Zeppelin Killing 101...

[Hauksbee 103]

At some time, this must have seemed like a good idea that would rule the skies...tho' I'd not want to be the stand-up gunner.

[Olham 164]

Yeah, they were only yet finding out how to do it.

Ridiculous the romanticised painting - how long could you fly like that and keep the red kepi on your head?

[Hauksbee 103]

Good point. I notice that the pilot has a helmet, but the gunner does not. The pilot also seems to be wearing a heavy flying coat, while the gunner does not. It's going to be a long, cold mission.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Anybody know if that setup had any successes? The British Fees also had standing gunners and they were able to shoot down quite a few enemy aircraft. Even Manfred v. Richthofen himself was badly wounded by such a standing Fee gunner.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I don't think it's going to be a 'Long Cold Mission'

 

I think it's going to be a 'Short..oh f*** sorta mission! :)

[Olham 164]

Mmuahahahahaaa!!!!!

[Hauksbee 103]

Anybody know if that setup had any successes?

Good question. Were there ever any squadrons equipped with these Deperdussins? One of the captions claims a speed of 130 mph. That seems overly fast for a two-seater (and 'armored' to boot!)

[Hasse Wind 46]

Basically, that design looks actually better than a Fee, and if the Fee was a success, that one could also have been. But I haven't heard anything about them, so there must be something that didn't go right. A standing gunner was nothing spectacular in WW1 two-seaters, so I don't think that's the reason. Maybe there were some technical problems?

[JFM 18]

According to the book French Aircraft of the First World War, Davilla & Soltan, page 185, only two were armed. One "was sent to the Groupe des Escadrilles de Protection du Camp retranche de Paris (C.R.P.) but there is no record of its taking part in aerial combats."

 

It also states two escadrilles used the type TT, D 4 and D 6, and that the observer's location between the wings hampered visibility and led to the TT's quick withdrawal from service. Oh, and listed speeds are way below 130 mph. This book has the TT powered by the 80hp Gnome listed with a max speed of 115 km/h (71 mph).

[Hauksbee 103]

...and that the observer's location between the wings hampered visibility...

Jim, I don't get the reference to "between the wings" since the Deperdussin was a monoplane.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Yeah, something's not right with that description. It doesn't sound like they're talking about the same type of aircraft.

[Olham 164]

Guys, I guess they (and Jim) meant the position between the left and right wing.

While the pilot sit aft of the wings, the gunner stands between the two wings

and therefor has no downward view nor field of fire.

[Hasse Wind 46]

I think that max speed refers to this aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deperdussin_Monocoque

 

So that two-seater in the picture must be a heavily modified Deperdussin. However, the aircraft mentioned by JFM had an 80 hp Gnome, while the Deperdussin had a special 14 cylinder 160 hp Gnome. I can think of no good reason for changing that engine into a less powerful one, unless it had something to do with production and logistical issues.

[JFM 18]

Yes, between the left wing and the right wing.

 

Yes, Hasse, this book states one Deperdussin TT was fitted with a 160 hp Gnome. The way the book states it, they didn't change from 160 to 80 hp, but rather the 160 hp came later and was a test.

[Rugbyfan1972 1]

Not sure I would like piloting that aircraft, I have enough trouble flying the BE2 series with the observer in front of me (especially seeing where I am heading when landing). Also think of the drag the gunner position must have added to the flight characteristics of this aircraft?