Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The early SE-5's had a sort of canopy that surrounded the front of the cockpit, but was open at the rear. Pilots didn't like it either, so it wasn't installed thereafter.
Thanks Fubar, it's not uncommon (and sadly frustrating) that many publications that present as authoritative aren't nearly as well researched as perhaps they should be. I had previously seen photographs of the final open-top version some time ago but only the drawing of the prior closed-top canopy.
No problem! Just use your fore-finger to flick back one page and "there she be!" Cheers.Hm, this is interesting Xylstra, I've not heard this before and would like to know more. I have found a brief mention of the prototype's windshieds by Jack Bruce in The Aeroplanes of the Royal Flying Corps Military Wing (Putnam, 1992), in which he states, "A very large windscreen was fitted and was designed to protect the pilot when he had to deal with a jammed Vickers gun." Later in the same chapter he states that, "[The first production SE.5] resembled the modified A4652, having a windscreen that was, if anything, more voluminous than that of the prototype."
Addenda: I have seen a side view of the prototype with its windshied and it was just that, a triangular shaped shield ahead of the pilot and not fully enclosed, so this is probably what Bruce is referring to.
Is there any possibility of posting a copy of said drawing?
But sorry to disappoint: the S.E.5 is still the first. The combat issue version had an open-top wrap-around 'wind-deflector' but prior to this they test-flew a prototype with a fully-enclosed hood. Seen a drawing but would still like to see a photo. Cheers, Xylstra.
Hi, Did you not understand my message? You are currently on page 2. Extend your forefinger and tap on page 1. The drawing is already there. Cheers.This is what specifically I'm referring to. The fully enclosed hood of the SE.5. Where did you see the drawing and can you post it?
Probably should have been clearer, other aircraft types i.e. S.E.4 were commandeered as 'test-mules' to investigate ideas used on other models (S.E.5.). In war-time you use whatever is to hand so as not to divert limited manpower/materials away from primary production. Cheers, Xylstra.The drawing says SE.4. Looking for the SE.5 drawing you mentioned
Hi, Did you not understand my message? You are currently on page 2. Extend your forefinger and tap on page 1. The drawing is already there. Cheers.
other aircraft types i.e. S.E.4 were commandeered as 'test-mules' to investigate ideas used on other models (S.E.5.). In war-time you use whatever is to hand so as not to divert limited manpower/materials away from primary production.
I think you guys are becoming too pedantic on this subject. I don't hink you appreciate how ad-hoc many of these ideas were, fab'd up on a designers whim. i.e. there are no design committees, nor scientists running around wearing white-coats. This is why conducting historical research from this period is so difficult, simply because much was never recoreded, hence, intelligent speculation is sometimes all you're left with. Moreover, multiple authors DO regularly miss development variants.No, frankly, I didn't, because there is no drawing of the SE.5 on the previous page, as Geo pointed out. The SE.4 and SE.5 are two very different aircraft and as I mentioned in a previous post, the SE.4 never flew with the blown canopy. As for your claim about a photograph of it fitted, there is one, albeit a replica fitted, in Paul Hare's book The Royal Aircraft Factory (Putnam, 1990) on page 277 (go look it up - I'm not gonna post it here). In fact your whole premise has been misleading regarding the SE.5's hood - mention of the SE.4's hood is well known and can even be found on wikipedia, despite your claim that authors regularly miss it.
"The pilot sat in a cockpit under the trailing edge of the upper wing; unusually for the time, a transparent canopy made out of celluloid to fit the cockpit was made, but pilots refused to fly with it fitted and the canopy was never used."
From here: Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.4 - Wikipedia
As for this,
Do you have any evidence that the hood on SE.4 was intended as a research feature for the SE.5? Or is this another unsubstantiated statement you are leading us to believe?
Moreover, multiple authors DO regularly miss development variants.
SE.5a ...
I hate to say it, Wojtek, but those are SE.5s, not SE.5as.
Thank you for your kind words.