Quote:
Originally Posted by Varese2002
There is also an 'incision' in the topwing at the back, just above the tailboom. The only rason why this should be done is to give a crewmember / gunner a clearer view above. It could be that there were MG's in the tailbooms operated by crew members in the tail booms.
The machine was possibly devised as a battle ship escorting bomber squadrons. Be aware this is only conjecture, no factual data.
Paolo and Yavor, I presume that the pieces taken out of the topwing at the back are not the best in aerodynamics? Also the wings grow longer from lower, to middle to topwing.
Escorting battle ships (planes) were envisaged at the end of the war in the USA, I think for example by Burgess, but not really built.
Cheers
Kees
As an afterthought. The relatively small size of this three-engined triplane might hint at the fact that the machine is not designed as a bomber, but primarily as an escort battle-ship.
|
After attempts with a cannon-armed Voisins, a typical bomber escort "battle ship" was Caudron R.11 with two gun positions.
Different wingspan is quite common for a biplane / triplane. There is a classic example of R.A.F. B.E.2c vs B.E.2e, B.E.12 vs B.E.12a, R.E. series.
Different chord for upper / lower wing is not unusual too (Nieuport sesquiplanes; Albatros D.III/V/Va; SSW D.III).
The real problem is when two surfaces are too close to each other (gap-to-hord ratio below 1). Partial remedy can be obtained by using positive / negative stagger (as shown on illustrations provided by Paolo). Such data with sound explanation were available for all interested parties from about 1916. There are British (e.g. Flight magazine, Hunsaker and Huff, 23 November 1916, pp. 1029-31) and German (Technische Berichte, Band I.) sources. No doubt, there is French, American, Russian and Italian research too.
Regards,
Yavor