First US Army Bomber

[Rob Arndt]

Loading Image...

1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")

A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

Rob

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

The so-called Barling Bomber (first flight, 1923 - 1 built) was preceded
by the Martin MB-1 (1918 - 14 built), the Martin MB-2 (1920 - 5 built)
and the Martin NBS-1 (1920 - 125 built).

The NBL-1 Barling Bomber was NOT the first US Army bomber.

Cheers,

[Rob Arndt]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

The so-called Barling Bomber (first flight, 1923 - 1 built) was preceded
by the Martin MB-1 (1918 - 14 built), the Martin MB-2 (1920 - 5 built)
and the Martin NBS-1 (1920 - 125 built).
The NBL-1 Barling Bomber was NOT the first US Army bomber.
Cheers,

You are correct. The site I went to claimed that the Barling was
initiated right after WW1 in 1919 which would put it between Martins;
however, other sources indicate that the Barling was from 1922... I
stand corrected.

Here is a photo of the Martin MB-1: Loading Image...

1918 = 3pOB; two 400hp Liberty 12; span: 71'5" length: 44'10" (>46'6")
load: 3523# v: 105/92/54 range: 390-490 ceiling: 10,300'; ff: 8/15
(>17)/18. Quad gear, twin tails. Served also as photo-recon (v: 120)
and mail plane. POP: 20 [AS64195/64214], 1 fitted with a 37mm cannon
in front cockpit; 6 later went to USPO. USN version was MBT.

Martin MB-2: Loading Image...

1920 = Improved MB-1 with two 410hp Liberty 12A; span: 74'2" length:
42'8" load: 4795# v: 99/91/62 range: 560 ceiling: 8,500'. Repowered
with 420hp Liberty (load: 4958#), and redesignated as NBS for "Night
Bomber, Short-range," with contracts awarded by the government to
Aeromarine for 25, Curtiss for 50, and L-W-F for 35 because of lower
bids than Martin's $23,485 per plane. Notable as the planes that sunk
the German battleship, Ostfriesland, in Genl Billy Mitchell's dramatic
1921 bombing demonstration. POP: 5 as MB-2, 125 as NBS-1.

- all info from Aerofiles: http://aerofiles.com/_martin.html (MARTIN)

Rob

[Peter Stickney]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

The so-called Barling Bomber (first flight, 1923 - 1 built) was preceded
by the Martin MB-1 (1918 - 14 built), the Martin MB-2 (1920 - 5 built)
and the Martin NBS-1 (1920 - 125 built).
The NBL-1 Barling Bomber was NOT the first US Army bomber.

The confusion may come from the designation system that the Army used at
that time. NBL-1 would have been "Night Bomber, Long range".
NBS - the final designation for the Martin MB-2 (Also produced by Curtiss)
wasn "Night Bomber, Short range)

Walter Barling was also responsible for the Brit's Tarrant Tabor, a triplane
beast that was to complete with the Handley Page V.1500.
The Tabor was lost during the takeoff roll for its fist flight when the
pilot opened up the engines mounted on the upper wing too soon, and nosed
it over.

[Rob Arndt]

Post by Peter Stickney

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

The so-called Barling Bomber (first flight, 1923 - 1 built) was preceded
by the Martin MB-1 (1918 - 14 built), the Martin MB-2 (1920 - 5 built)
and the Martin NBS-1 (1920 - 125 built).
The NBL-1 Barling Bomber was NOT the first US Army bomber.

The confusion may come from the designation system that the Army used at
that time. �NBL-1 would have been "Night Bomber, Long range".
NBS - the final designation for the Martin MB-2 (Also produced by Curtiss)
wasn "Night Bomber, Short range)
Walter Barling was also responsible for the Brit's Tarrant Tabor, a triplane
beast that was to complete with the Handley Page V.1500.
The Tabor was lost during the takeoff roll for its fist flight when the
pilot opened up the engines mounted on the upper wing too soon, and nosed
it over.
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

Thanks for the info.

Now to...

Tabor monstrosity: Loading Image...

Rob

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Peter Stickney
Walter Barling was also responsible for the Brit's Tarrant Tabor, a triplane
beast that was to complete with the Handley Page V.1500.
The Tabor was lost during the takeoff roll for its fist flight when the
pilot opened up the engines mounted on the upper wing too soon, and nosed
it over.

The really odd part of the Tabor story is who was doing the math on the
aircrafts weight's and structural loads:
Newnham Cambridge college math student Letitia Chitty, who had been
grabbed by the Admiralty Air Department at the tender age of 19, and
pressed into aircraft design for the duration. The Tabor was the last
aircraft she worked on, and according to her, what doomed the plane from
the outset was the fact that it had been designed for construction from
grade A spruce, but that had run out due to war demands for it, so white
American tulip wood had been substituted for it, and it was far heavier
to get the same structural strength with it.

Pat

[David E. Powell]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Peter Stickney
Walter Barling was also responsible for the Brit's Tarrant Tabor, a triplane
beast that was to complete with the Handley Page V.1500.
The Tabor was lost during the takeoff roll for its fist flight when the
pilot opened up the engines mounted on the upper wing too soon, and nosed
it over.

The really odd part of the Tabor story is who was doing the math on the
Newnham Cambridge college math student Letitia Chitty, who had been
grabbed by the Admiralty Air Department at the tender age of 19, and
pressed into aircraft design for the duration. The Tabor was the last
aircraft she worked on, and according to her, what doomed the plane from
the outset was the fact that it had been designed for construction from
grade A spruce, but that had run out due to war demands for it, so white
American tulip wood had been substituted for it, and it was far heavier
to get the same structural strength with it.
Pat

Ouch. Sometimes replacement materials don't work too well, it is a
shame that this went through, I wonder if they asked the math types
what would happen if they switched the materials?

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David E. Powell
Ouch. Sometimes replacement materials don't work too well, it is a
shame that this went through, I wonder if they asked the math types
what would happen if they switched the materials?

Miss Chitty knew; here's her quote from Bill Gunston's "Giant Of The
Sky" book; "Mr. Tarrant was an inspired timber merchant who dreamed of a
super-Camel. It hadn't a chance. It was too big, too heavy - that wasn't
its fault, but Grade A spruce had by now run out and and it had to be
built of American white wood (tulip). In my language 3,500 instead of
5,500 lb/sq in." I assume she's referring to its structural strength,
and the tulip is only around 2/3rds as strong as the spruce.
I suspect even if they had made it out of spruce it would not had much
better performance than the very similar Barling.
About the only country that had any real luck with really giant bombers
in that period was Germany with their "R" series aircraft.
Here's a real oddity... the Linke-Hoffman R.II:
Loading Image...
"What's so odd about that?" you ask, "It's just a single-seat light bomber."
Actually, that's what happens when you take a single-seater light bomber
and scale it up to huge size; the prop on that monster is powered by
four 260 HP engines mounted inside the fuselage, and the prop itself has
a span, tip-to-tip, of 23 feet. The aircraft itself has a span of 138
feet, and tips the scale at over 33,000 lbs fully loaded.
The picture is from this page:
http://www.bravenewworld.demon.co.uk/lists/germangiants/index.htm

Pat

[David E. Powell]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...

The so-called Barling Bomber (first flight, 1923 - 1 built) was preceded
by the Martin MB-1 (1918 - 14 built), the Martin MB-2 (1920 - 5 built)
and the Martin NBS-1 (1920 - 125 built).
The NBL-1 Barling Bomber was NOT the first US Army bomber.

Also, while the project didn't go over, it was ahead of it's time.
Better engines would have helped, but it came to a sad end.

Post by Bill Shatzer
Cheers,

[Bombardier]

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...
Rob

As the old saying went, "Martin Builds Bombers"

Art

[guy]

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...
Rob

The first bomber produced in numbers for the US Army was surely the
DH4?
(with the excellent Liberty engine)

guy

[Rob Arndt]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[guy]

Post by Rob Arndt

Post by guy

Post by Rob Arndt
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/APS/3516L.jpg
1922 Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 (a.k.a. "The Barling Bomber")
A total failure, scrapped by 1928...
Rob

The first bomber produced in numbers for the US Army was surely the
DH4?
(with the excellent Liberty engine)
guy

Guy,
We were talking about the first real US bomber, i.e. "all-American".
The DH-4 was originally a British combat airplane but it was
redesigned in 1917 for the famed Liberty engine. The airplane was used
by the U.S. Air Service in France primarily for observation, day
bombing, and artillery spotting. It carried the nickname "The Flaming
Coffin" because of the supposed ease with which it could be shot down
in flames but, in reality, only eight of the 33 DH-4s lost in combat
by the U.S. burned as they fell. This was no greater percentage than
for the French and British-built airplanes used by the A.E.F. in
France.
The DH-4 was the only U.S.-built airplane to get into combat during WW
I. By the Armistice, 3,431 had been delivered to the Air Service, most
of which were built by the Dayton-Wright Airplane Co. Of these, 1,213
had been shipped to France and 417 had gotten into combat.
Following WW I, the DH-4 continued in use with the Army for a decade
and later carried airmail.
Rob

Yes, the one fault of the DH4 was the fuel tank between the crew,
rectified in the DH9 (excellent aeroplane let done by appaling
engines) and the DH9A with the Liberty, which interestingly pacified
Iraq (Mespot as was) very successfully between the wars.

guy

[Bill Shatzer]

guy wrote:

-snip-

Post by guy
Yes, the one fault of the DH4 was the fuel tank between the crew,
rectified in the DH9 (excellent aeroplane let done by appaling
engines) and the DH9A with the Liberty, which interestingly pacified
Iraq (Mespot as was) very successfully between the wars.

Similar modifications of the seating positions and gas tank location
were undertaken with the DH-4 postwar by US, resulting in the DH-4B.

The US, I believe, built a small number of DH-9As but, with the
armistice, decided that converting existing DH-4 airframes to DH-4B
standards resulted in an aircraft nearly equal to the DH-9A and was
considerably cheaper than continuing DH-9A production.

Cheers,

[Pat Flannery]

Post by guy
Yes, the one fault of the DH4 was the fuel tank between the crew,

I'd heard that the dope used on them was highly flammable when dried,
and that figured in the flaming coffin nickname also.
I never liked that fuel tank under the pilot's seat in the Bf-109.

Post by guy
rectified in the DH9 (excellent aeroplane let done by appaling
engines) and the DH9A with the Liberty, which interestingly pacified
Iraq (Mespot as was) very successfully between the wars.

Ran across this BTW concerning the Liberty:
Loading Image...
...over at the Rosebud's website: http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive1.htm
If there was a problem with the Liberty, it was the fact it was _too_
good; it was fairly powerful and reliable, and due to that fact it hung
around for too long when newer engines should have been being designed
to replace it in military service.

Pat