Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbailey
The only information I can find on the Van den Born is from Davilla and Soltan, who say it was tested in late 1917. Intended for 3 230hp Salmson radials but fitted initially with 80 hp Le Rhones - I don't see how it could have flown on 1/3 the design power so presumably it got something better for the tests. Crew of 5. They give nothing else.
|
Thanks for the reference to Davilla and Soltan. Unfortunately they give no reference to archive documents and/or contemporary sources. So we are left with the following text of which the accuracy cannot be verified (p.539) -
Quote:
|
The French F category called literally for an aircraft that would be a flying fortress. It was hoped that it would be able to destroy enemy aircraft and airships simply by the strength of its armament. The Van Den Born F5 was intended to meet this specification. It was a trimotor and carried a crew of five. It was originally intended to use three 230-hp Salmson radial engines. However, it was initially fitted with three 80-hp Le Rhônes, presumably due to a lack of availability of the Salmsons. The decrease in planned power by almost two-thirds cannot have done much to help the aircraft's performance, and after flight testing at Villacoublay in late 1917 it was rejected for use.
|
Given this information, there at least a fit with the mysterious tri-engined triplane. From the picture it is possible to define the machine as a battle-plane with 3 to 4 MG's [1 in each tailboom and two in the central nacelle - firing fore and aft, hence the cutout in the upper wing], making a crew of 5. Engines are not recognized, but can perhaps be counted by the number of cylinders.
The description of Davilla does not mention a triplane or the way the three engines were mounted.
The way to go would be in an ideal world:
- search for the French specifications for the 'flying fortress' - the French F category - maybe somewhere in the French SHA archives
- any records of tenders for this specification
- as the machine was (Davilla) rejected for use, it would be logical to assume an official authority (STAé - Service Technique de l'Aéronautique) made that verdict, which might be documented and archived
Although not proven there is at least a
possibility that the mystery 3-engine triplane and the Van den Born F5 are one and the same. If we only could have the references of Davilla and the archival pieces
By the way I had never heard about the French F-category aircraft. I also found out that Van den Born quit his job with the Belgian military aviation school (L'École militaire belge d'aviation) in 1916, leavig without pay. This could mean that he had something important to attend to for the war effort at another place (
designing the F5 machine ?)
Cheers
Kees