Talk:Deperdussin Monocoque

"Then up-and-coming biplane"?

The Wright Flyer, the first demonstratably free-flying, controlled, powered heavier-than-air craft, was a biplane, and so were most subsequent airplanes up to the creation of the Deperdussin Monocoque, so I don't see how the biplane could have been "up-and-coming"... Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is possible; it refers to the visible overall shift in design to biplane. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I must be too used to Wright and Curtiss, who had made biplanes from the start until they started making aeroplanes with cantilever wings (which didn't happen with Wright). Avro, too, if I remember correctly. I guess there must have been a monoplane movement in France and Germany, though, what with the Bleriot, the Antoinette, the Demoiselle, the Deperdussin, the Eindekker, and the Taube. Voisins were generally biplanes too, though. Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft covered by article

As it stood this article neemed a real nonsense. It seemed prticularly daft to head an article 'Deperdussin Monocoque' and then give (uncited) specs for a totally diferent machine. The schneider aircraft bears more resemblnce to other Dep types. I am trying to assemble 'encyclopedic' informaton to improve the other Deperdussin articles, but its like knitting fog. nce th light articlrefers to it as the winner of that year's Gordon Bennet, I scrubbed the ref to it winning the 1912 race: there is a 1912 Dep racer which probably was the winner of that race. TheLongTone (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Form Hartmanns pdf file, in Google speak

"In 1912 Gordon Bennett Cup takes place in Chicago, on a circuit of six miles. It is won by Védrines on a monoplane Deperdussin type C motor cylinder 14 Gnome 140 hp, which runs through the 200 km in one hour ten minutes, the average of 169.700 km / h, breaking the world record speed."

Does that answer your question?Petebutt (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Where does that information come from? Making any sense of early Deperdussin aircraft is very difficult: the best source I have, which is an article in Pegase, has the 'C' as an early-type Dep powered by a 70 hp Gnome. My doubt was to whether it was a monocoque or the 'butterfly-winged' racer which is described in 'Flight'(The 100 hp Deperdussin Monoplane. Flight describe later (1912 and following)dep monoplanes as monocoques even though they actually have box-girder under the woodwork, albeit with a structural curved shell top & bottom. I think calling this the 'Type D' is probably mileading as wellRichard Hallion says th1912 Gordon Bennett was won by a monocoque, as does Gibbs-Smith. I chucked in the previous note because at the time I was (still am) trying to get together reliable facts about the 1912 racer mentioned above, & had not done my homework fully.I'm inclined to believe them, and also [[1]] , clearly a monocoque.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. A reference to the hydroretro article would have been useful: an it looks asthough the 1912 winner is the machine described in the 'Flight' article, but with different wings. Which makes more sense, because that gives the 1912 aircraft a reasonable flight history, rathr than being almost immediately superseded I don't like the A, B, C & D designations in the article, though: they are very much post-hoc designations. I think dates are safer, really. As my edit note on the revrt says, nice to fond Gibbs-smith dropping one.TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hartmann states that the Monocoque was the Type D and that it won the 1913 Gordon Bennett, NOT the 1912 which was won by Védrines, as in the above quote, by the Type C. I see where you are cominb]g fromabout the Type names, but they do help de-lineate the aircraft. The Types A,B, and C were essentially the same , differing in engines and details such as wing-span, but the Type D was a completely new design. I am in the process of writing some articles which will hopefully clarify the situation using Hartmann's file as a major source.Petebutt (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

MMM, lots more digging required here, what I thought was a reasonably authorative source shows pictures of two different Deperdussins as the winner of the 1912 Gordon Bennett! I give up for now.Petebutt (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got both a Type A (User:TheLongTone/Deperdussin Type A Monoplane & a '1912 racer' (User:TheLongTone/Deperdussin 1912 Racing Monoplane) articles on the go, been around for quite a long time but as I say every time I find out anything new it only adds to the confusion. The 'Deperdussin TT' article need turning into a proper article, I blew away some of it becaause it was clearly talking about two very very distinct types, with picture of the machine in the Shuttleworth & then referring to it being used in the war. The Monash site is worth looking at : it has a link to an eight page article in Pegase on Deperdussin. Its a bitmap file so a real pain, can't get a print off it & hard work on the eyes reading it. The machine in San Diego is a puzzle: It's clearly not military type, (if that mean anything like the three (different) aircraft flown in the 1911 French military trials as some descriptions say (if the museum has anything acessible online I didn't find it'..it looks like the '1912 racer', but the fin looks bigger to me, as does the headrest and it has presumably been re-engined since it has a 50 hp Gnome.

Incidentally I'd say there's lot of difference between the A & B (which seem to be at least three types) and the C, which I take to be the 1912 racer as described in Flight. All this without saying anything about the British-built Deperdussins that took part in the Larkhil trials....sorry its a bit of a ramblng post. (was writing this as you were posting the above..see what I meanTheLongTone (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be enough to drive me mad, if I wasn't Dagenham already. I've a very nasty suspicion now that there are in fact three types. The monash site has a couple of photos showing two aircraft at the 1912 Paris aero salon (not quite identical). The Flight article on this mentions two similar aircraft, one of which is said to be Vedrine's Gordon Bennett winner. (no photos) Problem is, they are not the early 1912 100 (?0 mph aircraft: the undercarriage is different, and the tail is different. On the earlier machine it's on top of the fuselage, and these machines have a mid position tail. BUT the forward fuselage looks to have flattened sides. This is all geting perilously close to original research, since one could find a cite for almost anythingTheLongTone (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

another beam of darkness. I've found a bookseller selling a 1911 Deperdusn catalogue listing types A,B,C,D & E. At 200 Euros for 12 pages it is a little outside my price-bracket, so a cheque is not in the post, but it would seem to preclude th 'true' monocoque of 1913 being 'Type D'. The hydravions site is completely unreliable: almost every illustration is erroneously titled.

Hi guys! I have researched Deperdussin monocoques and collected related stuff for ages and intend to make some corrections to this article. The 1912 Gordon Bennett winner was definitely a monocoque. I have an article about the races in an old issue of Aero & Hydro (I believe, I don't have it in front of me) which contains several photos of monocoques, including Vedrines' famous Mona Lisa-decorated one. Air racing history is absolutely full of contradictory and inaccurate information, and the Deps are no exceptions, but I think I can set some things straight. Uu-flyer —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Weights

I don't beleive those weights, and have expresssed resevations about Hartmannn. quick chck on wp gives a wt of 96 kg for a single Gnome lambda, so figuresdon't stack up. Flight article on the type gives an oa wt of 1,350 pounds (610 kg). Musee de l'Air' sfigure agrees with this, give or take a kilo.