French A/C Manufacturing & Design

[jsontag]

I'm relatively new to World War I aviaition, I may be totally wrong here but I have a question. It seems to me, what little knowledge I know, that British and German A/C manufacturing and design seem to be innovative and changing as tactics changed, while French A/C seemed to lag behind. Am I way off on this?

Thanks,
James

[Old Man]

It seems to me that proposition is false, Sir. Disparaging the French is a fairly common pass-time, but it is usually based on little more than the greater supply of materials in English on other air services.

The French were the great innovators in fighter design, from the earliest days. The sesquiplane design of the Nieuport firm revolutionized air combat; it was not only copied directly by the Germans, but set the general terms for single seat fighter design for many years after the Great War. The S.P.A.D. single-seaters were the start of the high-speed diving pattern of fighting aeroplane hat came to predominate in the Second World War.

It is true that the French did persist with obsolescent two-seat designs, as did the English. By the end of the war, however, the front-line French two-seaters, by Salmson and Breguet, were first rate, and solid enough to have long post-war careers.

The French also solved some their reconnaisance problems in a manner unique among the air services of the Great War, namely by employing large, twin-engined machines with two gunners for long-range observation work.

[jsontag]

Originally Posted by Old Man

It seems to me that proposition is false, Sir. Disparaging the French is a fairly common pass-time, but it is usually based on little more than the greater supply of materials in English on other air services.

The French were the great innovators in fighter design, from the earliest days. The sesquiplane design of the Nieuport firm revolutionized air combat; it was not only copied directly by the Germans, but set the general terms for single seat fighter design for many years after the Great War. The S.P.A.D. single-seaters were the start of the high-speed diving pattern of fighting aeroplane hat came to predominate in the Second World War.

It is true that the French did persist with obsolescent two-seat designs, as did the English. By the end of the war, however, the front-line French two-seaters, by Salmson and Breguet, were first rate, and solid enough to have long post-war careers.

The French also solved some their reconnaisance problems in a manner unique among the air services of the Great War, namely by employing large, twin-engined machines with two gunners for long-range observation work.

Thank you Old Man. Your knowledge is unsurpassed, in my opinion. I knew about the Nieuport fighters. I didn't realize that the S.P.A.D. single-seat fighters were French. Like I said I'm slowly learning about WW I aviation. I'm guessing, and just guessing by what you said, "employing large, twin-engined machines with two gunners for long-range observation work", the Voisin bomber was one of them.

I'm not too familiar with the Salmson and Breuget two-seaters, I'll have to read up on them.

Thank you, as usual you have been very helpful.

James

[Old Man]

The principal twin-engined three-seat machines I refer to, Sir, were the Caudron G-6, R-4 and R-11, as well as several models manufactured by Letord, to a design by the air service's technical department. There were some other, more minor types along this line, but these were the most common. They were well able to defend themselves. It was not a solution anyone else came up with: the Germans employed eventually machines designed for very high ceilings to fly above enemy fighters, and the English employed two-seat fighters, such as the Bristol Fighter, in strong formations. Initial German employment of two engined three-seaters was a fighting aeroplanes, and after a brief employment in this manner they were used exclusively for bombing.

The Voisin bomber was a single engined pusher-style machine, and could be considered one of the areas in which the French did not engage in much innovation. With litle real change, apart from more powerful motors and slightly enlarged air-frames, Voisin pushers served from the start of the war till its end. They were mostly employed for night bombing, certainly in the latter years of the war.

[steven brown]

Gentlemen,
Let us not forget the French contribution to pre-war aviation. It's notable that many areonautical terms (aileron, empennage ) derive from the French. Their contribution to WW1 aviation has been greatly underestimated, a fact pointed out to me some time ago by Old Man.

[stevedrew]

I don't think any student of early aviation would disagree that the French were certainly cutting-edge in their design, and led the world in aviation. When the Great War reared its ugly, ugly head, the French put everything they had into designing the most up-to-date aircraft, although no-one was sure yet how to utilise this new technology for the purposes of war.

Unfortunately, due to lack of materials and manpower, the French were forced into (almost) abandoning research, and putting their entire effort into production in as large a scale as humanly possible. New aircraft designs were not what was required at that time. It was aircraft fighting in the air, not on the drawing boards.

I'm sure you didn't mean to disparage our French amis, but this was what was thrust upon them. The British and the Germans could "afford" to spend more time, money, and effort into design and production as they were not currently being invaded, and having huge sections of their country churned into mud by heavy artillery, trenches cutting swathes through the countryside normally used to feed the populace, and ALL men fighting. ALL. Their factories were not under threat.

Perhaps that goes a little way into explaining why the French seemed to stall, and allow others to quickly overtake them in the technology race.

[Froggy]

Bonjour à tous

I agree with the answers that were given by all our skilled forumist
I just wanted to add that France has committed a very big mistake to enlist
at the beginning of the war the best aircraft designers and manufacturers as well as their staff. The French were convinced of their superiority and that the conflict would be ended in a short time !!!

Only later, but it might be too late she realized her mistake in re -affecting them in the research department or in aviation factories


Cordialement
Bruno

Ps:James,

French Aircraft Of The First World War by James Davilla and Soltan


is a good way to be well-documented about Aviation francaise

Here a site which can help you
Aviation française, un siècle d'histoire - Aviafrance

[YavorD]

Looking at the overall picture, French aircraft and engine manufacturers supplied about half of all aviation material used by the Allied countries during the war and significant numbers were produced in other countries by license (Great Britain, Italy, Russia, United States, Japan and Germany included). Not every design was a success, but Nieuport, Morane-Saulnier, Caudron, Breguet, Farman, Voisin, S.P.A.D. (Bleriot) and many others had always something new on the drawing board while Gnome - Le Rhone, Clerget, Renault, Hispano-Suiza (most production on French soil), Lorraine-Dietrich and others provided powerplants. Leading position of the French aviation industry from 1910 to sometime beyond 1920 can be hardly disputed.
Regards,
Yavor

[jsontag]

Thank you all for all your replies as I have really been enlightened on French A/C & design.

[Jim]

I would also encourage you to read about the French Morane-Saulnier monoplane designs during the war which were very advanced for the day. As we all know today monoplane designs eventually evolved into the standard design for modern aircraft.

Also, there are many words and technical terms used today in aircraft and aviation that are borrowed from the original French terms. Just a couple examples are fuselage (the body of the airplane), empenage (the tail assemby part of an airplane) and so on.