World War 1 Plane
Indeed not. But it's also worth remembering that military standardisation of types was something that started during WW1 (part of which gave birth to the AID and the requirement for interchangable parts). In the early part of the was RFC training units literally bought aircraft as required from any of dozens of local suppliers, many of which vanished without trace after delivering less than a dozen aircraft. These days that would pose a support/sustainment nightmare, but those were simpler times and the RFC technical cadres included skills in trades that could manufacture any needed parts at squadron level in much the same way that warships could make parts from raw materials when at sea. As a result it was quite feasible to have unique aircraft in regular service (especially away from the front line units). So it probably isn't possible to identify a single aircraft by elimination from a closed set of possibles.
PDR
PDR
Absolutely agreed and by no means were all these variations photographed. Early uncowled rotary engined tractor aeroplanes were problematical operationally for a pilot with all the Castor Oil and other excreta being flung out through 360 degrees , including over the top of the coaming in to his face. The cowling was a means of containing this and one would expect a variety of field mods to achieve this. Hence its structure should not be necessarily taken as an essential recognition feature.
In this instance the scalloped t/e pretty well excludes Avro ( steel tube member giving the Avro straightness) and most British manufacturers by 1914, The evident sesquiplane layout also is not Avro 500, but both features are typical Caudron.
The skid layout is not Avro ( although later on a few 500 s were converted }., but again agrees with Caudron.
The lower cabane pretty well drives it to be a Caudron GII .as distinct from a GIII.
I cannot think of any other service contemporary type that would fit the basic airframe recognition criteria apparent in the image.
But perhaps somebody else can come up with a constructive alternative?
(Failing that, I think the balance of possibilities strongly supports the GII assertion)
In this instance the scalloped t/e pretty well excludes Avro ( steel tube member giving the Avro straightness) and most British manufacturers by 1914, The evident sesquiplane layout also is not Avro 500, but both features are typical Caudron.
The skid layout is not Avro ( although later on a few 500 s were converted }., but again agrees with Caudron.
The lower cabane pretty well drives it to be a Caudron GII .as distinct from a GIII.
I cannot think of any other service contemporary type that would fit the basic airframe recognition criteria apparent in the image.
But perhaps somebody else can come up with a constructive alternative?
(Failing that, I think the balance of possibilities strongly supports the GII assertion)
Last edited by Haraka; 24th Aug 2020 at 17:37.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from PDR's mention of RFC/RAF technical trades my grandfather was a White Metal tradesman but rather ran just creating engine bearings his skill in metal meant he specialised in the one off fittings created in the factories without drawings or measurements passed on to purchasers. In one of the war museums you can see the tradesmans' wooden caravan where they did all the metalwork.
As a reservist he was called up for WW2, escaped from France in the back of a Fairey Battle and then spent the rest of the war on civvy hours doing the tear downs and analysis of failed radial engines sent to RAF Sealand as a central analysis point.
Rather good with his hands and spent the years between the wars doing the stained glass in St Asaph cathedral and then called in to do the ceramic cladding of the original Mersey tunnel.
Rob
As a reservist he was called up for WW2, escaped from France in the back of a Fairey Battle and then spent the rest of the war on civvy hours doing the tear downs and analysis of failed radial engines sent to RAF Sealand as a central analysis point.
Rather good with his hands and spent the years between the wars doing the stained glass in St Asaph cathedral and then called in to do the ceramic cladding of the original Mersey tunnel.
Rob
(Failing that, I think the balance of possibilities strongly supports the GII assertion)
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...-404-219742755
Again, courtesy Worthpoint.
Possible....apart from the images available strongly suggesting it's an Avro 500...
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...-404-219742755
Again, courtesy Worthpoint.
https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...-404-219742755
Again, courtesy Worthpoint.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the date of this aerodyne (at the time still a significant distinction), it might be technically appropriate to call it a tractor (at the time an important distinction).
It would be useful to know where the mystery 'Plane' picture was taken (ie which school did the pilot qualify for his RAe 'ticket')
Without even trying - we have found Caudron G types built by at least 5 different flying schools/factories (and there are probably more)
The Hall School of Flying operated Caudron based types and also Avro 500's,the photo below has 4 caudron based aircraft and they are all different.
From the 'Windsock' Data File 94...
From 'Aeroplane' April 5th 1916
Just to reinforce what PDR posted earlier - here is an extract from 'Aeroplane' April 26 1916.
Bournemouth Flying School...
Without even trying - we have found Caudron G types built by at least 5 different flying schools/factories (and there are probably more)
The Hall School of Flying operated Caudron based types and also Avro 500's,the photo below has 4 caudron based aircraft and they are all different.
From the 'Windsock' Data File 94...
There was considerable inconsistency in both the shape of Caudron G.II and G.III Fuselage Nacelles and in the manner in which they were joined to the rest of the airframe.Some were rounded, some angular,some were suspended above the wings on the 4 cabane struts while others sat on or were faired on to the lower wing.
At the Ruffy-Baumann School the instruction is done by Swisspilots and therefore the difficulty has not arisen.
This firm, by the way, took over the old Caudron Works
at Old Hendon a month ago, and has already turned out three complete 50 Gnome Caudrons
This firm, by the way, took over the old Caudron Works
at Old Hendon a month ago, and has already turned out three complete 50 Gnome Caudrons
Just to reinforce what PDR posted earlier - here is an extract from 'Aeroplane' April 26 1916.
Bournemouth Flying School...
The school equipment at present consists of three Caudron type biplanes, built by the London and
Provincial Aviation Co., of Hendon, and fitted respectively with 35, 45, and 60 h.p. Anzanis, the two latter
being dual-control two-seaters. A fourth Caudron-type machine has been built at Bournemouth under the
supervision of
- Mr. Samuel Summerfield, the school instructor, who has trained
local workmen. Every part has been made on the spot, and the workmanship appears quite excellent.
The assembling will probably be completed during the present week.
Provincial Aviation Co., of Hendon, and fitted respectively with 35, 45, and 60 h.p. Anzanis, the two latter
being dual-control two-seaters. A fourth Caudron-type machine has been built at Bournemouth under the
supervision of
- Mr. Samuel Summerfield, the school instructor, who has trained
local workmen. Every part has been made on the spot, and the workmanship appears quite excellent.
The assembling will probably be completed during the present week.
