The Breguet LE - the Laboratorie Eiffel Monoplane

  Alexandre Gustave Boenickhausen-Eiffel (1832-1923) is commonly known, if at all, as the creator of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, that was built as a temporary exhibit for the Paris Exposition of 1889. Although steel was displacing iron, Eiffel always worked in iron and so the tower was constructed in iron. After his retirement due to his being involved in the Panama Canal scandal of 1888 he became interested in meteorology and aerodynamics.
  He examined the effect of air resistance on various shapes and began by dropping them of the Eiffel Tower with a measuring apparatus attached. He built his laboratory at the foot of the Tower in 1905 and his first wind tunnel there in 1909. Moving to new premises in 1912 he built a larger wind tunnel. He was awarded the Samuel P Langley Medal for Aerodynamics by the US Smithsonian Institute in 1913. His book Resistance de l’Air is a classic and established his reputation as an important contributor to the science of aerodynamics.
  After the outbreak of the war Eiffel closed his Laboratory but the Government asked him to reopen it. French manufacturers submitted models of their aircraft for testing, the results being held in secret until after the war when they were published en block as Resume des principaux travaux executes durant la guerre au laboratoire aerodynamique Eiffel entre 1915 et 1918.
  It is thought that the design of the Eiffel aeroplane began in the second half of 1916. Models were constructed to test various forms of the fuselage in the wind tunnel. Wing behaviour at different flight regimes, aileron efficiency and stability were measured.
  French patent No.503,363 for an avion de chasse a grande vitesse (high speed fighter) was applied for by M. Gustave Eiffel, a resident of France (Seine) on 16 March 1917, and published on 9 June 1920. According to Devaux there were still problems with the many different novel features of the Eiffel monoplane that still had to be worked out when Eiffel submitted his patent. The patent is worth quoting in full:

  The present invention relates to an airplane specially designed for the purpose of fulfilling the role of a fighter aircraft; it is established on the following principle:
  The resistance of well streamlined bodies is almost entirely due to the friction of the air, that is to say, which is very feeble. However, all the parts of an aircraft can be streamlined, even the wings, especially for these, if one chooses the weight of the aircraft, the power of the motor and the bearing surface, so as to fly at a very low range.
  It is also possible to use with relatively thick wings and to insert spars sufficiently solid to remove any bracing which is such a great cause of resistance.
  To this end, instead of a biplane cell, one would adopt a monoplane wing, the use of which eliminates all the bracing and allows a greater lift for the same resistance.
  There is reason to believe that an aircraft constructed as stated, would achieve speeds superior to those which the present fighter aircraft have reached.
  All these arrangements are represented in the accompanying drawing, of which Figs. 1, 2 and 3, are respectively a plan, an elevation and a side view of the aeroplane reduced to a scale of 1/50; in Fig. 4 is a larger scale view of a section of one of the wings.
  The aircraft comprises a fuselage a having a rectangular cross-section and a length of about 6 m and a 0.8 m2 torque surface which, according to tests carried out at the Laboratory, have the minimum of resistance. The fuselage a has a 220-hp engine b in front, operating a propeller c rotating at about 2000 rpm, specially adapted according to the tests, in order to achieve at least 76% of the maximum thrust.
  The radiator d is composed of several vertical fins through which the water flows. It is placed below the fuselage at the right of the engine and is in contact with the current of air to which it presents only a very low resistance.
  The pilot is installed behind the engine and protected by coamings that eliminate almost completely the resistance of his head to the air.
  The elevators and rudder g-g are placed at the end of the fuselage. Their control mechanisms are contained inside the fuselage and are not subjected to the resistance of the air.
  The machine gun is contained inside the fuselage and fires through the propeller.
  The wing, which consists of two symmetrical parts h-h, has together a wingspan of less than 10 m. They are connected directly to the frames that ensure the rigidity of the fuselage. Each of these wings forms a trapezoidal surface of about 10 m with a maximum chord of 2.50 m and a minimum width of 2 m. It is built around two box-shaped spare i, i1, made of duralumin (resistant and extremely light) sheets. The spars have been calculated with a coefficient of safety of 6 calculated on the greatest stresses that the aeroplane can undergo in flight. These two longitudinal members bear the wooden ribs and covered with linen having the profile j, that according to the Laboratory tests, is the most favorable for flight.
  The ailerons are carried at the extremities of the wings in order to ensure the transverse stability.
  In order to reduce the overhang of the side members, two small struts k of streamlined steel tubes are assembled, which also have the effect of better connecting the wing with the fuselage, and whose air resistance is practically negligible.
  The wings are placed at the bottom of the fuselage which makes it possible to give good visibility. This new arrangement for a monoplane is a characteristic of the design.
  Thanks to the construction of the wing and the use of duralumin, the weight of the aircraft for flight does not exceed 700 kg, which is a normal weight for aircraft of this type.
  The landing gear is formed by an axle carrying two wheels with elastic shock absorption and with the two frames attached to the fuselage.
  What constitutes the invention is not such and such a detail, of which analogies would be found in existing aircraft, but in the assembly of the aircraft which presents a new arrangement of attachments with respect to the fuselage and in which air resistance has been reduced to an extent which has not yet been realized, while at the same time employing a relatively large bearing surface, which makes it possible to achieve a high ceiling and low landing speed, while at the same time achieving speeds that are exceptional.

  What was remarkable was that the drawings accompanying the patent were for a low-wing monoplane that would have not looked out of place at any 1920 air racing circuit. The patent then described the methods that would be adopted to overcome drag. The motor was stated to be a 220-hp type mounted in the front of the fuselage. Although the type is not stated it is certain that it was meant to be the 220-hp Hispano-Suiza.
  Although the patent bears only Eiffel's name, it is considered that Wladimir Margoulis, then head of the Eiffel laboratory, would have contributed to the design, as well as another Russian, Nicolai Zhukovsky.
  The wings were semi-cantilevered. Struts ran from the upper longerons to the first compression member of the wing. Conventionally constructed around two parallel spars, the wings had tapered leading and trailing edges. The patent claimed that the design allowed the use of thick spars made up from duralumin. It was natural for Eiffel to consider metal construction for his aircraft. The factory of safety was stated to be 6. While claiming that the design allowed for thick wing sections the aerofoil section illustrated in the patent drawings was a thin high-speed section with sharp leading and trailing edges, convex undersurface and its maximum camber at about 40% of the chord.
  The tail surfaces included a balanced rudder but without a fin or fixed tailplane. The new type of radiator, named a lames profondes, was placed under the fuselage between the undercarriage legs.
  The wings proved to only have a safety factor of 3. Although the patent had mentioned a factor of 6, the S.T.Ae had adopted 6.5 as the minimum factor for fighters. This led to the wing being redesigned to a factor of 7.5.
  The design was presented to Painleve, the Minister of War, on 11 July 1917, and permission to build the machine was granted. Eiffel realised that he did not have the facilities for building an aircraft and asked the Minister to select a manufacturer to build the machine as I do not intend, however, according to the traditions of my laboratory, to derive any personal pecuniary profit from the acceptance of this offer. The construction was given to the Breguet company and was known as the Breguet LE in official files (LE for Laboratorie Eiffel}. The machine that emerged would have been a collaboration between the engineers at the Breguet company under engineer Vullierme, and those from the Laboratorie Eiffel.
  The machine was to be delivered by 10 January 1918, with a 220-hp Hispano-Suiza engine for a cost of 20,000 F. Eiffel had chosen, after numerous wind tunnel tests, a wing section that had a biconvex profile with a pointed leading edge.
  The airscrew was considered part of the total design in the patent and was designed by the Laboratorie Eiffel. It was manufactured by the Ratmanoff firm. Eiffel ordered three sets of wings from the Societe de Constructions de Levallois which firm manufactured the duralumin spars. Problems were experienced with the large sheets and strips of duralimin that twisted during transportation and storage. The machine's construction was delayed due to the shortage of duralumin and it was not possible to fly the machine in December as proposed.
  The monoplane that emerged was very similar to the patent drawings. A direct-drive 180-hp Hispano-Suiza was installed behind a neat spinner, rather than the geared 220-hp version specified in the patent. The undercarriage followed Sopwith design with a half-axle for each wheel that was pivoted at the centre between two spreader bars and rubber shock cord at the simple v-struts. The ailerons were operated by a tube. The hinge of the aileron consisted of a tube extended into the cockpit that was turned in order to move the aileron.
  Under the heading "BREGUET" the following report was made by the RFC liaison officer Maj J.P.C. Sewell: -

  The interesting EIFFEL machine built by this house was most disappointing in its tests, the wing supports breaking at 3. The output of Breguets owing to the change from Renault to Fiats is also unsatisfactory. One 400 hp Lorraine has been tried in a Breguet AV.

  Presumably the "wing supports" refers to the struts connecting the wing to the fuselage. The wings were reinforced and Sewell reported in February that the novel EIFFEL machine which has broken at 3 during its first sand tests has now been reinforced and broken at 7.5 when tested recently. This machine has not yet flown.
  The Breguet-Eiffel monoplane was delivered to Villacoublay in March 1918. The machine had a fixed tailplane with plain elevators and rudder. As described in the patent, the operation of these surfaces was concealed inside the machine. Breguet's test pilot Andre de Bailliencourt was tied up with testing the Breguet 14 with the 420-hp Renault engine and a Spad pilot who was convalescing from an illness, Jean Saucliere, agreed to fly the LE monoplane.
  Breguet naturally turned to one of his in-house pilots, Andre de Bailliencourt, who initially was involved in setting out the lay-out of the cockpit of the LE with Margoulis and the mechanic Louis Ramondou. When Breguet asked Bailliencourt to make the first flights, Bailliencourt, who was accustomed to heavier planes such as the Breguet XIV, asked to spend some time in a fighter school to familiarize with single-seaters of the Spad or Nieuport type. Bailliencourt was also tied up with testing the Breguet 14 with the 420-hp Renault engine and Breguet turned to other pilots. 27 years old fighter pilot Jean Saucliere, the son of the lyric artist Anne-Marie Saucliere, was recovering from wounds and had been working in the Breguet office as an archivist while recuperating, as was the practice at this period.
  Saucliere had been assigned in November 1916 to the Escadrille N79 on Nieuports, where he had won two aerial victories on June 3 and 22 July 1917. The Escadrille reequipped with the Spad VII, then the Spad XIII, becoming Spa 79. Appointed sous-lieutenant on 14 September 14, he was shot down on 11 November and hospitalized with serious injuries. The opportunity to fly was too good to resist and Saucliere accepted the position at a lower salary than the other Breguet in-house pilots. The agreement was simple with a bonus at the end of the first flight.
  After fine tuning the engine, the pilot took a seat for a test during the first half of March 1918, which ended quickly. Saucliere had applied full throttle causing the aircraft to take off without achieving flying speed, and it broke the landing gear when it hit the ground.
  The plane was repaired and a new test organized in Villacoublay on 27 March. While Ramondou was busy preparing the plane and checking its engine, Saucliere had casually arrived. The young man already announced that on the occasion of his first flight, he intended to visit his Escadrille. Breguet had again asked Bailliencourt to make the first flight, but Bailliencourt repeated his request for additional training. Breguet, probably under time constraints, decided to entrust the prototype again to the young sous-lieutenant.
  Sewell's final report on the monoplane stated that the machine, after two or three flights, was crashed and the pilot killed.
  On 28 March 1918, the machine had been again ready for testing. After a run past the equipment set up to record its speed, it climbed to about 150 feet and then dived into the ground with the motor full out. It burst into flames killing Saucliere.
  What caused the crash was not determined as there was not much left after the fire was extinguished. It may have been the problem with the pilot who could have been in an unfit condition to fly following his illness. What was remarkable was that on this single run the LE showed a higher speed than that estimated for the new Spad with the 300-hp Hispano-Suiza!
  An airframe to suit the 300-hp Hispano-Suiza was already in construction in January 1918. A French report for April showed three Eiffel Mono(planes), powered by a 300-hp Hispano, 220-Lorraine and 180M-hp Hispano respectively. The wing area for all three was shown as 20 m2. It appears that the loss of the first machine led to the work being stopped on further examples of the monoplane. According to P Ricco, Breguet had limited confidence in the design and blamed it for the accident. J.M. Bruce notes that Margoulis blamed himself for Saucliere death.
  Other proposals were a 220-hp Lorraine-Dietrich powered version of the LE. A report of May 1918 stated that this version was a biplane. This would seem to be against everything that Eiffel had stated in his patent application. A meeting took place towards the end of July between Eiffel, Louis Breguet and Captaine Albert Eteve (the Chef du Service general des avions of the S.T.Ae), at which they were told by Eteve that work was to continue. Breguet agreed on condition that the aircraft was a biplane. This would seem to confirm Breguet's limited confidence in the monoplane design. With all his own development work Breguet did not have the resources available to devote to this project and in the event the biplane never eventuated, a STAe test report of 29 November 1918, noted that the Breguet LE had been abandoned.
  Eiffel did not consider his monoplane a failure. In a 1919 publication he stated that the LE had been copied by Junkers, not appreciating the work done by Junkers in determining his aerofoil. In 1920, Eiffel made similar claims that the Junkers-Fokker wing was taken from his LE machine. Eiffel died on 27 December 1923. Although he made a great contribution to aeronautics, he never seemed to accept the loss of the LE monoplane.


Breguet LE Specifications
Source 1 2 3
Dimensions in m
   Span 9.78 9.78 9.78
   Length 6.35 6.35 6.35
   Height - 2.0 2.00
Areas in m2
   Wings 20 20 20
   Ailerons - - 2.09
   Horizontal Tailplane - - 0.84
   Rudder - - 1.18
   Fin - - 0.15
   Rudder - - 0.64
Weights in kg
   Empty 495 495 495
   Pilot - - 80
   Fuel - - 80
   Military load - - 40
   Accessories - - 5
Total 700 700 700
Performance in km/h
   at 2,000 m - - 270
   at 4,000 m - 220 269
   at ceiling - - 204
Climb to
   4,000 m - 10 min -
Endurance in hrs - 8 -
1) J Devaux Data.
2) J. M. Bruce Data.
3) P Ricco. "De l'Avion Eiffel au Leo 9." Avion, France, No. 232, 2019.

  
Construction of the LE at Breguet
Date Hispano-Suiza 220-hp Lorraine-Dietrich 8 Bd 275-hp Hispano-Suiza 8Fb 300-hp Source
09.11.1917 Being assembled. Expected to be ready 10 December Design only Design study requested by Eiffel. 1
18.12.1917 Assembling, will be ready December. Design only Design study requested by Eiffel. 1
12.1917 200-hp Hispano- Suiza being fitted. In construction. - 2
29.12.1917 In assembly, will be ready by 15 January 1918. - In construction. 1
02 1918 - - In construction. 3
01.05.1918. Crashed. (Engine identified as 180 Hispano). Work suspended. (Identified as biplane with 220 Lorraine) Work suspended. 4
Sources:
1) Monthly Reports on new aircraft.
2) Situation at Breguet Company workshops.
3) Reports on situation with regard to utilisation of new motors.
4) "Department of Aircraft Production, British Ministry of Munitions of War, Paris, Monthly Aeroplane Report. May 1st 1918. French Experimental Aeroplanes, Scouts and Fighters." Chart from TNA AIR1/1071/204/5/1639. RAF Museum, J.M. Bruce Collection Box 15.

The Courtois-Suffit Lescop
  
  The Courtois-Suffit Lescop scout was an experimental aircraft that was designed by Roger Courtois-Suffit and Capitaine Lescop to meet the French C1 specification (Fighter single seat). Construction was undertaken by the S.A.I.B. (Societe Anonyme d’Applications Industrielles du Bois) of 49 Rue St, Blaise, Paris. The most innovative feature of the machine was that the aircraft featured leading edge flaps, this being one of the first, if not the first time these had been fitted to an aeroplane.
  The British Aviation Commission sent preliminary details of the experimental machine to RFC HQ on 10 October 1917. The machine had variable incidence for the leading edge of the bottom planes and the leading edge of the tailplane. Ailerons are being fitted to the bottom plane only, and the portion of the leading edge which is variable is the same length as the ailerons, viz:- 1 m. 300.
  The French Section Technique are very interested in this experiment, which is intended to give a large range of speed near the ground. They estimate that the lowest speed will be about 87 k.p.h.
  The variable leading edges are arranged so that they can be set in any desired position from the pilot’s seat.
  The construction of this machine has only just been started ... The engine will be a 200 h.p. Clerget if one is available, otherwise a Monosoupape Gnome will be tried.

  Construction began in October 1917, the US Army reporting on 23 October that the GNOME MONOSOUPAPE is also being installed in a Courtais-Suffit-Loscop. The British report on French Experimental Aeroplanes for November 1917, recorded that a 165-hp Monosoupape CSL was under construction and that a 250 Clerget biplane was being studied. Both had "Variable wing incidence for leading edges of bottom and tailplanes." Construction took a long time. A report in January 1918 stated that the machine was almost finished and was expected to be ready by the middle of the month with a Gn 9NC (160) engine. Testing was being undertaken by 1 May 1918, with a 140-hp Clerget 9Bf installed as the proposed Gnome Monosoupape 9Nc was not available. No trial results are known. The machine was not selected for series manufacture.
  A conventional constructed biplane of wooden girder with fabric covering, the C.S.L. 1 emerged as a neat single bay biplane featuring "I" style interplane struts. A report by the British Maj J.C.P. Sewell on 24 April 1918, referred to the struts adopted for the COURTOIS-SUFFIT experimental machine (in designing which M. Bechereau is supposed to have helped) have adopted a single interplane strut similar to that of the German Roland 2-seater. This strut is bolted into the planes in the thickness of which socket, wire strainers and so on are completely concealed, greatly diminishing head resistance.

  The struts were faired out at the top and bottom to connect with the front and rear spars. Similar struts were mounted at the fuselage. They were similar to those of the Sopwith triplane as they ran inside the fuselage longerons. A small strut ran from the upper longeron to the upper wing front spar. There were no control surfaces on the upper wing. The ailerons on the lower wing were operated Nieuport fashion by torque tubes.
  The fuselage was faired out by formers and stringers from the circular cross section at the engine to an oval cross-section towards the tail. The machine resembled the Hollywood Nieuport 28 conversions with I-struts. It was proposed to use the Nieuport 28 fighter's engine, the 160-hp Gnome Monosoupape 9Nc nine-cylinder rotary. Its most revolutionary feature, as mentioned above, was the moveable flaps on the leading edge of the lower wing. These were hinged to the forward main wing spar and were 1.3 m long and 0.18 m wide. The leading edge of the tailplane was also hinged. These flaps were controlled from the cockpit. S.A.I.B had built the Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter under licence for the French Army and the undercarriage was a typical Sopwith type with each wheel on a half-axle pivoted at the centre of the spreader bars.
  The aircraft had been predicted to have speeds of 240 to 87 km/hr with the 200-hp Clerget. With the available engine it would not have achieved anything like these figures. No test details of the machine are known.
  It was proposed to improve the design and a new aircraft with equi-span wings with square tips was proposed. This was to have been powered by the 300-hp Clerget then under development. Until this engine became available a 150-hp Clerget would be fitted with a large cone de penetration for flight trials. It is not known if this model was constructed, but the proposed high powered Clerget engines were unsuccessful and not developed.

  

Courtois-Suffit Lescop Specifications
Source 1 2 3 3
Span, m 7.800 7.80 - -
Length, m 7.600 - - -
Height, m 2.700 2.70 - -
Chord, m 1.300 - - -
Gap, m 1.700 (approx) - - -
Empty Wt, kg 490 490 490 470
Load, kg 290 - - -
Military Load, kg - - 50 50
Total, kg 780 780 750 760
Wing Area, m2 19.000 19 19 19
Speed at 4,000 m - - 210 kph 220 kph
Climb to 4,000 m - - 14 min 16 min
Endurance in hrs - - 2.5 2.5
Engine - 200-hp Clerget 11E 200 Clerget 130 Clerget
1) Details with letter of British Aviation Commission, Paris, to HQ RFC and GHQ, 10.10.1917. TNA AIR 1/2391/228/11/140.
2) J.M. Bruce data.
3) Estimated performance. "Department of Aircraft Production, British Ministry of Munitions of War, Paris, Monthly Aeroplane Report. May 1st 1918. French Experimental Aeroplanes, Scouts and Fighters." Chart from TNA AIR1/1071/204/5/1639. RAF Museum, J.M. Bruce Collection Box 15.

The de Marcay C.1

  Edmund de Marcay was involved in aviation before the Great War. The de Marcay Moonen monoplane with folding wings was displayed at the January 1912 Paris Aero Show, and later appeared as a "waterplane" at a Monaco meeting. These aircraft were paid for by de Marcay, however, there is no evidence that he had a part in their designs.
  The Construction Aeronautique Edmond de Marcay company was founded in 1917 with headquarters at 100 Avenue de Suffren, Paris, by Comte de Marcay and his brother-in-law, Pierre Verrier, formerly a well-known pilot at Hendon. As the firm grew a branch was established at Bordeaux. The firm specialised in fighter machines turning out about 2,000 Spad fighters during the war. M. De Marcay's understanding of mass production saw the Paris works produce 1,400 Spad 7.C.1 fighters in a year. The Bordeaux works were close behind produced 400 Spad fighters although it was later in starting production.
  De Marcay wanted to produce a scout of his own and a report of 7 September 1918, noted that the author of this project having been requested to complete and modify his plans, presents a C.1 Type with 8.Pb 300 H.P. Hispano Engine instead of a Liberty. De Marcay was not an aircraft designer and it is thought that the design was undertaken by the engineer Botali. What type of Liberty was proposed for the machine is not known. J. M. Bruce suggested that the eight-cylinder L-8 was most likely the proposed power-plant. The L-8 however, proved unsuccessful and was abandoned after only eight had been completed.

  The report continued to give details of the proposed aircraft:
  Description: Pursuit bi-plane, single-seater with staggered cellule (520 m/m towards the front for the upper plane). Twin machine guns firing through the propeller.
  Fore part of fuselage is steel tube, rear part of wood. Hispano 300 H.P. engine mounted on aluminium cradle. Radiator in the wing.
  Landing gear with rubber cords in the fuselage type G.L.
  Characteristics: Total surface 28 square meters. Total anticipated weight, 1050 kgs. Load per square meter, 57 kg. 5.
  Construction: The calculations presented show that the airplane would be likely to show a coefficient of 15 in the static tests.
  The de Karcay (sic) airplane is similar to the Spad 17. Its performances should be of the same order. This machine is accepted by the S.T.A. but under the strict reserve that it will be constructed by the de Marcay firm, with the means at its disposal.

  This last sentence meant that the machine was to be built by de Marcay as a private venture. Apparently the first design for the Liberty motor was designated the de Marcay 1 and the revised design de Marcay 2.
  M de Marcay "designed and constructed" a scout machine just before the end of the war and the first tests of this were taking place when the Armistice was signed according to an article in La Vie Aerienne. However, a STAe test report of 29 November 1918, states that the de Marcay C1 HS 8Fb 300-hp scout's fuselage was completed but the wings were still under construction. At the end of November the engine had just been delivered and the fuselage assembled with its forward panels applied. The wings were still under construction. J.M. Bruce states that the machine was not completed until 1919.
  The machine that emerged post-Armistice was similar in appearance to a Spad in the fuselage. The wings were of unequal span with the lower wing appreciably shorter than the upper wing. The overhang was braced by oblique struts that were fixed to the lower ends of the normal interplane struts that provided a single-bay of normal bracing. Unusually shaped horn balanced ailerons were fitted to the upper wing only. A large cut-out was provided in the trailing edge of the upper wing to improve the pilot's upward view, and the lower wing roots were also provided with cut-outs to improve downward vision. The tailplane was mounted on the top longerons and the elevators were of a semi-elliptical shape. A triangular fin preceded a rounded rudder.
  The engine was more closely cowled than on Spad machines, with the camshaft covers fully covered by fairings, and with liberal louvers to assist cooling. The radiator was not an aerofoil type in the upper wing but a conventional car type mounted in a circular cowl in front of the engine behind the airscrew. As with contemporary Spads a jettisonable fuel tank was mounted between the undercarriage struts where it conformed to the fuselage contours. Twin synchronised Vickers guns were the armament.
  The fuselage showed some resemblance to a Spad and the myth arose that the machine used Spad components. It may have used some Spad construction techniques but owed no major component to any Spad type.
  According to La Vie Aerienne the performance of the machine was such that no previous service machine had attained such speeds carrying armament and instruments. It was tested by Lt Lebeau in the C1 or single-seat fighter category of the 1919 Service Aeronautique competition held at Villacoublay and its speed made it one of the fastest fighters of its time. It was stated to have a factor of safety of 14. Its rate of climb was inferior to that of the Nieuport 29 C.1, and this machine was selected as the post-war standard fighter adopted by the French. What is not known is why nothing was done with this incredible machine, the de Marcay would have been an ideal record breaking or racing aircraft. The aircraft was advertised for sale by SAAECA de Marcay through most of the 1920s, its ultimate fate is unrecorded.
  The de Marcay 3 was to have been another single-seat fighter powered by a 300-hp Hispano-Suiza engine but with an all-metal monocoque fuselage. It was never built.
  Reporting on the 1919 Paris Aero Show Flight noted that de Marcay, this well-known French constructor is exhibiting a standard Spad, built under licence, a machine which is so well known as to need no reference here beyond the statement of its presence on the stand. The other aircraft displayed was the light sports-plane the passe-partout.
  De Marcay went on to build low-powered sporting aircraft for a market that did not arise until too late for the firm.


de Marcay C.1 Fighter Specifications
Source 1 2 3
Span upper, m 9.250 9.250 9.25
Span lower, m 5.750 5.750 -
Length, m 6.620 6.620 6.50
Wing Area, m2 25 25 -
Load in kg - 339 339
Speed in km/h
   at ground level 252 252 -
   at 3000 m 232 232 237
   at 5000 m 218 218 220
   at 6000 m 208 208 208
Climb to 5,000 m - 16 min 16 sec -
Engine 300 H.P. 300-hp Hispano-Suiza 8Fb 300-hp Hispano-Suiza
Sources:
1) "The Marcay Machines", translation of article in La Vie Aerienne, No.163, 25.12.1919. TNA AIR1/2114/207/54/6.
2) British translation of French report on "The Marcay Machines." Stamped: 20 Jan 1910. Copy in TNA AIR1/2114/207/54/6. Bruce, J.M. repeats these specifications in Warplanes of the First World War - Fighters, Vol.4. Macdonald &. Co, UK, 1972. P.82.
3) Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1919.

The Morane-Saulnier Al

  In May 1917 the OC of 4th Brigade wrote about a new French Morane, sending silhouettes of the machine to RFC, HQ. The machine had "No bracing wires, but streamline girder tubing. The fuselage tapers to an absolute point at the stern. Estimated speed - 122 mph ground level, and 127 mph at 10,000'." The AI was a remarkable aircraft for its day, not that it was a monoplane in a world of biplanes and triplanes, but for its performance. Morane-Saulnier had built monoplanes before, the first fighter aircraft being a conversion of the Type L monoplane with a machine gun firing through the airscrew that was fitted with deflection wedges. (It was to take Anthony Fokker to merge the interrupter gear with the airframe to build the first true fighter aircraft).
  In 1916 Morane-Saulnier converted their Type P two-seat parasol monoplane to a single-seat fighter. The first type conversion left the pilot in his normal position under the wing. The lack of the observer's weight in the rear cockpit made the machine tricky to land. The later conversion shown here had the pilot's cockpit moved aft, the wing lowered and twin synchronised Vickers guns installed with 750 rounds each. The guns were slightly staggered to allow for the feed arrangement and ammunition stowage. The machine's performance was not good enough for production, especially as the Nieuport fighters were in production with the Spad 7 in the immediate future. It was abandoned in December 1916.
  The Morane-Saulnier Al was designed around the 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N engine like its contemporary, the Morane-Saulnier AF biplane. The fuselages of the two types resembled each other but they were dimensionally different and the Al was not merely a monoplane version of the AF.
  The fuselage, forward of the cockpit, was constructed of perforated metal angle with steel tubing spacer and bracing. A neat cowl with seven ventilation holes, and metal side panels carried the circular cross-section back to the cockpit. Aft the structure was of spruce with piano-wire cross bracing. Wooden formers and stringers gave it a near circular cross-section that tapered to a point. The fuel capacity was the same as that of the AF, three tanks of 66, 47 and 30 litres. Oil was carried in two tanks of 8 and 12 litres. A standard undercarriage was fitted with as central "V" when viewed from the front. The fulcrum of the two half-axles of the undercarriage were braced by struts to the upper ends of the forward legs of the vee undercarriage struts in typical Morane-Saulnier fashion. 650 x 80 tyres were fitted.
  The tail unit featured a horn balanced rudder with fin. The tailplane and elevators were similar to those of the AF but of different proportions.
  The one-piece wing was swept back to an angle of 5 1/2 deg and had raked tips. The wing was of conventional wooden construction with wood spars, ribs, compression members and doped fabric covering. There was a compression strut on the centreline and four in each half wing. The balanced ailerons were attached to an auxiliary spar a short distance behind the rear spar. The ailerons were controlled by torque tubes, somewhat similar to those used by Nieuport. No cabane was fitted to brace the wing from above. The bracing consisted of steel tubes underneath from a point on the outermost compression member, giving about one third of the wing as overhang, to the bottom of the fuselage. An intermediate Warren truss of struts took the loads. The midpoint of the lift struts was connected by a compression strut that was stayed to the wings. Further struts from the upper longerons terminated at the same point on the wing. There was a large semi-circular cut-out in the trailing edge at the cockpit. The tail presented a very small blind area, the control also being by torque tubes fitted with ball bearings. The pilot had excellent visibility.
  A tail skid with a spiral spring was placed inside the rudder post. A single strut each side braced the tailplane. A British report noted that there was an excellent hand grip fitted to the joy stick that might be of interest for adoption for other machines.
  The machine gave a factor of safety of 8.5 under sand load testing.
  Pilot Eugene Gilbert tested the Al for the S.T.Ae on 7, 8 and 9 August 1917, at Villacoublay, where it recorded an excellent performance. 3,000 metres was reached in 7 min 45 sec and the speed at this altitude was 215 km/hr. On the 9th further trials by Gilbert, this time with a Levasseur airscrew, gave better figures with a speed of 216 km/hr at 3,000 metres, that altitude being reached in 7 min 25 sec.
  A US Army report of the trials gave the following results:
   Morane Parasol, 170 H.P. Monosoupape (Monoplane).
   Total weight of machine... 1,420 lbs
   Speed at 6,500 ft... 136 mph
   Speed at 10,000 ft... 133 mph
   Speed at 15,000 ft... 127.5 mph
   Climb to 6.500 ft... 4 min 20 sec
   Climb to 10,000 ft... 7 min 40 sec
   Climb to 15,000 ft... 13 min 40 sec
   Ceiling 23,000 ft

  The above tests were carried out with one gun. For these tests the Al had a dummy machine gun fitted with ballast to make up the weight. The machine could be fitted with one synchronised machine gun and 500 rounds of ammunition, or two guns and 800 rounds. The S.F.A. gave the designations MoS.27.C1 to the single-gun version and MoS.29.C1 to the two-gun model.
  Pilots found the machine responsive. Lt Rene Labouchere who performed handling testing on 11 September being enthusiastic at its performance. The machine was extremely manoeuvrable and responsive. It had very good stability but the takeoff run was somewhat long. The pilot's position was stated to be good. Visibility was excellent unequalled by any contemporary fighter. There was some play in the lateral controls and some small oil leaks. On the 13th it was tested at 5,000 metres by Labouchere, the aircraft retaining its manoeuvrability well at this altitude.
  A two-gun Al was tested by Gilbert on 8 September. In addition to the extra gun this version had slightly enlarged tail surfaces. The load was 260 kg. The machines climbing performance suffered but the aircraft's overall performance and manoeuvrability were preserved. The pilot expressing the same views as for the single-gun machine.
  The US Army's "Review of French Airplanes" of 23 October 1917, reported that the Spad Monocoque, Morane Biplane and Morane Monoplane, all of which are equipped with the Gnome 150 H.P. Monosoupape engine, have finished their tests.
  The same report then recorded that the Morane Monoplane was tested a long time ago, but another test was made on September 8, 1917. This test was made with both single and double machine guns. The results were perfectly satisfactory. A test at high altitude has been made to verify the running of the engine at high altitudes, and also to experiment with an oxygen apparatus. In this test the airplane was actually flown at an altitude of 26,500 feet. In the test for altitude the Morane machine climbed to 2,000 metres in 5 minutes 5 seconds; 3,000 metres in 8’ 40” and 5,000 metres in 19 minutes. The speed at 2,000 metres was 135 M.P.H.; at 3,000 metres 133 1/2 M.P.H. and at 5,000 metres 124 M.P.H.
  Under the heading Morane Monoplane Superior the report concluded that beyond a doubt the Morane Monoplane is the superior airplane with the Gnome Monosoupape 150 H.P. Engine. Furthermore, the factor of safety of this airplane is 8 1/2, which is considerably better than other airplanes of this type. Its stability is superior and its visibility is wonderfully excellent.
  The British agreed that the (v)isibility from the pilot’s seat is excellent for both downwards and forwards, as the pilot’s eyes are only two or three inches below the level of the plane.

  In August RFC HQ had again been notified of the Al, this time by the RFC's representative on the British Aviation Commission in Paris. The excellent performance figures were recorded in the report but nowhere did it mention that the machine was a single-seat fighter. Maj General Hugh Trenchard made a note on the file that he did not want it. The French were more open to the monoplane. As recorded in the Chapter 8 on the Spad 15, the Al, Spad 15, Nieuport 28 and the Morane-Saulnier AF were in direct competition. All were powered by the 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape. The Al had the best performance of all and given the troubles that the French were having at this time with the geared Hispano-Suiza engines in the Spad 13.C 1, it is no surprise that the Al was ordered in quantity.
  Reportedly between 1,100 to 1,300 Al monoplanes were constructed, the actual figure is unknown. Escadrilles N.156, N.158 and N.161 were formed in January 1918, and on being re-equipped with the Al changed their "N" for "MS" in their designations. The combat career of the Al was brief, the type being withdrawn by mid-May. The actual reason for this is not known. Some sources quote problems with the temperamental 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape engine. Others that the machine was structurally weak. Both reasons could be true.
  Escadrille MSP.158 re-equipped fully with the Al on 4 March. The American Rufus Rand was serving in the unit and concluded that the nimble fighter would, with a few alterations, be one of the best fighters on the Western Front. MS.156 was the only Escadrille to be completely equipped with the Al, which, according to the memoirs of the American Sgt Walter J Schafer, were all the MoS.27.C 1 version. Sous-Lieutenant Jean Toutary of MS.156 was killed on 26 February 1918, when his Al shed its wings while he was performing aerobatics over his aerodrome. Another American with the unit, Caporal Wallace C Winter, died during combat on 8 March when his wings folded up as he dived on a German two-seater. Five Moranes had left on a patrol from the escadrille’s aerodrome near Chalons-sur-Marne. Spotting two German two-seaters two Moranes dived to attack. The French pilot's guns jammed and he pulled up to clear them. He saw the wings of Winter's Morane fold up and the machine plunge into the German lines. Was he shot down by return fire from the German two-seater or did he suffer structural failure? Post-war it was learned that Ltn Julius Keller of Jasta 21s claimed to have shot down a Morane-Saulnier monoplane on this date but Winter's comrades did not see any enemy fighters when the wings collapsed. MPS.158 also lost a man when Cpl Emile Boucheron crashed while landing on 15 May.
  On 18 May MSP.156 received its first MoS.29. The twin-gun Morane-Saulnier was fated never to go into action as two days later Shaffer wrote - We are changing airplanes again, getting Spads this time... The Moranes, am sorry to say, have been given up, owing to their weak construction, which could not stand the strain ‘chasse’ work entails. I say sorry, because not only was it fast, but so small as one pilot said, it could be manoeuvred around a clothes pin, which is some quick turning you will admit, and what was more to the point, had the Boches scared with its enormous racket and quickness. But as they continue to break in the air, we are forbidden to fly them.

  The Morane-Saulnier monoplanes were withdrawn and replaced by Spad 7 fighters. While not as manoeuvrable, the little Spad could be dived without fear and could take a lot of punishment. The S.F.A. designations for the different versions of Morane-Saulnier Al were:
   MoS 27.C 1 (with one gun).
   MoS 29.C 1 (with two guns).
   MoS 30.E 1 (110-hp Le Rhone) unarmed.
   MoS 30bis.E 1 (de-rated 110-hp Le Rhone) unarmed.

  An Al was constructed that had the wing bracing extensively modified, while the MoS 30.E 1 version had auxiliary lift cables as standard. In June 1918, Maj J.P.C. Sewell, RAF liaison officer with the French, recorded that the machine had been abandoned on account of frequent accidents. USAS pilot Temple N Joyce recalled that the mistrust of the A.I. by certain pilots stemmed from the fact that the original A.I. had been equipped with the 160 h.p. Monosoupape engine, which had a reputation for catching fire. This was true, although the fault did not lie with the engine itself but with its misuse by inexperienced pilots. This was also true for the Monosoupape and Le Rhone-equipped NIEUPORTS.

  The 170-hp Le Rhone was installed in a MoS.27.C 1 airframe, possibly in an attempt to overcome the difficulties with the 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape. Unfortunately, the 170-hp Le Rhone had its own troubles.
  The Al was relegated to fighter training units as an advanced trainer. They were given 120-hp Le Rhone 9Jb or 135-hp Le Rhone 9Jby engines, had the armament removed and the wing bracing augmented by lift wires to the third compression strut of each wing.
  The Morane-Saulnier company must have considered the basic design worth pursuing as the British Aviation Commission reported on 12 September 1917, that the company have in construction another fuselage for this machine in built-up 6-ply, being built up with strips of poplar 10 cm wide by 1/2 mm thick. This is of circular section, and is only braced internally by four 3-ply spiders.
  Photographs show that at least one of this version of the Al was built. It had twin guns, with an enlarged fin and horn balanced elevators. Power was provided by a 150-hp Le Rhone 9R engine. In November 1917, the British reported a monoplane powered by the 165-hp Monosoupape was in construction. It had a "Built up coque & empennage, but ordinary wings as for Type Al." The next month's report recorded that two monocoque fuselage Al monoplanes were under construction. One was equipped with the Le Rhone 9R and the other with a 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape. Both were completed as well as an airframe for proof loading.
  In November 1917, Captain Alfred A Cunningham, USMC, was sent to Europe to undertake a quick inspection and report on aviation activities of the French and English and to return to the USA on 1 January 1918. He arrived in Paris on 15 November and visited training establishments, squadrons at the front, aircraft factories and Villacoublay.

  Villacoublay is a very large French flying station where nearly all their experiments and tests of new type machines are made. It also appears to be a reserve station for bombardment machines. There were about 60 night bombers staked out on the field in addition to those in the hangars. They have here some of practically every type of aeroplane used in France from the big four-motored Voisin triplane, which requires special railway tracks to handle it, down to the Curtiss J.N.4B. A new SPAD with 300 h.p. motor was tried out. During flight both wings left the fuselage completely. The machine was such a wreck that it was impossible to tell whether it was caused by overpower or fault in assembling the machine. The new Nieuport Monosoupape with two spars in the lower wing is a wonder for speed. It is said to make 140 actual miles per hour, and from watching it fly, I don’t doubt it. The new Breguet biplace machine is considered very fine by the French and is almost as fast as the SPAD at high altitudes. It uses the new Renault water-cooled motor and is armed with two synchronised Vickers machine guns and two Lewis guns on a double mount in the observer’s cockpit. The fastest thing I have seen is the new 13 metre Morane Parasol with 190 h.p. Le Rhone motor. The fuselage is round and streamlined to appoint in the rear of the rudder. It is so small it looks more like a paperweight than a flying machine and must make over 150 actual miles an hour. Its high landing speed requires expert piloting. There are numbers of new and interesting experimental machines here which have not been named. Lack of time prevented my studying these thoroughly.

  The identity of the little Morane "paperweight" that Cunningham was so taken with is not known. As noted above there were experimental versions of the A.I with the Rhone engine. A Morane-Saulnier C1 Rh 9R, type not identified, was at Villacoublay for tests on 9 November 1917. This may have been the type AL.
  The USAS ordered five MoS 30.E 1 trainers in June 1918. The first was delivered that same month. They were used exclusively at Issoudun Field 8, the last Field that aspiring fighter pilots were to attend before being sent to the Front. One MoS 30.E 1 was apparently lost soon after being delivered but the rest survived till the Armistice. They were apparently equipped with the Hythe camera gun. It appears that the Nieuport 24, 24bis and 27 sesquiplanes were preferred to the Morane-Saulnier monoplanes. Late in 1918 another 46 MoS 30.E 1 trainers were ordered as a stop-gap due to the lack of suitable Nieuports. These were delivered from 1 November, with 33 being received by the Armistice. The order was completed post-Armistice.
  Known serial numbers are: 3166, 3172, 3174, 3176-3178, 3180, 3735, 3736, 3738, 3740-3742, 3745, 3748, 3752, 3752, 3755, 3757, 3761, 3777-3779, 3781, 3784-3786, 3788, 3789, 3892, 3795-3799, 7081, 7082. At least some of the MoS 30.E 1 trainers appear to have been operated in the French five colour camouflage scheme with French national markings.
  Temple N Joyce thought that the Al was the sweetest airplane ever produced, and I have flown no airplane that was more suited to aerobatics than this trim little monoplane. Joyce was an instructor at Issoudun and recalled that in early April of 1918, the first of the MORANE A.I’s that had been purchased by the United States began to arrive at Issoudun. The first was flown by in by the French ace Capitaine JACQUES GERARD, and before landing, he put on one of the most smooth, low-altitude aerobatic performances I have ever seen - every maneuver was smooth, perfect and precise. After seeing this display and after having flown the ship myself, I was convinced that I could find no aircraft better suited to my needs. I put in a request and was assigned an A.I. for use in the various aerobatic demonstrations that I was called upon to perform for visiting V.I.P.’s, etc.

  In Joyce's opinion the Morane-Saulnier Al was easier to fly than the Nieuport because of its tremendous stability, even though both of them were light and tricky. Joyce used his Al to fly 300 consecutive loops, breaking the record and running out of fuel on the 300th loop.
  Maj Harold E Hartney, USAS, recalled that when he arrived at Issoudun they had no aircraft and he had to get the miscellaneous condemned jobs active again by repairing and truing them up. At one end of the hangar was the very latest type Morane Parasol - a little dream ship, like a graceful butterfly, with a 165-horsepower rotary Monosoupape (single valve) rotary engine, that barked like a continuous succession of backfires.
  Hartney had been through the Gosport system and found that the authorities at Issoudun wanted to teach them to fly again. When I announced I would fly the little Morane Parasol, the ship with the ball-bearing controls, which most of those at the field considered too dangerous even to look at, much less pilot through the air, it was the final “kick in the pants” for the conservative element of the field personnel.
  Familiar with the big Monosoupape motor and having qualified as an expert on the Gosport Camels, I roared across the field on my take-off, gathering speed with every inch. I intended to do every tick in the pack - upside down flying, barrel rolls, tail slides, everything - the only way to lead a flying outfit. Going 50 miles an hour the big motor was just about to lift the ship into the air when wham! - a tire blew out. The dainty little mechanical bird slewed around and flopped gracefully over on its back. And in view of six hundred officers and men, the Petit (his nickname) had to unfasten the peculiar French shoulder-type safety belt, drop upside down to the ground and shamefacedly get himself out of the mess!

  Hartney recorded that someone got a new tyre from Paris and two days later a French pilot took the Morane-Saulnier up and the wing failed in a simple tight spiral, the machine crashing and killing the pilot.
  The history of the various versions of the AI that were built and sold after the Armistice has proved to be a complicated story with various sources giving different numbers and designations for the Morane-Saulnier monoplanes supplied to various countries.
  Belgium's Aviation Militaire received three of the fighter trainers, the first in 1920. One served with the 1st Escadrille with its paper horse insignia, while others bore the thistle insignia of the 9e Escadrille. In 1920 changes to the Belgium Army saw the Aviation Militaire become the Aeronautique Militaire. The Morane-Saulniers were given the serials 1.1 to 1.3. The last was in service until August 1928.
  One MoS 30 was photographed in Swiss markings but with no serial number. J Urech's The Aircraft of the Swiss Air Force since 1914, (Verlag Th Gut & Co, Switzerland, 1975) lists every Swiss military aircraft but not the MoS 30, leading to the assumption that this was a civil aircraft, however no civil MoS 30 appears on the Swiss civil register.
  Japan purchased five MoS 30 monoplanes in 1922 for research purposes. Nos. 608 and 612 are known to have been in Japanese service. However, Akimoto Minoru-sensei in his Niho Rikugun Shisakuki Taiken (All the Experimental Aircraft in Japanese Army), (Kamtposha, 2008), records only one MoS 30 being imported into Japan at a price of 14,008 yen in 1922 The reason for the discrepancy in the numbers supplies is unknown. The MoS 30 was the first parasol wing aircraft in Japan.
  One MoS, 30 entered the Japanese civil register as J-TECF (c/n 610) on 1 March 1927, registered to Kinzo Negishi. J-TECF was based at Miho Matsubara Negishi Air Station in Shizuoka Prefecture. There are inconsistencies in the official history of J-TECF. It was thought that its last known renewal of the certificate of airworthiness was on 5 October 1928. However, a new Certificate was issued in December 1938 but not taken up. No further record of J-TECF has been discovered past this date.
  One is also believed to have been obtained by the Soviet Union, but this is unconfirmed. Two MoS rouleurs were imported by the Soviet Union in 1923. Officers of the Polish Army in France were training as aviators at Biscarosse and Pau where they came into contact with the Morane-Saulnier MoS 30 both in its fighter and fighter-trainer versions. The Polish air force was established soon after Poland was granted its independence after the Armistice on 11 November 1918. The force comprised whatever aircraft could be obtained from those left behind by the retreating armies of Germany and Austro-Hungary. In the spring of 1919, the French sent reinforcements in the form of seven French Escadrilles. These were attached to the so called "Blue Army", the Polish Army that had formed in France in June 1917. The personnel of these Escadrilles were mostly French and the aircraft retained their French camouflage and national markings. These units were soon in action with the Poles in the war between Poland and the Ukraine, and that with Soviet Russia.
  Poland obtained 20 MoS 30.E 1 fighter-trainers from the French in 1920-1921. The first two were sent to the Wyszej Szkoly Pilotow (the Pilot's College in Lawica).
  The Morane-Saulnier trainers entered service in early 1920. They were mainly used by the flying training schools at Lawica where they were used for advanced training in aerobatics and fighter tactics at the pilot's school. One ended up as a training aid in the Lawica airfield workshops. During the end of 1921 and the early months of 1922, the MoS 30.E 1 trainer were moved from the pilot's school at Poznanska to Grudziadz when the school was moved completely to the new site. Three also served at Bydgoszcz where instructors were trained.
  The Morane-Saulnier parasol had a good turn of speed. It was tricky on take-off and landings, but had a good safety record in Polish service, only one fatality being recorded on the type. On 12 August 1921, student pilot Corp Jozef Kuklinski crashed and was killed. The crash was held to be due to pilot error. The strength of the type was demonstrated by Boleslaw Orlinski, the chief aerobatic instructor, who performed 242 continuous loops in 1923. The parasols served until 1925 when they were replaced by another Morane-Saulnier parasol, the Type 35.EP version of the MS AR.
  Poland also obtained five Morane-Saulnier MoS 29.R 1 "rouler" taxi trainers from France in May 1919 - Serials 1513, 1600, 1647, 1883, and 3055. (These may be the five early Morane-Saulniers recorded as having been obtained from France, not the MoS 30.E 1 trainers, which could explain the difference in figures quoted). The MoS 29.R 1 was designed around the MoS 29 fuselage with wings of reduced area and a 45-hp Anzani engine. The machines could taxi to a speed about 40 kph, but could not fly due to the reduced lifting area. In this way students learnt the basics of starting and taxiing. The "roulers" were delivered to the pilot's school run by the French at Mokotow airfield, Warsaw. They were transferred with the school to Bydgoszcz in the summer of 1920. They were in use until June 1922 when they were all transferred to the Central Aviation Works where they were written off. Their engines found their way to the civilian market and powered many Polish light aircraft in the 1920s.
  Civil versions include F-NUNG flown by Charles Nungesser. This had his personal emblem on the fuselage. A post-war production Al, F-ABAO (c/n 2283), was flown by Morane-Saulnier's chief test pilot, Alfred Fronval, from 1921 through 1928. Temple Joyce met Fronval in 1920 while visiting the Morane-Saulnier plant. He recorded that Fronval, much to my surprise, was able to land the aircraft 15 to 20 miles an hour slower than I had ever been able to. FRONVAL brought the plane down in an approach glide with the nose well in the air and settled on the ground at least 10 to 20 miles an hour slower than usual. The Nice Aviation Meeting of 1922 was described by The Aeroplane as an amusing little affair. Fronval was described as coming in a trifle higher than the sheds, doing a perfect roll and then gently pancaking onto the ground. One does not recommend the feat to Snipe pilots, but as done by him on a Morane monoplane (a type said to have been condemned bv the Secton Technique as insufficiently strong,) is very pretty. In a later issue, the journal noted that Fronval's Morane-Saulnier monoplane had been specially strengthened for stunting. At the 1927 Zurich Meet in August, Fronval won over Germany's Gerhard Fieseler who flew a Raab-Katzenstein with a 110-hp Siemens, and Marcel Doret in his 200-hp Hispano-Suiza Dewoitine D-27. This MoS 30 was donated to the Musee de l’Air by Robert Morane. It has been recently restored to its former glory and placed back on display.
  Post-war Joyce became the American representative for the Morane-Saulnier Aircraft Co in the USA. He was reported as actively demonstrating his A-I monoplane and A-N two-seater to the Army and Navy Air Service in 1920. He was stated as planning to build the AN in large quantities and was trying to raise capital for the project. No documentation has been discovered as to how many Morane-Saulnier aeroplanes Joyce imported into the USA. The figure of 51 has been suggested and this may well be the total number that Joyce brought to the Americas. Joyce did sell Morane-Saulnier aircraft in South America and the following are recorded but not confirmed:
   Argentina: 1 MoS 30 in 1923.
   Bolivia: 2 MoS 30 roulers in 1923. (More probably the MoS 29 R 1).
   Paraguay: 4 MoS Penguins in 1927. (Penguin was another name for the rouler).

  Peru had been working towards establishing a military air arm in 1912 when it ordered an Avro 500 floatplane. The outbreak of the war prevented delivery. After the war a French aviation mission visited the country and brought a number of Morane-Saulnier types with them. William Green and John Fricker in their The Air Forces of the World, state that a Morane L.A. Bullet was purchased, this story apparently arising from The Aeroplane issue of 29 August 1923, which stated that the Army received one Morane Bullet. Peru did purchase a brand-new Type L in 1921. However, a newspaper photograph shows an Al reportedly in Peru, and none of the aircraft from the French mission were returned to France. However, 100 Anos Origen de la Fuerza Aerea Peru, published in 2019, states that a pair of MoS 29 monoplanes were brought to Peru by the 1919 French mission. They became the first fighter aircraft to be used by Peruvian military aviation. The aircraft were relegated only to experienced pilots due to its sensitive flight characteristics. At the inauguration ceremony of the Military Aviation School at Las Palmas at the end of 1923, Sub-Lt Alejandro M Astete gave a performance with the MoS 29 which ended with the embarrassed pilot burying his nose in the ground on landing, fortunately with only his pride being hurt. The Morane-Saulnier fighters were written off in 1925 due to fair wear and tear.
  Records are not clear and it is not known for sure if any of the U.S. Air Service's MoS 30 machines were shipped back to the USA, however the late Cole Palen purchased two original Al parasols from the "Wings and Wheels" auction in 1981. These have been stated to have come from USAS stocks, however no documentation has been discovered to date showing that these particular type of Morane-Saulniers were ever used by the Air Service in the USA. It is assumed that they came from Temple Joyce's activities. Serial 1591 was restored to flying condition at Kermit Week's workshops in Florida, while the other, being incomplete, was made into a reproduction of a Morane-Saulnier Type N.
  The Evening Sun newspaper of Baltimore noted in its issue of 5 August 1920, that Two French Airplanes were entered yesterday at the Custom House from Paris and consigned to Capt. Temple Joyce. They are of the Morane-Saulnier make and represent the army and commercial type of planes, the former having a speed of 145 miles an hour, while the other id rated at 90 miles. Both were taken to Logan Field, Dundalk, where Captain Joyce hopes to have them ready for exhibition next Saturday, when the local aviation club will be present for the weekly stunts in the air. The "army" type would most probably have been the MoS 30.

  In its edition of 15 November 1920, the same newspaper recorded that Temple N. Joyce, representing Morane-Saulnier, of Paris, France, will enter the little A-l Morane monoplane in the Pulitzer race, to be flown at Mitchell Field on Thanksgiving Day. With the race number "57" on the fuselage and in French five-colour camouflage, MoS 30 serial 2093 was to be flown by Charles R. Colt, late engineering officer at Bolling Field, will be the pilot, and under his experienced guidance this machine should show up well. The Morane was in Flight Six of the seven Flights entered for the race, along with a Loening; three Italian S.V.A. types and a Spad. The UK journal, The Aeroplane, reported that the Morane-Saulnier was powered by a 110-hp Le Rhone.
  The type has had a resurgence in recent years. Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight Museum in Florida has one that ended up in the Frank Tallman-Paul Mantz Collection from which it was purchased by Weeks in 1985. It was restored by Personal Plane Services in the UK in the late 1980s. It is displayed in the insignia of Escadrille 15, where it was flown by a Lt Demeraux. The tri-coloured chevron is thought to have been from a previous unit in which Demeraux served. Escadrille 15 did not use the Al during the war; therefore, the emblem must be a personal emblem picked up post-war.
  A reproduction Morane-Saulnier Al was constructed by the students and staff of the Aviation Institute of Maintenance, Kansas City, MO. This monoplane has a radial engine rather than an original rotary.
  Morane-Saulnier Al serial No. 1567 was restored by the Memorial Flight Association, starting in 1991 and the first flight taking place in August 1993. It bears the red devil insignia of Escadrille 160. No. 1567 was painted in the French five-coloured WWI camouflage. The Memorial Flights machine was used as a static background prop for the 1993 French film L’Instinct De L’Ange ("Angels Wings" in US release) that was loosely based on Guynemer's life. Two restored Al from the Jean Salis collection were used as the fighter aircraft in the film. They were given a ground type Lewis gun mounted on a high pylon on the upper wing rather than the synchronised twin-guns of the MoS 29.C 1. Jean Salis performed the aerial sequences with his company AJBS. The Memorial Flight Association also restored the Musee de l’Air’s post-war constructed Al, F-ABAD.
  The late Kenneth Munson wrote that the Type Al was a bit of a puzzler ... for a type of which 1,200-odd were built it was only in front line service for such a very short period. Bowers refers to the MS 30E.1 as “Typical of much of the second-line and sub-standard combat equipment procured from the French government that was used for training the A.E.F. ”, which sounds like a pretty fair example of damning with faint praise.

  The performance of the A.I under the hands of Joyce and Fronval, the latter performed 1,111 consecutive loops in the monoplane, points to a very hardy machine. The reasons for the failure of the A.I at the Front will probably never be completely known. The last words on the A.I belong to Temple Joyce.

  The Morane Saulnier A.I. was a fine airplane with excellent maneuverability, stability, speed, endurance, visibility, and all those things that go towards building a love affair between a pilot and an airplane.


Camouflage and Markings

  The official camouflage drawings for the Morane-Saulnier Al have survived and the colours of the machines can be accurately described. The standard five-colour pattern introduced in October 1917 was adopted. Colours were:
   Brun - Chestnut brown
   Vert fon e - Dark green
   Vert clair - Light green
   Jaune - Beige
   Noir - Black
   Aluminium - under-surfaces.
  For some reason the black "footprint" on the starboard wing and black patch on the starboard horizontal tailplane and elevator are shown as aluminium on the official plans although this is typically noted as black in photographs of camouflaged Morane-Saulnier Al fighters and fighter-trainers.
  Source: RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection.


New Escadrilles Formed in 1918
Escadrille 156
   N.156 01 January Nieuport 24 and 27
   MSP.156 09 February 15 Morane-Saulnier Al
   Spa.156 20 May 1918 Spad VII, Nieuport 27, Spad XIII
Escadrille 158
   N.158 01 January 15 Nieuport 24, 27
   MSP.158 04 March 15 Morane-Saulnier Al
   SPA.158 19 May Spad VII & XIII
Escadrille 161
   N.161 05 January 15 Nieuport 24, 24bis and 27
   MSP.161 21 February 15 Morane-Saulnier Al
   SPA.161 19 May Spad VII, Spad XIII
Source: Les escadrilles de l’aeronautique militaire francaise 1912-1920, Service Historique de l'Armee de l'Air.

The Morane-Saulnier AN (MoS.31.C 2 to Mos 34.C 2)
  
  Ettore Bugatti designed a sixteen-cylinder aero engine of 400-hp around mid-1917. The engine was basically two 200-hp engines mounted side by side. Two crankshafts were geared to a central hollow airscrew shaft through a reduction gear. The engine had made its first run on 23 October 1917, and great things were planned for it. It was to be mass produced in France by Peugeot. In a S.T.Ae. report of January 1918, it was stated that the frame of the body of the Morane C2 Bug. 16 (420) was ready and the fuselage construction had begun. This Morane C2 was a reference to a new Morane-Saulnier type to be powered by the Bugatti engine. When Robert Morane became aware of the new engine is unknown, but Morane-Saulnier had a number of experimental aircraft under design or construction in November 1917. One of these was an all-monocoque single-seat fighter powered by the 450-hp Bugatti and incorporating a jettisonable fuel tank. By January the design had become a two-seat fighter.
  The US Army notes on the machine state that it was designed primarily as a cellue for the Bugatti 16 cylinder motor.
  Refinement in design is carried to an extreme very rare attained hereto in French machines. It was thought that the Bugatti motor would offer an excellent power plant for a fighting plane, that is great power combined with a minimum of head resistance.
  The fuselage was designed especially with the view of cutting down resistance, and is in many respects a great advance over anything which has been produced up to the present time. It is deep and roomy and gives excellent protection to both pilot and gunner. The construction of the empennage is especially noteworthy as a sample of what may be done in the way of integral construction and streamlining. The liaison between the pilot and gunner is excellent and the visibility for both, especially upward and forward is excellent.
  The performance actually obtained with this machine so far has been somewhat disappointing due to trouble with the motor, which has not developed the power expected of it. When fitted with a more reliable high powered motor, this machine should prove to be very interesting.
  It is doubtful if this machine could be used for landing and getting off from rough ground because of the fact that is sets so close to the ground and its wing tips are not provided with skids. On smooth ground, however, this machine lands at a comparatively slow speed.
  The report concluded by stating that the machine passed its static test with a factor of safety of 9. The Bugatti engine was selected for construction in the USA and it was apparently the interest in the engine that prompted this report. The Bugatti was to be flown in the Le Pere LUSAC 213 and LUSAGH-21 in the US. It was not a success and only 11 of the 2,000 ordered had been delivered by the Armistice.
  The first Morane-Saulnier AN (serial No. 1898) that emerged in the summer of 1918 was a two-bay biplane. The fuselage was of three-plywood monocoque construction. The bottom of the fuselage followed the contour of the bottom of the lower wing, with the sides nearly flat and slightly tapered in at the bottom.
  To the rear of the gunner's cockpit the fuselage assumed a circular section that was maintained for the remainder of its length. Both the horizontal tailplane and the fin were built integral with the monocoque construction. In general, the fuselage was symmetrical about the longitudinal axis. The wings had pronounced sweepback. The upper wing was built in two halves meeting on the centre-line. Balanced ailerons were fitted to both the upper and lower wings and connected by rods. There were two pairs of interplane struts outside the fuselage on each side.
  The horizontal fixed tailplane and fin were of monocoque construction fairing into the rear end of the streamlining of the fuselage. A balanced rudder of approximate trapezoidal shape was fitted. The elevators were also balanced. All controls were carried within the fuselage and the control surfaces were actuated by torsion tubes. The landing gear, comprised two pairs of V-struts and rigid M-bracing to the axle, supported two 750 x 125 mm wheels. The tail skid was provided with a streamline housing.
  The elegant lines of this construction were spoiled by the ugly installation of the Bugatti engine. Twin radiators were installed on the leading edge of the upper wing and a massive central exhaust pipe was required by the 16 cylinders. The spinner had a large central opening for the armament included a 37-mm cannon firing through the airscrew shaft, the engines arrangement of eight upright cylinders on each side of the central shaft allowing for such an installation. The pilot also had a synchronised Vickers gun mounted to the starboard side of the cockpit. The radiators were later replaced by Lamblin "lobster pot" radiators attached to the nose.
  The pilot had an uninterrupted upward view by means of a central cut-out in the rear of the upper wing. The gunner had dual controls for an emergency.
  A French report on engines in late November 1918, noted that the mounting study of the Morane 31 with 450-hp Renault 12 was complete, and with the Liberty engine was proceeding. Given the experimental nature of the Bugatti engine this was a sensible decision. It appears that three engines were considered for the Type AN - the 450-hp Renault 12Kb; the 400-hp Liberty 12; and the 370-hp Lorraine-Dietrich 12 Da.
  Official tests of the Bugatti powered machine took place on 27 October 1918. As noted above the results were disappointing. The aircraft was returned to its makers for modification to the exhaust manifold. It was tested again in late November. It appears that the Bugatti powered AN had been selected for production despite its climbing performance being less than that of the S.E.A. 4C. It was given the official S.T.Ae. designation MoS.31.C 2.
  The Liberty powered AN was designated ANL and the Renault powered example, the ANR. The last version was the ANS with the 530-hp Salmson eighteen-cylinder twin row radial water-cooled engine. However, although Morane-Saulnier designated these the MoS.32, Mos.33 and MoS.34 respectively, official files designated all versions as the Mos.31.C 2 no matter what engine was installed.
  The Type ANL had a blunt nose, Lamblin radiators attached to the lower nose, extremely long exhaust pipes attached to the fuselage and a revised upper wing that now incorporated a centre-section. This required a complex arrangement of centresection struts. The ANL was tested at Villacoublay in 1919. Another version with thick wings was also tested in May. The similar appearing Type ANR also appeared in 1919. The engine installation was slightly neater. As noted above the final version was the ANS. The big, bulky engine gave the machine an even more ugly look than the Bugatti engine version. This was the last version of the AN to fly.
  Description of the Morane-Saulnier ANL 81 ANR from the MoS XXXII C 2/XXXIII C 2 manual.

The ANL

  The fuselage was constructed in two parts. The forward part was in metal (in tube, angle iron and dialuminium U-sections). The engine and pilot's cockpit were supported in this section. The engine section was covered by aluminium panels with inspection doors for access to the engine and all other components. This section was supported by the landing gear frame when erecting the lower wings. It connected to the rear section at the rear gunner's position. (See Pl. II).
  The rear section was constructed in wood around eight braced ash beams with plywood annular hangars, and wrapped in a plywood shell that was formed in two halves on a mould. The rear section had a circular cross-section except where it connected with the lower wings. It carried the rear gunner's cockpit with a type T.O.-7 bis gun ring. Boxes that could accommodate Lewis gun drums were attached to the sides of the fuselage and on the floor.
  The tail surfaces as well as the tail skid arrangement were carried by this section. The fin was built integral with the fuselage. (See Pl. III).
  The two-bay wings were swept back 10° and had a stagger of 466 mm. The lower wings connected to the metal section of the fuselage. All wings were cut back at the root to allow for improved sight distance for the crew. The struts were constructed of duralumin tube and were adjustable on one end. (See Pl. V).
  The balanced ailerons were mounted on ball bearings. The lower ailerons were controlled by torsion tubes from the control stick. They were connected to the upper ailerons by adjustable connecting rods.
  The cabane was formed by six tubes, four to the spar and two across the cabin longitudinally. These supports are crosswise braced by 40/10 piano wire. (See Pl. VI).
  In addition, on each side of the fuselage, at the front and at the rear, a round tube strut and a stay connect the upper wing to the metal part of the front section of the fuselage. The tubes were streamlined with wooden fairings.
  The front edge of the centre-section was formed by the water tank with the gravity fuel tank behind. (See Pl. VI).
  The rudder and elevators were balanced and of metal construction. The rudder was mounted entirely above the fuselage. (See Pl. IX).
  The connections of the control surfaces were carried inside the fuselage.
  The lower vertical fin was molded with fuselage and provides the fairing for the tail skid.
  The horizontal stabilizer is guyed by eight profiled wires attaching it to the bottom of the lower fin and to the top of the upper fin. (See Pl. IX). Access to the control organs was provided by three access panels in the fuselage.
  The landing chassis comprised two lateral Vees of torpedo tube and duralumin, and a duralumin Vee on the spreader bar. Two articulated half-axles were held in place by rubber shock cord wrapped around two brackets fixed to the lateral Vees. The wheels were "Palmer" 55 bore type (750 x 125). (See Pl. VII).
  The tailskid was made of reinforced wood with a sheet metal shoe with braking notches. The skid was guided by a slide inside the fuselage, its axis of articulation maintained by two struts on its outside. (See Pl. VIII)
  The aircraft had a main station and a secondary station for the machine gunner's use. (See Pl. IX).
  Dual control was fitted however the dual steering system did not have a clutch. The pilot had the usual rudder bar on a cone shaped support on the metal floor. The distance from the rudder bar to the pilot's seat was adjustable (maximum distance 45 mm). The gunner had two independent pedals to control the rudder.
  The Liberty engine was mounted on two U-shaped duralumin engine bearers attached to the front metal cradle. This arrangement allowed for easy change of the engine. (See Pl. III).
  The aircraft had a capacity of fuel and oil that allowed an endurance of three hours. The main fuel tank of 235 litres capacity was under the floor. This was filled from the pilot's position by means of a collar such that the mouth was at the upper level of the fuselage. Filling was ensured by means of an "auto-gauge" placed on the tank that was visible through a window placed in the floor of the cockpit. The gravity tank in the centre-section contained 11 litres. (See Pl. X).
  From the main tank, the fuel was sucked up by the pump (Margue "A.M.") then was discharged into a distribution box with two taps, from where it could be sent to the carburetors, or to the charge nipple. The carburetors receive the highest pressure. (See Pl. X).
  A hand turbine pump ("Weymann" brand) was provided to replace the "AM" pump if the latter stopped. The crank of the Weyman pump was required to be turned from time to time to fill the tank.
  A pipe was connected to the pump discharge and connected to a pressure control manometer placed on the pilot's dashboard. The pipes were aluminum or, failing that, copper.
  Oil was contained in a 30 litre tank positioned in front of the pilot and behind the engine. (See Pl. XI). The oil left the tank under load and arrived at the engine pump. At the outlet, the oil was discharged to the oil tank, passing through a radiator placed on the left side of the fuselage.
  Water was contained in the gravity charge tank, in the engine and the pipes. (See Pl. XII).
  The Radiators were of the "Lamblin" (Petit-Vicart-Cousin) type; they were fixed on each side of the fuselage, below the engine level, by faired round tubes. They were fitted with shutters, that the pilot controlled, allowing the temperature of the water to be adjusted. The water coming out of the engine went down to the radiators. From there a turbine pump forming part of the motor sent it to the gravity tank in the leading edge of the centre-section and the motor. These pipes were made of aluminum and tinned steel. (See Pl. XII).
  The exhaust pipes (one per group of cylinders) had a circular cross-section and lay on each side of the fuselage without touching it. In addition, an asbestos lining preserved the fuselage.
  Start-up was provided by the "Brizon" system (acetylene below and starting magneto).

Pilot's cockpit. (See Pl. XIII).

  An "efficient windshield" was placed in front of the pilot.
  The pilot had at his disposal a fixed Vickers machine gun, controlled by the engine, placed to his right and above the cowling. The cartridge case could hold 500 cartridges. The links and spent cartridges were collected. The trigger was placed on the control column.
  To the right of the pilot was the crank of the "Wayman" turbine and the control for the radiator shutters.
  To the pilot's left were:
  - The engine control handles (double).
  - The compass on the floor.
  Before him was the instrument panel on which were mounted:
  - A tachometer;
  - Two "Chenu" type thermometers (water);
  - Two pressure gauges (petrol and oil);
  - An altimeter and finally the special contact to the "Liberty" engine.
  The taps of the petrol distribution box also lead to this panel which carried explanatory plates
  There was provision in the rear gunner's cockpit for the location and mounting of a camera with f=50.
  Provision was also made for the location of a "Badin" speed indicator and a double oxygen system for high altitudes.
  A 600-watt generator with voltage regulator was placed in the fuselage, and was activated by the motor. The circuit about it was to the right of the gunner. The tables in each cockpit each carried a rheostat and an outlet.
  If following any accident, it was feared that the machine has been knocked out of alignment, it was to be checked that the dimensions indicated had not varied by more than 5 mm. If this was the case, no part was damaged, and the aircraft could be reused without sending it to a repair workshop.

MoS ANR Type XXXIII C 2

  The main difference is the replacement of the Liberty motor with a Renault type 12 KB motor.
  For this some changes are necessary in the following parts:
   1. Engine Mounting: This is done in a similar way by means of metal engine supports bracing
   2. The Cabane: The metallic connection plane, of similar construction, has a wider width of (1.300 cm) because of the larger size of the Renault engine, and to allow the shrouding of the cabin (modified like Pl. III).
   3. Upper wings. The upper wings were shortened by the amount that the cabin plan had been enlarged in order to maintain the same wingspan of the aircraft (Total projected length of the upper wings = 5 m 213).
  The 270 litre main tank was mounted as in the "Liberty" AN under the pilot's floor, between the lower wing attachments. The gravity tank of 17 litres was in the upper wing centre-section. An additional 90 litre tank was mounted in the fuselage at the rear of the turret. It was piped to the main tank via a tap-controlled valve at the pilot's cockpit. With the tap open, the flow of petrol from the additional tank to the main tank was automatic. Apart from this, the circulation of fuel was identical to that of the "Liberty" motor version (Weymann pump, A.M. pump, etc.) (See Pl. XV).
  The levers for air, gas, corrector, were placed to the left of the pilot.
  The contact and control lever of the machine gun were placed on the joystick.
  The exhaust manifold was directed laterally to the front.
  Starting was provided by the Brizon system (Acetylene and starting magneto).
  The cowling of the front fuselage retained its general shape, but was adapted to the new mounting of the engine, up to the pilot's cockpit.
  The generator control, although analogous, could be disengaged by means of a special device supported by the housing of the machine gun synchronization system.
  As a result of the modification of the main tank (270 liters instead of 235), the control rod for the connecting rods is deferred to the rear of the attachment of the rear spars of the lower wings, which has the effect of lengthening:
  1. The horizontal steering tube;
  2. The rods themselves.

  All other parts of the aircraft, cell masts and guy lines (except in the central part), the lower wings, the control surfaces, the wooden fuselage section, the metal rear part of the fuselage (Nacelle), the elastic pad shock absorber, the undercarriage, and general fittings, were the same as those for those of the Liberty engine type.
  The circulation of oil and the circulation of water, remained absolutely analogous and were only slightly modified at the pipe connections with the engine.
  The setting was identical to that of the Liberty engine type for the control surfaces, the machine gun, etc. It is also the same for the cell, except for the offset of the planes which is 525 mm instead of 466 (which corresponds to advancing the upper plane of 59 mm leaving it to advance the higher plane of 59 mm leaving it at the same distance from the fuselage.)
  To perform the operation of setting the incidence of 2.6% of the fuselage, the vertical distance rating from the nose of the propeller to the tail tip, which is 297 mm for the Liberty engine, becoming 264 mm for the Renault motor device which is slightly longer. Likewise, the symmetry dimension I = 6m.800 becomes slightly larger. (Pl. XIV).
  For all the other operations to be carried out to adjust the airframe, the instruction was to follow those for the Liberty engine version.
  The English magazine Flight reported on the AN displayed at the Paris Aero Show in 1919:

  This machine has a monocoque body, with wing roots built integral as in some German machines. The pilot sits just behind the top centre section, and is armed with two synchronised machine guns. The gunner’s cockpit is immediately behind that of the pilot, and has a gun-ring for two machine guns. There is further a small gun tunnel in the floor of the fuselage, through which the rear gunner is able to fire in a downward and rearward direction. The engine of this machine was a Liberty 400 h.p., the only one at the show.
  The following designations were apparently applied to the various versions of the type AN in 1919 as follows:
   ANL - Mos XXXII
   ANR - MoS.XXXIII
   ANS - MoS.XXXIV

  The Morane-Saulnier exhibit at the VIe Salon Aeronautique held in Paris in December 1919. The Aeroplane issue of 7 January 1920, reported that Aeroplanes Morane-Saulnier, Rue Volta, 3, Puteaux, exhibited four machines - three parasol monoplanes and an "unwinged biplane." This latter was an ANL fuselage. The report noted that the observer had a third Lewis gun mounted in a tunnel firing down and aft.
  There was no call for the machine in the post-war climate although Morane-Saulnier did try to sell it to foreign governments, Temple N Joyce exhibiting one in the USA (See Chapter 4).


Morane-Saulnier AN Specifications
Source & Type 1 Bugatti 420-hp 2. Type ANL MoS XXXII C2 2. Type ANR XXXIII C2 3. Type XXXIV 4. ANL/ANR
Span, m 11.726 11.726 11.716 11.72 11.725
Length, m 8.345 8.350 8.590 8.12 8.350
Height, m - 2.730 2.730 2.73 -
Chord, m 1.90 - - 1.9 -
Gap, m 1.70 - - 1.70 -
Stagger, m 0.54 - - 0.466 -
Dihedral Nil - - - -
Incidence - - - 2.6% -
Tread, m - 2.100 2.100 2.1 -
Tyres, m 750x125 - - - -
Wing Area, m2 41.0 41.500 41.500 41.50 -
Aileron Area, m2 - 3.460 3.460 3.46 -
Tailplane Area, m2 - 2.100 2.100 2.1 -
Elevator Area, m2 - - - 2.1 -
Fin Area, m2 - - - 0.8 -
Rudder Area, m2 - - - 0.72 -
Fuel main, L 280 - - - -
Fuel nourrice, L 20 - - - -
Oil, L 35 - - - -
Useful load, kg 320 - - 320.5 566-698
Crew, kg - 160 - 150 -
Instruments, kg - 10 - 10 -
Armament front, kg - 125 - 24 -
Armament back, kg - - - 15.5 -
Armament lower, kg - - - 17 -
Electrical equipment, kg - - - 25 -
Photographic equipment, kg - - - 20 -
Combustible load, kg 246 219 - 285 -
Oil, kg - 27 - 92 -
Empty, kg 1,310 - 1,260 1,300 -
Total, kg 1,876 1,776 - - -
Climb to
   1,000 m 2 min 34 - - - -
   2,000 m 6 min 07 5 min 45 8 min 15 - -
   3,000 m 10 min 22 - - - -
   4,000 m - - 23 min 50 - -
   5,000 m - 26 min - - -
Speed in km/hr
   Minimum - - - - 130
   Maximum 225 - - - 200-210
   at 2,000 m - 210 203 - -
   at 4,000 m - - 192 - -
   at 5,000 m - 195 - - -
Ceiling in m - - - - 6,500
Endurance - 3 hrs - - 3 hrs
Engine Bugatti Liberty 400 Renault 12 KB Salmson Liberty 400-hp/Renault 450-hp

Source.
1) McCook Field Technical Section. Typed sheet "Morane-Saulnier 31-C2 (Bugatti)". NASM File AM-800057-001.
2) Notice Technique sur les Biplans Type Mo.S XXXII et XXXIII C2. Morane-Saulnier booklet on the types.
3) "Characteristics of Morane Type XXXIV Airplane." Report dated 7 October 1920. NASM File No.AM-800065-01.
4) "Paris Salon", The Aeroplane, 7 January 1920, P.24.

The Nieuport Triplanes
  
  In 1915 Gustave Delage created an unusual triplane wing structure that he applied to a Nieuport 10 fuselage. This arrangement was to be subject to patent No. 502.709 by the Nieuport Company on 10 January 1916.
  The disposition of the wings was such that the lower wing was attached to the bottom longerons in the conventional fashion with the middle wing being set to the rear of the other two and being attached to the fuselage upper longerons, with its leading edge approximately over the mid-point of the lower wing. The top wing was in advance of the lower wing with its trailing edge roughly over the leading edge of the bottom wing.
  All wings had only a single spar and were of narrow chord. A triangle of interplane struts braced the three wings and there was frugal cable bracing. The middle wing was longer than the other two and alone had ailerons. The bottom wing was mounted with moderate dihedral and was of the shortest span. Its roots were so cut away to provide downward and forward vision from the rear cockpit that it would seem that the pilot occupied the rear seat. Powered by an 80-hp Le Rhone and bearing the SFA serial N1118 the two-seat triplane was probably never meant to be more than an experimental machine to test the design concept. No results of testing of N1118 have been discovered to date.
  The patent was registered with the British on 29 May 1919, as patent No. 126.995 and stated:

  Sec. Anon. Des Etablissements Nieuport. Jan. 10, 1916, [Convention date] Aerial machine without aerostats; supported by three very narrow planes 1, 2, 3 built up on single spars and connected together by triangular frames 4, 5, 6, one of the planes, preferably the plane 2, being set to the rear of the other two. The plane 3, which may be vertically above the plane 1 or in advance of it, extends over the fuselage, to which it is connected by a pillar member 8.

  The numbers refer to the sketch reproduced on the following pages.
  In 1916 a triplane version of the Nieuport 17.C.1 was produced by Delage. In this he reversed the position of the wings. The top wing was now lying well behind the other two giving the pilot an unobstructed forward and upward view. The middle wing, attached to the upper fuselage longerons, interfered with the pilot's downward view despite curved cut-outs behind the single spar. Ailerons were fitted to the top wing only and the machine looked fragile and decidedly unsafe.
  The first single-seat triplane was powered by a 110-hp Le Rhone 9Ja nine-cylinder rotary engine, and was fitted with the Nieuport cone de penetration. It was armed with a fixed synchronised Lewis gun on the aircraft's centre-line with the gun close to the cockpit to allow for the magazines to be changed by the pilot.
  The triplane underwent its official S.T.Ae trials in late 1916. Speed was quoted as 155 km/hr at 2,000 metres, and the climb to that altitude was 6 min 10 sec. Time to 4,000 metres was 18 min 50 sec, with an estimated ceiling of 5,000 metres. The type was declared obsolete in November 1916.
  An official French document dated 23 December 1916, indicates that the British RFC had learned of the triplane and expressed a desire to obtain an example. The French then agreed to hand over the machine to the British aviation authorities. The late J.M. Bruce noted that at that time the French gave away practically nothing to their Allies, therefore he concluded that their opinion of the triplane was low.
  Brigadier-General Brooke-Popham wrote to the British Aeronautical Supply Depot in Paris on the 4 January 1917, that We should be glad to have this Nieuport Triplane provided it is fitted with a Vickers gun. Please say if this is so, or if you require a gun sent up to fit to it.

  As soon as it is fitted with the gun, one of Messrs Nieuport engines is to be fitted to this machine, which will then be flown to No.2 Aircraft Depot.
  The Nieuport triplane was fitted with a Vickers gun but this proved to be a French Vickers that would fire only French ammunition, and a British pattern gun was telegraphed for on 6 January 1917. Despite this the machine retained its French Vickers gun.
  The triplane, with the SFA serial N1388, was flown to No.2 Aircraft Depot at Candas, from Villacoublay on the 26th by Adjudant de Courcelles, still armed with the French Vickers No.L.233, and taken on charge as RFC A6686. Major-General Trenchard had ordered that he machine be subjected to a climbing test to 10,000 feet and this was undertaken by Lt Miller at Nol.2 A.D. on 2 February 1917. The results were: -
   5,000 ft in 4 min 43 sec
   8,000 ft in 7 min 45 sec
   10,000 ft in 9 min 48 sec

  These figures were slightly better than those for the Nieuport 17 C.1, and Trenchard ordered the triplane flown to the United Kingdom.
  Brooke-Popham wrote to the Director of Aeronautical Equipment at the War Office that the Nieuport triplane was being sent to England by a ferry pilot. It is thought it may be useful as a guide to manufacturers from a point of view of increasing the visibility in machines, especially visibility towards the rear.

  On 2 February A6686 was sent from No.2 A.D. to No.1 A.D. and from there to St Omer the same day. Here it was flown on the 8th and 9th by Lt G.W. Gathergood, being flown to England on the 9th. A6686 was officially tested at Martlesham Heath during March and April 1917, and was subject of Report No. M.90.
  The triplane had the following instruments: Revolution counter; hand pressure pump; aneroid; compass; airspeed indicator; watch; inclinometer and safety belt. A pressure fuel tank of 13.5 gallons was situated behind the pilot with a 9-gallon gravity tank in front of the pilot, as was the 4.5 gallon oil gravity tank.
  The machine was reported to be easy to start and got underway in three minutes. However, longitudinal stability was "not very good; lateral stability was only "fair", and directional was "unstable." Under the heading "Controllability" the opinion was "good" for all three axis. Taxiing was, as one would expect given the wing arrangement, "not very good." The machine was very tail heavy and very "difficult to land well since machine is very apt to slew around on the ground." It took only 70 yards to unstick and 80 yards to pull up with the engine stopped on a calm day.
  Under "Further Remarks" the following comments were made:
  This machine has three planes, the top plane being behind the pilot, giving the pilot a very good view upward and forward; but the view directly forward and downward is not good owing to the middle plane, obscuring the pilot’s vision.
  There are only two single lift wires to each set of planes, one of which is coupled to the chassis struts.
  In the case of a bumpy get off or landing, the wheels are apt to bounce up and hit the lift wire.
  Under "Suggestions for Improvement of Design" it was noted that the Machine was very tail heavy indeed and practically no improvement could be made by altering the rigging to specifications.
  The performance of this machine is considerably below that of modern English fighting scouts.

  The report was signed by Major H.L. Cooper, OC Testing Squadron. The results were reproduced in the Aircraft Data Book which summed up the machine as follows: -
  This machine was found to be directionally unstable, and extremely tail heavy, the latter defect not susceptible to improvement or adjustment. The middle plane obscures the view forward and downward. Landing is difficult, as machine slews round on the ground.

  A copy of Report No. M.90 was sent to Trenchard on 25 April 1917.6 While no copy of his comments has been found to date, it is certain that he would have condemned the type as unacceptable for the RFC. While the precise fate of A6686 is unknown, suggestions have appeared that the RNAS received a Nieuport triplane from the RFC.
  Squadron Commander C.L. Courtney, RNAS, reported on a visit to aircraft factories in November 1916, and reported on the 11th that Nieuport with a 130-hp Clerget engine was "nearing completion in the shops, and was expected to be out for trials in under a week." Why the RNAS and RFC were interested in the Nieuport triplane at this time given that it was declared obsolete by the French in that month. It is probable that they were unaware of these facts.
  The RNAS triplane, N532, was at Martlesham Heath on 7 June. This machine was without an engine and is possible that if N532 was A6686 re-serialled, then the Le Rhone engine could have been removed by the RFC who were always in short supply of this desirable type of engine. Confirmed information on N532 is difficult to find. It apparently had left Martlesham Heath before the Weekly Report for 7 June 1917, was compiled. N532 was reported with No. 11 and No. 10 Squadrons RNAS but confirmation is lacking. It was at Martlesham Heath by April 1917, and was apparently sent to Dunkerque via Dover around 11 May, and was deleted in February 1918.
  The RNAS had another Nieuport triplane, N521. On 10 February 1917, Colonel Regnier, Director de l’Aeronautique Militaire, wrote to the Head of the British Aviation Commission in Paris, Captain Acton, RN, as follows:

  By letter dated January 22nd you asked me to deliver you a 130 hp Clerget Nieuport triplane in exchange for a 130 hp Clerget Sopwith triplane which the Admiralty were kind enough to procure for me.
  I have the honour to inform you that as no arrangements have been made in France for the manufacture of 130-hp Clerget Sopwith triplanes I no longer wish to keep the machine put at my disposal and should be obliged if you would inform me if the Admiralty or the War Office are using it. In this case I will hasten to let you have it back.
  I would add that, apart from this, I will willingly allot to the British Aviation the Nieuport triplane you desire to have.

  Both the RFC and RNAS had expressed an interest in this Nieuport triplane. This was before the report on A6686 was made available. Early in March 1917 the Air Board ruled that the machine was to go to the RNAS at Dunkerque. This version of the triplane was SFA N1946 and it received the RNAS serial N521. A second triplane was ordered as N522, but this was cancelled. This machine was a triplane version of the Nieuport 17bis having both the 130-hp Clerget 9B nine-cylinder engine and faired fuselage of that normally distinguished the 17bis biplane.
  On 5 April, N3184, one of No. 11 Squadron's Nieuport 17bis fighters was flown to Dunkerque for comparative tests against "a 130-h.p. French Nieuport Triplane." The results were that N521 was 3 or 4 knots faster than the Nieuport 17bis at ground level; however, N3184 was fitted with the airscrew appropriate to the 110-hp Clerget at this time. N521 was allotted to No. 11 (Naval) Squadron by 3 May 1917, but its career was short. By 27 June it was lying in the RNAS Depot as unserviceable, it having been there for some time. On this date it was recommended for deletion, its engine being the 130-hp Clerget No.1211. The machine was approved for deletion on 30 June.
  In retrospect, it can be seen that the Nieuport patent was a dead end and did not contribute to the advancement of the Allied fighter during the war.


Nieuport Single-Seat Triplane Specifications
Source 1 2 3
Span 26.3% 26.8 ft 26.8
Length 19.2% 19.1 ft 19.05
Height 7.5 - -
Wheels 700 x 75 - -
Airscrew Levasseur N.3643 Series 484 Levasseur 484 -
Areas in sq ft
   Mainplanes 143 143 143
Weight in lbs
   Armament - - 99
   Vickers gun 35 - -
   Mounting 28 - -
   Deadweight 17 - -
   Crew 180 - 165
   Load - 407 406
   Empty 919 825 825
   Petrol & oil - - 143
   Petrol (22 gall 5 pts) 162 - -
   Oil (4 gall 5 pts) 45 - -
   Tanks &. piping - 39.6 -
   Fuel - 143 -
   Engine - 374 -
   Total 1,386 1,232 1,231
Speed in mph
   Ground level - 105.3 -
   at 3,000 ft 110 - -
   at 6,500 ft 106.0 - -
   at 6,560 ft - 95.75 96.2
   at 9,840 ft - 94.4
   at 10,000 ft 96.5 - -
   at 13,120 ft - 92.5 -
Climb
   to 1,000ft 0.9 mins - -
   to 2,000 ft 1.9 mins - -
   to 3,000 ft 3.0 mins - -
   to 4,000 ft 4.1 mins - -
   to 5,000 ft 5.3 mins - -
   to 6,000 ft 6.7 mins - -
   to 6,500 ft 7.4 mins - -
   to 6,560 ft - 6 min 10 sec 6 min 10 sec
   to 7,000 ft 8.1 mins - -
   to 8,000 ft 9.7 mins - -
   to 9,000 ft 11.5 mins - -
   to 9,840 ft - 11 min 11 min
   to 10,000 ft 13.6 mins - -
   to 11,000 ft 15.9 mins - -
   to 12,000 ft 18.8 mins - -
   to 13,120 ft - 18 min 50 sec
Ceiling in ft 17,000 approx. 16,750 calculated -
Capacities in galls
   Fuel 22.5 17.6 -
   Oil 4.5 2.2 -
Endurance in hours - 2 1/2 2 1/2
Engine 110-hp Le Rhone No.7226 110-hp Le Rhone 110-hp Le Rhone (113 @ 1200)

Notes: Report 90. Speeds were obtained from ASI readings corrected for density and absolute error of the instrument. Probably accurate to 1 mph.
Source:
1) Report M.90 - Summary of Results. TNA AIR1/192/204/5/2599. These results were included in the 10th Weekly Report of the Controller, Technical Dept for the W/E 25.04.1917. TNA AIR1/2094/207/12/10.
2) S.T.Ae. The chart has the Section Technique de L’Aeronautique heading but all details are in English. It is assumed these charts were used by the British who converted the metric results to Imperial measurements with always the chance that errors could creep in. TNA AIR1/708/27/11/459.
3) Hand written chart from TNA AIR1/708/27/11/455 in RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection Box 21. Note to Nieuport Triplane column states it was obsolete in November 1916.

Nieuport Monoplane Fighters
  
  The Nieuport sesquiplanes scouts were initially very successful with their rotary engines. They were fast, manoeuvrable with good visibility for the pilot, however, they were limited in their development by an inherent weakness that was demonstrated by the Germans when they installed heavier, more powerful inline engines in their variations of the sesquiplanes layout - the Albatros D.III and D.V. It was to be mid-1917 before the first Nieuport biplane fighter flew. This was the Ni.28 that was to see front line use with the US Air Service squadrons on the Western Front.
  The Nieuport monoplane that emerge in September 1917, was built on the principles described in Nieuport patent No. 521,133. The proposal combined structural simplicity with low drag. Visually the fighter looked like a monoplane version of the Ni.28, however, the Ni.28 had a much slimmer fuselage. The shoulder-mounted broad chord wing was braced by a set of struts that were attached to the wide track axle housing of the undercarriage. This housing was in the form of an auxiliary wing. Two struts on each side were braced from the housing to about the middle of the underside of the wing. The lack of documentation and photographs makes the development history of the monoplane difficult. At this time there were several Nieuport C1 (fighter) aircraft in development with the Gnome 160-hp or Le Rhone 180-hp engine mentioned in official documents but are not detailed enough to be able to identify exactly which machine is being discussed. From photographs it appears that the first machine had plain wings without any cutouts at the fuselage to improve the pilots downward view. The cut-outs in the wings were modified a number of times. The final wartime version with the one-shot cannon had glazed cut-outs in the fuselage where the wing joined the fuselage to allow for the pilot to have a restricted downward view.
  According to some sources the first monoplane was powered by the 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N rotary engine. Two synchronised 7.7 mm machine guns were mounted in front of the pilot. The aircraft is presumed to have flown in late 1917 or early 1918 as a second prototype that was powered by a 180-hp Le Rhone 9R was reported as being ready to fly at the end of January. This version had some revisions to the wing and a longer fin. One prototype was fitted with a buckshot cannon that fired through a hollow airscrew shaft. The French "ace" Georges Felix Madon recalled that
  "Twelve days later, the armistice was signed. I did not regret it, but nevertheless I felt some sadness. I had had certain Nieuport prepared with a cannon, according to the data of my friend Lieutenant Jensen, a Danish volunteer, and I think that with this weapon I could have done an impressive job."

  Maj J.P.C. Sewell, RFC/RAF liaison officer with the French, commented in April 1918, on the somewhat unattractive NIEUPORT monoplane with its glass observation panels has an undercarriage without any shock absorbers whatever. The tyres have double inner tubes.

  "Since LEGAGNEUX’s machine in 1912 such an experiment has not, as far as the writer can remember, been tried, and it seems likely to prove unsatisfactory for active service pilots."

  As at 1 May the first prototype had been abandoned but the second was still under test. Neither were considered better than the Spad fighters then in production and were not selected for production. It appears that a clipped wing version appeared in 1919 as a racing aircraft.


Nieuport Monoplane Specifications
Source 1 1 2 3. Ni.31.
Dimensions in m
   Span - - 9.40 8.60
   Length - - 6.40 6.60
   Height - - - 2.40
Area Wings in m2 17.5 17.5 17.5 193.76
Weights in kg
   Empty 440 433 433 500
   Military load* 100 100 - -
   Loaded 710 703 703 780
Performance
   Speed in kph
   Max - - 220 @ 4,000 m 230
   at 4,000 m 200 220 - -
Climb to
  to 4,000 m 13 min 13 min 13 min -
Endurance in hrs 2 2 2 2
Engine 180 Rhone 150 Mono. 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N 180-hp Le Rhone -
Note: * Military load = crew and fuel.
Source:
1) "Department of Aircraft Production, British Ministry of Munitions of War, Paris, Monthly Aeroplane Report. May 1st 1918. French Experimental Aeroplanes, Scouts and Fighters." Chart from TNA AIR1/1071/204/5/1639. RAF Museum, J.M. Bruce Collection Box 15.
2) J.M Bruce data.
3) Green, W &. Swanborough, G. The Complete Book of Fighters, Greenwich Editions, UK. 2001.

Nieuport 31

  A second monocoque NIEUPORT C 1 SESQUIPLAN RHONE 9R 170 HP was reported in November 1918 as being assembled and construction was advanced. This would have been a reference to the Nieuport 31, a refined monocoque fuselage version of the basic patent design.
  The auxiliary undercarriage aerofoil surface was extended and the wheels were faired on their upper half. The wing roots of the broad chord wing were cut away to give the pilot some downward view. The monocoque fuselage was essentially the same as the Nieuport 29 biplane. Armament was projected as two 7.7-mm Vickers guns.
  The Ni.31 was tested in January 1919 and had an improved performance over the earlier model monoplanes. The French had however, decided on the Nieuport Ni.29 biplane as their new fighter and the Nieuport monoplane fighter was relegated to history.


Nieuport Monoplane Specifications
Source 1 1 2 3. Ni.31.
Dimensions in m
   Span - - 9.40 8.60
   Length - - 6.40 6.60
   Height - - - 2.40
Area Wings in m2 17.5 17.5 17.5 193.76
Weights in kg
   Empty 440 433 433 500
   Military load* 100 100 - -
   Loaded 710 703 703 780
Performance
   Speed in kph
   Max - - 220 @ 4,000 m 230
   at 4,000 m 200 220 - -
Climb to
  to 4,000 m 13 min 13 min 13 min -
Endurance in hrs 2 2 2 2
Engine 180 Rhone 150 Mono. 150-hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N 180-hp Le Rhone -
Note: * Military load = crew and fuel.
Source:
1) "Department of Aircraft Production, British Ministry of Munitions of War, Paris, Monthly Aeroplane Report. May 1st 1918. French Experimental Aeroplanes, Scouts and Fighters." Chart from TNA AIR1/1071/204/5/1639. RAF Museum, J.M. Bruce Collection Box 15.
2) J.M Bruce data.
3) Green, W &. Swanborough, G. The Complete Book of Fighters, Greenwich Editions, UK. 2001.

Spad 15

  The Spad 15 has been described under a variety of designations, indeed in one post-war source it is shown as the SPAD 15 and XV1 to XV5 in the same document. The designation 15/1 to 15/5 is used in the following for simplicity and clarity. SPAD was the company’s name and the aircraft were known as Spads.

  In July 1917 the British Air Board was notified that Messrs. Spad are completing an experimental biplane, having 13 1/2 square metres wing surface and which is fitted with a 150 h.p. Gnome Monosoupape engine.
  The fuselage is of circular section built up of three layers of tulip wood applied helically in strips, the inside and outside layers going in one direction and the middle layer crossing them, approximately at right angles, in the other, the whole being finally covered with fabric. Thickness of the skin is 3.5 m/m.
  There are two thin longerons, one at the top and one at the bottom, but no horizontal ribs, vertical formers being used to maintain the planes, undercarriage, engine bearing plate, etc.
  The whole weight of the fuselage complete with metal fittings for the attachment of planes etc., is only 17 kgms.
  “Despite this extraordinary low weight the machine has a factor of safety of 7, and the appearance of a workman and strong piece of work."

  Although Louis Bechereau had left SPAD in the spring of 1917, and the Type 15 was the first fighter that Andre Herbemont was entirely responsible for, the machine still showed Bechereau influences in its detail design. It was designed to meet the requirement for a single-seat medium altitude fighter carrying a 220 kg payload, with a service ceiling of 6,000 metres, capable of reaching 9,000 metres and having a speed of 224 km/h. The proposed motor was to be the 160-hp Gnome 9Nc rotary engine.
  The Spad 15 was a small, very clean and fast looking single-bay biplane, the "streamline effect being obtained by the arrangement of the motor within the radius of the fuselage." The wooden monocoque fuselage was exceptionally clean. The wings were constructed as single pieces, had nearly equal spans and were unstaggered. The leading edge of the wings was covered with ply to the front spar. Silk was used instead of ordinary fabric and was sewn to every rib.
  The tailplane was made in one piece and passed through a slot cut into the fuselage to which it was secured by a metal flange. The undercarriage was similar to the standard Spad but lighter. Two synchronised Vickers machine guns were fitted in the same position as the Spad 13. Provision was made for 600 rounds.
  A large cone de penetration was fitted in front of the airscrew. The large aluminium cone was attached upon a spindle forming an extension of the propeller hub upon which the cone was free to revolve, not being attached to the airscrew, and was fitted with ball bearings for that purpose. This system was adopted for ease of detachment of the cone when changing the airscrew. The same cone could be used with any airscrew and there was no possibility of it being fitted out of line.
  It was thought that provided the fuselage proved satisfactory the machine would be easy to manufacture in large quantities "owing to its simplicity and small number of component parts." Trials were expected "towards the end of the current week." The machine first flew on 31 July 1917.
  Another report noted that the machine was still in an experimental state and "a new cowl is being fitted to obtain the results of tests."
  The US Air Service program to produce Spad aircraft appears to have been initiated on 2 May 1917, when Col V.E. Clark suggested that examples of the 150-hp and 180-hp Spads be acquired with the view of their being manufactured in the USA. On 29 July he recommended the 170-hp Gnome as the single-seat pursuit plane. Two days later he cabled:
  Believe necessary build both best fixed engine fighter and best rotary engine fighter now developed. These are SPAD with 200 hp Hispano, and new SPAD with 150 hp Gnome Monosoupape... Recommend SPAD monocoque with 150-180 Gnome Monosoupape engine and two Vickers machine guns firing through the propellers (sic). Machine now being tested. Believe it best yet, but probably can be flown only by best pilots. ”

  The Bolling Commission cabled on 13 August the proposal that the USA build 3,000 fixed engine 200-hp Spads and 3,000 rotary engine fighters with the 150-hp Gnome. The decision of what type of rotary engine fighter would probably be made in a few days and would probably be the Spad monocoque (Spad 15).
  Pursuit airplanes must be two kinds. One type fixed engine with great horizontal speed and great diving speed, this is the fixed engine SPAD. Second type must have high ceiling and ability maneuver great altitude without losing altitude... You build as many rotary pursuit airplanes as fixed engine pursuit planes.

  In his report to the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, dated 15 August 1917, Maj R.C. Bolling, recommended that 1,500 of the new Spad (150 Gnome) or Nieuport (150 Gnome) be purchased for use from January 1918 by the AEF. The decision between New Spad and Nieuport to be made as soon as tests of New Spad are completed. There is time to await this because both types take the same engine. The New Spad was also recommended for production in the USA as a Fighting or Pursuit aircraft. The machine was now undergoing final tests.
  The report listed the following aircraft as "Types for American Production."
  - Advanced Trainer: Bristol Scout with 80 Le Rhone. Division or Corps d'Armee: Bristol Fighter with 200 Hispano.
  - Long range reconnaissance or day bombing: D.H.4 with Rolls Royce or some equivalent engine. (Fiat 300 has proved successful here).
  - Fighting or Pursuit (fixed engine): Spad with 200 HP Hispano.
  - Fighting or Pursuit (rotary engine): New Spad with 150 Gnome (This airplane is now undergoing final tests).
  - Night bombing: Caproni triplane with 3 Isotta Fraschini 270 HP engines or other equivalent engine.

  The "New Spad" that the US was so taken with was the Spad 15. It was one of four types proposed for the same engine that were in competition for production contracts. The US sent 17 draughtsmen and mechanics to the SPAD factory in France by early September. They were to assemble the second machine and prepare drawings before bringing the airframe back to the US as a production example. In the US the Thomas-Morse company was ordered on 8 September to prepare standardised production drawings.
  It was realised that aircraft and engines would have to be ordered in France and it was suggested that the following program be adopted for 1918 (see table on next page):
  The "New Spad" or the Nieuport was to be ordered as soon as tests of the "New Spad" were completed. As it turned out, the Spad 15 failed to gain a production contract and the USAS ended up with the Nieuport 28 as this was the only machine that could be supplied at the time.
  Around mid to late August 1917, Maj. Sewell, RFC liaison officer with the French, reported that the machine had not yet carried out its official trials. He noted that the machine had a span of 20 ft 7 in, a surface of 140 sq ft with the top plane having a chord of 3 ft 6 in and the bottom, 3 ft 3in. Weight was stated to be "about 12 cwt."

  Save for its rounded 3-ply fuselage and naturally different engine it greatly resembles the ordinary SPAD and does not appear to promise anything sensational in the way of climb or speed.
  The engine - of which large numbers have been ordered for use on MORANES, NIEUPORTS and possibly SPAD Monocoques - gives 159 hp at 1350 r.p.m. and weighs under 300 lbs.
  A peculiarity of this machine is that the large cone on the propeller boss is not attached to the propeller and accordingly does not turn - though free to do so - in the air.
  Two Vickers guns are fitted.

  The US Army's "Review of French Airplanes" of 23 October 1917, reported that the Spad Monocoque, Morane Biplane and Morane Monoplane, all of which are equipped with the Gnome 150 H.P. Monosoupape engine, have finished their tests.
  Referring to the Spad Monocoque the report noted that the Spad Monocoque with the 150 H.P. engine has been tested, and has done very poorly. Many persons were in favour of discontinuing work entirely on this machine, but a decision was finally made to permit the manufacture to rebuild the airplane with a different type of fuselage and to try it again in the future. The performance of this machine was a great deal poorer than either that of the Nieuport or Morane equipped with the same engine. It climbed to 2,000 metres in 5’ 40”; 3,000 metres in 9’ 35” and 5,000 metres in 27’ 25”. At 2,000 metres it made a speed of only 124 M.P.H. At 3,000 metres the speed was 122 1/2s M.P.H. and at 5,000 metres the speed was only 109 M.P.H."

  The comparison of the monocoque Spad 15 to the other aircraft using the Monosoupape engine is given in the accompanying table.
  The following comparison of the Gnome Monosoupape engine fighters was prepared by the British Aviation Commission in France.
  It appears that the machine was very manoeuvrable and achieved results similar to the Spad 13 despite the low power of its engine, and was thought to warrant further development.
  The British Aviation Commission wrote on 28 October 1917, that Messrs Spad were making another similar machine, but with 18 sq metres surface and designed to climb to 8,000 metres. This second Type 15 (15/2) had extended wings and a new tail. Herbemont abandoned the cone de penetration, and simplified the engine installation. The wings were still of near equal span and unstaggered but the interplane struts now slanted outwards and the centre-section cabane was redesigned.
  A third machine was built, 15/3, that was reported in January 1918 as "Monocoque construction (New and longer body) and powered by the "Rh.9R (180)"." It first flew in January 1918. Neither of these two examples was successful. A fourth modification of the basic design, 15/4, was apparently abandoned by 1 May 1918, before being built as it was not mentioned in a British report of that date. It was reported to have been designed for the 170 hp Le Rhone engine. However, a post-war report states that it did fly, making its first flight on 25 February 1918.
  A report of 29 November 1918, noted under the heading of "aircraft undergoing testing," that the 170-hp Rhone 9Ris motor for the Spad 15 biplane was being fitted to an earlier model of the type. However the previously mentioned British report on French Experimental Aeroplanes for 1 May 1918, recorded that the last report to the Technical Department was on 1 April and the SPAD 15 machines (XV.A and XV.B) had been abandoned. It is thought that the November report was associated with the efforts to get the correct performance out of the Le Rhone 9Ris engine, and although the aircraft may have been abandoned it could have been used for testing this engine.
  Maj J.P.C. Sewell reported for the British on French developments and in one report in April 1918, noted that the proposed 350 hp H-Suiza SPAD canon will be a genuine monocoque of seven or eight layers of wood built up round a mould like the pre-war Deperdussin and last year’s SPAD Monocoque. An advantage of such construction which is generally overlooked is that the number of drawings is considerably less than that of an ordinary fuselage.
  One of the drawbacks, of course, lies in the fact that any injury to the machine means a new hull.

  It appears that the development work on the Spad 15 was not wasted but was continued into the Spad 20.
  Post-war a civil version of the Spad 15 was produced for Rene Fonck and Charles Nungesser, the French "aces" who thought that a sporting machine with the performance of a scout would be required in the post-war civil aeronautical scene. Fonck's machine was given the registration F-ONCK while on Nungesser's black fuselage was painted his personal insignia - the Hussards de la Mort. This machine appears to have had the wings and tail painted with aluminium dope. Only these two 15/5 machines were constructed, the sportsman aviator was not to appear as predicted.
  As the late Jack Bruce wrote, The Spad 15.C 1 got precisely nowhere, although it was repeatedly modified.

  A post war document gives the following nomenclature to the Spad XV:
  - Spad XV1 fighter with petite cellue (small wings) and 160 cv Gnome (Monosoupape) First flight 31 July 1917.
  - Spad XV2 fighter with grande cellue (large wings) and 160 cv Gnome (Monosoupape) First flight August 1917.
  - Spad XV3 fighter with allonge and 160 cv Gnome (Monosoupape) First flight January 1918.
  - Spad XV4 fighter with allonge and 170 cv Le Rhone. First flight 25 February 1918.
  - Spad XV tourisme (sporting) with 80 cv. First flight 18 May 1919.
  The Spad XV1 to XV4 were single examples only, while an example of the XV was built each for Fonck and Nungesser.
  Source: Spad 15 Monoplace de chasse on de Moteur "Rhone” 80 cv. Dimensioned three-view drawing of the XV5 with details. Original source not quoted. Copy in RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection Box 16.


Proposed Purchases from French in 1918
Type Jan Feb Mar April May June Total
SPAD (200 Hispano) - 135 300 400 550 615 2000
New Spad (150 Gnome) 50 100 200 300 350 500 1500
Nieuport (150 gnome) 300 400 400 400 - - 1500
Source: "A Lesson in Timing," Aerospace Historian, Vol and date unknown. P.222. A reprint of Major Bolling's report.


Comparison of the Gnome Monosoupape Engine Fighters
Type Nieuport 28 Morane A.l Monoplane Morane AF Biplane Spad 15 Monocoque
Weights in Kg
   Empty 407 417 431 355
   Total load 228 228 228 260
   Total 635 645 659 615
Wing Area, m2 16 13 15% 16%
Climb to
   2,000 m 4' 40" 4'35" 4' 50" 5' 40"
   3,000 m 8' 15" 7' 45" 8' 10" 9'35"
   4,000 m 12' 00" 11' 50" 12'40" 16' 00"
   5,000 m 20'00" 17' 25" 20'30" 27' 25"
Speed in km/hr
   at 2,000 m 208 219 205 199.3
   at 3,000 m 206 215 200 1/2 197
   at 4,000 m 202 210 194 1/2 192
   at 5,000 m - - 185 -
Ceiling in m 6,000 6,800 6,000 6,000
Endurance in hrs 2 2 2 2
Source: TNA AIR1/2391/228/11/140. (The table accompanied a letter to HQ RFC of 28.10.1917.)

Spad 15 Monocoque Specifications
Source 1. 2. 3. XVa (15/1) 4 .XV5 (15/5)
Span, m 6.900 6.600 - 7.100
Length, m 5.000 - - 5.510
Height, m 2.300 - - 2.300
Chord upper, m - 1.250 - -
Chord lower, m - 1.100 - -
Incidence (both) - 3/4° - -
Wing Area, m2 16 1/2 13 1/2 (188 ft2) 16
Weights in Kg
   Empty - - 368 (811 lbs) -
   Engine group 160 - - -
   Glider 195 - - -
   Empty 355 - - -
   Fuel 79 - - -
   Oil 21 - - -
   Pilot 80 - - -
   2 Vickers & ammunition 80 - - -
   Military load - - 50 (110 lbs) -
   Total load 260 - - -
   Total 615 550 625 (1,378 lbs) -
Capacities in Itr
   Fuel - 100 - -
   Oil - 25 - -
Climb to
   2,000 m 5 min 40 - - -
   3,000 m 9 min 35 - - -
   4,000 m 16 min 00 - 13 min -
   5,000 m 27 min 25 - - -
Speed in km/hr
   at 2,000 m 199.3 - - -
   at 3,000 m 197 - - -
   at 4,000 m 192 - (118 mph) -
   Max - - - 170
Ceiling in m 6,000 - - 5,000
Endurance in hrs 2 - 2.5 -
Engine 165-hp Monosoupape 170 Monosoupape 150 Mono 80 Rhone
Source:
1) "Results of Preliminary Tests of 165 H.P. Monosoupape Engined Spad Monocoque with built up Tulip Wood Fuselage." TNA AIR1/2391/228/11/140.
2) Letter from British Aviation Commission, Paris, to Controller, Technical Dept, Air Board, London, dated 26 July 1917. TNA AIR 1/1069/ 204/5/1626.
3) French Experimental Aeroplanes, Monthly Aeroplane Report for May 1st, 1918, British Ministry of Munitions of War (Paris). Copy in RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection Box 46.
4) Spad 15 Monoplace de chasse on de Moteur "Rhone" 80 cv. Dimensioned three-view drawing with details. Original source not quoted. Copy in RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection Box 16.


Spad 15/2 Specifications
Source 1. XVb 2. XV/2
Span - 7.10
Length - 5.35
Height - 2.30
Weights in Kg
   Empty 360 (794 lbs) 368
   Military load 100 (220 lbs)* -
   Total 620 (1,367 lbs) 625 kg
Wing Area (188 ft2) 17.50 m2
Climb to
   2,000 m - 5.67 min
   4,000 m 13 min -
Speed in km/hr
   at 2,000 m - 199
   at 4,000 m 124 mph -
Endurance in hrs - 2.5
Engine 180 Rhone -
Notes: * There is an inconsistency in the figures as all the other figures for Ib/hp, etc., are the same as for the Type XVa (15/1).
Source:
1) French Experimental Aeroplanes, Monthly Aeroplane Report for May 1st, 1918, British Ministry of Munitions of War (Paris). Copy in RAF Museum J.M. Bruce Collection.
2) Green, W and Swanborough, G. The Complete Book of Fighters, Salamander Books, UK, 1994.