PILOTS' VIEWS - of some WWI aeroplanes

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Current page

163

Current page

164

IT IS a fact of life that no two persons see things in quite the identical way, whether they are looking at cars, women or aeroplanes. It is rather interesting, however, to consider how war-time aeroplanes from the first World conflict of 1914/18 appeared to the pilots who had to fly them, often under extreme combat conditions, machines we now regard as precious museum exhibits, but which were then new, dangerous, and only slightly more expendable than the young men who flew them.

As an example of aeronautical contrast, there was the warm feeling of a well-known RFC pilot, Duncan Grinnell-Milne, for the Caudron tractor biplane that he was allowed to fly, soon after “taking his ticket” on the inevitable Farman “Longhorns” and “Shorthorns” of 1915. Compared to a clumsy cow-like “Longhorn” he found that the Caudron climbed fast, remarkably so, and that it was speedy when levelled-out. A climb to 1,000 ft. in ten minutes was remembered, also cruising it at 51 m.p.h. at 1,050 r.p.m. The Caudron’s stall came within nine m.p.h. of that steady progression across the sky. Not much of a view from the nacelle, a trace of left rudder required in the air; that was the primitive Caudron, from this pilot’s viewpoint.

The contrast was provided by the BE9. It was a “useless fighting aeroplane”, in Grinnell-Milne’s opinion, called “The Pulpit” because of its cockpit layout, whereas in 1915 the young pilots could shut their eyes to the shortcomings of the BE2c. And as for the aforesaid Caudron, it was perfectly safe, having never been known to spin, was strongly made, needed only a short take-off run, and it landed at a reassuringly low speed and had no vices once in the air. Two opposing views by the same pilot, and Grinnell-Milne had two forced-landings in a rotary-engined Caudron, one at Hayling Island on a flight from Shoreham to Gosport and another at Winchester, in those long-ago days of the First World War.

Many newly-fledged RFC pilots went from training flights on Farman “Shorthorns” and “Longhorns” to the BE2. Of this conventional aeroplane, Grinnell-Milne thought, after not much over 33½-hours on slower machines, that it was very exciting, in 100 h.p. RAF-engined guise. This BE2c was found by this young pilot to be very easy to handle, stable, and very manoeuvrable once he had grown accustomed to it. The BE was also able to execute vertically-banked turns and could be looped with safety — but all those who flew them at Gosport over sixty-five years ago were warned of the sudden stall.

So what did other pilots think of this BE2? Cecil Lewis, that great aviation-writer, has recalled how awe-inspiring these machines were when they first came to Brooklands, with 90 h.p. RAF engine driving the four-bladed propeller, and the top speed exaggerated as more than 80 m.p.h. Inherently stable, they were alleged to be, but this pilot, too, was warned of the unexpected spin he might experience, after using too little rudder in a turn.

It was an age of finding out, often for themselves, the tricks and characteristics of those early aeroplanes. The FE, a pusher like the first training machines, became the latest thing in efficient fighting ‘planes, at a time when the Morane Parasols and DH2s were thought of as death-traps. Yet Cecil Lewis admitted to liking the difficult Morane monoplane best of all! He compared it to a Bugatti or a Delage, in the world of motor cars. He claimed 300 hours on these cigar-like two-seaters, going all through the Somme battle in them and winning his MC behind their controls. Yet he confessed to having had to fly every second of the way, the Parasol’s elevator being an insensitive, the rudder too small, and the ailerons very inefficient.

Dear old Lewis apparently went off in a Morane Parasol after 19 hours solo, never crashed one, and had only one failure of the beautifully smooth-running 80 h.p. Le Rhone rotary engine, with which this French fighter was equipped. Another noted aviation journalist, William Courtenay, did 20 hours solo in BE2cs and Avro 504s before getting his “Wings”.

This once caused him to pay great tribute to the 504 of Sir Alliot Verdon-Roe, and of this immortal Avro, Lewis remarked that the one flown by him as a budding RFC pilot, aged 17½, was very straightforward, handy on the controls, simple to fly, with no vices or idiosyncrasies, the only complexity being the rotary-engine, the ways and controls of which were a distinct law unto themselves, a trap for unwary novices.

Coming to more exciting aeroplanes, the SE5 was recalled by Cecil Lewis as “not a sweet aeroplane”, whatever “Boom” Trenchard had said of it, and inspite of those rumours that greeted its arrival to Squadrons, to the effect that it was the finest fighting Scout ever built, ready to break the hold of the dreaded German Albatrosses. Grinnell-Milne seems to have agreed with Lewis, saying that casualties in 1915 and 1916 might have been less terrible had the Bristol and Sopwith Scouts been made in bigger numbers, instead of waiting for the SE5. When it was a fighting force it was still often necessary to dive the SE5 to get away from the enemy Fokkers, and Grinnell-Milne, who named his personal SE5 “Schweinhund”, admitted to once expending 530 rounds of ammunition to down a single Fokker. But he took good care to preserve his aeroplane’s name-panel, at the end of the war. . . — W.B.

You may also like

Related products