Performance Specs for Bristol Scout and Bristol M 1C

Gentlemen,

I have been assisting in the developement of a new flight model for an existing WW1 flight sim called Red Baron 3D.

Does anyone have reliable performance specifications for the Bristol Scout and the Bristol M 1C fighter? Needed are:

Gross Weight
Horsepower
Endurance Range
Maximum Level Speed @ Sea Level
Climb to 2,000 meters (in minutes and seconds)
General comments on their flying characteristics

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Dean

for the bristol scout. (a-d)

Gross Weight: 567 kg
Horsepower: one 60 kw le rhone
Endurance Range: 2.5 hr.
Maximum Level Speed @ Sea Level: 161 km/h
Climb to 2,000 meters (in minutes and seconds): 6 min.
General comments on their flying characteristics

for the m1.c

Gross Weight: 611 kg
Horsepower: one 110hp le rhone 9j
Endurance Range: 1.75 hrs.
Maximum Level Speed @ Sea Level: 209 km/h
Climb to 2,000 meters (in minutes and seconds): ?
General comments on their flying characteristics

fast monoplane fighter. 129 were built, but never used in combat because of the prejudice against monoplanes and its relatively high landing speed. they were used as trainers while 33 were sent to the middle east.


leon

Thanks Leon! That was just what was needed.

Anyone have any references about how the Bristol Scout flew? Perhaps a comparison with the Nieuport 11 or other aircraft?

Dean

I'vw got a reprint of "Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI". the article they have goes as follows. you'll have to cross reference to cofirm the accuracy of this account.

since I actually play RB3d/II on my computer there is of course, the self-serving motivation in providing such detailed information

THE BRISTOL M.1C MONOPLANE
Contrary to the usual run of single-seater fighting machines, the majority of which pertain to the biplane breed, the British and Colonial Aeroplane Co., designed a monoplane which possessed a very good all-round performance, and which was used on active service in the Eastern theater of war with great success.

The fuselage is of circular section, the shape of the cowling be preserved down to the tail plane by fairing composed of formers and laths covered with fabric. A 110 h.p Le Rhone forms teh power unit and a large circular spinner is fixed to the propeller.

The armament consists of one fixed Vickers firing through the propeller.

span 30'9"
overall length 20'9"
maximum height 8'
chord 5' 11"
total surface of wings 145 sq. ft.
area of ailerons 18 sq. ft.
total area of tail 20 sq. ft.
span of tail 10'3"
area of elevators 15 sq. ft.
area of rudder 4.5 sq. ft.
area of fin 5 sq. ft.
airscrew diam. pitch and revs
8 ft. 6 in., 8 ft. 11 in, 1,350 rpm

weight of machine empty 850 lbs
load per sq. ft. 8.9 lbs
weight per h.p 10.8 lbs
petro tank capacity in gallons 20 gal.
oil tank capacity in gallons 5 gal.

performance
speed low down 130 mph
at 5,000 feet 127 mph
at 10,000 feet 117 mph
landing speed 49 mph

climb to 5,000 feet 3.5 min
to 10,000 feet 9.0 min
to 15,000 feet 19.0 min

disposable load apart from fuel 260 lbs
total weight of machine loaded 1,300 lbs

that took more effort to type out than I had planned. but the artist in me felt that this information was definitely worth the trouble of passing on. although being somewhat metrically impaired, I thought that this might be useful for you.

my pet peeve with Janes is that some of the airplanes seem to be very well documented, and others seem to get merely a cursory overview. but that might simply be a problem with all magazines, right? it WAS a magazine, wasn't it?

by the way...
I'll be looking forward to the patch!

I'm metrically impaired, didn't mean to suggest that anybody else was. I guess my biggest suprise with that paricular reprint is that the info on the Pfalz D.III and D.XII and Rumpler C.IV and Hannovershe C.III was pretty good, but warhorses like the SE5a, Camel, and Nieuport lines were astonishingly piece-meal. I guess the part that most impressed me was the big section at the end where they analyze all of those engines! I don't much about engines, so perhaps I was too easily impressed.

Remember that the original Jane's from 1919 was probably assembled for publishing in 1918. All the WW1 Jane's (and I've seen them at the Australian War Memorial's Research Centre) were short on British detail. This was Fred Jane's way of preventing those bounders the Germans from gleaning too much information on the weapons to which they were opposed.

Thanks for the information.

One thing I found quite intersting was the landing speed. I had always heard that the M 1C was passed over for Western Front service because it had a high landing speed compared to the biplanes in service with the RFC, thus precluding it from operating from the small airfields of France. However, if the figure given here is to be believed it really was about the same landing speed as a Spad, which the RFC used to equip several squadrons on the Flanders Front.
Perhaps anti-monoplane bias was the real reason that it saw service mostly as a trainer?

Dean

PS. The information was requested for the upcoming Panama Red Mideast FM, for those interested in RB3D.

ha ha ha ha
now that you mentioned it, I remember I read through a couple hundred pages of it after I got it, and there were some amusing entries to that effect... that in the interest of national security they wouldn't print anything useful on a particular aircraft or two! glad you mentioned that. I'd prettty much forgot.

[leo]

On an earlier posting, April 20, the postings about the Bristol monoplane were not too positive. This one is. I had always believed that the Bristol was a great airplane that was the victim of official prejudice. Whats the real deal>

leo

The British military suffered a number of monoplane crashes during 1911 and 1912, with several fatalities, leading to an inquiry into the causes. While the report that followed in 1912 did not in fact condemn monoplane designs outright, from an engineering standpoint a biplane was more structurally sound at the time(struts, and more and more-strongly anchored landing and flying wires), and this no doubt was presented in the results. The prejudice against monoplane designs was the outcome, and accounted for the M.1's lack of acceptance even at a time when RFC squadrons were desperate for an aircraft of its quality. The excuse given was that the 49 mph landing speed was too great for small French airfields, and the M.1 was relegated to Mesopotamia, Palestine and Macedonia.