Photo Nieuport

[Stig Jarlevik]

I have long since given up myself trying to ID the WW 1 Nieuports and only do it in a sort of general average way.

Even having a photo showing the SFA number, it can still be tricky since we also have to deal with the high numbered Nieuport trainers, ie type 80 - 83.

With the Americans buying up huge number of French aircraft a good rule is to check Casari, if possible, and in this case we are lucky.
No 7072 was a Nieuport 83E2 actually acquired by the Americans.

Another good rule seems to be that these trainers look very old and have high SFA serial numbers, for example all the American type 80-83 were in the range No 7038 - 10653.
Actually why SFA gave so "small" batch orders to these various Nieuport models is another mystery, at least to me.
Within the range 7038 - 10653 are intermixed Nieuport 24, 24bis, 24E1, 24bisE1, 27, 27E1, 28A and even a single type 21 (No 7001)

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Stig,


While I'm not going to challenge Casari and accept that N.7072 was an American operated Nieuport 83 E2, I wonder if the 7072 seen in the photo is a Nieuport 83. It looks like a single seater and it has a headrest. Now I've not seen enough photos of Nieuport 83 to say that none had a headrest,so still may be, perhaps. Does Casari indicate if any were converted to single seaters? Alternatively were any Nieuport 16 or 21 converted to Nieuport 83,which would deal with any serial discrepencies.Albeit the Nieuport 83 is usually said to be based on the Nieuport 10.Also do the roundels look American on the machine in the photo?. Hard to be definite.


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

I agree it looks like single-seater, and no Casari does not mention any conversions.

No idea if the head rest is any indicator of which type it was.
Before going on I want to correct an error in my previous e-mail, there were more Nieuport 21 listed by Casari in the 7000 range (last mentioned 7007!)
Sorry about that.

The problem with these late production Nieuport trainers (all of them were intended solely to be used as trainers, basic and advanced by the Americans), are possibly the Americans themselves.

As an example 900 Nieuport 21 were ordered by the US to be shipped to USA and used as trainers there. This order was later cancelled and replaced with other types, but it is not entirely impossible that some of these 21s were actually produced as such but listed in various documents as different models.
That is pure speculation from my side, but the photo of 7072 is rather provoking. It would also explain the very odd assignment of SFA numbers to the Americans.

The roundels are easier to explain. Lots of the aircraft delivered to the Americans came with French roundels and from the photos I have seen were retained when used in France.

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Thanks,


After looking at the information in your last post I'm going to,at least in my own records, enter 7027 as a Nieuport 21 at least until/unless further information emerges.


Regards,


Clint

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a photo of a Nieuport in the markings of the 31st Aero Squadron at:


https://www.ebay.com/itm/185168929965?hash=item2b1ceda4ad:g:qQoAAOSwQsthlGI g



and a Italian Nieuport 27 N.5904 at:


https://www.ebay.it/itm/284515004196?hash=item423e6a6f24:g:LosAAOSwaHBhgq5 n


Thanks for the notification below Stig.




Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Same link twice Clint

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a photo of a crashed Nieuport 17 A6671 of 1 Squadron RFC at:


https://www.ebay.de/itm/224710047771...cAAOSwl-5hn2Ri


Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

Quite an interesting photo Clint

The crash happened on 26 April 1917 and the aircraft was flown by Lt A V Burbury (who became a POW).

As per Cross & Cockade he had just destroyed a German kite balloon when he force landed due to lack of fuel.
Then things get confusing, to me, since the book says "then lost in action near Houthem 26.4.1917 with Lt AV Burbury POW - after destroying enemy kite balloon the aircraft was hit by AA from KFlak 2".

This means the book basically tells the "incident" twice but gives the reason for its loss two different ways.
a) Force landing due to lack of fuel.
b) Crash landed because he was hit by AA fire.
It is possible we get the story from both sides so to speak, or should we interpret the action that Burbury after landing because of lack of fuel then took off again and was thus hit by AA fire? Or was the aircraft hit by AA fire on its way down or perhaps even after landing?

Whatever the case it is amazing anyone could become "just" a POW after such a crash. Quite amazing!

Cheers
Stig

PS: Trevor Henshaw does not mention any lack of fuel, but adds the detail Burbury was attacking his second kite balloon when he was hit by AA-fire at appx 100 feet.
He also states Burbury was injured in the crash, which sounds reasonable.

[musec04]

Hi Stig,


Yes, I was a little surprised to learn that Burbury survived from what the photo shows. I was also thinking that the word wounded carries a multitude of meanings.One of the all too few lucky ones I guess.After googling I found a link to the Aerodrome indicating he became a pilot officer again in 1939:


https://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/s...ad.php?t=46070


Regards,


Clint

[musec04]

Hello,


Currently on ebay is a photo of an Italian Nieuport 11 serial Ni.2207 of 82 Squadriglia (not entirely certain about the third numeral) at:


https://www.ebay.it/itm/234351940867...oAAOSw2ZBhyC06



Regards,


Clint