![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates
that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design (can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max attainable speed? Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original as can be found anywhere. James Linn wrote: "Alberto Panno-Peano" wrote in message om... I think Biplanes and Triplanes were the best planes ever made. I think the Red Baron could beat any plane of today with his triplane ! I even think that Zeppelins are better than most modern planes ! Saw an interesting documentary on Discovery channel called Great Military Clashes. The episode focused on WWI, and started with the German Howitzer versus the British 18 pounder field gun. The second half was the Fokker triplane versus Sopwith Camel. In the end it came down to speed - the drag of three wings of the triplane limited the designs speed. It had an advantage in climb and turning, but speed is life. The wings also made take off and landing difficult as they blocked the view of the runway. The red baron was a superb pilot who could make the most of his airplane. Interestingly enough they speculated that the Fokker was inspired by an earlier Sopwith Triplane, which didn't have as man vices in the visibility department. But it was abandoned in favour of the biplane because of speed. James Linn |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "sddso" wrote in message ... Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design (can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max attainable speed? Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original as can be found anywhere. As discussed in the program, the wires did make the Sopwith more vulnerable to enemy fire. But the limiting factor in the design was the drag of three wings. Sopwith had realised this and not gone into big production with their triplane. Saw yesterday the same show regarding battle of Britain, and the same visibility situations existed to an extent. The ME 109 had a blind spot above the pilots head(fixed on later versions), where as the Spitfire had excellent visibility. The show basically had the contest as dead even - they preferred fuel injection to the Spits carbs, and the ME-109's cannons(did an experiment with aircraft aluminum at 200 yards, showing the big difference), but penalised the 109 on visibility and range. James Linn |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "James Linn" wrote in message ... "sddso" wrote in message ... Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design (can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max attainable speed? Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original as can be found anywhere. As discussed in the program, the wires did make the Sopwith more vulnerable to enemy fire. But the limiting factor in the design was the drag of three wings. Sopwith had realised this and not gone into big production with their triplane. With the Dr-1 the wing structure was completely internal (it was a cantilever design) which removed the conventional wire bracing and the associated high drag. For this reason the Dr-1 had one of the best zero-lift drag co-efficients of the war. What's most important is the first use of thick aerofoil sections, based on the work of Prandtl's Gotteingen laboratory in '17. These were proved superior over the thin aerofoils used by the Allies, who were plagued with the associated poor high-lift characteristics of slender aerofoils. The Dr-1's thick aerofoil gave the lil' Fokker a tremendously high rate of climb and enhanced manoeuvrability; Sopwith were just simply barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, Sopwith's preference for thin aerofoils is based on birds having similarly slender wing cross-sections, so they weren't even barking. The D-VII's excellent performance (also due to its high t/c) made it so respected by the allies that it was the only aircraft to be specifically listed in the armistice (article IV). Just goes to show how much a couple of inches on the thickness of a main spar can go a long way! Jim Doyle |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|