Talk:Austin-Ball A.F.B.1

Two-bay airplane?
I don't think so. The graphic shows only a single bay. Also, Albert Ball, whose concept this was, was notorious for his dislike of cooperating with anyone else in aerial combat. Description of the prototype makes it clear that the guns are both set up for pilot use, making an observer simply a penalty weight. For those reasons, I deleted the word 'two-bay'.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that two-bay refers to the wings, not cockpits - while the AFB.1 does have single bay wings, this is not related to it being a single seat aircraft. Other single seaters, such as the Sopwith Snipe had two-bay wings.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Austin AFB 1 Outside Longbridge Works.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Sigh of relief - this is an IWM photograph and therefore unquestionably PD - a decision to this effect has resulted in the above deletion nonsense being withdrawn (yipee! Victory for common sense for once)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Substantial re-write
I have re-written this, with cites - some material that was in the original (uncited) text and which i have retained remains uncited - could someone in possession of the other references do this job please? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * George - Frankly I am doubtful about the reliability of Pengelly (at least about the AFB 1 as opposed to Ball himself) - by no means sure we can necessarilly take his word over that of Cheseman and/or Bruce. In fact some of the additional material based on Pengelly simply doesn't make sense at all. The wings WERE swept (in those days this was done to improve fore-and-aft stability, not to delay compression!) the fuselage DID fill most of the gap, and the rudder WAS quite small (in fact it looks TOO small, especially as there was no vertical fin). All of these features can be clearly seen in the photograph that heads the article, as well as existing drawings. I have left in stuff that is not confirmed in other sources but looks as if it might be supported by primary documents, but I have deleted or reworded obvious nonsense.


 * In particular, it is libelous speculation for Pengelly to suggest that Ball was disparaging of the S.E. because he was sulking about the AFB not being ready. Sure Ball was an immature teenager, but he had real objections to the S.E.5's real faults - some (but only some) of which were corrected by the time the S.E.5a went into production. Excellent as it was the S.E. was NOT perfect, in particular it was not an oustanding dogfighter, and had a generally sluggish feel about it compared with Ball's beloved Nieuport. No need whatever to bring the AFB (which would have been far more like the SE than the Nieuport anyway, and which Ball never had a chance to actually fly) into the question here.


 * I have left in a sentence (originally mine) which IS technically OR - won't object too much if you want to take it out but it is pretty much common sense, and backed up by the photographs.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Further rewrite!!
Before the last time I attacked this one another editor had made a thoroughly good faith (and in fact valiant) attempt to incorporate information from a new source (Colin Pengelly - a biographer of Ball). Many of Pengelly's technical comments - introduced fairly uncritically into the text, are, unfortunately, nonsense - being contradicted by photographic evidence as well as being incompatible with either common sense, or well sourced information from elsewhere. Other things in Pengelly are, however based on documentary research and should be left. My latest tweaks are more concerned in reconnecting mutually supporting facts, and restoring some conherence to the article's basic argument. Again - comments PLEASE. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. Early forms (developing 140hp) of the Hisso engine were flying in 1915 in a Nieuport 14 prototype with the same exhausts and similar radiators. The cowl was different though. Not that any part of the design should have survived him having combat experience.
 * 2. The plan view looks like an Albatros C.I. Nothing vague about it. The elevator was a triangle with rounded corners, as used almost exclusively on German types and it was boxy with a long nose. Even the wings (with their slight sweep) were like those of many German 2 seaters. Not sure the Roland is the best example - its fuselage filled the entire gap, while the AFB clearly did not and the Roland is opposite in nearly every other aspect. The Halberstadt D.II or Hannover CL.II would be better examples.
 * 3. The comment about control rods is curious as Nieuports used control rods for the ailerons but cables for the rudder and elevator. The rudder could also have some connection with Nieuport, as they (at that time) were balanced but lacked a fin and appear somewhat under-ruddered.
 * 4. The angle of the gun mounting - not sure how the statement about gun angle and Ball's tactics fit as a slight angle (even if it wasn't steep) does indeed allow for an attack from below and behind.
 * 5. Are there any RFC reports on the type available? If they tested it there should be one somewhere. NiD.29 (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - good comments - I have numbered them to make it easier to comment on each one.
 * 1. Early adaptations of the engine were also made for the B.E.2c for that matter. It is actually Bruce's suggestion that no British design is likely to have been based around the engine before mid/late 1916. If he were a Wiki editor (rather than a famous air historian of impeccable reputation) we would probably challenge his O.R. at this point. None the less this is a good point. Perhaps Bruce may still be thinking in terms of Ball as designer, coupled with the early 1916 design as being the "proto" AFB. (edit:- Actually I think he is talking about the availability of the engine in British hands?? - need to look and perhaps clarify this one).
 * 2. I think the Roland gets a mention in our sources specifically because Ball got to shoot several of them down in his first posting to a fighter squadron. (The Germans were using Rolands quite agressively at the time which gave him the opportunity). The Roland was also (I think) the first aircraft with a fat fuselage either completely (or nearly) filling the gap between the wings in order to give the pilot a good forward and upward view. It vertainly set a fashion; we could even mention the Britol Fighter and the Sopwoth Dolphin. The "vague" bit seems to have been the wording that the critics of the design at Austins used. Perhaps it needs to be in quotes. The Sopwith Dolphin was also felt to be "Hunnish" in appearance of course, and for broadly the same reason.
 * 3. There may be a Nieuport influence here, which would actually fit, since Ball was very fond of his N.17, but then few aircraft designs are totally original.
 * 4. Ball's method of attacking an enemy two seater was actually to fly right up under his victim - approaching from behind, but actually opening fire at a very steep angle, into the "belly", at point blank range. The Foster mounting on the Nieuport (and, later the S.E.5 of course) was admirably adapted for this tactic. The upper wing Lewis gun on the AFB was apparently fixed - an attack "from behind and below" would have involved opening fire at greater range because of the shallower angle. My own (O.R.) conclusion is that this was an imperfect realisation of what Ball probably asked for - after all the final "detailing" of the design came after he was killed.
 * 5. The comments on handling and performance figures come (indirectly - mainly through Bruce) from the original Martlesham Heath test results - these would be a "primary" source - and would therefore be suss from a Wiki point of view, although I agree it would be good to see them, if they are in fact available. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. The swept wings may imply a c-of-g shift such as if engine was lighter than designed for-meaning it doesn't even have to have been designed around the Hisso, or to have waited for the Hisso specs to be made available. It may be safest to state that "Opinion that the earlier design may have been related to the AFB is divided as no details have survived of the original design." Certainly enough arguments can be thrown around for both points of view, which really just serves to obscure the fact that they are all just making educated guesses.
 * 2. makes sense though the Roland back story may need expanding. The Dolphin sounds more promising than the Bristol with its double gap.
 * 3. success breeds imitation.
 * 4. Schrage musik but straight up. I can imagine the works manager, lacking experience of his own, not really believing Ball, and the problems the prop shaft gun would have incurred in combat, as well. The angle as installed would seem to put the attacking aircraft in the middle of the debris stream and would appear to be unworkable - firing straigth up would have put him ahead of the debris. I seem to recall other aces using a similar tactic. Amazing that the Brits took so long to cotton on to the Germans doing this the second time around.
 * 5. PRO probably has it for an arm and a leg. I am surprised the folks at Albatros Pubs haven't written anything on it.
 * 6.Curiosity regarding the Ball bio - was this written by someone with a history of writing books on aircraft, or by a people person? If the latter, it would explain some of the discrepencies as they would have been unlikely to catch the errors.NiD.29 (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. The sweep is so very slight it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference to the C.G. - but this remains a valid (if speculative) idea. On the other hand, I know of no reliable source after 1957 that seriously supposes the earliest reference by Ball of plans for a new fighter had anything to do with the AFB - and we'd need this to back up an "opinion is divided" (all else O.R.). Bruce considers the type to have been clearly designed from the outset for the Hispano-Suiza - again, I don't have a source that contradicts this - and Bruce is about as reliable a source as we can have in this field. Hence we are into speculative O.R. if we were to question this point.
 * 4. How long was it that the Luftwaffe got away with schrage musik? Have a feeling that the Brits actually worked out what was happening reasonably quickly, really. The problem was what exactly to do to counter it. After all the Defiant (both as a day and a night fighter) had a very similar modus operandi in 1940 - although the turret allowed flexibilty to attack from below, behind, and slighty to one side - even harder to see coming. It was a great little bomber destroyer - shame they couldn't work out tactics for it to cope with aingle seat fighters. But of course we're way off-topic!!
 * 4a. Incidentally - not sure if there would have been a "debris stream" at this period - big diference between a WW1 and a WW2 aeroplane and the way either would have broken up under fire.
 * 6. This is the main reason why I often prefer Bruce to Pengelly - unless the Pengelly is obviously working directly from documents, and what he says simply "makes sense" (whatever that may mean). He wrtes a good biography but seems to have little or no technical background. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Austin-Ball A.F.B.1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823143313/http://www.austinmemories.com/page6/page6.html to http://www.austinmemories.com/page6/page6.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)