Aeroplane In A Bottle: One Appropriate For Turkey Season (Images)

Even by the standards of pioneer flight, M. Breguet's tractor biplanes were exceedingly odd, and ranked as some of the strangest looking things ever to take flight.



This is a model of a U1 'affine', the final version of the type, appearing in 1914 and incorporating some attempt at streamlining. It is scratch-built, in 1/72 scale (6 feet to the inch), and is the most difficult I have yet completed: it took over a year, with several attempts required to get the major components properly represented.



This particular machine, No. BR49, was flown by Sgt. France Vaurin of Escadrille BR17, assigned to 1st Armee in Alsace-Lorraine. He was decoracted with the Medal Militaire on 24 September, 1914, for having completed 'many hazardous reconnaisance flights'. Given that it took over an hour for these machines to reach a height of 3,000 feet, the tendency for their wing ribs to crack off the spars, and the extremely tricky landing and take-off characteristics they displayed, just about any flight in one could be fairly described as hazardous....

I marvel at the tenacity and dedication it took to construct such a craft from rudiments. :patriot:

My own most recent work pales in comparison, as it's from a 1:24-scale Airfix kit. It was the mount of Col. John D. Landers, who commanded the 361st Fighter Group when he flew 44-72218, "Big Beautiful Doll."





Here's the real thing, sometime in 1943:

The Mustang looks very well done. I gather that kit is something of a horse to put together, and you made an excellent job of it.

If only because at that scale (the wing spans 18.5 inches), there're quite a few parts and rather a lot of detail that must be maintained — especially finding authentic paint shades. It took about three months. But all those parts were pre-formed and numbered, and I had illustrated instructions to work from. I don't even want to imagine the task you took on.

Now I'd like to find a similar-scaled P-38J or L, which would have a wing span of more than two feet. :D

Oh — Monsieur Breguet was not known for conventional designs, was he? But then, aviation had yet to invent convention in those days.

Scratchbuilding is not so hard as people seem to think: a fair amount of it is nerve to start. I find maintaining the surface of a kit through the seam-work and such quite a challenge usually.

No, M. Breguet was not too conventional even for the early days: he started with sorts of early helicopters, if recolletion serves. By the Br14, though, they were pretty standard, and the company's Br 19 was one of the most widely used military machines of the twenties and thirties.

I am surprised no one makes a Lightening in that scale: I would think they would sell in large numbers.

:blush:




No, not really.

Damn impressive work! Well done! :applause:

What are the four things stacked up on either side of the cockpit? They look like bricks.

One thing these could do was carry weight aloft, and early versions were often used to show this off by taking groups of six or more into the air at aviation meets...

The items you asked about are radiators: the motor was a water-cooled Canton-Unne radial of 80 hp. They were made of brass, but I doubt they had time to weather down to green.

My Jane's encyclopædia says a few early Breguets used the ubiquitous 80-horsepower Gnome but more often notes the Canton Unné.

Imagine taking battle to the skies on 80 horsepower — unreliable horsepower, at that. The motor wasn't the only thing of brass in those planes. :)

I'm utterly amazed when I think that these were the most worthy fighters of 1915 and early 1916:

The De-Haviland at the bottom in particular.

Various Breguets used many types of engine, including Gnome rotaries. His entry in an Army competition in 1911 used a double-row Gnome of 160 hp, The production versions for the Army contract, though, used the Canton-Unne, later dubbed the Salmson. Gnomes were hard to maintain, and had a distressing habit of shedding cylinders: cooling on a rotary was uneven, favoring the leading side and upper portion of the cylinder, and this could cause cracks in the metal. This was true of all rotaries, of course, but Gnomes seem to have done it more often.

It seems the types were often swapped — probably depending largely on what was available as well as what worked. I've heard many radial motors of the day were good for only about 30 hours before rebuilding was necessary. But, yeah — the 3/4-cowling used by many German manufacturers (as in the Eindecker) would not seem given to efficient cooling. But then, in the earliest days, I guess they didn't give much consideration to aircraft being shot at, since they were almost strictly for reconnaissance purposes until Monsieur Garros got his bright idea. I mean, look at the placement of the radiators on your Breguet — they're asking to be riddled with bullets. :crazy:

Ah, Salmson — I've sent a few 2A.2 crews to firey deaths while flying a Fokker or Albatros in Red Baron 3D. :D

The motor revolving around a stationary crankshaft, and the propellor mounted on an extension jutting from the crankcase. Machines did not move fast enough for air-cooling from the slip-stream to be always sufficient to the purpose, but the rotation of the motor created a hefty slipstream of its own. There were problems, of course, torque and wasted power among them. Another was oil consumption: organic oil, usually castor oil, had to be fed in with the gasoline, and was evacuated along with the exhaust. The 'horseshoe' cowling form was designed to contain this spray of hot oil, and leave it to run off at the bottom. Rotary-powered machines with full circle cowlings will all have various holes cut in the bottom portion for the same purpose. The great advantage was lightnessand a good power to weight ratio compared to water-cooled motors. With a pusher type like the DeHaviland, of course, it simply sprayed off onto the tail-booms and empannage. The Anzani company made air cooled radials early, but like the air-cooled vee motors Renault made, they were prone to overheat in use. The Canton-Unne/Salmson was unique in having its radial form and water cooling, and wayter-cooled radials remain a pretty uncommon type. Rotaries dropped out of the picture shortly after the end of the war: there were structural limits on how big you could make them, so around 200 hp was a practical limit, and stationary motors, both air and water cooled, could readily exceed that already.

In fact, the U.S. Navy preferred them through the age of propeller-driven aircraft, since they allowed for shorter cowlings and thus more aircraft could be stored on a carrier's hangar deck. I understand some maintenance on them is also easier, since the open, individual cylinder heads afford better access, and the lack of a cooling system means one less critical component that can be shredded by enemy fire, as well as one less to maintain.

But radials are indeed prone to cooling problems. When Kurt Tank first designed the Focke-Wulf 190, it had a tiny air intake in deference to its aerodynamic cowl and the 190's huge spinner. Tank incorporated induction blowers and additional air ducts, and the aircraft performed well enough, but pilots said flying it was like having their feet in a fireplace. So Tank scrapped the idea and the 190 was built with a conventional cowl, but it didn't reach its performance potential until the long-nosed D-9 ("Dora") model with reciprocal engine and radiator system. It was arguably the best pure fighter of WWII.

Now let's talk about the interrupter gear. :D

That is one of the subjects where a lot of what is known 'ain't necessarily so'....

I have a book about air combat in WWI, "The Fighters," much of which is in the aviators' own words. But it's not the same as being there. Nothing ever is.

:patriot:

He drew a lot of his information from the private collections of people in the old 'Cross and Cockade' society.

I'm in awe...just looking at these pictures. The detail work...impressive is the word that comes to mind.

As the other poster mentioned...a magnificent accomplishment!

Always a pleasure to see you about the place.

Thanks for sharing it.

:)

Glad you enjoyed it.

Given "the tendency for their wing ribs to crack off the spars", :rofl:

That sounds like a bit more "excitement" than I want in a plane ride!

The rib problem did not show up till they had been flying for a while. The wings had a single spar, of steel tube, and the ribs had a hole at their tallest point, and were slipped over the spar like stacking doughnuts on a stick. But it meant that a lot of the stress of supporting the weight of the machine on the wing's surface came down to a lot of small bits of wood not much more than an eighth of an inch think, when all was said and done....

Scary stuff, by today's standards.

Little wonder that the early aviators were so hailed as brave adventurers,
and decried as foolhardy thrill seekers. The job seems to have required
a certain mixture of both trats.

Great job! :yourock:

'tractor biplanes' cause they employ 4 'skids'? Or are they utilizing some other components of tractor-esque systemic? At your convenience of course, Here's thanking you in advance. :thumbsup: Oh, and...what are the dimensions of the piece you've posted in the pic? Cause I like it!! Cool detail. Thanks again :)

As opposed to the motor being at the rear, providing propulsion to push it. At the time these were new, both systems were employed, with the pusher arrangement being more common, so that it was more noteworthy that a design employed traction, and so more likely to be mentioned in refering to it. The 'pusher' style lost out to the tractor as the predominant form by 1914-1915, though it did not disappear entirely,

The wing span is about seven and a half inches, close to a 192 millimeters. The length is about five inches, I do not recall the millimeter measure off hand.

I am glad you liked it, Ma'am. I had quite a time putting it together.

after all...lovely piece, the craft must bring you joys is my guess ;)

Although there occassions when it is momentarily infuriating, like everything else....

"I need this garden to relieve my stress!"

with other planes, planes in progress, plans for planes, plastic for planes, glue & tools & paint for planes, books about planes and an amazing assortment of other stuff you would never believe would be good for working on model planes but turns out it is.



There are four cabinets filled with modeling supplies and I'm sure that eventually there will be more. Cabinets with doors hide the mess and keep the peace; I recommend them highly.

And for the pictures you take of them as well!

Little jewels. Though I still maintain they would look better if you let me glue some rhinestones on them.

:loveya:

a Span Bridge and Cat's Cradle.

:)

The ones that slant from the bottom upwards and out towards the tip brace the wing steady against the weight of the machine when it is in the air, and were called 'flying wires'. The ones that slant upwards and in towards the center support the weight of the wings when the machine is on the ground, and were called 'landing wires'. The ones that go straight up are sort of supplemental struts, and are not common enough to have a technical name I know of.

Scratchbuilt---plastic? How did you make the fuselage?

Yes, it is all plastic, except for the bare spar portions in the center sections, and the struts connecting the fuselage to the lower and upper wings. The former are lengths of wire cut from a large paper-clip, and the latter cut from some craft pins in wife's supplies. Both these have to support real weight, and plastic of the right thickness would not have been able to sustain it.

The fuselage was particularly tricky, and here is a description of the method I eventually hit upon to make it come out right:

http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=112126&hl=scratchbuilding+fuselages

My one adventure in total scratchbuilding involved a Morane L with its much less difficult to replicate rectangular section fuselage.

Have you come across Mr. Woodman's book on the topic?

http://wwimodeler.com/harry/woodman.html

I did a Morane L myself a while ago: Guynemer's machine, from July 1915:

Although the explosion of esoteric aircraft subjects coming out of the former Soviet bloc in the last decade has certainly cut into my kitbashing and scratchbuilding. Thanks for the link to St. Harry's book!

And indeed, there are a lot of good kits coming out from there. Even better, the injection people are starting to catch up with the resin artisans.

It is a real pleasure to have you posting here in the Lounge, sir!

And these models are exquisitely made...

I have no patience for such exceedingly fine work...

Kudos to you for doing it!

:hi:

I am in the Lounge more often than I post here, you know....

Great detail work around the cockpit area. :thumbsup:

To me, this is one of those instances where ugly works so far around the curve that it bumps up into beauty. One of the early designers, Mr. Sopwith, always maintained that if an aeroplane 'looked right', it would fly well, and it if it did not, it would not. This machine seems to have been designed to vindicate his view....

or are they four fruitcakes?

Sizeable ones made of brass in the original.