|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> fokker D1 /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1282545140 Message started by mick on 08/22/10 at 23:32:19 |
|
Title: fokker D1 Post by mick on 08/22/10 at 23:32:19 I was polishing my trustie miata and I looked up and ther was an old model aeroplane I made at least 5 years ago,I thought I had better take a picture of it before it disintigrated, it actualy flew once with a rubber powered motor ,it landed bad and the undercarraige was distroyed ,so I rebuilt it and hung it up,never to fly again. http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr311/mickrowe37/002-13.jpg http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr311/mickrowe37/007-4.jpg |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by LANCER on 08/23/10 at 02:22:44 NICE MODEL MIC I USE TO BUILD 'M TOO ... BUT THEN AFTER I GOT TIRED OF LOOKING AT THEM SITTING THERE FOR A WHILE THEY WOULD GO DOWN IN A DOG FIGHT OF FROM HEAVY ARTILLARY ;D |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/23/10 at 06:40:39 Airplanes of that era, being only 13 or so years after the Wright Bros. were horrible in most respects. They had only a very elementary understanding of aerodynamics and aircraft structural requirements, and less about stability and control. A guy here in Columbus who made a ton of dough as one of the very first Volkswagen distributors back in the late 50s thru the 70s had an authentic replica of a Fokker Triplane. The only thing different was that is used a 1930s vintage radial engine instead of the old rotary. This guy had been a WW II fighter pilot, and was a very good pilot. He told me that the Fokker was so unstable that it scared him to fly it. He could not let go of the controls for a heartbeat before the thing was all over the sky. The rotary engines of the WW I day were quite something. A rotary engine has the crankshaft fixed to the firewall, and all of the rest of the contraption, cylinders and all, rotate about that fixed crankshaft. The amount of torque they generate is horrid - they also had no throttle - you only had a kill switch to regulate the power output - either all or nothing. That's why you hear the engines "burping" as they land, as the pilot works the kill switch off and on to regulate the power. The young men who took to the skies in WW I were a breed unto themselves - and were a breed with a very short life expectancy. Far more were killed in training and routine flying than ever met their end in combat. The famous French Neuport, maybe the best handling of the WW I fighters, if you can call anything "best" of that era, would shed its wings in a dive with regularity. And all of this was before fighter pilots wore parachutes. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by kimchris1 on 08/23/10 at 06:53:00 Nice plane Mick. Great you still have it and in the same building as your Miata. I hope the feeling continues to come back in your hand and you will add a bike to the garage and it be included in the picture as well.. kim :) |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/23/10 at 07:05:07 The amount of torque they generate is horrid - they also had no throttle - you only had a kill switch to regulate the power output - either all or nothing. That's why you hear the engines "burping" as they land, as the pilot works the kill switch off and on to regulate the power. Ya know, Id heard about airplane engines that spun around the mounted crankshaft, but it never even crossed my mind that a throttle would be impossible. I cant understand how its possible to decide to build something thatway. What events caused the first builder to decide to do it that way instead of mounting the block to the firewall? I just wonder,, anyone have an idea? |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by verslagen1 on 08/23/10 at 07:14:19 Pretty sure that's a DR-1, mick. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by PerrydaSavage on 08/23/10 at 07:30:44 Yup! DR-1 Triplane http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/fokker_dr1__139.jpg Here's a DR-7 Biplane http://pioneerflightmuseum.org/images/fokkerDVII/rollout.jpg Often touted as being one of the very best fighter planes of WW1 For those interested in the early years of aviation and WW1 air warfare in particular, Cpt. Eddie Rickenbacker's (American WW1 Ace) book Fighting the Flying Circus makes for fascinating reading as does Up and At 'Em! by fighter pilot Harold Hartney |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/23/10 at 07:40:17 JOG - I don't know why for sure, but I once heard that it had to do with lubrication of the upper cylinders. Centrifugal force in a rotary threw the oil from the crankcase outward toward the upper cylinders. We have to keep in mind how primitive even gasoline engines were in those days - forced lubrication with an oil pump and channels within the engine to distribute the oil to all of the parts needing lubrication was quite an advancement when it came. The Wright Bros.' engine didn't even have a carburetor - there was just a little drip pan into which the gasoline was dripped, and from the pan it ran into the intake manifold, where it mixed with incoming air. A wonder it ran at all. I'm not very knowledgeable about WW I stuff, but if you look at the rickety aircraft at the beginning in 1914, and then at the end in 1918, it's amazing how much advancement was made in those 5 years. I suppose you can say the same thing about the WW II era - beginning the war with open cockpit biplanes still in the inventories of most of the combatant nations, and ending with the Brits, Germans, and the U.S. having jets, and of course, with the U.S. having an atomic bomb. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by verslagen1 on 08/23/10 at 09:01:51 I'm partial to the D-IV albatross. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by mick on 08/23/10 at 10:03:06 4A594E4F505D5B59520D3C0 wrote:
your right,I was close. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/23/10 at 10:58:54 60646E6679656861646068740D0 wrote:
your right,I was close.[/quote] & you give me grief about the way I write. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by bill67 on 08/23/10 at 11:23:16 Any one know why the Mig was so much better than the F85 that we dropped out of the Korean (Conflict). |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by verslagen1 on 08/23/10 at 11:32:04 5E5550500A0B3C0 wrote:
Tactics, they ran better and only attacked when they had an advantage. Same thing in Nam, only they didn't have to dodge sams too. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by bill67 on 08/23/10 at 11:41:04 They were built heavier,Making them more bullet proof,And faster with more horsepower. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/23/10 at 13:19:44 Bill - The Mig-15 was lighter, not heavier, than an F-86. It could out turn the Sabre, but the Sabre was faster in a dive. The real number, the kill ratio, was about 10 to 1 in favor of the F-86. Our pilots and tactics were far superior. Also, the Mig 15 could not survive much battle damage - it was fairly fragile. In Vietnam, it was another story. The old workhorse F-4 was a pig in a fight. It had been designed as a bomber intercepter, not a dogfighter. The original models didn't have a gun; only missiles. Later versions got a gun mounted on an external pod, then the E model got an internal gun. It was fast, but suffered in maneuverability. It was living proof that given enough thrust, a barn door could be made to fly. With the F-4, we had to keep the fight vertical to take advantage of the thrust in both climbing and diving. But if a Mig-19 or -21 could turn the fight horizontal, we had our hands full. The kill ratio was horrible, and the Navy started the Top Gun school, and the Air Froce started operation Red Flag to improve pilot training, then the tables turned in our favor once again. The best way to deal with a Mig was to enter a slight dive, about negative 15 degrees deck angle, go to full afterburners, and get the he!! out of there. The Mig could never catch a Phantom in a straight line, let alone on a dive. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by bill67 on 08/23/10 at 14:44:25 Jerry I saw a thing on the history channel it was pretty opposite of what you are saying |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by verslagen1 on 08/23/10 at 14:54:16 3C37323268695E0 wrote:
I didn't know they had a communist history channel. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by bill67 on 08/23/10 at 15:26:43 I found a place that said 2-1 kills in favor of the Migs,The ratio of how many jets they had was 10-1 in favor of Saber jets. Found it under Russian Aces in Korea. But that water over the dam now. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/23/10 at 15:42:06 Bill - The site you looked at only tells a very small part of te story. Even during Korea, the U.S. suspected that some North Korean and Chinese Migs were in fact being flown by Russian pilots. Now, almost 60 years later, we know it was true. But my estimate of the overall kill ratio was wrong. Taking into account all fights with all Migs flown by all enemy pilots; North Korean, Chinese and Russian, to overall kill ratio was 26 to 1 in favor of the Sabre. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by mick on 08/23/10 at 15:58:43 I think the kill ratio was a little closer with Spitfires and Messerchmites,because pilots were about equil in experience,and skill. Allthough German pilots used to get really pissed off if they found out a Sgt pilot shot them down,NCOs were generaly used as wing men but they shot down a fair share , I'm sure without the old stiff upper lip old chap. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/23/10 at 16:04:03 Mick - I don't know what the ratio was during the Battle of Britain. But one thing we have to remember is that when a German pilot was downed, even if he bailed out and lived, he was then a POW and lost for the rest of the war. If an RAF pilot lived thru a shoot down, he was back in the battle in a matter of days, assuming he wasn't badly injured. It takes the better part of a year just to train a pilot and get him to his first mission - it took a matter of days to build a new airplane. That's a fact that always benefits the defender, fighting on his home soil. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by bill67 on 08/23/10 at 16:27:53 The show I saw on the history channel said we offered $1000,000,000 for a Mig jet,One day a Mig flew in to one of our airports oversea,It was a North Korean pilot,He didn't know about the money but he got it and lives in the USA some wheres now.We wanted the jet to see why it was so fast and hard to knock out of the air,Thats what the show said.When I was in the army in 1962 they told us if Russia hit us first in a nuclear attack and knock out half of our missiles we would still when the nuclear war within 24 hours.They also told us that we were the best outfit that ever when threw basic training in Fort Knox Ky.Now you know none of us believed that.I don't believe that you can believe any thing our government says,Today they said the surge is working in Afghan.To me its all brainwashing to make us think its OK. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by thumperclone on 08/23/10 at 18:21:16 wow a anti religon bloke intrigued with kill ratios... mic u b closer to it than you are willing to admit..... |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by mick on 08/23/10 at 20:35:23 504C514954415647484B4A41240 wrote:
Sorry mate no idea what you are trying to say, explain please . "closer to what "? I guess mic means Mick and u b means "you will be" areyou an African American ? |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by verslagen1 on 08/23/10 at 20:54:36 he must be taking "texting as a second language" |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by PerrydaSavage on 08/24/10 at 03:12:51 Spitfire vs ME109; http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html F-86 Sabre vs Mig-15; http://www.acepilots.com/discussions/mig_vs_sabre.html http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/generations/mig15-f86.jpg |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Midnightrider on 08/24/10 at 05:49:21 Nice build Mick. My next RC plane will be a Spad Xlll. Always loved biplanes, especially WWl planes. My Dad was an aircraft mechanic. He used to carry me to watch Zach Reynolds fly his Pitts. That was always a show. There was another pilot here that could really fly his Stearman, cant remember his name. I grew up around motorcycles and airplanes. Thats why I still love them both today. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/24/10 at 06:01:09 Midnight - I think I've said it before on here, but it amazes me how many pilots I know are also into motorcycles. Something must make the two go together. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by mornhm - FSO on 08/24/10 at 06:13:21 4B44484249444F434453464453210 wrote:
There's a lot of us "wannabe pilots" who for whatever reason didn't get their pilot's license that ride motorcycles and wish we could fly on the weekends. Now that my kids are (almost) grown, I'm getting back into flying - models that is. I built a couple of triplanes when I was a kid - only one of them flew worth a darn. Your's looks good Mick. I'm working on flying RC trainers and simulators now, and building some balsa kits - they sure are a lot easier with modern adhesives. So far I'm just repeating models that I built as a kit. My goal is to build a small RC scale model (again modern materials are amazing) to fly indoors. I'm thinking four channels and one of the Liason/observation planes. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 08/24/10 at 06:18:18 Mornhm - If you've always wanted to fly, go do it. With the new sport pilot certificate, the cost of flying has dropped dramatically. Sure, it's a bit more costly than riding a Savage. But I know of motorcycles ( big HDs and Hondas) more expensive than some older, classic airplanes. I'm often surprised how much some people spend on hobbies like golf and still think that flying is more expensive. If you're truly interested, PM me so I don't bore the whole forum with a detailed discussion. And, in what part of the country do you reside? |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 08/24/10 at 11:32:46 My stepdad figured a way to get his license & then he started a "flying club" & several guys went in to buy a plane. We started out with an Aercoupe. They got rid of that & got a Piper Tri-Pacer & another time we had a Luscombe 8-A. The right brake rotor came off( someone wasnt doing a good walk around) & jammed up the wheel on a landing. Over on its back, bent the frame, sudden stop on the engine( requires complete tear down & Magnaflux) End of flying club...BUT, not before I got about 40 hours stick time ( Naaaah, I didnt get to hold it that much, hekk, I dont know now,, But, I had a lot mo hands on time than any other 12 yo kid I knew. Did that translate when I started theRC airplane thing? IDK, but I was landing & taking off by myself quick enough to make some guys angry. One fired up his transmitter, which was on my frequency, & crashed my Ugly Stick that I had modified with larger control surfaces. It was a Handlin Dude. Took 2 trash sacks to pick it all up. I decided "No More", if something not even my fault can take so many dollars & so many hours of work & put them in the trash, I just wasnt gonna do that. Now, if I could know that no one elses radio could cross me up, I might just do it again. I still see places Id like to fly a plane. With todays electronics, I bet a guy could put a camera in the nose & a receiver on the ground, build a "cockp[it" & fly the thing as if sitting in it. That would solve the Orientation problems when the planes coming toward the pilot. I guess, anyway.. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Midnightrider on 08/24/10 at 11:53:29 7C737F757E7378747364717364160 wrote:
Jerry you basically turn a motorcycle like you do an airplane. You bank the motorcycle. There are small differences but basically its the same. I flew Hang Gliders for 13 years. I shifted my weight and banked the Hang Glider exactly like my motorcycle. You are almost flying when you ride a motorcycle, you just dont have the altitude to deal with. You experience a lot of the same sensations. Thats why the two go together. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by mornhm - FSO on 08/24/10 at 12:03:15 Jerry, The reason I didn't learn to fly before (high school) was a head/eye surgery that left me with double vision. Long story, but I no longer need prisms in my prescription. I still like the idea of flying, and may do it someday, but right now standing on the ground and flying a model is enough for me. It's also a bit of a nostalgic "fix." I live in central Illinois. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by Midnightrider on 08/24/10 at 12:06:15 455A5C5B4641704070485A561D2F0 wrote:
JOG they are doing it now with RC Planes. Its called FPV flying. A video camera on the RC Plane transmits its signal to the pilot who is wearing a special pair of goggles with a reciever and screen. It appears wearing the goggles that you are actually in the cockpit of the RC Plane. There are videos of it on You Tube. Thats how the military flies the drones to see what is behind the next sand dune. The way I remember my orientation when the RC Plane is coming towards me is I always move the stick towards the low wing. Works every time and has saved me a lot of airplanes. |
|
Title: Re: fokker D1 Post by odmanout on 09/27/10 at 13:52:04 I built that exact model and put an .049 engine in it and flew it on control lines. It was a Guillows kit, and I think you can still get them. I still have the plans for it in the basement. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |