centurion Posted 11 February , 2011 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 The rear fuselage, scarff ring and king posts on the wing say another RE8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 Alan Another RE8, in something less than showroom condition. Cheers Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 11 February , 2011 Share Posted 11 February , 2011 The rear fuselage, scarff ring and king posts on the wing say another RE8 And the RAF 4a engine would confirm it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Under what appears to be the bottom of the fuselage, under the Scarff ring - is that some kind of translucent panel? Perhaps for a camera? I imagine the underside of an RE8 fuselage was never photographed at close range, except in this unfortunate and probably tragic event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 Under what appears to be the bottom of the fuselage, under the Scarff ring - is that some kind of translucent panel? Perhaps for a camera? I imagine the underside of an RE8 fuselage was never photographed at close range, except in this unfortunate and probably tragic event. You wouldn't get a worthwhile photo through a translucent panel (and the panels in both RE8 photos do look translucent rather than transparent) The usual place for RFC and RAF cameras of the period appears to be on the fuselage side. However the bottom of the RE8 was covered with clear doped linen which if viewed with nothing behind it is translucent (this was normal for almost all RFC and RAF aircraft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 However the bottom of the RE8 was covered with clear doped linen I know I shouldn't get drawn into these one-sided discussions, but there was a clear/transparent panel aft of the observer's position on the bottom of the fuselage of the RE8. See the GA drawings in profile Publication No 85 The RE8 by J M Bruce and Bombers 1914-1918 by K Munson. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 13 February , 2011 Share Posted 13 February , 2011 I know I shouldn't get drawn into these one-sided discussions, but there was a clear/transparent panel aft of the observer's position on the bottom of the fuselage of the RE8. See the GA drawings in profile Publication No 85 The RE8 by J M Bruce and Bombers 1914-1918 by K Munson. Gareth I hope this isn't a one sided discussion but a real one! Just looked out Vol 1 of Aircraft Archive in which there are four pages of detailed drawings of the RE8 and such a panel does not show. However there are two possibilities looking at the quite detailed descriptions in "Aeroplanes of the Royal Aircraft Factory". One is that a (very) small number of RE8s had the centre section either covered with Cellon or in an even smaller number of cases Triplex glass. The size and shape would be consistent with what can be seen in the photo. The other is that a camera was sometimes fitted behind the observer's position however the aperture would be small and uncovered in this instance. As has been said previously photos of the undersides of RE8s are difficult to find however in those I have seen no extensive translucent panels are obvious. I would still plump for sections of unbleached linen which was translucent to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 15 February , 2011 Share Posted 15 February , 2011 Bombers 1914-1918 [actually -1919] by K Munson I've had this book since I was about 14 and I've only just noticed that there was a panel in the bottom of the RE8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 16 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 16 February , 2011 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. Does this pictures show the underwing gravity tank you mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 16 February , 2011 Share Posted 16 February , 2011 Nice BE12 shot - any idea where it was taken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 16 February , 2011 Share Posted 16 February , 2011 No Vickers gun, and whilst this might have been removed after the crash the Vickers Challenger synchronisation gear is also absent. This would suggest that unless it was a very early BE12 it's a training machine. The schoolboy would suggest in Britain. Its difficult to see the tail plane elevators but I think it might be one of the BE12s fitted with a BE2e tail plane which would place it later than July 1916 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanlw Posted 16 February , 2011 Author Share Posted 16 February , 2011 Nice BE12 shot - any idea where it was taken? Chap who took it was at No.1 School for Military Aeronautics at Reading, then CFS. Got his aviator's certificate at Hendon and spent a month at Croydon, before going to GEA. Take your pick. Are you sure it's not a BE2d? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 17 February , 2011 Share Posted 17 February , 2011 Chap who took it was at No.1 School for Military Aeronautics at Reading, then CFS. Got his aviator's certificate at Hendon and spent a month at Croydon, before going to GEA. Take your pick. Are you sure it's not a BE2d? Its a single seater. The under wing tank is the 12 gallon one fitted to BE12s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 17 February , 2011 Share Posted 17 February , 2011 2 Avro 504s and a BE2C by the hangers. As the BE2 is in plain linen suggests earlyish in the war. The wings on the BE2 variant appear to be without stagger, so it's probably a BE2b or earlier variant. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 18 February , 2011 Share Posted 18 February , 2011 The wings on the BE2 variant appear to be without stagger, so it's probably a BE2b or earlier variant. Gareth With such a small image on a blurry photo difficult to tell. I stare and sometimes I think I can see a stagger and sometimes not. It's a shame we can't see the top of the wing and see if its got ailerons or not which would clinch it. If it is a 2b then the two blade prop would indicate its the 80hp Renault version which almost certainly says trainer. 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