Bristol M1C?

And BANG! Just like that, SimonCraig1 blows a perfectly good question right out of the water. Well done, Sir; and you are now up. I've never understood how the British failed to rush the Bristol M1C into production. They had the answer to the Fokker Scourge available and failed to use it. Thanks; Ernie P.



What warbird do I describe?

1. This aircraft has to be filed under the category “Missed Opportunities”.

2. It was first tested at a time when enemy aircraft had gained a clear advantage.

3. This aircraft showed a clear advantage in speed over any existing operational enemy aircraft. 4. Particularly a certain enemy aircraft which was causing havoc.

5. This aircraft was tested and found to be clearly superior to the enemy aircraft.

6. The first prototype, on its maiden flight, showed itself to be clearly superior to any operational aircraft at the time.

7. In fact, its speed would still be exceptional years later.

8. In official testing, the aircraft again displayed its speed. It was also considered to be very fast in a climb and quite stable.

9. It was however, not without some drawbacks.

10. It was criticized for having limited forward and downward vision.

11. It was also considered to be rather tiring to fly.

12. It was, however, considered to be structurally very strong.

13. Four aircraft were ordered, to be built with some modifications; one of which was to improve the pilots field of view during landing.

14. Despite the clear superiority of the aircraft, it was rejected; on the basis that its landing speed was too high for the majority of the available military airfields in use.


Answer: Bristol M.1 Monoplane Scout

The Bristol M.1 Monoplane Scout was a Britishmonoplanefighter of the First World War.

Origins

During the First World War, rapid advances in the field of aeroplanes were being made, each siding aiming to acquire an advantage over the enemy. In the summer of 1916, British aeronautical engineerFrank Barnwell, the chief designer of the Bristol Aeroplane Company, realising the performance of existing fighter aircraft to be inadequate, set about designing a new fighter aircraft as a private venture. For experimental purposes, several Bristol Scout D aircraft were outfitted 110 horsepower (82 kW) Clergetrotary engine and large-diameter propellers; considered to be a success, Barnwell decided to incorporate these features into his emerging design.

According to aviation author J.M. Bruce, Barnwell's project was broadly similar to a parallel programme by rival British aircraft manufacturer Airco, which would ultimately produce the DH.5; however, the Bristol aircraft was considered to be more radical and the superior of the two fighters. Specifically, Barnwell had exerted great efforts to produce the aerodynamically cleanest aircraft possible, save for compromises that were made to better facilitate both construction and maintenance activities. Accordingly, he selected a monoplane configuration for the type; Bruce declared this to be a "bold conception" due to the British War Office having effectively banned monoplanes from military service following several accidents.

During July 1916, the first example of the type, which received the designation of Bristol M.1, was rolled out at the company's Bristol facility. It was basically a single-seat tractor monoplane fighter. On 14 July 1916, the first prototype, designated as the M.1A, conducted its maiden flight, flown by F.P. Raynham. Reportedly, the aircraft showed its aptitude for high-speed flight during this initial flight, reaching a speed of 132 mph.

Test programme

Shortly following its maiden flight, the first prototype was purchased by the War Office for evaluation purposes. During late July 1916, the M.1A was dispatched to the Central Flying School (CFS) in Upavon, Wiltshire where it underwent testing. During official test flights, the M.1A demonstrated its impressive performance, being recorded as having attained a peak speed of 128 miles per hour (206 km/h) as well as the ability to ascend up to 10,000 feet (3,000 m) in 8 minutes 30 seconds. In addition, its stability was found to be positive, particularly its lateral handling, and the type to possess a "moderate difficult of landing".

However, some negative feedback was also gathered from the test pilots, which included criticism over the limited forward and downward view, it being relatively tiring to fly, and being nose-heavy when flown without the engine running. It was observed by the CFS that it had made no effort to establish the M.1A's maximum speed at ground level, noting that propeller had been designed to deliver peak performance when flown at altitude. In addition to the flight test programme, the prototype was also subject to static loading tests during August 1916, during which no sign of structural failure was found.

Having been suitably impressed by the sole prototype's performance, during October 1916, the War Office issued contract No. 87/A/761 to Bristol, ordering a batch of four modified aircraft, which were designated as M.1B, for further testing. The M.1A would also be rebuilt to the improved standard. The M.1B differed from the first prototype in several areas, possessing a more conventional cabane arrangement, consisting of a pyramid of four straight steel struts, along with a large clear-view cut-out panel in the starboard wing root to provide for an improved view during landing, and being armed with a single .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun, which was mounted on the port wing root.

Rejection and limited production

Despite having demonstrated excellent performance during testing, possessing a maximum speed that was some 30–50 mph (50–80 km/h) higher than any of the contemporary GermanFokker Eindecker and FrenchMorane-Saulnier N monoplanes – the M.1 was rejected by the Air Ministry for service on the Western Front, ostensibly because its landing speed of 49 mph was considered too high for small French airfields.

However, some authors have speculated that it is more probable that the M.1 had been rejected as a consequence of a widespread belief held at that time that monoplane aircraft were inherently unsafe during combat. The Royal Flying Corps (RFC) had imposed a service-wide ban on monoplanes after the crash of one of the Bristol-Coanda Monoplanes on 10 September 1912, and despite the subsequent 1913 Monoplane Committee having cleared the design type, there persisted a deep-rooted suspicion of monoplanes amongst pilots. This suspicion may also have been re-enforced by the RFC's underwhelming experience with various Morane-Saulnier monoplanes, especially the Morane-Saulnier N, which had also been openly criticized for possessing a relatively high landing speed in comparison to biplanes. During this era, biplane configurations were normally stronger, being able to apply traditional calculations used in bridge construction by civil engineers to their design, and being easier to brace than monoplanes.

Nevertheless, on 3 August 1917, a production order for 125 aircraft was placed. These aircraft, which were designated as the M.1C, were powered by a single 110 hp Le Rhône 9Jrotary engine and were armed with a single Vickers machine gun, which was centrally-mounted directly in front of the pilot. Of these, a single M.1, registered G-EAVP was rebuilt as a high-speed testbed for the Bristol Lucifer three cylinder radial engine. This aircraft was designated the M.1D. The Bristol M.1 was a single-seat tractormonoplane. It possessing a carefully streamlined circular cross-section fuselage, which featured conventional wood and fabric construction techniques to minimise manufacturing difficulty. The exterior of the aircraft, which was covered in fabric, was fully faired; this was a contributing factor to the type being referred by Bruce as "one of the simplest and cleanest aircraft of its day".

The M.1 was furnished with a shoulder-mounted wing that was attached to the upper longerons of the airframe. It was braced with flying wires which ran between the wing and the lower fuselage, as well as landing wires from the wings to a cabane comprising a pair of semi-circular steel tube hoops that were positioned over the pilot's cockpit; this was shaped in order to better facilitate the pilot's ingress and egress to their position in the cockpit. The wing possessed a wide semi-elliptical rearwards sweep at the tip, which meant that the front spar was considerably shorter than the rear and there being no inter-spar bracing being the end of the forward spar.

A single Clergetrotary engine, capable of generating up to 110 horsepower (82 kW), drove a two-bladed propeller, which was furnished with a large hemispherical spinner for the purpose of reducing drag. The Shuttleworth Collection's reproduction Bristol M.1C (G-BWJM), 2013

It is believed that a total of 33 M.1Cs were deployed to the Middle East and the Balkans during 1917–18, while the remainder were assigned to numerous training units based across the British mainland. Reportedly, the type found a level of popularity as the personal mounts for various senior officers of the RFC.

One pilot of the M.1Cs that served on the Macedonian Front was Captain Frederick Dudley TraversDFC of No. 150 Squadron RAF, who became the only ace on this type. Travers switched from the Royal Aircraft Factory SE.5a, in which he had scored three of his four kills and scored the last five of his victories between 2 and 16 September 1918, possibly all in the same M.1C, serial number C4976. Amongst his victims was a Fokker D.VII, which had been widely regarded as being the best German fighter of its day.

During the second half of 1918, a batch of 12 M.1Cs were delivered to Chile to serve as part-payment for the battleshipsAlmirante Latorre and Almirante Cochrane, which had been constructed for Chile in Britain but commandeered for use by the Royal Navy prior to their completion. One of these fighters, flown by Lt. Dagoberto Godoy, was used to fly from Santiago to Mendoza, Argentina and back on 12 December 1918, which was recorded as being the first flight to be made across the Andes mountain chain.

The sole Lucifer-engined M.1D, painted red and registered G-EAVP, was successfully raced during 1922, winning the handicap prize in the 1922 Aerial Derby, piloted by L.L. Carter. The next year, it was fitted with a specially-tuned 140 hp (100 kW) Lucifer engine and was entered for the Grosvenor Cup; however, the aircraft was lost following a crash at Chertsey, Surrey, on approach to Croydon Airport, resulting in the death of the pilot, Ernest Leslie Foot. M.1ASingle prototype with 110 hp (82 kW) Clerget 9Z rotary engine. M.1BFour evaluation models, variously powered by 110 hp (82 kW) Clerget 9Z, 130 hp (97 kW) Clerget 9B or 150 hp (110 kW) Admiralty Rotary A.R.1. M.1CSeries production model, 125 built, powered by 110 hp (82 kW) Le Rhône 9Ja engines. M.1DSingle M.1C rebuilt as a testbed for the 140 hp (100 kW) Bristol Lucifer engine. Chile· Chilean Air Force United Kingdom· Royal Flying Corps / Royal Air Force· No. 14 Squadron RAF· No. 47 Squadron RAF· No. 72 Squadron RAF· No. 111 Squadron RAF· No. 150 Squadron RAF Data from Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft, The Bristol M.1General characteristics· Crew: one, pilot· Length: 20 ft 5 in (6.24 m)· Wingspan: 30 ft 9 in (9.37 m)· Height: 7 ft 9 in (2.37 m)· Wing area: 145 ft² [19] (13.6 m²)· Empty weight: 900 lb [19] (409 kg)· Loaded weight: 1,348 lb (611 kg)· Powerplant: 1 × Le Rhône 9Jrotary engine, 110 hp (82 kW) Performance· Maximum speed: 113 knots (130 mph, 209 km/h) at sea level· Endurance: 1 hr 45 mins· Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (6,096 m) Armament· Guns: A single fixed-forward .303 in (7.7 mm) Vickers machine gun

I read about the Bristol M1 a while back and it stuck in my memory for some reason. I currently am clueless so if anyone wants to jump in please do so. I'f not I'll try and get a question up tomorrow.

I might give it another try...got something in mind...be back soon...

While we're waiting, I have a non-warbird question for all of you, related to a couple of planes I'm bringing up to speed this spring. Have any of you tried the Flex innovations Mamba 10? I've got one and this is one seriously HOT flyer. It will roll as fast as anything I've flown. I'd be interested to hear if any of you have tried the plane.

Also, and perhaps more on topic, I've got a Hangar 9 Fokker D-7 with only a few flights on it. Thus far, it seems to be a nice, easy flier. Very pretty to watch in the air. A scale flyer. That means not really very aerobatic, not a lot of fun, but so very nice to watch fly. Thanks; Ernie P.

If the Fokker isn't fun to fly, why fly it?

Can't help w/ the Mamba...but have the H9 Camel, becaure it looks cool...(and got a good deal on it)...I guess I have an airplane or two to suit the mood or weather conditions? "3D" profile...old school Pattern...an old trainer to test engines and radios...etc...

Anywayze...got an aircraft in mind...
1) Shares its designation with another "Icon" of the Aviation Industry...

2) Experimental test aircraft for a new, at the time planform...

3) Planform the was tested / used by many countries and their various manuf. but has fallen out of favor

Because it's fun to watch it in the air. It's just a nice, easy plane to fly; not one that keeps your interest on gets your heart racing. There's probably a reason they make so many different styles of aircraft. Thanks; Ernie P.

Thanks for stepping up on the quiz, proptop. I also have a used Hangar 9 Camel; I just haven't flown it yet. It has a .91 four stroke engine. Any tips on flying it? Is it easy or tricky in the air? As to the quiz; how about the F-5/T-38 series? Thanks; Ernie P.

Looking for an aircraft..

Hi Ernie...mine has an old rear cam O.S .91FS in it...plenty of power...and nose weight...
The small fin and rudder make it tricky on T.O....gotta stay sharp on the rudder...gentle rolling on of power...(nothing unusual with that sort of craft though)

There was (is?) a build thread on it in IIRC the ARF forum...Mike Buzzeo (sp?) who was a Moderator at the time reviewed it...much more info there...if the thread didn't go away somehow...(during one of RCU's changes)

Edit: I found it...
http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-...ld-thread.html

Here's the build thread open at the page where I stuck a few photographs up: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/arf-...thread-22.html Like the Fokker it is pretty sedate but looks really good. The only design flaw which I saw was the wing rear spar is not a spar but some cheap very soft block balsa between the ribs, and balancing is a pain.

Looking for an aircraft..

6) There were single and two seat versions of this, what might be called "scale model" of a much larger aircraft...

Guys; thanks for all the tips and pointing me to the build thread. Thanks; Ernie P.

I've had two Camels, Lovely airplanes you have to understand the limitations. The first one was bought used and I quickly learned about the limitations. First I wouldn't consider ever flying it off pavement. It Must takeoff and land into the wind and it glides not so well so landing and approach need a little power to keep things going forward. the landing gear is a little fragile. Come to think of it its just like the full size in all those aspects. My copy was fuel soaked and I sold it at a swap meet.
My second Camel only lasted 30 minutes. I bought it NIB at a swap meet for $150 and sold it for $195 30 minutes later. I did regret that since it is such a lovely plane and has a nice presence in the air. I could have stashed it for a few years until other things were taken care of.
The Fokker is quite rare and I would buy one NIB for a premium. It would compliment the Camel nicely.
Sparky

Sparky; I have two Fokker D-7's, both used. One is glow and the other electric. The glow version I've flown; hope to get the electric in the air this summer. Thanks for the tips. And I have a Dr1 I hope to get in the air as well; Ernie P.

Looking for an aircraft..
6) There were single and two seat versions of this, what might be called "scale model" of a much larger aircraft...

7) Used to test high AND low speed characteristics of this particular planform...

8) Not a great deal was known, at the time, about the above mentioned planform...

Looking for an aircraft..6) There were single and two seat versions of this, what might be called "scale model" of a much larger aircraft...

7) Used to test high AND low speed characteristics of this particular planform...

8) Not a great deal was known, at the time, about the above mentioned planform...

9) After the war...WWII...everyone was interested in speed...and the then new propulsion system...no propellors!

Xp-59?

I'm thinking a flying wing planform; like the XB-35 or YB-35, which led to the YB-49. And they did made models! Thanks; Ernie P.

The Northrop XB-35 and YB-35 were experimental heavy bomber aircraft developed by the Northrop Corporation for the United States Army Air Forces during and shortly after World War II. The airplane used the radical and potentially very efficient flying wing design, in which the tail section and fuselage are eliminated and all payload is carried in a thick wing. Only prototype and pre-production aircraft were built, although interest remained strong enough to warrant further development of the design as a jet bomber, under the designation YB-49.

The B-35 was the brainchild of Jack Northrop, who made the flying wing the focus of his work during the 1930s. During World War II, Northrop had been commissioned to develop a large wing-only, long-range bomber designated XB-35. Northrop advocated a "flying wing" as a means of reducing parasitic drag and eliminating structural weight not directly responsible for producing lift. In theory, the B-35 could carry a greater payload faster, farther, and cheaper than a conventional bomber. On 11 April 1941, the United States Army Air Corps sent out a request for a bomber that could carry 4,500 kg (10,000 lb) of bombs to a round-trip mission of 16,000 km (10,000 mi). Requested performance was a maximum speed of 720 km/h (450 mph), cruise speed of 443 km/h (275 mph), and service ceiling of 14,000 m (45,000 ft). This aircraft would be able to bomb Nazi-occupied Europe in the event that Britain fell. (This was similar to Nazi Germany's own Amerika Bomber program design competition through RLM, itself initiated in the spring of 1942.) The original April 1941 USAAC proposal was first submitted to Boeing and Consolidated Aircraft Company and led to the production of the Convair B-36. In May the contract was also extended to include Northrop, inviting them to submit a design along the lines they were already exploring.

Since the new aircraft would require a significant amount of engineering work in untested waters, the first order placed was actually for a one-third scale version of the XB-35 dubbed the Northrop N-9M (M standing for model). This aircraft would be used to gather flight test data on the Flying Wing design, which would then be used in designing the big XB-35. It would also be used as a flight trainer, to familiarize pilots with the radical, all-wing concept. Early in 1942, design work on the XB-35 itself began in earnest. Unlike conventional aircraft, truly "tailless" flying wings cannot use a rudder for lateral control as it was absent, so a set of clamshell-like, double split flaps (so called flaperon, a portmanteau of flap and aileron) on the trailing edge of the wingtips were used. When aileron control was input, they were deflected up or down as a single unit, just like an aileron. When rudder input was made, the two surfaces on one side opened, top and bottom, creating drag, and yawing the aircraft. By applying input to both rudder pedals, both sets of surfaces were deployed creating drag so that the airspeed or the glide angle could be manipulated.

Not the XP-59, nor the XB-35 or 49...
However...Ernie's guess might be on the right track...or headed in the general direction...

Okay, proptop; just to get it out of the way..... Does the answer to your question involve a gentleman named Lippish and some glider prototypes? Thanks; Ernie P.

6) There were single and two seat versions of this, what might be called "scale model" of a much larger aircraft...

7) Used to test high AND low speed characteristics of this particular planform...

8) Not a great deal was known, at the time, about the above mentioned planform...

9) After the war...WWII...everyone was interested in speed...and the then new propulsion system...no propellors!

10) After WWII some interesting data was recovered / discovered...thinking of tail-less aircraft...

11) Alexander Lippisch might not have been involved directly, but his ideas and theories influenced or provided reference material for our subject aircraft...

12) Single engine...

Its that goofy yellow contraption they fly at Chino with a single engine driving two props in a flying wing I believe they have restored it to flying condition and it gets flown on occasion.
Northrop M9NB

Elmshoot; I think you meant to say Northrup N-9M (The four aircraft were designated N-9M-1, -2, -A, and -B, respectively). It's still your guess; just trying to clean up the edges a bit. Thanks; Ernie P.


The Northrop N-9M was an approximately one-third scale, 60-ft span all-wing aircraft used for the development of the full size, 172-ft wingspan Northrop XB-35 and YB-35 flying wing long-range, heavy bomber. First flown in 1942, the N-9M (M for Model) was the third in a lineage of all-wing Northrop aircraft designs that began in 1929 when Jack Northrop succeeded in early experiments with his single pusher propeller, twin-tailed, twin-boom, all stressed metal skin Northrop Flying Wing X-216H monoplane,[1] and a decade later, the dual-propeller N-1M of 1939–1941.[2] Northrop's pioneering all-wing aircraft would lead Northrop Grumman many years later to eventually develop the advanced B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, which debuted in Air Force inventory in 1989. On 30 October 1941, the preliminary order for development of the B-35 Flying Wing bomber was confirmed, including engineering, testing, and most importantly a 60 ft (18 m) wingspan, one-third scale aircraft, designated N-9M.[4] It was to be used in gathering data on flight performance and for familiarizing pilots with the program's radical, all-wing design. The first N-9M was ordered in the original contract, but this was later expanded to three test aircraft in early 1943. A fourth was ordered a few months later after a crash of the first N-9M destroyed that airframe; this fourth N-9M incorporated various flight test-derived improvements and upgrades, including different, more powerful engines. The four aircraft were designated N-9M-1, -2, -A, and -B, respectively.[5] The N-9M framework was partially constructed of wood to reduce its overall weight. The wings' outer surfaces were also skinned with a strong, specially laminated plywood. The central section (roughly equivalent to the fuselage) was made of welded tubular steel. The aircraft were originally powered by two 290 hp (216 kW) Menasco C6S-1 "Buccaneer" inverted air-cooled straight-six engines, driving twin-bladed propellers, except for the N-9MB which was powered by two 300 hp (224 kW) Franklin XO-540-7 engines.