Category Archives: Great Britain

Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander

United Kingdom (1918)

Ground Attack Aircraft [300-500+ Built]

A frontal view of a production Sopwith Salamander. The entire front section of this aircraft was armored. (Wikipedia)

The Sopwith Salamander was a dedicated ground attack aircraft, at this point known as a trench fighter, designed for use by the Royal Air Force in the First World War. The Salamander was based off of the Sopwith Snipe fighter and reused many components, but was much more armed and armored. Only a few Salamanders would be assigned to squadrons for testing during the war and none would see frontline combat. After the war, the Salamander was in service with squadrons in British territory until at least 1922. The aircraft was interesting as, in addition to its other modifications, it would be one of the first aircraft to be officially painted by the RAF in camouflage, most likely being the first in RAF aircraft to do so.

The Trench Fighter: Birth of the Ground Attacker

Rear view of the T.F.1 Camel. This was Sopwith’s first attempt at a dedicated Trench Fighter before the Salamander. (Sopwith Aircraft from 1912-1920)

Late into the First World War, the British Royal Air Force began using single-engine fighters to deliberately attack enemy trenches. This was seen at the Battle of Ypres and Cambrai in 1917. Oftentimes, the types used for this role could not perform well enough to dogfight or had some other glaring issue that prevented them from seeing widespread service. Although not their original purpose, these “Trench Fighters” were the first evolutionary step to creating what is now known as dedicated ground attack and close air support aircraft. The Sopwith Aviation Company began experimenting with dedicated, purpose-built trench fighters in 1918. The first of these was a derivative design based on their famous Sopwith Camel fighter. The T.F.1 Camel, TF standing for Trench Fighter, was a modified Sopwith F.1 Camel that had additional armor and was to be used to strafe trenches with a machine gun or bombs. Despite work being done on the T.F.1, it was only considered as a test for a trench fighting aircraft and was never meant to enter service nor production.

Instead, the Royal Air Force was looking for an aircraft with a more powerful engine, which the Camel airframe could not accommodate. Sopwith looked instead to their recently developed Snipe fighter. The Sopwith Snipe aircraft had been designed in late 1917 as a successor to the esteemed Sopwith Camel. It would not enter widespread service until September of 1918 and would only see combat for three months before the end of the war. Despite its short combat service, the Snipe proved itself as one of the most advanced fighters of the time, thanks to its powerful engine and excellent maneuverability. All of this had yet to be proven, however, when the trench fighter derivative design was being drawn up, as the Snipe had only just started testing in late 1917.

Official work began on the trench fighter Snipe in January of 1918. This machine was seen to have several advantages over the TF1. The newer design of the Snipe proved to be much more agile and it was able to carry the powerful 230 hp Bentley BR2 rotary engine. There were three factors that sought to specialize the design of this new aircraft; engine, armor and armament. A rotary engine was favored over an inline on the aircraft because an armored cowling could easily fit over the engine and was thus less likely to be hit from ground fire. For armament, it was planned to have a single forward facing Vickers machine gun with two more in a downward firing position, akin to the armament of the TF1. This idea was ultimately scrapped and two forward facing Vickers were chosen instead, like the armament on the Snipe. Relating to the armor, the front section of the fuselage was made to be a heavily armored box that would protect the pilot and engine from enemy fire. It was optimistically thought only three things would be able to shoot this new aircraft down; a direct hit from anti-air artillery, damage to the flying wires or heavily damaging the main spar. Three prototypes of the new trench fighter aircraft began construction in late January 1918. The first of these would be airworthy and ready in April. By now, the aircraft had received an official name; the Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander.

An example of a production Sopwith Snipe. This would be one of the best aircraft the RAF would field in the later stages of the First World War, and is the aircraft the Salamander would be based on. (Pilots and Planes)

Design

A cockpit view of the aircraft. (Imperial War Museum)

The Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander was an early ground attack aircraft based on the Sopwith Snipe fighter. The two aircraft shared many components, but the Salamander would have a number of features that would make its design unique. It had a wingspan of 19ft 6in (9.5 m). The wings were of two bay construction and consisted of a frame covered in canvas. The fuselage was of all wooden construction and covered in fabric, like the Snipe. It had a length of 19ft 6in (5.9 m). In total, the aircraft had a height of 9ft 4in (2.8 m). The sides of the fuselage were flat, being a change from the rounder fuselage of the Snipe.

In the front of the aircraft would sit the 230-hp Bentley B.R.2 air-cooled radial engine. The eleven-cylinder Clerget 11E engine was an alternative to the Bentley, but no Salamander would be equipped with this engine. The engine and cockpit section of the aircraft would sit in an armored box that would protect its most vital assets. The armored box was 8 mm thick in the front (the armor over the engine and the engine itself also factored in as frontal protection), 6 mm for the sides, 11 mm for the floor, and 10-gauge sheet metal with an additional 6-gauge sheet at the rear. In addition to the armored box, the engine would have an armored cowling over it. The aircraft had around 650 Ibs of armor in total. The sheer amount of armor was meant to protect the aircraft from German anti-armor rounds fired from short range, something it would no doubt deal with at the frontlines.

The controls and cockpit were likely carried over from the Snipe. Behind the cockpit was an armored head fairing that was not present on the Snipe. This detail is a distinct visual difference that one can use to identify the Salamander over the Snipe. Beneath the cockpit was the undercarriage and landing gear. During testing, it was found the armor made the aircraft quite hard to land, and the landing gear was further reinforced during development to assist in this area. The fuselage would taper towards the rear and tailplane. Beneath the tail was a simple landing skid. The tail and rudder were small at first on the prototype Salamanders, like on earlier Snipes, but this would be replaced by a larger rudder and tailfin on the production versions. At first, the tailplane was rigged via wires but this was replaced by four steel tubes connecting at the top and bottom.

A view of the armored front section of the aircraft. (Weapons and Warfare)

For fuel, the Salamander would carry less than the Snipe to accommodate the extra weight of the armor. The fuel delivery system was composed of a Badin vacuum-feed system with a Weyman hand pump connected to the main petrol tank for standby use. The fuel delivery system was protected with armor and rubber along the piping to prevent leaks or fire. In addition to the main petrol tank, there was an oil and gravity tank connected via piping.

The armament of the Salamander went through a number of iterations before its final layout. Originally, the aircraft was going to have a single forward facing Lewis machine gun, with two more facing downwards into the hull, but this was replaced by two synchronized Vickers guns that were staggered to house more ammunition (1000 rounds each). There exist other known layouts pf the Salamander but it is unknown if any of these were tested at any point. These included eight downward firing guns in one layout and two downward facing Lewis guns with two more over the center (in addition to the standard two Vickers). No photos of these two layouts exist. For special missions, the Salamander could carry up to four 20 Ib (9 kg) bombs or a single 112 Ib (51 kg) bomb.

A direct frontal view of the Sopwith Salamander. (Wikipedia)

The Sopwith Salamander: World War Woes

Rear view of the 3rd prototype Salamander. This example has the early rudder. Unfortunately this particular aircraft would be lost in a crash. (Pilots and Planes)

The Salamander would have its first flight on April 27th at Brooklands. The prototype Salamander, E5429, shared the wing mainplane, ailerons and tail control surfaces with the early model Snipe, but these would be improved later on the production models. The improvements were the same as done on the Snipe, which included increasing the size of the rudder. On May 9th, the first Salamander prototype was sent to France for service testing. There is a strange overlap in information with the prototype. Some sources claim that it returned to England on June 30th for further testing at Martlesham Heath, but others claim the prototype was lost to a crash in France on May 19th. Perhaps this was confused with the 3rd prototype, which did crash at a later unknown date. By this point, the other two prototypes were completed (E5430 and E5431). Testing found that the aircraft performed well, but problems appeared with the controls, which were found to be sluggish due to the extra armor.

The Salamander did have its fair share of critics, with several pilots being harsh towards the slower controls of the aircraft and some even finding the concept of an armored aircraft a waste of resources. Many of those who were strong critics of the aircraft criticized it as they did conventional fighters of the time, glossing over its specialized role of ground attack and arguing its armor would make it sluggish in a dogfight, when the aircraft was never intended to operate as a dogfighter. Originally, a plan for 6 prototypes was made but the last 3 were canceled. The 3rd prototype would stagger its machine guns to accommodate the increased amount of ammunition the Salamander had over the Snipe. This change would be present on all Salamanders going forward. With the aircraft performing well in testing, an initial order of 500 aircraft was requested in the early summer months of 1918. Sopwith would begin building production Salamanders at their factories, being constructed alongside the Snipe. In addition to Sopwith, several other aircraft manufacturers would begin constructing Salamanders as well; Air Navigation Co Ltd, National Aircraft Factory No.1, Palladium Autocars Ltd, Glendower Aircraft Co Ltd and Wolseley Motors Ltd. The production versions differed from the prototype Salamanders, having the larger tail fin and rudder as well as the ailerons from the production Snipes being fitted, as well as the staggered machine guns from the 3rd prototype.

A production line at a Sopwith factory where both Salamanders and Snipes are under construction. The first row are incomplete Salamanders. (Armament of British Aircraft)

As the year went on, production for the Salamander increased, as the order jumped from from 500, to 600 to 1400 by the war’s end. Producing the Salamander was found to be more difficult than the Snipe, thanks to its complicated wiring due to the extra steps of creating the armored cockpit area. Problems also began to be found with the armor, as the box was found to warp after some time and distort the frame. This was not a known problem at first, but it plagued many of the early production versions after the war. In October, production Salamanders began being painted in unique disruptive camouflage patterns. This practice started on the 3rd prototype. This would be one of the first times the RAF would officially camouflage paint aircraft, something that would eventually become a mainstay in the next World War. By early November, two Salamanders were sent over and stationed in France, with one being assigned to No 86 Squadron at Phalempin. No 86 Squadron had just been assigned as a dedicated ground attack unit when it arrived. Back in Britain, squadrons No 95 at Weyton, and No 157 at Upper Heyford were also reworked to be dedicated trench fighting squadrons and equipped with five Salamanders each. No 157 Squadron was scheduled to leave for the front on November 21st. With production rapidly increasing and the aircraft soon to be used at the front, all of this was suddenly brought to a halt when the Armistice was signed on November 11th.

 

Postwar Mediocrity

A Sopwith Salamander showcasing its unique camouflage livery (RAF Museum)

With the signing of the armistice, all plans to ship the Salamander-equipped squadrons to the front were canceled. Production was soon to be cut short as well, as the need for such a specialized aircraft disappeared. Gradually, the order of 1400 was decreased to a much smaller number. Sopwith and Glendower continued producing the Salamander until mid 1919, when total production was completely halted. The other companies mentioned before either stopped production entirely or produced only a few more Salamanders after the Armistice. The Salamander was prepared to be used in full force had the war continued into 1919, with an expected thirteen full Salamander squadrons stationed in France by May. There were expected delays with the production of the Bentley engine, so five of these squadrons were to be equipped with the aforementioned Clerget engines. The exact number of Salamanders produced varies from source to source. The most common number found is that 210 were produced in total, but other sources claim that the actual number is closer to 300. Others claim that almost 500 were built. None of these numbers can truly be confirmed but it is likely much more than the commonly thrown around 210.

Rear view of a Sopwith Salamander (Imperial War Musuem)

Postwar, the Salamander did not find itself too popular, as many issues rose up with the design. The warping of the armor began to become a serious problem on early production Salamanders and it was also found the first 70 Salamanders built by Sopwith had upper wings from Snipes, which were not capable of supporting the heavier Salamander. All of these 70 aircraft were found to be extremely dangerous to fly and it took until December of 1918 for the problem to be realized and fixed. From what can be gathered, most of the production Salamanders were put into storage after the Armistice, with many being finished and immediately sent into storage. Flight testing of the type continued until 1920 despite all interest in the Salamander seemingly being lost in mid 1919.

In addition to the disruptive camo, there is mention of a Salamander being painted in a type of lozenge camo, similar to German aircraft schemes in the war, but no photos are known to exist. It was to be tested at Farnborough alongside the regular camo in July of 1919 but it was unlikely anything became of the tests. Despite the lack of interest, the Salamander did occupy a number of squadrons post war, however the details of where and when are sparse. The latest Salamanders mentioned in RAF service were a squadron stationed out of Egypt in 1922. This would have coincided with the Chanak Crisis against Turkey. A few Salamanders were sent to foreign nations for testing. An unknown Salamander was sent to France to be tested by the Section Technique de l’Aéronautique (Aeronautical Technical Section) in Villacoublay, France. Salamander F6533 was sent overseas to America for trials and testing by their Army Air Service. No further orders or Salamanders were made by America after this and the sole example was known to have been still at McCook Airfield as late as 1926. It is likely the warping issue happened with this particular aircraft, as beneath the cockpit “This machine is not to be flown.” was printed and was seen in photographs of the aircraft.

Salamander F6533 at Mccook Airfield (Pilots and Planes)

Many combat aircraft of the First World War found new life in the following years in the hands of private collectors or attending airshows for spectacular performances. The Salamander was unfortunately not one of these aircraft due to its specialized nature and slower performance compared to the fast aircraft that were featured in such displays. With the purpose of the aircraft now gone and with no future in sight, the Salamander was left to be forgotten as newer aircraft replaced it in squadrons and eventually all would be scrapped. None survive to this day.

Conclusion

The Salamander was one of the first British attempts to create a dedicated ground attack aircraft. In addition, it first tested camouflage patterns on RAF aircraft. Unfortunately, it came too late, if only by a few weeks, to be tested in combat. With the war over and the need for such an aircraft gone, the dream of the Salamander strafing enemy positions died and it fell into obscurity as the type was eventually completely scrapped. Had it entered combat, it would have encountered the same problems it did postwar, which would have left the aircraft prone to accidents of its own design and would have taken time to repair in the field. A strange, and perhaps sad, note is the Salamander was the last Sopwith aircraft to enter service with the RAF before the company became defunct in 1920.

Variants

 

  • Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Prototypes – The first prototypes for the Salamander had many of the same features as the Snipe, including sharing the mainplane, unstaggered guns and the tailplane was supported by wires.
  • Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Production – The production version of the Salamander had staggered guns, provisions for carrying bombs, and the tailplane was supported by four steel rods. The first 70 production aircraft accidentally were equipped with the upper wings of the Sopwith Snipe.

 

Operators

 

  • United Kingdom – The Sopwith Salamander was built as a dedicated Trench Fighter for the Royal Air Force, but hostilities would stop before it could be sent to the frontlines. After the war, most Salamanders would be put in storage, but a few would be sent abroad, such as to Egypt.
  • United States of America – A single T.F.2 Salamander (F6533) was sent to McCook Field for testing.
  • France – A single T.F.2 Salamander was sent to France for testing with the Section Technique de l’Aéronautique in Villacoublay, France.

Sopwith T.F.2 Salamander Specifications

Wingspan 31 ft 2 in / 9.5 m
Length 19 ft 6 in / 5.9 m
Height 9 ft 4 in / 2.8 m
Wing Area 272 ft² / 25.3 m²
Engine 1x 230 hp ( 171.5 kW ) Bentley B.R.2 Radial Engine
Propeller 1x 2-blade wooden propeller
Weights
Empty 1844 lb / 836 kg
Maximum 2512 lb / 1139 kg
Climb Rate
Time to 5,000 ft / 1,525 m 6 minutes 5 sec
Time to 6,500 ft / 1,980 m 9 minutes 6 sec
Time to 10,000 ft / 3,050 m 17 minutes 5 sec
Maximum Speed 117 mph / 188 km/h at 10,000 ft / 3,050 m

123 mph / 198 km/h at 6,500 ft / 1,980 m

125 mph / 201 km/h at 3,000 ft / 915 m

Cruising Speed 125 mph / 201 kmh
Endurance 1 ½ hours
Maximum Service Ceiling 13,000 ft / 3,690 m
Crew 1 pilot
Armament
  • 2x synchronized Vickers .303 machine guns (1000 rounds per gun)
  • 4x 20 Ib (9 kg) bombs or 1x 112 Ib (51 kg) bomb

Illustrations

The Salamander in standard RAF livery

 

Several Salamanders would receive a standardized camouflage pattern, they were among the earliest RAF planes to use an official camouflage livery.

Credits

  • Article written by Medicman11
  • Edited by  Henry H. & Stan L.
  • Ported by Henry H.
  • Illustrated by Carpaticus

 

Sources

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/sopwith-salamander

https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/blog/salamandrine-fire/

King, H. F. Sopwith Aircraft, 1912-1920. Putnam, 1981.

Mason, Francis K. The British Fighter since 1912. Naval Institute Press, 1992.

Green, W. and Swanborough, G., n.d. The complete book of fighters.

 

 

Kennedy Giant

UK Union Jack United Kingdom (1917)
Heavy Bomber Prototype – 1 Built / 1 Incomplete

The completed Kennedy Giant (Flickr)

The Kennedy Giant was a very large heavy bomber prototype developed by the United Kingdom, and designed by Chessborough J. H. Mackenzie-Kennedy during World War I. The type was meant to be similar to the Russian Ilya Muromets series of heavy bombers. Development was plagued with issues due to the large size of the aircraft, and after a failed attempt at a first flight, the prototype was left to rot. A smaller redesign was in the works, but the program would be canceled in 1920.

The Man

Chessborough J H Mackenzie-Kennedy in front of the Kennedy Giant in 1917. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

In 1904, at the age of 18, Chessborough J. H. Mackenzie-Kennedy would leave his home country of Britain and move to Russia. The allure of developing his own aircraft firm in a place where very few firms were located was his main reason to move to the country. Only a few years after moving, Kennedy was able to design and build his own aircraft in 1908, and a year later would establish his own aircraft company, the Kennedy Aeronautic Firm, in 1909. In 1911, Kennedy would become acquainted with Igor Sikorsky, the premier aircraft designer of the Russian Empire. Kennedy would assist Sikorsky on several occasions with the design of several aircraft, but none of these would be as important as Kennedy’s work on the Sikorsky Russky Vityaz. The Russky Vityaz would be the world’s first 4-engined airplane and was one of the biggest aircraft built at the time. The aircraft would first fly in 1913. Kennedy would continue to help Sikorsky work on other aircraft, among them the successor to the Vityaz, the Ilya Muromets, until 1914.

On July 28th, 1914, Europe would be plunged into the First World War, with Britain entering the war on August 4th. After Britain entered the conflict, Kennedy would return to his home country to help with their war effort. Using the knowledge he gained while in Russia working with Sikorsky, Kennedy was confident Britain could use his expertise in aircraft design. Kennedy wanted to create a large bomber, akin to the Muromets. Upon his return to England, he would establish a design office at 102 Cromwell Road, South Kensington in London.

The Machine

Kennedy would begin talks with the British War Council discerning the creation of a large four engine bomber aircraft, similar to projects he had worked on with Sikorsky. Interestingly enough, Igor Sikorsky would convert the Ilya Muromets civilian aircraft Kennedy was familiar with into Russia’s first 4-engine strategic bomber. Kennedy was able to convince the War Council of his idea, and he was given funding to create his heavy bomber. The aircraft would become known as the Kennedy Giant.

The incomplete Giant being worked on. The wings are outside of the hangar while the tail is still inside. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

Construction of the Giant began soon afterwards at an unknown date. The manufacture of the components of the aircraft were undertaken by two companies, Gramophone Company Ltd and Fairey Aviation Co Ltd, both located in Hayes, Middlesex. When all of the components were finished, they were shipped to the Hendon Aerodrome for final construction of the massive aircraft. The sheer size of this aircraft would end up being the source of many problems during its development, and the first one would happen upon the arrival of the disassembled plane. Due to its large size, no hangar at the aerodrome was able to house the Giant, so the actual construction of the aircraft was done completely outdoors, on the airfield. The completed aircraft was impressive, possessing an 80ft (24.4m) fuselage and 142ft (43.3m) long wings. The Giant would heavily resemble the Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets that Kennedy had worked on in Russia. Due to the large size of the aircraft, the airplane was stored with its tail inside the hangar, whilst its wings and nose protruded outside. Moving the aircraft required two trucks and 70 men, and in one attempt, the fuselage was damaged from this action. The fuselage3 was redesigned to be 10ft (3m) shorter after this. Originally, Kennedy requested the aircraft to have 4 Sunbeam engines for power, but the engines requested were experiencing difficulties during testing, and wouldn’t be operational until after the war. Aside from testing, the War Council didn’t find the Giant important enough to warrant these new engines, and instead four Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 engines were given to the project instead. These engines would power two pusher and two puller propellers. With the engines finally in place, the completed Kennedy Giant was ready for its first flight.

The Kennedy Giant being constructed outside. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

The Giant’s first flight was in the later months of 1917. The aircraft would be set in the position for takeoff on the runway, with veteran test pilot Frank Courtney at the controls of the massive machine. The engines were set to full throttle, and as the aircraft gained speed, it only managed to make a short hop off the ground, being airborne for only a moment. It was found that the engines given to Kennedy were not able to take the Giant airborne. With the craft being so ungainly to move, and no desire to give the aircraft better engines, Kennedy’s giant aircraft was abandoned in the fields of the Hendon Aerodrome to rot, with a second attempt at a flight never materializing. Kennedy himself wasn’t discouraged by the failure of his aircraft and he began working on a smaller version that he hoped would achieve flight. Information on this version is sparse, but it was still in development after the war, and despite starting construction, the program was canceled in 1920. No photos or details on this smaller version are known. By 1920 the Giant project was going nowhere. With the war over, the War Council decided such a large aircraft was no longer a worthwhile investment.

A side view of the completed Kennedy Giant. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

In 1923, Kennedy would sue the War Council, now the Air Ministry, over a patent he had filed regarding the aircraft. During the war while he was working on the Giant, Kennedy would design a unique system for the tail gunner of the aircraft. The Air Ministry allegedly gave the design plans regarding the Giant to Handley Page in 1917, with the company applying for a patent on the tail gunner position on March 15th, 1918. Kennedy would file for the same patent for his Giant only a day later on the 16th. His case would be dismissed. The last time the Kennedy Giant would be mentioned regarding this case was in an aircraft magazine in 1923, which refers to the Giant still parked at the airfield at Hendon, most likely in poor condition from neglect. An some later date, the Giant was scrapped.

Design

Size comparison shot of the Giant next to a Bristol F.2 fighter. (Jane’s All The Worlds Aircraft 1919)

The Kennedy Giant was a large four engine heavy bomber built using experience gained from the development of the Russian Russky Vityaz and Ilya Muromets. The fuselage of the Giant was of wood construction and was entirely rectangular. All along the sides of the fuselage were celluloid covered windows. The cockpit had several large rectangular windows with good visibility for the pilot. Controls consisted of two large wheels connected to yokes that directed its control surfaces. Located in the upward slope of the nose, there was a window that assisted with bomb aiming. The wings of the aircraft were two bay, meaning a forward and aft row of struts between the upper and lower wings which were covered in fabric, with a wingspan of 142 feet (42.3m). The wings all had the same chord, but the upper wings were longer than the lower. Only the upper wings had ailerons. At the rear of the aircraft were the tail and elevators. Both of these were covered in fabric. The tailfin itself was rather small for the size of the aircraft and most likely would have negatively affected performance had the aircraft achieved sustained flight. The aircraft was powered by four 200 hp ( 149.1 kW ) Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 nine-cylinder water-cooled radial engines powering four wooden propellers. Two of these engines were to be used in a pusher configuration, while the other two were positioned in a tractor configuration.

Despite never being armed, plans for armament of the Giant exist. The aircraft would be armed defensively with 4 machine guns of unknown type. One of these would be located in the nose, one would be located behind the wings on top of the fuselage, and the last two would be in the tail. The tail gunner would have a unique seat option for the gunner, where it could act as either a seat or a kneepad depending on how the gun was being fired. This seat design would be the cause of the lawsuit in 1923. An unknown number and type of bomb would have been used. The bombs would have been held nose down by two arms. A selector gear would control which bombs were dropped while indicating how many were left.

Conclusion

The Kennedy Giant was an earnest attempt to create a heavy bomber using experience gained by Kennedy in Russia, but due to inadequate engines would never be truly realized to its fullest potential. What is interesting to note is the specifications listed for the Giant would actually make it larger than the Zeppelin Staaken R.VI, which is considered the largest production airplane of the World War I. Had it even flown, the Giant would likely have experienced maneuverability issues as its vertical stabilizer height was rather inadequate for the size of the aircraft. After the failure of the Giant, Kennedy would file for bankruptcy, as the program had personally cost him quite a lot of money. He would eventually move to America in the 1930s.

Variants

  • Kennedy Giant – Large, four engine heavy bomber prototype. One built but did not achieve sustained flight.
  • Postwar Kennedy Giant – Very little is known of this variant aside from it being a smaller version of the Kennedy Giant. It was under construction when the program ended.

Operators

  • United Kingdom – The Kennedy Giant was built for the British War Council as a prototype heavy bomber.

Kennedy Giant Specifications

Wingspan 142 ft / 43.3 m
Length 80 ft / 24.4 m
Height 23 ft 6 in / 7.2 m
Engine 4x 200 hp ( 149.1 kW ) Canton-Unne Salmson Z9 nine-cylinder water-cooled radial engines
Propeller 4x 2-blade wooden propellers
Empty Weight 19,000 Ib / 8618.3 kg
Crew 3
Armament

(planned)

  • 4x Machine Guns
  • Bomb Payload of Unknown Size

Gallery

The first version of the completed Kennedy Giant – by Ed Jackson
Closeup view of the cockpit of the Kennedy Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
View of the tail of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
The mid-section of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
Kennedy demonstrating the controls of the Giant while in the cockpit. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)
Kennedy walking down the interior of the Giant. (The Imperial War Musuem Footage)

Credits

  • Written by Medicman11
  • Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
  • Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Sources

  • Grey, C. G. Jane’s all the world’s aircraft, 1919 : a reprint of the 1919 edition of All the world’s aircraft. Newton Abbot: David & Charles, 1969. Print.
  • Mason, Francis K. The British bomber since 1914. London: Putnam, 1994. Print.
  • https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Mackenzie-Kennedy-7

Macfie Monoplane, Empress, & Circuit

UK Union Jack United Kingdom (1909)
Sport Planes – 1 Each Built

Robert Macfie piloting the biplane ‘Circuit’ at Brooklands, 1911 [Flight Magazine]
Prime examples of early aeroplane designs, American Robert Macfie’s three handmade flying machines were designed and constructed from 1909 to 1911, a mere 6 years after the Wright brothers’ first flight. After studying under legendary French aviation pioneer Louis Bleriot, Macfie involved himself in the budding British aeroplane circuit competition scene and became one of the first licensed pilots in Britain. Despite his moderate success in the flying scene, he received no orders for the aircraft and any further developments were cut short by financial troubles and the looming threat of what would become World War I.

The Creator

Robert Francis Macfie pictured on 31st December 1910 on his Aviator’s Licence
Number 49. [Photo by kind permission of the Royal Aero Club of Great Britain]
Robert Francis Macfie was born on 11th November 1881 in San Francisco, California, USA. He was the son of Robert Andrew Macfie (1811 – 1893), a businessman in the sugar industry. His family business was connected with the sugar plantation at Kilauea, Hawaii which was managed from offices in California. Presumably, Robert’s birth in San Francisco was due to his family being located there at this time in connection with plantation management.

Macfie was of Scottish ancestry, despite not being born in Scotland (he had US Citizenship) and took some interest in the family sugar business which had connections in Hawaii and also a 250 acre (101 hectares) ‘Cocoanut’ plantation on the Island of Tobago (St. George Parish) in the Caribbean. By 1898, he was living in Great Britain, as he is recorded as having won a place as a Naval Engineering student at the Royal Naval Engineering College at Devonport. He studied as a Naval engineer for nearly five years, but following graduation did not go into the navy; travelling instead around the United States, Canada, West Indies, Central America, Australia, and South Africa. Presumably, some of this travel was connected in some way to the family’s sugar business. He had settled in Chicago by 1902 and between 1902 and 1904 he took a keen interest in the new field of aviation.

Back in Britain

By 1909, Robert Macfie was back in Great Britain and then went on to France in order to study the new field of aviation. Just six years after the flight by the Wright brothers, the field of aviation was brand new and one of the leading luminaries in the field was the Frenchman Louis Bleriot (1872 – 1936). Between about February and July, he studied under Bleriot and then returned to Britain.

By August 1909, Macfie was in Fambridge, Essex building his first aeroplane. Built around a wooden frame, the ‘Macfie Monoplane’ took just 6 weeks to build with the single largest delay being in obtaining an engine. Macfie had purchased a 35 hp Green engine from Green’s Motor Syndicate for £275, but it was delivered late and would not run. As a result, he switched to a different engine, a 220 lb V8 35 hp J.A.P. air-cooled petrol engine (38 hp at 1500 rpm). The engine had a bore of 85mm and a stroke of 95mm with a displacement of 263.68 cubic inches. When it was finished in September 1909, the ‘Macfie Monoplane’ was a single seater aircraft with a 28′ 6″ (8.7 meter) wingspan, made from canvas over wood.

Wooden frame with wire bracing formed the body of the Macfie Monoplane. [Flight Magazine]
Flown for the first time in September 1909, the Macfie Monoplane suffered a series of crashes which required the undercarriage to be rebuilt. The undercarriage was replaced with a Bleriot style undercarriage instead.

Macfie Monoplane seen at Fambridge with the original undercarriage. [Flight Magazine]
Abandoning Fambridge, Macfie went to Foulness Island instead for test flights. Due to bad weather though, he only got two flights. On 20th November 1909, Macfie narrowly avoided disaster when his plane had a hard landing on the sands at Foulness Island and broke a wheel. The car sent to tow the plane then got stuck, and if it was not for a team of horses coming from a nearby farm, both car and plane would have been lost to the merciless tides at that location. The rest of his tests at Foulness had to be abandoned when the War Office ordered him off the sands.

Macfie then found himself without anywhere for test flights and even took his plane to Paris to try there but was rebuffed. During the Paris floods between the 20th and 30th January 1910, the Macfie Monoplane was so badly damaged it was irreparable and Macfie returned to a workshop at Blackfriars in London.

Macfie Monoplane during testing on Maplin Sands with the rebuilt
‘Bleriot’ type undercarriage. [Flight Magazine]

Improved Plane – The Empress

Building a new and improved version of his monoplane meant a new engine and Macfie selected a 60-hp water-cooled J.A.P. engine. Assembly of the new plane took place in Huntingdon, but the new 60 hp J.A.P. engine had not been delivered by the 10th May, so the original 35 hp engine from the Macfie Monoplane was installed instead. This time, instead of facing forwards, the engine was turned backwards in order to push this new plane.

This new plane was christened the ‘Macfie Empress’, a single-seater once more made from canvas over wood but featuring a second tier of wings, creating a biplane. First flown on 12th May 1910, it was successful, although underpowered and unable to turn properly. The plane was sent to Wolverhampton by the end of June for tests, but when Macfie got it back in on 9th July, it was partially burnt and damaged by the weather to such an extent that it required reconstruction.

The New Empress – the ‘Circuit’

The damage to the Empress meant that Macfie was effectively building a new, third machine. Macfie wanted a better engine than the 35 hp J.A.P engine he had been using. The 60 hp version of the J.A.P. had still not materialised and, as a result, Macfie took a trip to Paris at the start of September 1910 to obtain a 50 hp Gnome engine for this new plane. The source of the engine was James Valentine, and Macfie went into partnership with him to complete the rebuilt Empress. Now rebuilt with a 50 hp engine, the plane was ready by the end of November 1910. Once finished though, it was known as the ‘Macfie Circuit’ and was intended for use in the 1911 Circuit of Britain contest. It had taken just three weeks to build.

By January 1911, Macfie had completed the test flights of the ‘Circuit’ for certification and he was one of the first qualified pilots in Britain. He gained his Aviator’s Certificate from the Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom on 24th January 1911, the 49th such licence issued in the country.

This rebuilt Empress, now ‘Circuit’, design featured a distinctive triple tail and long sledge-like skids underneath. The 50 hp Gnome engine was considered temporary as a more powerful 100 hp A.B.C. engine was preferred. Even so, powered by this 50 hp engine, the plane successfully completed test flights in March 1911 piloted personally by Macfie before heading for the competitive circuit. Here, under the pilotage of Mr. Valentine, the Circuit took part in competitive trials at Brooklands in April and July 1911.

Macfie’s Monoplane with Bleriot style undercarriage

Disaster

Mr. Valentine piloting the Circuit at Brooklands 1911 [Flight Magazine]
Despite the technical success of the Circuit as a plane and the potential for significant improvement with a 100 hp engine, Macfie received no orders for planes. With no money coming in and with his funds now exhausted, he had no choice but to give up. Circuit was sold to another pioneer who would modify her once more with a new type of tail known as the ‘Farman’ tail. Equipped with the Farman Tail, the Circuit was flying around Brooklands in April 1912, but neither Macfie nor Valentine were there to see it.

With no plane orders and his funds exhausted, he returned to the family sugar business until the outbreak of war in 1914. When the war started, he returned to Great Britain with ideas for tracked armored vehicles. Despite joining the Royal Naval Air Service (R.N.A.S.) he never flew during the war and his ideas for tracked vehicles were equally unsuccessful.

Conclusion

The Macfie Monoplane, Empress, and Circuit all had potential in their own rights. At a time when aviation was in its infancy, it was not considered odd to switch from monoplane to biplane as an advance. Macfie had certainly encountered significant obstacles to his aircraft development from the lack of somewhere to test it, a lack of a powerful engine, and the intervention of fate like the Paris floods. It is perhaps remarkable that Macfie was quite so persistent in his aviation endeavours despite all the setbacks. Macfie’s life story is undoubtedly a sad one full of lost chances and missed opportunities. He died an unrecognised pioneer in both aviation and tracked vehicles in 1948. having lived to see the dawn of both tracked armored warfare as well as the jet age.

Gallery

Illustrations by Ed Jackson

Illustration of Macfie’s Monoplane (1909) by Ed Jackson

Credits

PB.29E & PB.31E Supermarine Nighthawk

UK Union Jack United Kingdom (1915 & 1917)
Anti-Airship Fighter – 1 Each Built

Supermarine PB.31E Nighthawk

In 1915, Germany began bombing Great Britain by Zeppelin. For the first time, Britain itself was under threat by enemy aircraft. Early attempts to counter the Zeppelins were ineffective. The Royal Air Corps needed an aircraft to be able to endure long, nighttime missions to chase the Zeppelins. The Pemberton-Billing aircraft company designed the PB.29E quadruplane for this task. The aircraft didn’t perform as hoped, but before a final conclusion could be made it was lost in a crash. Years later in 1917, with the company under new management and renamed Supermarine, the program would rise again as the PB.31E.  The PB.31E was dubbed the Nighthawk, and like its predecessor, proved to be ineffective in the role. The fighter is significant for its unusually large quadruplane layout and the first aircraft to be built by Supermarine.

History

The arrival of the Zeppelin in 1915 as a new type of weapon was an unwelcome one. It offered a new way of strategic bombing, as Zeppelins were faster and able to ascend higher than aircraft at the time. Zeppelins also served as a weapon of terror, as the civilians of England had never been faced with anything like it before, especially since the Zeppelins attacked mainly at night. Early attempts to counter Zeppelin raids proved ineffective, as anti-aircraft guns had a hard time spotting and aiming at the Zeppelins. Early forms of countermeasures involved aircraft dropping flares to illuminate the Zeppelins for gunners to see. None of these aircraft were used to actually intercept the airships. The Royal Air Corps needed an aircraft that would be able to reach and pursue Zeppelins on the homefront and on the battlefield. A potential solution came from a man named Noel Pemberton Billing.

Noel Pemberton Billing (1881-1948)

Noel Pemberton Billing was a man of many talents. He was an inventor, aviator, and at one point a member of Parliament. At the time, he was invested in many forms of new technology and aircraft was one of them. Having formed his own aircraft company in 1913, he built several aircraft types for the Royal Naval Air Arm (RNAA), such as the PB.25. He had taken a short break from designing planes for the RNAA and wanted to pursue aircraft to help in the war effort. The task of taking on Zeppelins got him interested in designing a plane to fill the role.

His answer was the PB.29E, a quadruplane aircraft. Information regarding the PB.29E is sparse and no specifications can be found for it. To get the aircraft to the altitudes at which Zeppelins usually lurked, Pemberton Billing applied triplane principles in making the aircraft, except taking it a step further and adding an extra wing. Having more wings, in theory, would assist with lift, a necessary factor when trying to chase the high-flying Zeppelins. Work began in late 1915, with the aircraft being finished before winter. The PB.29E was intended to fly for very long missions and needed to operate at night. To assist in spotting the behemoths, a small searchlight was to be mounted in the nose of the aircraft. The sole PB.29E crashed in early 1916. From test flights, the aircraft proved to be cumbersome and would not have been able to pursue Zeppelins. The two Austro-Daimler engines did not prove to be sufficient for the intended role, and performance suffered from it.

German Navy – R Class Zeppelin L 31

On September 20th, 1916, Noel Pemberton Billing sold his company to Hubert Scott Paine so he could become a member of Parliament. His career in Parliament was full of slander and conspiracy, and ultimately negatively affected the war effort. Soon after being acquired, Paine renamed the company as the soon to be famous Supermarine Aviation Works, in honor of the firm’s telegraph address. Work continued on a Zeppelin interceptor, which would eventually become the PB.31E. The PB.31E was technically the first aircraft built by Supermarine and it resembled a larger and more advanced version of the PB.29E. It retained many aspects from its predecessor: the quadruplane layout, the mounted searchlight, and endurance for long nighttime missions. The armament was expanded with a second Lewis gun mounted in the rear cockpit as well as a Davis gun mounted on top of the cockpit above the wings. To make the crew more comfortable, the cockpit was fully enclosed, heated, and had a bunk for crewmembers. The Austro-Daimler engines were replaced by 100hp Anzani radial engines. Expected speed was 75 mph (121 km/h) and it was to operate up to 18 hours.

The design team poses in front of the newly completed Nighthawk, fourth from the left is R.J Mitchell.

The aircraft was constructed in February of 1917, with a second in the works. On board the project was R.J Mitchell, the future designer of the Supermarine Spitfire. He began as a drafstman for the company and several designs concerning the fuselage and gun mounts of the PB.31E are labeled with his name. To the engineers, the aircraft was dubbed the Supermarine Nighthawk, however, this name was never official. Early flights were conducted at the Eastchurch airfield by test pilot Clifford B. Prodger. Tests showed that, like its predecessor, the engines weren’t capable of propelling the aircraft to its desired level of performance. To reach altitudes most Zeppelins were found at took an hour. Not to mention, newer Zeppelins could go even higher. Its expected 75 mph (121 km/h) top speed was never reached, with the aircraft only going 60 mph (96 km/h). However, it had a safe 35 mph (56 km/h) landing speed, which would have given the aircraft easy landing capability. With the performance lacking, the RAC deemed the project to be a dead end.

With the introduction of new incendiary rounds which easily ignited Zeppelins, Britain could defend itself with the improved AA guns. Along with the new rounds, the RAC started using the Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2 to intercept Zeppelins at night. Originally intended for dogfighting, the B.E.2 proved to be ineffective and slow against fighters, but Zeppelins were easier, and much larger targets. With the Nighthawk now not needed, Supermarine ended up scrapping the first and incomplete second prototypes in 1917. Although the Nighthawk would never have been successful had it entered production, it still represents major innovations in aircraft design. It was one of the first true night-fighting aircraft to be designed, a concept later heavily utilized in the Second World War. The honor of being the first aircraft built by Supermarine under their name also goes to the Nighthawk.

Design

Overhead and side schematic views of the PB.29E

The PB.29E was a quadruplane designed to chase and intercept Zeppelins. Its fuselage was mounted between the lower two wings, with a gunner port being mounted in the upper two wings, leaving an opening in the middle between the two. Two crewmembers occupied the central fuselage with a single gunner gunner position in a seperate section above. The cockpit was open to the elements, as well as the gunner port. For armament, a single Lewis gun was mounted for attacking Zeppelins. For engines, the PB.29E had two Austro-Daimler six-cylinder engines in a pusher configuration. The tail itself was doubled.

Schematics for the Nighthawk with R.J Mitchell’s initials.

The PB.31E was a quadruplane like the PB.29E, but it was larger utilized a different fuselage design. Instead of having the fuselage between the lower two wings, the PB.31E positioned its body between the middle two wings. The body itself was of all wooden construction. To reduce splinters if the aircraft was fired upon or in the event of a crash, the fuselage was taped and covered in heavy fabric. To make the long missions more comfortable the cockpit was heated and completely enclosed by glass. A bunk was added for one crew member to rest during the flights as well, as the expected flights could last up to 18 hours. A searchlight mounted protruding from the center of the nose for use in patrols at night. The searchlight was movable to allow pointing it at different targets. It was powered by an onboard dynamo hooked up to a 5hp A.B.C petrol engine. For fuel storage, the PB.31E had 9 individual petrol tanks located around the cockpit area. The tanks were built to be interchanged if they were damaged or empty. In the front of the aircraft were several slits behind the searchlight that would assist in cooling. The wings of the PB.31E had significant cord to them. The tailplane was doubled like on the PB.29E, and the tail itself was lower to allow the rear mounted Lewis gun more range

The newly completed PB.29E, the gunner position between the two topmost wings is easily visible

of fire. For engines, the PB.31E had two Anzani radial engines in tractor configuration. These engines gave the PB.31E its slow speed of 60 mph (96 km/h), and its hour-long ascent to 10,000 ft (3000 m). The fluid lines, controls and other parts connected to the engines were placed outside the fuselage in armored casings. For armament, the PB.31E carried a frontal Lewis gun, a top mounted Davis recoilless gun and a rear Lewis gun. The Davis gun was built on a mount that allowed an easy range of motion in most directions. Lewis gun ammo was stored in six double cartridges and 10 Davis gun rounds were stored onboard as well.  Also on board were an unknown amount of incendiary flares to be dropped should a Zeppelin be directly below the craft.

Variants

  • 29E– First aircraft built for the Anti-Zeppelin role. Armed with a single Lewis gun. Crashed during testing.
  • 31E– Second aircraft. One prototype and one unfinished plane. Resembled a larger version of the PB.29E. Carried a Davis gun and two Lewis guns. Scrapped once the design was deemed unworthy.

Operators

  • Great Britain – The two prototypes were built and tested in England.

Supermarine PB.31E Nighthawk Specifications

Wingspan 70 ft / 18.29 m
Length 36 ft 11 in / 11.24 m
Height 37 ft 9 in / 5.4 m
Wing Area 962 ft² / 89 m²
Engine 2x 100 hp ( 76kW ) Anzani Radial Engines
Weights  

Empty 3677 lbs / 1667 kg
Loaded 6146 lbs / 2788 kg
Climb Rate  

Time to 10,000 ft / 3047 m 60 minutes
Maximum Speed 75 mph / 121 km/h
Cruising Speed 60 mph / 96 km/h
Landing Speed 35 mph/ 56 km/h
Flight Time Up to 18 hours of continuous flight
Crew 3-5 Crew

1 Pilot

2-4 Gunners

Armament ●      2x 7.7mm Lewis Guns

●      1x 1 ½ Pounder Davis Gun (10 rounds)

●      1x Frontally-mounted Searchlight

●      Unknown amount of incendiary flares

 

Gallery

Side profiles by Ed Jackson – www.artbyedo.com

Pemberton-Billing PB.29E
Supermarine PB.31 Nighthawk
The PB.29E under construction in Woolston
A frontal view of the PB.29E, note the searchlight
The newly constructed Nighthawk sits in a hangar at Woolston
The Nighthawk on the runway, notice the weapons and spotlight are absent

Sources

 

 

Vickers-Gun - Aircraft Version 1

Vickers Machine Gun

british flag Great Britain  (1912)
Machine Gun
The Vickers Gun or Vickers Machine Gun as it is often called was one of the first armaments fitted to an airplane for combat in the early 1910s. The weapon, originally water cooled and based on the successful Maxim gun, was designed and manufactured by Vickers Limited of Britain and fitted to many early British and French fighter planes.

Origins

The origins of the Vickers gun can be traced back to Hiram S. Maxim’s original ‘Maxim Gun’ that came to prominence in the 1880s as a deadly armament of the British Empire. This machine gun was extremely efficient due to its novel recoil based feed operation, which utilized the recoil of the weapon to eject the spent cartridge and insert another one. The weapon was also water-cooled for maximum efficiency and due to this could be fired for long durations.

The Vickers Machine Gun Design

Vickers-Gun - Aircraft Version 1
The Vickers Aircraft Machine Gun – Fires British .303 (7.7 mm) rounds

Vickers improved on this design by lightening the overall weight of the weapon as well as simplifying and strengthening the parts of the internal mechanisms. Another significant improvement was the addition of a muzzle booster, which restricts the escaping high pressure gases from the barrel, forcing more energy to the backwards motion of the barrel without increasing recoil force.

The Vickers attained a solid reputation upon its introduction in 1912. Despite its bulk and weight of around 30 lbs (15 kg), not including water and ammunition, it was praised by crews for its dependability. Thanks to its water cooling it could be fired practically continuously, requiring only a barrel change for roughly every hour of operation.

Use in Aircraft

Vickers Gun - mounted on a Bristol ScoutThe first use of the Vickers Gun on an aircraft was on Vickers’ own experimental E.F.B.1 biplane prototype, the first British aircraft ever to be designed for military purposes. The gun recieved a few modifications for aircraft use. The water cooling system was deemed unnecessary due to the more than adequate flow of cool, fast-moving air over the barrel in flight. However the water jacket assembly had to be retained due to the barrel action mechanism, but several rows of aircooling slots were added.

Vickers Gun - RAF RE8An enclosure was added to cover the belt feed to prevent wind from kinking the incoming ammunition belt. The belt links were a disintegrating type which meant each belt link was ejected along with each spent cartridge as the weapon fired.

The closed bolt design of the Vickers Gun lent itself to forward firing use in aircraft due to its ease of integration with a synchronizer system. In a closed bolt type of firing mechanism there is virtually no delay between the trigger being pulled and the firing of the weapon, unlike the open bolt design utilized by the Lewis Gun. The introduction of the synchronizer gear system allowed for forward firing through a propeller’s field of rotation.

Colt was licensed to manufacture Vickers Machine Guns in the U.S. and had a large order for the guns from Russia in 1916. After the Russian revolution kicked off in early 1917, the Russian orders were cancelled. The thousands of guns that had been produced sat in storage until a need arose in Europe for a machine gun that could fire larger caliber incendiary rounds to destroy German hydrogen filled balloons. It was decided to use the 11 mm French gras round. All of the previously Russian sized 7.62s were altered to accept the 11mm round. Additionally they were modified for aircraft use, with the appropriate cooling slats cut into the water jacket assembly. These 11mm Vickers became known as “Balloon Busters.”

Vickers Gun - Colt Balloon Buster
The Vickers Machine Gun – 11mm “Balloon Buster” made under license in the U.S. by Colt

Legacy

The aircraft version of the Vickers Gun was by far the most used weapon on British and French fighter aircraft of World War I and the interwar period with some still in use towards the end of World War II. Most of the fighter planes developed in early WWI utilized a single .303 British (7.7mm) Vickers Gun such as the Sopwith Triplane. Later fighters like the Sopwith Camel were able to double their firepower with twin synchronized guns. Advances in aircraft design that took place through the 1930s saw the fixed armaments on aircraft shift towards the wings, allowing for larger, more powerful, and faster firing Browning 1919 machine guns to be fitted, thus signaling the end of the Vickers machine gun’s use in aircraft. The conventional infantry version of the weapon would continue to see service with British ground forces until 1968.

Vickers Machine Gun Specifications

Weight  15 kg / 33 lb
Length  1.12 m / 3 ft 8 in
Barrel Length  720 mm / 28 in
Cartridge  .303 British / 7.7 mm
Action  recoil with gas boost
Rate of Fire  450 to 500 rounds/min
Muzzle Velocity  744 m/s  /  2440 ft/s
Effective Firing Range  2,000 m / 2,187 yd
Maximum Firing Range  4,100 m / 4,500 yd (indirect fire)
Feed System  250 round canvas belt

Gallery

Sources

Vickers machine gun. (2016, April 20). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia., Segel R. (n.d.). THE U.S. COLT VICKERS MODEL OF 1915  WATER-COOLED MACHINE GUN, Small Arms Review.,  MG34. (2012, September 3). My 1918 US Colt/Australian/Turkish Vickers Mk.1 Medium Machine Gun. War Relics Forum.

 

Sopwith Camel B3889 - Side Profile View

Sopwith Camel

british flag Great Britain (1917)
Fighter Plane – 5,490 Built
The legendary Sopwith Camel was the successor to the earlier Pup. The Camel utilized a biplane design and twin synchronized Vickers machine guns. It first flew in late 1916 as the British continued to develop faster and more powerful fighters to keep pace with  German advances in aeroplane design. The Camel was deemed far more difficult to fly than the preceding Pup and Triplane, but despite this would go on to shoot down more German aircraft than any other Allied plane.

Development

After combat losses, it became apparent that the Pup and Triplane were no longer competitive against the German Albatross D.III.  Sopwith Chief Designer Harry Smith recognized the need for a new fighter to be developed. While being designed, the Camel was referred to as the F.1 or the “Big Pup.”

Sopwith Camel - Front ViewAs was standard at the time, the airframe was a wood boxlike structure, with aluminum cowlings around the nose and engine area. Metal wire rigging was used throughout the construction to enhance fuselage and flight surface rigidity. A conventional fabric covered body and plywood cockpit area ensured weight savings were maximized. The nickname of “Camel” came from a “hump” shaped metal fairing that covered the machine guns in order to prevent freezing at altitude. The F.1 was also sometimes referred to as the “Sop,” short for Sopwith. The lower wings featured a dihedral of 3 degrees, meaning the wings are angled upwards and are not perpendicular to the fuselage. However to simplify construction the top wing was flat, giving the plane a unique “tapered gap” between the upper and lower wings. Also the top wing features a cutout section above the cockpit for pilot visibility.

The Camel

After its introduction in June 1917, the Camel became notorious for being difficult to fly. Rookie pilots crashed many times upon takeoff. Part of the reason was the fact that the center of gravity of the plane was very close to the nose owing to the plane’s sizeable powerplant relative to the size of the airframe.  However the fact that 90% of the weight of the aircraft was in the front third of the aircraft gave it great maneuverability, with the weight of the engine, pilot, and armaments centered within the wing root section of the fuselage.

Sopwith Camel Replica - ParkedThe Camel lacked the variable incidence tailplane and trimming that had enabled the Triplane to fly “hands off” at altitude. This meant that a pilot would have to constantly apply pressure to the control stick to maintain level flight at low altitude or speed. Great physical strength and endurance was required to fly the Camel at length.

The Camel had a rotary engine, not to be confused with a radial engine or a rotary wankel. With a rotary engine, the entire engine and crankcase spins relative to the fuselage, with the propeller directly connected to the crankcase. Thus engine speeds in RPM exactly the match the RPM of the propeller. The torque of the relatively powerful rotary engine combined with the weight distribution of the aircraft led to a constant “pull” to the right, a phenomenon common to rotary engines.  Although not necessarily a desired feature, pilots used this to their advantage for turning in dogfights. However, in the event of a stall the Camel would go into a dangerous spin.

The difficulty of flying the aircraft is obvious from the fact that about half of all Camels lost during the Great War were due to non-combat related incidents.  Early on there were many pilot casualties on their first solo fights after training, so a two-seat, dual control version was developed to mitigate the dangers of training on the aircraft.

The Numbers

A staggering 5,490 Camels were produced. Most were deployed to the Western Front. After the war they did not see much use in service. Remarkably only 7 are known to exist as of 2016, however there are many flying replicas of the aircraft.

The Camel is credited with downing 1,294 German aircraft, more than any other Allied plane. Among the plane’s kills is the famed German ace Rittmeister Manfred von Richthofen also known as the “Red Baron.”

Power

The Camel was powered by a variety of rotary engines and by design was able to be fitted with engines from other manufacturers such as Bentley. The primary engine used was the 130 HP Clerget 9B, a French design produced in France and Great Britain which also saw service in the Pup and Triplane.

The most powerful engine available was the Bentley BR1 which produced 150 HP thanks to its aluminum cylinders and pistons as well as a dual spark ignition. It was also significantly cheaper than the Clerget.

Sopwith Camel Specifications

Wingspan  8.5 m / 28 ft 11 in
Length  5.7 m / 19 ft 8 in
Height  2.6 m / 9 ft 6 in
Wing Area 21.5 m² / 231.42 ft²
Engine 1 air-cooled Clerget 9B 110 HP or 130 HP
Maximum Take-Off Weight 659 Kg / 1.453 lb
Empty Weight 422 kg / 930 lb
Maximum Speed 185 km/h / 115 mph
Range 350km / 217 mi
Maximum Service Ceiling 5,790 m / 19,000 ft
Crew 1 (pilot)
Armament 2 synchronized 7.7mm Vickers machine guns
4 20lb Cooper bombs

Gallery

Sopwith Camel B6313 - March 1918
Sopwith Camel B6313 – March 1918
Sopwith Camel B6313 - 6-1918 '3 Stripe' - Side Profile View
Sopwith Camel B6313 – June 1918 – ‘3 Stripe’
Sopwith Camel B6299 - B Flight, 10 Naval Squadron RNAS
Sopwith Camel B6299 – B Flight, 10 Naval Squadron RNAS
Sopwith Camel B6390 'Black Maria' - Raymond Collishaw
Sopwith Camel B6390 ‘Black Maria’ – Raymond Collishaw
Sopwith Camel B6313 - October 1918 - '6-Stripe'
Sopwith Camel B6313 – October 1918 – ‘6-Stripe’
Sopwith Camel B6313 - Oct 1917 Side Profile View
Sopwith Camel B6313 – October 1917
Sopwith Camel B3889 - Side Profile View
Sopwith Camel B3889 – July 1917
Sopwith Camel F6034 - Side Profile View
Sopwith Camel F6034 – September 1918
Sopwith Camel B6344 - October 1917
Sopwith Camel B6344 – October 1917

Sources

Sopwith Camel. (2016, April 1). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Avistar.org (n.d.) Sopwith Camel 1917, Sherman, S. (2012). Sopwith Camel, Franks, N. (2001). American aces of World War I. Oxford: Osprey Aviation. Images: Sopwith Camel – Front View Lineart by Voytek S / CC BY-SA 1.0, Sopwith Camel – Replica in Flight by D. Miller / CC BY 2.0, Sopwith Camel – Replica Structure by TSRL / CC BY-SA 3.0

Sopwith Triplane N6290 Dixie - Side Profile View

Sopwith Triplane

british flag Great Britain  (1916)
Fighter Plane – 147 Built
The Sopwith Triplane was a creation of Britain’s Sopwith Aviation Company around 1916. Its three stacked wings gave it good maneuverability and stability in flight relative to other planes of the day. The aircraft had the nicknames Tripehound, Trihound, Triplehound, or Tripe and it was popular among pilots. The Triplane first saw service with Royal Navy Air Squadron No.1 in late 1916. Many orders were placed by the RNAS as well as the Royal Flying Corps. Some aircraft were also acquired by the French Navy. One each was sent to Greece and Russia for evaluation. Only two original examples of the Tripe exist today.

Design

Sopwith Triplane Blueprint - Front ViewThe most noticeable aspect of the Triplane is its three wing design, which was one of the first of its kind. In the interest of pilot field of view Chief Engineer Herbert Smith decided to use a narrow chord design, meaning the wings were short as measured from leading edge to trailing edge. Because of the lift lost when narrowing the chord, the third wing was added to the design. All three wings have functional ailerons and the tailplane is a variable incidence type which means it can be trimmed enough for the pilot to fly hands-off. In early 1917 a smaller tailplane was introduced improving maneuverability. The Triplane was fitted with a single Vickers gun.

The Tripehound

Sopwith Triplane Flying

WIth the Tripehound’s entry into active service late in 1916, it quickly proved popular among pilots with its relatively superior maneuverability and speed. The first adversaries the Tripehound went up against were German Albatros D-IIIs which it greatly outclassed in climbing and turning ability, as well as being 15 mph faster. Every engagement with the enemy demonstrated the Triplanes’ superior power.

Clerget Power

Clerget 9 Cylinder Engine HeadThe Triplane was powered first by a Clerget  9B, 9 cylinder rotary engine developing 110 HP (82 kW). This powerplant was built in both France and Great Britain by numerous manufacturers. Later, 130 HP 9B engines were fitted, further enhancing the Triplane’s dominance, although the engine was tuned perhaps too aggressively as it was prone to overheating.

 

 

Sopwith Triplane Specifications

Wingspan  8.07 m / 26 ft 6 in
Length  5.73 m / 18 ft 10 in
Height  3.20 m / 10 ft 6 in
Wing Area 11 m² / 118.4 ft²
Engine 1 air-cooled Clerget 9B 110 HP or 130 HP
Maximum Take-Off Weight 698 Kg / 1,541 lb
Empty Weight 499 kg / 1,101 lb
Maximum Speed 188 km/h / 117 mph
Range 2 hours and 45 minutes
Maximum Service Ceiling 6,248 m / 20,000 ft
Crew 1 (pilot)
Armament 1 synchronized 7.7mm Vickers machine gun

Gallery

Sopwith Triplane Prototype N500 Side Profile View
Sopwith Triplane Prototype N500 – June 1916
Sopwith-Triplane-Prototype-N500-Brown-Bread-Side-Profile-View
Sopwith Triplane Prototype N500 – June 1916 repainted as “Brown Bread”
Sopwith Triplane N5387 Peggy - Side Profile View
Sopwith Triplane N5387 “Peggy” – August 1917
Sopwith Triplane N533 Black Maria - Side Profile View
Sopwith Triplane N533 “Black Maria” – July 1917
Sopwith Triplane N6290 Dixie - Side Profile View
Sopwith Triplane N6290 “Dixie”


Simulated Dogfight in a Triplane

Sources

1 Franks, N. (2004). Sopwith Triplane aces of World War 1. Oxford: Osprey., Images:Sopwith Triplane Flying at Duxford 2012 by AirwolfhoundCC BY-SA 2.0 , Clerget 9B Engine Head by Andy Dingley / CC BY-SA 3.0