FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1955
1955 - 1774.PDF
FLIGHT, 16 December 1955 897 From top to bottom: Rebuilt Curtiss H.12 with Porte-type hull (this aircraft, No. 8677, shot down Zeppelin L.43); the F.2C, which sow operational service but did not go into production; the F.3 prototype, which appeared earlier than the F.2A; and the production version of the F.3, with leading edge slightly recessed at the centre-section. THE FELIXSTOWE FLYING-BOATS . . . on the hull; there were no waist gun-positions. The F.2C waspowered by two 275 h.p. Rolls-Royce Mk II (322 h.p. Eagle VI) engines, and underwent official trials on June 23rd, 1917. Itsperformance was a little better than that of the F.2A, but not sufficiently so to justify interference with the F.2A productionprogramme. Nevertheless, the F.2C saw operational service. On July 24th,1917, flown by W/C. Porte himself, it was one of five flying- boats sent out on patrol from Felixstowe. Near the North HinderLight Vessel the patrol attacked a U-boat: two of the five 230-lb bombs which sank the U.C.I on that occasion came from theracks of N.65, the F.2C. At one time the F.2C was fitted with experimental bomb-release gear operated by compressed air. This gear was relatively complicated, and Sqn. Cdr. Hallam found it was not dependablewhen, one day late in September 1917, flying N.6S, he attacked a surfaced U-boat; his bombs failed to leave the racks. Earlier than the F.2C in point of time was the F.3, of whichthe prototype (N.64) underwent official tests on February 9th, 1917. This flying-boat was designed throughout by Porte andwas slightly larger than the F.2A: its hull was three feet longer, and its wings were of greater span and chord. In appearance theF.3 was very similar to the F.2A, and could be distinguished only by the slight recessing of the leading edge of the upper wingimmediately behind the airscrews. The upper wings of the F.3 had the same large overhang and ailerons of the same inversely-tapered shape as those of the F.2A; and the king-post structures above the outermost interplane struts were similarly clothed infabric. The fin surfaces thus formed were characteristic of the F-boats, but they had no designed aerodynamic function. The hull of the F.3 was built on the Porte principle, and wasplanked in the same way as that of the F.2A. At first, the tops of the fins were planked with birch three-ply, but on later F.3sthe normal double-diagonal planking was used. An unsatisfactory feature was the design of the floors, which were rebated into thekeelson on either side. This division of these important trans- verse members weakened the structure, and caused the plankingto spring readily along the garboard: consequently the hulls leaked badly. As a palliative, intermediate timbers were laterintroduced. The prototype was first flown with two 320 h.p. SunbeamCossack engines, and was distinguished by vertical surfaces fitted between the interplane struts immediately outboard of the engines.Production F.3s were powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce Eagles, and did not have the interplane surfaces fitted. Whereas the F.2A could carry only two 230-lb bombs, theF.3 could carry four. It may have been this fact which com- mended the F.3 in official eyes, for it was put into productionon a larger scale than the F.2A. There are indications that this was done against the advice of John Porte and his Staff: indeed,Maj. Rennie later stated that the F.3 should never have been put into production. In service, the type was never so popularas the F.2A, for it did not handle so well as the earlier type. The decision to build flying-boats at Malta has already beenmentioned. Some F.3s were built in the dockyard there by local workers: the men were skilled boat-builders, and much of thefabric work was done by Maltese women under the supervision of Lady Methuen, the wife of the Governor. The F-boats were used with another product of John Porte'slively imagination; one which might have had a greater influence on the course of the war had its development been pursued withmore energy. As early as September 1916, Porte had suggested that the radius of action of flying-boats would be greatly in-creased if they could be carried across the North Sea on lighters in order to be able to take off near their objectives. He submitteda rough drawing of the type of craft he had in mind: it was a channel-shaped vessel which could be partly submerged byflooding tanks within its hull. A flying-boat was then to be floated in, the water ejected from the lighter's tanks by meansof compressed air, and the aircraft thus raised clear of the water. Porte stated that the lighter should be strong enough to betowed at 25 knots by a destroyer. After a visit by Admiralty representatives to Felixstowe, de-sign work began at once. It was decided that only the stern portion of the lighter should be submersible, and that the flying-boat should be hauled aboard by means of a winch on the lighter. An order for four lighters was placed in January 1917,but it was not until June that the first was successfully tested at the builder's works. Towing trials were conducted in the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
