WW1 aircraft

[Shortround6]

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]

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]

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?

 

[pbehn]

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]

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.

 

[Graeme]

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]

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]

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.

 

[nuuumannn]

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]

Sopwith Camel F.1 No.F6394

Sopwith Camel - front view

 

[Graeme]

D.H.5 at Trafalgar...

Airco DH.5 - Wikipedia

 

[The Basket]

Not only development in technology but also doctrine.

 

[Graeme]

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

 

[Wurger]

RAF B.E.2

 

[nuuumannn]

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

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

D.H.5

 

[Wurger]

RAF B.E.2

 

[vikingBerserker]

Nice!

 

[Wurger]

RAF B.E.2

 

[buffnut453]

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!

 

[tyrodtom]

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.