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...
WW1 aircraft
- Thread starter johnbr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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...
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)
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
Captain
Looks like it's screwed itself into the ground...probably the safest option!
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Author John WR Taylor said aircraft performance didn't advance in ww1?
I would say it did!
I would say it did!
I think he was referring to the 135mph figure.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
Altitude and bomb load and range obviously was ignored.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
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.
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.
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.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
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.
"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
Lieutenant General
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
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
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
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.
Yep, and 0 to 4000lb bomb load (Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI) is hardlyno progress either...
