Topic: Identify this WW1 aircraft please

If the main undercarriage was removed, the nose lowered onto a stand, the tail would raise slightly since the skid is some way forward on the fuselage.

Ian.

Maybe the wheels are off and it is standing on the axle? Difficult to know for sure unless anyone unearths other pictures taken that day that show more of the machine in question.

In the photo the top longeron appears parallel & roughly 3 ft above ground level. The distance between bottom of skid & longeron is 39" aprox measured from the attached drawing. I've drawn the bottom dotted red line to show aprox where the forward fuselage must be raised to. Allowing for any spring movement of the skid & judging by the photo it may be a little lower. I think the whole main undercarriage has been removed & the froward fuselage has been blocked up to a convenient height for maintenance/repairs.



I've measured the distance across the ears in both photos the resized the face from the smaller to scale before pasting it alongside. I've also tilted it a little then drawn the dotted lines across the right eyes, lips & chin to compare dimensions. IMO they looks a pretty good match. I did try superimposing & reducing the opacity of the top layer & apart from the obvious perspective differences they also seemed a good match.

This really is a fascinating thread!

The match gets my vote BTW - not only the dimple but the whole chin seems to have the same characteristics.

A quick Google got a few hits
THE EDINBURGH GAZETTE. AUGUST 6, 1912
THE EDINBURGH GAZETTE, APRIL 6, 1917

Divorce proceedings?
1934 Divorce?

Flight Global archive might have some rich pickings but it's fairly huge!
Lieutenant Watkins

None of these probably have anything to do with your particular Watkins, but there might be some interesting leads  

Alan

This must be one of the most interesting threads. I am glued.

Time team, eat your hat. 

This must be one of the most interesting threads. I am glued.

Time team, eat your hat. 

And one of my favourite British WWI machines too. I hope you find out the identity Lew, I'd love to build a Be2e

Ian.

wow, this thread just keeps getting better...as the man said time team eat your heart out.

http://www.8squadron.co.uk/history_1915-1920.php

Mentions a bomber returning in flames and crash landing in late July 1916 the enemy shelled the wreckage but the pilot escapes with minor burns could this be the one?

My cousin sent another picture of Watkins in his flying suit .

My cousin sent another picture of Watkins in his flying suit .

That my boy, is a brilliant pic

Ian.

Interestingly, but possibly co-incidental, 'Henry Watkins'  is a fellow pilot of Biggles and appears in several of the BIgglea books, and has several crashes, perhaps WE Johns knew Henry Herbert Watkins during his RFC years...

Found here...  http://yabs.isambard.com.au/char-view.php?id=45 

I have a sneaking suspicion that Henry Watkins in the Biggles books for example Biggles of the Camel Squadron is based on two students that Johns taught to fly as he was an instructor before he went to France. The first announced that he could already fly as he had studied the art in books and felt he had understood it sufficiently to fly perfectly well. Johns spent half an hour explaining to the young man that he couldn't possibly know how to fly from a book then took him up and half an hour later the student soloed.

The second student announced that he could fly already as he could feel machines and understand their needs. After ten hours or so instruction he soloed but crashed shortly after takeoff, he was right, there was something in this devining thing though as the machine obviously understood what his needs would be as it chose to crash into a hospital.

Henry Watkins of Biggles displayed similar theories such as bombing a bridge by dropping 112 pounder under the main span only the arch wasn't wide enough for a Camel.
Or With the Bottle Party the idea of dropping 100 empty bottles on the Hun AA to allow them to shoot down three balloons as the hun would think that they were being bombarded by whole front line.
Or carefully explaining the art of combat by using Euclid and Pythagoras, before finding out it all happened a bit quick for maths and that throwing his copybook at the sun and going in and letting drive with his vickers was a better method.

It may still have been the same Watkins after all Johns flew DH4's in France.