Vickers Gunbus "Newfoundland No. 1"

mdeal · 29 May 2007, 01:06 PM

Greetings,

I am a new member and this is my first attempt to use the Aerodrome forum. I am an archaeologist and aviation enthusiast in Newfoundland. I have been researching the history and archaeology of aviation in Newfoundland before it became a Canadian province (1949). I am hoping that someone can help me find information on the aircraft supplied by Newfoundland to the Royal Flying Corps during World War 1 (1915).

The story: At the request of the London Overseas Club, the Newfoundland government established an Aeorplane Fund to purchase two Vickers gunbus biplanes for the war effort. The fund was so successful that they eventually presented the British government with four Vickers aircraft and the Reid Newfoundland Company also presented a 70 hp Renault biplane (model not identified). A photograph in the local "Daily News" on Oct 14, 1915 shows one of the aircraft at Shorncliffe Camp, ready for deployment. The aircraft were designated "Newfoundland No. 1 to No. 4" and "Reid Newfoundland."

Does anyone know where I can find information on the fate of the aircraft, such as which squadrons they went to and/or when they were wrecked or decommissioned?

Breguet · 30 May 2007, 12:34 AM

The information you want is contained in Cross and Cockade Great Britain Vol 14 No2.

Newfoundland 1 was Vickers FB5 2878 inscribed on 27.7.15 and replaced by RE7 2363 on 17.1.16. It was further replace by FE2b 5236, then FE2b A785, DH4 A7444, DH4 A7535 and finally DH9 D1043. As you can see each number can have quite a history.

The Reid, Newfoundland machine was originally a BE2c (2682), then a Martinsyde Elephant and finally a Camel.

If you can't get hold of the Vol PM me with you ordinary e-mail and I'll scan the page for you.

EdStevens · 30 May 2007, 05:37 AM

That's interesting. I had presumed that presentation aircraft only used the number once; monies were raised to buy aircraft, each was given a number depending on how many could be purchased, and when it was no longer in service that was that. I would have thought that if more money was raised later on, any new aircraft purchased would continue the sequence -- Newfoundland Number 5, 6, 7, 8, etc. Do we know why the numbers were re-used so many times? Was that the norm? It seems to me that it diminishes the impression of contributions made to keep repeating the sequence, but I must be misunderstanding the way presentation aircraft were seen at the time.

Breguet · 30 May 2007, 03:23 PM

It was common practice. It seems that the way it was looked upon was that the people (or company) had raised money to have an aircraft in service and that the record of that generosity should not be lost simply because the original aircraft and become unserviceable, wrecked or shot down.

mdeal · 30 May 2007, 05:36 PM

It is also news to me that the presentation names were passed on to other aircraft. Did this continue up to the end of the war?

I don't know how many aircraft were ultimately presented from different parts of the "Empire," but an editorial note in the other local paper, the "Evening Telegram", on August 27, 1915, indicated that Newfoundland was the largest contributor of funds for aeroplanes at that time.

Breguet · 30 May 2007, 06:46 PM

According to my sources it certainly did. Infact all five presentation inscriptions in this thread were still on aircraft as of 18.1.19.

As to how many were presented by parts of the Empire the answer is hundreds - mainly by India but also many other countries.

mdeal · 31 May 2007, 06:08 PM

The information in Cross and Cockade 14/2 was just what I needed to extend my search. I have one question about the entries. Does "struck off charge" mean that the aircraft has been taken off military service, destroyed or recycled (or all or any of the above)?

I found listings for photographs in the C&C WWI Aircraft Photo Database for Newfoundland No. 1 (Vickers FB5 2878) and No. 2 (Vickers FB5 2883). The source is given as Windsock 4/2:20, but I have not been able to varify on-line that this refers to Windsock Magazine vol. 4, no. 2, page 20? The photos also appear to be reprinted in C&C (INT) 19/2:69 and C&C (GB) 16/1:43, respectively.

Breguet · 31 May 2007, 06:49 PM

Aircraft can be struck off charge for a variety of reasons. Obsolesence, unservicable, wrecked, surplus to requirements, moved to another squadron etc.

Vol 4, no2, p20 is a reasonable assupmtion.

Good luck with your research - will make a good article for Cross & Cockade International!