I might be beating a dead horse but I have an id

[RICHARD1959]

[RICHARD1959]

The truck is U.S. Liberty truck

The plane is a British B.E.12A

[Tawhiri]

18 hours ago, RICHARD1959 said:

The plane is a British B.E.12A

Unfortunately I can't see any similarity to a B.E.12A. The trailing edge of the wing of a B.E.12A is straight, while the aircraft on the artwork has ailerons that protrude past the trailing edge of the wing. The cowling is also the wrong shape for an aircraft like the B.E.12A which has an inline engine, rather it's circular which suggests a rotary engine of some sort. The drawing of the aircraft you have posted appears to be one of the Nieuport Scouts, which has some similarities, but the interplane struts are the wrong design, two parallel struts as opposed to a V strut, and the entire tailplane is the wrong shape as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Aircraft_Factory_B.E.12

Edited 2 September , 2022 by Tawhiri

[RICHARD1959]

OK How bout a German albatross? The Germans were made to turn  over planes at the end of the GW?

Might of been a Yank in the truck?

Which makes the cover post GW?

[quemerford]

8 hours ago, RICHARD1959 said:

Might of been a Yank in the truck?

Might have. I think 'of' instead of 'have' is a Bristol thing.

Apologies. The Grammar Police.

[RICHARD1959]

[RICHARD1959]

that shows a Brit Bristol F.2B Fighter and an American Liberty truck on the same cover.

[pierssc]

It doesn't look terribly like a Bristol.  The shape of the wings and tail are all wrong for starters. 

Does it have to represent a specific type of aeroplane?  It may just be a generic WW1 era aircraft depicted by someone who wasn't terribly familiar with them.

 

[pierssc]

39 minutes ago, RICHARD1959 said:

[RICHARD1959]

The Bristol F 2b had ailerons, square wing tips, a shock absorber on the tail skid and a radial engine. If not this then what?

[pierssc]

21 minutes ago, RICHARD1959 said:

The Bristol F 2b had ailerons, square wing tips, a shock absorber on the tail skid and a radial engine. If not this then what?

The Bristol F2B did not have ailerons sticking out behind like the one on your box. The upper wing of the Bristol does narrow to give the crew a better upward and forward view but It did not have the profile of yours.  Yours has squared-off wing tips, on the Bristol the leading edge is much more rounded.   It had a substantially longer bit in front of the wings containing the engine.  I agree yours has a rotary engine, where the whole engine spun round with the propellor attatched; the Bristol had an in-line engine, with the propellor set low down. The lower wing does not join the fuselage as the one on the box does - on the Bristol the fuselage is separated from it by short struts.  Yes there are two sets of interplane struts each side but the Bristol's do not go right to the end of the wing.   The rear part of the fuselage of yours tapers to a very narrow end; the Bristol's tapers but it is still quite substantial where it meets the tail.  Yes it has a tail skid - I'm struggling to think of a WW1 aircraft which didn't.  The horizontal stabiliser on yours is heart-shaped whereas the Bristol's isn't.  The vertical stabiliser on yours is like a fish tail with a large part of it below the horizontal stabiliser, and it is roughly triangular, with a straight trailing vertical edge; the Bristol has a large part of it above the horizontal stabliser and it rounds off at the back.  One has to make a lot of allowances for the machine depicted on your box being amateur artwork but it really doesn't convey any kind of essence of a Bristol. 

I don't know what it is meant to be or I'd have said so.  I'm no expert, though I have an interest, and there are lots of people on the forum who know much more than I do and I don't think THEY have come up with much yet.  There are aspects of the shape which ring bells in my mind and I have thought of various aircraft it might be but when I looked them up there was always something wrong.  It makes me think of a pre-WW1 design, but why would an aircraft from the early part of the war be paired with a 1917-ish truck (which I think IS competently depicted) on the box?  Someone may yet come up with an idea, but all I can suggest is 1.  The artist knew about trucks, and could depict one pretty well  2. The artist maybe didn't know much about aircraft, except at a distance, so just came up with his own design. If you are wanting to describe it for your book, why not just say "A biplane of an unidentified type, probably of the WW1 era"

 

[RICHARD1959]

Elton Cuthbert Hartley.

 

Born 4 Jan 1895, died 13 Apr 1959.

 

"Pvt 331 Co MTC WWI" on headstone.

 

Headstone application says "Motor Transport Corps Co 331"

[TullochArd]

I'd say you are spot on (photo 'Find a Grave'). 

The attached link is to their core organisational pamphlet from 1919 which gives a pretty detailed look at life in the MTC:

Manual of the Motor Transport Corps (1919 edition) | Open Library

 

Edited 8 September , 2022 by TullochArd

[TullochArd]

........ regarding the image.  It compares very favourably with the one from page 78 of the US MTC pamphlet (link above).  So much so I can even imagine EC Hartley standing at the front of his vehicle for a similar kit inspection with that matchbox holder in his pocket.

Edited 9 September , 2022 by TullochArd

[RICHARD1959]

Can anyone find a copy of his discharge?