Ago C.I/C.II

[SCMc]

Were the AGO C.I or C.II used in significant numbers anywhere? Does anyone know of claims or mentions of them in combat reports?

Steve McCarty

[gregorydquist]

Hi Steve

Jane Fighting Aircraft of WW1 , pg 135 states " Aeroplanes built by the Aktien Gesellschaft Otto are not seen at the front in large numbers." and this was in the context of their a/c in general. It further states that the "large twin fuselage machine was not very successful".. I take this to refer to the CII.

I have no info on combat reports.

Regards,
Greg

[gregorydquist]

Steve,
I found a little more info. There were at least a total of 64 C.I ordered and built. and the most in front line service at one time was 23 as of June 30 1916. "Colmar" and "over the Vosges" were given as locations where Feld-Flieger Abteilung 9b used C.Is. (Windsock Datafile 75, 1999)

Greg

[SCMc]

Thanks Greg.

[Cigogne]

Actually, reading more recent information in Peter M. Grosz' Windsock Datafile on the type, according to pilots who flew them, they were a much loved machine and the first armed C-type aircraft. The C.I was used from the beginning of 1915 thru to the late Fall of 1916. That is a long time by WWI standards.

They tangled with French and British combined bombing formations while stationed with FFA 9b and also some other units.

Ofttimes you see photos labelled as the type C.II, but the C.II was only a prototype and didn't see production. Operational aircraft are all C.I type.

I think of the Ago as the original "Fork-tailed devil"... although not as successful as other aircraft, the smooth twin-boom concept later saw success in the P-38 Lightning.

[gregorydquist]

Cignone

I too took another look at the 1999 Windsock footnote #2, page 7, only I found that it says a "few" C.IIs (with 3 wing bays) were provided to the Navy and that only a prototype C.III (with single wing bays) was built for flight trials. I agree that many photos may be mislabelled as CIIs and/or also that the Windsock could be incorrect, would you clarify or confirm your statement re: only one CII was built, or could this actually be in reference to the CIII?

also for Steve
in the Windsock the caption for photo 49 pg 21 shows small roundels (painted or patches?) covering enemy hits. I cannot see it in the photo, but one of the roundels is dated 12.10.1916 and is on a FFA 9b machine. So apperenly this machine saw action on that date.

I remember the first time I saw this type and was amazed at the twin boom configuration. It's a great looking machine. It apparentyl flew well enough, but was considered slow in both speed and rate of climb and had no rear defence from the gunner due to thier location in the nose, althought the enigne was apparently considered "a suitable bullet catcher" by those that flew it.

Greg

[Cigogne]

Greg,

You are right, I was quoting the Datafile from memory (faulty memory)... but suffice it to say, operational AGOs were C.Is, except for those few naval C.IIs. Grosz had access to great material and so I wouldn't question the Datafile. If you want to see an almost beautiful AGO C.I variant, go look up the Swiss Aviation Museum at Duebendorff, they have a Hafeli DH1, which was basically the same aircraft, but built after the original designer returned to Switzerland. It is a real beauty, especially the twin booms, etc. Minor differences in the nose of the nacelle, but almost spot on in all other aspects... and in pristine condition.

As an interesting aside, there was the Otto C.I twin boom pusher as well, the so called "ugly stepsister" of the AGO C.I. We printed an article last year on the type in Over The Front.

Cigogne

[SCMc]

Greg and Cigogne,

Thank you both for your replies.

Steve

[James A. Pratt III]

I think FFA 1b also used a few.

[SCMc]

Cigogne,

I tried sending you an e-mail, but it bounced. You can e-mail me at:

scmccarty
<at>
earthlink
<dot>
net

Steve McCarty