Why a triplane?

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quickly superseded it, then.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

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

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

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

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...

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

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...

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

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

Stealth Pilot wrote in
news
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