Single Quiz Question

[Olham 164]

Here is a quiz question for our aviation cracks - the prize: another hearty handshake!

 

This picture of Albert Ball is probably the most famous of him. Now my question:

 

In front of which aircraft type is Ball standing here?

 

 

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Well, I'd say an Avro 504? or a Bebe?

 

but hey...I'm only guessing

Edited September 10, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[+elephant 36]

Looks like a Farman? type to me but...just guessing...

[Hasse Wind 46]

It's a Caudron G.3.

 

One of the new additions to P4, right?

[+elephant 36]

OK, I was wrong...

 

Caudron G4?

 

 

PS: OK, wrong again, single engined G3 it seems, after all...Hasse was right...?

 

 

They look kind of identicall from the small portion of the plane that is visible in the photo.

So Olham what is the verdict?

Edited September 10, 2011 by elephant

[itifonhom 6]

Hasse Wind was right, Caudron G.3 is the answer....

[Hellshade 110]

Damn. I was sure it was an F-22 Raptor. Soooo close though.

 

 

Hellshade

[von Baur 54]

Not to be argumentative, but is there absolute historical confirmation on the G-3 (date of the photo and aircraft type flown by his or neighboring units at that time)? The Caudron's struts are clearly and noticeably thicker in the center than at the ends and that doesn't appear to be the case in the Ball photo.

 

Clearly not the Avro, which had a full cowl, identical wingspans top and bottom, and straight trailing edges. Nor the N-11, which was the first sesqui-plane and a "V"-strutter.

 

*edit*

Also noticed the placement of the struts varies from the museum G-3. Ball photo has the diagonal struts going to the first or second spar from the wingtip and the vertical interplanes on the seventh or eighth. The museum photo is third, maybe fourth and ninth or tenth.

Edited September 10, 2011 by von Baur

[Hauksbee 103]

Here's the same photo taken from Wikipedia and is captioned "Ball in front of a Caudron G.3" Still, I find von Baur's objection compelling.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

If I was an Ace...I wouldn't stand in front of THAT!

[von Baur 54]

Ahh, Wikipedia, that paragon of reliable information.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like Caudron. I'm just not sold on the G-3. Some further digging reveals (courtesy the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum's website ):

 

Gaston and René Caudron were among the earliest aircraft manufacturers in France. After building and testing a few original designs in 1909 and early in 1910, the brothers established a flight training school at Crotoy and an aircraft factory at Rue in 1910. The first factory-produced Caudron was the type A4, a 35-horsepower Anzani-powered tractor biplane in which the pilot sat completely exposed behind the rear spar of the lower wing. The next major Caudron design, the type B, was the first to feature the abbreviated fuselage/pilot nacelle, characteristic of many later Caudron aircraft. It was powered by a 70-horsepower Gnôme or 60-horsepower Anzani engine mounted in the front of the nacelle with the pilot immediately behind. Although a tractor, the tail unit of the type B was supported by booms extending from the trailing edge of the wings, an arrangement more commonly featured on pusher aircraft. Lateral control was accomplished with wing warping. The type B established the basic configuration of Caudron designs through the G.4 model.

 

The first of the well-known Caudron G series aircraft appeared in 1912. Initially designed as a trainer, the type G was developed into the G.2 by the outbreak of the First World War, and saw limited military service in 1914 as single and two-seat versions. By that time the Caudron factory had been relocated to Lyon, where an improved version, designated the G.3, was being produced in significant numbers. Soon a second factory was opened at Issy-les-Moulineaux, near Paris, to meet military demand for the airplane. The G.3 was primarily a two-seat aircraft, but a few were converted to single-seat versions. They were powered variously by 80-horsepower Le Rhône or Gnôme rotary engines or a 90-horsepower Anzani radial. A total of 2,450 G.3s were built, including a small number built under license in Britain and Italy.

 

 

I deliberately did not exclude the part about the G-3's having been built under license outside of the home plant (and country, for that matter), becuase that could explain the minor differences between the photos, including the engine, which in the Ball photo does not appear to have the heavy intake manifold that the museum photos show. But, given the B-series "...established the basic configuration of Caudron designs through the G.4..." it's possible it was a B being used as a trainer. Another possibility is an earlier version of the G-type, which was designed as a trainer. I wasn't able to find any images of either a B-type or the G-2 (and if a G-2 existed, what about a G-1?) so I have nothing against which I can compare the Ball photo. Does anyone have any or know of any links to some?

[JFM 18]

Ball was not an ace when that photo was taken.

 

He was standing in front of a trainer, described in his biography Albert Ball VC (Colin Pengelly) as a "derivative of the Caudron G.3," taken circa August 1915. This photo was used by Ball for the identity photograph on his R.Ae.C Certificate. The photo in that book is darker than those posted above and the struts appear thicker in the middle than at the ends.

 

In the book French Aircraft of the First World War (James Davilla, Arthur Soltan) the UK purchased a single G.2. It was used by the RNAS as a trainer. G.3s were purchased and used in greater numbers--139 is given, but it's unclear if this is all they bought or just what the RNAS had--and employed several engine variations. At the Ruffy-Baumannn School, where Ball conducted his initial training, they are said to have used "50 hp or 60 hp (both rotary and radial) engines." Regarding the wings, there was a G.3 R1 variation, which was a reduced wing span "penguin" used to teach students how to taxi.

[von Baur 54]

Thanx for the clarification, Jim.

 

 

(How did I know it would be you or Lou who came up with the definitive answer? )

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I just returned home and saw this thread Gents, and while I am tired and am heading up to bed I will briefly add my two pence to this fine discussion, (how could I refuse after VB mentioned my name).

 

Now then, I have been under the assumption for a good many years that Ball was standing in front of one of the English-built Caudron G.3 E.2 single-seat trainers, (if memory serves, the Brits built just over 200 G.3's in various configurations). I go with the E.2 because the plane in the photo has the shorter top wing which the single-seaters sported to allow for a bit more nimbleness than the G.3 D.2 two-seater trainers had, (the Penguins had both top and bottom wings clipped on the French R.1 version, while the U.S. version simply removed large areas of the wing cloth, IIRC). However, there is yet another possible candidate and that is a Caudron Type F, which looked very similar. But as these had been relegated to trainer use by the French before the end of 1914, I doubt one would have popped up at an English flight school, and if it had I can't imagine it would still have been in use by the fall of 1915 when that picture was taken.

 

Alright then, I'm off for a bit of kip. Later all.

 

.

[carrick58 23]

a captured Fokker

[Hasse Wind 46]

Kenneth Munson writes in his book Bombers - Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft 1914 - 1919:

 

Most nacelle-and-tailboom aeroplanes of 1914-1919 were pusher biplanes; the Caudron G.III differed in having its engine at the front. It was developed from, and was similar to, the single-seat G.II which in 1913-14 was a familiar sight at many European air meetings. In its initial military form the G.IIIA.2 was a 2-seat corps reconnaissance and artillery observation aircraft used widely throughout the first half of World War I by the French, British, Belgian, Russian and Italian air forces. Most of the many hundreds of G.IIIs built were manufactured in France, but small quantities were built in the United Kingdom by the British Caudron Co. and in Italy A.E.R. built one hundred and seventy G.IIIs in 1915-16. The G.III was originally powered by an 80 h.p. engine, of Gnome, Le Rhône or Clerget manufacture, but a common installation in later machines was the 100 h.p. Anzani 10 C radial. The G.III had a useful endurance (4 hours), but was generally too slow and too vulnerable to be retained for long on observation duties. The French machines were withdrawn from the Front in mid-1916, but Italian G.IIIs continued to serve until March 1917 and the British models were not withdrawn until August 1917.

 

As late as 1 January 1917 the R.F.C. was using Caudron G.III's, armed with small bombs and carrying a machine-gun in the front cockpit, for ground-strafing missions. The R.N.A.S. used a few of its G.IIIs for coastal patrol. One hundred and twenty-four G.IIIs were supplied to the R.N.A.S., and one hundred and nine to the R.F.C., and they served on every major front. Their withdrawal from front-line duty did not, however, mark the end of their career, for they became one of the most popular and familiar types of training aircraft to be used in the Allied air forces. In this role, the aircraft was designated G.IIIE.2; one hundred and ninety-two E.2s were purchased by the A.E.F. in 1918. Most Caudron G.IIIs had warp-controlled wings, but ailerons were fitted to the top wings of some later aircraft.

[Olham 164]

It is hard to ask a quiz question in a forum like this, with so many experts.

All I expected from you would have been "Caudron G.3".

Hasse Wind was the first one to say that.

 

But now we have the case, that happens often in historical research; that old

data or comments under photos or in notes from the time say something vague,

non-precise; or sometimes even wrong.

JFM as well as Lou revealed, what they have about the photo, and I couldn't

say who's more correct. All I can add here is a photo of an English built

Caudron G.3 with a 100 hp Anzani engine. This plane has wingstruts more like

in the Albert Ball photo. If "derivative" would mean a mixture of parts of various

aircraft, that might be the answer.

 

I guess you experts will do some more digging now? Or perhaps it cannot be

nailed down more exactly, because of the rather small part we can only see?

 

 

Edited September 11, 2011 by Olham

[Hasse Wind 46]

Actually I'm more interested in hearing confirmation from the devs that some Caudrons will be in P4. Everything else is secondary.

[Olham 164]

A very good point, Hasse Wind. Caudrons, or Breguets, or Farmans - any French two-seater would be welcome.

Cuadrons, of course, have the most characteristic looks.

[Hauksbee 103]

Actually I'm more interested in hearing confirmation from the devs that some Caudrons will be in P4. Everything else is secondary.

...and they're so damned ugly, I'd risk going up in an E.III just to take a whack at them.

[Hasse Wind 46]

They are exactly the kind of opponents we need for Eindecker careers.

[Olham 164]

...and they're so damned ugly, I'd risk going up in an E.III just to take a whack at them.

Well, you can call that ugly - or almost "Art Deco".

[Hauksbee 103]

Well, you can call that ugly - or almost "Art Deco".

Art Deco? Yeah...well, maybe. But still uglier than sin. The French had a weakness toward incredibly ugly, angular airplanes with lots of multi-pane windows and gun turrets that looked like warts grown wild. The real exception to this trend was a virtually unknown designer named Roland Payens. I discovered him by accident, following a curious trail of internet links. Payens was convinced that a delta-winged airplane was the way to go...and he almost got there. Just before WWII he got a commission from the Japanese government for a trial 2-engined bomber, but it's not known if it was ever delivered. After the invasion, the Germans confiscated the Payens fighter plane (with in-line engine) and conducted trials with it. They were insufficiently impressed to take it any further. When the war was over, Payens realized aircraft design had passed him by and spent the rest of his career restoring older vintage airplanes and rigging planes for movie work. The pics.are of 3D models I built a few years back.

[Olham 164]

What are these funny planes from?

[Hauksbee 103]

What are these funny planes from?

They're 3D models I built in a program called Carrara. I download a dozen or more 3-view drawings from a website called 'dannysoar'. The site had several pages devoted to Roland Payens. I just looked for it and it seems to be gone. Pity. I took a few liberties with the designs. For example, the engine nacelles on the bomber are a bit more extended than the original. And while the fighter existed in two versions (on paper. Only the in-line version was built) the cylinder heads did not extend out through the cowl. The color schemes are my own design.