А.Шепс Самолеты Первой мировой войны. Страны Антанты

Сопвич "Снайп" (Snipe) 1917 г.

   Одним из лучших истребителей Первой мировой войны с ротативным двигателем стал самолет фирмы "Сопвич" - 7F.1 "Снайп". От предыдущих машин он отличался многими конструктивными особенностями. Эта машина - двухстоечный биплан с фюзеляжем типа полумонокок смешанной конструкции, в которой вместе с деревом стали применяться металлические трубы и профили. Обтяжка осталась полотняной. Капот двигателя аналогичный "Кэмл". Крыло большего размаха имело дополнительную пару стоек, двухлонжеронное, подобное по конструкции крылу "Кэмл", также оборудованное элеронами. На самолете установлен 9-цилиндровый, воздушного охлаждения, ротативный, звездообразный двигатель "Бентли" BP-2 мощностью 230 л. с.
   Хвостовое оперение подобно оперению машин типа "Кэмл". Стабилизатор с регулируемым углом установки. Вертикальное оперение с небольшим килем. Руль поворота с роговой компенсацией.
   Управление самолетом тросовое, осуществлялось от ручки управления и педалей, обычное для машин того времени.
   Шасси аналогичное применявшемуся на более ранних самолетах фирмы.
   Прототип с двигателем "Клерже-9b" (150 л. с.) испытан летом 1917 года, но мощность двигателя уже была недостаточной, и в декабре на машину установили более мощный двигатель - "Бентли" BP-2, с которым машина пошла в серию. Она оказалась очень удачной и состояла на вооружении до 1927 года.
   Кроме этого, в 1918 году фирма "Сопвич Авиэйшн Компани" строила небольшими сериями истребители "Саламандер" (двухстоечный биплан с фюзеляжем прямоугольного сечения и фанерной обшивкой, в остальном аналогичный истребителю "Снайп").
   В 1916-1917 годах участились налеты немецких дирижаблей и тяжелых бомбардировщиков на Великобританию. Бомбардировка проводилась с высот более 4000 м, на которых маневренность существовавших истребителей была недостаточной для ведения маневренного боя. К тому же радиус их действия был невелик. Для организации перехвата над Ла Маншем германских бомбардировщиков и цеппелинов проводились опыты с подвеской истребителей "Кэмл" на дирижабли. Доставленный таким образом в район Ла Манша самолет при обнаружении самолета и дирижабля противника отцеплялся от трапеции и, атаковав врага, возвращался на свой аэродром.

H.King Sopwith Aircraft 1912-1920 (Putnam)

7F.1 Snipe

   First constructed - specifically as a successor to the Camel - late in 1917, the Snipe was destined to remain in service with the RAF until 1926, even though the Sopwith company had gone into voluntary liquidation in 1920. The operational history of the Snipe, therefore, is largely 'post-Sopwith', and somewhat obscured by the fact that the first Hawker Woodcocks were replacing Snipes in May 1925 (the Woodcock having first been flown in 1923). Harry Hawker, whose surname the new company bore, had been killed in the Nieuport Goshawk in July 1921. That same aeroplane (the Goshawk) was the precursor of the famous Gloster racer nicknamed 'Bamel, though, unlike the Snipe, the Bamel was not related to the Camel - its hump containing nothing more lethal than fuel!
   There is one further point to make here: Both the Goshawk and the Bamel belonged to the Nieuport Nighthawk family - and so, also, did the Nightjar, which saw RAF service as a Naval fighter and was a direct counterpart of the Snipe, having the B.R.2 rotary engine; in being rigged as a two-bay biplane; and in being fitted in one form - called Sparrowhawk III - with a hydrovane landing gear (plus the normal wheels) similar to that which was tried on the Snipe when that Sopwith fighter was itself envisaged as a replacement for the 2F.1 (Ship's) Camel.
   While the Snipe's record of RAF service as generally published has rightly surveyed developments after Maj. W. G. Barker's monumental Fokker-fight of 27 October, 1918, by naming Home Defence duties jointly with commitments in occupied Germany, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, India and Iraq, and has given due credit to the Snipe as a trainer as well as a Hendon highlight (formation aerobatics in 1921, for instance) one aspect of this Sopwith fighter's use seems nevertheless neglected. This particular aspect was not, perhaps, of great importance; but - having gloomy regard to circumstances that prevail in Ireland at the time of writing (as of yore) - it has indubitable interest, and helps to place the Snipe in true perspective.
   Here one has in mind the employment of RAF Snipes in 1921, when 'Snipes for the Snipers' was an item in the news - though 'snipe' instead of 'for' might have been more explicit, having regard to the explanation: 'A patrol of this type of aeroplane recently located [in Ireland] an ambush, and the result was disastrous for the ambushers, five of whom were killed by our airmen.'
   Another point concerning the Snipe's lengthy retention in RAF service is that this was not solely due to economic considerations, but also to difficulties with the A.B.C. Dragonfly radial engine (See later chapter headed 'Dragon').
   Thus, while Woodcocks, Siskins, Grebes and Gamecocks took up their stations, it was in large degree the Snipe - both by its physical presence around the RAF and by artless representations in official publications on fighting tactics and airmanship - which was to nurture many leaders for the '40s and the '50s and beyond. (Quite often - very long after the Armistice - was the Snipe depicted in various attitudes and in varying company, some members of the latter having a distinct resemblance to L.V.G.s or Rumplers; and such was the colouring of the Snipe and its consorts in those 'tween-war years that pilots were counselled how, in stalking an enemy, they should not bank so steeply that sunlight might flash 'from planes or struts'. They should watch, moreover, an adversary's rudder, because its movement could foretell the direction of a turn). In such an environment - linking the First World War quite directly with the 1930s - the Snipe eked out its presence in the RAF; and even Hawker Fury pilots were to see its presence in their printed guides.
   All of which seems far removed from the first ideas of the Snipe, as they grew - generally conforming to the Air Board A.1(a) specification, then already some months old - in the summer of 1917. Six examples (B9962-B9967) were ordered for experimental and development flying, and the first of these was a very different aeroplane from the Snipe so well remembered by so many pilots. This difference was chiefly by reason of the short-span - 25 ft 9 in (7.9 m) - single-bay wings; the flat-sided fuselage behind the rounded engine-fairings; and the Camel-type tail. Camel-reminiscent also was the 150 hp Bentley B.R.1 engine. The top centre section was somewhat cut back at the leading edge; was open between the spars; and was carried on near-vertical struts. Main-panel root cut-outs on the top wings were prominent, though differing in shape from those at one time schemed. In sum, this was one of the trimmest, most compact, and most aggressive-looking fighters ever built, affording a clearer view for the pilot than the Camel and - hopefully, it may be surmised (from the equal dihedral, for instance) - restoring some of the Pup's tractability.
   The next version (conceivably a rebuild of the first machine) was seemingly almost identical, though having a B.R.2 engine of 230 hp and also the increased dihedral applied at some stage to the first. In any case, this first B.R.2 version (and the B.R.2 was to become well-nigh identified with the Snipe) was numbered B9963 - and on 23 November, 1917, it was at the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough.
   Chiefly for a report on the B.R.2 engine, a single-bay Snipe (confusingly logged officially as '9965') was intended to go to Martlesham Heath, after crashing at Brooklands on 19 November, 1917, and being repaired at Kingston. It did in fact arrive at Martlesham a month later (18 December), and there it was briefly tested (before another mishap) without ammunition, attaining a speed of 119 mph (192 km h) at 15.000 ft (4.570 m) - a height to which it climbed in 14.8 min. As the level at which the speed-run mentioned was made seems uncommonly high, and the B.R.2 was not supercharged, it may be explained that the experimental unit fitted was not run at full throttle below 5,000 ft (1.524 m).
   Snipe B9965 in early form appears to have had not only single-bay wings but a wider centre section, with splayed-out struts; faired (rounded) fuselage sides; and vertical tail-surfaces of new design (small fin, with angular horn-balance for rudder). Later the machine so numbered was given two-bay wings of greater span about 30 ft (9.1 m.) - on the uppermost whereof a Lewis gun was mounted (pivoted on the rear spar of the centre section) in addition to the two standard fuselage-mounted synchronised Vickers guns. Such alterations inevitably confuse any survey of the 'development' Snipes - a survey further blurred by the Snipe's near relationship to the Salamander; by rebuilds and structural-test specimens; and - not least - by the apparent initiation of the Snipe's construction as a private venture (under Licence No.14, whereby the Rhino triplane bomber was also built), with retrospective numbering of individual airframes not being decided or confirmed until November 1917. Contractural convenience, or even 'security', may have been considerations here.
   In any case, one major consideration in the development programme was the chosen engine - the Bentley B.R.2, as already affirmed, becoming 'well-nigh identified with the Snipe', although in November 1917 the eleven-cylinder Clerget 11E, as installed in the Hippo and Bulldog two-seaters, was still envisaged as an alternative. (A Clerget of this type was eventually and temporarily installed in Snipe F2340, though seemingly in connection with the Salamander programme).
   By February 1918, B9965, with two-bay wings and third (Lewis) gun though in other respects deficient in military equipment and even in rigging had been officially tested (B9966 not so, though this had been intended). Whatever criticisms may have been made of the Snipe by this time, however, the pilot's view was considered 'excellent' which was more than could be said of the Pup or the Camel. And here one would emphasise that by this time also field of view was deemed increasingly important not for combat alone but equally for systematic search.
   By March 1918 the Snipe had been chosen for adoption rather than any of its direct competitors, the Austin Osprey triplane, the Nieuport B.N.1 unconventionally braced biplane and the Boulton & Paul Bobolink, which last-named almost merited the description just applied to the B.N.1. Factors in the choice were the well-established 'acceptance' of Sopwith types by the Services and manufacturers and the use of standardised Sopwith components; though in all frankness the Snipe did not illuminate the fighter scene with dazzling brilliance. However, B9965 went off to France, where the 23-year-old officer who was to become Air Chief Marshal Sir Leslie Hollinghurst, and who was to know Snipes well between the wars, made a few criticisms but (once again) praised field of view - as well as manoeuvrability. These same characteristics were stressed by other RFC pilots, though (like Hollinghurst) they remarked on tail-heaviness and recommended removal of the Lewis gun. That the rudder was too small was a general criticism, and that manoeuvrability was not, perhaps, one of the Snipe's stronger points after all, was suggested.
   In any case, on 20 March, 1918, Snipes to a total of 1,700 were ordered from Sopwith themselves, Boulton & Paul, Coventry Ordnance Works (shades of young Tom's test-flying days!), Napier (not such a new name in the airframe, as distinct from engine, world as might be supposed), Nieuport & General, Portholme Aerodrome and Ruston Proctor.
   Still B9965 continued as the chief test-specimen, and in May 1918 was returned to Sopwith to be given a new engine-cowling, jointly with a huge open-fronted spinner (a precursor of those on the Snapper, Cobham, post-war Schneider and Rainbow) with lower-segment holes in the cowling for the B.R.2's exhaust efflux. By the beginning of July this same Snipe was at Farnborough; but B9966 had been at Martlesham in May, with an adjustable tailplane (later standardised), larger fuel and oil capacity and a new fuel system (Badin type, with venturi tube on the starboard front centre-section strut, used to transfer petrol from the main tank under the pilot's seat to the gravity tank behind the engine). A mounting for a Lewis gun was retained, and a slightly bigger rudder fitted, though before October 1918 Snipe B9966 was at Martlesham with a new 'production-type' fin and rudder (large curved tin), a centre-section with inter-spar cut-out revised once again (there were several variations), and, most remarkable of all, an experimental tailplane/elevator assembly of puzzling complexity and near-triangular plan form, the rear part of the tailplane having variable incidence - all this together with horn-balanced ailerons (with inverse taper, like the elevators) on the top wings.
   True production Snipes had nevertheless been under test since mid-August 1918 - and here an anomaly can be recorded, in that E7996 was with No. 43 Squadron at the Front on 13 August, whereas E7987 did not arrive at Martlesham until five days later. The term 'true production', furthermore, is open to misconstruction, for the first Snipes off the lines had plain ailerons and a small fin, though the larger fin, and rudder with shielded horn balance, as tried on B9966, together with horn-balanced ailerons on the top wings, soon became standard fitments (not, however, the 'fancy' horizontal tail surfaces!).
   Even so, our earlier appraisal of the Snipe that it 'did not illuminate the fighter scene with any brilliance' - remained valid, special engine-tuning and other recourses notwithstanding.
   On 24 September, 1918, No. 43 Squadron (the first to be Snipe-equipped) could put up fourteen of the new Sopwiths, and by 31 October there were 97 Snipes in France, three squadrons being equipped by the Armistice. Of all these early-production Snipes the most famous was E8102, wherein Maj W. G. Barker won his Victoria Cross on 27 October, 1918, in an action hardly less worthy of renown than the last fight of Sir Richard Grenville's Revenge or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Alas, there was no Tennyson to commemorate the glory of a solitary Snipe against fifteen Fokkers, and John Masefield was sticking to his beloved ships.
   Nevertheless, we now retell in essence the stirring tale of Barker's action in E8102:
   Major Barker, who was on a refresher course from England with No. 201 Squadron, RAF, while on patrol in this Sopwith-built Snipe attacked an enemy two-seater at 21.000 ft over the Foret de Mormal, and the E.A. broke up in the air. He was then fired at from below and wounded by a Fokker biplane, and fell into a spin, from which he pulled out in the middle of a formation of fifteen Fokkers, two of which he attacked indecisively. He then got on the tail of a third, which he shot down in flames from a range often yards. He was again wounded, and fainted, but on recovering he regained control of his Snipe and was attacked by a large formation of E.A., one of which he shot down in flames from close range. He was then hit in the left elbow, which was shattered, and again he fainted, the Snipe falling to 12,000 ft before he recovered. Another large formation then attacked him and, noticing heavy smoke coming from his machine, Barker believed it to be on fire, so he tried to ram a Fokker. He opened fire on it from close range, and the E.A. fell in flames. Finding his retreat cut off by eight of the enemy, at which he fired a few bursts and succeeded in shaking them off, Barker returned to our lines a few feet from the ground, finally crashing near our balloons.
   During the latter part of this combat Barker was without the use of both legs and one arm.
   Thus the analogy of the Revenge (‘the one and the fifty-three') is surely a fitting one; and with the sea now in mind it must not go unrecorded that, but for the ending of the war, Snipes would have been in Naval service. By October 1918, E8068 had, in fact, been fitted with a hydrovane ahead of the jettisonable wheels to render ditching less risky and, if nothing else, tests showed that the speed-reduction with the hydrovane was only 3 mph (5 km/h). Slinging gear, for salvage from the sea, was another feature that had to be developed for the 'Ship's Snipe", though arrester-hooks for deck-landing were seemingly not developed for the Snipe until 1923/24 - the comparable Nieuport Nightjar then being already in service.
   For Home Defence the Snipe was just beginning to enter the service stage as the war finished; one Camel squadron, indeed, would have been re-equipped in January 1919 and by March of that year five would have had the new and larger Sopwith single-seater. In this Home Defence context especially it may be noted that, having its two-bay wings of greater area, and also the lifting power of some 230 hp, the Snipe could carry a warload that might involve relatively elaborate night-flying equipment - including, for example, navigation lights. Holt electrically ignited wingtip flares, and a wind-driven generator on the front starboard landing-gear strut - in addition to two Vickers guns with a greater ammunition supply than a Camel's (with provision also, on some aircraft, for an optional Lewis gun on the top wing). Wireless, 'safety' or self-sealing petrol tanks, oxygen equipment, ply-covered leading edges for the wings and special finishes were all investigated and used in varying degrees and at various stages; and E8137 at least was adapted to take a Calthrop Guardian Angel parachute. One clearly visible item that distinguished standard production Snipes from the experimental models was the steel-tube (instead of wooden) landing gear, and in postwar years the Badin fuel system (using a venturi) was sometimes replaced by a wind-driven pump mounted under the fuselage near the rearmost pair of steel-tube struts.
   Respecting fuel supply, however, by far the most interesting development was the increased tankage for the Mk.Ia 'long distance' Snipe (Mk.I was a retrospective designation for the standard type, and, indeed, the name Snipe had not been officially adopted until February 1918). The Mk.Ia was becoming available at the end of 1918, its chief distinction being the fitting of a special main tank - of 50 gal (227 litre) capacity instead of 32 gal (145 litres) behind and beneath the pilot's seat, the rearward movement of the centre of gravity being compensated by a very slight sweep-back of the wings, some components of which (like some fuselage members) were strengthened. Snipe E8089 was the first to be converted to something approaching the ‘long distance' standard, though its Dolphin tail unit was not perpetuated. This particular Snipe was on test at Martlesham Heath in October 1918; but handling was poor, and although 'long distance' Snipes went overseas, the Ia sub-type was never truly operational. In any case, with the machine virtually non-aerobatic at heavy loadings, and 'straightforward' flying only being foreseen, one may speculate on its bomb-carrying propensities, even with the normal Camel/Snipe loads of 4 x 20 lb or 1 x 112 lb. An 'escort fighter' inhibited from fighting in defence of bombers might at least help them with the bombing.
   From the purely technical, as distinct from operational, aspect the most significant development was the adaptation of Snipe B9967 (the last of the original six that had been ordered, as already recorded, for experimental and development flying) to take the A.B.C. Dragonfly nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engine of well over 300 hp. This 'Dragonfly Snipe' had been completed as early as April 1918, and though the early-pattern small fin and rudder was retained (as originally fitted on B9966) the fuselage was lengthened by 1 ft 10 in (0.6 m) to give the longer lever-arm necessitated by the greater side-area of the new radial. Though the Dragonfly was very closely cowled (the crankcase and inter-cylinder cowling being in one piece, and cable-secured in Sopwith style) the cylinder heads were exposed. Such was the importance (as then judged) of this new powerplant installation that in October 1918 the name Dragon was officially adopted.
   Less significant (being in a tradition established by the Camel) was the trainer version of the standard Bentley-engined Snipe, a two-seater wherein there were cockpit variations (notably in width), though Sopwith's own design of late 1918 or early 1919 provided for the second cockpit to be immediately behind the standard cockpit of the single-seater. Postwar RAF Snipe fighter squadrons usually had at least one, and sometimes two, of these instructional Snipes, and the type was still serving at Flying Training Schools after the fighter Snipes had gone in 1926. Here, however, the Sopwith part of the Snipe story reaches some degree of finality, for the Hawker company was certainly converting Snipes to two-seaters (as well as reconditioning single-seaters) by early 1922.
   The handling of the Snipe was generally good, though it always had the reputation for being heavy laterally - in which connection observe that in the following excerpts from the Handling Notes (which are evocative as well as educational) there is a special warning that 'lateral control is heavier than on the Avro'. Thus a few sequential fragments:
   'Petrol taps must be turned on. The throttle should be fully opened and the fine adjustment opened about one-third of the quadrant. Mechanics must close the air intake pipes by holding their hands over them. After sucking in, the fine adjustment should be closed, leaving the throttle lever one-quarter open. When both switches have been switched on and the engine first fires, the fine adjustment should be opened slowly until smooth running is obtained at about 600 r.p.m. or slower for about half a minute. This should be continued until the oil can be seen moving in the pulsometer glass ...
   'The Snipe taxies steadily, but no attempt should be made to turn in a strong wind without the assistance of mechanics on the wing-tips. When the aeroplane is being taxied, the engine should not be run on the switch. The tailplane lever should be in the half-way position. A slight forward pressure on the control column is necessary to lift the tail off the ground. The Snipe will take herself off after a short run at a flying speed of 50 m.p.h.
   'An average cruising speed of about 90 m.p.h. can be maintained with the engine throttled back to 1,000 r.p.m. At low altitudes, a considerably greater flying speed can be attained without strain, provided the engine does not exceed its maximum r.p.m.
   'The best climbing speed is about 65 m.p.h. The bottom of the front centre-section struts are just above the horizon. The tailplane should be adjusted so that the aeroplane climbs "hands off".
   'The Snipe has a good steady dive but gathers speed rather quickly. The pilot should set forward the tailplane adjustment lever when diving, and should use it when coming out of a dive.
   'The lateral control is heavier than on the Avro. On a turn to port, the nose has a tendency to go up, and a lot of bottom rudder is required to keep the nose on the horizon. In a steep turn to port, the control column should be pulled back slightly; if it is pulled right back, the aeroplane will stall and spin. In a turn to starboard, the nose has a tendency to go down. Top rudder is therefore necessary, and the control column may be pulled right back. For quick turns, the tail lever should be set right back.
   'When the Snipe is being glided, the tailplane adjustment lever should be set right back. The normal gliding speed is 65 m.p.h. ...'
   In no action were the Snipe's fighting qualities more apparent than in Barker's 'scrap' with the Fokkers in October 1918; but this must not obscure the fine work done on the type by Australians - an interesting reflection and connection here between this present chapter and that to follow on the Dove. Barker was a Canadian, and in Ottawa today may be seen the fuselage of E8102 the most honoured survival from 1,550 Snipes completed. Canada had a few other Snipes (as had the USA) and the French evaluated a Snipe in 1918, though whether there is any link here with a Dragonfly engine being sent to France is unsure.
   Five Snipes only passed to the British Civil Register, one of these, G-EATF (ex J365) being used apparently without great success-as a demonstrator by the Aircraft Disposal Co. The others were G-EAUU (J459), G-EAUV (J453), G-EAUW (J455) and G-EBBE (J461) - this last specimen having been delivered to the Belgian Air Force in January 1922. An all-British 'Tally-ho' was the participation in the 1920 Aerial Derby (the Dragonfly-engined Sopwith Rainbow also) of 'UU, 'UV and 'UW, though hardly less British and sporting - even though on behalf of US movies - was the purchase of Snipes by film-star Reginald Denny, for Denny played parts as 'true-British' as the Snipe itself.
   One recurrent question concerning the Snipe, and to which an answer may be attempted, is why the type should have been used by the RAF instead of the Martinsyde Buzzard, with its much higher performance. One possible answer (apart, of course, from availability of airframes) could have involved the preferred engine for the Martinsyde - a French Hispano-Suiza