View Full Version : Any Idea 2?

17th Dec 2007, 17:32
Any thoughts? Firstly what aircraft and secondly what is the modification?
I should add this is not from any other website :)

17th Dec 2007, 17:54
Is it a Queen Bee, the remote controlled version of the Tigermoth?

17th Dec 2007, 20:41
Not a Queen Bee but I do believe it is a version of the Tiger moth

17th Dec 2007, 22:44
Your not wrong. The photograph appeared in an article, entitled "The Tiger Moth Fighter", in an October 1933 issue of Flight Magazine.
This Tiger Moth had been converted for use as a single seat fighter. A machine gun,firing through the propeller, was been mounted on the fuselage, and slung beneath the aircraft bomb racks capable of holding eight 20-lb.bombs. With a load of four bombs the machine carried fuel for a range of 500 miles. The machine gun. which had been tested on the machine, was manufactured by the Czechoslovakian Arms Factory, of Prague; the muzzle velocity is 839 m./sec, the maximum rate of fire 900, plus or minus 100 rounds a sec, the bore 7.92 mm., and a Pratt and Whitney synchronising gear is fitted, which was very light and efficient, the drive being taken from the top-half of the rear cover of the engine, where provision for hand-starting gear was normally allowed for. The gun was mounted in the front cockpit and shoots over the engine cowling; it was fixed to the machine mounting by two bolts, the rear bolt incorporating a vernier adjustment for direction and elevation. The ammunition box, holding 200 rounds, and the cartridge chute, were fixed to the mounting itself, the only connections between the gun mounting, and fuselage, being four holding-down bolts. The mounting was attached to the two top longerons by four bolts, but no extra holes have been drilled in the longerons.
In the photograph can be seen the gun mounting on the ejector side of the gun. The top chute is for the spent belt, and the larger chute for the used cartridges ; the muzzle of the gun can be seen in front between the " V " strut. An Aldis telescopic sight can be seen in the rear cockpit.
The article went on to say that "A detachment of this machine has been ordered by a foreign Government and has already been packed up for dispatch."
I am not sure what happened to the idea. Perhaps someone can shed some light on the subject.

18th Dec 2007, 04:57
Well done Speechless Two! I had no idea what that was.
Anyone got any other rarity's or oddity's?

I have many here and almost lost the lot today... :mad:
Hot water system blew and flooded the place out... The only casualty was and emergency handbook from 1910. The back cover is a bit warped, but it shall survive.

Edit: How about this?

18th Dec 2007, 13:26
Is that some sort of parasitic fighter concept for hooking up to an airship?

18th Dec 2007, 13:38
Sorry, but nice try Cpt P.
Nothing to do with attaching to airships or anything like that.
I did copy this from a book and was surprised that it was also on the net if the correct keywords is put into the search engine.

18th Dec 2007, 19:49
Speechless Two,Yes it is a camera, in fact two cameras, but what's it mounted on? If you guess the reason, you will know what aircraft. (and vice versa)
Heres another slightly expanded shot.

18th Dec 2007, 19:56
I'm intrigued by Mel's mention of a 500 mile range. I've only been in a tigermoth once, from Barton to Audley End, and we had to stop at Sywell to refuel. I was told it would do about 2.5 hrs to dry at 70 kts.

18th Dec 2007, 20:12
There can be another fuel tank fitted just forward of the front cockpit. So maybe this gives it the extra range? I was told they were fitted to the RAAF ones because of the vast distances between fuel stops involved.
Anyone confirm?

18th Dec 2007, 20:15
I think the aircraft is an Avro 504N and the camera is mounted above the tailplane.
I appreciate your question, the figure quoted came from the Flight article, the article also stated that the engine was a Gypsy Major. I note that A J Jackson in his book De Havilland Aircraft since 1909 states the Tigermoth DH 82C had a range of 275 miles so whether this aircraft had a larger fuel tank I do not know

India Four Two
19th Dec 2007, 02:28
I am not sure what happened to the idea.

I would have thought a 70kt fighter in 1933 was doomed from the start, unless your enemy was equipped with WWI aircraft and even then I think I'ld back a Camel or an Albatros against a Tiger.

19th Dec 2007, 06:26
Speechless Two has it. :ok:
The Parnell Parasole with wool tufts and a wing that can be adjusted to variable incidence.
More interesting features and history can be viewed at this page.
Bristol Aviation site: http://www.chew76.fsnet.co.uk/

Edit: Speechless: You have one ready to post?

19th Dec 2007, 13:02
Would it have something to do with operations in long dry grass?

19th Dec 2007, 13:46
Looks like the expansion chamber that I fitted to my FS-1E when I was 16! Got at least another 2 mph out of it...

19th Dec 2007, 13:57
Looks like the boom assy at the rear is meant to be raised and lowered. How about a form of aerial refuelling from ships without landing on?

19th Dec 2007, 14:10
Sorry about the drift, but I've done some looking around on the Moths range and fuel capacity.
Filler Cap:
This front tank holds about 40 odd liters. Add that to the 80 liter 300 mile range in the top tank and It's highly unlikely it would make 500 miles. But then again, there would be more tank space as there is no passenger, so 500 mile range could be a reality.

19th Dec 2007, 15:12
Speechless Two I think you are correct that the Whirlwind at Post #17 was a
Whirlwind HAR Mk3. I think it is XG582 from 705 Sqn.

19th Dec 2007, 15:14
Message retrieval like the Army Co-op guys did between and during the wars?

Dick Whittingham
19th Dec 2007, 15:34
How about some sniffer device to track schnorkeling subs? Long exhaust to clear away heli's own exhaust?

Dick W

19th Dec 2007, 15:50
I found a reference in Derek N James book Westland Aircraft since 1915 regarding the Whirlwind HAS.3 that some of the HAR.3s were equipped with US Asdic 194 (AQS-4) licence-built by R B Pullin and Co. Could the boom be connected with that?

19th Dec 2007, 16:23
Were these aircraft involved in Operation Grapple, collecting air samples? Derek James states " four Mk 3s also participated in Operation Grapple"
Operation Grapple, and operations Grapple X, Grapple Y and Grapple Z, were series of British nuclear testing operations which sought to test a hydrogen bomb. The operations were conducted from 1956 to 1958 at Malden Island and Christmas Island (now Kiritimati). A total of 9 nuclear detonations took place during the trials and resulted in Britain becoming a thermonuclear power.

Although your last hint would possibly indicate chemical spraying.

19th Dec 2007, 16:28
Experimental mine sweeping gear?

19th Dec 2007, 16:42
Thank you, Speechless Two. Open House, Sir.

19th Dec 2007, 16:55
Speechless Two.
I understand that the early marks of Whirlwind were provided with a pilot-operated power winch similar to that fitted in the Dragonfly. The boom however,was much too low and had to be traversed to get the casualty into the cabin. It is reported that Lt Cdr Sproule RN designed a raised boom so that the man hoisted was suspended much higher and could be swung easily into the cabin without moving the boom.

20th Dec 2007, 16:19
Speechless Two. What a sad way to go!
Here is a nice easy one.

20th Dec 2007, 18:07
That is the one :ok:

24th Jan 2008, 14:10

24th Jan 2008, 14:58
Upkeep Wellington?

24th Jan 2008, 15:29
Would that be a winch and spindle... Some form of early snatch recovery equipment perhaps?

24th Jan 2008, 16:03
Fitter2 - Not a Wellington
Stevef - Not a winch, as such, and no it is not a form of snatch equipment.

24th Jan 2008, 17:02
Inflight refuel?

24th Jan 2008, 18:21
early glider tug?
BR om15

24th Jan 2008, 22:37
proteus6 is on the right lines, i.e. Inflight refuel any idea what the aircraft is?

25th Jan 2008, 05:12
Armstrong Whitworth AW23?

25th Jan 2008, 07:41
I've found a picture in "Wings over Dorset" showing early tests of in flight refueling with various tanker aircraft. One picture shows an AW23 "feeding a line down to a Bristol Bombay while flying over Littlehampton"
The configuration of the AW23 seems to match Mel's picture.

25th Jan 2008, 10:46
Stevef and Flap40.
That is the one the Armstrong Whitworth AW 23.
Sir Alan Cobham pioneered research on the probe and drogue method, and gave public demonstrations of the system. In 1934, he founded Flight Refuelling Ltd. (FRL), and by 1938 had used an automatic system to refuel aircraft as large as the Short Empire flying boat Cambria from an Armstrong Whitworth AW.23.

30th Jan 2008, 19:10
circa 1933

30th Jan 2008, 19:52
Hi Evansb - er a Ryan M1 attempting an early STOL exercise or rehearsing for the hop to PPW?? :E

Edit: rehearsal for first shoot of "Ocean's 6" with the Capone gang in hot pursuit...or "Catch me if you can" :}

Edit: sorry about the thread drift/frivolity - mods please delete if you want, it's been a very hard week. Still think it's a Ryan though...

30th Jan 2008, 20:22
Fivolity okay by me:ok:. Please.. no jokes about an inclined plane.

30th Jan 2008, 21:28
An early attempt by Evil Kenivel before he switched to bikes?

It might work better if he turned the 'plane around and used a bigger weight on the end of the catapult string;) It should then clear a dozen cars or so...

31st Jan 2008, 04:10
Ah yes, the very harry 'jump prop'.:} Seriously mates, the caption originally supplied with this photograph was wrong regarding the type of aircraft, and I also question the location of the shot. I do not know the purpose of the flight. So,there you have it!

31st Jan 2008, 10:07
Emsco B-3?

Found one article saying they were tested with wooden ramp at Wright Field, somewhere around WWII.

31st Jan 2008, 10:21
Well done moira - excerpt from "The Best of Wings Magazine" (Walter J Boyne) says 'This Emsco B-3 was sold to the Mexican airline owned by Francisco Sarabia, ... when a huge ramp was built at Wright Field to test its effect on takeoffs' but...cannot read more online cos' the pages are not viewable in the web preview!! :ugh:

31st Jan 2008, 11:27
That's the article indeed! :ok:

Rest of the article reads:
"The idea of using a ramp to facilitate take-off intrigued aviators through WWII, when a huge ramp was built at Wright Field to test its effect on takeoffs. Tests proved that there was no net gain in using a ramp"

31st Jan 2008, 11:31
Not too sure that it is the Emsco B-3
or the Ryan M-1

31st Jan 2008, 11:41
Must admit that the struts of the M1 look more like the "ramp picture" than those on the Emsco ... :confused:

But then again, the M1 doesn't look completely right either ...

Still an other type????

31st Jan 2008, 12:56
If you take the fairings off the wheels - which conceivably would have to be done in case they fouled the ramp, and look closely at the flying surfaces, it does start to resemble the Emsco. There is someone standing blocking the rudder shape tho' :)

31st Jan 2008, 14:42
How about the Sierra BLW-2 "San Franciscan" flown in an unsuccessful endurance record attempts June-Aug 1929 at Mills Field, San Francisco?
Although the wingspan looks too narrow and the bottom of the rudder does not appear to have the correct radius.

31st Jan 2008, 20:53
Hey Evansb, can't you really give us a hint?
Like the original capture that went with the picture?
Even if incorrect, it might give us some clue!!!

31st Jan 2008, 21:10
The original photo was part of an Alaskan State History Archive, and the caption stated a Lockheed Vega in Juneau circa 1933. It isn't a Lockheed Vega and it doesn't look like Juneau, but it just might be. No clue was given as to the nature of the ramp launch, if that is what it was.

31st Jan 2008, 21:35
It bears a certain resemblance to a Fairchild 71. :confused:

1st Feb 2008, 12:41
I agree with you Bri, no way is that aircraft a Lockheed Vega. I think it is a version of the Fokker Universal or Fokker "Super" Universal. The only difference I can see between the aircraft on the ramp and the Fokker Universal and "Super" Universal in the photographs is in the vertical support for the undercarriage.

1st Feb 2008, 13:13
Pilot Nat C. Browne's Fokker Universal during takeoff, Seattle ca. 1932

This is quite some story:-

1st Feb 2008, 14:52
Thank you very much Mel! You are a brilliant researcher.:ok: I will send an e-mail to the State Archive to correct the error and inform them of the amazing story behind the photograph.

1st Feb 2008, 19:36
Your welcome Bri. I just had to find out the reason for building such a ramp as I know that Harold Bromley when he attempted a solo flight from the Tacoma to Tokyo in his aircraft the "City of Tacoma" also tried to take-off using a ramp.
I was amazed to read that they replaced the wing struts with cables. OK when the upward force was equal but surley didn't allow for any twisting forces?

Rusty Tack
3rd Feb 2008, 18:24
The photo in the original post is that of a Tiger Moth fighter trainer developed for the Iranian Air Corps in 1932!

Full details can be found in the book "de Havilland Tiger Moth -Legendary Biplane Trainer" by Stuart McKay. ISBN-13: 978-1857800616

1st Mar 2008, 18:02
Next one for the experts in arcane aeroplanes (sorry about the poor quality):

1st Mar 2008, 18:50
1930 Laird Holman.

See here (http://www.air-racing-history.com/1930%20National%20Air%20Races.htm)

1st Mar 2008, 23:37
Flap40 has it. Didn't even last an hour!

4th Mar 2008, 22:35
Instead of a ramp, maybe they should have tried a conveyer belt :E