Why a triplane?

[Ricky]

I am not an expert on aerodynamics so I do not know much about the
pros & cons of a monoplane vs. a biplane or triplane.
I've a re-kindled interest in the Red Baron recently and was looking
at a Fokker Triplane replica picts & videos and doing a bit of reading
about it's flying characteristics.
I have not, however, read much about the "advantage" of 3 wings. I can
guess that there would be quite a bit of maneuverability but also a
lot of drag.
Why a triplane? What are some of it's "advantages?" What are some
"disadvantages?"

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:5f96da3b-7f80-4b6f-aac7-
:

>
> I am not an expert on aerodynamics so I do not know much about the
> pros & cons of a monoplane vs. a biplane or triplane.
> I've a re-kindled interest in the Red Baron recently and was looking
> at a Fokker Triplane replica picts & videos and doing a bit of reading
> about it's flying characteristics.
> I have not, however, read much about the "advantage" of 3 wings. I can
> guess that there would be quite a bit of maneuverability but also a
> lot of drag.
> Why a triplane? What are some of it's "advantages?" What are some
> "disadvantages?"

Well, the Sopwith Triplane was the reason Tony went for a triplane
design.
The Sopwiht had some reasonable level of succes. Sopwith went for it
mostly to improve visibviliy, believe it or not.
In fact, there are no aerodynamic avantages. None at all. The center
plane is almost completely useless. There's a lot of interplane
interference with a biplane, though this can be put to some advantage
with decalage and stagger. Basically, the one plane influences the
other. With a tripe, the top and bottom planes affect the center, which
can't be practically spaced from it's neighbors givng it very little
lift and effectively neutralising it.
There were actually very few DR1s built. A few hundred IIRC.It would
have been forgotten but that Richtofen died in one. All sides tried
them. The Neiuport tripe showed an interesting approach to getting
around the interplane interference problems by a multiple stagger
approach ( look one up, it;s hard to descibe) Albatross, Pfalz,
Armstrong Whitworth and a few others tried them and all abandoned them
eventually. Tony Fokker built a bunch of different tripes, including a
tandem triplane giving a total of six wings!
The biplane was a pretty good way to go and the monoplane was up and
coming, particularly with the Germans, so the triplane was largely
ignored after that.


Bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ricky wrote:
> I am not an expert on aerodynamics so I do not know much about the
> pros & cons of a monoplane vs. a biplane or triplane.
> I've a re-kindled interest in the Red Baron recently and was looking
> at a Fokker Triplane replica picts & videos and doing a bit of reading
> about it's flying characteristics.
> I have not, however, read much about the "advantage" of 3 wings. I can
> guess that there would be quite a bit of maneuverability but also a
> lot of drag.
> Why a triplane? What are some of it's "advantages?" What are some
> "disadvantages?"
>
> Ricky
The DR1 was the result of many different designers from different
countries experimenting with more wings at different aspect ratios
trying to get greater maneuverability and rate of climb.
You are correct in that they were slow, specifically the DR1 which had a
top speed of barely over 100mph. The reason was interference drag
between the wings.
The maneuverability was excellect in the hands of good drivers, but the
ham handed could dent the fabric in a nano-second with this crate.
Eventually, the idea for the 3 wings (actually, many airplanes of the
period had even more than 3 :-) went the way of all bad ideas as the
structural issues in monoplane design began to get solved.
Bottom line on the DR1 was that it was something new to be played with
by experienced pilots, but the cons outweighed the pros and the damn
thing was slow as molasses, so it was eventually canned as a viable weapon.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Ricky > wrote:
> I am not an expert on aerodynamics so I do not know much about the
> pros & cons of a monoplane vs. a biplane or triplane.
> I've a re-kindled interest in the Red Baron recently and was looking
> at a Fokker Triplane replica picts & videos and doing a bit of reading
> about it's flying characteristics.
> I have not, however, read much about the "advantage" of 3 wings. I can
> guess that there would be quite a bit of maneuverability but also a
> lot of drag.
> Why a triplane? What are some of it's "advantages?" What are some
> "disadvantages?"

I think you mentioned the main advantage: maneuverability. Also the British
Sopwith Triplane and the German Fokker Dr.I appear to have had good climb
rates relative to their biplane counterparts.

If you think three wings are something, check our the multiplanes of
Horatio Phillips:

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Phillips/DI113.htm

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

John Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> The DR1 was the result of many different designers from different
>> countries experimenting with more wings at different aspect ratios
>> trying to get greater maneuverability and rate of climb.
>> You are correct in that they were slow, specifically the DR1 which had a
>> top speed of barely over 100mph. The reason was interference drag
>> between the wings.
>> The maneuverability was excellect in the hands of good drivers, but the
>> ham handed could dent the fabric in a nano-second with this crate.
>> Eventually, the idea for the 3 wings (actually, many airplanes of the
>> period had even more than 3 :-) went the way of all bad ideas as the
>> structural issues in monoplane design began to get solved.
>> Bottom line on the DR1 was that it was something new to be played with
>> by experienced pilots, but the cons outweighed the pros and the damn
>> thing was slow as molasses, so it was eventually canned as a viable weapon.
>
> Didn't AIR&SPACE magazine do an article last year with photos showing
> the interference drag on each will resulting from the others?

Not sure. I didn't see it anyway. I know there have been several
articles on the DR1 but I'm not really a history buff and I do miss
seeing a lot of these things.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Phil J]

On Feb 1, 7:20*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > The DR1 was the result of many different designers from different
> > countries experimenting with more wings at different aspect ratios
> > trying to get greater maneuverability and rate of climb.
> > You are correct in that they were slow, specifically the DR1 which had a
> > top speed of barely over 100mph. The reason was interference drag
> > between the wings.
> > The maneuverability was excellect in the hands of good drivers, but the
> > ham handed could dent the fabric in a nano-second with this crate.
> > Eventually, the idea for the 3 wings (actually, many airplanes of the
> > period had even more than 3 :-) went the way of all bad ideas as the
> > structural issues in monoplane design began to get solved.
> > Bottom line on the DR1 was that it was something new to be played with
> > by experienced pilots, but the cons outweighed the pros and the damn
> > thing was slow as molasses, so it was eventually canned as a viable weapon.
>
> Didn't AIR&SPACE magazine do an article last year with photos showing
> the interference drag on each will resulting from the others?

Yeah, they did. They said the same things Bertie mentioned. The
middle wing was useless due to the interference.

Phil

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:57:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Ricky > wrote in news:5f96da3b-7f80-4b6f-aac7-
> :

> The Sopwiht had some reasonable level of succes. Sopwith went for it
> mostly to improve visibviliy, believe it or not.

Ironic... knew a guy locally who had a Fokker DR-1 replica. His biggest
complaint was how BLIND the plane was. Then again, Sopwith used some fairly
narrow-chord wings, and had the pilot sitting back from them.

> In fact, there are no aerodynamic avantages. None at all. The center
> plane is almost completely useless. There's a lot of interplane
> interference with a biplane, though this can be put to some advantage
> with decalage and stagger. Basically, the one plane influences the
> other. With a tripe, the top and bottom planes affect the center, which
> can't be practically spaced from it's neighbors givng it very little
> lift and effectively neutralising it.

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1) would have
quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally getting the Mercedes
engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.

> There were actually very few DR1s built. A few hundred IIRC.It would
> have been forgotten but that Richtofen died in one.

Ah, but Werner Voss was first, and established the reputation of the type. He
lasted as long as he did, in his last dogfight, because of the maneuverability
of the Tripe. OTOH, he might have lived if he'd been flying something that
COULD have run away from the SE-5s....

> All sides tried
> them. The Neiuport tripe showed an interesting approach to getting
> around the interplane interference problems by a multiple stagger
> approach ( look one up, it;s hard to descibe)

http://wwi-cookup.com/dicta_ira/nieuport/triplane01.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:57:21 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>> Ricky > wrote in
>> news:5f96da3b-7f80-4b6f-aac7-
>> :
>
>> The Sopwiht had some reasonable level of succes. Sopwith went for it
>> mostly to improve visibviliy, believe it or not.
>
> Ironic... knew a guy locally who had a Fokker DR-1 replica. His
> biggest complaint was how BLIND the plane was. Then again, Sopwith
> used some fairly narrow-chord wings, and had the pilot sitting back
> from them.

Yes, OI understand Sopwith did it for that reason, in fact, I believe,
without one in front of me, the the center wing didn't quite reach to he
fuselage ging some added vis there. The chord/gap ratio on the Sopwith
was considerably larger as well and it had a sharp stagger, so it's
middle wing might have actually done a little bit, but Sopwith couldn't
have thought all that much of it or he would have made more than the
very few he did. Again, i think maybe a few hundred, whereas over 10,000
Camels were built.
>
>> In fact, there are no aerodynamic avantages. None at all. The center
>> plane is almost completely useless. There's a lot of interplane
>> interference with a biplane, though this can be put to some advantage
>> with decalage and stagger. Basically, the one plane influences the
>> other. With a tripe, the top and bottom planes affect the center,
>> which can't be practically spaced from it's neighbors givng it very
>> little lift and effectively neutralising it.
>
> One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
> would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally
> getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane had
it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of just
grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits and
then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with something
that worked. I have a two inch thick book of everything the Germans
built in WW1 including all the experimentals and the Fokker creations
are just nuts. I have the book out now and the tandem wing triplane is
the V8. I had remembered it as a tandem triplane, but the rear set were
bipe wings. Way too narrow a gap between the planes in the back. And it
still has a stab! There's a few pics on the net, but this guy obviously
has a fetish for tripes and you can see several as well as a Wight
Quadraplane and the Neiuport Triplane.

http://www.wwi-models.org/Images/Werner/RC/index.html
>
>> There were actually very few DR1s built. A few hundred IIRC.It would
>> have been forgotten but that Richtofen died in one.
>
> Ah, but Werner Voss was first, and established the reputation of the
> type. He lasted as long as he did, in his last dogfight, because of
> the maneuverability of the Tripe. OTOH, he might have lived if he'd
> been flying something that COULD have run away from the SE-5s....

Yeah, Werner Voss's was one of the prototypes. His wasn't a DR1, but a
F1, sort of a production prototype. Not a lot of diffrence between that
and the DR-1 production aircraft, though. All the big name German aces
wanted one when it came out first. It was sort of a weapon of choice. A
kind of fad-ish status symbol.
The first prototype of the Triplane, the V3, had no interplane struts at
all, and no balance area on the ailerons. The wings were fully
cantilever and the struts were added to boost pilot confidence more than
anything else. At least one or two of the F1s lost the upper wing in
flight with a fatal crash ensuing.
I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of them.
He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel whaich was
basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were all equipped
with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.
There's a raging debate amongst WW1 nerds about the color schemes of his
aircraft. The standard on the DR1 was to cover it in blue fabric and
then paing the upper sides with a worn out brush in a mix of silver and
olive in a diagonal streaky way giving a sort of camoflage. Richtofen,
of course, painted his red, but each of his airplanes had a different
degree of red on it. The one he died in seems to have been the reddest,
but it may have been only the upper surface of the upper wing ( there is
a phot of that airplane with him in it before his death) and another
with all upper surfaces red. There is a poor photo of one tha appears to
be a solid color, but it might be that in the shade, the blue bottom may
just appear to be the same shade as the top. The debate rages on!
Without me, I might add. I'm just glad those guys are out there doing it
for me.

>
>> All sides tried
>> them. The Neiuport tripe showed an interesting approach to getting
>> around the interplane interference problems by a multiple stagger
>> approach ( look one up, it;s hard to descibe)
>
> http://wwi-cookup.com/dicta_ira/nieuport/triplane01.jpg

Cool eh? They knoew how to fudge an airplane back then!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Phil J > wrote in
:

> On Feb 1, 7:20*pm, John Smith > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> *Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> > The DR1 was the result of many different designers from different
>> > countries experimenting with more wings at different aspect ratios
>> > trying to get greater maneuverability and rate of climb.
>> > You are correct in that they were slow, specifically the DR1 which
>> > had a
>
>> > top speed of barely over 100mph. The reason was interference drag
>> > between the wings.
>> > The maneuverability was excellect in the hands of good drivers, but
>> > the ham handed could dent the fabric in a nano-second with this
>> > crate. Eventually, the idea for the 3 wings (actually, many
>> > airplanes of the period had even more than 3 :-) went the way of
>> > all bad ideas as the structural issues in monoplane design began to
>> > get solved. Bottom line on the DR1 was that it was something new to
>> > be played with by experienced pilots, but the cons outweighed the
>> > pros and the damn thing was slow as molasses, so it was eventually
>> > canned as a viable weap
> on.
>>
>> Didn't AIR&SPACE magazine do an article last year with photos showing
>> the interference drag on each will resulting from the others?
>
> Yeah, they did. They said the same things Bertie mentioned. The
> middle wing was useless due to the interference.

Yeah, to be fair a lot of what I said was form that article. IIRC they did
a computer analysis of the Fokker and found it wanting.

Bertie

[Ricky]

After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
abilty to attack from above as was desired.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:db128a64-d6f7-42ac-8648-
:

>
> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
> abilty to attack from above as was desired.

Yeah, the triplane climbed quite quickley. The neccesity for climb was an
advantage in combat, but also neccesary to intercept recce airplanes that
were flying as high as 20,000. That was th eairplane's primary role n that
war. Observation.
The third wing didn't help, though.



Bertie

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> :
>
> > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
> > would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally
> > getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.
>
> I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
> probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane had
> it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of just
> grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits and
> then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with something
> that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under suspicion by
the German government, and the military had refused to give him access to the
newest engines...so he designed the best fighters he could around an old one
until the Germans changed their minds.

> I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot called "Enemy
Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von Hammer's" all-red triplane
featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage
door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

> One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of them.
> He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel whaich was
> basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were all equipped
> with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data plates on
its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a "captured" engine.
Even in the middle of a war, they were worried about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid building
models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as to whether his
machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one airplane would explain
it....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>> Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
>> > would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker
>> > finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.
>>
>> I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
>> probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane
>> had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of
>> just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits
>> and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with
>> something that worked.
>
> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
> suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
> give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
> fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
> minds.
>

Never heard that but it is quite possible, He was pretty mercenary and
probably would have godn to work for the other side if he was able to
get across.

>> I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>
> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
> called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
> Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
> current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

I remember it well. I think i got the whole run back then! about three
years?
>
>> One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
>> them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
>> whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
>> all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.
>
> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
> plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
> "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
> about licensing laws....

He he. That was more likely to keep the pilots happy. Or do you have nfo
that it was due to licencing law?
>
> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
> building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as
> to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one
> airplane would explain it....

Well, the dbate rages even over those four!

One other thing about them is that all those models had one aileron
larger than the other. One of the clearest pics of a tripe is oone that
shows this clearly, but it appears that it was probablyl just due to a
field repair using one off an older or newer machine. Someone did a
drawing of it like that ( think it might have been William Wylam) and it
was taken as fact that they were all like that and it was to compensate
for torque. not so!

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Ricky wrote:
> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
> abilty to attack from above as was desired.

I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
number of ways other than adding wings. I think structural strength was
the primary reason for more wings in that era.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:pj6pj.130$kD5.1392
@news1.epix.net:

> Ricky wrote:
>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
>> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
>> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
>> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
>> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
>> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
>> abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>
> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
> number of ways other than adding wings. I think structural strength was
> the primary reason for more wings in that era.

Not in this case. One of the advantages of a bipe is the rigging allows an
extremely rigid structure with light weight and an ability to have a wing
that is unrestrained by the need to conceal a lot of structure ( thick
spar). The DR1 was revolutionary in that all the panels were canitlever.
There was no external bracing except the roll wires between the cabane. The
interplane struts were redundant.

Bertie

[FledgeIII]

On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> :
>
> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
> > > would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally
> > > getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.
>
> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
> > probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane had
> > it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of just
> > grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits and
> > then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with something
> > that worked.
>
> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under suspicion by
> the German government, and the military had refused to give him access to the
> newest engines...so he designed the best fighters he could around an old one
> until the Germans changed their minds.
>
> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>
> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot called "Enemy
> Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von Hammer's" all-red triplane
> featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage
> door:
>
> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>
> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of them.
> > He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel whaich was
> > basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were all equipped
> > with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.
>
> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data plates on
> its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a "captured" engine.
> Even in the middle of a war, they were worried about licensing laws....
>
> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid building
> models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as to whether his
> machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one airplane would explain
> it....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.

It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
fading involved...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

FledgeIII > wrote in
:

> On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
>> > > DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
>> > > Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
>> > > bigger D-7.
>>
>> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
>> > probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
>> > Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was
>> > fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to
>> > other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came
>> > up with something that worked.
>>
>> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
>> suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
>> give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
>> fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
>> minds.
>>
>> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>>
>> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
>> called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
>> Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
>> current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>>
>> http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>>
>> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
>> > them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
>> > whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
>> > all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.
>>
>> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
>> plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
>> "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
>> about licensing laws....
>>
>> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
>> building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree
>> as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than
>> one airplane would explain it....
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
> In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
> there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
> purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.
>
> It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
> fading involved...
>

Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
Canada in a museum there including the seat.
One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.

Bertie

[FledgeIII]

On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> FledgeIII > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
> >> > > DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
> >> > > Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
> >> > > bigger D-7.
>
> >> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
> >> > probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
> >> > Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was
> >> > fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to
> >> > other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came
> >> > up with something that worked.
>
> >> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
> >> suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
> >> give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
> >> fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
> >> minds.
>
> >> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>
> >> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
> >> called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
> >> Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
> >> current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>
> >>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>
> >> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
> >> > them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
> >> > whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
> >> > all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.
>
> >> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
> >> plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
> >> "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
> >> about licensing laws....
>
> >> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
> >> building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree
> >> as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than
> >> one airplane would explain it....
>
> >> Ron Wanttaja
>
> > In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
> > there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
> > purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.
>
> > It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
> > fading involved...
>
> Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
> Canada in a museum there including the seat.
> One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
> but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.
>
> Bertie

I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if not
primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
yaw rates.

Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.

Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages in
visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings, the
middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured the least
lateral vision.

Then again, I could be all wt on that... ;)

[Ricky]

On Feb 2, 4:40*pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Ricky wrote:
> > After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
> > concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
> > quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
> > sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
> > amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
> > performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
> > abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>
> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
> number of ways other than adding wings. *I think structural strength was
> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>
> Matt

Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
he's mistaken? I doubt it.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

FledgeIII > wrote in
:

> On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> FledgeIII > wrote
>> innews:7921eb53-dcc7-4bce-984a-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
>> >> > > DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
>> >> > > Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
>> >> > > bigger D-7.
>>
>> >> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it
>> >> > was probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
>> >> > Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker
>> >> > was fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting
>> >> > them to other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that
>> >> > until he came up with something that worked.
>>
>> >> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
>> >> suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused
>> >> to give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
>> >> fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed
>> >> their minds.
>>
>> >> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>>
>> >> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
>> >> called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
>> >> Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on
>> >> the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>>
>> >>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>>
>> >> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four
>> >> > of them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the
>> >> > Oberursel whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His
>> >> > airplanes were all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed
>> >> > airplanes.
>>
>> >> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome
>> >> data plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it
>> >> was a "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were
>> >> worried about licensing laws....
>>
>> >> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a
>> >> kid building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to
>> >> agree as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having
>> >> more than one airplane would explain it....
>>
>> >> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> > In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
>> > there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
>> > purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.
>>
>> > It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be
>> > some fading involved...
>>
>> Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
>> Canada in a museum there including the seat.
>> One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
>> but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if not
> primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
> sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
> yaw rates.
>

Yeah, that would be one of the reasons. Bipes are the same lots of wing
area but you're affecting a smaller body of air. If you look at an
airplane nose on and draw a circel around it which just touches the
wingtips, you have a rough idea of the volume of air influenced by the
airplane as it flies along. A bipe or tripe will affect a smaller area.
It's morre compicated than that, of course, but it's a good ROT>

> Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
> bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.


Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's yaw
behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly impossible to
tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly along with the
wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare sideways than
straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the time. Vigorous
application of the rudder would initiate mad flat turns of ridiculously
small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a very good gun platform.
It must have been a tremedous advantage in surprise terms alone.
>
> Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages in
> visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings, the
> middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured the least
> lateral vision.
>
> Then again, I could be all wt on that... ;)

As Dudley said, I believe you're completely blind on landing, but all
the bipes of tha era had vis issues. There were some weird experiments n
that direction as well. The DH5 used negative stagger and had the
cockpit in front of the wings, for instance. The Sopwith Dolphin had a
weird aproach that's hard to describe.

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ricky > wrote in news:87914aea-450f-4f96-bf63-
:

> On Feb 2, 4:40*pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Ricky wrote:
>> > After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
>> > concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy
as
>> > quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of
the
>> > sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
>> > amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
>> > performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
>> > abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>>
>> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in
a
>> number of ways other than adding wings. *I think structural strength
was
>
>> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
> on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
> he's mistaken? I doubt it.

Well, unles he's an aeronautical engineer, he probably is. A lot of
stuff has been written about that airplane over the years and it just
gets regurgitated. There's no doubt about it, the thing climbed well,
but it would have gone up faster if he had sawn off the middle wing. To
make matters worse, there was no difference in the incidence between the
planes. Each plane affects it's neighbor and each wing has to be set at
the best incidence to take advantage of the available airflow. Sinc the
wing above and the wing below are affecting the flow around the center
it was pretty much just cancelled out.
The Air and Space article mentions that the prop was pitched pretty fine
on the triplane, which may have explained it's climb rate. But Fokker
and the Air Ministry must not have been all that impressd with it since
only a few undred were made as opposed to several thousand Albatros D-
V's. Fokker abandoned it and went the other way with first the D-VII and
then the E-V,/DVIII. The D-VII initialy had a relatively short fuselage
like the DR-1, but test flights ( done by Richtofen, I think) showed the
airplane to be desperately unstable. They lengthend the fuselage over
night and tried again, and probably the best fighter of the war was
born.
He went even further form the multiplane arrangement with the next one
of course.. the EV/D-VIII


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Ricky wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Ricky wrote:
>>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
>>> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
>>> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
>>> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
>>> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
>>> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
>>> abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
>> number of ways other than adding wings. I think structural strength was
>> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
> on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
> he's mistaken? I doubt it.

I don't. If triplanes were more efficient we would see modern versions
of them.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Ricky wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>> Ricky wrote:
>>>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
>>>> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy
>>>> as quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out
>>>> of the sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of
>>>> victory. The amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to
>>>> enhance climb performance quite significantly, thus affording
>>>> German pilots the abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>>> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased
>>> in a number of ways other than adding wings. I think structural
>>> strength was the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
>> on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
>> he's mistaken? I doubt it.
>
> I don't. If triplanes were more efficient we would see modern
> versions of them.
>

Well, in a way you do. Double slotted fowler flaps....


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Ricky wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Ricky wrote:
>>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
>>> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
>>> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
>>> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
>>> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
>>> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
>>> abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
>> number of ways other than adding wings. I think structural strength was
>> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
> on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
> he's mistaken? I doubt it.

I'd be curious to see his research. It seems quite counter to every
other authoritative source I've seen such as:

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2008/december-january/red_baron.php?page=1

Care to post your research source?

Matt

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>There's a raging debate amongst WW1 nerds about the color schemes of his
>aircraft. The standard on the DR1 was to cover it in blue fabric and
>then paing the upper sides with a worn out brush in a mix of silver and
>olive in a diagonal streaky way giving a sort of camoflage. Richtofen,
>of course, painted his red, but each of his airplanes had a different
>degree of red on it. The one he died in seems to have been the reddest,
>but it may have been only the upper surface of the upper wing ( there is
>a phot of that airplane with him in it before his death) and another
>with all upper surfaces red. There is a poor photo of one tha appears to

there are original sections of the red triplane's fabric on display in
the Canberra War Memorial, Australia.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There's a raging debate amongst WW1 nerds about the color schemes of his
>>aircraft. The standard on the DR1 was to cover it in blue fabric and
>>then paing the upper sides with a worn out brush in a mix of silver and
>>olive in a diagonal streaky way giving a sort of camoflage. Richtofen,
>>of course, painted his red, but each of his airplanes had a different
>>degree of red on it. The one he died in seems to have been the reddest,
>>but it may have been only the upper surface of the upper wing ( there is
>>a phot of that airplane with him in it before his death) and another
>>with all upper surfaces red. There is a poor photo of one tha appears to
>
> there are original sections of the red triplane's fabric on display in
> the Canberra War Memorial, Australia.

Oh there's no question they all had loads of red on them. It's how much.
These guys would have made pilgrimages to the fabric, believe me! The one
he died in was supposed to be the "all red" one, but there;s some question
if the undersurfaces were still the clear doped blue fabric. Any souvenier
hunters would naturally want the red parts, so anything else was probably
left on the airplane.



Bertie

[FledgeIII]

On Feb 3, 6:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> FledgeIII > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> FledgeIII > wrote
> >> innews:7921eb53-dcc7-4bce-984a-
>
>
>
>
>
> >> om:
>
> >> > On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> >> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
> >> >> :
>
> >> >> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
> >> >> > > DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
> >> >> > > Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
> >> >> > > bigger D-7.
>
> >> >> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it
> >> >> > was probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
> >> >> > Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker
> >> >> > was fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting
> >> >> > them to other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that
> >> >> > until he came up with something that worked.
>
> >> >> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
> >> >> suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused
> >> >> to give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
> >> >> fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed
> >> >> their minds.
>
> >> >> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>
> >> >> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
> >> >> called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
> >> >> Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on
> >> >> the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>
> >> >>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>
> >> >> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four
> >> >> > of them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the
> >> >> > Oberursel whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His
> >> >> > airplanes were all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed
> >> >> > airplanes.
>
> >> >> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome
> >> >> data plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it
> >> >> was a "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were
> >> >> worried about licensing laws....
>
> >> >> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a
> >> >> kid building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to
> >> >> agree as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having
> >> >> more than one airplane would explain it....
>
> >> >> Ron Wanttaja
>
> >> > In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
> >> > there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
> >> > purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.
>
> >> > It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be
> >> > some fading involved...
>
> >> Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
> >> Canada in a museum there including the seat.
> >> One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
> >> but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if not
> > primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
> > sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
> > yaw rates.
>
> Yeah, that would be one of the reasons. Bipes are the same lots of wing
> area but you're affecting a smaller body of air. If you look at an
> airplane nose on and draw a circel around it which just touches the
> wingtips, you have a rough idea of the volume of air influenced by the
> airplane as it flies along. A bipe or tripe will affect a smaller area.
> It's morre compicated than that, of course, but it's a good ROT>
>
> > Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
> > bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.
>
> Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's yaw
> behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly impossible to
> tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly along with the
> wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare sideways than
> straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the time. Vigorous
> application of the rudder would initiate mad flat turns of ridiculously
> small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a very good gun platform.
> It must have been a tremedous advantage in surprise terms alone.
>
>
>
> > Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages in
> > visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings, the
> > middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured the least
> > lateral vision.
>
> > Then again, I could be all wt on that... ;)
>
> As Dudley said, I believe you're completely blind on landing, but all
> the bipes of tha era had vis issues. There were some weird experiments n
> that direction as well. The DH5 used negative stagger and had the
> cockpit in front of the wings, for instance. The Sopwith Dolphin had a
> weird aproach that's hard to describe.
>
> Bertie
>
>

> Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's yaw
> behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly impossible to
> tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly along with the
> wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare sideways than
> straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the time. Vigorous
> application of the rudder would initiate mad flat turns of ridiculously
> small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a very good gun platform.
> It must have been a tremedous advantage in surprise terms alone.

Wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason pictures from the time -
and later on in movies like The Blue Max show DR.Is with streamers
trailing from the interplanes; most likely as big 'ole honkin' yaw
strings...

Good point on the early D.VII fuselage; was thinking about that
myself. IIRC, the prototype had the same small "comma shaped" rudder
stab as the DR.I; they added the forward strake/fin when they
lengthened the fuselage.

[Ricky]

On Feb 3, 8:06*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Ricky wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Ricky wrote:
> >>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were very
> >>> concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above the enemy as
> >>> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of the
> >>> sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of victory. The
> >>> amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to enhance climb
> >>> performance quite significantly, thus affording German pilots the
> >>> abilty to attack from above as was desired.
> >> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased in a
> >> number of ways other than adding wings. *I think structural strength was
> >> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>
> >> Matt
>
> > Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of research
> > on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from scratch. Maybe
> > he's mistaken? I doubt it.
>
> I'd be curious to see his research. *It seems quite counter to every
> other authoritative source I've seen such as:
>
> http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2008/december-january/red_baron.php...
>
> Care to post your research source?
>
> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wasn't research exactly, just the builder/owner of a "Fokker" Triplane
commenting on his own research into the plane. He's Canadian, I think,
and built one from the ground up with a partner, then sold it in the
early 80s. I think it was on Youtube, lemme see if I can find it
again.

Ricky

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

FledgeIII > wrote in
:

> On Feb 3, 6:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> FledgeIII > wrote
>> innews:229c0d8d-7fae-4be0-8c58-

>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> FledgeIII > wrote
>> >> innews:7921eb53-dcc7-4bce-984a-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> om:
>>
>> >> > On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> > > One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a
>> >> >> > > biplane DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But
>> >> >> > > I suppose Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let
>> >> >> > > him jump to the bigger D-7.
>>
>> >> >> > I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but
>> >> >> > it was probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I
>> >> >> > think the Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of
>> >> >> > accident. Fokker was fond of just grabbing bits they had
>> >> >> > developed and grafting them to other bits and then
>> >> >> > lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with
>> >> >> > something that worked.
>>
>> >> >> I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow
>> >> >> under suspicion by the German government, and the military had
>> >> >> refused to give him access to the newest engines...so he
>> >> >> designed the best fighters he could around an old one until the
>> >> >> Germans changed their minds.
>>
>> >> >> > I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.
>>
>> >> >> Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI
>> >> >> pilot called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But
>> >> >> "Hans Von Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face,
>> >> >> as shown on the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:
>>
>> >> >>http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg
>>
>> >> >> > One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had
>> >> >> > four of them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over
>> >> >> > the Oberursel whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome
>> >> >> > anyway. His airplanes were all equipped with Gnomes captured
>> >> >> > form downed airplanes.
>>
>> >> >> Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put
>> >> >> Gnome data plates on its engines, with an additional plate
>> >> >> explaining it was a "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a
>> >> >> war, they were worried about licensing laws....
>>
>> >> >> Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as
>> >> >> a kid building models, I noticed that none of the sources
>> >> >> seemed to agree as to whether his machine was all-red or
>> >> >> otherwise. Having more than one airplane would explain it....
>>
>> >> >> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> >> > In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF
>> >> > Museum, there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a
>> >> > frame, purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.
>>
>> >> > It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be
>> >> > some fading involved...
>>
>> >> Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is
>> >> in Canada in a museum there including the seat.
>> >> One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in
>> >> germany, but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if
>> > not primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
>> > sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
>> > yaw rates.
>>
>> Yeah, that would be one of the reasons. Bipes are the same lots of
>> wing area but you're affecting a smaller body of air. If you look at
>> an airplane nose on and draw a circel around it which just touches
>> the wingtips, you have a rough idea of the volume of air influenced
>> by the airplane as it flies along. A bipe or tripe will affect a
>> smaller area. It's morre compicated than that, of course, but it's a
>> good ROT>
>>
>> > Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
>> > bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.
>>
>> Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's
>> yaw behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly
>> impossible to tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly
>> along with the wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare
>> sideways than straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the
>> time. Vigorous application of the rudder would initiate mad flat
>> turns of ridiculously small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a
>> very good gun platform. It must have been a tremedous advantage in
>> surprise terms alone.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages
>> > in visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings,
>> > the middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured
>> > the least lateral vision.
>>
>> > Then again, I could be all wt on that... ;)
>>
>> As Dudley said, I believe you're completely blind on landing, but all
>> the bipes of tha era had vis issues. There were some weird
>> experiments n that direction as well. The DH5 used negative stagger
>> and had the cockpit in front of the wings, for instance. The Sopwith
>> Dolphin had a weird aproach that's hard to describe.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
>> Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's
>> yaw behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly
>> impossible to tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly
>> along with the wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare
>> sideways than straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the
>> time. Vigorous application of the rudder would initiate mad flat
>> turns of ridiculously small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a
>> very good gun platform. It must have been a tremedous advantage in
>> surprise terms alone.
>
> Wouldn't be surprised if that's the reason pictures from the time -
> and later on in movies like The Blue Max show DR.Is with streamers
> trailing from the interplanes; most likely as big 'ole honkin' yaw
> strings...
>
> Good point on the early D.VII fuselage; was thinking about that
> myself. IIRC, the prototype had the same small "comma shaped" rudder
> stab as the DR.I; they added the forward strake/fin when they
> lengthened the fuselage.
>
I can tell you now as soon as I make a cup of tea and grap my "Big Book
of German Airplanes."

OK, back. Yeah, the first prototype of the D VII had a comma rudder. it
was called the V11. It was pretty much just a mercedes engined D VI. The
next version had the fin but the fuselage lengthening took place
overnight at Aldershof during acceptance testing of the airplane. That
airplane already had a fin. It's climb was impressive, BTW. 5,000 metres
in 25 minutes.

Incidentally i spottd a DR1 fitted with a Siemens Shuckert 11 cyl geared
rotary. That must have been some rocket!


Bertie

[Ricky]

On Feb 3, 8:06*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Care to post your research source?
>
> Matt-

Sure, here it is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArcvlCi6JIw&feature=related
Since this guy is a pilot of a modern replica and, I believe, built
the one he's sitting in and standing next to, I took his comments
about the 3 wings as somewhat authoratative.
This is a good little ditty about the Triplane.

Ricky.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Ricky > wrote in
:

> On Feb 3, 8:06*am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Ricky wrote:
>> > On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> >> Ricky wrote:
>> >>> After reading more on this I have found that the German's were
>> >>> very concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above
>> >>> the enemy as
>
>> >>> quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of
>> >>> the sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of
>> >>> victory. The amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to
>> >>> enhance climb performance quite significantly, thus affording
>> >>> German pilots the abilty to attack from above as was desired.
>> >> I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased
>> >> in a
>
>> >> number of ways other than adding wings. *I think structural
>> >> strength
> was
>> >> the primary reason for more wings in that era.
>>
>> >> Matt
>>
>> > Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of
>> > research on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from
>> > scratch. Maybe he's mistaken? I doubt it.
>>
>> I'd be curious to see his research. *It seems quite counter to every
>> other authoritative source I've seen such as:
>>
>> http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2008/december-
january/red_baron.php.
>> ..
>>
>> Care to post your research source?
>>
>> Matt- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wasn't research exactly, just the builder/owner of a "Fokker" Triplane
> commenting on his own research into the plane. He's Canadian, I think,
> and built one from the ground up with a partner, then sold it in the
> early 80s. I think it was on Youtube, lemme see if I can find it
> again.

Walt Redfern? He made a few nice replica WW1 airplanes. But there wasnt
really anything for the builder, whoever he was, to research. Though the
original probably went through some wind tunnel testing at Aldershof or
maybe Fokker had one of their own, they weren't entirely sure of what
they were looking for. Nobody would have wasted time and effort on the
thing afterwards and it really wasn't viable to do so until the age of
computers. Most aerodynamicists even back then would have pooh poohed
the triplane, but it was worth a shot, the airplane had some good
attributes, so they made some and they had a bit of success. They were
clearly wanting in a lot of ways, though, thus the short production run.
All of those WW1 airplanes were experimental in extremis in every way
you can imagine. Materials, adhesives, engines, aerodynamics, you name
it. . they learned fast, though and the performance gains from the
Taubes and Moranes of 1914 to The Seimens Schuckerts and Sopwith Snipes
of late 1918 was only spectacular. Steel tube fuselages were introduced
by Fokker and are still used today. Hugo Junkers introduced the first
all metal airplanes. Some of the engines were fantasitc too,
particularly the Hispano Suizas which are still impressive and powered
airplanes well into the thirties.
It must have been an exciting time to live through. If you lived through
it..


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Ricky wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:06 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Care to post your research source?
>>
>> Matt-
>
> Sure, here it is;
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArcvlCi6JIw&feature=related
> Since this guy is a pilot of a modern replica and, I believe, built
> the one he's sitting in and standing next to, I took his comments
> about the 3 wings as somewhat authoratative.
> This is a good little ditty about the Triplane.
>
> Ricky.
>

Unfortunately, that video is full of errors.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:M6qpj.141$kD5.1706
@news1.epix.net:

> Ricky wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 8:06 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>> Care to post your research source?
>>>
>>> Matt-
>>
>> Sure, here it is;
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArcvlCi6JIw&feature=related
>> Since this guy is a pilot of a modern replica and, I believe, built
>> the one he's sitting in and standing next to, I took his comments
>> about the 3 wings as somewhat authoratative.
>> This is a good little ditty about the Triplane.
>>
>> Ricky.
>>
>
> Unfortunately, that video is full of errors.


Yes, the makers should be shot.


Bertie