Airco D.H.2

[Pommpie]

Heck of a first post to be making... ;)

I was just wondering if anyone here knows of any info regarding what the D.H.2 was like to actually fly. I mean, the Aerodrome site gives me access to numbers and such, and Red Baron II vaguely tells me it was 'tough', but did it have any unusual tendencies (like the Camel's habit of flopping over on takeoff or landing, or the Dolphin's joy in decapitating inverted flyers)? That's the kind of thing I need.

I'm making a feeble effort to write a story featuring a D.H.2 pilot, and a bit of info is always good.

[Regulus]

Everyone's first post is special !

The DH2 ? Indeed not evident but well. I think you could call it a smaller version of the DH 1. The gun was the first problem already, next to the flying of this,... well let's call it a 'thing'.
Next to piloting the DH2 the pilot also might have to change his machine gun from one point of fixture on one side to the one on the other side. Not ideal. It was equipped with a Lewis gun, so if the 47 shots had gone you could change also the round bulletdrum. This was later changed, I think early 1916.
Structure was better than the DH I but there was a lot of criticism on the flying of it. This had a lot to do with the fact that the steering 'organs' were very sensitive. So let's say that in the hands of a skilled pilot it was very manuverable, but for the other ones it could lead to very unpleasant surprises. For it's time (1915) it could be considered as a good fighterplane. Over 400 were build. Of course it was no match when the Germans came with the Albatros D I and II's in 1916.
It was equipped with a Gnome Monosoupape of 100 pk and in a number with Le Rhone 110 pk. Max. speed around 150 km/hr

VBR from Regulus

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Pom,
Why not give yourself a real treat and read FLYING FURY by James McCudden VC?
At one point in his narrative, while he's an instructor, he overhears some students criticizing (mocking) the DH-2; he then informs them that it was, in its day, a first-class fighting machine (he gives his reasons why, but you'll have to read the book).
A second point? What of Hawker's last dogfight? His obsolete DH-2 seemed to handle MvR's Albatros D2 fairly well; I believe that Hawker, the superior pilot, broke off combat when he was very low on gas (and still over the German lines), and then was killed by a lucky shot to the head (I wonder if anyone on the ground ever claimed to have shot down Hawker?).
And, finally: in terms of simulations, the best flight model that I've come across for the DH-2 is in 'Combat Aces' (as opposed to RB2 and RB3d); the plane handles very well, but I can't say that it is truly realistic, as the DH-2 was VERY sensitive on the controls (hence its reputation to spin easily). At least, in 'Combat Aces', your goddamn bottom wing doesn't goddamn fall off every goddamn time you try to goddamn bank the goddamn plane!
And CONGRATULATIONS on your first post! Regulus and I have already contacted the jewelers in Berlin...
VBR,
Captain Lewis

[Ross_Moorhouse]

No.14 Sqd used them in the Mid East well after they had been retired from the Western Front.

Also dont forget that this was the plane that ended the reign of the Fokker E.III over the Western Front. :D

[AustralianAce]

If you do look at the D.H.2 it really does look like an unstable aircraft but somehow it was still able to help bring down the Fokker scourge.

But if you look at the design it really looks like it would easily go into a spin. When I first got into this WWI aviation I was suprised to see the D.H series actually worked! ::)

[WFS]

McCudden's first flight in an a D.H.2, from "Five Years in the R.F.C.":

"Whilst I was was in the 'pilots pool' at St. Omer I had my first flight in a de Havilland Scout on July 7.

This machine was then considered difficult to fly, and the engine torque, due to a big rotary engine in a small machine, was very noticable. I liked this machine, but knew I should have to fly it for a long time before I became its master."

Regards,
Wayne

[Michael Skeet]

I seem to recall that some pilots referred to the DH-2 as "the spinning incinerator." It probably wasn't nearly that bad, and I can't recall reading anything really critical of its handling.

The Gnome engine, on the other hand, was heartily despised. I don't know how often this happened, but a number of sources report that it had a habit of throwing cylinders; if one of those chunks of flying metal hit a tail boom, it was tout finis pour vous. Gnomes were also at risk of fire because of their single-valve design and lack of any form of carburettor.

The setting of your story will have a strong bearing on how much impact the DH-2 will have on the writing, I should think. A pilot's attitude toward the machine would be vastly different in July 1916 than in, say, March 1917.

[ProfFate]

Hi

The design looks as it should be unstable in Pitch, prone to PIO, the airfoil ought to have sudden unpredictable stall characteristics which would make the combo of torque and PIO an interesting problem. However, given that, the initial and sustained rates of turn ought to be about 15% better than the Alb.DII, slower and not as good dive acceleration.

How's that.

Rocky

[simba]

'What were they like to fly?'

We all ask purselves that one, particularly if we can't get our li'l mitts on the controls of the genuine article. So some folks build a replica, while others look to the literature. Regarding the latter, there's one volume that stands head 'n' shoulders over the others - Oliver Stewart and Leonard Bridgeman's 'The Clouds Remember', first published in the nineteen-thirties and reprinted in the 'seventies.

Ollie was an experienced RFC/RAF Major by war's end, and went on to become part of the Martlesham Heath test setup afterwards. What did he say about the D.H.2?

He liked 'the unobstructed field of fire' for the Lewis; but reckoned that the type 'possessed a preponderance of military over aerodynamic qualities': ' . . . fighting pilots wanted first of all a good aeroplane, and secondarily a gun and observation platform. The air staff wanted first a good gun and observation platform and secondarily an aeroplane'. Thus, he aptly described the main reason why a 'pusher' RFC scout, with all the drag attendant on its design, was regarded as adequate to take on the new sleek Albatros - the Allied powers-that-be not having thought to develop a gun-synchronising gear until well after Garros 'n' Fokker's efforts.

However, 'it was a bold and ingenious attempt and it did do fine work on the Western Front'. Flight characteristics 'were those of the pusher scout and were strikingly different from those of almost any other type of aeroplane. The D.H.2 was strongly one-sided. The rudder had to held hard over against the effects of engine torque [gyroscopic precession from the rotary engine's spinning, plus a li'l assymetric airflow over the rudder], and when the machine was being brought down prior to landing, the 'blipping' of the engine on the thumb-switch was accompanied by a marked lurch to the side . . . yet when one got used to it, it exercised a real and individual fascination. The pilot's seat right out in front was in many ways extraordinary pleasant [and pre-dated the 'pilot-up-front, engine behind' jets by thirty years]. There were no engine fumes [from the castor-oil-splashing 100hp Gnome Monosaupape rotary], and the ability to see where one was going ministered to the sensation of freedom.'

He flew three types of pusher scout: the F.E.8, D.H.2 and a single-seat version of the Vickers F.B.9 that never entered production. He liked the D.H.2 best of the three, chiefly for its handling qualities: 'capable of aerobatics and could be thrown about the sky with great ease and swiftness'. Plus 'Immelmans' which, from his description, seem more akin to the modern 'chandelle' than the 'half-loop and half-roll off the top' more familiar to WW2 afficiandos; definitely not a stall turn, he's adamant on that . . .

The speed range, like so many of those early aircraft, was minimal: flying in a straight line, the aircraft stalled at c. 38-40mph and was flat-out at 86 mph at 6,500 feet. All too easy to stall off an over-tight or sustained turn or on finals. Hence its early reputation as a 'spinning incinerator', the former part of the sobriquet being derived from initial service with 24 Sqn RFC in the hands of poorly trained pilots who, like most of their instructors and senior officers, hadn't a clue about spin-recovery; the latter due to the Gnome Mono's tendency to sometimes blow a cylinder off the crankcase 'n' through an essential piece of the structure: tailbooms favourite, nasty! They learnt fast - or they died . . . It took 25 minutes to climb to 10,000 feet, but could hold its altitude well in tight turns considering its low engine power and struts-induced drag.

But he reserved the real kudos for the poor sods who had to swing the prop to start up - 'the memory which fixes this aeroplane most firmly in my mind' - who had to stand inside the trelliswork of the tailbooms while doing it. If the chocks weren't in place, or he didn't duck out quick enough and through the right gap - bang, ouch! At least the prop was at a nice height for swinging, apparently, being stuck halfway down the length of the edifice, rather than out high at the front as per Avro 504.

Ooooooooh, what I'd give for a go on the real thing - cheers!

(8:¬)}

Simba.

[CaptainLewis]

Dear Sim,
NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL A POST!
And thank you very, very much for sharing this obscure and seemingly forgotten work. As I said in another thread, 'truth will out'...
Two more points, if I may?
First, the cockpit of the DH-2 was noted for its coldness, I suppose because it didn't have an engine in front of it giving off any heat. (BTW, Skeets, would engine fire have been a danger in this design? I thought that the fuel would have to accumulate in the cowling to actually create the conditions for an in-flight fire; for that matter, if this is so, I wonder if the N.11 ever had this problem-- half-opened cowl, dontcha know?).
Second, the original mounting of the Lewis gun (no relation) was flexible, allowing the pilot to elevate the gun a few degrees (side to side? I don't know). If I remember correctly, Hawker didn't like this-- you had to hold the gun as well as fly the plane-- and had it changed to a fixed mounting (at least, I think it was Hawker).

[Michael Skeet]

Cap'n: I'd probably have to go through my library to see if I have any references to DH-2 engine fires; my guess is that you're right and the lack of a cowling would substantially reduce (if not eliminate) the risk of fire. (When I wrote that I was subconsciously thinking of the various cowled installations of the Gnome).

The pilots called the original Lewis mounting the "wobbly". It seems to have been almost immediately locked into a straight-ahead level position by squadron armourers.

[Kory_Clark]

The CofG is probably right in the middle of the A/C with the rear placement of the engine.

Once you get into a spin with a DH2 I suspect it takes a damn long time to get out.

i've read the thing would sometimes spontaneously start on fire due to oil leakage.

[Pommpie]

Thanks a lot, everyone. This'll keep me in material for many chapters...I can already visualize hundreds of 'spinning incinerator' puns. :P

Seriously, you folks are great. How do you know all this stuff? :)

[leo]

Capt. Lewis:
Not that I would necessarily disagree with you, but upon what do you base your statement that Hawker was a better pilot than MvR or that his DH2 could handle an Abatros?

[WFS]

In "F.Y.I.T.R.F.C." McCudden gives this account of how Mick Mannock credited him with saving his life.

"He (Mannock) had just had his first spin and had remembered my advice, which I think at the time was to put all controls central and offer up a very short and quick prayer."

Wayne

[Richard_Schrader]

One problem the DH-2 had was if the fuel tank on the upper wing was holed, the fuel dripped down on the hot engine. You can figure out the results for yourself.
Richard

[cam]

>but a number of sources report that it had a habit
>of throwing cylinders; if one of those chunks of
>flying metal hit a tail boom, it was tout finis pour vous.


urk. Apparently the engines in the DH5 had a habit of throwing valve tappet rods which would shear through the engine cowling, spinning until it hit the Vickers gun mounting at which point the engine would dislodge, if not fall out altogether. Cant have been comfortable for the pilot.



cam

[StephenLawson]

Greetings all:

Noting the article in Aeroplane Monthly February 1980, *

'Thorpe Park's Pusher' the replica DH 2 and its flying characteristics are referenced. *Although this replica had the Pobjoy Niagra Radial Mk III and left this aircraft about 12hp underpowered. * John Hall *Viv Bellamy and Peter Newbury were the primary pilots. *Mr. Hall's comments follow. * * * *

'...Taxing in light winds is easy with exceptional visibilty in all directions except behind-its best not to look back, as one gets the distinct impression that one is being followed by a jerry-built mobile chicken run... on take off ...no smelly propeller slipstream. *The sensation was similar to *flying a basic glider on an aero-tow. *Becoming airborne at abot 40kt and I held it down to about 55kt before climbing away...First , there was a feeling of total insecurity brought about primarily by the delayed actions of the ailerons. Secondly by the unusual cockpit position and thirdly by the total lack of confidence in the engine. *Because of the shortage of power a climbing turn was out of the question, and it was therefore necessary to reach at least 500ft before making a turn and then only a gentle one... the landing was as easy as the take off...' *
As this is the closest we can come to how the original flew I thought you might enjoy the view. STL

[Baron_von_Tecumseh]

Capt Lewis,first,what makes you think Hawker was a better pilot than
MvR,Hawker attacked from above,they ended up circling
each other till Manfred ended up above and behind
Hawker, who had to break off or land,he tryed to escape
Manfred's Gun jammed,was cleared in time to shoot
Hawker in the head with a "lucky shoot".
Manfred must have had 79 other lucky shoots!
You sugarcoated your account of the dogfight so much my teeth hurt!

[CaptainLewis]

Meine Liebe Herr Baron,
Es tut mir leid for any discomfort, mastication-wise, that my post may have caused you; perhaps your teeth have recovered sufficiently for you to-- ahem!-- chew on this:
"Within a week of arriving at the front, two pilots had been killed when their DH2s spun into the ground. These tragedies were potential morale destroyers. Hawker took a DH2 up to 8,000 ft and, out of sight, spun it several times to left and right, with and without engine. When he landed, he told the pilots how to recover from a spin and they hurried into the air to practise it. Such a man was Lanoe Hawker, a light-hearted and far more attractive, many-faceted character than the serious, introspective Manfred von Richtohofen.
When they met in combat Manfred won because, although Hawker was the more polished flyer, Manfred flew the faster, more heavily armed aircraft and his two guns were each loaded with 500 rounds, whereas Hawker's one had only ninety-four. Moreover, Manfred had had the great benefit of mock combat with a DH2 that Boelcke had forced down, intact, behind the German lines. Also, Hawker's engine was suffering from impeded petrol flow, which robbed it of full power." [from Richard Townshend Bickers' VON RICHTHOFEN THE LEGEND EVALUATED; Naval Institute Press, 1996]
We also know, from MvR's own account, that he expended 900 rounds in downing Hawker; I imagined his gun jammed from firing so many rounds in bursts too long. In any case, it doesn't sound like good shooting to me...

[Baron_von_Tecumseh]

The DH-2 was not as fast or armed as much as the
Albatros,but it did manuver quite well.At that time
Hawker was a more experienced pilot.Manfred himself refered to him as the English Boelcke,which might have something to do with why
he had to shoot a lot to get him,but MvR did go from the attacked to the attacker,it wasn't just that the Albatros was the better plane than the DH-2.
Two giants of the air met,one had to die,don't think I under rate Hawker
He was a great pilot and a fine man,had he lived,he would
be up there with Mick,Ball,Mac and sorry I just can't make myself say Bishop

[Richard_Schrader]

Hawker and MvR were both skilled marksmen, so they were even in that department. MvR admitted himself that he wasn't a very good pilot for his first 10 victories, Hawker was unlucky to be number 11! The DH-2 could outturn the Albatros, but the D-2 was faster, that kind of evens out too.
The main fact is the Baron took control of the fight and hung on like a rabid bulldog. So I would say that MvR just plain outflew Hawker.
Richard

[Barrett]

Issue No. 44 (this year, apparently, but no date in the whole magazine!) of Classic Wings from NZ has a nice colo(u)r article about reproduction DH-2s with a PiRep from Stuart Tantrum of the Omaka Aerodrome.

[Michael Skeet]

Good grief, man. Did you go searching through the archives for this thread? I was shocked to see postings under my name, and it wasn't until I'd read a second post, that I didn't remember writing, that I thought to look at the dates.

[Barrett]

Hee.
Ek-chually, I remembered the thread when I read the article so I did a search and -- viola! There it was.

[Brad]

Ok, don't read this as fact, but as opinion. There IS some fact mixed in here though...

Let me first say that I've obviously never flown or even seen a DH2 in person. I doubt anybody living has, as no authentic examples exist today. So, let's talk about the general design.

You have the pilot in an enclosed structure in front of the wing- and not a particularly heavy one. You also have a 600# engine mounted at the trailing edge of the wings. Generally, an aircraft that uses downforce on the tail surfaces will be more stable and controllable than one using lift to balance the wings... but in the pusher arrangement it is likely to be very tail heavy- a 600# engine vs. a 150# (if that) pilot in a lightweight cloth covered truss structure, plus the weight (and length) of the tailbooms supporting the surfaces. I would be very surprised if it balanced ahead of the 50% chord of the wing. That makes for an unstable aircraft, one that is easy to spin and difficult to recover.

Second, that 600# (half the weight of the aircraft???) is spinning, and not even at a constant speed. Cut or increase power, and the rotation speeds and slows, acting on the airframe. I've seen a reported tendacy to nose down and swing to the side when power was cut. A natural reaction is to oppose this with the controls, and too much input (particularly pulling "up" and adding rudder and/or aileron) is just the formula for spin entry as the speed drops off, especially if it is rudder to one side and aileron to the other. This combined with a rearward CG would be a deadly combination.

Third, the airfoils used at that time had very thin sections and a sharp leading edge, which is a sure formula for an abrupt stall, rather than a gentle stall like that of a wing section with a nice round leading edge and a thick section.

Low airspeed causes a tendacy to stall. High angle of attack (the angle at which the airfoil meets the relative airflow) causes stalls. Trying to raise a wing with aileron increases the "effective" angle of attack, and if the rudder is the opposite way (turning into the wing you are trying to raise) it lowers the airspeed of that wing while raising the airspeed of the outer one. SO, we're increasing the effective angle of attack, and decreasing the airspeed when we "cross" the controls.

A spin is nothing more than stalling one wing, and falling toward the stalled wing. I've spun an aircraft ONCE (or actually been in an aircraft as my instructor demonstrated a spin) and it is VERY disorienting. You lose a lot of altitude very rapidly- the low time pilots of that day wouldn't have time to "figure it out" on the way down, and I doubt spin recovery was something taught.

It used bungees or springs to pull the ailerons UP, and only used cables to pull them down. I suspect this contributed to the reported sluggishness of the aileron controls, and difficult spin recovery.

If you look at the DH2 closely, you will see that it has a pretty large horizontal stabilizer and elevator, and a decent size rudder with a small "fin." IF this aircraft had a more modern airfoil, balanced at a proper CG, and didn't have a huge spinning hunk of iron trying to torque it around, it woud probably fly very nicely. It's VERY similar to modern ultralights in layout and control surface size. But, given the issues listed above, you'd have to "have some big brass ones" to want to fly a "real" one.

I personally think it's an attractive (in a jaunty, spindly kind of way) aircraft with lots of potential for a modern replica.

Brad

[Lufbery]

I'm really glad to see this thread resurected. I think I missed it the first time around.

Great posts, everyone.

Regards,

[baldeagle]

I think the Gnome weighs more like 350 pounds.
Cole Palen had a 100 Gnome in his Fokker Triplane replica for a while, until one day (about 1978 I think), fortunately as he approached the Aerodrome from the right direction, there was a "WOOF!", and a black object sailed up over the top wing and fell into the woods. I thought he'd hit a bird at first, but of course it was a cylinder flying off the Gnome. Cole said that there was a sudden strong vibration, he hit the blip switch, then let up, more vibration, so he shut the engine off, though it kept windmilling, with flames coming out of the opening where there had been a cylinder. He made a hard landing, bounced, and in mid bounce what was left of the connecting rod went inside the crankcase and the engine stopped suddenly. He rolled to a stop, and there was a hole in the cowling big enough to climb through. Somebody searched through the woods and found the offending cylinder, and it was presented to Cole at the old annual end-of-the-year banquet as a trophy.
After it happened one of the first things I thought about was DH-2s.

[wolfenbill]

What kind of engine did they have in Cole's FE-8? It seems that it would be a flyer similar to the DH-2.

[baldeagle]

Cole's FE-8 had an 80 LeRhone in it, maybe because he didn't want a 100 Mono in it. From watching it fly it seemed to be a lousy flyer.

It's now displayed at NASM, cutaway, with an electrically driven cutaway LeRhone.