Vickers Vampire

[Sandy Spigot-Colon]

Originally Posted by VonHelton

Let me see if I understand you correctly..........

1. A factory is retooled & workers are retrained, just to build 1 or 2 aircraft.

2. A ground attack aircraft is used for Home Defense, a purpose for which it is ill-suited, and would be a complete failure at.

.......And you don't have a problem with this? A bell isn't going off in your head?

My god, this is worse than the Pfalz Dr1 crap!!



Don't worry, I'm not faulting you, all you have to go on is what is written in a book somewhere.

Considering the huge amount of propaganda on both sides of the trench, I tend to sit down & think about things before merely taking them at face value.

........Maybe I over-analize, maybe I don't.

So you're saying that everyone lied about this?
If so I'd be glad to know which squadrons operated the type.
Why would the authorities need to lie about this?

It's well documented that the ABC Dragonfly engine was a disaster. There were many better aircraft doomed to the scrap-heap because of ABC engines than this rather poor pusher type.

Later
S S-C.

[VonHelton]

Originally Posted by Tripehound

"It was most unpleasant in a spin, rotating at appalling speed, went fast but would not climb much."

And this, in your mind, makes a good interceptor?

[VonHelton]

Originally Posted by Sandy Spigot-Colon

So you're saying that everyone lied about this?
If so I'd be glad to know which squadrons operated the type.
Why would the authorities need to lie about this?

It's well documented that the ABC Dragonfly engine was a disaster. There were many better aircraft doomed to the scrap-heap because of ABC engines than this rather poor pusher type.

Later
S S-C.

The Pfalz Dr1 and, I suspect, this aircraft as well, would be considered "Black Projects". So yes, it would be to their advantage to keep aspects (especially numerical strength!) quiet.

[Sandy Spigot-Colon]

Originally Posted by VonHelton

The Pfalz Dr1 and, I suspect, this aircraft as well, would be considered "Black Projects". So yes, it would be to their advantage to keep aspects (especially numerical strength!) quiet.

For ninety years?
No sorry, the aircraft was a failure.
The biggest British military secrets in the Great War was either 'Room 40' at The Admiralty or 'Water Carriers for Mesopotamia' or perhaps the way High Command went about covering up the true extent of casulties at Ypres in 1917.

Compared with America, the British establishment is secretive--but not that secretive.

The aircraft was of an obsolete type with an unreliable engine and dodgy handling characteristics--in every respect a non starter.

If you really think there's a conspiracy here you're wrong.

If you really want a Great War aviation conspiracy--look in to the way the Royal Aircraft Factory and it's products were dealt with by the press and Parliament and who was the behind the bad mouthing.
Cheers
S S-C.

PS. I know nothing of the Pfalz Dr.I other than it looked OK.

[VonHelton]

Originally Posted by Sandy Spigot-Colon

For ninety years?

To put it bluntly, yes.

I was privy to some things when I was in the US Army.

......That was in 1983.

I'm still not allowed to talk about it, and this is 2005.

[Sandy Spigot-Colon]

Originally Posted by VonHelton

To put it bluntly, yes.

I was privy to some things when I was in the US Army.

......That was in 1983.

I'm still not allowed to talk about it, and this is 2005.

Yes and I worked in the defence industry around that time too.
Do you think these secrets we were asked to keep will still be worth keeping in 2073?

As I've already asked you.
What proof have you got of squadrons of these things in service or where were they deployed or why or how?--or even more than two being built?

Were they used at night--they must have been if no one ever witnessed them. How did they navigate?

Please tell me more.

I can at least refer to a long series of books and articles.
Why would they need to cover this up?--you don't answer.

Tonight I'll post a list of ten other obscure British types that were ordered, and allotted serial numbers in batches and never built.
The Sopwith Snark and BAT Basilisk are two that spring to mind.

Later
S S-C
PS They too both succumbed to the inherent vibration problems of the ABC radial engine.

[VonHelton]

Originally Posted by Sandy Spigot-Colon

Yes and I worked in the defence industry around that time too.
Do you think these secrets we were asked to keep will still be worth keeping in 2073?

Yep.

You keep it until told otherwise.

.....I haven't been told otherwise. Have you?

[Sandy Spigot-Colon]

Originally Posted by VonHelton

Yep.

You keep it until told otherwise.

.....I haven't been told otherwise. Have you?

No I haven't but it's not ninety years yet--or even thirty.
At thirty years it'll be OK--What about WW2 secrets, are you saying that my 82 year old Father shouldn't talk about things he knew from 1945?

I'm still waiting for the list of units using the Vickers Vampire.
I'm intrigued to know.

I'll post my list of other 'Black' projects later.
S S-C.

[Sandy Spigot-Colon]

Hi all
right then, we're going to put the 'riddle' of the Vickers Vampire to bed once and for all.

The Vickers F.B. 26 'Vampire' was developed from the earlier Vickers F.B. 12 pusher scout. Originally the airframe was designed to be powered by the 200 hp Hispano Suiza engine. The cooling was provided by a vertical radiator at the extreme rear of the nacelle (think SE5 radiator here, but at the back?!), this arrangement soon proved inadequate and was revised to two separate radiators attached to the underside of the rear spar of each upper wing, the wings being two upper halves--meeting at the centre.
This second arrangement was also found unsatisfactory and a third arrangement where the radiators were side mounted on the nacelle was finally adopted.
During this period new wings were also fitted, this time with a separate centre section which spanned the inboard section between the pusher boom. Changes were made to the dihedral and also the ailerons.
The armament was originally two Lewis guns, but during one of the modifications an experimental Eeman triple Lewis mounting was fitted.
This proved unsatisfactory as it would have been impossible for the pilot to have changed the drums on the lower two Lewis guns in flight. The Eeman triple mount was next moved upwards so all three Lewis guns were above the upper nacelle longeron. This put the three guns impossibly high and obstructed almost all forward vision.

In it's early form the F.B. 26 was flown at Joyce Green by Frank (Harold??--maybe) Barnwell and he allowed a certain Captain J.T.B. McCudden to fly it.
McCudden was at the time an instructor at Joyce Green and he thought the aircraft "was very much the same as an FE8 to fly".
The aircraft was also flown by Captain W.G. Barker (later V.C. winner).
The later modified Vickers F.B. 26 was also fitted with flare brackets and at one point may have been the aircraft that served with 141 (HD) Sqn. where it proved to be unpopular with the squadron pilots.
It may have also spent a period with 39 Sqn. but this remains unclear.
There is some debate that this was the third airframe built, B.1486 as B.1484 crashed at Joyce Green on 25th August 1917 killing Harold Barnwell.

In 1918 a new version of the aircraft appeared, this was given the designation Vickers F.B. 26A.
This was an adaptation of the earlier aircraft (probably from the second airframe). This aircraft was designated as an armoured trench fighter and was powered by a Bentley B.R.2 rotary.
The nacelle was shorter than the first aircraft and contained armour plate. It was also armed by two side by side Lewis guns.
The performance was found to be satisfactory but as the Sopwith Salamander had by that stage been adopted by as the standard trench fighter a production order was not forthcoming.

Vickers F.B. 26 production was as follows.
Three aircraft were built against contract no A.S.27055/1
Serial no's.
B.1484--crashed at Joyce Green
B.1485--later converted to F.B.26A Trench Fighter
B.1486

B.1487,88,89 were allocated but not built.


Sources
The British Fighter (since 1912) by F.K. Mason (Putnam 1992)
British Aeroplanes 1914-18 J.M. Bruce (Putnam 1957)
Fighters Vol 3 (Warplanes of the First World War series) by J.M. Bruce (MacDonald 1969)
The British Fighter (since 1912) by Peter Lewis (Putnam 1965)
British Aviation (The Great War and Armistice) Harald Penrose (Putnam 1969)
Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-18 War by W.M. Lamberton and E.F. Cheeseman. (Harleyford 1960)

Please Note.
All the above are secondary sources. However, the body of evidence suggest that only three of these aircraft were built.
The above authors disagree in only one really noticeable way.
Whether it was B.1484 or 1486 that was given trials by the squadrons.

All the best
S S-C.

[VonHelton]

Originally Posted by Sandy Spigot-Colon

However, the body of evidence suggest that only three of these aircraft were built.
The above authors disagree in only one really noticeable way.
Whether it was B.1484 or 1486 that was given trials by the squadrons.

All the best
S S-C.

So then we're back to one of my original questions, namely:

Why retool a factory for 3 aircraft?

And, if I'm right, and there were 2 limited production runs (one rotary, one radial) then where did those 18 aircraft (minimum) go to?