Evening All,
I seem to be posting builds of old models at the moment: this one is another which I made, (and put in the cabinet and forgot!) a few years ago. In fact I made this soon after I returned to the hobby, partly to help me to recover some basic modelling skills and partly because I had wanted one of these i my collection since I was a teenager when I came across it in Funderburk's
The Fighters.
I was reminded of this kit by a modeller on another forum who suggested that this might make a suitable subject for me to scratch build. I have put in some history about the reasons that led to the development of this type and the sheer guts of the aircrew who flew them. I am very aware that most aeroplanes at this time were, by modern safety standards, pretty rickety, and often had unreliable engines among other things to think about, but the level of desperation reflected in this design is quite unusual. I have become increasingly interested in the engineering experiments and solutions of early designers, hence the choice of esoteric types which I model, this being among them.
Early aircraft designers used a pusher layout for their aircraft almost as frequently as a tractor system, including both the Wright brothers' Flyer and G. de Haviland's first biplane. In France the Farman brothers and G Voisin also designed and flew successful pusher types. In 1912 Vickers displayed their 5th pusher design which they offered to the military as an "armed reconnaissance" machine or fighting biplane (FB), later dubbed the "Gunbus". Note that this was intended primarily as an observation machine so the observer was placed in front of the pilot and because the engine and propellor were at the rear of the nacelle, the observer had an unimpeded view. He could incidentally be armed with a machine gun or rifle for defense: the aircraft was not intended to chase other types. In 1913 the Royal Aircraft Factory designed a two seat reconnaissance machine based on the pusher principal - the FE 2, which originally was also unarmed. The advantage that these armed pusher types had was that the could use a machine gun to fire forwards without the need for an interrupter gear to stop bullets hitting the propellor: it is much easier to hit a moving target from behind than from the side or rear.
In 1915 SPAD proposed a different type of reconnaissance machine - a tractor with a basket (French) or pulpit (RFC) mounted in front of the engine and propellor. The original SPAD proposal and prototype did not have any weapons as it was conceived as a reconnaissance machine. However by the time the SPAD prototype and second machine were being tested, synchronised machine guns were being fitted to tractor aeroplanes, although the French authorities did not seem to take much interest in the idea. The Germans had quickly adapted the Fokker Eindekker and had started to cause serious casualties among the unarmed Allied reconnaissance aircraft so that defensive measures were required, and a machine gun and mounting was added to the SPAD A2. Similarly the FE 2b was armed with machine guns and used as escort because the observer had a clear field of fire.
The SPAD was powered by an 80hp or 110hp Le Rhone rotary engine and was armed with a single machine gun mounted on a ring. The aircraft could not be flown solo without extra weight being added to the pulpit: its handling qualities in the air were comparable with the Moraine Type L parasol monoplane and Nieuport 11 Bebe. However if the machine made a heavy landing or hit uneven ground it had a tendency to nose over, which meant that the observer was at serious risk of death or injury. Many observers were killed in this way. Another problem was that there were structural weaknesses with the airframe, which meant that some machines broke up in the air.
US personnel flying with the French refused to be observers in these aircraft, and the RFC turned down offers of machines on the grounds that they were too dangerous to operate. The French ace J Leps was lucky to survive being thrown out of the pulpit, (he was restrained by his harness), during a series of violent manoevures in an engagement with an enemy machine, only for the aircraft to nose over on landing. Leps was short, and he had been on the floor of the pulpit when the aircraft crashed so that the propellor and engine did not crush him as it would have done if he had been seated. Thereafter he asked if he could fly his own aeroplanes.
A small number of these machines were supplied to the French air force where they served in late 1915 until mid 1916 when the survivors were withdrawn. About 50 of a modified variant, the S.A4 were supplied to the Imperial Russian Air Force: at least two of these were still in use in the Civil War of 1918-1919. Some of these were fitted with skis. The later very successful series of single seat fighters and two seat machines built by SPAD in the last two years of WW1 were direct descendents of this basic design.
This was the only pulpit fighter to see active service but it was not the only one of its type. The Royal Aircraft Factory also tried the idea with the BE 9. This was a BE 2c which had been modified by moving the engine rearwards and removing the observer's cockpit. The observer was placed in a pulpit structure in front of the engine and propellor and could be armed with a single machine gun. The prototype flew but as far as I have been able to find out, it never carried a passenger: extra weight was placed in the pulpit to maintain the CG of the machine. The idea was not followed through.
This kit was first produced in 2000 in fairly soft white plastic. The mouldings are generally good, but the struts, axle, gun ring and other small parts are brittle and easily broken. I replaced some of these parts with home made parts, and I added some missing details to the front of the nacelle including vents and engine bearers. These are difficult to see on the finished model and would not be missed by most observers. Similarly there is little internal detail in the cockpit, but again little can be seen on the completed model. The kit was free of flash and most joints were good - only a little filler was needed to clean up and smooth some joints. There is one set of markings for a French machine in the boxing which I had: the transfers were good and stuck well to the model. The tail markings are however too large, but as I did not have any others I used them anyway. I am not sure how available this kit is today (I bought mine over 8 years ago), but if you like unusual types this one is worth spending a little time and effort to make as it is a reasonably accurate representation of an interesting but unusual type.
Frank: you will be pleased to know that Spin models make one of these in the Intermediate Scale.
Thanks for looking.
Stephen.
