Question: Please identify this biplane

Thu 2 Sep 2010 - 5:18 pm UTC

| |

ANSWERED on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 2:18 am UTC by byrd

Question: Please identify this biplane

Please carefully read the Disclaimer and Terms & conditions.
Priced at $15.00
The customer tipped the researcher $10.00

Actions: Add Comment

Asked by mblind on Sun 7 Mar 2010 - 5:24 pm UTC:

simple enough, but I don't have the time or the expertise:

Found in a manga volume, Can someone identify this biplane model?
http://www.rocketbomber.com/images/271.jpg

Uclue Researcher Request for clarification by Researcher byrd on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 1:23 am UTC:

Hi mblind, 

I'm not posting this in the answer box because I'm not sure you want to
accept for your answer that the biplane in the picture is not a drawing of
a real biplane. However, that's what I think, and here's why: 

First of all, the story takes place in the 1890s. The earliest biplanes
were built during that decade, so the timeframe is slightly plausible.
However, the design of the first biplanes were nothing like the one in the
drawing. See this account with images of the Wright Brothers first biplane,
built in 1899: 
http://www.fi.edu/flight/first/before.html 

Here are a couple more links showing early biplanes from approximately the
same era: 

"Biplane Glider of Octave Chanute, c1896 (1910)"
http://www.heritage-print.com/pictures_1229916/biplane-glider-of-octave-chanute-c1896-1910.html

"1900's Wright Glider"
http://www.playle.com/listing.php?i=NKYPHOTOS120&PHPSESSID=a 

1910 Bristol Box Kite
http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/other-military-aircraft/bristol-boxkite.htm

You'll notice these very early biplanes look much different than the one in
the "Emma" drawing, which would be actually quite futuristic for the time
in which the story is set. Apparently this fact was noticed by others
also.

In one review of the comic, the reviwer says, "the toy biplane on pg. 31 is
an anachronism," which of course means something that cannot have existed
at the time stated. 
http://www.rocketbomber.com/2010/03/07/emma-mmf-daily-diary-vol-1 

Apparently the author, or at least her staff agreed, as in a future edition
of Emma, according to another commenter, "Kaoru Mori got it half-wrong ...
but the staff of the anime corrected her error. The anime still had a
flying model aircraft, but they replaced her relatively futuristic biplane
with a model of the Aerial Steam Carriage, an 1840s design that didn’t
fly but might have been known about by at least a few people (there was an
aviation display at the Crystal Palace, even if controlled, powered flight
had yet to occur): 
http://etonia.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/review-emma-vols-1-2/ 

According to this Wikipedia article, author Kaoru Mori attempted in Emma
"to recreate 1895 London with meticulous detail." However, since there were
no biplanes flying around London in 1895, it's obvious that she could not
have drawn an actual biplane from that time and place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_(manga) 

Furthermore, the biplane in the drawing does not match any of hundreds of
images of real biplanes I viewed on dozens of vintage aircraft sites. None
match all the details of the drawing including radial engine, two-bladed
propeller, single bay open cockpit, squared-off empennage (tail assembly),
partially exposed strutwork in the aft fuselage, six pairs of vertical
struts separating the wings, wings of the width depicted, wheels directly
forward of the cockpit and centered under the lower wing, and so forth.
Early British biplane manufacturers included British and Colonial Aeroplane
Company (Bristol), Hawker-Siddley, Sopwith, Nieuport, General, RAF (Royal
Aircraft Factory), Vickers, Avro, and Fairey. Of these, a few of the
closest matches are

Avro 504
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/roe.html (scroll down to nearly the
bottom of the page)

Bristol Fighter
http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/ww1-fighter-planes/bristol-fighter-f2b-ww1-fighter.htm

Nieuport 28
https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Nieuport-28.html 

Sopwith Pup
http://www.military-aircraft.org.uk/ww1-fighter-planes/sopwith-pup-ww1-fighter-plane.htm

But none of these match exactly, and they are all of much later vintage.
Also, none of the British models had three pairs of vertical struts on
either side of the fuselage separating the wings as depicted in the
drawing. In fact, the only biplane I found that had that particular feature
was a German WWI biplane called the Gotha Bomber, here: 
https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Gotha-Bombdropper.html 

Just for comparison a coupld of other close matches might be the American
Grumman F3F or the Sopwith Tabloid:
https://www.fiddlersgreen.net/models/Aircraft/Grumman-F3F.html 
http://www.wwiaviation.com/british1914.html

However, neither did these have all the features of the drawing.

Therefore, based on all the above, I believe the drawing in the original
Emma Volume 1 is a fictitious composite, made up of parts of various
aircraft, either imagined, drawn from memory, or combined from a variety of
actual aircraft, to create a representative biplane, but not a faithful
drawing of any actual year, make or model of real biplane. If you concur,
I'll be glad to post this information as an answer. If not, perhaps someone
else might do a better job of identifying the biplane in the drawing. 

Regards, 

Byrd

Question clarification by mblind on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 1:37 am UTC:

I especially like that you picked up on the RocketBomber review, as I wrote
it. (and was trying to peg just how many years out of place this damned
'aeroplane' was, hence the uclue query)

Your research work is excellent.  If you could give me your best guess as
to which year this model might best fall into, I'll happily take that (with
the information above) as your answer.  And I hope you don't mind, but I'll
likely link to this post when discussing this matter on RocketBomber.com
later in the week.

Thanks!

Uclue Researcher Answer by Researcher byrd on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 2:18 am UTC:

Hi Mblind, 

I'm glad you were pleased with the research and information. I believe the
closest matches to the Emma drawing might be the Avro 504 (1916), the
Bristol Fighter (1916), and the Gotha Bomber (early 1917). Therefore my
best guess as to the vintage of the biplane in the Emma drawing would be
mid-WWI or 1916. 

Just fyi, I am a pilot and while not an expert in historical aviation, I do
nevertheless have a large collection of aviation related bookmarks, and
know how to locate and use aviation databases, as well as have some base
knowledge of aircraft history and manufacturers, etc. that gives me a
starting point from which to search. In addition to researching Emma and
Kaoru Mori, a few of the other resources I used included: 

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/Photo/ 
http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type-list.php
http://www.historicaircraftcollection.ltd.uk/
http://historicaircraftpictures.com/index-a.html
http://www.aviation-history.com/index-aircraft.htm

I don't mind at all if you link to this post, please do. I'll be making a
point to check RocketBomber.com to see what kind of conversation is
sparked. Now I'm interested too! 

Thanks again for accepting my research in answer to your question. Please
let me know if there is anything else you need on this. 

Best wishes, 

Byrd

Comment by User myoarin on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 2:59 am UTC:

Wow!  I suspected that Byrd must have been taking time to give the
definitive answer, which is much, much harder when it comes to justifying a
"No, that didn't exist" reply.

I rather think that the cartoonist was inspired by the Proctor Antic
biplane model (taking liberties with the vertical stabilizer):
http://www.proctor-enterprises.com/photo_gallery/antic/photos_antic1.htm

perhaps assuming the company had based it on an actual plane.   

Someone on this blog, however, posted the following:

"As much as is practical for a parkflyer type plane like this, it is a fair
replica of the 81" Antic model (which I've heard refered to as "The most
accurate scale model of a full size airplane that doesn't exist)."

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=448047

Regards, Myoarin

Accepted and rated by mblind on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 3:08 am UTC:

Quite nice.  Thank you.

Uclue Researcher Comment by Researcher byrd on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 3:30 am UTC:

Hi Mblind, you're very welcome. I'm happy you were pleased. Thank you for
the kind words and tip! Best regards, Byrd

Uclue Researcher Comment by Researcher byrd on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 3:40 am UTC:

Hi Myo, 

That Proctor Antic biplane is a pretty good guess too. Here's a good clear
image:
http://www.proctor-enterprises.com/photo_gallery/antic/images/antic_biplane1-w.jpg

Only problem is, even though it has the open framework on the aft fuselage,
it also differs quite a bit from the drawing in more details than just the
curvilinear vs angular vertical stabilizer, i.e. no big round radial engine
upfront; gap between the prop and the engine compartment; angular vs
rounded fuselage; solid vs spoked wheels; four vs twelve total struts on
the wings; open framework on the fuselage all the way to the empennage vs
the aftmost end being covered; two piece angled vs solid straight wings,
etc. Those are the same sorts of inconsistencies I ran into with "real"
airplanes too. 

But I totally love the quote:"The most accurate scale model of a full size
airplane that doesn't exist" That's great! Might apply to Mori's drawing as
well, eh? 

Best, 

Byrd

Comment by User myoarin on Tue 9 Mar 2010 - 10:45 am UTC:

Hi Byrd,

Oh, I agree entirely.  Not bothering to trace the cartoon, I didn't give
much thought about Mori's attempting accuracy, and only knowing what 20+
pages of G. images taught me about me about biplanes, I found only
Proctor's model with an open fuselage.  

The blog was a lucky chance finding, my last click on another image after
starting my comment.  Maybe Mori saw an actual model, and the builder said
it was based on an real plane.  A quick sketch, augmented by incorrect
details from elsewhere, resulting in the cartoon image.

Congratulations on a well-earned  - hard earned -  tip.  When I noticed
your extending the lock, I remembered that you are a pilot, imagining your
stubborn obligation to answer "your" question.

Cheers, Myo

Comment by mblind on Wed 10 Mar 2010 - 1:41 am UTC:

post went up:
http://www.rocketbomber.com/2010/03/09/emma-mmf-oh-and-about-that-biplane

and thanks again.  You know, Byrd, there's a company called Studio Ghibli
which has put out a few films... I'm thinking there might be a future
collaboration/opportunity for at least two columns, wherein I throw more
money your direction [and a co-author credit] and you make me look
brilliant.  Would you be interested in more work?  I'd run the whole thing
through Uclue, so no worries there.

have you seen Porco Rosso and Castle in the Sky?

Uclue Researcher Comment by Researcher byrd on Wed 10 Mar 2010 - 2:53 am UTC:

Hi Mblind,

Many thanks for supplying me with the link. I'll be interested to see what
kind of comments your posting might attract, so I'll be keeping an eye on
it. 

I confess I know little about anime or manga in general, which is why I had
to research Emma before I could research the biplane. Such limited
knowledge as I do have has primarily been gleaned from reading a small
newsletter put out by an expatriate American and manga enthusiast in Japan
by the name of Peter Payne. I happened to run across it once a few years
ago and liked the way he wrote, so I kept reading it. The newsletter is
here if you care to check it out: http://www.jbox.com/jlistmail_pg.html

But since I don't recall ever reading about Studio Ghibli, I'd never heard
of it, nor seen the films you mention. However, I just looked them up and
viewed the trailers and I'm going to have to see them now. They look
marvelous. What fun! 

Thank you very much for the offer of a possible future collaboration. I
appreciate it and am certainly interested in more work. If you'd like to
direct a question my way, you can make such a request either in the subject
line or body of the question and the other researchers will respect it. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to work on this question. I did enjoy
it, as I do all things aviation! Hope to hear from you again in future
then. Take care. 

Regards, 

Byrd

Actions: Add Comment

Bookmark it!