'Flaming Coffin'

[Catfish]

Hello,

"At no time were "armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment" stripped to improve performance"

The removing of metal armour around the pilot's seat took away some security and advantage regarding being shot ? Also the early machines had those celluloid greenhouses over the cockpits which were dangerous in a crash, from splints to going up in flames. Whether such things were superfluous, well we can certainly brawl about exact definitions.

I intentionally mentioned the SE5, not the 'a'. For what i read e.g. Ball was less than impressed when the first machines arrived at the front, he found the new SE5s sluggish and lacking performance. "the Se5 turned out to be a dud...it is a rotten machine." The SE5 had to be flown and thrown around with brute force, certainly in comparison to the N.17. He also mentioned that it was impossible to keep the temperature down, he would land and then instantly leave the plane while it was standing boiling over and puffing white smoke for another ten minutes. Add broken coolant pipes due to vibration and the Hisso's teething problems, he kind of invented his 'field mod' which soon became the standard - carried less fuel, removed one machine gun including synchronisation (ok no superfluous item if you so want, but obviously needed to keep the plane airworthy), took off the head fairing, mounted a smaller windscreen and removed armour around the pilot's seat, at the same time lowering it.

Same is heard from german machines and Zeppelins, sacrificing ballast water and sand, coffee and parachutes for better climbing, higher altitude and more bomb load. As said before i do not know whether anything like this was done with the D.H4, after those posts here i guess not.

Greetings,

Catfish

[Tazzy2]

With the DH4 a change in the way fuel was delivered to the engine was to make it much safer. It changed from a pressurized fuel system to wind driven fuel pumps in late 1917. Prior to this several had caught fire in mid-air for no apparent reason.

Service wise the RFC got this aircraft in January 1917 but, mainly due to a shortage of engines, the numbers in service declined from the spring of 1918.

The American Air Force used it in 1918 and the first American built ones came into service May 1918.

It was used by other Air Forces including the RNAS but I don't know any of the other dates.

[centurion]

Hello,

"At no time were "armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment" stripped to improve performance"

The seat was removed by Ball because he didn't like sitting that high, he also removed the cockpit canopy (as I mentioned) as he felt it impeded his vision in some circumstances and made reloading the overwing Lewis difficult. All of this was done only by him and before the aircraft arrived in France. He also removed the Vickers because he didn't trust the synchronisation but replaced it with an ineffectual downward firing 2nd Lewis. He did not introduce a smaller tank - indeed he added a larger tank that used some of the space hitherto taken up by the Vickers gun ammo belts. None of which was done to improve the performance of the aircraft as you stated. I can find no evidence of any squadron stripping out armour and safety equipment out of any aircraft as you stated which is why I politely asked for some evidence.

[fetubi]

Having recorded several thousand RFC/RAF Casualty Reports I find just over 300 involving fatalities or loss in the face of the enemy mention flames, going down in flames etc. This is how this factor (i.e. of being seen or known to have been shot down in flames) is distributed between types:

Camels: 59

RE8s: 44

F2b: 29

FE2b/d: 27

BE2 types: 25

SE5/a: 25

DH9: 22

DH4: 19

FK8: 12

All the rest are in single figures.

Important to note here that the Camels were the most prevalent aircraft on the Western Front, followed by the RE8s. As were the BE2s and the FEs in their day.

Also note that about thirty pilots/crews of these survived to be recorded wounded or taken prisoner etc (ie not killed).

Regards,

Trevor

[Catfish]

[...] None of which was done to improve the performance of the aircraft as you stated. I can find no evidence of any squadron stripping out armour and safety equipment out of any aircraft as you stated which is why I politely asked for some evidence.

Quote Ball:

"I am afraid we shall all get a hotting up this time. The Hun RFC is far ahead of us this time in fact, about 30mph. I do wish I had got a Nieuport as the SE5 has turned out a dud.

"But I am getting one ready. I am taking one gun off in order to take off weight, and lowering windscreen to take off head resistance, I hope that I shall get a little better speed but it is a rotten machine. I am afraid things will go not very OK. "

In my opinion he removed the pilot's seat armour to make the plane lighter, which is why he also flew it with less fuel. As Ball himself wrote he had the impression that the SE5 was "half as fast" as his N.17 (where he was certainly wrong, even if the N.17 was able to fly at almost 180 km/h in level flight, i just think you felt the speed much more in the nimble N.a7, than in the heavier but also sturdier SE5 war machine), did not climb as well and generally behaved like a slug; so he tried to improve it's performance.

Greetings,

Catfish

[David_Underdown]

I recall a brief mention in RV Jones's "Most Secret War" to the effect that self-sealing tanks were almost ready as WWI drew to a close, but with end of the war the emphasis switched to crash resistant instead, so every subsequent design was heaved from a fair height - and failed to survive the impact

[centurion]

Quote Ball:

"I am afraid we shall all get a hotting up this time. The Hun RFC is far ahead of us this time in fact, about 30mph. I do wish I had got a Nieuport as the SE5 has turned out a dud.

"But I am getting one ready. I am taking one gun off in order to take off weight, and lowering windscreen to take off head resistance, I hope that I shall get a little better speed but it is a rotten machine. I am afraid things will go not very OK. "

In my opinion he removed the pilot's seat armour to make the plane lighter, which is why he also flew it with less fuel. As Ball himself wrote he had the impression that the SE5 was "half as fast" as his N.17 (where he was certainly wrong, even if the N.17 was able to fly at almost 180 km/h in level flight, i just think you felt the speed much more in the nimble N.a7, than in the heavier but also sturdier SE5 war machine), did not climb as well and generally behaved like a slug; so he tried to improve it's performance.

Greetings,

Catfish

You did say "a lot of planes arriving at the front were stripped of all kinds of armour, and 'superfluous' security equipment to make them lighter, supporting performance and improving weapon load (SE5 comes to mind)" Ball was one man and his changes were made before going to France. He gave a number of reasons for doing so some of which contradict. Now I ask again where is the evidence of a lot of planes arriving at the front being stripped?

[centurion]

By 'tinkering' I had in mind what might be more correctly put as 'minor airframe modifications carried out at Squadron level'. It would indeed take a keen Engineering Officer to try to develop a self sealing fuel tank in a canvas hangar in France, but I am always struck by how advanced some of the engineering carried out by these people was. Also how they often got it right when the designers didn't. This might include such things as improved bilge drainage to keep fuel away from the crew, wrapping the tank in fire supressant materials or the strategic placement of armour plate. If only some of these old boys were still with us.

I can find little or no evidence of anything like this. Do you have such? Wrapping the tank in fire retardant material would be useless. The tank didn't burn it was the fuel leaking out of it. Apart from flying boats aircraft did not have bilges and in almost all cases armour plate was factory fitted. There are examples of some 15 BE2cs in 1916 being fitted in the field with armour plate for contact patrol experiments but in this case the plates were made in the UK and shipped to France for fitting, there was no discretion as to where they went on the aircraft. Do you have specific examples of " the engineering carried out by these people..... Also how they often got it right when the designers didn't"? I'm afraid that apart from some relatively minor cases I believe this is a myth.

The only verifiable examples I can find of improvised armour is from 1914/15 when some pilots flew sitting on cast iron stove lids as experience from Mexico and Libya (1911 -1912) was that that is where injuries would occur.

[ian.sumner]

On the theme of minor modifications, a biography of Léon Bourjade (a balloon-buster who flew with N152) relates how his mechanic invented a device, placed in the cockpit, that would empty the aircraft's fuel tank quickly in case of an emergency [benoist de Saint Ange, Henriette, Léon Bourjade: aviateur - missionnaire en Nouvelle-Guinée (Cadillac, Saint-Remi, 2009) p.155].

Marcel Hugues and his mechanic, in SPA81, worked out a way to remove for repair the aircraft's Hispano-Suiza engine, so that work would take a few hours, rather than a few days. The President of Hispano-Suiza commented that Hugues had solved what is own engineers had spent a year trying to work out [a biography at <http://goo.gl/L0uwi>]

Roland Garros tinkered with the timing of his interrupter gear when he returned to the front from captivity, and probably fatally too, for he may have shot his own prop off.

On the theme of flaming coffins, some French pilots referred to Voisins with the 140hp Canton-Unné engine as 'fours crématoire' - cremation ovens - after a sudden spate of accidents [Esnault, Gaston, Le poilu tel qu'il se parle (Paris, Bossard, 1919) p.249]

Ian

[Vulcan works]

Thank you Ian, that is very interesting.

I have evidence that one of my chaps (an electrical engineer in civilian life) designed an intercom system which his Major passed up the chain to HQ. He was constantly 'tinkering' with things acccording to his letters home and also lit up his billet with bits scrounged from the engineers and made an instantaneous water boiler.

'Bilge drainage' is a common term currently in use in aircraft engineering. Excuse my lack of experience where WW1 design is concerned, I was trying to put myself in the position of a Squadron engineer of the period faced with this problem. It would seem logical to get the fuel overboard as quickly as possible.

I recall a recent thread somewhere else discussing the altering of the amount of washout on the wing at local level - this kind of 'tinkering' would require a good understanding of both the rigging process and the aerodynamics involved, which seems pretty sophisticated to me.

[centurion]

I recall a recent thread somewhere else discussing the altering of the amount of washout on the wing at local level - this kind of 'tinkering' would require a good understanding of both the rigging process and the aerodynamics involved, which seems pretty sophisticated to me.

Something that was done by altering tensions in the rigging wires and often done on a trial and error basis.

[MikeMeech]

Hi All

Reference armour plate for RFC/RAF aeroplanes. It appears that there was seat armour in the SE.5 when it first arrived at 56 Sqn, as when the sqn talks about modifications to improve the types performance they took off the large wind screen and also removed the seat armour, I suppose that could be 'tinkering'. In later 1918, according to TNA AIR, files, several camel sqns had 6 sets of seat armour for use when engaged in ground attack missions. For Bristol Fighter sqns the documents state they should use RE.8 seat armour, so presumably the RE.8 had it as well!

Mike

[centurion]

Thank you Ian, that is very interesting.

I recall a recent thread somewhere else discussing the altering of the amount of washout on the wing at local level - this kind of 'tinkering' would require a good understanding of both the rigging process and the aerodynamics involved, which seems pretty sophisticated to me.

My internet went down in the midst of replying - here is my full reply

Something that was done by altering tensions in the rigging wires and you would expect the riggers to know how to do this and often (usually) done on a trial and error basis especially as much of the aerodynamics involved were not known (a couple of good examples on the German side where Albatross kept trying to improve performance with increasingly streamlining the fuselages (with little effect) when the drag was coming from the wing design; Albatross again never coming to grips with the the cause of lower wing failure in the DIII and DV when diving so that all sorts of small supplementary struts and additional bracing were tried out with no success (the problem was a lack of rigidity in the construction of the wing giving rise to flutter and was not understood until post WW2) Don't forget that the use of things like wind tunnels even using models was only becoming a useful tool right at the end of the war (Britain had two, one at RAE and one at Teddington) and an awful lot was not understood or misunderstood.

The concept of bilges in aircraft came in with the use of monocoque fuselages made of wood or metal

[centurion]

Hi All

Reference armour plate for RFC/RAF aeroplanes. It appears that there was seat armour in the SE.5 when it first arrived at 56 Sqn, as when the sqn talks about modifications to improve the types performance they took off the large wind screen and also removed the seat armour, I suppose that could be 'tinkering'. In later 1918, according to TNA AIR, files, several camel sqns had 6 sets of seat armour for use when engaged in ground attack missions. For Bristol Fighter sqns the documents state they should use RE.8 seat armour, so presumably the RE.8 had it as well!

Mike

Yes see my earlier post on this thread that deals with this. Ball unofficially took off his windscreen and replaced his seat with a simple board before they went to France (he appears to have given a number of different excuses for this). The rest of the squadron were given official permission to follow suit when they arrived in France. I can find no other instance of armour removal (indeed very little was fitted) and certainly no example of "lots of planes" being stripped on arrival in France. The armoured seat on the early SE5 seems to have been no more than a slightly more sophisticated version of the "stove lid under the bum" adopted by some earlier pilots (again see one of my earlier posts). The seat itself seems to have been an example of the Royal Aircraft Factory being too clever by half as it could be raised and lowered and inclined but the mechanism resulted in the pilot sitting too high up in the cockpit. The cockpit cover was generally disliked as creating blind spots but only one (repeat one) pilot emulated Ball and removed it before permission was given by RFC high command (and before the squadron left for France.

In general unofficial field mods appear to have been limited to such things as changes to Lewis Gun drum holders, strapping a fire extinguisher to a longeron near the fuel tank with a pull wire to allow the pilot or observer to set it off remotely, minor adjustments to gun sights, spinners on props (rare). Rigging might be adjusted to marginally change things like stagger but this was within the remit of the original design.

Edit The RE8 and Camel seat armour appears to have been a simple plate cut to size to fit on the seat (again a la the stove lid concept) and was not so much fitted as placed! Apart from the BE2cs mentioned earlier I think the only British fighters or two seaters to see action with some serious armour plate fitted were a few Salamanders undertaking operational trials

[David B]

I realize this is true fiction based on a TV series, but if anyone watched the series 'Wings'they may remember Alan Farmer in one of the early editions making an armour plated seat

at his familys smithy during one of his early leave periods. On arrival in France the pilots showed great interest in this new fangled nether region protector. All fiction I realize but there

must have been a bit of truth in these events.

[Vulcan works]

It is an interesting supposition that the alteration of washout on wings was commonplace.

Rigging aircraft is not straightforward, it is a 'black art' and the mechanics would have been working to set data provided by the manufacturer using incidence boards, clinometers and the good old T6 tensiometer or whatever its predecessor must have been (I suppose there must have been a T1 at some point) in far from ideal conditions. It must have been quite a challenge to get a badly knocked about aircraft back into something approaching a rigged condition. I would imagine washout is a tricky thing to apply and maintain - I would love to have the time or opportunity to chat to the riggers at Old Warden or TVAL to find out. I'm sure it isn't much like The Aircraft Mechanic's Handbook paints it out to be.

The few occasions I have heard of people trialing things of this nature relates to Ball and McCudden, both had a background in engineering and had a reported rapport with the engineers which was worth commenting on and therefore probably out of the ordinary. I can only imagine that somewhere like 56 Squadron would not only get the best pilots, but also the pick of the mechanics on offer, and I doubt that Ball's friendship with Fred Lang was based on a mutual love of cricket. Someone like Ball would want the best on offer, because his life literally depended on his mechanic. It would follow that an ultra competetive fighter pilot with a knowledge of engineering and a couple of good riggers would be prepared to tinker with the set-up of his aircraft beyond the approved data provided by the manufacturer, but I can't imagine that it was commonplace.

[fitzee]

American pilot Frederick Libby (43 squadron) recalled in his autobiograhy " Horses don't Fly" how the DH-4 had duel controls accessible to the observer in the event that the pilot was unable to fly the aircraft.He felt this was unwarranted as most observers had little knowledge of piloting however, on one mission while engaged in combat, a spent Lewis ammunition drum jammed the rear rudder-bar forcing the aircraft into a constant right hand turn.Libby managed to wrestle the machine to the ground afterwhich his experience resulted in all rear seat rudder-bars in the squadron being covered by plywood, problem solved.

Fitzee

[centurion]

It is an interesting supposition that the alteration of washout on wings was commonplace.

Rigging aircraft is not straightforward, it is a 'black art' and the mechanics would have been working to set data provided by the manufacturer using incidence boards, clinometers and the good old T6 tensiometer or whatever its predecessor must have been (I suppose there must have been a T1 at some point) in far from ideal conditions. It must have been quite a challenge to get a badly knocked about aircraft back into something approaching a rigged condition. I would imagine washout is a tricky thing to apply and maintain - I would love to have the time or opportunity to chat to the riggers at Old Warden or TVAL to find out. I'm sure it isn't much like The Aircraft Mechanic's Handbook paints it out to be.

The few occasions I have heard of people trialing things of this nature relates to Ball and McCudden, both had a background in engineering and had a reported rapport with the engineers which was worth commenting on and therefore probably out of the ordinary. I can only imagine that somewhere like 56 Squadron would not only get the best pilots, but also the pick of the mechanics on offer, and I doubt that Ball's friendship with Fred Lang was based on a mutual love of cricket. Someone like Ball would want the best on offer, because his life literally depended on his mechanic. It would follow that an ultra competetive fighter pilot with a knowledge of engineering and a couple of good riggers would be prepared to tinker with the set-up of his aircraft beyond the approved data provided by the manufacturer, but I can't imagine that it was commonplace.

Except if you'd taken the trouble to read my posting properly you'd see that that is not what I said. I said that the riggers would be quite used to adjusting the rigging to achieve minor changes in configuration and such changes were usually done by trial and error. You use the word imagine and that is what you are doing - where is the evidence (yes evidence) had such aerodynamic knowledge?. This did not exist in most manufacturers and there was virtualy no training in the subject. Ball and MaCudden had training in mechanical engineering which is very useful if you want to tune your engine.. wh the Austin Ball fighter was designed his input was primarily restricted to the arangement of the armament and the pilot' positioning for visibility

[centurion]

American pilot Frederick Libby (43 squadron) recalled in his autobiograhy " Horses don't Fly" how the DH-4 had duel controls accessible to the observer in the event that the pilot was unable to fly the aircraft.He felt this was unwarranted as most observers had little knowledge of piloting however, on one mission while engaged in a combat, a spent Lewis ammunition drum jammed the rear rudder-bar forcing the aircraft into a constant right hand turn.Libby managed to wrestle the machine to the ground afterwhich his experience resulted in all rear seat rudder-bars in the squadron being covered by plywood, problem solved.

Fitzee

A number of aircraft types had rudimentary controls for the observer and there are instances of observers successfully using them to bring an aircraft safely back. If you were an observer which would you prefer an outside chance of bringing the aircraft back if your pilot was knocked out or absolutely none at all? Bear in mind you don't have a parachute. You choose. Similarly if you were a pilot would you want your observer to have a chance of getting you back for medical attention or none at all? Sensible pilots did give their observers some instruction for this reason - it would seem that Libby was not one of these.

[MikeMeech]

Hi All

For interest, here are some documents relating to seat armour from TNA AIR1/1083/204/5/1708.

Mike

[Vulcan works]

Except if you'd taken the trouble to read my posting properly you'd see that that is not what I said. I said that the riggers would be quite used to adjusting the rigging to achieve minor changes in configuration and such changes were usually done by trial and error. You use the word imagine and that is what you are doing - where is the evidence (yes evidence) had such aerodynamic knowledge?. This did not exist in most manufacturers and there was virtualy no training in the subject. Ball and MaCudden had training in mechanical engineering which is very useful if you want to tune your engine.. wh the Austin Ball fighter was designed his input was primarily restricted to the arangement of the armament and the pilot' positioning for visibility

Please be reassured that I read and considered your post carefully before responding, it is informative on a variety of levels. You used the word 'often' and if I misinterpreted what you meant I apologise.

Fitzee,

I think Libby also claimed credit for inventing a stock for his Lewis gun, something which he was quite proud of.

[Vulcan works]

I must apologise for my lack of knowledge. I have spent the last two days looking into the rigging of biplanes and I am guilty of applying the thought process applicable to much more rigid structures. Having had the chance to have a more in-depth look into the subject I am starting to see that these wings are much more flexible, and therefore offer much more possibility for adjustment.

There is an interesting article giving general instruction on the rigging of biplanes at this location;

http://www.hatzbiplane.com/RIGGING%20A%20BIPLANE.pdf

Additionally, there are guidelines on the rigging of a JN6-B in the Aircraft Mechanic’s Handbook. This is very basic however and doesn’t go into finer adjustments.

Finally, there is an account given by a Rigger, William Elvin, who served at various AAPs in Voices in Flight (Pen & Sword Aviation, 2006). In this account he describes the rigging process and states that after a while you could tell if an aircraft was rigged correctly just by looking at it.

I have not yet discovered how one adjusts the washout on a biplane in the outboard sections but I assume it is done with the internal bracing wires. Would these have been accessible for routine adjustments, or would such adjustments have been on a purely experimental basis?

If anyone can enlighten me I would be eternally grateful, similarly if anyone has a set of rigging notes for a two seat biplane or similar I will set myself to gaining a fuller understanding before offering further opinion on the subject.

[Marian2]

Changing the subject slightly: in his post of 15 October, Mickdavis indicates that the wastage of SE5a's was 62.9 percent. Higher than any other. Can anyone comment on or explain this high number?

Thanks!

--Marian

[Tazzy2]

Because it proved stable and relatively easy to fly the RAF entrusted it to inexperianced and relatively inexperinced piolets who were more likely to be shot down or crash.

The plane was used in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, and also on the Salonica Front. as well as The Western Frnt.

It also took part in the battle of Arras and a part known as "Bloody April" when losses were particually severe.The Albatros D.II and D.III outclassed them and their escort duties,particualy protecting the vulnerable B.E.2c, F.E.2b and Sopwith 1½ Strutter two-seater reconnaissance and bomber machines made them vulnarable, as did their role as light bombers.

[mickdavis]

Because it proved stable and relatively easy to fly the RAF entrusted it to inexperianced and relatively inexperinced piolets who were more likely to be shot down or crash.

The plane was used in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, and also on the Salonica Front. as well as The Western Frnt.

It also took part in the battle of Arras and a part known as "Bloody April" when losses were particually severe.The Albatros D.II and D.III outclassed them and their escort duties,particualy protecting the vulnerable B.E.2c, F.E.2b and Sopwith 1½ Strutter two-seater reconnaissance and bomber machines made them vulnarable, as did their role as light bombers.

SE5a losses were not down to poor pilot training, which was quite sophisticated by 1918 - the year for the figures I quoted - scout pilots were identified during initial training. Most losses, on all types, were not the result of enemy action. The Hispano-Suiza engine probably came into the equation for SE5as, The SE5a figures for June 1918 show:

Total wastage : 167 machines

In landings on aerodromes, colliding with obstacles (temporary or otherwise), bad landings : 58 machines

Landing across wind : 6 machines

Colliding with obstacles when taking off/taking off across wind/ stalling : 6 machines

Damaged by EA & AA : 21 machines

Forced landings owing to engine trouble : 45 machines

Missing ; 22 machines

Times expired : 9 machines