ID neede

[Graeme]

Yes, I am doing the same. I have been slowly going through Aerofiles and am up to H so far with no luck.

You have my heartfelt admiration for attempting this - Aerofiles is a black hole that can swallow and crush you. Have you also noticed their search engine is dead?

But to my eyes, I don't think it's a Lincoln cabin cruiser.
The Lincoln appears to have a greenhouse cabin dropped on the passengers head whereas the mystery aircraft has it's passengers totally enclosed in the fuselage.
From what I can see and imagine - the tail shape is very different.

 

[GrauGeist]

You're spot in with the cockpit, Graeme, it's hard to see because of the strut and the exhaust is really unusual.

That is one of the key items I have been using in my hunt.

 

[Wurger]

I agree, the shape of the fin and rudder looks similar to the one used for the Travelair biplane series ..

or the Curtiss Model R and ...

the Fiat ARF, at least ...

 

[hawkeye2an]

You have my heartfelt admiration for attempting this - Aerofiles is a black hole that can swallow and crush you. Have you also noticed their search engine is dead?

But to my eyes, I don't think it's a Lincoln cabin cruiser.
The Lincoln appears to have a greenhouse cabin dropped on the passengers head whereas the mystery aircraft has it's passengers totally enclosed in the fuselage.
From what I can see and imagine - the tail shape is very different.

View attachment 641085View attachment 641086View attachment 641087View attachment 641088

All good points. Since Joe Baugher died Aerofiles has been more and more difficult to use. Still the best resource for something so hard to find as this. I thought the layout of wings, struts and landing gear was right on, too bad the engine isn't really shown. This is the closest I've come, so far, usually when I find out what the plane is called, I can come up with more info. Not so with the Lincoln-Standard. The fact that it was listed as having more than 1 engine makes me think this could be a further development of the type.

 

[nuuumannn]

This image was posted by a local and I am supposed to be the expert, but this one has me stumped, any help?

It looks like a Westland Limousine III, but there are considerable differences and there were only two Limousine IIIs built. It's the same configuration, three-bay biplane with its pax cabin and big windows ahead of the pilot, a big square radiator and horns on the ailerons, but their shape and the undercarriage differ from the Limousine... It also looks like it could be powered by a Napier Lion engine, like the Limousine.

 

[cammerjeff]

I agree it is a possibility, and I agree with all your points about the landing gear being different, but I also think the passenger cabin of the plane we are trying to ID is smaller than the Westland Limousine III, I wonder if they made a hybrid type with the smaller Limousine I or II Fuselage and the Larger III wings? Also the exhaust pipe on the plane in the original post is much different than any of the Limousine pictures I have found on line.

I like the effort being put into this! And I think this is the closest match yet!

 

[GrauGeist]

The Limousine III was fairly large. All of the types I've seen have a squared radiator and a four blade prop, too.

Limousine III

On the otherhand, I keep going back to the Standard J, which has it's roots in the Curtiss J design and looks much closer to the mystery aircraft than any I have seen so far.

Ryan Standard J-1

The hunt continues...

 

[hawkeye2an]

I've never been stumped this long. Back to Aerofiles today.

 

[vikingBerserker]

It does look like there is a tank on top of the wing.

Is it just me or does the cowling look like it has cloth over it? It looks wrinkled and not smooth.

 

[Capt. Vick]

 

[nuuumannn]

Also the exhaust pipe on the plane in the original post is much different than any of the Limousine pictures I have found on line.

True, I don't think it is a Limousine III, but it certainly looks like one.

Do you have any information about where the photograph was taken? That looks like a non-rigid airship shed behind the aircraft.

On the otherhand, I keep going back to the Standard J, which has it's roots in the Curtiss J design and looks much closer to the mystery aircraft than any I have seen so far.

There are certainly similarities and it's a great photo, but I dunno if the mystery aircraft is a Standard, there are details that give it away, the mystery aeroplane has equal span three-bay wings with no dihedral, whereas the Standard has unequal span two-bay wings with dihedral.

 

[nuuumannn]

It's definitely not this one, this is a Sopwith Three-Seat Tractor Biplane, the first Sopwith designed aeroplane built in (small) numbers.

A bit of a stab in the dark, but I was thinking that the mystery aeroplane could be a French Latecoere design? Latecoere designed a number of airliners of different configurations, but it's difficult to get information on all of them. This is obviously not the same type of aircraft, but is a Latecoere design, a Late 27 mail carrier.

Late 27

 

[GrauGeist]

There are certainly similarities and it's a great photo, but I dunno if the mystery aircraft is a Standard, there are details that give it away, the mystery aeroplane has equal span three-bay wings with no dihedral, whereas the Standard has unequal span two-bay wings with dihedral.

Something worth noting, is that quite a few aircraft companies were copying or modifying proven types during that time.
The passenger aircraft I posted in #27 is a Ryan Stanard J-1, which was a modified Standard J-1.
In this case, the Ryan Aircraft Company bought 9 military surplus Standard J aircraft and modified them to carry passengers.

I tried to follow just how many companies were involved with Curtiss' J type and I literally got lost.

The Standard J, as manufactured by the Standard Aircraft Company, had 8 variants for the military alone.

Enter the civilian (surplus) market, and there were over 6 major companies making modified types of Standard's J and add to that, the countless one-offs that would be nearly impossible to know of.

Back to the variants, here's a Stanard JB used as a mail plane. The strut count is not the same as the mystery aircraft, but note the upper and lower wings are equidistant unlike many of the J types.

 

[nuuumannn]

Something worth noting, is that quite a few aircraft companies were copying or modifying proven types during that time.

Right you are, Dave, it could well be, and I'm not saying it isn't a Standard modded aircraft, because it's a possibility, but at the moment we are stabbing in the dark.

I'd like to know more about the background. That certainly looks like an airship shed.

 

[GrauGeist]

Right you are, Dave, it could well be, and I'm not saying it isn't a Standard modded aircraft, because it's a possibility, but at the moment we are stabbing in the dark.

I'd like to know more about the background. That certainly looks like an airship shed.

Agreed - I sure wish I had my computer, I could better ID the mystery ship and the background, which does appear to be an airship shed.
And just to restate my earlier comment, it looks a great deal like it has Curtiss influence (hoop skids, strut placement, cowling/radiator, landing gear, etc.), however that happens to cover a rather large share of aircraft types of the day!

I keep going back to the center-duct exhaust, which is unusual along with the wrinkled sheet metal on the cowling (which David noted looking like canvas) and I feel those are hallmarks of a modification.
It also puzzles me that they would have the exhaust open ahead of the passenger area due to the noise and exhaust gas exposure?

It's also worth noting that tracking down the Curtiss J series subtypes and variants is a rabbit hole of epic proportions...

 

[nuuumannn]

And just to restate my earlier comment, it looks a great deal like it has Curtiss influence (hoop skids, strut placement, cowling/radiator, landing gear, etc.)

I noticed that, the tail, like the illustrations helpfully provided on the previous page, has an American look about it, although the engine centrally mounted in the cowl looks more European and does look like a Lion installation, the Curtiss engines, the likes of the OX-5 were usually mounted further up in the nose.

 

[cammerjeff]

The Closest Airship hanger to the one in the background of the picture I could find it this one The Caption reads "Military airship hangar "at a Mediterranean base" (possibly Lemnos, in the Aegean Sea). Credit: Scientific American, June 10, 1916"

So I am Leaning on a European Location for the picture. And I am also leaning to more of a Balloon Hangar than an airship Hangar by its shape, size, and its state of seeming disrepair in the 1918-22 time frame I think we are looking at for the photo.

Very interesting thread.

Source Fragile Sentinels, 1916

 

[special ed]

A few additional observations. The hangar/airship shed has been unused long enough for names of advertisers to have been applied and faded. The wheels of the plane seem very down in grass or dirt. Perhaps Wurger could use his photo enhancement magic to bring out the sign on the hangar for at least a clue as to country.

 

[Wurger]

I've already tried. The pic is really of very poor quality. Mayby the article from the local newspaper the image was scanned from could be a good hint.

 

[GrauGeist]

I'm trying really hard, but I may as well be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest for all the good this cellphone is. (have I mentioned that I hate this phone?)

The building in the background certainly looks aero related, but not large enough to be an airship hangar, at least ones that could house dirigibles - those things are massive.
After WWI, many airfields popped up all across the US, many being rural with a large hangar facility and it was not uncommon to see advertising painted on them, which this appears to have.