centurion Posted 24 September , 2012 Author Share Posted 24 September , 2012 There is no evidence whatsoever that a Davis gun (guns) was to be carried. The specification was for a long rande escort fighter not an anti Zeppelin fighter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 24 September , 2012 Author Share Posted 24 September , 2012 Furthermore the 2nd FK 12 had additional auxillary interwing struts directly behind the nacelles and these would have been damaged (probably destroyed) by the tallow and lead shot counterweight fired by the Davis gun. Both aircraft were fitted with the 250 hp RR 12 Vee engine this can be verified looking at the photos. This was the engine specified in the original specification issued in mid 1916 for a long range multi seat escort fighter to which the FK12, the Sopwith LRT and the Vickers FB 11 were all produced. It was released to manufacturers in mid 1916. Both versions of the FK 12 have identical wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 25 September , 2012 Share Posted 25 September , 2012 Furthermore the 2nd FK 12 had additional auxillary interwing struts directly behind the nacelles and these would have been damaged (probably destroyed) by the tallow and lead shot counterweight fired by the Davis gun. Both aircraft were fitted with the 250 hp RR 12 Vee engine this can be verified looking at the photos. This was the engine specified in the original specification issued in mid 1916 for a long range multi seat escort fighter to which the FK12, the Sopwith LRT and the Vickers FB 11 were all produced. It was released to manufacturers in mid 1916. Both versions of the FK 12 have identical wings. You can see the header pipes for a RR engine on the first triplane, but those for the second were buried in the cowling, but we have to accept that it had that engine. The 5 photos I have of the first machine include 4 of its mishap and all show trees in the background that lack vegetation. Its crash had to be winter/very early spring and that must have been 1915-16. FE2ds were, by late 1915/early 1916, then being delivered and HP O/100s on the production line - 250hp RR. My earlier posting disputed FK12 as being of that era. 7838-7841 serials were allotted April 1916 and the trees in the background of the 3 shots I have of 7838 all have leaf - summer 1916. I haven't said that either of these 2 was for the Davis gun, but that it was associated with the design. The design chronology that I posted earlier puts FK12 at the end of 1916 (does this fit, or have you something to the contrary), when the 2 machines were noted as being intended for transfer to the RNAS and, as I put forward, the Davis gun seems to have been an almost exclusively RNAS thing at the time; so a possible nacelle re-design would have been needed to accommodate it. You're correct that such a nacelle isn't there on either of the first two triplanes, but logic says that neither could have been FK12. As I also said, I'm digging into it and will hopefully make some progress - there's I file I've discovered exists, in a search of the Tyne & Wear Archive website, that may throw some light. Look forward to your response on my Nieuport 23bis posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFF Posted 27 September , 2012 Share Posted 27 September , 2012 B E 2 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Bullet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 27 September , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 September , 2012 B E 2 See http://en.wikipedia....hristmas_Bullet The BE2 series did exactly what was asked of it. Unfortunately once aircraft began to be armed with machine guns what was asked of it was inadequate but in 1913 -1915 it was probably one of the best types around. Even after the machine gun was in the air it would have been a better aircraft if fitted with a decent engine rather than the lawn tractor power plant that the R.A.F churned out The Wikki article seems to have got Christmases dates wrong (giving him an earlier birth and death and adding five years to his life) but he may well have lied about his dob. However the gist seems about right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickdavis Posted 27 September , 2012 Share Posted 27 September , 2012 The BE2 series did exactly what was asked of it. Unfortunately once aircraft began to be armed with machine guns what was asked of it was inadequate but in 1913 -1915 it was probably one of the best types around. Even after the machine gun was in the air it would have been a better aircraft if fitted with a decent engine rather than the lawn tractor power plant that the R.A.F churned out The Wikki article seems to have got Christmases dates wrong (giving him an earlier birth and death and adding five years to his life) but he may well have lied about his dob. However the gist seems about right. I agree whole-heartedly with your comment regarding the BE2 series. As Paul Hare put it, the Military Aereoplane Competition of 1912 was 'no competition' - there was nothing better than BE2. BE2c did exactly what it was designed for, unfortunately underpowered and with the wrong crew positions. BE2e wasn't much better but RE8 was not such a bad aeroplane. Looking at BEF losses, from all causes, for the first 6 months of 1918, it's interesting to see that it was down the list, the Camel wasn't that bad and SE5a was the worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted 20 March Share Posted 20 March BE 2 reputation https://www.historynet.com/does-britains-wwi-b-e-2c-deserve-its-bad-rep/ Arch Whitehouse certainly didnt like it... 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