Blackurn Triplane

[Tranby1]

Hello,

I would appreciate if anyone could advise any information relating toe the Blackburn Triplane of circa 1916.

Tranby1

[robmoff]

AFAIK only one, serisl N502, was ever built, powered with 110 Clerget, 100 Gnome engines at different times. Accepted for trials 20th Feb 1917, classed as unsatisfactory 19th March 1917.

Basic configuration was a nacel for the pilot and a gun (the Davis recoilless is mentioned) with the middle wing attatched to this. twin parallel booms to a wide tailplane and twin deep rudders and fins. Ugly looking beast.

[centurion]

Ingenious as it was the Davis gun posed a number of problems the major of which was the need to ensure clear space behind it so that the counter weight did not damage the aircraft – it would discourage pilots if firing the weapon blew off their own aircraft’s tail. Coupled with this was the design of the breach that required manual loading and reloading so that the gun could not be mounted over wing and away from the reach of the pilot or a gunner. Another issue was the fact that the breach was not always completely gas tight so that flames and smoke often spurted from it on firing. The British Admiralty (The Royal Navy was initially responsible for defending the UK against airships) decided that specialised aircraft would be needed to carry the Davis gun into action.

The first two designs were the ADC Scout of 1915 and the Blackburn Triplane of 1916 respectively. Both were designed by the same person and very similar in concept being single seaters with pusher engines and propellers mounted behind the pilot. The tail assemblies were mounted on a spindly looking framework attached to the upper and bottom wings. The nacelle for the pilot and engine was, unlike most pusher aircraft, mounted high up on the top wing, presumably to maximise the chances of the pilot being killed if the aircraft should nose over on landing! This was encouraged in the ADC design by a tall main undercarriage with the wheels extremely close together. Maintaining the engine on both aircraft would have been awkward for the ground staff and the airman who swung the propeller to start the engine must have had an interesting time as he would have needed to do this from a stepladder (and probably been blown off it by the prop wash). Both nacelles had long deep noses to house the Davis gun, these must have greatly impeded the pilot’s forward view. It seems probable that both aircraft were designed without their designer being aware of the full characteristics of the Davis gun. If fitted in the Sparrow the breach would have been between the pilot’s legs, giving full scope for the effects of the escape of fire and smoke, whilst in both aircraft the only direction in which the counterweight could be fired would be through the propeller with a high probability that this would be smashed. In fact neither aircraft was fitted with its intended armament and both never proceeded past the prototype stage.