Airco DH-5

[Will O'Brien]

To all our Aviation buffs....................I have just read a small piece on the Airco DH-5 which was described as unpredictable on landing & ineffectual at high altitude, causing it to be one of the most unpopular planes with the Pilots........I take it unpredictable on landing means it crashed a lot. Does anyone know why this was the case & can anyone expand on the ineffectual at high altitude comment.

[Terry Denham]

Quote from "De Havilland Aircraft Since 1909" by A.J.Jackson

"The D.H.5 was immensely strong, fully aerobatic and a pleasant aeroplane to fly but a number of training accidents led to a widespread and unfounded belief that its unorthodox layout imparted a high stalling speed and made recovery from a spin difficult. In squadron service flown by experienced pilots, it proved quite docile but at heights above 10,000 ft was easily outflown by contemporary fighters such as the Sopwith Pup"

[aleyoop]

The unusual wing configuration made approach from behind and above impossible to detect although forward and down visibility was superior. Its best use was in ground attack. There is a good discussion on the type at

http://www.australianflyingcorps.org/mkiii...icles_cont5.htm

Vin

[Dolphin]

The DH5 was originally intended to be able to attack higher flying aircraft, with its back-staggered wings giving great forward and upward visibility. The original gun mounting allowed for the Vickers to be angled upwards through about 60 degrees - something like a Lewis Gun on a Foster mount. However, by the time the machine reached the front, its performance was nowhere near good enough for air to air combat, hence the relegation to the infantry support or 'trench strafing' role.

As J M Bruce wrote in the Profile publication on the type: "It deserves to be remembered for the effective but costly ground-attack work it did at Cambrai."

[aleyoop]

Another dud pommie ‘plane the AFC/RAAF was landed with, along with the RE 8, the Spitfire (disaster over Darwin) and the Meteor in Korea. To be fair, the AFC did very with the Camel, Snipe, SE 5A, Bristol Fighter and later the RAAF with the Spitfire (452 RAAF) and Beaufort/Beaufighter in the Pacific.

Vin

[David_Blanchard]

I think the plane below is an example of a DH 5 flown by Herbert Collar (RNAS) in 1918, 'Diogenes'. He flew several missions in late 1918 across the Adriactic from bases in Southern Italy, attacking Austrian submarine pens.

[Alec McCudden]

David,

This is a lovely photograph but sadly not a DH5. It is a DH9 bomber. The DH5 was a single seat scout.

Alec

[Guest Pete Wood]

Here you are....

[Will O'Brien]

Many thanks to everyone who has contributed on this thread so far

[Andrew Smith]

G'day Will,

There are some great profiles of DH-5's on Cam Rileys AFC site;

http://www.australianflyingcorps.org/aircraft/profiles.html

"Highest Traditions" quotes the DH5's performance as;

Max Speed - 105 MPH at 6500 ft and could climb to 10000 feet in 12 minutes. It goes further to say that the DH5 was the least successful of the 10 DeHavilland wartime designs.

It backward staggered top wing was a hinderance as the pilot had a blind spot above and behind, not the best spot and poorly armed being equiped with only 1 vickers.

Due to its poor all round performance, 2 AFC used the DH5 primarily as a ground attack aircraft, but also had some success downing German machines.

The final mission for the DH5 with 2 AFC was on December 15, 1917 a line patrol and training sortie.

Regards,

Andrew.

[Will O'Brien]

Andrew

Many thanks for the extra info.

[duckman]

Freely admitting that this is (at best) an educated guess, but consider the airflow over the wings on a landing approach. Remember that the a/c is "settling" at this time - it is not flying along its axis, but descending while it is flying in a level attitude, due to loss of lift due in turn to the low airspeed on approach. Then you "flare" the nose up for a three point landing.

With this geometry, I can't help thinking that as you "flared" the nose up, the lower wing could almost completely block airflow over the top deck. I suspect that the top wing would stall, and that could result in some VERY unpleasant landing characteristics. Firstly you would tend to lose a lot of speed and height very quickly, and I think that the stalling top wing would tend to pull the nose up quite sharply. Just what you want to be dealing with at 50' up.

Just my 2 cents (or pence or whatever), but that would bear out the original suggestion that it didn't like landing.

[Will O'Brien]

Freely admitting that this is (at best) an educated guess, but consider the airflow over the wings on a landing approach. Remember that the a/c is "settling" at this time - it is not flying along its axis, but descending while it is flying in a level attitude, due to loss of lift due in turn to the low airspeed on approach. Then you "flare" the nose up for a three point landing.

With this geometry, I can't help thinking that as you "flared" the nose up, the lower wing could almost completely block airflow over the top deck. I suspect that the top wing would stall, and that could result in some VERY unpleasant landing characteristics. Firstly you would tend to lose a lot of speed and height very quickly, and I think that the stalling top wing would tend to pull the nose up quite sharply. Just what you want to be dealing with at 50' up.

Just my 2 cents (or pence or whatever), but that would bear out the original suggestion that it didn't like landing.

Duckman..........Many thanks for that.....certainly sounds like a plane for the more experienced pilot.

[aleyoop]

Arthur Coningham claimed 6 victories, 4 of which were out of controls, during July 1917 when flying with 32RFC. All victims, including the 2 destroyed, were Albatros. Not a complete dud after all.

[Andrew Smith]

G'day Vin,

"Mary" Coningham certainly was one pilot who could handle a DH5.

Did you know his father, also Arthur, played test cricket for Australia. He played one test only against England in the 1894-1895 season.

He holds two records to this very day. He took a wicket with his first ball in Test cricket, it was also the first ball in the match and the first time it had ever happened. He was also the first Queenslander to do this.

Regards,

Andrew

[aleyoop]

Andrew,

Didn't we have a conversation about Coningham a few years back ? It was something about a murder or the parliamentary mace being lost or something. I posted you a clipping from the Sunday "Age" from memory.

It's quite nice here, isn't it.

Vin

[aleyoop]

Andrew,

Didn't we have a conversation about Coningham a few years back ? It was something about a murder or the parliamentary mace being lost or something about the Archbishop of Melbourne. I forget the detail, now. I posted you a clipping from the Sunday "Age" from memory.

It's quite nice here, isn't it.

Vin

[Andrew Smith]

G'day Vin,

Coninghams parent tried to imply that the secretary of the Arch Bishop of Sydney had fathered their second child. Apparently this priest had a high profile with Sydney's A list and the Coninghams found him an easy target. The case ended up in the Supreme Court of NSW. Arthur senior would have won the case but he started corresponding with a "supporter" called Zero.

Zero was an expert on church doctrine, he however let a reporter know his role in the Coningham affair so the church had an imposter take over Zero's identity who then fed false information to Coningham senior and the whole plot was uncovered. The Coninghams fled to New Zealand where Arthur junior grew up.

Yes Vin, this is a very nice place much better than the other joint. There is a lot to be said of English hospitality.

Andrew.

BTW I will be in Melbourne late January, we will have to catch up for a dram or two.

[Guest rivnut]

Pretty well all the aircraft built during WWI got a quick lookover at the plant, a brief exposure to the jaundiced eye of a testing squadron and then, for one reason or another sent into oblivion or the front. There, to be flown by a woefully undertrained flying corp. There was nothing inherently dangerous about the negative stagger of the biplane wings of the DH5. However, the combination of tail heaviness with the general inefficiency of the negative stagger made it a dangerous plane (as most were) in the hands of a novice. High landing speeds were not appreciated by pilots in those days.The negative stagger was responsible for the poor performance at altitude as well. As other posts have mentioned, there were other problems that were associated with the configuration. It did make a good ground attack aircraft, but it should have been more heavily armed.

I don't think it needs to be singled out as a poor aircraft.

Kev

[Will O'Brien]

Kev

Thanks for those thoughts

[Guest rivnut]

My Pleasure, Will. I can hardly resist a chance to talk "planes". In answer to your initial question about poor performance at high altitude, I could quote Leonard Bairstow, from his book, "Applied Aerodynamics" (LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 1920) He and his team did a lot of work on the efficiency of various biplane and triplane layouts, at different angles of stagger. Suffice it to say, the overall lift and drag figures deteriorate rapidly as the stagger goes negative. Here's an example. The figures for the R.A.F.6 airfoil at 0* angle of attack, go like this. Between +30* and -29* the coeff. of lift falls by about 30% while drag increases by about 10%. Meanwhile, overall Lift over Drag goes from 7.4 to 4.69. Thats a lot. And, it explains a lot about the airplane.

Kev