The FC1 was only a project. Amongst other references there is a reasonably good article (inc a basic drawing) on it and other Short,GA and Bristol airliner projects cut short by the war in Air International -(Air Enthusiast in those days) of September 1972. H.A. Taylor devotes a chapter to it in his Putnam Book on Faireys.
Hmmm. Closing down the mystery.
It’s certainly an Armstrong Whitworth Siskin; what marque or model is a question.
There’s a profile view of the same aircraft on the same occasion marked as a ‘Mk.V’ here . However, the Mk.V was apparently intended as the Romanian export version, and the Mk.IV an air-racing civil variant of the Mk.V (confused? I am) but the Romanian order was cancelled after a pilot was killed in the first aircraft. The markings are interesting, being two-colour under-wing roundel(s) on the starboard lower wing, no fuselage roundel, and rudder striping, but not a ‘proper’ RAF serial on the rudder. The non-English summary on the rudder means that this might be the aircraft painted as the Romanian machine… Flags of the world gives
this page on the history of Romanian markings. Does anyone know what tail markings Romanian aircraft used inter-war?There’s a sample of what is classed as Romanian inter-war markings here .
I don’t think it’s a Siskin in Australia – I suspect the photo got muddled into a collection in error.
Much more interesting!
In Oliver Tapper’s Putnam AW history there is a photo (p128) of the Roumanian Siskin V – almost identical in aspect to that found by JDK ( I think its No 2 by looking under the tailplane). The Putnam picture does ,additionally, reveal the underwing roundel, which I notice is similar in appearance to that in the head-on view. In the absence of any other information, it does appear that the mystery aircraft is,in fact, probably a Roumanian Siskin V, of which about a dozen were completed end 1924 to beginning 1925 before later cancellation in early 1925 after about 34 total had been built.
Roumanian colours on this particular aircraft were probably , fin flash:from front- Blue, Yellow, Red: Roundel , from Centre- Blue , Yellow, Red (From a contemporary colour plate in the pre WWII “War in the Air” volumes -Ed.Sir John Hammerton,as well as many subsequent artists interpretations)
I think that the yellow and red sectors of the roundel are probably almost undifferentiated in grey level in the images posted,thus causing the confusion. However, in the “Putnam” shot, on the fin flash at least, one can comfortably discern all three bands, including the additional pale toned (blue?) band forward of the two that are visible in the “JDK” shot.
Turning back a page to p127 in Tapper’s book there is a shot of the Siskin V G-EBLQ in front of what looks like the same hangars as in the head-on shot. The location of these is “Whitley Abbey Aerodrome”.
So in summary:
The mystery aircraft is almost certainly an Armstrong Whitworth Siskin V, possibly No 4, of the cancelled Roumanian order and was photographed at the Manufacturer’s Whitley Abbey aerodrome (just south of Coventry U.K. ) in around the winter of 1924/1925.
Enclosed is the shot (author of image unknown) from page 128 of Tapper’s Putnam AW Book. N.B. all 3 bands of the fin flash are clearly visible in the original book illustration.
Thanks Dave,can’t believe I didn’t twig it myself :rolleyes: The thick plottens as they say,just about everything is wrong for a Gamecock so far as I can tell. The wing struts,rigging,undercart and engine are all completely different to all the Gamecock references I can find. I was recently sent a complete set of cutaway plans and rigging diagrams etc for the Gamecock by a friend who’s doing some in-depth research into the type,and nothing fits when I compare all this info to the photo.
The alternatives that spring to mind are the Gloster Mars,Nieuport Nightjar and Nieuport Nighthawk. The Mars/Nightjar seems to fit the bill the best in structural terms,complete with the wide-track,long stroke undercarriage legs. The problem is that I can’t find reference to any Mars’ or Nightjars being fitted with anything but a rotary engine.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Looking at that undercarriage, Double row radial, relative wing spans and the struttery ;I wonder if we are looking at a member of the first generation AW Siskin family , possibly a Siskin V ,or therebouts,variant?
SASOL Tigers fly three L-29’s.One was lost last year.
I On what planet does a Western journalist know more about the history and impetus behind a MiG design than the former head of the OKB?
I have no grounds to disagree at all with your assessment regarding Mig 25/B-70. Furthermore, I confess to having a very low regard for many over opinioned, poorly informed and under qualified avaition journalists, many of whom have had no practical experience of the industry that they deliberate upon.
All this being said, I do also treat statements from design bureaux (not only Russian) with a degree of caution. There is sometimes, inevitably, a reinterpretation of events, even “sour grapes”, evident in those who speak out publically. I suggest one often has to look behind what is openly stated in order to tease out what may be the truth.
I heard that during cold war, SR-71s regularly overflew USSR.
I would check your sources.
Single engined loops and wing-overs 😮
I think that was one more engine than he often used ;and kept a full glass of water on the coaming throughout the routine on occasion as an internal demonstration.
The SA aircraft was never in the sea.
Dave
Neither of them 🙂
.
The Douglas XB42 Mixmaster had two Allison V1710’s and according to some descriptions each engine drove a seperate propeller. Can anyone clarify the configeration.
According to Bill Gunston in AM of Sep 75 both engines fed into a common gearbox from which separate inner and outer shafts drove the propellers. Still a bit ambigious, although seemingly mitigating towards a common coupled drive system. Francillon,in the Putnam Douglas book, on the other hand, refers to the left powerplant driving the forward propeller and the right aft, which implies some form of decoupling having to be available in the case of a lost or seized engine.
Aircraft of the Fighting Powers Vol VII adds no more to that of Bill Gunston.
Did you have any other sources Pogno?
Presenting only a comparison is easy………., so whats your conclusion?? What do YOU think?? :diablo:
Well in #432 I think the “L-29s ” are L-39s for a start.
Agree on the L-29s
[QUOTE=LesB]But in the end they made garage doors!
Funnily enough , so did Westlands for a time.
Sorry James, but it’s a bit gloomy in that hangar and I wasn’t aware the Supermarine 535 was there, neither the Ultra Light. Both departed in the mid 60s.
Never mind , I’m sure somebody will give you the serials one day
Hi Dave,
Sorry, only being pedantic to make a point as I knew you actually must have known the beast in question in order to have delivered the information so correctly.
Now -what happened to the 545 !!!
Thanks Albert,
Glad you nailed the photog, but the rest’s a poor effort… 😀 (But you did better than me.) If Ken’s not happy, I’ll take the pic down, but I coulsdn’t resist.It’s not the Saro SRA-1, but is the 535 (Thanks David). It’s not the Jet Gyrodyne, and I’d presume Roger’s right on that being the Fairey ultra light.
I’m not sure what Phantom’s referring to?
Cheers
The 535 was an early Swift variant. What was at Cranfield , and is in the picture, was the Supermarine 545, a supersonic development and a very different aeroplane. In addition to the Ultra Light there were also a lot of bits of the Rotodyne in the late 60’s. ( the Saro Jet Boat was of course long located at Staverton by this time -minus its Beryls)
The enclosed was taken around ’69 and slightly displaced from the other shot, but including the BP’s fin (that’s me in the middle:)).