7/8 Nieuport 11 flying qualities?

I'm considering a Nieuport 11 ultralight, and I was wondering if anyone here has flown one, or heard anything about how they fly. Will they fly hands off, or do you constantly have to stay on top of things? Are they easy to ground-loop?

The 7/8 scale Nieuport 11 (Graham Lee plans) can't be built as a legal
Part 103 Ultralight - 254 pounds - without making so many changes to the
plans that the result would almost certainly be an unsafe structure.

Most VW engine N-11's weigh about 450-475 pounds. Use a Rotax 277
engine, eliminate the brakes, battery and a bunch of other non-essential
stuff and you're still going to be around 100 pounds overweight for a UL.

They fly OK. Ground handling is typical of many taildraggers that
require constant dancing on the rudder pedals. It is not among the more
benign taildraggers. YES, it is easy to groundloop.

Information and pictures of Nieuport building process:
http://eaa292.org/noonpatrol.html
http://www.kcdawnpatrol.org/

The Graham Lee plans are not very detailed and leave at lot up to the
builder to figure out. If I were going to do it again I'd go with a
Nieuport Kit from Robert Baslee:
http://www.airdromeaeroplanes.com/

I'd use a VW 1600 or 1835 engine with a redrive. The thrust is far
greater from a big slower turning prop than the small prop used on a
direct drive VW.

- John Ousterhout -



Chris Wells wrote:
I'm considering a Nieuport 11 ultralight, and I was wondering if anyone
here has flown one, or heard anything about how they fly. Will they fly
hands off, or do you constantly have to stay on top of things? Are they
easy to ground-loop?

Just out of curiosity: do the Airdrome Aeroplanes kits include brakes?
IIRC the original versions of most (all?) of these planes didn't have
them. I had always assumed that these replicas didn't either and that
was something that turned me off when looking at them. Aside from that
I've always kinda liked the look of the Fokker D-VIII .

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:09:27 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:

They fly OK. Ground handling is typical of many taildraggers that
require constant dancing on the rudder pedals. It is not among the more
benign taildraggers. YES, it is easy to groundloop.

I believe it's also less stable in yaw than modern pilots are used to. Built
stock, the Nieuport has no fixed vertical stabilizer...it's an all-moving
rudder. Many Nieuport builders try to add some by building the rudder in a
fixed/movable combination, covering the tailwheel support tubing with fabric,
etc.

Yes, I know. It's a fighter. It's not *supposed* to be stable.

Ron Wanttaja

Original birds in WWI operated off grass fields and had 'skags' (sp).

With full back stick you dug the 'skag' in ground and didn't need
brakes to stop.

If you build a prototype today you need brakes as most, if not all,
flying is off hard surface.

Big John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

On 9 Feb 2006 10:22:49 -0800, "Mike Gaskins"
wrote:

Just out of curiosity: do the Airdrome Aeroplanes kits include brakes?
IIRC the original versions of most (all?) of these planes didn't have
them. I had always assumed that these replicas didn't either and that
was something that turned me off when looking at them. Aside from that
I've always kinda liked the look of the Fokker D-VIII .

No, they do not.
I have a Airdrome DVIII and they fly well. I have an A65 in mine, gross
weight is 600lbs. If I where to do it again, it would have a VW with Valley
Redrive. Be about the same weight, but have starter and alternator, larger
prop.

Alan

"Mike Gaskins" wrote in message
oups.com...
Just out of curiosity: do the Airdrome Aeroplanes kits include brakes?
IIRC the original versions of most (all?) of these planes didn't have
them. I had always assumed that these replicas didn't either and that
was something that turned me off when looking at them. Aside from that
I've always kinda liked the look of the Fokker D-VIII .

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 17:09:27 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:


They fly OK. Ground handling is typical of many taildraggers that
require constant dancing on the rudder pedals. It is not among the more
benign taildraggers. YES, it is easy to groundloop.


I believe it's also less stable in yaw than modern pilots are used to. Built
stock, the Nieuport has no fixed vertical stabilizer...it's an all-moving
rudder. Many Nieuport builders try to add some by building the rudder in a
fixed/movable combination, covering the tailwheel support tubing with fabric,
etc.

Yes, I know. It's a fighter. It's not *supposed* to be stable.

Ron Wanttaja

I know a guy who flies a Fokker Triplane and he says if you let go of
the controls and leave it to its own devices it slews off into a left
wing down sideslip and will stay like that all the way to the ground.

John

"Big John" wrote in message
...
Original birds in WWI operated off grass fields and had 'skags' (sp).

With full back stick you dug the 'skag' in ground and didn't need
brakes to stop.

If you build a prototype today you need brakes as most, if not all,
flying is off hard surface.

Big John

I wonder if anyone has tried using a skag, only cutting the tread section
off of an old auto tire and bolting it onto the bottom. It seems to me that
many of the same attributes would be attained, and some of the same ground
handling characteristics.
--
Jim in NC

Jim

Don't think it would last long. If you lock the brakes up on your car
how long does the tire last before it wears a hole in it? If you drug
a piece of tire on a hard surface how long before it wore out?

Last time I flew a 'Skag' was in 1937 in a Taylor Cub. To make a turn
you put full forward stick and full rudder in the direction you wanted
to turn and goosed the engine. Tail come off the ground and prop blast
against rudder blew the fuselage in the direction you wanted to turn.
You then cut power and full back stick and you were going in the
direction you wanted and continued to taxi.

Oh those were the good old days. Single ignition and no mag check. If
you got the rpm you took off )

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:52:33 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
Original birds in WWI operated off grass fields and had 'skags' (sp).

With full back stick you dug the 'skag' in ground and didn't need
brakes to stop.

If you build a prototype today you need brakes as most, if not all,
flying is off hard surface.

Big John

I wonder if anyone has tried using a skag, only cutting the tread section
off of an old auto tire and bolting it onto the bottom. It seems to me that
many of the same attributes would be attained, and some of the same ground
handling characteristics.

I know a guy who flies a Fokker Triplane and he says if you let go of
the controls and leave it to its own devices it slews off into a left
wing down sideslip and will stay like that all the way to the ground.

Helicopters will not fly themselves, either. But, after awhile, you just
get used to it. Pretty soon, you can chew gum while you fly. I even
figured out how to change channels on the radio.

The scale Neuport that I saw was beautiful - but it had a horizontal bar
right in front of the dash and I could not help but wonder where that would
be if the airplane stopped flying before my head did.

Colin