Why did this craft never fly over Flanders fields?

[Olham 164]

Just saw this craft on "Rosebud's" website.

This monoplane fighter from 1916/1917 is said to have been 212 kilometer/h fast,

and it seemed to fire through the propellor.

Why did it never see action at the western front? Too fast at landing?

Or rather an industrial competitor keeping it out?

Does anyone know more?

 

 

Edited March 1, 2010 by Olham

[Heck 496]

According to the profile publication about the plane, the RFC had banned monoplanes for a while after some accidents early on, and there was still an official bias against them by the time the M1C arrived. It had such a great performance that it made it into production, but because monoplanes were still suspect structurally (completely unfounded in this case), it was relegated to a "quieter" front, although, according to the profile, British pilots on the Western Front were aware of its performance and wanted it.

[Olham 164]

Yes, I can imagine they would.

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

It seems that the bad opinion towards monoplanes finds its origin in the conclusions from a military commission in 1912. High landing speed has never prohibited the SPAD to make a great career.

[Bandy 3]

Monoplanes suspect structurally, now really...

 

To my count there are 23 guys up there!

 

Looks like towards the end of the war the Germans were sure thinking laterally to overcome shortages.

 

Edited March 2, 2010 by Bandy

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

I know it is mentioned in either flying fury or the biography of Gerald Constable-Maxwell that James McCudden and Gerald Constable-Maxwell while on home leave took turns flying the briston MC1 against an SE5A flown by the other and on each occasion the Bristol won, regardless of who was piloting it.

 

This to me speaks volumes as it was able to beat one of the best british scouts of the period and as both of these pilots were in 56 squadron at the time I assume they both knew how to get the best out of the SE5A.

 

Thanks

Rugbyfan1972

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Yuppers, and keep in mind the decision not to use this aircraft was made by the same leaders who thought parachutes were a bad idea because pilots would "abandon" their planes; and also the same leaders who kept designs for synchronized firing of the guns through the prop arc on the shelf for nearly two years of the War before finally making use of them. Go figure.

 

.

[Von Paulus 8]

Technological prejudice, tactical clumsiness, plain stupidity, you name it... WWI is full of those examples.

[Flyby PC 23]

Just being pedantic, but as I understand it did fly over Flanders, - but only for a six week trial in 1916 amidst rumours of being a 'secret' weapon.

 

Pilots liked it, but the War Office didn't for reasons already stated.

 

It's really quite puzzling, particularly given the scandal in the UK associated with the Fokker scourge...., though in a small way it may have been a small part of the scandal (?).

 

From Duxford Legends-

 

Of the 125 Bristol M.1Cs constructed only the 35 sent to Macedonia and the Middle East in 1917 saw action mainly in the ground attack role where they ran rings round the opposition (on one occasion two pilots put up such a fearsome display of aerobatics that a complete Kurdish tribe defected to the allies). Five squadrons were equipped for active service with the M.1C in Salonika and operated against the Turks and Bulgars. The rest were used by Flying Schools where they frequently became the prized personal mounts of the Senior Officers and Instructors. Six others served with the Chilean Air Force from 1917 where one piloted by Lt. Godoy became the first aircraft to cross the Andes on 12/12/18.

http://www.btinterne.../pages/M1C.html

Edited March 2, 2010 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

It is unbelieveable almost - if I didn't know, how badly politicians and high brass often decide.

What a fighter it would have been!

[Flyby PC 23]

It is unbelieveable almost - if I didn't know, how badly politicians and high brass often decide.

What a fighter it would have been!

 

This is the UK. It's not unbelievable.

[Von Paulus 8]

This is the UK. It's not unbelievable.

Actually it could be also Portugal. Still would not be unbelievable.

I believe UK it's not alone in that matter.

[Hasse Wind 46]

It seems to me it was just one of those unfortunate cases of basically conservative people in charge not really understanding the rapidly advancing techonology of their time and thus making a bad decision based on pre-war experiments with monoplanes. But it's understandable things like that happened - just think about how new the whole aviation thing was during WW1. It's remarkable they did even half the things they did with such primitive methods and very limited understanding of the physics of motorized flight.

[Von Paulus 8]

It seems to me it was just one of those unfortunate cases of basically conservative people in charge not really understanding the rapidly advancing techonology of their time and thus making a bad decision based on pre-war experiments with monoplanes. But it's understandable things like that happened - just think about how new the whole aviation thing was during WW1. It's remarkable they did even half the things they did with such primitive methods and very limited understanding of the physics of motorized flight.

Sure. But that's not excuse for not listening to others and in this case to pilots.

And this is just an example. Even if the modern historians want to relativize the role of the generals and politicians in the WWI slaughterhouse, a lot of them were really donkeys who didn't want to listen.

[Olham 164]

Flyby and von Paulus - it is not only happening in your countries.

Just remember the Starfighter affair in younger history: a perfect, light and fast interceptor

with wings so small, it might have been a rocket rather, was made into a nuklear bomber

after the wish of former defence minister Franz Josef Strauss.

 

269 lost aircraft meant, that almost 1/3 of these Luftwaffe fighters crashed.

[Flyby PC 23]

I remember reading a book about Kim Philby, the spy. It said that spy catching is very difficult because of the way sensitive information is traded to obtain more sensitive information. It's not enough to catch them in the lift with top secret documents in a briefcase. In order to tell whether someone is a traitor, you have to weigh up how much information they've passed to the enemy against the weight of information they've managed to gain by exchanging it. If their account is in credit, he's a good spy, but if the account is in debit, he's either a lousy spy - or he's playing for the other side.

 

I suspect it's similar when we look at strategic decisions taken in WW1. You need to weigh up all the bad decisions and compare them with the good decisions to determine whether the result portrays the War Office in a positive or negative light.

 

 

 

 

[Von Paulus 8]

I suspect it's similar when we look at strategic decisions taken in WW1. You need to weigh up all the bad decisions and compare them with the good decisions to determine whether the result portrays the War Office in a positive or negative light.

Yes, but can we objectively do that? We have to remember the number of lifes lost during that exercise. We're not speaking "only" about thousands.

I'm Portuguese, a European at most, not British, French or German. But I won't forget Somme, Verdun, Ypres or Chemin des Dames. In a certain way Gallipoli made more sense than these.

[carrick58 23]

Theirs a lot of screw ups all through history. Gen Custer at the Little Big Horn His men were armed with single shot carbines and pistrols. The Indians were armed with a mix of Repeating Lever action Rifles and Bows and arrows. Custer Loss ( U.S. History) In the Civil War the South lost a big battle because of their Issued ammo. Most were useing birdshot in smooth bore muskets ( limited Range) while the North at that battle used Mini balls, and Buck and Ball as standard issue ammo ( longer range) with a few rifles that were Rifled. (accuarcy).

Veitnam and the M-16, It was issued without a chrome Bore ( no need to keep it clean) and the rifle powder was a dirty Ball type. Thus the weapon jammed often. The U.S. Airforce about this time and a little before figured theirs no need for a gun on aircraft because their would no dog fights. Just hang Air to Air Rockets on them. ( didnt work back to dog fight basics.) and so history goes Just my 2 cents guys Cheers

[Duce Lewis 3]

Theirs a lot of screw ups all through history. Gen Custer at the Little Big Horn His men were armed with single shot carbines and pistrols. The Indians were armed with a mix of Repeating Lever action Rifles and Bows and arrows. Custer Loss ( U.S. History) In the Civil War the South lost a big battle because of their Issued ammo. Most were useing birdshot in smooth bore muskets ( limited Range) while the North at that battle used Mini balls, and Buck and Ball as standard issue ammo ( longer range) with a few rifles that were Rifled. (accuarcy).

Veitnam and the M-16, It was issued without a chrome Bore ( no need to keep it clean) and the rifle powder was a dirty Ball type. Thus the weapon jammed often. The U.S. Airforce about this time and a little before figured theirs no need for a gun on aircraft because their would no dog fights. Just hang Air to Air Rockets on them. ( didnt work back to dog fight basics.) and so history goes Just my 2 cents guys Cheers

There are many more examples;

The Union Forces were offered Repeating Rifles with Cartridge Ammunition (Henry Rifles I think)

The Northern Quartermaster turned them down because he thought they'd fire too fast and waste ammo

One Northern unit managed to get equipped and take them into combat

The Southern General complained about "that @&%$! Yankee rifle you could load on Sunday and fire all week"

 

And more modern;

The F8 Crusader, a true fighter, was cancelled

And the F-111 Aardvark, a multi-role waste, ordered into production

 

And just recently, the F-22 Raptor, unmatched stealth fighter, was cancelled

 

Oh and about Custer, he declined to take his Gatling Guns cuz he thought they'd slow him down

 

What Civil War Battle was that with the Bird Shot in Smooth Bore Muskets?

[Bullethead 12]

At one time, the Bullethead Aerospace Distillery (motto: "We only make BAD airplanes") had plans to put the M1c into production. However, the shoddy workmanship was rejected by the RFC inspectors before even the static test article was completed, so the contract was canceled. The incomplete machine now gathers dust in a storage shed, serving only as a nesting place for stray cats.

[Hasse Wind 46]

At one time, the Bullethead Aerospace Distillery (motto: "We only make BAD airplanes") had plans to put the M1c into production. However, the shoddy workmanship was rejected by the RFC inspectors before even the static test article was completed, so the contract was canceled. The incomplete machine now gathers dust in a storage shed, serving only as a nesting place for stray cats.

 

Does your distillery also produce whiskey? BAD whiskey?

 

Let us know if you finish that monoplane some day.

[Olham 164]

What a pity! A double pity, as we will never see it flying over Flander fields.

Is this a GMAX work?

[Maeran 20]

Wasn't this machine in Red Baron II (and RB1, but that is an even hazier memory)?

 

I remember that Geoffrey de Havilland mentioned the ban on monoplanes in his autobiography. Apparently there was an unfortunate series of crashes during military excercises and the structural weakness of a monoplane wing was blamed.

de Havilland also suggests that a variable propeller was in development at the Royal Aircraft Factory before the war and that cutbacks due to pressure from private aviation companies quashed that one.

[Hasse Wind 46]

 

Wasn't this machine in Red Baron II (and RB1, but that is an even hazier memory)?

 

 

It was the old Morane Bullet, not this Bristol.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Bullethead, that Gnome you're building should pop right into that BAD boy. BAD arse planes for BAD arse flyers.

 

.