Blackburn Triplanes

[hesham]

Hi,

here is a Blackburn unknown Triplane Fighter Project of 1917,featured with a propeller mounted
at the mid-fuselage,and powered by one 110 hp engine,what was this ?.

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Aeronautica/L'Aeronautica%201930%2002.pdf

 

[Avimimus]

Given the incidence of the airfoils compared to the thrust line, and the two-seat pusher design, it seems probable that this is a night-fighter/zeppelin interceptor as part of the program that created the more famous Blackburn Triplane (i.e. the one that was actually built).

 

[hesham]

Maybe you are right Avimimus,

but the concept was very familiar.

 

[Schneiderman]

These look like they are drawings taken from a patent. Blackburn took out many patents during WW1 but this is not in any of them, so I wonder whether L'Aeronautica made a mistake and this is not a Blackburn design? It certainly does not look like the style of Blackburn, or designers Booth or Bumpus.

 

[lucamax]

Hi friends,
According to the article the airplane was built in a single prototype but the tests revealed bad performace.
Regards.

 

[Avimimus]

Patent drawing we my first reaction too.

Maybe a case of contemporary confusion? Reports of the Blackburn Triplane being associated with a patent drawing?

 

[hesham]

That's weird my dear Lucamax.

 

[lucamax]

I'm agree my dear Hesham!
Just two clarifications: the triplane was described in a magazine of 1930 and in a section named "Enciclopedia Aeronautica" (Aviation Encyclopedia), where they reported a lot of informations about a lot of airplanes, maybe making even some misunderstanding.
As I have had occasion to read in other italian magazine of the period, I have also to admit that often the information reported aren't very detailed and many times without source.
However, nice found!
Regards.

 

[hesham]

Thanks,and Blackburn did anther unorthodox triplane fighter,so big possibility Blackburn did it.

 

[Chunks]

Any possible connection?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Type_161

 

[Schneiderman]

Thanks,and Blackburn did anther unorthodox triplane fighter,so big possibility Blackburn did it.

Not at all, apart from both being triplanes they are completely different. For a start Booth's Blackburn Triplane does not feature the key feature of the unconventional fuselage and engine mount and the aircraft shown in l'aeronautica is not described as a fighter. As it is completely unlike any other Blackburn design from these years and there is no record in British sources of any such aircraft being designed, let alone built and flown, I still doubt that it has anything to do with Blackburn and that the article has confused Blackburn's Triplane with this drawing.

 

[hesham]

Not at all, apart from both being triplanes they are completely different. For a start Booth's Blackburn Triplane does not feature the key feature of the unconventional fuselage and engine mount and the aircraft shown in l'aeronautica is not described as a fighter. As it is completely unlike any other Blackburn design from these years and there is no record in British sources of any such aircraft being designed, let alone built and flown, I still doubt that it has anything to do with Blackburn and that the article has confused Blackburn's Triplane with this drawing.

I don't think so.

 

[Avimimus]

Any possible connection?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Type_161

Seems plausible given the date. Having a crew of two would reduce the difficulty reloading and might make a suitable night fighter. So it could be a Vicker's patent. Might be worth following up.

 

[Schneiderman]

I don't think so.

I'd be most interested to hear your reasons for believing this to be a Blackburn aircraft

 

[Schneiderman]

Any possible connection?

Probably not. A more likely link is to the Royal Aircraft Factory FE3/FE6, also armed with a COW cannon

 

[Schneiderman]

...and there own FB12, of course

 

[hesham]

I'd be most interested to hear your reasons for believing this to be a Blackburn aircraft

The source itself said that,why when we see new thing refuse and deny it,and speculations
works,it's misprint ..............etc,we don't have all Blackburn archive,if we have it,then we
can judge !.

 

[Schneiderman]

One source, written 13 years after the alleged event, in a country where it did not occur, illustrated with drawings whose source is unexplained, is always going to be open to query. The complete absence of any other reference to such an aircraft in any British publication, either shortly after the date or more recently, is indicative that there may be a problem. Blackburn's history is well documented, company archives available and aircraft of WW1 is a topic that has been researched and published by many authors, without anything relating to this alleged aircraft having been reported. On top of that the drawings show no features typical of Blackburn aircraft or of the various designers that worked for the company. All of these are good reasons to be sceptical and not just jump in and assume that a new aircraft has been found.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

There was a Blackburn "Triplane", 1 was built, the text here is consistent with the actual built Triplane, but the picture is wrong.

You can't seriously believe that Blackburn designed and flew another Triplane design in 1917 which somehow everyone has forgotten about except an obscure Italian journal?

 

[Schneiderman]

There was a Blackburn "Triplane", 1 was built, the text here is consistent with the actual built Triplane, but the picture is wrong.

Yes, that is what I see too. Which leaves the question of where the pictures come from. I've searched through patents for that era using various company and designer names but so far no success. As the detailed drawing is annotated in Italian, and looks as if it could be the original text and not a caption, I do wonder whether it is an Italian design.

 

[hesham]

There was a Blackburn "Triplane", 1 was built, the text here is consistent with the actual built Triplane, but the picture is wrong.

You can't seriously believe that Blackburn designed and flew another Triplane design in 1917 which somehow everyone has forgotten about except an obscure Italian journal?

Yes my dear Paul,

I agree about that,but we can conclude that,in 1930 the Blackburn actually built triplane
fighter was a well unknown configuration (real picture or drawing),the mistake came from
they switched the drawing by anther one,but also from the same company as a Project,
we can ask our self a logical question,from where they get this shape,and why they anticipated
it to Blackburn if it was an Italian design as Schneiderman claims?.

 

[Schneiderman]

Now, now, don't go putting words into my mouth. I made no claim that it was an Italian aircraft, what I said was that I wondered whether it could be, given that the annotation of the drawing is in Italian. That could suggest that the original drawing was in an Italian document, book or magazine. What I do stress, however, is that there is absolutely nothing at all to suggest that it is a Blackburn project other than the brief mention in this magazine.

 

[iverson]

Any possible connection?

Probably not. A more likely link is to the Royal Aircraft Factory FE3/FE6, also armed with a COW cannon

That was my first thought. The engine could be a crude representation of the 120-hp Beardmore/Austro-Daimler.

But I doubt this drawing represents a real aircraft, Blackburn, Italian, or otherwise. As shown, the wings look ridiculous. In level flight, at any reasonable angle of attack, the fuselage and thrust line would be pointed sharply down. In any flying condition, the resulting drag would have been very high. The 1917 date also seems late for such a design--the FE.6 was conceived ca 1914, when gun synchronisation was still unknown. I suspect the drawing is an artists impression of a mis-attributed verbal description or poor quality photo.

Such mistakes are, after all, common enough among us aviation enthusiasts.

 

[Avimimus]

As shown, the wings look ridiculous. In level flight, at any reasonable angle of attack, the fuselage and thrust line would be pointed sharply down. In any flying condition, the resulting drag would have been very high.

The incidence is manageable. I'd be much more worried about the centre of gravity. On such a design much of the weight is composed by the engine - and the engine is pretty far back. Unless the tail-plane provides lift it is hard to imagine such a design being stable.

The 1917 date also seems late for such a design--the FE.6 was conceived ca 1914, when gun synchronisation was still unknown. I suspect the drawing is an artists impression of a mis-attributed verbal description or poor quality photo.

There were still some people floating such obsolete ideas, and it is worth noting that two-seat pushers remained in use until the end of the war. It is plausible for a canon fighter or a night fighter. I'm still betting on a patent.

 

[hesham]

From AE 1973/7.

 

[ermeio]

Hi,

here is a Blackburn unknown Triplane Fighter Project of 1917,featured with a propeller mounted
at the mid-fuselage,and powered by one 110 hp engine,what was this ?.

http://www.avia-it.com/act/biblioteca/periodici/PDF%20Riviste/Aeronautica/L'Aeronautica%201930%2002.pdf

Yesterday I've had access to a copy of an old technical book and solved this puzzle... actually the Blackburn Triplane is illustrated in a picture in the previous page, while the pictures 670-674 refer to a project of eng. Garuffa, the author of the booklet, which it is likely that never saw the light. The booklet was published during 1919 and some pages are still censored.

 

[hesham]

Yesterday I've had access to a copy of an old technical book and solved this puzzle... actually the Blackburn Triplane is illustrated in a picture in the previous page, while the pictures 670-674 refer to a project of eng. Garuffa, the author of the booklet, which it is likely that never saw the light. The booklet was published during 1919 and some pages are still censored.

Good surprise my dear Ermeio.