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.

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.

@@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 !

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 !

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."

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.

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.

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.