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

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)

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

Possible....apart from the images available strongly suggesting it's an Avro 500...

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthoped...-404-219742755

Again, courtesy Worthpoint.

All discussed earlier in the thread...

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.

https://i.imgur.com/mLG05zy.jpg

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...