Looking to ID Unknown Curtiss Seaplane

[Dynoman]

This is a picture of a test seaplane that was being launched or recovered onto a trailer at Lake Keuke near Hammondsport, NY. Note the white tent in the background. This is the tent that Lincoln Beachy clipped the top tent pole and crashed into a hangar killing one woman spectator and injuring three others, which dates the photo in the Fall of 1913. Any ideas on the aircraft? It appears to be a 4 or 8 cylinder engine based on what appears to be exhaust stacks. The means of thrust is unknown. If powered then possibly a transmission shaft runs through the aircraft towards the left or an engine mount is possibly above the engine, but removed?

 

[Dynoman]

I don't know how this aircraft was configured (i.e. the tail and engine mount design), however, I added a sketch with shaded areas of unknown elements.

 

[fortrena]

A probably very dumb question... Might that aircraft be upside down?

 

[Apophenia]

... Might that aircraft be upside down?

Doubtful. That short wing strut looks very much like those used to brace the lower wings of Curtiss Model E and early Model F flying boats.

 

[Dynoman]

A probably very dumb question... Might that aircraft be upside down?

Not a dumb question at all, especially at this point without having a photo of all of the aircraft to determine much of anything. However, there are a couple of things about the design that hints that its upright, such as the wing's camber, which would indicate that its upright with what appears to be a tip float underneath; what looks like a rear step on the hull; and what appears to be a fabric covered wing, which would not likely be in direct contact with the water. Again, without a full picture even being an aircraft is questionable (e.g. this could be a wing-in-ground affect aircraft, a towed glider, a test apparatus for testing wing floats or hulls, etc.).

 

[Stargazer]

I don't know how this aircraft was configured (i.e. the tail and engine mount design), however, I added a sketch with shaded areas of unknown elements.

Trouble is, Curtiss never made any monoplane flying boats! I've studied Curtiss aircraft long and hard, and I can assure you that absolutely ALL his flying boats (E series, F series, H series, etc.) were biplanes.

That being said, Curtiss wasn't the only airplane maker in the Hammondsport area at that time, but as far as I know, he was the only one to build seaplanes: Baldwin Aeroplanes was setup there as early as 1906 but mostly made airships, and the occasional biplane; John Newton Williams built a helicopter there in 1908. I suppose other early flyers built airplanes in that area as well, but Curtiss remains the most likely candidate.

However, keep in mind that only Curtiss's first two flying boats had such a crude-looking hull: the Model D Flying Boat, and the so-called "Freak Boat", the hull of which is actually a perfect match. The very name "Freak Boat" was used because this was a transitional design between the earlier hydros and the later flying boats. My hunch is that the aircraft in the photo is the "Freak Boat" at some stage of its development, since they probably tried several configurations on that experimental machine.

Possibility #1: The airplane in the photo was a biplane which suffered an accident, the top wing collapsed and part of the lower wings broke apart.
I don't believe in that theory much, however. Why?

• If there had been an upper wing, there would be signs that struts were there, but here there are none; the top of the wing is smooth, with no signs that anything might have been attached there.
• If the wing in the photo had been broken, it would not look so neatly cut. However, if it wasn't broken, the shortness of the wings makes little sense: a sesquiplane might have had shorter lower wings, but these are definitely too short for a monoplane. Also, no-one made sesquiplanes in 1911-12!

Possibility #2: This was not actually an airplane, but something different.

• Although this machine makes no sense as a monoplane with such short wings, it could have made a viable hydroglider. These water skimmers were very popular in the 1910s and 1920s. Still, I don't believe in this theory either, because there should be a pusher propeller somewhere, yet there isn't any! Also, Curtiss never worked on any such machines.

Possibility #3: It was indeed a biplane, but was not yet complete at the time of the photo.
This is by far the most likely explanation.

• Only the lower wings are fitted, and the airplane still lacks the top wing and engine; the wings are short, but so were the wings of Curtiss's very first hull boat.
• If the four tubes coming out of the hull at the front are exhausts for an engine, it means that the engine was positioned exactly as on Curtiss's first hull boat. If so, then this is an early iteration of the little-documented "Freak Boat", meant to receive the same wing and double propeller arrangement as the previous prototype, and differing from it mostly in the length of the hull.

Below: Curtiss's very first flying boat from 1911 was close to the one in Dynoman's photo, but the hull was shorter.



Below: the "Freak Boat" of 1911-12, Curtiss's second hull boat aircraft as we know it, but it is possible that it was started in a different configuration. Louis S. Casey, who was the absolute specialist on early Curtiss aircraft, admitted himself that he had found very little information about the "Freak Boat".



Below: the hull of the "Freak Boat" offers a perfect match to the mystery airplane.

 

[hesham]

I don't know how this aircraft was configured (i.e. the tail and engine mount design), however, I added a sketch with shaded areas of unknown elements.

I saw this drawing before,in Flightglobal,but I don't remember if it was
for Curtiss or not ?.

 

[Dynoman]

Possibility #3: It was indeed a biplane, but was not yet complete at the time of the photo.
This is by far the most likely explanation.

• Only the lower wings are fitted, and the airplane still lacks the top wing and engine; the wings are short, but so were the wings of Curtiss's very first hull boat.
• If the four tubes coming out of the hull at the front are exhausts for an engine, it means that the engine was positioned exactly as on Curtiss's first hull boat. If so, then this is an early iteration of the little-documented "Freak Boat", meant to receive the same wing and double propeller arrangement as the previous prototype, and differing from it mostly in the length of the hull.

Stargazer, your post was an excellent examination of the unknown design. I would suspect that your option #3 is a very likely candidate for what we are seeing.

My first thought was that this photo was a hull test to determine the buoyancy of the hull and its weight distribution with the engine installation and its wing. The lack of a visible transmission shaft from the engine to the forward frame (which may have been used to support a propeller assembly) leads me to believe this was an incomplete aircraft. However, I am not completely confident that the four ports on the hull are exhaust stacks.

Because the hull design and possible engine placement appears different from the Freak Boat, I would assume that this was a follow-on design (which would be circa 1913) created in an attempt to house the pilot and the engine in the hull. However, the arrangement would make it difficult for the pilot to straddle the engine and fly the airplane (i.e. rudder bar and stick controls, engine heat, engine accessories, etc.). Also, considering the diameter of the propellers' used at the time, a front mounted propeller at the location which I had suggested would not be adequate area to swing such a large propeller.

I'll try and reach out to the Curtiss museum folks in Hammondsport and see if they have any ideas.

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer, your post was an excellent examination of the unknown design. I would suspect that your option #3 is a very likely candidate for what we are seeing.

My first thought was that this photo was a hull test to determine the buoyancy of the hull and its weight distribution with the engine installation and its wing. The lack of a visible transmission shaft from the engine to the forward frame (which may have been used to support a propeller assembly) leads me to believe this was an incomplete aircraft. However, I am not completely confident that the four ports on the hull are exhaust stacks.

Because the hull design and possible engine placement appears different from the Freak Boat, I would assume that this was a follow-on design (which would be circa 1913) created in an attempt to house the pilot and the engine in the hull. However, the arrangement would make it difficult for the pilot to straddle the engine and fly the airplane (i.e. rudder bar and stick controls, engine heat, engine accessories, etc.). Also, considering the diameter of the propellers' used at the time, a front mounted propeller at the location which I had suggested would not be adequate area to swing such a large propeller.

I'll try and reach out to the Curtiss museum folks in Hammondsport and see if they have any ideas.

I'm still of the idea that this is the earliest form of the "Freak Boat", similar to the D flying boat but correcting some mistakes: a longer hull to the rear for improved stability, and a housing for the front engine to prevent water splashing over it. I absolutely don't see this being any later than 1912, if only because all Curtiss boats by 1913 featured very streamlined hulls. The one in the photo looks clearly like it was flat at the front, and then covered, as opposed to conceived as a full boat hull from the start.

 

[Dynoman]

Here is the Curtiss Tractor Twin, Flying Fish of 1912 (as shown above). Similar engine arrangement to unknown design. Possibly a variation on the unsuccessful Curtiss Tractor Twin. The flimsy side panels on the unknown aircraft could possible be removable to allow for the belt driven propellers. Still looking.

 

[Stargazer]

Here is a flying boat from 1912.
You can see that the hull is already very streamlined here.
Your twin tractor appears to be exactly the same as the Model D Flying Boat I shared earlier. Certainly NOT a 1911 airplane, and NOT the so-called "Flying Fish", a 1912 design which you can see in the second photo below.
That being said, the "Flying Fish" (also an intermediary design) had a very similar hull to the "Freak Boat".