Flying Battleship, 1915

Reported in Scientific American, this Week in World War I: December 25, 1915

Curtiss Aeroplane

Flying boat: the Curtiss Aeroplane company’s idea for a larger, more heavily-armed seaplane, 1915.

Image: Scientific American, December 25, 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


As the year 1915 came to a close, Scientific American published an article on a new, and somewhat unrealistic, design for a seaplane. At the time it seemed as if this new airplane was merely an evolution of current military trends:

“Aircraft construction, however, develops along the very lines of evolution which have been, and still are, the law for vessels of war, and which can be summarized in one word: bigger!”

Described as a “battleship airplane” and a “huge hydroaeroplane,” it was supposed to have a 133-foot wing span, six 160 horsepower engines, and a gross takeoff weight of 21,450 pounds. It would have been comparable in size, weight and armament with twin-engined bombers of World War II (although with only a fraction of their speed, range and bomb load).


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 Curtiss Aeroplane Company at Buffalo designed this airplane. By 1915 this firm was already well-established in supplying the British Royal Navy with exceptionally useful large long-range seaplanes (a few hundred by the end of the war) for patrol work, anti-submarine use, and search and rescue operations. This particular airplane was never adopted. I do not know why, but the triplane design looks archaic; the six engines and three propellers were arranged seemingly haphazardly (two pairs in tractor configuration and one pair in pusher configuration on the back of the wing). And there’s the basic production, maintenance and operational cost, amid desperate shortages in 1915: perhaps it was more desirable to have two or three large airplanes instead of one giant airplane.

-

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

Dan Schlenoff was a contributing editor at Scientific American and edited the 50, 100 and 150 Years Ago column for one seventh of the magazine's history.

More by Dan Schlenoff

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe