Photo Voisin

[Stig Jarlevik]

Jean

Good thinking, but like Clint I am suspicious about this being a V.481 aircraft.

The armament is clearly a machine gun and such a weapon would be useless for the main duties of a unit like V.481.

First of all I am old fashioned and like to use Roman digits when listing these Voisin models. It looks much better....

However before proceeding any further, I would like to know from where you, Jean, gets that V.481 initially used Type V? There is no such indication on either Albert Denis site or in the SHAA book Les Escadrille etc.

As a side note I have to say, unfortunately, lots of people use Voisin designations and Aeronautique Militaire designations mixed like it makes no difference. Well I disagree, it does make a great difference. Albert Denis says V.481 used both LAP and LBPs when in fact they didn't. They used Voisin VIIIBN2 and Voisin VIIICa2. Both the LAP and LBP designations were Voisin's and not Aeronautique Militaire's.

I also want to draw everyones attention to a potential fault in Soltan/Davilla's work.

Was really the Voisin III and Voisin V both called LAS by Voisin? There is no doubt that the Voisin III was designated LA/LAS by Voisin since the raised engine was already started on the model LA. But why would the company not bother about, when installing a completely new engine and also do some further work on the airframe, to change the type letters? Did Voisin think that these modifications all of a sudden did not warrant any new type designation at all? On page 552 (Zoltan/Davilla) the Voisin V is called LAS (identifying the whole production as using the so called raised engine), but on page 554 the same aircraft are now suddenly listed as both the LB (France) and LBS (in Russia). This makes very little sense to me.

Anyone who can clarify this anomaly?

Since I have no idea from where (and how reliable) the serial number listing on Albert Denis' site is, I am still not 100% certain the present photo actually is a Type V (well LAS or LB or even LBS? ) How does one differentiate between a 120 hp Salmson engine and a 150hp one in photos? Exactly what streamlining has been made and does anyone actually see that in a photo?

Also, to be honest, since I cannot see the difference in photos of the so called raised engine on the types in question the S means little to me and I actually don't bother about it as such. If an author is comfortable with seing a difference, I go along with that. In real life during the war, the difference in performance was negligible.

Cheers
Stig