Hauksbee

Also from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I, at first glance, a fairly wicked looking fighter, mainly for the three machineguns mounted in the nose (this prototype photo has only the two). On closer inspection, it was an anachronism. Originally designed as a bomber-interceptor for Home Defense, and later, hopefully, as a 'trench-strafer', it fizzled and died a quiet death. . Curiously retrogressive in design when built in May 1917, the pusher fighter with boom-carried empennage being decidedly passé at that stage in World War I, the F.B.26 single-seat fighter had its nacelle attached directly to the upper wing. The original concept provided for a single 7.7mm Lewis gun, but an additional Lewis had been introduced by the time that the F.B.26 reached Martlesham Heath for official testing in July 1917. Power was provided by a 200hp Hispano-Suiza engine, but inadequate cooling led to the original single flat radiator being replaced by two separate radiator blocks. On 25 August 1917, the prototype was spun into the ground by Vickers' test pilot Harold Barnwell. Nonetheless, a month later, on 19 September, a contract was placed for six examples of a modified version of the F.B.26. The wing structure was completely revised, radiator blocks were attached to the nacelle sides and a larger vertical tail was introduced. Interest in the F.B.26 centered on its potential as a Home Defense fighter, and it was proposed that armament would consist of two Lewis guns coupled with an Aldis sight and capable of several degrees of elevation and depression. However, in order to obtain greater firepower, the nacelle of the F.B.26 was modified to permit installation of an Eeman three-gun universal mounting. The first two F.B.26s had the trio of Lewis guns fixed to fire horizontally, but it was intended that the next four aircraft would have a modified Eeman mounting capable of 45° of elevation. The first of the modified F.B.26s was flown in December 1917 with a 200hp Hispano-Suiza engine. After testing at Martlesham Heath, this aircraft was assigned to No 141 Sqn in February 1918 for service evaluation. It was concluded that the F.B.26 was unsuited for Home Defense duties and work on the incomplete machines was halted, although the second and third examples had been completed and flown meanwhile. As the basic design was considered to possess potential in the close air support role, the second of the modified F.B.26s was fitted with a redesigned nacelle incorporating amour protection for the pilot and a 230 hp Bentley B.R.2 nine-cylinder rotary. This armored "trench-strafer" was assigned the designation F.B.26A, and, under the official nomenclature scheme introduced in the spring of 1918, became the Vampire II, the F.B.26 being the Vampire I. In the event, the Vampire II had still to be completed by the end of June 1918, and thus came too late on the wartime scene.

Nice picture, JFM. I'd found that one (it started the whole search) but it was small, and as you can see, the off-side gun nearly blends into the underside of the top wing. So I passed on it. What had me wondering about the gun mount was that I couldn't see how those MG's could elevate to forty-five degrees. On closer re-reading, I now see that "the next four planes" were to receive a modified Eemon mount...and they never got built. . And the rondel on the side of the fuselage...is the white band on the outside? It looks like white/red/blue. If so, I'll bet some young lieutenant got a scorching over that.

This Forum seems cloaked with an aura of serendipity: no matter what I look for, it seems I find other things of equal, or greater, value. This is the last fallout from the triplane hunt. . This from 'Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I.' (complied from 1914, 1916, 1917, 1919 & 1919) The text as follows: . Designed to do what [a] bicycle does for the man on the road, this little vehicle was ready for its trial flight when its builder, the late Emilio Pensuti, was killed in attempting to save a very valuable life for the country. After a lapse of some months the machine was taken into the air by Lt. L. Montagani and did all that its lamented designer hoped of it. The Pensuti 2, as it is named, leaves the ground after a run of 20 meters, and pulls up in the same distance. . With an Anzani Y, 33 hp engine, a speed of 95 kph has been attained, and a minimum speed of 40 is possible. Rate of Climb: 1000 meters in 1/4 hr. Span: 4 meters Total length: 3.80 meters Overall height: 2.40 meters Weight in flying trim (including pilot) 230 kilos Petro consumption per Flying Hour: 2 gallons Oil Consumption per Flying Hour: 1/2 gallon (I'd like to know who the "very valuable life" was.)

Does anybody know what the Eeman 3-gun universal mounting looked like? I've never heard of it, and a quick web scan has turned up nothing.

If you can land and take off is 20 meters, I'd say you have an ultra-light. After a bit more poking about, I find that while M. Pensuti envisaged it as an aerial bicycle for the average guy, the Italian Air Force used them for quick recon flights for the infantry. The Pensuti 2 remained in service until 1923. . When I found the color photo, I thought some one had built a flying replica. But, looking at the background, I don't think so. .

What boggles me still is, sixty-five people got out of that alive.

I'd cast my vote with Shia LaBeouf, though he's far from my favorite actor. But this is where he looks the part.

There it is. The 'truth' is an iffy business.

Stump! Where've you been, hoss? Are you still making virtual airplanes fly?

I remember, back in the 60's, when Rheinholz Platz was just emerging from the shadows, and the facade of Fokker designing all his own planes was starting to crumble. I think Fokker and Howard Hughes would have got on well. Hughes was another person with no engineering skills, but he knew what he wanted to see.

This is why I love history: all the obscure, hidden facts that change the narrative. Everybody knew that a through-the-prop solution had to be found, and like the triplane craze of 1917, everyone was either worrying about it, or working on a solution. The Austrians had cracked the code on it with the Schwarzlose MG, but it was too big, too heavy and water-cooled to boot. And the solution wouldn't work on air-cooled MG's. (there was a thread on it here, a while back) As for Fokker, I read one account where he works out the whole solution on the train trip home from seeing Garros's plane.

The wind of a good argument blows the dust off the facts revealing the underlying truth.

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.

Kind of goofy overall, and I really didn't care for the modeling of the faces, but, with that said, I can appreciate the phenomonal amount of work involved. I've tried to do animations not exceeding six minutes, with lip-synced sound, and I've never finished one yet. This film was filled with moving characters, cannon, cars, tanks and aircraft. The modeling time alone must have taken a long, long time. (sound of applause)

Do the buildings still exist?

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

While searching for one obscure airplane (the Sablatnig) I found another: The Sage Type 2 Designed by Clifford W. Tinson for Frederick Sage & Company, the Type 2 two-seat fighting scout was of original concept. Considerable care was taken to reduce aerodynamic drag, the 100hp Gnome Monosoupape nine-cylinder rotary engine being fully cowled, a large propeller spinner being provided and the crew being accommodated in a fully-glazed cabin. Of conventional wire-braced wooden construction, the Type 2 was a single-bay biplane with considerable gap, the upper wing being supported by the cabin structure and having an aperture above the observer's seat. When standing to fire his 7.7mm machine gun,the observer had a wide and clear field of fire. Remarkably small, the Type 2 had rod-activated ailerons in the upper wing only. First flown on 10 August 1916, it proved to possess a very good performance, but gunsynchronization had meanwhile become available, and after the sole prototype had been wrecked in a forced landing on 20 September 1916, no attempt was made to rebuild the aircraft or develop it. . Clifford Tinson's grandson, David, added some notes: . Just in case anyone re-looks at this thread I may be able to shed some light. In my grandfathers memoirs, he talks of the Sage 2 aircraft. The Sage 1 crashed due to the pilot at the time turning on the wrong petrol cock, i.e. the reserve one and they ran out of fuel. Sage 2 crashed because of a weak rudder post. A quote from his words: "My next design known as Sage 2, was a two seat fighter fitted with a 100hp Gnome engine and was built in 1916. It was not yet possible to fire straight ahead if the gun was mounted on the cowling in front of the pilot because of the propeller and I thought it best to mount a Lewis gun on a scarf ring on top of the centre plane, firing above the propeller and permitting a wide angle of fire as well. I hoped for a speed of 100 mph and at that speed the battering of the slipstream on a gunner standing up to fire would have made it difficult to aim accurately; therefore he must be protected. So I enclosed both pilot and gunner in a glazed structure filling the space between the top of the fuselage and the underside of the upper centre plane, many years before pilots had anything other than a windscreen to protect them...............in any case the introduction of synchronized gun firming gear soon after made such a design as mine unnecessary." He goes on to say: "This machine came to grief through the fracture of the tube forming the rudder post.........We were flying at about 1,000 feet when this happened to us and there were high trees ahead which, with height being lost all the time because of the broken rudder, it was not possible to avoid. We hit the top of one tree swiping off the starboard wings, then another demolished the port wings leaving the rest of the machine to fall down breaking the fuselage in two and finishing it off........We clambered out of the remains..............with no more damage than a graze and the odd bruise or two.......". I'm not sure where the broken back incident you mention Pete came in, but it was not in this one...."

Only what's in the text above. Tinson says that he was hoping for 100 mph. I get the impression that while there weren't many flights before both planes were wrecked, the team was pleased with performance. (I went back and highlighted those parts of text in red.)

C.I? I'm showing it as a C.II, but definitely an AGO (Aerowerke Gustav Otto) Of course, the labeling on the Yahoo Image search may not be the most accurate.

I'll have to look a little farther, but at first glance, it says "Zeppelin-Staaken' to me.

Ah yes, the good old Sablatnig. I recall it now. It turned up here as a triplane first. It underscores the comment found in one of the longer triplane threads that "as soon as the Sopwith Tripe made it appearence, every aircraft manufacturer in Germany had to rush a triplane in production". I found Elephant's pic. in a Yahoo Image Search. It is a Sablatnig.

Great article. Never heard of him! Maybe because he did his pioneering work with seaplanes, while the more flashy aIrcraft got the glory. And he looks every bit the part of an intrepid airman.

Right. It's not, tho' it looks like it wants to be. Look at the struts between the wings, the struts coming up from the pontoons, and the vert. stabilizer pokes up above the fuselage, which didn't happen with the Hansa-Brandenbergs. This is a tough one. I must break out my copy of 'Janes Aircraft of WWI'.

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!)

Good to see you! Welcome aboard. If only.