 31, 2017)

Good stuff!


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Sopwith Pup






Sopwith Camel F.1


----------



## The Basket (Nov 4, 2017)

I do find ww1 more interesting than ww2.
The aircraft seem far more interesting.
Not saying Snipe is better than Spitfire but that a Snipe was the F-35 of its day.
And that is crazy.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Sopwith Snipe






Sopwith Dragon

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Sopwith Camel






Sopwith Triplane


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Sopwith Triplane


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Sopwith Triplane






Sopwith 1½ Strutter


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Nieuport 11






Nieuport 17


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Spad S.VII C-1


----------



## Wurger (Nov 4, 2017)

Spad S.XIII C-1


----------



## Graeme (Nov 5, 2017)

The unusual A.D Scout (Sparrow)

AD Scout - Wikipedia

Seen this photo in three sources and in all three the captionist ignores the guy in "flight"....any ideas?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 5, 2017)

Hmm, maybe he's repelled by the sheer ridiculousness of the machine? It looks like he's dismounting from it rather awkwardly and the photographer's caught him mid fall.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2017)

For the best, I think it gets down to either the SE5a or the Fokker DVII. Neither of these designs had the most impact. that honor probably falls to the Camel or the Nieuport 17

Nieuport Aircraft

or


World War 1 Aircraft (1914-1918) - Combat Airplanes of The Great War


----------



## parsifal (Nov 6, 2017)

In the modelling section we recently completed a build that included some WWI aircraft. sadly the turnout was not all that enthusiastic. I think most of the model makers are put off by the prospect of biplane rigging. its a pity, because the WWI aircraft are a very interesting bunch.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 6, 2017)

parsifal said:


> WWI aircraft are a very interesting bunch.



They sure are!


----------



## Elvis (Nov 7, 2017)

parsifal said:


> In the modelling section we recently completed a build that included some WWI aircraft. sadly the turnout was not all that enthusiastic. I think most of the model makers are put off by the prospect of biplane rigging. its a pity, because the WWI aircraft are a very interesting bunch.


What amazes me about the world wars was the rate of development of aircraft.
As with WWII, where we went from biplanes to jets, the first world war took us from "motorized kites" to practical aircraft.
Nothing like a good ol' war to accelerate the advancement of technology!

--------------------------------------

Wurger & Graeme,

Great set of pics! Thank you for posting those!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 7, 2017)

parsifal said:


> For the best, I think it gets down to either the SE5a or the Fokker DVII. Neither of these designs had the most impact. that honor probably falls to the Camel or the Nieuport 17
> 
> Nieuport Aircraft
> 
> ...


Another impactful design was....

The Fokker Eindecker

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 21, 2017)

Another was the Sopwith Pup, which had a big impact on naval aviation. Pups carried out take offs from platforms around 15 feet long over gun turrets and off seaplane tenders' decks, not to forget the very first landing on an aircraft carrier's deck. Pups equipped the very first aircraft carrier air group, 'F' Squadron, HMS _Furious_' air component, headed by Sqn Cdr Edwin Dunning, who carried out the afforementioned deck landing. Pups were also expended in experiments to find the best way of restraining an aeroplane after landing aboard a carrier, aboard _Argus_ and _Furious_.







Also, the Sopwith T.1 Cuckoo. The very first landplane (with wheels, as opposed to seaplane with floats) to enter service that was designed specifically to operate from aboard a ship, the first aircraft carrier based torpedo bomber, which equipped the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo squadron, 185 Sqn, RAF, formed in October 1918 for operations aboard HMS _Argus_. Cuckoos were also exported to Japan and were the IJN's first torpedoplanes, which operated aboard Japan's first carrier IJNS _Hosho_.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 21, 2017)

Avro 504 ....

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 21, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> Another was the Sopwith Pup, which had a big impact on naval aviation. Pups carried out take offs from platforms around 15 feet long over gun turrets and off seaplane tenders' decks, not to forget the very first landing on an aircraft carrier's deck. Pups equipped the very first aircraft carrier air group, 'F' Squadron, HMS _Furious_' air component, headed by Sqn Cdr Edwin Dunning, who carried out the afforementioned deck landing. Pups were also expended in experiments to find the best way of restraining an aeroplane after landing aboard a carrier, aboard _Argus_ and _Furious_.
> 
> View attachment 472802
> 
> ...


Nice write-up Nuuumann, but all Sopwith's owe a debt to the 11/2 strutter...





(photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

It was the design type that all the others were based on.



Dean

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 21, 2017)

Avro 504K






Hanriot HD-1

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 23, 2017)

Elvis said:


> Nice write-up Nuuumann, but all Sopwith's owe a debt to the 11/2 strutter



Not true, Elvis; before the Strutter was the Tabloid - it was the aeroplane that changed the firm's fortunes and set a benchmark in manufacture for the time. Not surprising that all share the same dna, Hawker, Sigrist and Sopwith himself made a formidable team.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 23, 2017)

Hanriot HD-1 ....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 23, 2017)

Good shots!


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 23, 2017)

Elvis said:


> It was the design type that all the others were based on. Dean



Sorry, Dean, just to clarify Sopwith's lineage in terms of airframe development.

The Strutter came from Sopwith's desire to produce a decent tractor biplane, which began with the Three Seater and via various floatplane designs (Circuit Seaplane et al) came to the 807, which was an underpowered two-seater floatplane that went to war aboard the seaplane carrier HMS _Ark Royal_ during the Dardanelles campaign. Not a great performer, the 807 shared the same structure as the land plane Two-Seater, which was nicknamed the 'Spinning Jenny' (not ot be confused with the Curtiss JN4). This was not a great design and was used for air defence duties early in the war, being pretty much useless and nicknamed as such because of its propensity to suddenly enter a spin without provocation. Oddly, the 807, despite being fitted with floats had a higher speed than the Two-Seater. From this came a two-seater one-off design nicknamed 'Sigrist's Bus', after designer Freddie Sigrist, and it was from this that the Strutter came. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that Sigrist's Bus came from a plan drawing of an 807 on the floor of a factory or such like and the new aeroplane was built from that profile, with a new fuselage and wings.

The Sopwith single seaters all came from the Tabloid, which was originally a two-seater, but an RFC order in 1914 had the design become a single seater. From the Tabloid came two separate developments, Hawker's 'Runabout' and the Schneider seaplane. The former became the Pup, essentially, with little modification and the latter, based on the 1914 Schneider Trophy winning Tabloid became the basis for the Baby single seat seaplane. It was a requirement for a replacement for this that produced a single seater with two machine guns mounted in a hump in front of the cockpit. Guess what that led to, but without floats? Sopwith's most famous and mass produced aeroplane, the Camel. The Pup name came from William Sefton Branker, controller of aircraft procurement within the RFC, who saw Hawker's single seat runabout next to the third Strutter at Brooklands in early 1916 and proclaimed 'Good God Man! Your Strutter has had a Pup!' The name stuck. After the Pup came the Triplane and so on.

This isn't to belittle the excellence of the Strutter, not at all, but to clarify that even it had its beginnings and that much of Sopwith's subsequent aeroplane design was owed to the Tabloid. It was its standard of manufacture and structural neatness that characterised future Sopwith aeroplanes.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 23, 2017)

man there are some good shots there. frustrates the heck out of me that our modellers don't want to build these. they are a challenge, but this whole era to me is intensely interesting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 26, 2017)

A man, his dog and his Thulin K... 

Thulin K - Wikipedia


----------



## Wurger (Nov 26, 2017)

I wouldn't consider the kite a WW1 plane but for sure it is quite rare.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 26, 2017)

And two shots more ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 26, 2017)

Hanriot HD-2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 26, 2017)

Excellent work guys. Enjoying all of it.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 26, 2017)

Hanriot HD-2 hydroplane

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 26, 2017)

Nice shots guys!


----------



## Wurger (Nov 27, 2017)

Hanriot HD-2


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 27, 2017)

Nice collection of Arn-Re-Oh pics.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

Wurger said:


> I wouldn't consider the kite a WW1 plane but for sure it is quite rare.



Yeah, I just liked the dog.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 28, 2017)

Graeme said:


> A man, his dog and his Thulin K...
> 
> Thulin K - Wikipedia
> 
> View attachment 473450


You don't suppose there's a little Fokker DNA in there do you?


----------



## Wurger (Nov 28, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Yeah, I just liked the dog.



So do I.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 28, 2017)

Airco D.H.1

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2017)

Wotjek you amaze me constantly with endless supply of excellent images.

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 28, 2017)

so....what was the fastest combat aircraft in the Great War?


----------



## Wurger (Nov 28, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Wotjek you amaze me constantly with endless supply of excellent images.



My pleasure Michael.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 28, 2017)

parsifal said:


> so....what was the fastest combat aircraft in the Great War?


Fokker D-8?


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2017)

Maybe the Spad XIII


----------



## Wurger (Nov 28, 2017)

Airco D.H.2


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 28, 2017)

parsifal said:


> so....what was the fastest combat aircraft in the Great War?



Sopwith Dragon @ 149 mph


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> Sopwith Dragon @ 149 mph



Hi VB. I'm reading that speed was achieved post-war?

This aircraft did not begin official trials at Martlesham Heath until February 1919.[4] It attained a top speed of 150 mph (240 km/h) at sea level and achieved a service ceiling of 25,000 ft.[1]


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

Author John W.R. Taylor makes a good point that aircraft performance did not advance greatly during the 1914-1918 war when you consider some of the best fighters of that period were slower that the experimental S.E.4 of 1914 that achieved 135mph...

Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.4 - Wikipedia


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 28, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> Sopwith Dragon @ 149 mph


TILT!! It appears the Dragon never entered squadron service, never saw combat, and was flying only in prototype form as of 11:11/11/11/18, all production machines in storage for lack of engines. How does that qualify as a WW1 combat aircraft? Shall we designate the P59 and P80 as WWII combat aircraft?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## Wurger (Nov 28, 2017)

Airco D.H.2


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 28, 2017)

Cool shots!


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 28, 2017)

parsifal said:


> so....what was the fastest combat aircraft in the Great War?



Take your pick:

WW1 Aircraft Ranked-by-Speed - From Fastest to Slowest


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Take your pick:
> 
> WW1 Aircraft Ranked-by-Speed - From Fastest to Slowest



G'day mate. Did you see their WW2 list?
Paper projects make it to the top....ya gotta laugh. 

WW2 Aircraft Ranked-by-Speed - From Fastest to Slowest


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2017)

The SE5A was credited with 138 MPH but had chronic reliability issues, quoting a single research aircrafts performance is misleading. The Supermarine S6 won the Schneider trophy and set a speed of 407 MPH in 1931 but the pilot couldn't see forward and it ran on Benzole methanol acetone and tetra ethyl lead.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 28, 2017)

Graeme said:


> G'day mate. Did you see their WW2 list?
> Paper projects make it to the top....ya gotta laugh.
> 
> WW2 Aircraft Ranked-by-Speed - From Fastest to Slowest



I hadn't...but I agree it's faintly ridiculous. That said, the WWI list looks a bit more reliable with the DH4 being among the fastest.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The SE5A was credited with 138 MPH but had chronic reliability issues, quoting a single research aircrafts performance is misleading. The Supermarine S6 won the Schneider trophy and set a speed of 407 MPH in 1931 but the pilot couldn't see forward and it ran on Benzole methanol acetone and tetra ethyl lead.



I think you have the SE5A confused with the SE4. I think there was only one SE4 was made, but thousands of SE5A's were made. The geared engine 200 hp engine the SE5A was originally introduced with was troublesome, but they eventually solved the problems. The SE5a was credited with a 138 mph top speed by some sources, as was the earlier SE4.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 28, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I think you have the SE5A confused with the SE4. I think there was only one SE4 was made, but thousands of SE5A's were made. The geared engine 200 hp engine the SE5A was originally introduced with was troublesome, but they eventually solved the problems. The SE5a was credited with a 138 mph top speed by some sources, as was the earlier SE4.


Tyrodom I was not confused it was just badly written by me mixing up two points/issues.

The SE4 was high performing in terms of speed but in no way a serviceable military aircraft (like the Supermarine S6), even the SE5A which did 138MPH had chronic reliability issues years later.....was what I should have posted


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The SE4 was high performing in terms of speed but in no way a serviceable military aircraft



That's a fair point Pbehn. Planned to become a scout it would have encountered problems as you say. Still, as Peter Lewis says "a masterpiece of early aeroplane design".
I particularly like the celluloid hood - although the pilots didn't...


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

As the Python team would say - now for something completely different.
1915. Fits the thread's criteria.

From forum member Bill Pearce...

_A military commission observing the test determined that such a machine could not aid the war effort and halted further evaluation._

Papin-Rouilly Gyroptere (Gyropter)


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 28, 2017)

Looks like it's screwed itself into the ground...probably the safest option!


----------



## The Basket (Nov 28, 2017)

Author John WR Taylor said aircraft performance didn't advance in ww1?
I would say it did!


----------



## Graeme (Nov 28, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Author John WR Taylor said aircraft performance didn't advance in ww1?
> I would say it did!



I think he was referring to the 135mph figure.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 29, 2017)

Considering the first flight was 1903 then a Sopwith Snipe is the Millennium Falcon by comparison to the Flyer.
Altitude and bomb load and range obviously was ignored.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

Graeme said:


> I think he was referring to the 135mph figure.


It depends on how you draw conclusions, to have military vehicles with all equipment matching the performance of your fastest research vehicle in less than four years is outstanding in my opinion, about the same as WW2 excluding jets. When war broke out the UK had 33 military planes and I don't believe any carried guns.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 29, 2017)

I agree.
Top speed is only a fraction of development. And speeds doubled in a very short space of time and bombload and range. 
Development was phenomenal and to say there was limited development is mind boggling. Even a 10mph difference is still a large percentage.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

The SE-4 was really a racer. It eliminated cooling drag by not cooling the engine. It reduced drag from the undercarriage by using an undercarriage that was of no use to taxi or land. The engine was unreliable but powerful, when replaced with a reliable (for the time) engine its top speed was 92MPH. The pilots canopy may have reduced drag but meant the pilot couldn't fire re load or un jam a gun and I suspect he could hardly breathe or see once it got covered in oil. If you take the performance of the "speed spitfire" of 1937/38 and Me 209 V1 of 1939 you could conclude that little progress was made in WW2 either. The RAFs two front line fighters in 1945 were the Spitfire and Tempest well the Spitfire first flew in 1936 and the Tempest was a re winged Typhoon which first flew in feb 1940, so hardly any progress at all in the whole war. The USA did even worse by Mr Taylors yard stick, the types used P 51 , P47, P38 had all flown before the war started and were flying when the war ended, so no progress at all then? In truth the war started as far as aircraft goes with the decisions to re arm in the 1930s. For WW1 once it was realised that aircraft had a military use their development was very fast, in 1914 they could just keep themselves in the air, by 1917 the Germans were bombing London with Gothe bombers, which upset the house of Saxe Coburg Gothe so much they changed their name to Windsors.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 29, 2017)

RAF F.E.2

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 29, 2017)

RAF F.E.2b No.6338 of 20 Squadron RFC, captured in 1916.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 29, 2017)

The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 8, page 787:

"A re-engineed version of the Sopwith Snipe, the Dragon was intended to use the 320-hp Dragonfly radial motor; at that period still not fully proven. The first true Dragon was Snipe airframe E7990, fitted with the new engine in July 1918"

If it only hit the 149 after the war then I agree it does not belong, however if it did and the question was fastest combat aircraft, not fastest aircraft used in combat I would think it applies.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 8, page 787:
> 
> "A re-engineed version of the Sopwith Snipe, the Dragon was intended to use the 320-hp Dragonfly radial motor; at that period still not fully proven. The first true Dragon was Snipe airframe E7990, fitted with the new engine in July 1918"
> 
> If it only hit the 149 after the war then I agree it does not belong, however if it did and the question was fastest combat aircraft, not fastest aircraft used in combat I would think it applies.


The 320BHP Dragonfly motor shows how much progress was made compared to the previously mentioned SE-4 it has twice the power of the unreliable Gnome twin row rotary engine it set the record with and three times the power of the reliable Gnome monosoupape


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 29, 2017)

That really is amazing, and in a relatively short time span


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> That really is amazing, and in a relatively short time span


About the same in WW2 from 1000BHP to 2000BHP for the Merlin with the biggest getting 2500-3000BHP in 1945


----------



## Graeme (Nov 29, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> The Illustrated encyclopedia of 20th century weapons and warfare, Volume 8, page 787:
> The first true Dragon was Snipe airframe E7990, fitted with the new engine in July 1918".



Hi VB. 

Was E7990 the sixth prototype Snipe?

IF I may quote from Mr Taylor again - as he does promote discussion...
_
"The sixth prototype (Snipe) was fitted with the experimental 320 hp ABC Dragonfly radial engine, which it achieved the remarkable speed of 156mph; but production machines retained the BR.2."_

When you flip to the Dragon section he mentions this happened in April 1918.

Regards the Dragon built from scratch...

_"However they achieved no marked success owing to the unreliability and excessive vibration of the A.B.C. engine."_

Poor fighter progression? 

John W. R. Taylor - Wikipedia


----------



## Graeme (Nov 29, 2017)

Now from Green and Swanborough. Note the proof-reader failure with the MPH...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Nov 29, 2017)

According to "War Planes of the First World War: Fighters, Great Britain" by John Bruce Page 42, the 6th frame originally modified was B9967. It appears to have been a regular Sopwith Snipe with the new engine bolted on. E7990 appears to have had the tail modified and the fuselage possibly stretched 21 inches.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 29, 2017)

Nice work mate!
Any mention of 156 mph in your book?
Does this mean then the altered Snipe (B9967) - or half a Dragon - could be regarded as the fastest aircraft of 1914-1918?
Possibly could have gone for a FAI title post-war?


----------



## gumbyk (Nov 29, 2017)

The Basket said:


> I agree.
> Top speed is only a fraction of development. And speeds doubled in a very short space of time and bombload and range.
> Development was phenomenal and to say there was limited development is mind boggling. Even a 10mph difference is still a large percentage.


Yep, and 0 to 4000lb bomb load (Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI) is hardlyno progress either...


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The 320BHP Dragonfly motor shows how much progress was made compared to the previously mentioned SE-4 it has twice the power of the unreliable Gnome twin row rotary engine it set the record with and three times the power of the reliable Gnome monosoupape


 Trouble is the Dragonfly engine was probably no more reliable than the Gnome twin row rotary. Had WW 1 lasted into 1919 the Dragonfly engine would have been the most valuable "weapon" in the German arsenal. 

While not used in service aircraft the Cosmos Jupiter (Roy Feddon) was running in 1918 as was the RAF.8 or Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, although development stalled in 1917-1918 for a number of reasons. Mainly the leaving of the two primary designers and the lack of potential orders due to the AIr Ministries infatuation with the Dragonfly.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Trouble is the Dragonfly engine was probably no more reliable than the Gnome twin row rotary. Had WW 1 lasted into 1919 the Dragonfly engine would have been the most valuable "weapon" in the German arsenal.
> 
> While not used in service aircraft the Cosmos Jupiter (Roy Feddon) was running in 1918 as was the RAF.8 or Armstrong Siddeley Jaguar, although development stalled in 1917-1918 for a number of reasons. Mainly the leaving of the two primary designers and the lack of potential orders due to the AIr Ministries infatuation with the Dragonfly.


I am not cheerleading for any particular design just pointing out the general development around 100 BHP in 1914 to around 300 in 1918, the definition of serviceability and reliability is open to discussion when pilots were sometimes required to lubricate rockers while in flight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2017)

The Dragonfly was a disaster of the highest order just waiting to happen. 
However you are correct, there were a number of engines of around 300hp in the wings, from the 230hp Bentley Rotary to the Rolls Royce Falcon and Eagle plus the American Liberty. Hispano was working on the large v-8 that went to 300hp?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> The Dragonfly was a disaster of the highest order just waiting to happen.
> However you are correct, there were a number of engines of around 300hp in the wings, from the 230hp Bentley Rotary to the Rolls Royce Falcon and Eagle plus the American Liberty. Hispano was working on the large v-8 that went to 300hp?


The statement about little progress during WW1 which sparked this part of the discussion is almost breathtaking for a serious historian to make, I wonder if it is somehow taken out of context. A point I didn't make before concerned the SE-4s landing speed was 52 MPH as compared to its maximum of 92 with the Gnome supape which to me infers that the aerofoils were as low in drag as possible but stalled without much notice. The following SE-4A was designed more with flyability and stability in mind (according to Wiki) to me that alone is progress.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2017)

Yes indeed pbehn. Warfare does tend to accelerate technological progress and if the Great War had not happened, aviation would have remained as it was in 1914 for some time afterwards, with advancements taking longer than they did. I think that possibly the author might have been referring to the fact that ambition outweighed the technology of the day in some cases. There were many great ideas and theories that when put into practise proved unreacheable, not because they were impracticable (although there was a lot of that), but because technology still had a way to go before the idea could come to fruition. I look to the Dardanelles campaign and the use of naval aviation as an example. Aeroplanes were used for almost every role conceiveable, but the nature of the machines meant that they often failed or were bad at the jobs assigned. Nevertheless, the intent was there and showed that people had the right ideas, that came about in actuality later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 29, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The statement about little progress during WW1 which sparked this part of the discussion is almost breathtaking for a serious historian to make, I wonder if it is somehow taken out of context. .



_*God I hope not, but maybe I have?? *_Just a small caption introducing the S.E.4 written over 50 years ago - which I did think was interesting.

Having said that, in an introduction to another book he brings up the S.E. 4 again lamenting that _"designers and air forces, in general, failed to take advantage of some of the refinements tested in pre-war days, particularly in respect of streamlining to improve performance. The best fighters of the 1914-1918 War were, undoubtedly the Sopwith Snipe and the Fokker D.VII, neither of which was as fast as the experimental S.E.4 biplane built and tested at Farnborough in 1914."_

(He also had a belief the successful Sopwith Tabloid performance, with other factors, was responsible for hindering monoplane construction for twenty years in Great Britain - but that's another story. )






_



_


----------



## pbehn (Nov 29, 2017)

Graeme said:


> _*God I hope not, but maybe I have?? *_Just a small caption introducing the S.E.4 written over 50 years ago - which I did think was interesting.


I don't believe you did, he has a strange idea of how progress is made. Alcock and Brown flew the Atlantic in an adapted Vimy bomber, who was crossing the Atlantic, or anything near that flight length in 1914.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 29, 2017)

Another problem with that comparison is that it ignores the weight of armament. 
For example a Sopwith Tabloid weighed 1700lbs loaded (?) but a Camel weighed under 1500lbs with guns.
Adding even a single Vickers gun and ammo would affect performance. 

The Bristol M1C was fast for the installed power but it's high landing speed (remember the accident rate in the first 1/2 of WW 1) was counted against it.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 29, 2017)

Graeme said:


> He also had a belief the successful Sopwith Tabloid performance, with other factors, was responsible for hindering monoplane construction for twenty years in Great Britain



That is true, but it certainly wasn't the first time that politics and prejudice held back technological progress (blaming the Tabloid's excellent design for hindering monoplane development is a copout, of course). Read Dick Hallion's excellent book Taking Flight, which convincingly offers the premise that manned (but not powered) flight could easily have been a reality at the time of Leonardo da Vinci; the technology was there, if not the knowledge of aerodynamics (even Leonardo got it seriously wrong even after studying bird flight for so long), but the belief system at the time restricted such a thing from happening.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 30, 2017)

Sopwith Camel F.1 No.F6394












Sopwith Camel - front view


----------



## Graeme (Nov 30, 2017)

D.H.5 at Trafalgar...

Airco DH.5 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 30, 2017)

Not only development in technology but also doctrine.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 2, 2017)

Replica D.H.5 from the 80's...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Dec 3, 2017)

RAF B.E.2


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 4, 2017)

Graeme said:


> Replica D.H.5 from the 80's...



And here it is in the noughties (earlier this year in fact.)




D.H.5


----------



## Wurger (Dec 5, 2017)

RAF B.E.2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 5, 2017)

Nice!


----------



## Wurger (Dec 6, 2017)

RAF B.E.2


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2017)

Bristol F2b Fighter of 11 Sqn RAF:






I recently discovered that my Grandmother's cousin was a pilot with 11 Sqn during WWI and I found a contemporary record showing that he flew this particular airframe, E2586, after the war while 11 Sqn was serving with the occupation forces in Germany. 

As the caption notes, I don't know how the pilot would have changed the drum on the wing-mounted Lewis!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 6, 2017)

They had a release that allowed the Lewis gun to slide down the curved part of the track right to in front of the pilot.
Though that one looks like it's so high above the pilot I wonder if he could reach that pistol grip to pull it back without unstrapping.
Some pilots ( Albert Ball in the SE5 and Nieuport ) would use the Lewis in the pulled back position to get under enemy aircraft and shoot at them from behind and below.

Some of the early aircraft mounted the Lewis above the wing, before the Foster mount was thought of.
In those aircraft the pilot had to unstrap, stand up, while holding the stick somehow, and change that drum.
The double drum held over 90 rounds, so you didn't change it often.


----------



## Milosh (Dec 6, 2017)

Close up as mounted on a SE5a
http://c7.alamy.com/comp/GHK6K8/se5a-of-the-shuttleworth-collection-at-old-warden-GHK6K8.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Dec 6, 2017)

That Lewis gun may be within reach of the gunner. The pilot sits almost under the trailing edge of the wing, and the gunner only had a waist strap (if anything) so was a lot more mobile.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2017)

Milosh said:


> Close up as mounted on a SE5a
> http://c7.alamy.com/comp/GHK6K8/se5a-of-the-shuttleworth-collection-at-old-warden-GHK6K8.jpg



Thanks for that great pic, Milosh. I'm planning on making a model of the Brisfit my relative flew, and that pic will really help detail that part of the model.


----------



## Wurger (Dec 7, 2017)

RAF B.E. 12 no.1697


----------



## Wurger (Dec 10, 2017)

RAF B.E.12


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 10, 2017)

I wonder how the pilot managed that rear firing Lewis on the B.E.12 ?
It had to be pretty hard to aim looking over your shoulder .


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 10, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> Some of the early aircraft mounted the Lewis above the wing, before the Foster mount was thought of.
> In those aircraft the pilot had to unstrap, stand up, while holding the stick somehow, and change that drum.
> The double drum held over 90 rounds, so you didn't change it often.



Yep, it's also worth considering that the early (pre-interruptor gear mounted scouts) had the mount (as in the (Louis) Strange mount) as a means of not shooting off your own propeller, whereas in the Brisfit, 2F.1 Ship's Camel and S.E.5a it was more of a supplement to existing forward firing armament and meant that the pilot could fire at an aircraft above. Louis Strange recounted an episode whilst flying a Martinsyde S.1 where he had to hang on for dear life by the Lewis gun case as the aircraft inverted itself. Here's a wee link to a model of the episode in question:

Martinsyde S.1, Inverted, with Louis Strange by reducedAircraftFactory on Shapeways

Nice pics of B.E family too, Wojtek.


----------



## Wurger (Dec 11, 2017)

THX. Here two next...

RAF B.E.12 no.A6303






RAF B.E.12b


----------



## Wurger (Dec 14, 2017)

RAF B.E. 12 no.A586






RAF B.E. 12


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 14, 2017)

tyrodtom said:


> I wonder how the pilot managed that rear firing Lewis on the B.E.12 ?
> It had to be pretty hard to aim looking over your shoulder .



I was curious too and did a little research, that was the only pic I could find of the gun mounted like that and I don't see a rear view mirror. Perhaps it is mounted on a swivel that allowed the gun to be moved forwards and left their for storage.


----------



## Wurger (Dec 19, 2017)

RAF F.B 5


----------



## Wurger (Jan 2, 2018)

Sopwith Camel F.1 no. B6316 ...


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 2, 2018)

Nice!


----------



## Wurger (Jan 2, 2018)

RAF S.E.5a... no. C5430


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 2, 2018)

Good shots guys!


----------



## Wurger (Jan 2, 2018)

RAF S.E.5b no.A8947 ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 2, 2018)

Caudron G.III.

Caudron G.3 - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 9, 2018)

RAF F.E.2

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2018)

wow, a four blade prop on the se5a!!!!!!


----------



## Graeme (Jan 10, 2018)

parsifal said:


> wow, a four blade prop on the se5a!!!!!!



Can't find exact figures, but quite a few S.E.5a machines were fitted such...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jan 10, 2018)

Another similar looking British 4-blader that had great potential (better than the S.E.5a in some respects) but never went into production - the Martinsyde R.G...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 10, 2018)

Don't know if it had anything to do with the gear reduction on many of engines?
S.E.5 used ungeared engine of slightly less power.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 10, 2018)

Lovely shots guys!


----------



## Graeme (Jan 25, 2018)

Short 184 with Frederick Rutland standing on the float.

Frederick Rutland - Wikipedia

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jan 25, 2018)




----------



## Peter Gunn (Apr 12, 2018)

Great pics in here guys. 

I find it interesting that the major players of WWI aircraft companies were next to nonexistent by the 1939-`945 show. Sopwith, SPAD, Fokker, although through mergers ect. I sure they soldiered on. I'm sure you lot can expand my knowledge on that as I really don't have a good handle on what happened to a lot of those manufacturers between the wars.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 12, 2018)

The Great Depression ... and the financial destitution resulting from WW1

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2018)

Plus there wasn't a very clear path forward for how civil aviation would evolve. For example, Handley Page tried to develop air transport routes in South Africa using converted O/400 heavy bombers. The commercial venture lasted about 9 months before it folded...despite some early efforts to leverage advertising (at least one of their O/400s was painted with "Commando Brandy" written on the rear fuselage and under the wings. 

Manufacturers of small aircraft, particularly fighters, had a more challenging time because there simply wasn't a demand for their products any more. The surplus of ex-military training machines added to the problems faced by manufacturers. Simply put, there was very little demand signal for new airframes in the immediate postwar years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Apr 12, 2018)

Sopwith had to close down as a going concern partly because of the turndown in demand and partly because of a fine imposed on it by the government for making excess profits during the war.
However it morphed into Hawkers when Tom Sopwith and Harry Hawker set up a new company and the rest as they say is history

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 12, 2018)

Fokker continued producing aircraft, though when occupied the Germans forced them to make theirs instead.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2018)

French aircraft industry failed to modernise its production techniques. Aircraft tended to be built by hand made means rather than automation. Productivity fell through the floor as a result.

In desperation France to embark on a series of nationalisation and forced amalgamations for established aircraft manufacturers. Nieuport was one of those companies. in 1937-38 adopted a nationalised aircraft manufacture conglomerate known as SNCAO, injecting govt money and vastly rationalising French a/c manufacturing. This program vastly improved the situation, but it was all far too late to alter the situation for France in 1940.

The final aircraft developed by Nieuport saw much of its development done by successor companies. In 1932, as a result of the amalgamations taking place in the French aviation industry, Delage retired and Nieuport-Delage was briefly renamed Nieuport again, before merging with Loire Aviation to form Loire-Nieuport, The Nazi invasion in 1940 saw the company's records burnt to prevent their falling into German hands. This step didn't prevent the Germans from charging several employees with espionage, as the last operational Nieuport, the LN401 was a single-seat, single-engine retractable-gear monoplane dive bomber with an inverted gull wing and a vague similarity to the Ju87.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Apr 12, 2018)

Actually, a surprising number of British aircraft manufacturers survived the transition to peacetime: Avro, Armstrong Whitworth, Beardmore (although aviation was more of a sideline than a primary business), Blackburn, Boulton Paul, Bristol, Fairey, Gloster, Handley Page, Parnall, Shorts, Vickers and Westland. 

As previously noted, Sopwith went under but re-emerged as Hawker Aviation. Similarly, Airco went into liquidation but its assets became the De Havilland Aircraft Company in 1920. Pemberton-Billing Ltd became Supermarine shortly after the war, perhaps in an attempt to distance the company from the awful aircraft designed by it's founder Noel Pemberton Billing. 

Companies that went under included British Aerial Transport, Grahame-White Aircraft Co., Martinsyde, Tarrant Ltd, and the White & Thompson/Norman Thompson Flight Company.


----------



## rednev (Apr 12, 2018)

Glider said:


> Sopwith had to close down as a going concern partly because of the turndown in demand and partly because of a fine imposed on it by the government for making excess profits during the war.
> However it morphed into Hawkers when Tom Sopwith and Harry Hawker set up a new company and the rest as they say is history



tom sopwith interview 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgxCioiN5pQ_


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2018)

I should have added something for the French aircraft industry. A big factor in the demise of their companies was their 'excess profits" legislation introduced from 1916.

SPAD is probably a good illustrative example of what happened in France after 1918. Post-war the company became Blériot-SPAD. The first of its designs to be known by this name was Bécherau's SPAD XX biplane. First flown in 1918, the SPAD 20 was not delivered until 1920. The return of peace meant orders were small; only 93 were built.

The return of peace also meant that the company had to face the problem of dealing with its liabilities under the Excess Profits Act of 1 July 1916. As modified in 1917, this imposed an 80% tax rate on almost all "excess profits". The calculation and collection of the tax was a controversial issue, and very large amounts were still outstanding as late as 1940, when the German occupation rendered the whole question irrelevant. With the future uncertain, SPAD was fully incorporated into the Blériot organisation in 1921, and the company effectively disappeared, although a number of Blériot types were marketed as SPADs.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 13, 2018)

Nice shots guys!


----------



## Wurger (Apr 16, 2018)

Avro 504J ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Apr 16, 2018)

Kettering's Flying Bomb...aka, "The Bug"...


_]View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNO84yh2ZxY[/media]_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Apr 17, 2018)




----------



## Gnomey (Apr 25, 2018)

Good stuff guys!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Apr 25, 2018)

Very cool!


----------



## Wurger (May 27, 2018)



Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 28, 2018)

Albatros D.III , D.2140/16.


----------



## Elvis (May 28, 2018)

A bit off-topic, but here's an interesting picture...






According to the article, _"Oswald Boelcke, (right) who is regarded as the father of the German fighter air force, shot down Robert Wilson (left), of the 32 Squadron Royal Flying Corps, before inviting him to join him for coffee."
_
From the days when _Knights of the Sky_ was an apt title.

Here's the article - Oswald Boelcke shot down WWI British pilot then shook his hand and got him coffee | Daily Mail Online


Elvis
P.S. - Interesting how Boelcke put it. He didn't "splash" or "kill" his opponent, but rather he "...forced him to land". Much like the plains Indians "counting coup", the idea was not so much to actually take one's life, but to simply take them out of the competition at that particular point in time.
A different way of thinking.
In this day of general craziness happening in the world, there's a life lesson to be learned in that turn of phrase.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (May 28, 2018)

Elvis said:


> A bit off-topic, but here's an interesting picture...
> 
> View attachment 495339
> 
> ...


Apparently it wasn't an uncommon occurrence, for the two enemy pilots to get together before the military police turned up to take the downed pilot away.


----------



## Elvis (May 28, 2018)

Definitely a more _gentlemanly_ attitude.
We could all learn something from that.

Elvis


----------



## Elvis (May 28, 2018)

...more pics from that article...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (May 28, 2018)

Nice.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (May 29, 2018)

Nice shots guys!


----------



## Wurger (May 29, 2018)

Fokker F1. 102/17

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 4, 2018)

Wurger said:


> Albatros D.III , D.2140/16.
> 
> View attachment 495335



The a/c of Ltn. Paul Erbguth, Jasta 30.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 4, 2018)

Wurger said:


> Fokker F1. 102/17
> 
> View attachment 495418



http://www.fokkerdr1.com/images/Dr1_102_Wolff_Crash.jpg


----------



## johnbr (Jun 17, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 17, 2018)

Complete with star-spangled wheels, Rickenbacker scored 20 kills in Spad ‘old number 1’

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 17, 2018)

Fokker E.V/D.VIII, Jasta 6, 1918






pic source: the net

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 17, 2018)

Nieuport Monoplane

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 17, 2018)

Sopwith Baby no N1033






the pic source: the net

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 17, 2018)

Good shots guys!


----------



## johnbr (Jun 17, 2018)

Trans-Atlantic Vimy at Brooklands in August 1919

The Vimy was the first twin-engined bomber built by Vickers and it became famous for the historic fligh by Alcock and Brown who became the first men to fly the Atlantic non-stop.

The prototype (B9952) was conceived and designed by Vickers Chief Designer Reginald Kirshaw Piersonwithin four month and flew at Joyce Green, Kent on 30th November 1917. 

Four prototypes were built and trialled with different engines (Hispano Suiza, Salmson, Sunbeam Maori, Fiat, Hispano and Rolls-Royce Eagle), with the production FB27A Vimy II using the Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII engines.

The first Vickers FB.27 went to Martlesham Heath for official trials in January 1918 where it caused a sensation by lifting a payload heavier than its main competitor, the Handley Page 0/400 which boasted almost twice the power. Unfortunately the Vimy was beset with engine problems and had to be returned to Joyce Green earlier than expected where a number of alternative powerplants were tried.

Unfortunately the type was too late to see Operational Service and, despite a large numbers of Vimy's being ordered, sadly many of the contracts were subsequently cancelled after the Armistice. The prototype survived and it was flown to Amsterdam in August 1919 to take part in the Vickers display at the E.L.T.A. exhibition.

In total, Vickers built 147 aircraft at Bexleyheath, Crayford and Weybridge with further construction contracts being placed with a number of other suppliers including: Clayton & Shuttleworth Ltd; Kingsbury Aviation Co.; Metropolitan Wagon Co.; Morgan & Co.; The Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough and Westland Aircraft Works (Branch of Petters Ltd). Over 1,000 aircraft were ordered under wartime contract but in the confusion of cancelled orders and unfinished aircraft, the total actually delivered is still uncertain although it appears to have been in excess of 230. 

In addition to a short-lived role as a torpedo bomber, many speculate that there was consideration given to fitting the aircraft with floatation devices although no evidence appears to exist of such a project.

There can be little doubt however that the Vimy would have had an important part to play in the First World War had it continued beyond 1918.

After the war, the type revealed its true capability with long distance, record-breaking flights. These included the famous first direct, non-stop Trans-Atlantic flight of Captain John Alcock (DSC) and Lt. Arthur Whitten-Brown (14th - 15th June 1919) when they flew from Newfoundland to County Galway, thus winning the £10,000 prize offered by the Daily Mail.

Later that year Ross and Keith Macpherson-Smith flew from England to Australia in G-EAOU between 12th November and 10th December 1919.

In addition to the Allcock & Brown Trans-Atlantic aircraft rebuilt and donated to the Science Museum in London, three full-size replicas have been created. The most well-known is the Vintage Flying Association aircraft at Brooklands (G-AWAU) although this is now in storage following display at The RAF Museum, Hendon during 2014.

Its potential of the Vimy as a military type is clearly demonstrated by its subsequent developments which included the following types: Vimy Commercial (44), Vernon (55), Virginia (126), Victoria (97) and Valentia (28).
*Vimy Commercial*
Vickers Vimy Commercial Variant K-107

The Vimy Commercial project saw an enlarged diameter fuselage aircraft take off on its maiden flight at Joyce Green on 13th April 1919. Although the prototype later entered the London-Cape Town Air Race in 1920, it was lost in a crash over Tanganika in February 1920. 

Twenty aircraft were converted to bombers and saw service in both the first and second Zhili-Fengtian War in China during 1922. The Chinese order a hundred aircraft although only forty aircraft were eventually assembled, the balance remaining in their crates unused.

Fifty-Five military transport versions of the Commercial were built for the RAF, entering service under the designation Vickers Vernon.

*Variants*
F.B.27 Vimy
4 Prototypes built

Initially powered by two 200hp Hispano-Swiza piston engines although a number of alternative engines were trialled.
F.B.27a Vimy II
4 Prototypes built
Production variant for the RAF. Heavy-bomber with two Rolls-Royse Eagle VIII piston engines
Vimy Ambulance
Air Ambulance conversion for the RAF
Vimy Commercial
Initially conceived as a civillian transport aircraft, powered by two Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII engines, later variants were produced in bomber configurations and introduced into RAF servive as the Vernon
A.N.F Express Les Mureaux A one-off conversion for the French aircraft manufacturer
*Specification (FB27a Vimy II)  *
Powerplant
Two 360hp Rolls-Royce Eagle VIII
Span
68ft 0in
Maximum Weight
12,500 lb
Capacity & Armament
Pilot and two gunners. Two Lewis guns and 2,476lb bomb load
Maximum Speed
103 mph
Endurance
11 hours

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 18, 2018)

Wasn't the Fokker D.VIII a post war aircraft?


----------



## Wurger (Jun 18, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Wasn't the Fokker D.VIII a post war aircraft?



The Fokker D.VIII among other planes of the Jasta 6 in 1918...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 18, 2018)

Wiki Page on Fokker D.VIII said:


> The first production E.V aircraft were shipped to _Jasta_ 6 in late July. The new monoplane was also delivered to _Jasta_ 1, _Jasta_ 19, _Jasta_ 24 and _Jasta_ 36. _Leutnant_ Emil Rolff scored the first kill in an E.V on August 17, 1918...


I stand corrected!
...nice pics Wurger. =)


----------



## Wurger (Jun 19, 2018)




----------



## Elvis (Jun 19, 2018)

Could we consider this the original fighter plane?.....

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 20, 2018)

An Italian Nieuport 11 ...Ni.2187. The engine cowling is painted in the same way.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 20, 2018)

WOW!...good job on the research Wurger! Could very well be the same plane...unless you know otherwise.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 20, 2018)

Neat pictures Fokker F I 102/17, as featured in this clip. Richtofen flew it at one stage...


_View: https://youtu.be/XIiuyijwKRs_




> A different way of thinking.



Not as different as we might think, most modern (60s, 70s, 80s era) air to air missiles, the Sidewinder, Sparrow etc were designed not to hit the targe tbut explode alongside or near it. The Sparrow had proximity sensors that triggered the explosive. This was hollow and contained shards opf metal that would shred the enemy aircraft's structure, but not be such a force to kill the pilot instantly. This enabled the occupant to eject.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 20, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Neat pictures Fokker F I 102/17, as featured in this clip. Richtofen flew it at one stage...
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/XIiuyijwKRs_
> ...



When I went to the USAF school to service these weapons in the mid 60s, they explained that the proximity fuse allowed the missile to close to it's closest possible proximity, it set off the warhead the very microsecond that the range started increasing. It wasn't out of any concern or kindness to the enemy pilots, they were just being realistic in not expecting direct hits.


----------



## Wurger (Jun 21, 2018)

Elvis said:


> WOW!...good job on the research Wurger! Could very well be the same plane...unless you know otherwise.



Oh yes.. the replic you posted above isn't the same Nieuport 11 no Ni.2187 I attached. The replic is of the Nieuport 11 no. Ni.2123. The plane was flown by Alvaro Leonardi, 80 Squadriglia.










Here is the true kite seen ..










Also he seems to use another Nieuport with quite similar art instead of the Italian roundel.. it was no.Ni.2152 Nieuport 11.






What is more here is the next one Nieuport 11 no.Ni.2140 with the next variant of the art. The one was flown by Sergente Maggiore Michele Allasia, 80 Squadriglia.











the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 21, 2018)

I stand in awe of Wurger's research abilities.
That was really cool. Thanks.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 22, 2018)

My pleasure. And THX.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 22, 2018)

And here the next Italian Nieuport 11.. no.Ni.2157 ...






the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 22, 2018)

Awesome!


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 22, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Neat pictures Fokker F I 102/17, as featured in this clip. Richtofen flew it at one stage...
> 
> 
> _View: https://youtu.be/XIiuyijwKRs_
> ...




If you watch the video, I swear to God that at about the 2:20 mark, the second guy from the left is Yul Brynner!


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)

The lined up Italian Nieuport 17s... the closest plane is the Nieuport 17 no. Ni.3632.






the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Roland CII Walfisch

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Early BE2c

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Friedrichshafen GIII Bomber - with crew

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Sopwith Tabloid factory

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Sopwith Dolphin C3786

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Lineup of Sopwith Strutter Fighters - 1917

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

- Nieuport 11 closeup of rockets


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

captured Nieuport 1834

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Fokker DRI


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

RE8 with Australian pilots - Cpl Foale 3rd from left

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Albatros BII - with pilot in flight gear

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Albatros fuselages on the move

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

German pilot in front of his machine

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

French pilot

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Sopwith Strutter

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

- German flight crew

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2018)

excellent posts by all.


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

the experimental team have built and fitted a set of two-bay wings to the prototype ‘Bulldog’ two-seat fighter and installed the 230hp Clerget engine taken from the ‘Hippo’. The ‘Bulldog’ is being prepared for flight trials at Brooklands.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

At Brooklands the conventional fuselage ‘Snail’ C4284 is awaiting rectification of its Wasp engine including new carburettors, and monocoque fuselage ‘Snail’ C4288 is being readied for testing to Martlesham Heath when Air Board Technical Department reports on their design and manufacture arrive. The criticisms of the gun installation can be addressed especially the lack of blast tubes to avoid igniting any petrol vapour in the cockpit but there is concern over the complexity and practicality of the welded engine mountings which include the front undercarriage strut sockets.(below) 





The report on the monocoque ‘Snail’ is not encouraging stating that “this machine is not to be considered a sound manufacturing proposition, the construction of the fuselage being on lines which do not lend themselves to production”. The fuselage construction as built up of 3/32 inch thick three-ply planks about 6 inches wide butt jointed in the cockpit area where the skin is double and lap jointed elsewhere, all attached by some 7,000 copper rivets to a series of 30 ash hoops at 6 inch spacing six of which have plywood formers attached. It is estimated that 60lbs of copper nails have been used, half of which has been wasted cutting to length before burring over. The whole fuselage is fabric covered and doped. The Sopwith experimental team have built another three conventional ‘Snail’ fuselage and wing sets which await engines and are now building a second monocoque fuselage

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)

And the next Italian Nieuport 11 no.Ni.3227






the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Basil George Watson, Pioneering Aviator (1894-1917)







Australian plane

Reactions: Like Like:
 2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## YGBSM (Jun 23, 2018)

Does this thread make anyone else want to play Rise of Flight?


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 23, 2018)

Good stuff guys!


----------



## Elvis (Jun 23, 2018)

The great Albert Ball...


----------



## Wurger (Jun 23, 2018)




----------



## Graeme (Jun 23, 2018)

Very nice photos John. 



johnbr said:


> the experimental team have built and fitted a set of two-bay wings to the prototype ‘Bulldog’ two-seat fighter and installed the 230hp Clerget engine taken from the ‘Hippo’. The ‘Bulldog’ is being prepared for flight trials at Brooklands.
> View attachment 498818



This one however - is not the Bulldog.
It's the Sopwith Snail...

Sopwith Snail - Wikipedia


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Airco DH5 | BAE Systems | International

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Bristol M1C Monoplane 
Bristol M1 Monoplane | BAE Systems | International

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Airco DH2 | BAE Systems | International

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

Albatros D.III - The Red Baron

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

From



Air & Space magazine

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)

A Farman airplane with rockets attached to its struts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 23, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 23, 2018)

johnbr said:


> Airco DH5 | BAE Systems | International
> View attachment 498985
> View attachment 498986
> View attachment 498987


I wonder if this is where Beechcraft got the idea....


----------



## Wurger (Jun 24, 2018)




----------



## Wurger (Jun 24, 2018)

A captured Spad ...







the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 24, 2018)

BE.12 with Le Prieur rockets..






the pic source: the net

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 24, 2018)




----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 24, 2018)

> It wasn't out of any concern or kindness to the enemy pilots, they were just being realistic in not expecting direct hits.



Oh, sounds feasible enough in the 60s, but accuracy improved quickly with weapons like the Sparrow and Skyflash. That was explained to me by a guy who worked on them with the RAF (the Skyflash, not the Sparrow). We had a dismantled example where I worked and I had a few techies over the years explain stuff to me about them.

I have a walkaround of that Nieuport here:

Warbirds | Warbirds Walkaround


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 24, 2018)

Someone's bookmarked The Vintage Aviator site...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jun 30, 2018)

SSW D.III


----------



## johnbr (Jun 30, 2018)

1917 Galvin Hydro ?


----------



## johnbr (Jun 30, 2018)

Nieuport Triplane


----------



## johnbr (Jun 30, 2018)

Captain Eddie Rickenbacker was the oldest ace of the war. One even states “_At the advanced age of 27 he was two years older than the age limit for pilots but Rickenbacker proved a natural in the cockpit. Thanks to driving around General Pershing, he was able to talk his way into the Air Service, receive flight training and then ended up in command of the USAS 94th Aero Squadron finishing the war with 26 victories and the Medal of Honor_.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jun 30, 2018)

Here is a shot of the Fokker E.III no. 210/16 captured because of the mistake of a German pilot landing on enymy airfield. The caption says that the number is the 210 what sounds good especially there are other images of the captured plane. However if you look at the enlarged number it is not sure entirely. IMHO it should be 218 ... Thoughts?


























pic source: the net..

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jun 30, 2018)

Tail is different between the two planes.
210's is larger, rounder.
I think you're right.


----------



## Wurger (Jul 1, 2018)

Humm.. I would say the shape of the rudder ( IMHO that's the part you mean by the tail ) is an optical trick intensified by the vertical strips. Also it might be noticed that the shape can be different because of the angle a pic was taken with. Certainly , the edition of the size of the image can't be eliminated.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 1, 2018)

Thank you, I couldn't remember the word...yes, the rudder is what I was getting at.
The top pic in post # 232 is from the same series of shots as the one I commented on?
If so, then yes, it was s trick of the lens, otherwise, I can see the rudder seen in the pic you are questioning seems less rounded than the others you showed.


----------



## Wurger (Jul 1, 2018)

Elvis said:


> T... The top pic in post # 232 is from the same series of shots as the one I commented on?



Yes it is. That's the another shot showing her.






the pic source: the net.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 1, 2018)

johnbr said:


> 1917 Galvin Hydro ?
> View attachment 500101


Where's the propeller? I have a horrible suspicion it's in the suspicious gap behind the wing. 

IN a similar vein: the Gallaudet D-4 By US Navy - http://celticowboy.com/Early Acft Photo.htm, Public Domain, File:Gallaudet D-4 Seaplane 1918 samf4u.jpg - Wikimedia Commons


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 2, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Where's the propeller? I have a horrible suspicion it's in the suspicious gap behind the wing.



Yep...the engine is in the back-end of the front fuselage section and it presumably drove a pusher propeller located in the gap.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 2, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Yep...the engine is in the back-end of the front fuselage section and it presumably drove a pusher propeller located in the gap.



And they thought this was a good idea because...?


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 2, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> And they thought this was a good idea because...?


Alcohol?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Jul 2, 2018)

Humm..this must have been much stronger.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 2, 2018)

Peter Gunn said:


> And they thought this was a good idea because...?


A ducted fan is not a new idea.
This is obviously what they were after with that plane.


----------



## Wurger (Jul 2, 2018)

I would say the idea for the kind of propulsion was used because of possibility of getting of the best forward visibility for the observer in the first cockpit. What is more the way the plane was powered doesn't seem to be the ducted fan. The four-blade prop was attached to the ring spinning around the fuselage just behind the wings. Here a couple of shots found via the net where the prop can be seen better. So no tunnel there for the prop.






















the pic source: the net.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 2, 2018)

Apologies Wurger. From this picture....






...I thought I could see blades inside the ring in the middle section.
Obviously, those are cylinders.
Thanks for the clarification. =)


Elvis


----------



## Wurger (Jul 2, 2018)

Ah sorry I was sure you reffered to the pic with the Gallaudet D-4.


Here is the Spad SA-2 with the similar way of propulsion but with the tractor prop ..


----------



## gumbyk (Jul 2, 2018)

The idea was to put the prop behind the guns, before they had working interrupter gears.


----------



## Wurger (Jul 2, 2018)

Yep the reason could be too.


A drawing for the Galvin seaplane..

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Jul 2, 2018)

Yep, gumbyk's on it.


----------



## Wurger (Jul 2, 2018)

I would say the reason could be possible too. IMHO the idea of putting the prop behind the guns wasn't the main reason ( if at all ) since a gun synchronizer was well-know from 1915 at least. The Gallaudet D-4.appeared in 1918 and the Galvin HC in 1919. The Airco DH.2 Pusher appeared in 1915 as the "response" to the Fokker plane with the synchronized MG and actually was an alternative because of the temporary lack of the gun synchronizer by the Allies. In 1918 and especially in 1919 the idea of moving the prop behind guns doesn't seem to be realistic because the kind of the synchronizing device was well known and used by all sides of the war in that time.


----------



## Graeme (Jul 2, 2018)

Another interesting pusher fighter concept from France in 1917...

De Bruyère C 1 - Wikipedia

From Green/Swanborough...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 3, 2018)

Junkers J 7

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Jul 3, 2018)

Ju








Junkers J=1 
Vor hundert Jahren: Erstflug der Junkers J 1 am 12. Dezember 1915


----------



## johnbr (Jul 3, 2018)

23. Sept. 1916: Todessturz von Unteroffizier Schade mit einer Junkers J 2 
Junker j-2

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 3, 2018)

johnbr said:


> Junkers J 7
> View attachment 500428



That is SOOOO Steampunk.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 4, 2018)

Junkers Ju-2 front


----------



## Wurger (Jul 4, 2018)




----------



## Milosh (Jul 5, 2018)

Great photos johnbr.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 9, 2018)

SOPWITH CAMEL


----------



## Wurger (Jul 9, 2018)




----------



## Elvis (Jul 9, 2018)

I am lucky enough to have W.O Bentley's biography and there's a whole chapter on the aero engines he designed in WWI, yet I've never heard of any airplane from their era using a "Bentley....".
...actually, come to think of it, I don't think it was produced under his name, so it may be under another name.
Anyone know what I'm talking about?
What airplanes used his engine(s)?


Elvis


----------



## Milosh (Jul 9, 2018)

One of the engines used by the Sopwith Camel was the 150hp Bentley AR1/BR1.

The 1st Snipe used a Bentley BR1 engine. Another engine used by the Snipe was the 230hp BR2.


----------



## Elvis (Jul 9, 2018)

Sopwith? Really? That's pretty cool! 
I've only known the Camel's to be powered by the Clerget engines.
Thanks for the info!


----------



## rednev (Jul 10, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Sopwith? Really? That's pretty cool!
> I've only known the Camel's to be powered by the Clerget engines.
> Thanks for the info!


 several different engines where used including le rhone 110 hp clerget 9b 130 hp clerget 9bf 140 hp bentley br1 150 hp 
and in case you didnt know lots of camels where built by other firms for example the austin car company boulton and paul and many others

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 7, 2018)

Albatros D.III OAW built no. D.636/17

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Aug 7, 2018)

Must be a captured aircraft...those look like ANZAC's standing in the background.


----------



## Wurger (Aug 7, 2018)

Yes you are right. ... Weli Sheikh Nuran, Palestine. 8 October 1917. A German Air Force D III Albatros no. D.636/17, flown by Oberleutnant Gustav Adolf Dittmar of Fliegerabteilung 300 unit. The aircraft had been shot down, practically intact, into AIF Light Horse lines near Bersheeba by a Bristol fighter aircraft flown by Lieutenant R. Steele a Canadian pilot with No 111 Squadron, Royal Flying Corps. No 1 Squadron, Australian Flying Corps, members recovered the machine and moved it to their airfield where repairs, including a bullet holed radiator, were carried out returning it to flying condition. 

Here is another shot of her while being captured and examined by Australian soldiers..






The pic source: Home | The Australian War Memorial

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Aug 7, 2018)

I wonder what those soldiers thought about the plane (aside from the fact that it belongs to the enemy), seeing it up close like that.
Probably the first (and maybe, only) time they had a chance to do that.

Elvis


----------



## Wurger (Aug 7, 2018)

I would say they could have found the plane a modern one. Contrary to other planes of that era the fuselage covered with the plywood looking like semi-shell, a quite good engine. A nice appearance, etc.. all that made the plane interesting with the aviation techology.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Aug 7, 2018)

Yes, I agree.
The monocoque fuselage was some pretty forward thinking at that time.
I understand the idea behind that was inspired by the racing hulls rowers use.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 7, 2018)

It is possible one of those men in the shot is my Grandfather, though I cant recognize him. He was in Beersheba at that date. Along with several thousand other Light Horsemen. If these men can be identified as members of the 7th mounted regiment, my interest will go up considerably


----------



## Elvis (Aug 7, 2018)

Parsifal,

Was your grandfather in the same regiment that was portrayed in the movie _The Lighthorsemen_?
I love that movie. One of my favourites.


Elvis


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 7, 2018)

parsifal said:


> It is possible one of those men in the shot is my Grandfather, though I cant recognize him. He was in Beersheba at that date. Along with several thousand other Light Horsemen. If these men can be identified as members of the 7th mounted regiment, my interest will go up considerably



Try posting the image with your question under the "War in the Air" sub-forum of the Great War Forum (just Google "Great War Forum" and you'll find the link). There are some very knowledgeable chaps and chappesses on that site who may be able to offer more info than you ever thought possible.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2018)

Elvis said:


> Parsifal,
> 
> Was your grandfather in the same regiment that was portrayed in the movie _The Lighthorsemen_?
> I love that movie. One of my favourites.
> ...


Best way to show his units is to post the details of one of his service medals. Pte AW Glenn, service number 158, posted to the 7th LH regt







buffnut453 said:


> Try posting the image with your question under the "War in the Air" sub-forum of the Great War Forum (just Google "Great War Forum" and you'll find the link). There are some very knowledgeable chaps and chappesses on that site who may be able to offer more info than you ever thought possible.


I think I might........

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2018)

The images posted are several that can be traced back to the AWM collection

here is another







7LH was in the area generally at approximately the time the aircraft was recovered, with the regt pushing past the city and engaging in sustained patrol activity. as the british began their push toward Jerusalem. My grandfather was a designated scout, issued a fine grey horse nearly 17 hands high. My dad mentioned a story a few times about how my grandfather was involved in the capture of a german officer. This makes me wonder if it had anything to do with this aircraft. I cant prove anything and chances are stacked firmly against any of this, still its intriguing to say the least.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Albatros-DIII-and-DVa/DVa

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 8, 2018)

And here is the next one. This photograph shows the aircraft just after it arrived at No 1 Squadron airfield.






the pic source: Home | The Australian War Memorial

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)

World War I in Photos: Aerial Warfare
A German Pfalz E.I prepares to land, April 1916. #

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Aug 27, 2018)

Captain Ross-Smith (left) and Observer in front of a Modern Bristol Fighter, 1st Squadron A.F.C. Palestine, February 1918. This image was taken using the Paget process, an early experiment in color photography.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Aug 27, 2018)




----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 27, 2018)

johnbr said:


> Captain Ross-Smith (left) and Observer in front of a Modern Bristol Fighter, 1st Squadron A.F.C. Palestine, February 1918.



Nice picture; there's a series of similarly coloured images taken of 1 Sqn AFC at the time. Ross MacPherson Smith and his brother Keith were the first to fly an aeroplane between England and Australia, a Vickers Vimy, which is on display at Adelaide airport, South Australia.


----------



## johnbr (Oct 20, 2018)



Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Oct 20, 2018)




----------



## Elvis (Oct 21, 2018)




----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2018)

Just read on another forum that HAC at Duxford, Cambs run its Airco DH.9 for the first time. This one.





DH.9 

Basking in the sun at Flying Legends.




DH.9 i 

I can't seem to find any footage of it running apart from that posted in the forum, which came off stalkbook.


----------



## Wurger (Oct 22, 2018)




----------



## xylstra (Nov 5, 2019)

Far from bizarre, the de Bruyere C1 was great - not only a design which ticks a lot of boxes for a combat fighter but "Wow" what a visionary leap into the future! Compare it to Rutan's 'Quickie' ~65 years later. Shame it did a 'TITANIC' on the first outing but this does not necessarily mean that the design was at fault. A double shame there was no post-mortem and no resurrection.
I feel cheated!


----------



## Elvis (Nov 6, 2019)

…_interesting _ ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Nov 9, 2019)

I have to recommend the Seattle Museum of Flight‘s WW1 aircraft collection, both its replicas and actual aircraft.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Nov 9, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> I have to recommend the Seattle Museum of Flight‘s WW1 aircraft collection, both its replicas and actual aircraft.


I need to go visit that place again. Haven't been there since the late 1980's.
I hear its completely different now.
Have you been to Paul Allen's Flying Heritage museum in Arlington?
I still need to make that sojourn, too.
There's a small museum out in Port Townsend for a few years now. Went there when it first opened. Nice, but small. Lunch at Sruce Goose is worth the trip alone. 


Elvis


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

Ground crewmen help guide a Jasta 27 Fokker Dr.I into position for takeoff at Halluin-Ost near Flanders in May 1918.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

HistoryMagic lantern slide WW1, 1914-1918, World war one images. German Fokker aircaraft, single wing and bi plane. Display of captured German weapons and artillary at Horse Guards Parade, London 3rd November 1915.(Photo by: Universal History Archive

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

UNITED KINGDOM - APRIL 15: A Sopwith Camel, First World War fighter seen outside a hangar. The Camel, being small and lightweight, represented the latest in fighter design at the time. It shot down 1,294 enemy aircraft during World War I (1914-1918), more than any other Allied fighter. More men lost their lives learning to fly it than using it in combat, because it was so hard to fly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

War 1914-1918. Two-seater airplane Nieuport, in 19UNSPECIFIED - CIRCA 1917: War 1914-1918. Two-seater airplane Nieuport, in 1917. (Photo by Boyer/Roger Viollet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

UNSPECIFIED - 1917: War 1914-1918. Accident of an airplane Farman during a night-landing. On 1917. BOY-8851. (Photo by Boyer/Roger Violle 
UNSPECIFIED - 1914: War 1914-1918. Missed(failed) landing on the return to a bombardment. Airplane Farman piloted by Duchaussoy. BOY-8852

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

War and Conflict, World War War I, (1914-1918) pic: 1916, David McLellan, right, and colleague in front of a plane of the Royal Flying Corps, McLellan was one of the originators of the photo section for the R,F,C (Photo by Paul Popper/Popperfoto

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 9, 2019)

johnbr said:


> More men lost their lives learning to fly it than using it in combat, because it was so hard to fly.


Takeoffs and landings, it was like a BF109 on steroids. If you ground looped it spectacularly enough to break the wing bracing matrix, down comes the center section fuel tank right on top of the engine and the guns. "Good golly Miss Molly, great balls of fire!"


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 9, 2019)

johnbr said:


> German Fokker aircaraft, single wing and bi plane.





johnbr said:


> London 3rd November 1915.


What are those two Fokker?? biplanes in the background? They're definitely not D7s (too early) and they look like larger two seaters, like maybe Rumplers or LVGs?
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## johnbr (Nov 9, 2019)

A few men push a military triplane on an airfield toward a hangar. Germany, 1914-1918. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis
Ground mechanics work on Fokker military triplanes. Germany, 1914-1918.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 10, 2019)

World War One, The Albatross D. III of Manfred von Richthofen (1892-1918), German Air Force ace, at an aviation exhibition in Berlin, 1914. (Photo by Roger Viollet

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## johnbr (Nov 10, 2019)

War and Conflict, World War War I, (1914-1918) A two man German aeroplane on a snow covered field


----------



## johnbr (Nov 10, 2019)

War and Conflict, World War War I, (1914-1918) pic: circa 1915, A German bomber about to take off from a snow covered field, The plane is twin engined and is fitted with a special apparatus for bomb dropping (Photo by Popperfoto


----------



## johnbr (Nov 10, 2019)

Oberleutnant Hermann Goering sits in the cockpit of his Fokker Dr.I #206/17 Triplane fighter aircraft of Jagdstaffel 27 from Jagdgeschwader III(JG III) circa May 1918 at Vivaise aerodrome in the Aisne department of northern France. 
(Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)




Hermann Goering with the pursuit pilots in Flanders when he was leader of a pursuit squadron.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 10, 2019)

XBe02Drvr said:


> What are those two Fokker?? biplanes in the background? They're definitely not D7s (too early) and they look like larger two seaters, like maybe Rumplers or LVGs?
> Cheers,
> Wes



Wes,

I think the nearer of the 2 is a Halberstadt C.II. I have no clue about the other one.


----------



## Wurger (Nov 10, 2019)




----------



## Snautzer01 (Nov 10, 2019)

WWI Bi-plane Airplane Skull and Crossbones Nose Art MAITA photo | eBay


----------



## Wurger (Nov 10, 2019)




----------



## Gnomey (Dec 5, 2019)

Nice shots!


----------

