Photos of the 1910 Blackburn ‘Second Monoplane’?

[Pete Fardell]

This is an aircraft I’ve thought about modelling for a long while. According to the Blackburn Putnam book, it was flown quite a lot at Filey from about 1910. It’s similar to the Blackburn Mercury monoplanes of the same era except that this one has only two wheels rather than the four on the Mercuries (which makes it an easier model prospect). Engine was an Isaacson radial.
The problem is that although there’s a 3 view (in the Putnam book) I’ve never found a photo that shows this aircraft in its entirety. This lack would make it a poor choice for any scale competitions, even for Intermediate Scale. These are the only four photos I’m aware of. Anyone know of any others?

[Pete Fardell]

One more that I’ve just found…

[Squirrelnet]

Well I found all the same photos. I think we probably have the same two books.

I did find this - which is of no use for scale docs and looking more closely I think it's the Mercury anyway

[lccjaw]

found this on BAE systems website, any good?

[cvasecuk]

when you said four wheels I thought you meant this one.....
Ron

[Pete Fardell]

Thanks all, much appreciated.  
lccjaw, that forward view on the BAE page is one of the ones I already found, but thank you anyway. It's the nearest to a complete view with just a wingtip missing.
Chris, you're right-  that flying shot is one of the Mercuries. There were several versions and quite a few good photos so I might just resign myself to making 4 spokies and do one of them instead!

Ron, I like that one too. If the real one had actually flown properly it'd be a very tempting model subject as well.

[Squirrelnet]

The Mercury does look good just, as you say, spoke wheel intensive. There are some lovely flying shots too, though as I say I think we have the same books. There is the Hannan plan too for a rubber 'all steel ' Blackburn which I always thought to actually be the Mercury but not very accurate...I could be wrong on that.

[Pete Fardell]

Yes, and Pete Smart's done one of these early Blackburns too I think. And either Mike or John Watters has one which is CO2 powered and regularly putters around the Velodrome.

[TheLurker]

... although there’s a 3 view (in the Putnam book) I’ve never found a photo that shows this aircraft in its entirety. This lack would make it a poor choice for any scale competitions, even for Intermediate Scale.

I would have thought that provided you've got an accepted/ratified 3 view that the paucity of photographs wouldn't be a problem for intermediate.  I *think* (haven't checked) that a 3 view is accepted as a fall back in such cases because these are out of the way subjects so documentation is almost guaranteed to be sketchy at best.   For my money I think you should build it regardless of its suitability for competition.

[Squirrelnet]

I agree with Lurk..you know you want to :-)

I did find a pic of the 'all steel' Blackburn when I was thinking about building one but it looks very different to the Hannan plan! see pic 1
 
I found this in a book of photos called the RAF in Camera 1903 -1939 ( er wasn't the RAF formed in 1918 ??) anyway great pics often badly captioned . The Blackburn Mercury I posted a few posed ago was captioned a Bleriot 

Pic 2 - This one was captioned about the air race but is that the Blackburn you're after or is that a curved fin and a HP ??

Pic 3- Same book has this another 'Bleriot' shot and my own wish list design..GM300 perhaps ..Deperdussin is great but that short nose !!

[Pete Fardell]

Thanks both. Lurk is, as ever, right: I do know I want to, so probably will regardless.
Chris, I think those last two photos are both of the same Dep aren't they?

Here's a link to the fine BAE Systems page that lccjaw mentioned. Really nice quality of photos and a useful round-up of the Blackburn Mercury's various... er... variations.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/blackburn-mercury

[Squirrelnet]

Chris, I think those last two photos are both of the same Dep aren't they?

I think you are right, nicely spotted . I will add those to my Deperdussin file :-) Though I think I would do the Shuttleworth one as I have some very nice drawings for that already ...but that short nose

Anyway we don't seem to have found anymore photos of the 'second monoplane'.

[Pete Fardell]

I would have thought that provided you've got an accepted/ratified 3 view that the paucity of photographs wouldn't be a problem for intermediate.  I *think* (haven't checked) that a 3 view is accepted as a fall back in such cases because these are out of the way subjects so documentation is almost guaranteed to be sketchy at best.

Just for the record, this is what you're meant to have for Intermediate...

"A single photograph showing the subject aircraft in its entirety (Minimum size of subject image in the photograph150mm)
A published 3 view black line or colour scale drawing of the subject aircraft with a minimum of 150mm wingspan or fuselage length (whichever is the greater dimension)
Proof of correct colour and markings may be provided by the supplied photograph, paint samples, published colour drawings, published colour description."

I wonder if there's an uncropped version of that front view anywhere, or whether the original photographer simply stood too close and failed to make allowances for BMFA scale rules 100+ years in the future?

[Pete Fardell]

I’ve just found another pic. Still a bit cropped, but probably the best so far…
It was here:
http://www.thefirstairraces.net/meetings/bl1007/events.php

I've also just found this video on YouTube which covers all the early Blackburns and which I intend to work my way through. No new photos of 'mine', but it's very informative and well presented generally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiOvMbuXvLw

[TheLurker]

Just for the record, this is what you're meant to have for Intermediate...

"A single photograph showing the subject aircraft in its entirety (Minimum size of subject image in the photograph 150mm) ..."

That is... inconvenient.  As much as one likes to stay away from complicated rules and exceptions - they invite gamesmanship - I think there may be a case for an extension to that rule.  Something along the lines of, "If no single photograph of the entire aircraft exists, sufficient photographs to show beyond reasonable doubt what the aircraft looked like."  

I still think you should build it and to blazes with competitions.

[SP250]

Ooh Lurk, it almost sounds like you are volunteering to sit on the Scale Tech Committee and get the rules updated for next year!  I know there is at least one person stepping down. 
John M

[TheLurker]

Well...., I'd just love to help out but I'm washing my hair that month.

[Nigel M]

I would have thought that provided you've got an accepted/ratified 3 view that the paucity of photographs wouldn't be a problem for intermediate.  I *think* (haven't checked) that a 3 view is accepted as a fall back in such cases because these are out of the way subjects so documentation is almost guaranteed to be sketchy at best.

Just for the record, this is what you're meant to have for Intermediate...

"A single photograph showing the subject aircraft in its entirety (Minimum size of subject image in the photograph150mm)
A published 3 view black line or colour scale drawing of the subject aircraft with a minimum of 150mm wingspan or fuselage length (whichever is the greater dimension)
Proof of correct colour and markings may be provided by the supplied photograph, paint samples, published colour drawings, published colour description."

I just looked this up - the 2024 Judge's Guide indicates, "It must be stressed that although the rules specify the minimum requirement for proof of scale documentation, in most cases this minimum standard of documentation will not provide sufficient evidence for the judges to award maximum marks for scale accuracy. The quality of the documentation and the manner of presentation ...." and so on.

Part of the concept* for Intermediate Scale is/was to allow for aircraft to be modelled and compete, for which the standard of documentation required for Open Class subjects isn't available (I'm relaibly informed). So I'd be surprised if the main photo was unacceptable where it's presented with other/s showing the missing wingtips. Individual judge's interpretation may vary, however. One can always check with the STC if the literal rule wording is too literal.

Where you might find evidence for my assertion written down, now, I'm sorry I don't know. My understanding is it was an element of the strategic aim of 'the big upheaval' to encourage and enable more and more-varied types to compete.

HTH, apologies for any hijacking.
Nigel
*Another aspect is to allow for skilled modellers to advance beyond kit scale, the introductory class.

[Nigel M]

sorry, finger trouble

[Pete Fardell]

Thanks, Nigel. As things stand, other photos are not allowed with the Intermediate documentation. Just one is asked for and that's what the model's judged on, along with the 3 view and colour info. You may be right that slightly clipped off wingtips won't be too heavily penalised, although the way the "in its entirety" part in the rules is underlined and in bold suggests to me that it means what it says!
On the subject of cropped off wingtips, I've realised that that forward view photo is sometimes cropped more on one side than on the other, depending on where I source it. By combining the two 'least cropped' versions of each side I can make this very nearly complete view. It's now just missing a very small corner of the port wing, and the tip-skid and leading edge corner of the starboard one.

I do have a seat at the STC meetings, but am extremely wary of ever trying to steer the rules to better suit my own chosen subjects!   Intermediate works quite well as it is, and too many photos just complicates things for the judges (and therefore the scoring) I think.

[billdennis747]

Thanks, Nigel. As things stand, other photos are not allowed with the Intermediate documentation. Just one is asked for and that's what the model's judged on, along with the 3 view and colour info.

I do have a seat at the STC meetings, but am extremely wary of ever trying to steer the rules to better suit my own chosen subjects!   Intermediate works quite well as it is, and too many photos just complicates things for the judges (and therefore the scoring) I think.

Is that so Pete? I had no idea. I thought it just said 'a single photo'; does that mean only one will be used if more than one is provided? Which ones are discarded? And if the one photo is a front view, it becomes a bit silly. Nothing is more complicated than trying to judge with inadequate docs.
Bill

[Pete Fardell]

Is that so Pete? I had no idea. I thought it just said 'a single photo'; does that mean only one will be used if more than one is provided? Which ones are discarded? And if the one photo is a front view, it becomes a bit silly. Nothing is more complicated than trying to judge with inadequate docs.
Bill

Sorry, Bill, I shouldn't be speaking for judges I know. Last year, the one photo requirement was a bit ambiguous (as to whether that was a minimum or a maximum or both) and some of us provided more than one. I don't really know how the judging works but I got the impression that the extra photos caused a few issues, so this time it was 'firmed up' to mean one, and only one. Is the drawing used for the bits they can't see perhaps?
It may be that a perfect way of running Intermediate Scale is an unsolvable puzzle (rather like Education, the NHS, or Kit Scale). On the other hand, it's popular!

[Squirrelnet]

I must admit I had more than one photo on my intermediate Camel, though only one was of the actual aircraft modelled. I presume they used that one but I didn’t realise that I should have specified this year

I hadn’t really appreciated how difficult it could be to judge a model from one photo. Presumably they have to  judge it from the same angle as the photo? Which in my case and for this possible build would be from a 3/4 front view , not too bad, yeah not so sure about a front on shot

[Pete Fardell]

I must admit, that after hours staring at photos of the early Blackburns, I'm increasingly inclined to do this one instead now. It's known as the 'Type B', and is one of several incarnations of the Blackburn Mercuries. Unlike my earlier choice, there are several good photos of this one, and this 3-view drawing in the Peter Lewis 'British Aircraft 1809-1914' Putnam book. It would be good for Intermediate, but there's also enough for a potential open scale model if I get carried away. Just need to grit my teeth and make the extra pair of spoked wheels! Another thing I like is that the built up forward fuselage has more room for rubber than the flat topped examples.

[THB]

Spent many hours as a young plane nerd in the local library thumbing through Putnams - wondering what to build - so good to see them coming to life! Watching with both interest and nostalgia!
Tim