Wossthis?

[MikeW]

I blew this up from an aerial shot of the aerodrome at Droglandt. There are several of them scattered about the aerodrome, all with the cockades set well in from the wing tips.

Any thoughts on machine or squadron.

[Cigogne]

They appear to be R.E.8 aeroplanes.

Cigogne

[PeterL]

They appear to be R.E.8 aeroplanes.

Cigogne

I'll go along that. There was a period, in I think 1917, when it was directed that national markings should not overlap control surfaces on British aircraft. The result is seen almost exclusively factory built machines such as the SE and, as in this case, the RE. It would appear that for a while the US followed *a similar policy, which had something to do with reducing flutter . The Tommy (below) and US built DH4 are good examples.

[Darryl]

Mike,

If I had to guess I'd say 21 Sqn RE8's (no tail band and Droglant service in March 1917.

But it is late here and I could be making it up!!

Morpheus beckons

Darryl

[MikeW]

Well done all.

Yes they are RE8s, and belonging to No.21 Squadron.

I thought the No.46 squadron Nieuports would be too easy for you.


Mike

[ONEALM]

I think the "no overlapping the airlerons" rule was as much for cosmetics as anything. If you look at any ground-looped aircraft, the first thing that gets shredded is the airlerons on the lower wing (if any) and if coupled like the SE-5, the uppers may "get it" as well.

There are numerous photos of post war SE-5's with replacement airlerons whose roundel (Or US star) - painted outboard and overlapping the airleron - do not match the one on the wing panel.

I can't explain why this would be as important on the RE-8 and others with only upper airelons though. Maybe just continuity ?

I recall Cole Palen mentioned once that one of the prime reasons for not having a SE-5 in their collection was it's reputation for groundlooping. I don't suspect the Dr.I is any better though ......

Keep at it,
Mike