Bristol M1C on the Western Front

Just curious.
What would have been the impact if the Bristol M1C monoplane had been introduced on the Western Front in 1917? Would it have stopped the Albratross
scourge? How would it have fared against the Fokker DVII?

Personally I think it would've stacked up well, but due to the prejudice against the monoplane in the RFC hierarchy it never got the chance it deserved. I heard a presentation by Marvin Skelton, one of the Issue Editors/Historian of over the front speak on this prejudice. Seems Trenchard was involved or someone close to him was in a fatal accident in a monoplane. There were investigations, that kind of thing. But the British mind was clouded against the type for some time afterwards (until the mid-30s). I think there is a Datafile on the type Bristol MIC. Can't remember which one now, GRRRR.

The RFC's monoplane prejudice was centred around the relatively high landing speed of monoplane types tested. I've read some arguments that the M1C would have been a handful on the smaller fields the RFC often used on the Western Front.

At a guess, I'd say the Bristol might have proved useful for a few months. But it was lightly armed, and probably overall inferior to the SE-5a. I wouldn't want to have to take on a D-VII in one, even if the Bristol's top speed was as high as some of the published figures.

>What would have been the impact if the
>Bristol M1C monoplane

This is what Williams wrote of it's servcie in Palestine with 14 RFC;

"It was at Belah that we saw the only British monoplane built during the 1914-1918 war that was used on operations - a Bristol single seater. No.14 Squadron RFC shared the aerodrome with us and some of these aircraft were issued to that squadron. Unfortunately several of the pilots who flew them tried to do so in exactly the same way they flew thier biplanes. One mornign after recieving this type a pilot took off and went immediately into a steep climbing turn, side slipped into the ground and was killed. There are always those who are confident they can do better than the other fellow and next morning another pilot tried exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. This together with the fact that the aircraft had not the performance to deal with the Germans opposed to us resulted in its not being perservered with."



cam
AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/

[leo]

Had the bristol monoplane been introduced on the Western Front and assuming that it would have been successful, the germans would have reacted in a way that might have meant there would have been no DVII. Perhaps the DVII would have come out sooner or even the stationary engined V types that Fokker was developing. Another german manufacturer could possibly have come out with a successful monoplane. When one thing changes, perhaps everything changes.

leo

[Vigilant]

I read recently a pursuasive argument that when early fliers talked of a plane "sideslipping into the ground" they were really describing a low level spin. Since the spin was not properly understood even in 1917 these sort of accidents were not properly identified as being spin-related. In addition, because they happened at low level there was not enough time for proper rotation to set in before the aircraft hit the ground. It is surprising how often you spot "sideslip" accidents once you look out for them in contemporary accounts.

(Source: D. Hadley, "Only Seconds to Live" (Airlife 1997) ISBN 1 85310 877 4 - an excellent book on the history of the spin)

Vig.

Vig,

This is the aircraft from the 3rd of August.

if the image doesnt show try looking at; http://users.rcn.com/kymcam/14rfc-m1c.jpg

Apparently the pilot died 8 hours later. Joe Bull wrote in his diary that the engine cut out on the pilot and he tried to turn back to the aerodrome. Maybe he conked the engine trying to adjust the mix soon after take off?

cam
Australian Flying Corps Website

Cam wrote:
"Maybe he conked the engine trying to adjust the mix soon after take off?"

Seems likely to me. Everything I've read suggests that rotaries were terribly prone to flooding if the mix wasn't just right. And it was a standard axiom that if your engine went west, you NEVER tried to turn back. Which didn't stop a lot of people from trying same, with predictable results.

Interestingly, that photo suggests to me a survivable crash. Wonder if the pilot wasn't properly belted in.

>Interestingly, that photo suggests to me a >survivable crash. Wonder if the pilot wasn't >properly belted in.

This is the same aircraft from the front after it was recovered.



The damage around the cockpit looks to be worse from the angle of this photo. You can spot the 14 RFC folks in the photo with the British Tropical hat and the 1 AFC folks with the slouche hat.

cam
Australian Flying Corps Website