![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Triplane PWS Po-2 | fox | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 30th 07 08:08 AM |
Dr.1 triplane | Glenn[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | June 16th 07 12:52 PM |
Dr1 Triplane | Glenn[_2_] | Aviation Photos | 1 | June 10th 07 04:07 AM |