Breguet's aircraft ID challenge #623

[Aquilius]

Originally Posted by Rbailey

I don't have the OTF, but according to Grosz and Haddow, the first R.I was very similar to the Union G.I and the R.II a near duplicate of the (second) R.I. Because the engines were not accessible in flight, these types were re-designated G.I and G.II - that is,the R designations came first.

So the R.II is the third G.I or would that be the G.II then,
fitted with 160 hp Mercedes D.III engines initially?




Aquilius

[Rbailey]

The Haddow and Grosz specifications give four 160 hp Merc. DIII engines for both G.I's and the G.II, quite inconsistent with Lange, so somewhere there is a reliability problem. H&G also state that 6 G.II's were built, but only 2 were delivered.

From H&G, it seems that the main differences between the second G.I and the G.II were structural with little difference in the outward appearance, but it would be nice to have another opinion.

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by Rbailey

............. but it would be nice to have another opinion.

I think there are enough opinions on the Daimler G (R) machines, but no references to the basis of the conclusion of the different authors.

The alleged Daimler G.III picture presented by RBailey comes from the collection of Ed Ferko now held in the University of Texas at Dallas. Looking closely on it you can see that a driving rod goes to the nacelle in the wing. With this construction (and the small nacelle) it is logical that the engine / engines are placed in the fuselage. In the fuselage these engine(s) were serviceable (R-type characteristic).

Looking around you have the following opinions (not exhaustive ):

• Thesaurus of the NASM gives Daimler R.I (G.I) and Daimler R.II (G.II)

• Thesaurus of the RAF gives Daimler R I and Daimler G III

• Gray and Thetford German aircraft ... give no information about the Daimler bombers

• Haddow and Grosz German giants gives the Daimler R.I and R.II (later redesigned as G.I and G.II)

• Lange Typenhandbuch (1986) gives Daimler G.I, G.II and G.III

All details given may vary with each other

Opinions enough, but no one gives any basis for their opinions like original documents of Daimler, IdFlieg or what have you. This history will have to go a whole lot to come to any firm facts. In the absence of that we do not 'know' very much on the elusive Daimler heavy bombers.

Cheers

Kees

[Flamingo]

Her is the page from Nowarra showing a G.II and G.III.

But the G.II looks more like a Friedrichshafen (with a strange nose) and the G.III resembles an AEG but with engines in the fuselage.



These pictures have puzzled me ever since, any ideas what types these are?

[Varese2002]

Nice pictures, but given the unqualified identification of Nowarra it just makes the identification less clear. Nowarra - a great collector though - had the habit of publishing also when he was not very sure himself if the information was correct.

Pictures are very rare though and almost never seen after the publication in this book by Nowarra. I wonder what became of the immense picture collection of Nowarra. It has probably 'disappeared' in a museum

Cheers

Kees

[Aquilius]

Kees, these are hard words about Nowarra.
I must admit that I don't like best the writings of him, as for my taste he is too emotional sometimes. In the context it feels that he overrate facts and from time to time it seems his patriotism came over him when things were not recognised adequately. (something that is to find with a few german authors)
But I wouldn't call his work "unqualified".

In general I tend to believe native historians first. What is no judgement about others.

Lange (who came a few years later, if I'm not mistaken), told the Daimler G.II was a two-engined bomber, built in 1916.
The new built up factory in Sindelfingen started to licence-built Friedrichshafen G.II bombers that year. There is a good chance that Daimler constructed a similar machine of that type with the same engines. (FF G.II was also powered by two Mercedes D.IV)

If that's it, maybe both R.I and R.II were re-designated G.I.


It stands against the NASM and Haddow & Grosz - R.I (G.I) and R.II (G.II).
And it leaves a not in the prussian system fitting G.III with 3 servicable engines.


Okay, again too many assumptions.
I will write to Mercedes-Benz and ask what they have in their archives.
The referece list in the DMG book comes with whole bunch of self-published prints, two of their aircraft section.


Cheers

Aquilius

[Aquilius]

For now I think it is time to end this round.

This was not supposed to happen in that way. On the other hand I like to collect facts rather than to have 3-post challenges.

Due to the situation you may understand that I can't give a full score to Joachim. He will earn 0.7 points for the first mention of the Daimler G.I and his work afterwards. Kees & Rbailey for their input share the remaining. Rbailey who contributet slightly more will earn 0.2, Kees 0.1. Next challenge is for Joachim!

And I see I'm missing most of the standard works to compare facts.


The answer is (till now):
Daimler 4-engined bomber of 1916, most likely R.II (re-designated G.I)

The scoreboard after challenge #623 is:

115.10 Varese2002 ☼
82.20 Dave_Kent ☼
71.40 Rbailey ☼
33.30 Cruze☼
19.65 Froggy
18.70 YavorD
17.70 Aquilius
15.90 Flamingo
15.20 richard B
13.30 Rod Filan
12.90 Lodzermensch
09.50 matte_kudasai
08.70 Breguet
08.70 Dan-San
08.40 JohnMacG
07.70 EdStevens
07.60 trp81
07.30 Patrick
07.10 Colin A. Owers
06.70 Berman
06.70 Ampovandak
06.10 joegertler
06.00 Eric Goedkoop
05.70 Doc
05.70 FOKKERJ Feuchtwanger
05.70 AROTH
05.60 ercoupepilot
05.45 GregE
05.30 Crimso
05.30 Der Grüne Flieger
05.20 Gilles
05.10 bshatzer
05.00 Tom L..........................have to wait 12 hours

04.70 dpolglaze........................ may start immediately
04.40 Ross Moorhouse
04.30 edmondthieffry
04.20 Rufe
04.00 greenknight
03.00 Brad
02.50 Gregoire
02.50 Rexee
02.10 Crankcase
02.00 austin08
02.00 Rickenbaron
02.00 sobrien
01.70 Kilian
01.60 sergio_vitalio
01.50 Albatros_Ace
01.30 Cigogne
01.20 Ransom E. Olds
01.00 airplane176
01.00 Catfish
01.00 Cliff
01.00 cubsfan4life
01.00 gregorydquist
01.00 Luf-Rick
01.00 Mike Westorp
01.00 paolomiana
01.00 Peter Zambori
01.00 rammjaeger
01.00 SL DIII
01.00 Tripehound
00.80 Machinbird
00.80 tbstreet
00.80 toxisch
00.60 Sreiko
00.50 ’14-‘18aviationcollector
00.50 Martin Irvine
00.40 Stig Jarlevik
00.40 Vilkata
00.30 albapfalzd30
00.30 Mad Mac
00.30 Miroslav Pokorny
00.30 Nieuport14
00.20 Paul_J._Fishe


Joachim, for the next round maybe you have somthing with a clear designation?
Thanks for taking part guys!

Aquilius

[Varese2002]

Originally Posted by Aquilius

Kees, these are hard words about Nowarra.
I must admit that I don't like best the writings of him, as for my taste he is too emotional sometimes. In the context it feels that he overrate facts and from time to time it seems his patriotism came over him when things were not recognised adequately. (something that is to find with a few german authors)
But I wouldn't call his work "unqualified".

In general I tend to believe native historians first. What is no judgement about others.

---

I think I phrased the sentence about Nowarra wrongly, apologies for that . Don't want to belittle the efforts of Nowarra as I said in my posting, but sometimes (for example the Daimler machines) he published items which were not based on (sound) sources. Another writer would have shown the pictures and mentioned that they were UNIDENTIFIED till now. I hope I have made my point clear with this.

Cheers

Kees

[Rbailey]

Joachim, where are you?

[Lodzermensch]

Hi,

Joachim, where are you?

In a Crash File Challenge

Cheers

Marek