It's Time To Play,"What's My Plane" !

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Not to worry Olham. In about 20 minutes you will have the next set of photos to redeem yourself with.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Typing fingers at the ready everyone. Do you have that fresh cup of tea or coffee to stimulate the grey matter? Very good then. Here is your fourth set of photos to have a crack at. Please remember the rules, (found in the first post of this thread), and if you are going for that second point I want to see at least a 150-word description about features shown in the photo and/or about the plane itself.

 

 

 

 

 

Good luck all. Round 4 begins now. Let's play What's My Plane!

 

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Olham 164]

The SPAD S.VII was the first of a series of highly successful biplane fighter aircraft produced

by Société Pour L'Aviation et ses Dérivés (SPAD) during the First World War. Like its successors,

the S.VII was renowned as a sturdy and rugged aircraft with good climbing and diving characteristics.

It was also a stable gun platform, although pilots used to the more manoeuvrable Nieuport fighters

found it heavy on the controls. It was flown by a number of the famous aces, such as France's Georges

Guynemer and Italy's Francesco Baracca.

SPAD test pilot Bequet flew the SPAD V for the first time in April 1916.[2] Flight testing revealed

excellent maximum speed (192 km/h, 119 mph) and climb rate (4.5 min to 2,000 m or 6,500 ft).

The airframe's sound construction also enabled remarkable diving performance. In comparison, the Nieuport

fighters that equipped a large part of the fighter units on the front suffered from overly light construction,

and a tendency to shed its wings in steep dives. The combination of high speed and good diving ability

promised to give Allied pilots the initiative to engage or leave combat. If the new fighter was a rugged

and stable shooting platform, some pilots regretted its lack of maneuverability, especially when compared

to lighter types such as the Nieuport 11 or 17.

In the face of such performance, an initial production contract was made on 10 May 1916, calling for

268 machines, to be designated SPAD VII C.1 (C.1 indicating the aircraft was a single-seat fighter).[2]

Early production aircraft suffered from a number of defects which took some time to solve and limited the

delivery rate to units. While a few SPADs arrived to frontline units as early as August 1916, large numbers

would only begin to appear in the first months of 1917. Among the problems encountered were problems with

the Hispano-Suiza engine. In hot weather, the engine was prone to over-heating. Various field modifications

were used to counter the problem, including cutting extra holes in the metal sheeting to provide more air

flow over the engine. On the production lines, the cowling opening was first enlarged and eventually redesigned

with vertical shutters to solve the problem. The engine mount also proved too weak and reinforcements were

designed to counter that.[3] Early production aircraft also had two ammunition drums: one for normal rounds

and the other for empty ones. This system was prone to jamming and was only solved when Prideaux disintegrating

ammo links were introduced.

With the initial teething problems solved, several subcontractors began producing the SPAD VII under license in

order to supply frontline units with the fighter. The subcontractors were the firms Grémont, Janoir, Kellner et

Fils, de Marçay, Société d'Etudes Aéronautiques, Régy and Sommer. It was not, however, until February 1917 that

the initial batch of 268 aircraft was delivered. In early 1917, an improved version of the engine developing

180 hp, the Hispano-Suiza 8Ab, was made available. This new powerplant provided the SPAD VII with even better

performance, the top speed increasing from 192 km/h (119 mph) to 208 km/h (129 mph). The new engine gradually

became the standard powerplant for the SPAD VII and by April 1917, all newly produced aircraft were equipped

with it. (Wikipedia)

 

"Vieux Charles" was the signature of George Guynemer, Esc. 3 "Les Cigognes" (The Storks), so this should be his

SPAD VII, or a replica of it.

 

PS: pic nr. 14, of course!

Edited August 22, 2009 by Olham

[RAF_Louvert 101]

And he pounces on it! Outstanding Olham, and lightening fast Sir. Two points to you.

 

BTW, it is a repilca of Guynemer's "Vieux Charles". I believe the original is hanging in the Musee de l'Air in Le Bourget, France.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Olham 164]

Ssanks a lot, mein Herr! Zee 'Pour Le Merite' is a Prussian order.

I am ein Prussian offizier, ant muszt try to brink ziss medal home!

 

Some more about that SPAD. In a craft like this, Guynemer had that famous fight with or against

Ernst Udet (search for it in YouTube - History Channel, Dogfights), where Udet after some furious

turning and looping had a gun jam - and Guynemer noticed and let him go.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Olham

[Luftace 0]

This is a Royal Aircraft Factory Be12, as noted by the more powerful RAF4 engine, easily distinguished by the large air scoop designed to cool the rear engine cylinders as they otherwise recieved less airflow. Though a good idea, the scoop only had mediocre results. The B.E.12 was essentially a B.E.2c with the front (observer’s) cockpit replaced by a large fuel tank, and the 90hp RAF 1 engine of the standard B.E.2c replaced by the new 150 hp RAF 4. The B.E.12a variant flew for the first time in February 1916 and had the modified wings of the B.E.2e. It was rather more manoeuvrable than the B.E.12, but was otherwise little improvement.

 

The B.E.12b used the B.E.2c airframe but had the 200 hp Hispano-Suiza engine. It was intended as a pure night fighter, and carried wing mounted Lewis guns in place of the synchronised Vickers. Apparently it had a good performance, but the engine was more urgently needed for the S.E.5a and very few B.E.12b fighters went into service with home defence squadrons. Some of those built may in fact never have received engines.

 

The first B.E.12 squadron, No. 19, did not reach France until the 1st of August 1916. It was followed by the only other squadron to fly the type in France, No. 21, on the 25th of the same month. As might have been expected, the new type had all the inherent stability of the B.E.2c and was quite useless in the fighting role, especially in the face of the new German Halberstadt and Albatros fighters then coming into service. It continued to be employed as a bomber – but since an effective defensive gun could not be mounted it was too vulnerable for this role, and was finally withdrawn from all front line duties in France in March 1917. By the time the B.E.12a became available in numbers the B.E.12 had already proved to be unsatisfactory, and this variant was never used operationally in France.

 

 

Source: wikipedia

[Luftace 0]

Meant to mention I am referring to Photo# 13

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Sorry Luftace, #13 is not a B.E.12. The B.E.12 has the upright exhaust stacks coming from the center of the manifolds instead of at the rear, and the inboard struts run straight up and down rather than tipped outwards as seen in the photo I have posted. Good guess though, and top-notch info on the B.E.12. You will have to wait now 36 hours or until the next set is posted, or the next Wild Card photo.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

Edited August 22, 2009 by RAF_Louvert

[Dej 17]

#13 is the Royal Aircraft Factory R.E.8

 

Intended as a replacement for the vulnerable B.E.2, the R.E.8 was much more difficult to fly, and was regarded with great suspicion at first in the Royal Flying Corps. A fine example of the R.A.F.'s tendaency to take the bad points of a previous design and make 'em worse on the next. Eventually, though, it gave reasonably satisfactory service, but was never an outstanding combat aircraft. In spite of this, the R.E.8 served as the standard British reconnaissance and artillery spotting aircraft from mid-1917 to the end of the war, serving alongside the rather more popular Armstrong Whitworth F.K.8. Over 4,000 R.E.8s were eventually produced and they served in most theatres including Italy, Russia, Palestine and Mesopotamia, as well as the Western Front.

 

General characteristics

 

* Crew: 2 (pilot & observer/gunner)

* Length: 27 ft 10 in (8.5 m)

* Wingspan: 42 ft 7 in (12.98 m)

* Height: 11 ft 4 in (3.47 m)

* Wing area: 389 ft2 (35.07 m2)

* Empty weight: 1,577 lb (717 kg)

* Max takeoff weight: 2,862 lb (1,301 kg)

* Powerplant: 1× Royal Aircraft Factory 4a air-cooled 12-cylinder inline engine, 150 hp (112 kW)

 

Performance

 

* Maximum speed: 102 mph (164 km/h)

* Service ceiling: 13,500 ft (4,115 m)

* Rate of climb: 22 minutes to 10,000 ft (3,045 m)

 

Armament

 

* 1 x .303 in (7.7 mm) forward-firing Vickers gun

* 1 or 2 x .303 in (7.7 mm) Lewis guns in rear cockpit

* up to 224 lb (102 kg) bombs

 

Source: Wikipaedia + own opinion

[RAF_Louvert 101]

First rate answer Dej, absolutely first rate. And there was no doubt the Harry Tate was looked at with more than a bit of consternation by those who had to fly it. Two more points to you Sir.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Rickitycrate 10]

Photo #16: Albatros CIII type1916-1917 (170 h.p. Merceds)

Span 11.75 m. (35')

Length 7.9 m.

Total surface 37. 5 sq. m.

Gap 1.55 m.

Total Height 1.8 m.

Empty Weight 857 kgs.

Weight (all on) 1353 kgs

Top Speed 140 k.p.h.

Climb 1000 m. in 9 min.

Climb 2000 m. in 22 min.

Ceiling with full load 3700 m.

Useful load 496 kgs.

 

Albatros Werke. G.m.b.H. Johannisthal by Berlin

 

Soource; Janes Fighting Aircraft of World War I

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Oh, sorry Rickitycrate, no Sir. The Alb CIII exhaust stack comes up at the front of the manifold, not in the middle as shown in the photo. Also, the inboard struts are a more simplified and lighter arrangement on the CIII, and the engine cowl venting is different. You will now have to wait 36 hours before offering an answer again in this group, or until the next group or Wild Card photo is posted. But thanks for all the info on the Alb, Rickitycrate.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Duce Lewis 3]

#16 is a DFW CV

From Wikipedia

The C.IV had a single-bay wing cellule and was powered by a 112 kW (150 hp) Benz Bz.III. It was soon replaced in production by the definitive C.V with a two-bay wing cellule and either a 112 kW (150 hp) Conrad C.III or 149 kW (200 hp) Benz Bz.IV. Predictably, the more powerful Benz engine gave significantly better performance.

 

The C.V's main designer was Heinrich Oelerich, and it was produced in larger numbers than any other German aircraft during World War I. About 2000 were manufactured in DFW and about 1250 licence maufactured by the Aviatik (DFW C.V (Av), designated also as Aviatik C.VI), Halberstadt, LVG, and Schütte-Lanz.

 

The D.V and its related designs were used as a multirole combat aircraft, for reconnaissance, observation, bombing by Germany and Austro-Hungary during World War I. They were also used by the Ottoman Empire in Palestine. In the hands of a skilled pilot it could outmaneuver most allied fighters of the period. It remained in service until early 1918 though 600 were still in use by the Armistice of 11 November 1918. Most were thereafter scrapped according to Versailles Treaty in 1919.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Sorry Duce, but that's another "No" on #16. While the exhaust stack looks about right for a DFW CV, the inboard strut arrangement would again have to be different and of a lighter construction than that shown in the photo. Also, the plane in #16 does not have the cresent-shaped radiator "ears" found on the sides of the fuselage just aft of the engine cowling, a dead give-away of the DFW CV. You too will now have to wait 36 hours before trying again on any remaining planes in this set, but thank you as well for the info you gave on the CV. I didn't think this one would be presenting such a challange, but rather #15 would be the tricky one of the lot.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Bullethead 12]

I might have to get the bonus point for the description instead of the regular point for the identification......

 

#15 is the cockpit area of an Ansaldo SVA of some sort. I have to guess at the specific type due to insufficient data, but I'll say it's an SVA.3. They all had pretty much the same airframe, afterall. The .1 was the prototype, the .2 was a floatplane, and all later types had synchronized Vickers MGs.

 

The MG on the upper wing is a Fiat-Revelli 6.5mm. It operated on the delayed-blowback system instead of the recoil system of the Maxim types or the gas of the Lewis. It was the standard Italian ground MG of WW1 and was, as shown here, also used in the air, due to the lack of anything better. It was fed via stacks of rounds similar to rifle strip clips instead of a big magazine or belt (50 rounds to start with, later increased to 100), and the whole mechanism was rather clumsy and prone to jamming, a feature of Italian automatic weapons even to this day.

 

The Ansaldo SVA types were originally designed as fighters but were found to lack the maneuverability for that role, so were mostly used as single-seat recon and light bomber aircraft. They used the Warren truss system of wing struts, a feature maintained by Italian biplane fighers into WW2. You can see the inboard legs of the W interplane struts coming out of the side of the fuselage in this photo.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Bullethead

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Outstanding answer Bullethead! It is indeed and Ansaldo SVA, and due to the additional top-mounted gun, (which you elaborated on in superb detail), it is likely the SVA.3 Ridotto used for Zeppelin intercept work. It should be noted that the production-versions of the Savoia-Verduzio-Ansaldo, (in particular the SVA.5), were normally fitted with a pair of .303 Vickers under the port and starboard sides of the cowling ahead of the cockpit, quite out of reach of the pilot when in flight and therefore impossible to work on should they jamb up in a fight. None-the-less, the SVA was one of the mainstays of the Italian air service in the Great War.

 

Two more points for you Bullethead. Well done. That leaves only #16 to claim, which is proving to be a tricky one apparently.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Red-Dog 3]

Is No16 an Albatros c15?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Red-Dog

[RAF_Louvert 101]

No Red-Dog, sorry Sir. But your guess of the Alb C.XV is the closest in terms of visual similarities. Both the C.XV and the plane in #16 have the 'N' style inboard strut configuration, and the engine configuration of both appears nearly identical. However, the top wing of the C.XV sits a good foot farther forward over the back of the engine and has a lower profile, (i.e. the gap between the top of the engine and the bottom of the wing is much tighter on the C.XV). You will have to wait now Sir before posting another guess in this photo set.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Red-Dog 3]

No Red-Dog, sorry Sir. But your guess of the Alb C.XV is the closest in terms of visual similarities. Both the C.XV and the plane in #16 have the 'N' style inboard strut configuration, and the engine configuration of both appears nearly identical. However, the top wing of the C.XV sits a good foot farther forward over the back of the engine and has a lower profile, (i.e. the gap between the top of the engine and the bottom of the wing is much tighter on the C.XV). You will have to wait now Sir before posting another guess in this photo set.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

 

Thanks Lou for the additional info.

Can i guess in the next batch of photo's ?

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Absolutely you can Sir. The 36-hour wait period is only for multiple guesses within the same photo set. Once a new set is posted and/or a Wild Card photo you are free to go again.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Bullethead 12]

Two more points for you Bullethead.

 

As my new hero, Lt. Bandy, said: Three cheers for me . I'd rather be lucky than good.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

No amount of planning or preparation will ever replace pure dumb luck. And Bandy is a great guy, you could do far worse for a hero.

 

 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Since #16 is putting up such a fight, I am going to give you all a small hint. Duce Lewis yesterday guessed a DFW C.V and while it is not, #16 does share one important feature with the aircraft he mentioned. The engineer of the plane in the photo used to work for D.F.W. and was responsible for the development of the C.V with that firm. He brought a lot of his ideas with him and incorporated them into a new design for the company that then constructed the aircraft you see in photo #16.

 

Hope this helps you out a bit.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[Check Six 2]

And he pounces on it! Outstanding Olham, and lightening fast Sir. Two points to you.

 

BTW, it is a repilca of Guynemer's "Vieux Charles". I believe the original is hanging in the Musee de l'Air in Le Bourget, France.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

Correct, Lou.

 

Vieux Charles is indeed in the Musee de l'air et l'espace in Le Bourget, Paris.

 

If any of you get the opportunity...GO!

 

One of the best aviation museums in the world...if not THE best.

 

PS...Not fishing for any points. My work schedule and remoteness really prevents me from doing any good at this. If I'm at work and can browse leisurely, I don't have any of my reference material. If I'm at home, I'm relaxing or sleeping in preparation for my next shift. But still....great competition, I enjoy reading the replies.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Check Six

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

Very correct about the gun and mount on that SE5, JohnGresham. Thanks for sharing Sir, you never know when such information might come in useful.

 

Also, since you mentioned it, McCudden may well have been the first to use the sliding feature of the Foster mount to attack the B/R's from below. If he was not the first to make use of it he was at least the first to write about it in his notes, or so I've surmised from what I've read.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

Lou,

 

Albert ball is reported to have used the sliding feature of the lewis on the foster mount to attack EA from below while flying a nupe 17, after discovering that with a slight side pressure on the stock the gun could in effect be held at an 80 degreee angle.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan1972

Edited August 23, 2009 by Rugbyfan1972