Andrew Upton Posted 8 February , 2011 Share Posted 8 February , 2011 I wouldn't add this if I wasn't also making a sensible comment, but in your post #12, is the chap on the right wearing his dressing gown? Or is it an Arab robe without the headgear? Dressing gown I thought, it also looks like the other couple of chaps have just hurridly thrown a few items of kit over their pyjamas. There's at least one well known story of an Officer on an early/dawn patrol wearing his flying gear over his pyjamas (as he was after a bit more shut-eye when he returned) getting shot down and captured wearing them still! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 9 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 9 February , 2011 Looks like a dressing gown to me too. Here's an interesting photo of another crash. I like the bike and the school boys being so close by. Is this plane recognisable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 February , 2011 Share Posted 9 February , 2011 This one is a BE2e. Note the different wings compared to the BE2c in the earlier photos - BE2e wings were more similar to the later RE8. I wouldn't add this if I wasn't also making a sensible comment, but in your post #12, is the chap on the right wearing his dressing gown? Or is it an Arab robe without the headgear? A few RE8s were fitted with BE2c wings and tentatively called RE9s. They proved a better aircraft (for the pilot at least) than the RE8. I've never seen an Arab dish dashi with a waste cord or pockets or a neck like that (mind you I'm most familiar with modern Gulf wear and perhaps fashions changed). It looks more like an Egyptian costume but I'd plump for a bath robe (rather than a dressing gown). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 9 February , 2011 Share Posted 9 February , 2011 RE8 A3174 was with 17 TS Portmeadow (Oxford) in mid 1917 and was crashed landing on 13.6.17. It pilot, 2Lt D Shanks (later with 65 Sqn on Camels) was OK. BE2e A1277 isn't covered in my BE log - A1275 and A1276 were with 53 TS at Narborough and A1278 was with 13 TS at Yatesbury. It wasn't uncommon for machines with a small run of consectutive serials to be issued to a training unit, so it may be that A1277 was with one of the two mwntioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 9 February , 2011 Share Posted 9 February , 2011 Is this plane recognisable? Alan It's an Avro 504; a widely-used trainer. You will note the RFC man standing in front of, and thereby partly obscuring, the serial number on the fuselage. I have a theory that this is part of a wide-ranging plot at the time: "Let's frustrate researchers in 90-odd years' time by making it hard to identify the aeroplane". Regards Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 9 February , 2011 Share Posted 9 February , 2011 A few RE8s were fitted with BE2c wings and tentatively called RE9s. Although the RE9's wings looked like those of a BE2c, they were slightly longer in span. The wingspan of a BE2c was 37 feet, while that of the RE9 was 38 feet 6 inches. See British Aeroplanes 1914-1918 by J M Bruce. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 9 February , 2011 Share Posted 9 February , 2011 This one is a BE2e. Note the different wings compared to the BE2c in the earlier photos - BE2e wings were more similar to the later RE8. I think, purely from the serial number, that this may have been originally a BE2c fitted with BE2e wings before delivery. However one would need to know the fuel tank arrangement to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 I think, purely from the serial number, that this may have been originally a BE2c fitted with BE2e wings before delivery. However one would need to know the fuel tank arrangement to tell. Although Bruce Robertson, in his invaluable serials book, listed this Barclay Curle batch as BE2c/e, most documents don't differentiate. However, available photos of machines in the batch, from some of the earliest, show only BE2es - some may have been 2cs but I've yet to see evidence. What I have is: A1261 - A1310 : 50 BE2c/e (90hp RAF 1a) built by Barclay Curle & Co Ltd, Whiteinch, Glasgow under Contract No 87/A/601. A1261 76 HDS A Flt Copmanthorpe by 25.5.18 until @ 6.6.18. A1262 Turnhouse (77 HDS ?) by 3.5.1917 (visited East Fortune on that date). A1263 82 Sqn Waddington B Flt dd by rail 23.4.1917, transferring to A Flt 2.5.1917. 27 Wing ARS Waddington ex 82 Sqn 28.5.1917. 82 Sqn dd engine-less ex ARS 21.6.1917. 27 Wing ARS ex 82 Sqn (engine-less) 18.8.1917. 51 TS Waddington. A1264 A1265 BE2e. At Renfrew 30.3.1917 allotted to EF France. 3 TS Shoreham by 5.1917. Crashed on nose at New Romney. A1266 BE2e. Photographed force landed at Barnard Castle 31.3.1917. RNAS CTE Cranwell by 3.1918. A1267 Allotted to HD duties. At Renfrew 18.3.1917 re-allotted to EF France. 42 TS Hounslow by 6.1917 until @ 7.1917. Wireless & Observers School Brooklands crashed 3.8.1917 (2Lt RL James [53 TS] killed). A1268 Salonika AP by 21.6.1917. 47 Sqn Salonika. Deleted 24.10.1917. A1269 17 Sqn Salonika. 47 Sqn Salonika. Deleted 25.10.1917. A1270 At Renfrew 29.3.1917 and allotted to EF France 22.4.1917. 18 TS Montrose by 22.4.1917 and crashed 14.6.1917 (Capt L Findlay killed). A1271 At Renfrew 28.3.1917 allotted to EF France via SARD Farnborough. A1272 18 RS/TS Montrose by 22.4.1917, force-landed at East Fortune 1.6.1917 (Lt McNiven) and returned to Montrose 3.6.1917 but crashed in forced-landing 10.7.1917 (2Lt CG Pentecost injured). A1273 BE2e. 38 HDS Leadenham 1917, fitted with Le Prieur rockets. 76 HDS A Flt Copmanthorpe by 20.10.1917. A1274 52 TS Catterick by 6.1918. A1275 53 TS Narborough by 6.1917 and damaged in forced landing 25.9.1917 (2Lt GF Anderson OK). A1276 53 TS Narborough 6.1917 until @ 7.1917. A1277 A1278 13 TS Yatesbury dd ex 28 Wing ARS 9.11.1917. A1279 To Middle East. 14 Sqn Palestine. A1280 Transferred to Norwegian government as F15. A1281 BE2e. 77 HDS C Flt New Haggerston by 3.1917. A1282 Transferred to Norwegian government. A1283 Transferred to Norwegian government. A1284 Transferred to RNAS. Shipped to Mudros for 2 Wing RNAS 5.1917. RNAS Imbros. RNAS Marsh Aerodrome by 1.12.1917 until @ 1.1.1918. Wrecked. Surveyed 18.2.1918 and deleted 13.3.1918. A1285 BE2e. Transferred to RNAS. Shipped to Mudros 5.1917 for 2 Wing RNAS. Marsh Aerodrome by 1.12.1917 until @ 1.1.1918. Wrecked. Surveyed 13.2.1918 and deleted 13.3.1918. A1286 Transferred to RNAS. RNAS CTE Cranwell dd 23.5.1917. RNAS Freiston 14.12.1917. RNAS CTE Cranwell by 1.1918. Crashed 2.3.1918. Repaired. Crashed and wrecked 9.3.1918. Deleted 15.4.1918. A1287 Transferred to RNAS. RNAS CTE Cranwell dd 25.5.1917. Damaged in crash 28.1.1918. Damaged in landing collision with A1328 15.3.1918. 211 TDS Portholme Meadow by 8.5.1918 until @ 8.1918. A1288 A1289 A1290 A1291 A1292 51 TS Waddington. 82 Sqn Waddington dd engine-less ex 27 Wing ARS 26.9.1917 and crashed 28.9.1917 (2Lt FC Neser fatally injured). Deleted 7.10.1917. A1293 82 Sqn Waddington B Flt dd ex 27th Wing ARS 27.8.1917. 51 TS Waddington ex 82 Sqn 7.11.1917. 27 TDS Crail by 6.9.1918 until @ 15.9.1918. A1294 A1295 A1296 26 Sqn Dar-es-Salam dd 26.11.1917. A1297 26 Sqn Dar-es-Salam dd 26.11.1917. A1298 BE2e. WT School Chattis Hill 1918. Airdisco, Waddon. Became G-EAJA post-war, with Kingsford-Smith-Maddocks Aero Ltd, from 22.8.1919. To Capt AH Curtis at Hendon 10.1919 and written off 7.1920.. A1299 WT School, Chattis Hill 1918. A1300 Wireless & Observers School. A1301 A1302 A1303 26 Sqn Dar-es-Salam dd 26.11.1917. To Egypt. 18 TDS Abbassia. 5 FS Heliopolis/Z Sqn 4.1919. A1304 To Middle East. X AD Alexandria by 17.11.1917. 20 Training Wing Egypt dd ex X AD. Crashed in Middle East. A1305 To Middle East. 16 TDS Amria by 7.1918 until @ 9.1918. A1306 Shipped to East Africa. To X AD Aboukir 3.6.1918. 20 (Training) Wing Aboukir by 8.7.1918. 269 Sqn (Submarine Flt) Port Said by 28.10.1918. 18 TDS Moascar by 21.2.1919. Deleted 1.3.1919. A1307 A1308 BE2e. 6 TDS Boscombe Down by 14.3.1918. A1309 6 TDS Boscombe Down by 16.3.1918 and wrecked 21.3.1918 (2Lt EA Cook fatally injured). A1310 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Although Bruce Robertson, in his invaluable serials book, listed this Barclay Curle batch as BE2c/e, most documents don't differentiate. However, available photos of machines in the batch, from some of the earliest, show only BE2es - some may have been 2cs but I've yet to see evidence. The point I was making was the plane may have been ordered as a BE2c but delivered as a BE2e. Aircraft which were initially built as 2c but fitted with BE2e wings before delivery look externally like BE2es but have a different fuel tank arrangement internally. Because the Batch is listed as BE2c/e and, as far as I know batches were not ordered as mixed the decision to switch to the BE2e configuration was taken whilst they were being built so that some would be built as 2cs but fitted with 2e wings before delivery, some would be built entirely as 2es. Some early in the batch might even have been delivered as 2cs and had 2e wings fitted in the field. On the books all would be treated as 2es Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 The point I was making was the plane may have been ordered as a BE2c but delivered as a BE2e. Aircraft which were initially built as 2c but fitted with BE2e wings before delivery look externally like BE2es but have a different fuel tank arrangement internally. Because the Batch is listed as BE2c/e and, as far as I know batches were not ordered as mixed the decision to switch to the BE2e configuration was taken whilst they were being built so that some would be built as 2cs but fitted with 2e wings before delivery, some would be built entirely as 2es. Some early in the batch might even have been delivered as 2cs and had 2e wings fitted in the field. On the books all would be treated as 2es I agree with what you say. It's a shame that none of that batch was recorded as being delivered to the BEF, because the BE2f designation would have been used. Frequent removal of the main underwing gravity tank, the fact that shadow from the upper planes frequently masks the ribbing of the auxiliary gravity tank and the way the rear c/s strut masks the fuel port filler to the auxiliary tank in front starboard shots often makes photo identification difficult. However, by 1917 the RFC, and later RAF,at home just used the designation BE2e, regardless. Perhaps the fact that the type was in such plentiful supply as a trainer meant that the spares issue, which caused the BEF to use BE2f, wasn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 10 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Bit more of a challenge to identify this one: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Alan I'd say it's probably an RE8, judging from the shape of the fabric covering on the fuselage to the rear of the Scarff ring, but I won't be surprised to be proven wrong. Cheers Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 I can see where you're coming from - that does look very like the 'hump' round the observers position. However I'm puzzled by the thin strips that can be seen through the canvas on what remains of the rear fuselage. These do not look like RE* construction - see this helpful web site http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image-galleries/re8-construction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nils d Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Looks like a dressing gown to me too. Here's an interesting photo of another crash. I like the bike and the school boys being so close by. Is this plane recognisable? Dosnt it look as if the Avro has been painted to 'blend in' with the background? Those lads are in long trousers,l doubt they are still "schoolboys".Why they must be all of 14! (Three years older and theyd be called up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nils d Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Alan It's an Avro 504; a widely-used trainer. You will note the RFC man standing in front of, and thereby partly obscuring, the serial number on the fuselage. I have a theory that this is part of a wide-ranging plot at the time: "Let's frustrate researchers in 90-odd years' time by making it hard to identify the aeroplane". Regards Gareth Yes Gareth l thought l was the only one to have that theory.People will even stand in front of civilian registrations to upset us . l once saw a photo of Harry Hawkers Sopwith Tabliod in Australia and some dim civvie was standing in front ot of the the big SOPWITH logo painted on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 Yes Gareth l thought l was the only one to have that theory. People will even stand in front of civilian registrations to upset us . l once saw a photo of Harry Hawkers Sopwith Tabliod in Australia and some dim civvie was standing in front ot of the the big SOPWITH logo painted on the side. And the plot spread to tanks as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 However I'm puzzled by the thin strips that can be seen through the canvas on what remains of the rear fuselage. These do not look like RE8 construction. I thought that the thin strips made the machine look like an RE8. See the photograph below. The strips are shown in the right hand photo of the 8th row down at: http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/image-galleries/re8-construction Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 10 February , 2011 Share Posted 10 February , 2011 The ones you refer to are on the top of the fuselage running down from the observers position - the ones on the wreck appear to be on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 To me, it looks like the fuselage has broken and slightly twisted just aft of the observer's position. Hence, the strips (stringers?) are on the fuselage top. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 11 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February , 2011 To me, it looks like the fuselage has broken and slightly twisted just aft of the observer's position. Hence, the strips (stringers?) are on the fuselage top. Gareth Hi both, Would you like a close-up of the end of the fuselage? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 Hi both, Would you like a close-up of the end of the fuselage? Alan Yes please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 11 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February , 2011 Yes please Voici: That what you wanted? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 Alan Thanks. I still say an RE8, with the fuselage twisted just behind the observer's compartment and broken off just in front of the tail. The fabric stitching is in the right place, high up on the port fuselage side. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 Much better thanks. What I thought was the side I can now see is the top so an RE 8 is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 11 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 11 February , 2011 You guys are so good at identification I thought I'd set even more of a challenge. See below. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now