schwarm59 Posted 26 December , 2006 Share Posted 26 December , 2006 hello, I received this photograph of a friend, it to find it in the attic of his grandmother and to give it to me. The legend says that this plane was cut down between Arleuse and Vimy on April 1, 1916. Is what somebody will be able to identify the remainders of this plane and if it has information on the killed pilot and his winner. thank you very much cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 26 December , 2006 Share Posted 26 December , 2006 Cedric, The inscription says "Das 7. von Lt Immelmann abgeschossene feindliche Flugzeug zwischen Arleuse u. Vimy mit dem Grab des Fliegers. Acheville, 1.IV.16" — in English: "The 7th enemy aircraft shot down by Lt Immelmann between Arleuse and Vimy, with the grave of the pilot. Acheville, 1.4.16". Max Immelmann was the first German fighter ace to be awarded the Orden Pour le Mérite (in January 1916), which thereafter became known as the 'Blue Max'. He is credited with 17 victories: http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/germany/immelmann.php According to this listing, his 7th victory was a Morane Parasol (5087) on 15 December 1915. On 29 and 30 March 1916, he scored his 12th and 13th victories, an FE2b (6352) and a BE2c (4116). No doubt one of our experts can sort out this descrepancy. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 27 December , 2006 Share Posted 27 December , 2006 The item on the right looks like a BE2c rudder, with the fabric stripped off. Not just the outline, but the way in which the ribs splay out. The tray on the left could be the lower engine cowling of a BE, and if the V shaped strut by the rudder more closely resembles the undercarriage struts of a BE than an FE2b or a Morane. Having said that I have a picture of the wreck of 4116 which looks very different, and the rudder is intact. But maybe the fabric was stripped later by souvenir hunters, which often happened. Also, 4116 had two crew, both killed. I wonder why they would bury the pilot next to the crash - or had these few items from the crash been moved to form a display near the grave? As there is one clear discrepancy in the inscription, maybe it is completely wrong - if it was taken my a journalist, he would get more payment for it if it purported to be a photo of an Immelmann victim. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFF Posted 29 December , 2006 Share Posted 29 December , 2006 See "The Aerodrome" message "Lt. Immelmann-victory 1916?" ID by "Retread" as BE2c {#4116} 30 March 1916 15 Squadron RAF 2nd Lt. Geoffrey Welsford {killed/motally wounded} Pilot Lt. Wayland Joyce {captured{ Ovserver} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwarm59 Posted 30 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 30 December , 2006 Thank you Pff and thank you with retread for this information. I had already poster a topic on aerodrome with these two photographs but nobody had succeeded in saying to me if were the lt Immelmann where another pilot. Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 31 December , 2006 Share Posted 31 December , 2006 Cedric Here is the photo I mentioned of the wreck of 4116. It is very different from the wreck in your picture, though it is possible that your picture was taken after the wreck was dismantled. Immelmann always referred to BE2cs as "Bristol Biplanes" I am sorry I can only give a negative I.D. rather than a positive one. Adrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwarm59 Posted 31 December , 2006 Author Share Posted 31 December , 2006 adrian Thank you very much for the photograph and your answers, it is true that when one looks at your photograph and mine already the provision of the structure of the plane is not the same one and if one looks closely on my photograph one little seeing that B.E .2 C.A. flaring. I think that the legend of the photograph is not good and that is another German pilot where well the FLAK which descended this plane. That remains a mystery to identify this photograph. Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowNslow Posted 2 January , 2007 Share Posted 2 January , 2007 Looking at both the pictures, I feel pretty certain that both aeroplanes are BE2s. The rudder shape is pretty similar for both and I can confirm that the structure of the rudder in your picture ced, is identical to the one we have just rebuilt for our BE-2c replica! In fact the fuel tank on the left side of the picture is the first chance we've had to see what an original looks like out of the aeroplane. My colleague Matt has just spent a month devising one from scratch, and it looks almost identical!! Given the fact that the aeroplane in the original picture looks as if it may have been consumed by fire, I'm amazed that the fuel tank looks so intact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 So where was the fuel tank located on the BE2c? Can't see one under the centre section; doesn't look like much room behind the engine. I thought the item on the left of the picture was the lower engine cowling, but surely the fuel tank wasn't under the engine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowNslow Posted 3 January , 2007 Share Posted 3 January , 2007 So where was the fuel tank located on the BE2c? Can't see one under the centre section; doesn't look like much room behind the engine. I thought the item on the left of the picture was the lower engine cowling, but surely the fuel tank wasn't under the engine? Hi Adrian There were in fact two tanks on most BE2c aeroplanes. The main tank was located under the observer's seat (eeek!) and contained 18 gallons. It was pressure-fed to the engine. The reserve tank, which contained just over 14 gallons, was situated ahead of the observer just above and behind the engine, and was gravity fed to the carburettor. That is the tank shown in the crash picture. For various reasons, not least weight and balance, plus we don't believe we need to fly for more than a couple of hours these days - we're sticking to a single gravity-fed tank on our aeroplane, in the reserve tank position. For another reason, I really don't fancy flying around sitting on 18 gallons of high-octane!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 For another reason, I really don't fancy flying around sitting on 18 gallons of high-octane!! No need to be too realistic - no one's going to be able to see the difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartH Posted 4 January , 2007 Share Posted 4 January , 2007 Hi What octane was the fuel in the GW? Presumably yours will be higher. Regards Mart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwarm59 Posted 6 January , 2007 Author Share Posted 6 January , 2007 hello, Thank you the answers which you bring on this subject. Thus the remainders of the plane which are on the photograph comes well from B.E.2c. To the two soldiers who are close to the remainders of the plane, make they parties of the infantry or the Air Force?? Cedric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark parker Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Is that a fuel tank under the top wing in this photo? can also see on this photo; This is almost like an exploded view, the wings were left outside, and remarkably there was no one seriously injured. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 7 January , 2007 Share Posted 7 January , 2007 Mark Yes, they are under-wing fuel tanks in the photographs, but the aeroplanes in the pictures are BE 2e, not BE 2c. The fuel tank (though many were removed from aircraft in service) is one of the distinguishing features of the later BE 2 variants, along with the unequal span wings. Regards Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowNslow Posted 15 January , 2007 Share Posted 15 January , 2007 The underwing tank, which was as Dolphin says, a feature of the later BE-2d and BE-2e models was a gravity feed tank designed to give about 15-20 minutes extra flying time should the main tank be holed or the pressure pump fail. As Dolphin said, many aeroplanes, particularly "Home Establishment" and training aeroplanes had them removed as an unnecessary complexity. Sorry Mart, I couldn't really tell you much about the octane level of fuel in the GW, other than it would be pretty low. I guess, at that time, providing it could be sucked and burned, they figured they were ahead! Engine compressions weren't much more than 6.5:1 or 7:1 and the engines ran deliberately rich mixtures to prevent overheating. Additives such as lead or benzine-based compounds to boost octane level and hence power only really started to appear in the 1930s. Our replica is using a more modern DH Gipsy engine (only 75 year-old technology!) and we have no choice but to use the only aviation fuel currently available in Europe, 100-octane low-lead. Steve 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