World War One Whifs

Started by stevehed, April 10, 2015, 12:07:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Wurgerman

Great builds, inspirational whiffing !

Wurgerman

stevehed

#181
Thanks very much. I got the idea for this one from the Windsock Mini Datafile. The Spad A2/A4 are curious beasts. A tractor aircraft that solved the problem of a forward firing machine gun with the installation of a pulpit, or nacelle, that was fixed ahead of the propeller. At the time the unimpeded forward view was considered the more desirable attribute but a British report mentions that several machine guns could be mounted in the forward nacelle and fired from the pilot's seat. An aircraft designated the Spad SG-1 was reported armed with a single machine gun and 1000 rounds of ammunition. The A type observation aircraft were not popular with the French. In the event of a forced landing a nose over usually saw the observer flattened and there were examples of the nacelle detaching in flight. However, over 50 A2's and 10 A4's were sent to Tsarist Russia. They served from mid 1916 to the end of the war with some believed to have been used by the Bolsheviks at the start of the civil war. Powered by either an 80 or 110hp Le Rhone rotary engine the Spad had a decent performance for 1916. Some were used by the 19 KAO, the squadron commanded by the Russian ace of aces, Alexander Kozakov, as fighters until sufficient Nieuports became available. Russia remained short of specialized fighters until well into 1917. Among the aircraft despatched to Russia at least one, an A4 numbered S97, was fitted with three Colt machine guns in the forward pulpit. How prevalent this modification was has proven elusive but I thought it a worthwhile whif conversion for an observation unit seeking an escort facility unencumbered by the demands of other squadrons. A simple field conversion that could be undone if required.

I've used the winter version of the AModel Spad A4 kit. A few years ago I built the A2 version OOB as the two seat observation model and it was a pain. Most of the smaller parts were broken during removal from the sprues and had to be replaced. As it was the only game in town it was shelved for a while before completion later but you had to really want one. But, as a few other intrepid souls posted their experiences with the Spad A I began to wonder if AModel plastic had improved as there seemed to be less complaints. I still fancied trying a single seat conversion so last year I acquired the A4. I have to say that the plastic is better and removing the parts was easier. For example, I've used all the kit struts. Last time only one survived. However, it's still not for the faint hearted but worth the effort to produce such a distinctive aircraft.

The build is about 90% OOB. All the changes are at the nacelle. I filled in the cockpit opening with plastic card. Two holes were drilled in the nose to accept the barrels of the two Vickers machine guns installed in place of the observer. A couple of years ago I reckoned on the observer weighing about 12 stone( 12 x 14lbs), discovered that the Lewis and magazine came in at 35lbs, allowed another four mags at 30lbs. This comes about 240lbs plus any other equipment carried. Two Vickers plus a 1000 rounds and fixtures weigh about 200lbs and two Colts are about the same. There didn't seem to be any weight issues so I declared the programme feasible. So all that is needed is two machine gun barrels sticking out of the pulpit. The other modification saw the main single upright support removed and replaced with two thinner pieces of rod. These struts lock the nacelle in place and I considered that two pieces in an inverted V would give the pilot a better forward view now that he is firing the weapons.

So here we have a field converted Spad A4 single seat escort operating with an, as yet, unidentified KAO flying observation aircraft. Whether it is a whif or a probable I can't say for certain. With a 110hp Le Rhone it would have had a top speed in the region of 100mph. Russia was desperately short of fighter aircraft in late 1916 and into 1917 so as a local field modification it makes sense to me.





A standard two seat A2 version


Weaver

That's neat - I like it!  :thumbsup:
"Things need not have happened to be true. Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."
 - Sandman: A Midsummer Night's Dream, by Neil Gaiman

"I dunno, I'm making this up as I go."
 - Indiana Jones

chrisonord

These are all absolutely amazing  builds and I  am not paying them enough attention.  Hats off to you  and the  patience you must have to  build  them.
Chris
The dogs philosophy on life.
If you cant eat it hump it or fight it,
Pee on it and walk away!!

PR19_Kit

Quote....... and there were examples of the nacelle detaching in flight.......

YIKES!  :-\

That doesn't sound too good for EITHER crew member! The CG change would have had disastrous consequences for the pilot I'd have thought.
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

stevehed

Thanks Gentlemen. With regard to the nacelle there is only one recorded incident where it became detached but it was seen by Bert Hall who flew with the American volunteers of the Lafayette Escadrille. His comments are quoted in the Windsock DF and in brief .." the front nacelle came off, the wings buckled ".. and that was the end of that particular aircraft and crew. It may have been this incident that convinced the French to send the majority of the Spad A production to Russia. To be fair, they seem to have made good use of them although the potential risks to observer well being no doubt remained high.

zenrat

Rigidly mounting guns in the nacelle rather than putting a person in there makes sense to me.
Trench strafer version with the guns angled downwards?

Any chance of  closer up  pics?
Fred

- Can't be bothered to do the proper research and get it right.

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

zenrat industries:  We're everywhere...for your convenience..

Old Wombat

I believe there was a big sign in the forward gunners position;

NE PAS remettre
de pain et / ou de vin au pilote!
DÉJÀ!





DO NOT pass
bread and/or wine back to the pilot!
EVER!
Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

NARSES2

That's a fantastic build  :bow:

These "pulpit" types have always fascinated me and perfectly illustrate the "problems/solutions" of early aerial warfare. I've a vague memory of one of these pulpit types being armed with a 37mm auto-cannon as an airship buster ?
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

stevehed

#189
Interesting comments Gentlemen. Lunch was definitely a solitary affair in this aircraft. I had a look in the WSDF for the aircraft specs and found the 110hp version could make 14,000 feet. So, until the high flyers of mid 1917, the Spad A with a 37mm cannon looks a viable combination. Hitting a Zepp with one of these could have produced spectacular results. I'm wondering if a six gun battery for trench strafing might create C of G issues with these Spad versions. A larger aircraft would be better I think. I've taken some close ups but my camera is old. Non flash are fuzzy and the flash tends to reduce the details.


zenrat

No, those are good.  I can see more detail.
Thanks mate.
:thumbsup:
Fred

- Can't be bothered to do the proper research and get it right.

Another ill conceived, lazily thought out, crudely executed and badly painted piece of half arsed what-if modelling muppetry from zenrat industries.

zenrat industries:  We're everywhere...for your convenience..

stevehed

#191
Residing in the spares was an Airfix Hannover fuselage, several lower wings and an upper Albatros wing. I debated on a two seater with Albatros wings but eventually decided to build another floatplane for the ATF GB. 

The Hannover Company was founded in 1898 to build railway carriages. It entered the aviation industry in 1915 when it began making propellers. It moved on to aircraft production and build the Aviatik CI, Halberstadt DII and Rumpler CI under licence. In 1916 Herman Dorner moved from DFW as a chief engineer. During 1917 Hannover began working on their own designs which were to culminate in the two seat CL types which served with the Schlasta squadrons until the end of the war.  But it is possible that the CL design spawned a little known naval enterprise. The catalyst was a Turkish Aviation delegation. Part of the remit was to acquire floatplane fighters for coastal defence. The likely candidates were from Albatros, Rumpler and Hansa Brandenburg but these companies were fully committed to fulfilling contracts for the German Navy. The Turks contacted Friedrichshafen who had provided reconnaissance aircraft to the Turkish Navy. Although they had designed a fighter, the FF43, which had undergone testing with the Kaiserliche Marine, they lacked spare capacity to start building another type. However, as the larger industry became aware of Turkish wants Hannover invited the delegation to consider several options. One was to modify the Rumpler design currently in production in similar fashion to Rumpler's own floatplane fighter. The option preferred by Hannover was to adapt their own early CL designs to a single seat configuration and use Rumpler wing sections. The floats would be sourced from a specialist constructor. The Turks liked the new design and signed up for three prototype aircraft now known as the Hannover KDW.

These were ready for testing by the middle of 1917. Lacking such facilities an arrangement was made with LFG Roland and the aircraft were sent to the seaplane test facility at Stralsund on the Baltic. By the time the prototypes had completed the test programme and demonstrated an acceptable performance Turkish interest had waned. The German Navy now preferred the two seat fighters produced by Hansa Brandenburg which had released quantities of single seat fighters for operations in the Middle East. Nevertheless, both the Roland and Hannover machines saw operational service as they ended up in Turkish waters at the start of 1918 when they were sent as reinforcements to German Naval units.

For comparison here's the Hannover KDW alongside the Roden Albatros W4. Even though it is a two seater the Hannover CL's are only about six inches longer than the Albatros. The KDW upper wingspan has an extra three feet which makes it larger than the Albatros but shorter than the Rumpler 6B-1 which was also based on a two seat design.


This the Hannover KDW serving in the Dardenelles in early 1918.




Build thread https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/airfixtributeforum/2020-airfix-what-if-group-build-stevehed-s-hannove-t55251.html




NARSES2

That's really nice Steve  :thumbsup:
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

strobez

I have to say, I'm really digging this thread! Some great builds here!
Thanks!

Greg

stevehed

Thanks very much, appreciated. Real life may get in the way after this weekend but I'm going to stick with another floatplane as the next whif. I knew about the Gotha bombers and have a Roden GIII on the display shelf. A little research led me to a series of twin engined floatplanes and inspiration. I've got spare engine nacelles from the GIII build and a spare Vickers Vimy fuselage. I'm going to try and devise a twin which will be part Gotha and part Friedrichshafen, part Vickers and part Curtiss Condor.