The worst aircraft of WW1 - nominations

[centurion]

FK6 in flight + FK5 (??)

Two aircraft were built. The first was the one you show upside down and on the ground. This had the nacelles above the wing and Captain I. Fairburn Crawford who was the general manager of Armstrong Whiworth's aviation division refused to allow it to fly. It had very poor ground handling characteristics and it seems to have nosed over. It was redesigned and a second version built. This is the one in my drawing and the one you show in the air. A contract for four prototypes was issued 7838 - 7841 under the designation FK12, the Admiralty also issued a contract for two multigun triplanes 3684 -3685 which may or may not have been the FK5 or FK6 (they were not completed)

[centurion]

Anthony Fokker was so impressed by the success of the Triplane that he decided that even more wings would bring even more success (this about sums up his design expertise). He therefore ordered his designer Reinhold Platz to produce a cinquplane (five wings). No attempt was made to test the concept with models in a wind tunnel. The resultant aircraft (produced under protest by Platz) had tandem wing layout with three wings up front and two in the middle. This appears to have been a desperate attempt by Platz to both eliminate the need for a complex strutting arrangement and to produce something that might be even moderately stable. This arrangement put the centre of gravity between the two sets of wings. Components from various prototypes were used (including the Triplane which appears to have contributed the rear fuselage and tail assembly).

In late 1917 the new wonder plane was ready and Fokker himself conducted the initial (and only) flight. Whatever else Fokker was he was an exceptional pilot and it is to this that one must attribute his survival, he manage to coax the V8 into the air and to land it safely shortly afterwards . He then walked away from the aircraft which was quietly discarded. Apparently Fokker refused to talk about it. Platz was allowed to concentrate on biplanes and monoplanes.

[centurion]

When evaluating Curtiss JN training aircraft from the USA in 1915 the RFC Aircraft Inspection Department (AID) at Farnborough commented very adversely on the manufacturing standards in place in the US aircraft industry at the time (and the very first Curtis JN3s delivered to the RFC were officially banned from flying). Curtis did subsequently apply a considerable number of modifications to comply with the AID’s minimum standards of safety. It would seem that other parts of the industry could still produce structurally unsafe aircraft. The American company of Thomas-Morse had already been successful in producing a fighter trainer for the US Army Air Corps in some numbers when it made its first attempt to produce a single seat fighter. The MB-1 was a parasol monoplane of wooden construction and skinning powered by a 400hp. Liberty engine. Two prototypes were built in 1918. The first attempt to flight test the aircraft ended when the undercarriage collapsed during the take off run. After repairs were made a second attempt was made and during the take off run the undercarriage collapsed again. A third attempt was made and the aircraft actually left the ground and made a short flight but on landing it suffered structural failure. At this point it occurred to the testers that the structure of the MB-1 might just be somewhat weak and flying it a little on the risky side. No more fight testing was carried out. Thomas-Morse abandoned development of the MB-1

Still worse was the Cantilever Aero Bullet of December 1918 usually known as the Christmas Bullet after its chief designer Dr. Christmas. This was a single seat biplane fighter with, as the name suggests, cantilevered wings. Unlike other cantilever wings of the time (which were thick so as to accommodate the hefty spars supporting them) those of the Christmas Bullet were thin and could be easily flexed. Indeed the top wing drooped under its own weight.

When asked about this feature Dr. Christmas was adamant that this was part of the design and intended to provide the necessary flexibility to withstand flight stresses, indeed the Doctor advertised the aircraft as the, "safest, easiest controlled plane in the world!”. It seems that the Doctor was to aircraft design what a snake oil salesman is to medicine.

Two prototype aircraft were built and a pilot hired to test the first (although a pilot himself the good Doctor felt it unwise to fly his own design). The Bullet, it was claimed (by Dr Christmas) would have a top speed of 185 mph (to put this in context the fastest fighter then in service any where in the World, the Martinsyde F4 Buzzard, had a top speed of 150 mph). This was never proven as shortly after take off the wings snapped off the first Bullet and it plunged to the ground killing the pilot. Undeterred Dr. Christmas persuaded another pilot to test the second prototype. In early 1919 the second Bullet took off, as it climbed its wings snapped off and it also plummeted killing its pilot. There have been suggestions that Dr. Christmas had extracted significant monies from the US authorities for the construction of the two aircraft but this has never been satisfactorily explained. It would seem that there is little justice in this World for Dr. Christmas lived on until 1965 dying in his mid nineties. In the 1920s federal control over the aviation industry’s practices and standards ensured that the building and flying of structurally unsound aircraft became (usually) a thing of the past.

[mickdavis]

Interesting. Everything I've seen say's that only one FK6 was produced, 7838. The photo of the machine crashed at Gosforth doesn't look like it nosed over, nor does it's design bear much relationship to 7838. We all know that Koolhoven designations have big question marks hanging over them, hence my FK5?? However, the FK2 and FK3 were of almost identical geometry but had different designations. The FK4 is assumed to have been the car for SS airships. The order for 7838-7841 was placed during April 1916, before the FK7 emerged, in June 1916, and the initial FK8 in August. The skinny fuselage quadruplane was photographed at Gosforth while there were still leaves on the trees (late summer/early autumn 1916??), while the first FK10 is shown with trees stripped of their leaves (winter 1916). FK6 makes sense. The FK12 transfer was put forward in November 1916, after FK8s were in production and the FK9 (?) was aired. FK11 seems to have been the multiplane (15 wing) version of the FK10. There is an association with the FK6/12 and the Davis gun (very much an Admiralty thing) and I suspect that there may have been a nacelle modification put forward to accommodate that recoil-less weapon.

[Dolphin]

I think that the rudder stripes on the Christmas Bullet were more likely to have been in the US pattern of red-white-blue (from the leading edge) rather than British/French blue-white-red.

Gareth

[mickdavis]

It would be if true. The Be12 was NOT originally a fighter having been designed before synchronised machine guns and it was a single seat long range photo recce aircraft and bomber. When used in this role it did the job it was designed for, although hampered by the dreadful RAF4a engine. and lasted longer than a month on the WF. It was a poor fighter but then it was never intended to be used as such. The Hispano Suiza engined BE12b proved to be a potent fighter bomber (and an impressive night fighter) but use was limited due to a shortage of engines (most going to SE5as)

When were BE12bs used as fighter bombers???? They seem to have been engined at the NARD, Coal Aston, and distributed purely to VI Brigade. Bombing in the event of an enemy invasion was one of VI Brigade's intended duties but it never became necessary. You're correct about Hisso engines going to SE5as - I've logbook copies which show BE12bs on HD duty becoming BE12s with RAF4s. Those logbooks also suggest that the BE12b's performance wasn't all that good.

[centurion]

Interesting. Everything I've seen say's that only one FK6 was produced, 7838. The photo of the machine crashed at Gosforth doesn't look like it nosed over, nor does it's design bear much relationship to 7838. We all know that Koolhoven designations have big question marks hanging over them, hence my FK5?? However, the FK2 and FK3 were of almost identical geometry but had different designations. The FK4 is assumed to have been the car for SS airships. The order for 7838-7841 was placed during April 1916, before the FK7 emerged, in June 1916, and the initial FK8 in August. The skinny fuselage quadruplane was photographed at Gosforth while there were still leaves on the trees (late summer/early autumn 1916??), while the first FK10 is shown with trees stripped of their leaves (winter 1916). FK6 makes sense. The FK12 transfer was put forward in November 1916, after FK8s were in production and the FK9 (?) was aired. FK11 seems to have been the multiplane (15 wing) version of the FK10. There is an association with the FK6/12 and the Davis gun (very much an Admiralty thing) and I suspect that there may have been a nacelle modification put forward to accommodate that recoil-less weapon.

Take a look at War Planes of the First World War Vol 1 byJ.M. Bruce. The nosed over aircraft is the first attempt at the FK12 and never flew.

[centurion]

When were BE12bs used as fighter bombers???? They seem to have been engined at the NARD, Coal Aston, and distributed purely to VI Brigade. Bombing in the event of an enemy invasion was one of VI Brigade's intended duties but it never became necessary. You're correct about Hisso engines going to SE5as - I've logbook copies which show BE12bs on HD duty becoming BE12s with RAF4s. Those logbooks also suggest that the BE12b's performance wasn't all that good.

There were BE12bs in store and un issued so its difficult to see why operational ones would have their engines swapped. Some BE12bs on the production line were finished with 4as as BE12a s - possibly these are what you refer to?

[centurion]

I think that the rudder stripes on the Christmas Bullet were more likely to have been in the US pattern of red-white-blue (from the leading edge) rather than British/French blue-white-red.

Gareth

I was interpreting from a very poor photo but matching tones with the roundel they appear to have been as I have shown them

[mickdavis]

There were BE12bs in store and un issued so its difficult to see why operational ones would have their engines swapped. Some BE12bs on the production line were finished with 4as as BE12a s - possibly these are what you refer to?

There certainly were BE12b airframes in storage but 200hp Hissos were too precious a commodity to leave lying around when there were SE5as and Dolphins needing those engines. Any fitted with RAF4s would have become BE12s, not BE12as.

One of the logbooks I was referring to was that of Capt FGB Reynolds, 75 Sqn. He first flew BE12b C3089 on 15.2.1918 (a 45min trip to Thetford - noting "1st flip on Hispano, OK"). He flew that machine on a number of occasions and on 23.4.1918 he noted against a 15min flight to 800ft "Test. '89 fitted with 140 RAF. alas!".

With regard to Armstong Whitworth: that book of Jack's is now probably more than 40 years old. He was a great man and a wonderful scholar, who was constantly updating his material: interestingly, he didn't include the AW triplanes in his Aeroplanes of the RFC Military Wing. I wonder why.

[centurion]

With regard to Armstong Whitworth: that book of Jack's is now probably more than 40 years old. He was a great man and a wonderful scholar, who was constantly updating his material: interestingly, he didn't include the AW triplanes in his Aeroplanes of the RFC Military Wing. I wonder why.

Obviously for the same reasons that he didn't include the Sopwith LRT, the Vickers and other multi gun escort fighters (which he does cover in various volumes of War Planes of the First World War which has a wider scope than the RFC book). The age of the book doesn't automatically discredit the detailed account that it contains.

[geraint]

Riverting stuff Cent! Your presentation (as always) well worth reading. Though given your thread title - 'worse airplanes' - I would have expected a pusher to be included?

[mickdavis]

Obviously for the same reasons that he didn't include the Sopwith LRT, the Vickers and other multi gun escort fighters (which he does cover in various volumes of War Planes of the First World War which has a wider scope than the RFC book). The age of the book doesn't automatically discredit the detailed account that it contains.

I'd agree to a certain extent, but a lot of material has been turned up at the PRO/National Archives in the intervening years. A lot of other material has come to light that can make some current publications much more detailed. I remember the Harleyford books from the 1960s - exceptional at the time, but overshadowed now. Even the material available as drawing references for Frank Yeoman and Doug Carrick must have been sparce. And what about Jack's British Aeroplanes, much based on the digging he'd done for his Flight magazine articles - constantly updated in various subsequent publications as he turned up new references..

[CULVERIN]

I must return here to Centurions original and 1st opening post.

Many people may dip in here without seeing the drawing applicable to this Sopwith L.R.T.Tr.

Myself included, thinking the Tri was a pretty good plane in fact.

Well, Jack Bruce in his opus British Aeroplanes 1914 - 18, 1957 Putnam, describes it so,

The big Sopwith triplane rejoiced in the nickname of "The Egg-box", a soubriquet which requires no explanation. Again, as stated in the 1st post.

This must not be confused with the Sopwith Triplane of May 1916, where he, Bruce, states,

Looking back, it is hard to realise the revolutionary nature of the Triplane at the time it appeared, and further on, which made the Sopwith Triplane the fine fighting aeroplane that it was.

Alas, Bruce finishes on p568 by stating, yet despite its distinguished record it has always been neglected by historians.

The Battles of Ypres were the last actions over which Sopwith Triplanes flew. They fought with distinction until their final demise.

I do not pretend to know much of aeroplanes, but this is odd how ones fortunes can vary. At least with triplanes.

And, i should add, there were other triplanes by this company.

Sopwith Triplane (Hispano-Suiza Engines), 2 built in 1917, but apparently this was abandoned as the engines were wanted for S.E.5s.

Sopwith 2.B.2 Rhino. Unprepossessing two-seat triplane.

Sopwith Snark. Built-in liability in its Dragonfly engine. 3 built.

All information and quotes by me fully acknowledged from J.M.Bruce. British Aeroplanes 1914-18. Published 1957 Putnam.

[centurion]

The Hispano Suza engined Sopwith Triplanes (which are a different design to the Rotary engined triplane) were not abandoned because of the demand for Hispano Suiza engines but because of a series of faults in the design itself one of which was illustrated by the separation of the tailplane from the fuselage on the second prototype.

The Rhino might have been a reasonable bomber except that it had the misfortune to be fitted with the same Puma engine that blighted the Dh9

One aspect of the Snark worth mentioning was that one was Britain's first six gun fighter (2 Vickers on the fuselage, four Lewis on the wings)

The Sopwith Cobham twin engined triplane bomber should also be added - also doomed by the choice of engine (Puma or Dragonfly)

There was also a Sopwith triplane torpedo dropper supplied to the IJN

[centurion]

I'd agree to a certain extent, but a lot of material has been turned up at the PRO/National Archives in the intervening years. A lot of other material has come to light that can make some current publications much more detailed. I remember the Harleyford books from the 1960s - exceptional at the time, but overshadowed now. Even the material available as drawing references for Frank Yeoman and Doug Carrick must have been sparce. And what about Jack's British Aeroplanes, much based on the digging he'd done for his Flight magazine articles - constantly updated in various subsequent publications as he turned up new references..

The only published references to Fk 5 & Fk 6 appear to be in some very early copies of Air Enthusiast. This dates the Fk12 as 1915! These have been regurgitated across a number of web sites. Mason in the revised version of The British Fighter since 1912 still refers to it as the FK 12. Interestingly he does give the name of the pilot who tested it - an RNAS officer!

[centurion]

Riverting stuff Cent! Your presentation (as always) well worth reading. Though given your thread title - 'worse airplanes' - I would have expected a pusher to be included?

Pushers as requested.

The British Admiralty (The Royal Navy was initially responsible for defending the UK against airships) decided that specialised aircraft would be needed to carry the Davis gun into action.

The first two designs were the ADC Sparrow of 1915 and the Blackburn Triplane of 1916 respectively. Both were designed by the same person (Harris Booth) and very similar in concept being single seaters with pusher engines and propellers mounted behind the pilot.

ADC Sparrow

The tail assemblies were mounted on a spindly looking framework attached to the upper and bottom wings. The nacelle for the pilot and engine was, unlike most pusher aircraft, mounted high up on the top wing, presumably to maximise the chances of the pilot being killed if the aircraft should nose over on landing! This was encouraged in the ADC design by a tall main undercarriage with the wheels extremely close together. Maintaining the engine on both aircraft would have been awkward for the ground staff and the airman who swung the propeller to start the engine must have had an interesting time as he would have needed to do this from a stepladder (and probably been blown off it by the prop wash). Both nacelles had long deep noses to house the Davis gun, these must have greatly impeded the pilot’s forward view. It seems probable that both aircraft were designed without their designer being aware of the full characteristics of the Davis gun. If fitted in the Sparrow the breach would have been between the pilot’s legs, giving full scope for the effects of the escape of fire and smoke, whilst in both aircraft the only direction in which the counterweight could be fired would be through the propeller with a high probability that this would be smashed. In fact neither aircraft was fitted with its intended armament and both never proceeded past the prototype stage.

[John-B-Rooks]

At a time when for young men the concept of becoming an 'Aircraft Designer' would have barely reached schools, let alone some of the 'better' ones, some designers were trying to get ahead of the game, even if their designs weren't taken up by the the men at the ministry. I would suggest the Frederick Sage No2 with its 100hp Gnome as an example of the underrated with its streamlined, enclosed cockpit rather than the worst - of which there are plenty - primarily because of the need to learn about aero design and aerodynamics virtually from scratch.

Regards

John.

[centurion]

At a time when for young men the concept of becoming an 'Aircraft Designer' would have barely reached schools, let alone some of the 'better' ones, some designers were trying to get ahead of the game, even if their designs weren't taken up by the the men at the ministry. I would suggest the Frederick Sage No2 with its 100hp Gnome as an example of the underrated with its streamlined, enclosed cockpit rather than the worst - of which there are plenty - primarily because of the need to learn about aero design and aerodynamics virtually from scratch.

Regards

John.

More correctly the Sage Type 2 Designed by Clifford W Tinson who worked under E C Gordon England in the Aircraft Design Office of Frederick Sage & Co Ltd a Peterborough firm of shopfitters. The streamlined enclosed cockpit was intended to allow the observer to stand up and fire his gun over the propeller. Visibility from it would have been dreadful with no view upwards for the pilot (and very limited vision for him except straight forward). The positioning of the observer's 'hole' would have meant his field of fire would be quite limited. Whilst it was relatively fast the Sage could not compete with the all round capabilities of the Sopwith 1½ Strutter

[mickdavis]

The only published references to Fk 5 & Fk 6 appear to be in some very early copies of Air Enthusiast. This dates the Fk12 as 1915! These have been regurgitated across a number of web sites. Mason in the revised version of The British Fighter since 1912 still refers to it as the FK 12. Interestingly he does give the name of the pilot who tested it - an RNAS officer!

Was that pilot Peter Legh, who left the RNAS due to injury/illness an became AW test pilot?

[centurion]

Was that pilot Peter Legh, who left the RNAS due to injury/illness an became AW test pilot?

Yes. It, was an injury incurred when testing Le Pieur rockets. He tested aircraft for AW from December,

1916, to June, 1917, when he was appointed test pilot for the British Aerial Transport Co. he died testing the BAT Balisk in 1919

[mickdavis]

Legh was based at Whitley Bay until, at least March 1916 and, as his May 1919 obituarities in the aviation press of the time show, was regarded as one of the best pilots - placed alongside Garros and Hucks. He went from Whitley Bay to the Isle of Grain, the RNAS experimental station - perhaps a compliment to his airmanship - where his mishap occurred.

AW at Gosforth handled machines from Whitley Bay for repair/modification, including the HF F.20 and Bristol TB8s, and it seems quite reasonable to assume that he was seconded as a test pilot.

I try to question anything I read. Out of idle curiousity I put your 1915 FK12 into a known sequence of events:

AWFK2 first delivered 7.1915

AWFK3 production started 9.1915

AWFK12 1915

AWFK3 deliveries to RFC started 3.1916 after RAF1a engines became available

AWFK7 delivered to CFS 16.6.1916

AWFK8 first machine flying by 8.1916

AWFK9 first flown 24.9.1916 (in initial form).

AWFK10 ordered 9.1916

Also the idea that both triplanes had the same designation seems odd. FK3 was essentially a FK2 with crew positions reversed. FK8 was a refined FK7. FK10 was FK9 (revised design) with a new fuselage and tailplane. Surely, under the same system, the two triplanes were of sufficiently different design to warrant different designations.

[centurion]

Legh was based at Whitley Bay until, at least March 1916 and, as his May 1919 obituarities in the aviation press of the time show, was regarded as one of the best pilots - placed alongside Garros and Hucks. He went from Whitley Bay to the Isle of Grain, the RNAS experimental station - perhaps a compliment to his airmanship - where his mishap occurred.

AW at Gosforth handled machines from Whitley Bay for repair/modification, including the HF F.20 and Bristol TB8s, and it seems quite reasonable to assume that he was seconded as a test pilot.

I try to question anything I read. Out of idle curiousity I put your 1915 FK12 into a known sequence of events:

AWFK2 first delivered 7.1915

AWFK3 production started 9.1915

AWFK12 1915

AWFK3 deliveries to RFC started 3.1916 after RAF1a engines became available

AWFK7 delivered to CFS 16.6.1916

AWFK8 first machine flying by 8.1916

AWFK9 first flown 24.9.1916 (in initial form).

AWFK10 ordered 9.1916

Also the idea that both triplanes had the same designation seems odd. FK3 was essentially a FK2 with crew positions reversed. FK8 was a refined FK7. FK10 was FK9 (revised design) with a new fuselage and tailplane. Surely, under the same system, the two triplanes were of sufficiently different design to warrant different designations.

According to the Flight Obituary he was serving at Dunquerque with No. 1 Naval Squadron when the accident happened in Sept 1916 having gone there from the Isle of Grain in May 1916

If the AFK 12 was 1915 the Legh could not have tested it as has been identified in The British Fighter since 1912. At least 5 sources state that the FK 12 as I drew it was a re build/redesign after the earlier plane was refused permission to fly.

[centurion]

Both aircraft have the same early installation of the Rolls Royce 250 Hp engine as can also be seen on the Robey Peters Davis Gun Carrier of early 1917. Although design and development of this engine started in 1915 it was not available to manufacturers until 1916

[mickdavis]

According to the Flight Obituary he was serving at Dunquerque with No. 1 Naval Squadron when the accident happened in Sept 1916 having gone there from the Isle of Grain in May 1916

If the AFK 12 was 1915 the Legh could not have tested it as has been identified in The British Fighter since 1912. At least 5 sources state that the FK 12 as I drew it was a re build/redesign after the earlier plane was refused permission to fly.

That's what I meant about questioning what's written. Thank's for the 1 Sqn RNAS bit, should be 1 Wing - 1 Sqn didn't reform until 12.1916. I wonder why that first triplane ended up upside down, it must have been travelling. Still think my sequence shows 1915/summer 1916 too early for FK12 and still suspect FK12 was designed as FK6 with revised nacelles to accommodate the Davis gun. Problem is that there's precious little archive material, left but the serials 3684-85 were certaininly intended for two machines for transfer from the RFC as FK12s that late in 1916. The manufacturer's designation then fits the sequence. I'll keep digging.