Bristol M.1

The Bristol M.1 was a monoplane, single-seat fighter of World War 1, fielded in limited numbers by the British. It's notable for being the only British monoplane to see service during that conflict, and for it's relatively high speed.

[@chopsandarchie7015]

Very good. Are there plans to do more WW1 warbirds; these are by far the best doc's on the types of aeroplanes used.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Of course! The list of World War 1 warbirds I plan on covering is endless. I'm currently working on the Caproni Ca.1, 2 & 3 which should be up by Wednesday.

[@classicalvintagecollector]

I really enoy listening to your videos on the way home from work. Would you mind putting together videos on the Dornier D.I and the Hansa Brandenburg D1? Thanks.

[@bobblehat6603]

There's a replica in the Shuttleworth Collection which is flow regularly at Old Warden Aerodrome, Biggleswade England.

[@richcain64]

Very good !

[@charquican10000]

there is another original Bristol M.1 (strip out but complete and in good condition) and a static Replica (build by studens of aeronautical school of FACH) in the Aeronautical Museum of Chile in Cerrillos, Santiago de Chile

[@richardbaxter2057]

I really enjoyed this presentation! To continue with the Bristol M1 theme, you might consider delving into its operational career, etc?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Hi, Richard. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I very much enjoyed researching the aircraft. Unfortunately its operational career was very limited. Reputedly it was used as a personal transport by squadron officers and the like. It saw very limited service in Mesopotamia where it was found to be deficient. I think no more than 20 - 30 were deployed (I'd have to check). It was prone to overheating necessitating the removal of the propeller spinner, an act that can't have helped performance. It was also found, supposedly, to have too limited a range for the theatre of operations.And that is pretty much it.

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@Forgotten_Aviation G'day, Actually, at Airspeeds much below 150 mph a Spinner is largely ornamental..., especially with an externally Wire-braced Wing and fixed Undercarraige... Something like 60% or 70% of all Aerodynamic Drag comes from unsticking the Airflow from all the Trailing-Edges, so the Fineness-Ratio is what matters - and adding or subtracting a big Bowl Spinner to the Propeller of a Rotary-engined Aeroplane does almost NOTHING to effect the Fineness Ratio of the Fuselage as a whole. It's counterintuitive, but there you go - and in fact, when he started the Fw-190 Kurt Tank began with a huge Spinner on the first Prototype ; before ditching it in favour of feeding clean unencumbered Airflow to the Cooling Fan... Big Spinners look good, but the flat-fronted Polikarpov I-16 had such a cleverly tightly-cowled Radial that the Engine's "Waste Heat" was added to the Cooling Airflow so cunningly that the collective effect of each Cylinder's Annular Cooling-Air Exit being scavenged by the pulses emerging from the Exhaust-Pipe at it's centre - that the Cowling made more Thrust than the Drag that it's Flat Front (configured to enable Louvred control of the quantity of cold Air being admitted....) generated. Funny things, Spinners..., quite a "Black Art", actually...; almost as mysterious as Vortex Generators (!). Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@GrumblingGrognard]

"First flight by an airplane across the Andes: Luis Candelaria flew from Zapala, Argentina, to Cunco, Chile, in a Morane-Saulnier Type L parasol monoplane on April 13, 1918"

[@williamroberts8470]

I've always wanted that little Pegasus model.

[@fiery1962]

There is one original on display at Minlaton, South Australia.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

Yes. Harry Butler's. I think I mention it in this video at the end, and I talk more about it in the "Operational History of the Bristol M1."

[@t-mar9275]

I'm wondering how much of the prejudice against monoplanes resulted from the RFC's experience with the similar Morane-Saulnier N? Both had high landing speeds and were physical taxing to fly, characteristics that you don't want when pilot attrition rate is high. It may have been fine for an experienced pilot but a flying coffin for novices. Under such circumstances, I can appreciate why it would not have been assigned to the Western Front but to less active theatres of war. Also, I wonder if the War Office was prioritizing Bristol's other offering, the F.2? As noted in the video, there were other adequate single seat fighters available but they desperately needed a new two seater. The timing of the development of both models was close enough that the F.2 may have rec'd priority, so that Bristol could devote more resources for the more critical model. Finally, there's the question of cost and delivery. Could the M.1 be built as quickly and cost effectively as the other single seat fighters? There are lots of possible reasons for its limited production, beyond the traditional arguments.

[@garychynne1377]

beauty

[@mikepette4422]

legendary and I've never heard of it lol

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day, So, um...; how many Legends have ye actuarily heard of, then ? Maybe ye should crack open a few old books, and see what there be, therewithin, for ye to ponder...? Legends abound... Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@nicholashill8685]

I think your redundant idea maybe correct. The Bristol only had one machine gun, while the Camel, SE5a, Albatros, etc had two. One thing not mentioned, is the Bristols extraordinary rate of climb, so it could have been useful for the Gotha attacks?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

The M.1's rate of climb was good, but pretty much in line with its contemporaries. It was better than some, not as good as others. I try not to get into games of "top trumps" in these videos, because that gets in the way of the story, and without context it's rather meaningless. It's like comparing the Spitfire with the Mustang. Without proper context there's not much point. Also, I "try" to keep these videos to around ten minutes, and that means a lot of information has to be excluded, otherwise it would balloon to over an hour, and no-one would watch it.

[@jaythomas3118]

Flew this in warplanes. Extremely fast.

[@stephensmith799]

There is a grave which records the death of a young woman at the age of 20, killed flying a Bristol Monoplane. I will post the full inscription for you.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

Good pictures. I am not persuaded that your theory is correct. The RFC were chronically short of planes due to their unholy alliance with the Royal Aircraft Factory. The pig-headedness of the RFC sufficed to explain why they did not buy the M1C in numbers. Did Bristol try to sell their plane to the RNAS?

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

While the pig-headedness of the RFC has entered public consciousness, likewise the influence of the Royal Aircraft Factory, it is worth noting that at the same time the M.1 was undergoing evaluation, the Sopwith Camel was in development, so was the Bristol F.2 and the Airco D.H.4. Also the S.E.5. Of those the latter three, all very good aircraft, entered service more or less at the same time. So, I find it hard to fault the RFC for not going with the M.1 sooner. Better a known and trusted technology than something rather radical. With hindsight, it's easy to second-guess decisions.

[@Forgotten_Aviation]

I just realised I didn't answer your last question. I am not aware of any attempt to sell the M.1 to the Royal Naval Air Service.