Talk:Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contradiction?

This article claims that Leefe Robinson shot down a Zeppelin, whilst Leefe Robinson explicitly makes the claim that the airship in question was not in fact a Zeppelin. -- g026r 15:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that Zeppelin is often used to refer to any rigid airship. I'm more inclined to trust the Leefe Robinson page, as that has rather more references and gives more details than simply saying the shot-down airship was "a Zeppelin". One could perfectly well substitute "airship" or "dirigible" for "Zeppelin" in this article, as that would still convey the same information (nobody's disputing that it was a rigid-framed airship!) while avoiding possibly inaccurate assumptions. If I had any of the references listed for Leefe Robinson I'd check them and make a proper determination, but sadly I don't. 86.11.124.189 12:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to change it to airship (if it hasn't been already); it's a sufficient umbrella term.--The4sword 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've changed these a little - the B.E.2c first flew just before the war (in 1914) but didn't reach France until 1915. Apart from that I've tried to make what had become a slightly convoluted sentence a little clearer! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manoeuvrability

The opposing philosophy strove towards an aircraft that, while it could be steered, largely kept itself steady in the air, and diverged from straight and level flight only when its pilot wanted it to. This tendency naturally worked against desired changes in flight attitude as well as involuntary ones, and reduced manoeuverability. - people criticising the type are missing the point - the BE2 and similar types were intended for artillery observation duties and were designed for the taking of aerial photographs using the old-fashioned plate-type cameras (which needed long exposure times), hence the aircraft was designed to be inherently stable so as to facilitate this. The unmanoeuvrability wasn't accidental, the Army asked for it. The problem was that the aeroplane was kept in use for longer than was wise, and it became a sitting-duck for the later 'properly designed' fighter aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Another case of a fundamentally sound aircraft in the wrong place. CR Samson was very fond of his BE2.TheLongTone (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - the problems were are much that it was too slow and unable to defend itself rather than too stable.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Having a look at the "development" section it was an awful muddle and I've tried to at least bring its broad facts into line with the "variants" table at the end.

The best source for objective information about these interesting and much maligned aeroplanes is Hare, Paul The Royal Aircraft Factory, 1990. Casualties in B.E.2 squadrons were by and large remarkably low - it must be remembered that at this period many (most?) casualties were NOT related directly to enemy action so much as crashes due to poor airmanship (training was rudimentary and amateurish, and many pilots were killed before they had a chance to teach themselves to fly properly) or structural failure (the average aeroplane of the time was rather a poor engineering effort when it came to stress calcuations). The B.E.2 had a few nasty habits, like a big swing on take off, and what seems to have been a lack of "warning" before it stalled, but on the whole it was at least a fairly safe machine for a novice to fly, and it seldom fell to pieces in the air without provocation. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Great picture - anyone want to put it into the article??--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's long para in the 'faults of the airctaft' section - which discussion should surely should be after design development & sevice history-which seems to be a heading towards discussion of ides about inherent stability and French ircraft design in abut 1908. Surely all tht matters here is that a very stable aircraft hd been requested, delivered and unfortunatly there happened to be a number of aircraft trying to shoot them down, something made easir by the BEs preference for flying straight and level. Something which made it a very good aircraft indeed in 1912. The BE 2 a or b was used for early photographic experiments-this could be mentioned & would give an excuse for the pic, btwTheLongTone (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The stability was needed for the long exposure times required by the photographic plate cameras of the time that ended up being used for reconnaissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten article

I have now brought this article more closely into the standard template structure for articles on specific types, supressing less directly relevant detail. I rewote the original (rather poor) article on this subject some time ago, when I was a very new wiki editor, and I have felt for some time it needed re-doing. The only thing it really needs now is better refs. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. Is there a case for splitting this article into BE1/2/2/b, essentially the pre war stuff, and nother for the BE2c & later? The BE1 link just leads bck to this article, so its not covered (I think, I'll have a further rummage about). There are also the BE3 & 4 &5, the Aircrft factory built airframes. Not types of course, but for completeness's sake good to mention the numbers somewhere. I need a new keyboard.TheLongTone (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hare makes clear what I did not realise for many years - that the B.E.1, B.E.2, B.E.5 and B.E.6 were virtually identical except for the engines fitted (or originally intended to be fitted) and were all essentially prototypes for the B.E.2a (the first production model, and the first B.E. designation to actually refer to a type rather than an individual aircraft!). As for splitting the "early", or "prewar" members of the B.E.2 family from the wartime ones (B.E.2c on) - I think that leaving them all together does have the advantage that going to the B.E.2 article brings together all aircraft that were either called "Royal Aircraft Factory B.E.2"s or were (in effect) B.E.2s, even if they were called something else, or looked quite different. I had a similar idea to yours for the F.E.2 article, where you really have two earlier prototypes called F.E.2 that had no relationship at all to each other, nor to the F.E.2a/b/c/d (the ones everyone thinks about as being F.E.2s. In fact they DO go better in the one article. As for the "rotary B.E.s" (the B.E.3,4,7 and 8/8a) they really form a similar set, although a lot less "notable", but have no direct relationship with the B.E.2 series and DO need their own article (if they haven't got it?). Whatever else the Royal Aircraft Factory did or did not have going for it they certainly knew how to come up with confusing designations! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I hve the JM Bruce Profile publiction which specificlly deals with the BE1-2b, shall I do the early stuff? All those early names are nightmare. I'm currently working on Cody's aircraft, the first of which has about as many names as flights to its credit. All good clean fun.TheLongTone (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said - I think in view of the inconsistent designations of Royal Aircraft Factory types, and the fact that very few aviation historians over the years have got them right - that we really should keep all the B.E.2 stuff together (including the individual aircraft that were really B.E.2s but were called something else, as well as types that were called B.E.2s although they were increasingly remote from the original). Or do you mean extending the information about the early B.E.2 in this article?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way. They makes senses as a single article, becaause the later types are a development: it's simply that as a single article iyt would possibly end up ovverlong. I'd very happy to work on the first section, if you don't have the info to hand. The Profile gives easily enough information & it's all together, no peicing stuff together from six books.TheLongTone (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

On consideration, one article is best, so I'll start work at the beginning?TheLongTone (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)..I've now slung something up in my sandbox, if you want a look. Sevice histories aren't really my thing: I'm primarily interested in technical development. Interesting one in a way, because it seems it pretty well flew properly frm the beginning with not much fiddling about, and then misguidedly produced the 2c.TheLongTone (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

recent "tweaks"

I've reverted some changes that were obviously considered and well intentioned - in "tidying" prose the information was unfortunately also "tweaked" - in particular:

1. The fact that the B.E.2c radically differed from the "b" in everything but the general fuselage shape did make it "virtually a new type" - and the wing stagger, while a notable feature, was not particlularly "heavy" - most biplanes of the time had very similar stagger.

2. It is debatable whether stability in a warplane was such a bad thing anyway (several other types of the time were very stable without having attracted much criticism) - there were other factors in the B.E.2c's admitted vulnerability: among them the inferiority of British FIGHTERS that gave air superiority to the Germans, poor or non-existent armament, the fact that all the B.E. types were underpowered, and above all, the very poor standard of piloting - that all impacted just as much as the B.E.'s stability. in any case - "These changes were all too successful" is POV and has unfortunate implications.

3. Changing "performance" to "speed and climb" is debatable anyway - there are other factors in performance - most notably in this context perhaps payload - but the sentence actually no longer makes sense at all!

4. Public opinion would have been concern about casualties - the identity of the actual aircraft type concerned would not have been public knowledge - wartime security and all that - even Billing's most intemperate raves were careful not to give away the technical information to which he was almost certainly privy. And RFC opinion was actually very divided - by no means everyone would have agreed with Ball - all in all the text at this point is again a bit POV.

5. The MOS says we don't capitalise season names.

6. I've reinserted the additional references that got loss in the revert.

I just don't want this article to turn into the kind of diatribe against the B.E.2 that is still all too common, and always had more to do with politics and far-right ideology than aeronautics. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent expansion

I see from the above that I've had tis on the back burner for a very long time...I've a bit more about the early development to add & the pre-war operational history needs expansion. There is also some post-war civil use... one even got entered in one of the Aerial derby races. (withdrawn because the pilot didn't think his handicap was generous enough!), & there's a photo on Commons of one used by Quantas. (ophist is not really what I'm interested in). I'm absolutly in accordance with not wanting the article to be a 'lets rubbish the Quirk' excercise: putting the BE in it's proper context is the best antidote. Sorry the picture layout is horrible, I'll give it some attention later if nobody else does.TheLongTone (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Like many warplanes since" ?

The point here is not just that the B.E.2 continued in widespread use after it had become obsolete, but that the controversy over this (what the paragraph is actually talking about) was the more heated because it was less obvious at that time that warplanes do become obsolete quite regularly and very often have to soldier on until a better alternative can be found - than it became later on, when the "cycle of obsolescence" had become more familiar. The allusion may be felt to be a little too literary for the subject and context - but it is so worth making that I have reinstated it. If the prose at this point really needs clarification then we need an equally neat and succinct phrase that makes the same point more clearly, if we are not to lose an important shade of meaning of the original text. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

That is an interesting thesis you put forward there. I come from the world of modern military aircraft acquisition and so I have an appreciation for it! Is it in the main text? Lede material needs to be summarized from the main text, but I don't see it there. If it is there (or if it were to be there), do you have reliable refs that could support it there? Would that thesis be on-topic in the main text? It might be on topic in the main text as long as it was short and sweet (i.e. didn't have undue weight) - but we would still need that ref.

The phrase directly says something about the utilization habits of other aircraft types, not about the B.E.2. But even then, it's hand-wavey and vague in that it doesn't say what time period, which aircraft types, nor even how obsolete the other types would need to be to be considered "obsolete" (subjective). If there was a good source putting forward this idea in the context of B.E.2, the vagueness & subjectiveness would at least be supported, and it could be includable.

As it stands now, it appears made up and not includable until a solid source can be cited. You sound like a bit of a historian on the subject, but we can't include it based on your insightful assertions above. You must be familiar with the sources, can you find a good one? 66.31.51.147 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Technological progress is an ongoing process - technology, be it aeroplanes or computers, get obsolete quite quickly - in fact there are times (particularly when a particular technological innovation is very new indeed) when this process is breathtakingly rapid. This is NOT "made up", nor a "thesis" ("interesting" or otherwise) of our original writer, - more like a truism, and certainly not one that needs a "solid citation". In fact the very suggestion is rather grotesque, as I imagine you, of all people, would agree. But is it relevant at this point? As you say - it is about aviation history rather than a unique thing about the B.E.2. In view of the run of literature about the B.E.2 (and it is one of the most "written-about" aircraft of its time) I think that yes, it is very relevant indeed. Context is the thing. Negative remarks about the B.E. at the time were largely based on the (highly questionable) premise that there were better aircraft available in 1914 that should have been ordered instead. (No one has ever suggested what they were, to my knowledge). To say so outright would be unacceptable POV - but I think we can very gently hint as much? Some other points I could raise here but that is (probably more than) enough for the moment. I (almost) think that this might be something we could throw open to debate? In any case the phrase has been there for some years now, and can remain for the moment without the sky falling. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You can say all the live long day that it's "true" (whatever that means) that it's commonplace for many other types to be used until after "obsolete". But what matters in Wikipedia is that is verifiable, which is isn't . The assertion is dubious, and uncited, and not re-includable without first also including a good ref for it (see WP:burden). I'm removing it for that reason (and the others too). Sorry, man. 66.31.51.147 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You, and this point, are far too petty for someone as old and blind as me to argue about. Dubious? No, but almost impossible to "cite" specifically because it is so pervasive. And you know that every bit as well as I do. Anyway - you have got your own way. What an "achievement". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"High stability"?

We may indeed call an aircraft "highly stable", or describe it as having "good stability" (meaning the same thing) but "notoriously high stability" is not really "normal" English for "good stability taken a little too far". Instability (as a fault, which of course it almost invariably is) is usually called that rather than "low stability", in fact I cannot remember seeing "low stability" used as a synonym for instability anywhere. I honestly think that any reader who might possibly be confused by the sense of the B.E.'s "notorious stability" will start to get the point by the time they have finished the sentence. Instability would have made the duties concerned more difficult, obviously. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

of course it has often been called "inherent stability"! This, especially in parentheses, fits the bill nicely, while meeting our editor's original objection. Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation on this. Usually, "inherent stability" is the same thing as "stability" because "inherent" specifies stability that's inherent in the airframe by itself (without electromechanical alterations/augmentations ranging from autopilots, to irreversible flight controls, to yaw dampers, to full-on fly-by-wire, etc.). "Inherent stability" doesn't automatically imply "high inherent stability". Inherent stability can be very low such as on the Wright 1903 Flyer, the Fokker triplane, or the F-16 or X-29. The F-16 has roughly neutral inherent stability (depending on loading), and the X-29 had very unstable inherent stability (or "inherent instability"). Check out this link for an example of the normal "inherent" usage. 66.31.51.147 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We are talking about "stability" in rather another sense when we get onto modern aircraft. Many (if not most) early (pre-c.1916) aircraft had a degree of stability/instability (same thing? continuum?) that we would consider made them almost unflyable without electronic aids. When people spoke of the B.E.'s "stability" in a negative sense, what they meant was a lack of sensitivity in control response. This in spite of a marked (in fact notorious) tendency to swing on takeoff, requiring full opposite rudder to get into the air in anything like a straight line. Anyway, may I take from your thanks that this sentence now meets your general approval? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I said "thanks" because I want to keep you as a friend if I can, even though I'm being forceful on the "Like many warplanes since" issue above. I'm an aeronautical engineer with many years testing aircraft stability. That's why I originally recognized the wording as "odd". And actually, "notorious inherent stability" means exactly the same as "notorious stability" in this context. So no, I'm not satisfied with that wording. You said the thing that was actually "notorious" was the "lack of sensitivity in control response". If so, can should say that? Is there a ref for it? 66.31.51.147 (talk) 10:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Misleading

It is rather misleading to say the RAF "did not manufacture aircraft" - at first, although tasked with the design and repair/reconstruction of aeroplanes, the "factory" was not allocated funds for the construction of new aircraft but this was gradually relaxed (initially by subterfuge) at quite an early stage, and a number of (mostly small) batches of production aircraft were constructed during the war - especially to enable types considered urgently required to reach the front while private manufacturers prepared their "lines". Controversy and varying opinions were not only a feature of its career - but also during many years of historical assessment. New wording necessary to cover this. As I remarked in my edit summary - I am rebuilding this article - especially its references, but these two changes were urgent. WWIReferences (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure they were "urgent" in wikipedia terms. Also note that it is best to make small changes and discuss here rather than "rebuilding" the article as it will only lead to misunderstanding. MilborneOne (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, bow to your superior experience - and I've gone and written a new lede too! - Perhaps "urgent" was the wrong word. The point I was making was that they were not merely infelicitious but plain misleading. Working in my sandbox on the rest of the article. I have a few new pictures, and will be systematically updating the references. WWIReferences (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Rushing in where angels fear to tread can cause hurt feelings, and not necessarily a better article (which is all that matters) I'd hang fire for a moment - except perhaps for those references.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about "hurt feelings"! WWIReferences (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

New lede

OK I've redone the infobox and the lede so that it forms a summary of the main points (a few non-essential details, dealt with later, had sneaked in). Hope this makes sense. No references at this stage - do we need them in the lead if everything is properly cited in the article itself? WWIReferences (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

B.E.2 to intercept a Gotha?

According to our sources, it was increased altitude that the German airships employed for their 1916 raids (by lightening old ships as well as building new ones) that rendered the B.E.2 obsolete as a home defence fighter. The Gotha slips in for about the right degree of relevance in the article itself - no need for (largely irrelevant) hammering in the lede. WWIReferences (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"Design" section

The early part of this was essentially a description of the very early type of B.E. - I have moved it, with some minor changes, to the section specifically describing the B.E.1. The later part of this section really belonged in the early part of the "operational career" - whence I have removed it, again with a few minor changes, largely to fit it better with what was already there. There are STILL a few repetitions - like just how many times is it necessary to call it a "tractor biplane", or point out the (very sound) reason why the pilot sat behind! This bears the halmarks of edits made without reading the existing article properly to determine what (if anything) is missing before rushing in with additions. Leave it to my colleagues, perhaps, to tackle these duplications. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem with Wikipedia articles in general. Well meaning people bung something in without really reading the article; this can result in duplication or something being rendered nonsensical because an addition removes a vital context.TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

2012 = 1912 (!)

Someone (I have worked out who it was but I can't be bothered naming and shaming) typed in "2012" instead of "1912" (skipping a century). This happened on the 13th of May - was it pure mischief, or perhaps confusion in the midst of other edits? (Actually, on closer examination, most likely a simple typo). But the really strange part is that we've had 33 edits over 55 days by 10 different editors - and none of us (even me!) picked up on it. It has finally got fixed by a bare IP (which may mean that a casual user has noticed it, or that one of "us" (perhaps the original offender) fixed it without logging in. In any case, isn't Wikipedia wonderful? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)