... located in an open cockpit at the nose
of the aircraft; this man also served as the bombardier. Behind
the front gunner and just ahead of the upper wing was the pilot's
cockpit. His flight controls consisted of the usual rudder bar and
stick, but a "steering wheel," like that in an automobile, was
mounted at the top of the stick and was used for deflecting the
ailerons. The use of a full wheel, rather than a yoke as in modern
aircraft, suggests that several revolutions of the wheel were
required to move the ailerons through their full range of
deflection. Aircraft response to control inputs must have been
sluggish, and the piloting job must have seemed something like a
wrestling match. The third crew member was another gunner located
in an open cockpit behind the upper wing. His flexible machine gun
could be utilized effectively in various quadrants above and to
the sides of the aircraft and could also be fired downward and
rearward through a sort of inclined tunnel that passed through the
inside of the fuselage and opened on the bottom. The rear gunner
could accordingly fire, through a limited angular range, at an
aircraft attacking from below and to the rear. This feature proved
to be a startling and unwelcome discovery to a number of
unsuspecting Allied pilots.
The performance of the 8558-pound gross
weight Gotha was not spectacular, as can be seen from the data in
table
I for the slightly [50] improved Gotha
G.V. The maximum speed was only 87 miles per hour, which suggests
a cruising speed at 75-percent power of about 78 miles per hour.
This cruising speed, coupled with an estimated stalling speed of
56 miles per hour gave the pilot a very narrow speed corridor in
which to fly and maneuver the aircraft. The maximum lift-drag
ratio of 7.7 seems reasonably high for an aircraft festooned with
so many struts, wires, wheels, and other protuberances. The usual
load of the Gotha on a London raid consisted of six 110-pound
bombs carried externally.
The reference sources indicate that more
Gothas were lost in flying accidents than in combat with the
enemy. Sluggish response to control inputs together with its
narrow speed corridor may have contributed to the high accident
rate. Many accidents occurred in landing. The fuselage was
reportedly weak, probably because of the gun tunnel, and
frequently broke in half on a hard landing.
All in all, the Gotha does not seem to
have been the superb aircraft that its fearsome reputation would
suggest. The reality, as with so many other aircraft, does not
live up to the legend.
Handley Page 0/400
Like the Gotha G.IV, the Handley Page
0/400 illustrated in figure 2.22 was a multibay biplane equipped
with two engines mounted between the wings and with a four-wheel
main landing gear; two wheels were mounted below the lower wing at
the location of each of the engine nacelles. The appearance of the
British Handley Page bomber, however, was startlingly different
from that of the German Gotha. The large gap between the wings,
marked wing dihedral angle, and large span of the upper wing as
compared with the lower are distinctive features in the appearance
of the aircraft. Also in marked contrast to the pusher engine
arrangement of the Gotha, the 0/400 employed a tractor
configuration. Another distinctive feature, not evident in the
photograph, is the tail assembly, which consisted of two
horizontal surfaces arranged in a biplane configuration. A single
fixed fin, centrally located between the two horizontal surfaces,
and two all-moving rudders, also located between the horizontal
surfaces but positioned near the tips, comprised the vertical tail
surfaces. Horn-balanced ailerons and elevators were utilized to
reduce control forces.
The wings folded rearward, just outboard
of the engines, to a position parallel to the fuselage. This
complication was dictated by a requirement that the aircraft fit
into a standard-size Royal Air Force....
[51] Figure 2.22 - British Handley Page 0/400 twin-engine
bomber; 1916-17. [USAF via Martin
Copp]
....hangar. Apparently, the authorities
responsible for aircraft procurement thought it more cost
effective to complicate and perhaps compromise the aircraft than
to build new hangars.