Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

AEROPLANES REJECTED because they COULD FLY


Steve1871

Recommended Posts

I remember in an encyclopedia type book on U.S. Aircraft, we , for the Great War had trainer, basic trainer planes, but we had a small number of Taxing/ ground handling aircraft with stubby wings to keep them in the ground. Because WW 1 trainers/ fighters were so small and very light, there were I think 3 or 4 of these " ground" planes that the Army Air Corps tested, that failed get a production contract because even with stubby wings, they kept lifting off.

Anybody know if any other country's had their own type of ground planes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that you are referring to the Breese Penguin, as described in the link below.   The French certainly used Bleriot 'PInguins', based I believe on the Type X1.  Examples of these were in use at Buc in 1916.

 

https://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/exhibits/exhibit-galleries/world_war_i/breese_penguin.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Brits used Penguins for ground handling also, e.g. clipped-wing Moranes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the new info, links and all...... I remember very clear a book I have, on U.S. Aircraft, 1903  to 1970's or 80's, with photo's, drawings, specs and brief history of each. I remember 2 or 3 types/ makers, but all were stubby winged biplanes.

I a trucker, may be a long time before I run across the book again . Almost all my stuff is in a few storage units. Thanks again for your help guy's, was not sure if Smerica was alone in this concept

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Annette Carson said:

And the Brits used Penguins for ground handling also, e.g. clipped-wing Moranes.

Hi

 

I don't think the RFC, RNAS or RAF used 'penguins' for training.  There may have been some use in private flying schools pre-war and therefore early war but I am not totally sure.  Some photos are alleged to be 'Penguins' at Schools of Aeronautics, but they tend to be wingless and are being used for engine running rather than running along the ground.  Jack Bruce certainly changed a caption on one of his photos of  from a 'Penguin' to an aircraft being used for engine ground running later in his life.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MikeMeech said:

Hi

 

I don't think the RFC, RNAS or RAF used 'penguins' for training.  There may have been some use in private flying schools pre-war and therefore early war but I am not totally sure.  Some photos are alleged to be 'Penguins' at Schools of Aeronautics, but they tend to be wingless and are being used for engine running rather than running along the ground.  Jack Bruce certainly changed a caption on one of his photos of  from a 'Penguin' to an aircraft being used for engine ground running later in his life.

 

Mike

 

Thanks for your input Mike.  Attached is an image of a 'Pingouin' at Buc - annotated as a Bleriot.   This looks more like an R.E.P to me.   I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

Peter.

'Pinguin' Buc 1916 BDIC_VAL_406_032.jpg

Edited by pete-c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MikeMeech said:

I don't think the RFC, RNAS or RAF used 'penguins' for training.  There may have been some use in private flying schools pre-war and therefore early war but I am not totally sure.  Some photos are alleged to be 'Penguins' at Schools of Aeronautics, but they tend to be wingless and are being used for engine running rather than running along the ground.  Jack Bruce certainly changed a caption on one of his photos of  from a 'Penguin' to an aircraft being used for engine ground running later in his life.

 

Mike may well be right and perhaps I was misled also ... but there was definitely a certain amount of crossover between the early flying schools and the RFC. I did a bit of research on a report I read which seems to illustrate this. Right now I'm a bit tied up but will winkle it out and post later on because it's quite interesting.

Cheers

Annette 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, pete-c said:

 

Thanks for your input Mike.  Attached is an image of a 'Pingouin' at Buc - annotated as a Bleriot.   This looks more like an R.E.P to me.   I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

Peter.

'Pinguin' Buc 1916 BDIC_VAL_406_032.jpg

Hi

 

Yes, the underside of the fuselage does look like a R.E.P. N, the engine cowling has been removed, presumably to aid cooling and the undercarriage has been modified by the look of it (probably because it is spending its time running around on the ground).  I think the rear upper vertical support strut has also been moved further aft.

 

The French did use the 'Pingouin' or 'Roleurs' in their training system, which American pilots also went through in France.  According to Swanborough & Bowers in ' United States Military Aircraft since 1909', Putnam 1989 edition, page 698, The US Army bought 138 two-seat Morane-Saulnier MS-12 Roleur type powered by either 50-hp Gnome rotary or Anzani radial engines.  Using a modified form of the French "grass-cutting" training technique.  The text also mentions that the French used 'Baby Bleriots' for this purpose.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Picking up the threads of Penguins used by the RFC, I was researching some early Moranes associated with D.V. Armstrong in his training days, which took me to Gosport when No. 60 Squadron was being formed up under Ferdie Waldron from its parent unit No. 1 Reserve Squadron which at this time was commanded by Captain Gordon-Bell. I read in Tredrey's biography of Robert Smith Barry (who as we know was one of Waldron's flight commanders) that during forming-up Waldron used two Morane Parasols which had "a pound of lead on one wingtip to counteract the torque of the 80hp rotary Gnome".  

 

Intrigued by whether this was true and how it could possibly have aided pilots training up for the Western Front, I asked various people if they'd ever heard of it, including chief pilot of the Shuttleworth Collection (and former RAF test pilot) Dodge Bailey, who was as stumped as I was. It wasn't until I returned to Tredrey's biography and re-read his preceding sentence that I realized what he was talking about. Gordon-Bell was not only CO of No. 1 Reserve Squadron but had been a famous Brooklands pilot and instructor. I quote:  "Gordon-Bell had lent his two Morane Parasols to Waldron" ...  which had the lead weights to counteract the torque. So I concluded they must have been Penguins that Gordon-Bell used at his school of flying, which he lent to Waldron at Gosport until 60 Squadron "acquired some Parasols of its own, a Morane Bullet ... and a Morane Biplane". Dodge concurred with this conclusion.

 

I had previously read elsewhere of Penguins being used in training, but it was a long time ago and I don't recall the source. However, it was that recollection which led me to realize what these two weighted-down Moranes were used for.

Best regards

Annette

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Annette,

 

I would be interested in any info re this particular type/types of machine so, anything you can dig up will be eagerly awaited.

 

Mike,

 

Thanks for your R.E.P identification/confirmation; the contrast and shadow of the photo is such that it wasn't immediately obvious to me that this was not a Bleriot.   However, the 'deep chested' look of an R.E.P is unmistakable when studied closely.

 

Chees both,

Peter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Annette Carson said:

Picking up the threads of Penguins used by the RFC, I was researching some early Moranes associated with D.V. Armstrong in his training days, which took me to Gosport when No. 60 Squadron was being formed up under Ferdie Waldron from its parent unit No. 1 Reserve Squadron which at this time was commanded by Captain Gordon-Bell. I read in Tredrey's biography of Robert Smith Barry (who as we know was one of Waldron's flight commanders) that during forming-up Waldron used two Morane Parasols which had "a pound of lead on one wingtip to counteract the torque of the 80hp rotary Gnome".  

 

Intrigued by whether this was true and how it could possibly have aided pilots training up for the Western Front, I asked various people if they'd ever heard of it, including chief pilot of the Shuttleworth Collection (and former RAF test pilot) Dodge Bailey, who was as stumped as I was. It wasn't until I returned to Tredrey's biography and re-read his preceding sentence that I realized what he was talking about. Gordon-Bell was not only CO of No. 1 Reserve Squadron but had been a famous Brooklands pilot and instructor. I quote:  "Gordon-Bell had lent his two Morane Parasols to Waldron" ...  which had the lead weights to counteract the torque. So I concluded they must have been Penguins that Gordon-Bell used at his school of flying, which he lent to Waldron at Gosport until 60 Squadron "acquired some Parasols of its own, a Morane Bullet ... and a Morane Biplane". Dodge concurred with this conclusion.

 

I had previously read elsewhere of Penguins being used in training, but it was a long time ago and I don't recall the source. However, it was that recollection which led me to realize what these two weighted-down Moranes were used for.

Best regards

Annette

 

 

Hi

 

Just a thought, but wouldn't counter-acting the engine torque by using weights be slightly counter to the purpose of using a 'penguin' in the first place?  Were they not used for pilots to get used to the controls especially the rudder for steering and countering the engine torque?

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeMeech said:

Just a thought, but wouldn't counter-acting the engine torque by using weights be slightly counter to the purpose of using a 'penguin' in the first place?  Were they not used for pilots to get used to the controls especially the rudder for steering and countering the engine torque?

 

Yes, the whole proposition sounds very Heath Robinson. I do know that Parasols had numerous problems being upended in a strong wind and wondered initially whether the measure was to prevent this, but Tredrey (an RAF pilot and instructor himself) states precisely that the weight was on one wing only and it was for counteracting torque. Either way the Parasols must have been limited to ground-handling. When you consider that most ab initio pilots of the era learnt on pusher biplanes, it may have been sensible to sit them in one of these for a while to get used to the feel of a very light very unstable tractor monoplane. Didn't Moranes have all-flying elevators and no vertical stabilizer? Quite scary I should think.

Cheers

Annette

P.S. Maybe they took the weights off when the pilot was deemed ready?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Annette Carson said:

 

Yes, the whole proposition sounds very Heath Robinson. I do know that Parasols had numerous problems being upended in a strong wind and wondered initially whether the measure was to prevent this, but Tredrey (an RAF pilot and instructor himself) states precisely that the weight was on one wing only and it was for counteracting torque. Either way the Parasols must have been limited to ground-handling. When you consider that most ab initio pilots of the era learnt on pusher biplanes, it may have been sensible to sit them in one of these for a while to get used to the feel of a very light very unstable tractor monoplane. Didn't Moranes have all-flying elevators and no vertical stabilizer? Quite scary I should think.

Cheers

Annette

P.S. Maybe they took the weights off when the pilot was deemed ready?

Hi

 

As far as I recall there is no mention of the use of this type of trainer in the British military training system, I think most memoirs do not mention it, eg Grinnell-Milne in 'Wind in the Wires' does not have this training at Shoreham in 1915.  

The French did use it and the US airmen in France used the system.  The Japanese also used the system post war after the French Military Mission visit, the Japanese producing two types, the Army Model 2 Ground Taxi-ing Trainer and the Army Model 3 Ground Taxi-ing Trainer, the latter in use until about 1925 (details in 'Japanese Aircraft 1910-1941', Mikesh & Abe, Putnam 1990, p.56-57).  These trainers used 50hp Gnome Omega and 30hp Anzani respectively), it appears these ground trainers used 'low' powered engines, generally 50hp max.  The Moranes mentioned by Tredrey are quoted as having 80hp Gnomes, which I would think were rather powerful for the role?

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Annette, a common feature of Morane-Saulnier designs was the absence of fixed stabilizers, either horizontal or vertical. And the Type N in particular was a veritable pig to fly.

 

I doubt 60 Squadron was using Moranes as trainers per se, but rather as what would later have been called operational trainers: Moranes were what they were going to fly in France.

 

For what it's worth, I have never come across any reference to RFC use of penguins in any sort of training. Might have been better if they had used them, but that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#MikeMeech and #Michael Skeet:  Yes, I am familiar with the Moranes and indeed the subject of my biography, Capt D V Armstrong, flew Morane Bullets type N, I and V with 60 Squadron right through to mid-October 1916, in fact I believe he was the last member of the squadron to receive a Nieuport. They not only had all-flying empennages, they also employed wing warping for lateral control!

 

But I was discussing training machines used at Gosport while the squadron was forming-up prior to departing for France, among them a pair of Type L Parasols lent to Waldron by Gordon-Bell which Frank Tredrey described as having a pound of lead on one wingtip to counteract the torque.

 

Having established that, I must apologize and resile from my assumption that this must have meant they were penguins.

 

However impossible it seems to believe anything as aerodynamically imbecilic as loading one wing with lead, apparently these machines DID fly. Following my last post I made a search through whatever I could find about Morane Parasols without ever finding anything to corroborate what Tredrey wrote regarding this method of counteracting torque. I must admit I don't have much time at my disposal and would love to hear if anyone knows whether this was a Gordon-Bell modification or recommended (or even installed) by the manufacturers. Be that as it may, I WAS successful in finding one source which actually answers the burning question of whether they flew. In 'An Airman Marches', pages 42-43, Harold Balfour describes attempting to land after foolishly taking a passenger up in one of these (at Gosport): "At what seemed the crucial moment I pulled the stick back. Unfortunately I was about two feet too high. There was nothing to be done except to await the inevitable. The right wing, which had in its tip some pounds of lead supposed to counteract the torque of the engine, dropped. We hit with right wheel and wing-tip and did a complete half loop on the ground finishing hanging upside-down in our belts with petrol running all over us." [Emphasis added.]

 

They used some other interesting Moranes while training at Gosport, which are either described or illustrated in my biography, but doubtless you aero-historians know all about these. Evidently none of them were penguins. Sorry.

Best regards

Annette

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Annette Carson said:

#MikeMeech and #Michael Skeet:  Yes, I am familiar with the Moranes and indeed the subject of my biography, Capt D V Armstrong, flew Morane Bullets type N, I and V with 60 Squadron right through to mid-October 1916, in fact I believe he was the last member of the squadron to receive a Nieuport. They not only had all-flying empennages, they also employed wing warping for lateral control!

 

But I was discussing training machines used at Gosport while the squadron was forming-up prior to departing for France, among them a pair of Type L Parasols lent to Waldron by Gordon-Bell which Frank Tredrey described as having a pound of lead on one wingtip to counteract the torque.

 

Having established that, I must apologize and resile from my assumption that this must have meant they were penguins.

 

However impossible it seems to believe anything as aerodynamically imbecilic as loading one wing with lead, apparently these machines DID fly. Following my last post I made a search through whatever I could find about Morane Parasols without ever finding anything to corroborate what Tredrey wrote regarding this method of counteracting torque. I must admit I don't have much time at my disposal and would love to hear if anyone knows whether this was a Gordon-Bell modification or recommended (or even installed) by the manufacturers. Be that as it may, I WAS successful in finding one source which actually answers the burning question of whether they flew. In 'An Airman Marches', pages 42-43, Harold Balfour describes attempting to land after foolishly taking a passenger up in one of these (at Gosport): "At what seemed the crucial moment I pulled the stick back. Unfortunately I was about two feet too high. There was nothing to be done except to await the inevitable. The right wing, which had in its tip some pounds of lead supposed to counteract the torque of the engine, dropped. We hit with right wheel and wing-tip and did a complete half loop on the ground finishing hanging upside-down in our belts with petrol running all over us." [Emphasis added.]

 

They used some other interesting Moranes while training at Gosport, which are either described or illustrated in my biography, but doubtless you aero-historians know all about these. Evidently none of them were penguins. Sorry.

Best regards

Annette

 

Hi

 

Reference lead weights.  When I used to work on aircraft and during my apprenticeship 'lead' weights were used on the flying controls; aileron, elevator and rudder to "bring the C of G of a control surface as close as possible to the control hinge line and so prevent 'flutter'. "

We also had 'depleted uranium' weights in helicopter rotor blades, adjustable at the tip of the blade, to "balance statically spanwise" (adjusted by shims attached to studs at the blade tip) and also "balanced dynamically for cord wise balance" (by moving a weight cordwise).  Adjustable weights to get aircraft flying 'right' were common in later machines.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, MikeMeech said:

Reference lead weights.  When I used to work on aircraft and during my apprenticeship 'lead' weights were used on the flying controls; aileron, elevator and rudder to "bring the C of G of a control surface as close as possible to the control hinge line and so prevent 'flutter'. "

We also had 'depleted uranium' weights in helicopter rotor blades, adjustable at the tip of the blade, to "balance statically spanwise" (adjusted by shims attached to studs at the blade tip) and also "balanced dynamically for cord wise balance" (by moving a weight cordwise).  Adjustable weights to get aircraft flying 'right' were common in later machines.

Hi again! 

Thanks for this interesting information. Unfortunately I'm not qualified to comment on adjustable weights relating to control surfaces or rotor blades, and I wish I had time to delve again into this question of lead weights on the Morane Parasols. I did discuss it at length with Dodge Bailey when I was at Old Warden last October, and he was as aghast as I was at the idea of pounds of lead added to the wingtip of a stick and rag aeroplane of empty weight less than 400 kg powered by an 80hp Gnome rotary. Both of us assumed it stayed firmly on the ground  - by the way, even on the tarmac those Parasols were notorious for being subject to wind flipping them on their backs.

 

For me, writing books about aviation history means trying to understand the prowess needed by DV Armstrong and his colleagues engaging in aerial combat in First World War aeroplanes with rotary engines, whose flying characteristics are entirely foreign to me. I don't claim any expertise in this area, so Dodge was the obvious person to consult, being one of the few living pilots, and himself an RAF test pilot, who has experience of flying such aircraft. (Aerobatic pilot Brian Lecomber couldn't get on with a Sopwith Camel replica even powered by a stationary Scarab, which is one reason why he joined myself and others in admiration of Armstrong's feats.) Surprisingly, Dodge didn't regard wing-warping as such a handicap once you got used to it, but on the other hand the replicas he flies are necessarily flown straight and level in the most sedate of conditions.

 

I remain fascinated by this question and I have a mental note to raise it with other friends including Tony Bianchi who has a Morane Bullet in a hangar at Stow Maries. I saw a clip on YouTube of a flying Parasol - was it in the Netherlands? - but sadly I don't have any contact with the group that built it. Let's hope to revisit this at a later date!

Regards

Annette

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Annette Carson said:

Hi again! 

Thanks for this interesting information. Unfortunately I'm not qualified to comment on adjustable weights relating to control surfaces or rotor blades, and I wish I had time to delve again into this question of lead weights on the Morane Parasols. I did discuss it at length with Dodge Bailey when I was at Old Warden last October, and he was as aghast as I was at the idea of pounds of lead added to the wingtip of a stick and rag aeroplane of empty weight less than 400 kg powered by an 80hp Gnome rotary. Both of us assumed it stayed firmly on the ground  - by the way, even on the tarmac those Parasols were notorious for being subject to wind flipping them on their backs.

 

For me, writing books about aviation history means trying to understand the prowess needed by DV Armstrong and his colleagues engaging in aerial combat in First World War aeroplanes with rotary engines, whose flying characteristics are entirely foreign to me. I don't claim any expertise in this area, so Dodge was the obvious person to consult, being one of the few living pilots, and himself an RAF test pilot, who has experience of flying such aircraft. (Aerobatic pilot Brian Lecomber couldn't get on with a Sopwith Camel replica even powered by a stationary Scarab, which is one reason why he joined myself and others in admiration of Armstrong's feats.) Surprisingly, Dodge didn't regard wing-warping as such a handicap once you got used to it, but on the other hand the replicas he flies are necessarily flown straight and level in the most sedate of conditions.

 

I remain fascinated by this question and I have a mental note to raise it with other friends including Tony Bianchi who has a Morane Bullet in a hangar at Stow Maries. I saw a clip on YouTube of a flying Parasol - was it in the Netherlands? - but sadly I don't have any contact with the group that built it. Let's hope to revisit this at a later date!

Regards

Annette

Hi

 

Reference 'torque', 'The Aviation Pocket-Book 1918' by R. Botlase Matthews, pages 38-39 has under 'Lateral Stability' the following:

 

"It is further affected by the airscrew torque, though this is usually corrected independently,  by increasing the angle of incidence of the side which tends to come down."

 

If I notice any more information on this subject in contemporary publications I will add it to this thread.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks , all of you, a lot of talent with you people, lots of info and insite for me!!! A really big help👍😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem very primitive ,  sticking lead weights on a wingtip.

Yet l understand that the USSR did exactly the same with its early jets.

So is it a  primitive brute force approach or jet-age technology ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...