Aircraft Design Ahead of its Time, 1915

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Reported in Scientific American, this Week in World War I: September 4, 1915

The cover of this issue from 100 years ago is slightly cringeworthy (technically unfeasible, overly dramatic) but was in fact based on ongoing aviation research in 1915. The Allies were experimenting with the French Voisin Type 5 light bomber to upgrade the armament and protection. The service model of the airplane was powered by a single “pusher-type” propeller engine, usually of 150 horsepower, which left the nose free to mount various weapons (although the aircraft was thereby vulnerable to attack from the rear). More than 300 were manufactured during the war. One experimental design (which seems to be the model for our cover) mounted a six-pounder naval cannon (57 millimeter gun), which probably turned out to be far too heavy to be practical. These airplanes in service sometimes mounted the much smaller and lighter 37-millimeter gun. It was a single-shot gun and had to be reloaded for each shot, so it had limited utility. The bomb load of these aircraft was apparently a very modest 132 pounds.

A more realistic arrangement: the armored nacelle of a Farman armed scout airplane with gunner and machine gun, 1915. (Image: Scientific American, September 4, 1915)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The article, nevertheless, is quite enthusiastic about the possibilities:

“The French Air Service...has urged aeroplane manufacturers to produce a still more powerful fighting craft, so powerful, indeed, that it would knock out anything else aloft. The specifications called for a fast-climbing machine of large cruising radius, that would carry a small quick-firer and be armor-plated.”
“This machine, an all-steel pusher biplane, is driven by a 200 horse-power engine that develops a top speed of 85 miles per hour; it carries a crew of four and mounts a 6-pounder throwing a high-explosive projectile. A light armor belt fitted around the nacelle protects both the crew and the engine against rifle fire from a very close range.
“This machine, the first one that really deserves the name of battle aeroplane, marks an enormous advance over the former types of fighting aircraft employed by the French, which mounted only a machine gun. Being very fast and a quick climber it can easily overtake any other fighting aeroplane and promptly destroy it with its 6-pounder, whose shells, filled with a high explosive, are obviously much more effective than the steel capped bullets thrown by a machine gun. On the other hand this battle aeroplane seems to be practically invulnerable against the speed scouts developing 100 miles per hour, whose pilots are equipped only with automatics against which the armor-clad nacelle affords sufficient protection, while the 15 miles difference in speed is more than counterbalanced by superior armament.”

-

Our full archive of the war, called Scientific American Chronicles: World War I, has many articles from 1914 - 1918 on the development of aviation and weaponry during the war. It is available for purchase at www.scientificamerican.com/products/world-war-i/

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe