Crashed D.vII ....

W

womenfly2

Guest
This is what a D.vII looks like when it meets the ground from a height of 60 feet. Lost power on takeoff ..... pilot did walk away, minor injuries, plane being rebuilt. Notice the collapse and compression failure of the structure in the cockpit area, a very weak part of the airframe, even a mild crash like this would cause serious injury or even death to the pilot.

Note the lower left wing missing ... clipped a tree which sheared it off before impact.

Crash1.jpg
 
A serious reminder of reality

My god - just had a lot of fun in OvS's latest thread, and now I see this picture, and I catch a glimpse of how it really would have been in those days to crash, like I did in my Albatros D II yesterday...
Good to hear the pilot wasn't seriously injured. Olham
 
Thanks for posting this, and a question ..

Hello Women fly, too (seems i have to much time on my hands for not using the abbreviation),

main thing is the pilot was not badly hurt. I think your body gets a thorough "thud" crashing while sitting in a stiff steel tube frame.
Which kind of Replica was this ? Was it built with the original specifications ? The cockpit opening is a weak part, i just wonder why there weren't any additional bracings to make up for the missing or uncontinous upper bracings.

B.t.w. i have tried for two times to register to the Fokker team Schorndorf forums, but it would not work. Then there was a message popping up my eMail adress would have been banned ?! I have never had any problems with Achim Engels, nor did i even write something about him - apart from sheer anthusiasm for the birds he rebuilds.
So after this i used this eMail adress to ask what was going on, but never got an answer.
So i would like to ask, you whether you would be so kind as to ask why my eMail adress got banned ?
:isadizzy:

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish
 
Catfish,

I too tried to join that forum with the same results. I even sent them an e-mail requesting a reason for the ban with no results!

GVB
 
pheww!!

shows how fragile these birds were......quite sobering really......glad the pilot escaped OK
 
Even so, I should think his first stop would be the PUB. And he wouldn't order up a pint. And leave the the bottle :costumes:
 
Hi, WomenFly2
Another question comes to my mind, when I see this wreckage; and you're the expert. How good is the sail/glide ability of these WW1 planes, engine out? (don't know the right word. I mean, when my Albatros was badly hit, most times my fuel leaked out and the engine suddenly died in mid air. But I always managed to "sail" the plane savely down and land it. Would that not be possible?)
Cheers; Olham
 
Allow Me to interject, this guy clipped a tree, and tore-off at least half of his lower wing. That would effect anybody's glide pattern negatively. :kilroy:
 
WF2 has far more expertise than I but I'm also a pilot and I'm nearing the completion of my Hatz biplane so I can offer a few thoughts. The stall speed (speed at which the wings stop flying) of most biplanes is quite low (for my Hatz it's 40-45 mph versus 57 mph for my monoplane Piper). This means that you can contact the ground under control at a fairly low speed- which is good for survivability. The problem with losing power in your biplane is that the glide ratio (distance you can glide forward versus the downward rate) is pretty bad because of all of the aerodynamic drag, not only the two complete wings but surprisingly the landing and flying wires that hold it all together, not to mention the fixed landing gear. This means that when you lose power, your landing site options are very much reduced. A flight instructor once told me that you pretty much look down and choose your spot because that's where you'll be landing. In comparison, a modern monoplane like a Piper or Cessna, while having a higher stall speed (bad) will have a much better glide ratio (I thin 7:1 is typical) so you'll have more options to pick your landing site. If you're at 5000 feet in your Cessna, you've got a radius of 7 miles to find a good field. Of course, if you lose power on takeoff, no configuration helps.
Every two years, we pilots have to undergo what is the equivalent of a driver's test and the part that I always dread is when the examiner pulls back the throttle looks at me and leers "Now what are you gonna do". I invariably 1) panic 2) pick a bad spot 3) scare the heck out of the examiner. in my determination to do complete an impossible landing approach. I guess the silver lining is that they always pass me, probably to avoid a return check ride.
 
Olham54 said:
Hi, WomenFly2
Another question comes to my mind, when I see this wreckage; and you're the expert. How good is the sail/glide ability of these WW1 planes, engine out? (don't know the right word. I mean, when my Albatros was badly hit, most times my fuel leaked out and the engine suddenly died in mid air. But I always managed to "sail" the plane savely down and land it. Would that not be possible?)
Cheers; Olham
Click to expand...

Years ago, Cole's Albatros DVa took a hit from a fireworks rocket on the upwind leg over the field. It blew a small hole in the lower left wing, lodged in the upper left wing and went "Bang" tearing a hole about 2-3 ft across. With the engine at full power (inverted Ranger) the pilot was just able to turn, go downwind, turn again and land. Even at full power, the a/c was slowly sinking.
Glide rate? Brick comes to mind....though in reality, probably better than a commercial airliner.
 
duck said:
WF2 has far more expertise than I but I'm also a pilot and I'm nearing the completion of my Hatz biplane so I can offer a few thoughts. The stall speed (speed at which the wings stop flying) of most biplanes is quite low (for my Hatz it's 40-45 mph versus 57 mph for my monoplane Piper). This means that you can contact the ground under control at a fairly low speed- which is good for survivability. The problem with losing power in your biplane is that the glide ratio (distance you can glide forward versus the downward rate) is pretty bad because of all of the aerodynamic drag, not only the two complete wings but surprisingly the landing and flying wires that hold it all together, not to mention the fixed landing gear. This means that when you lose power, your landing site options are very much reduced. A flight instructor once told me that you pretty much look down and choose your spot because that's where you'll be landing. In comparison, a modern monoplane like a Piper or Cessna, while having a higher stall speed (bad) will have a much better glide ratio (I thin 7:1 is typical) so you'll have more options to pick your landing site. If you're at 5000 feet in your Cessna, you've got a radius of 7 miles to find a good field. Of course, if you lose power on takeoff, no configuration helps.
Every two years, we pilots have to undergo what is the equivalent of a driver's test and the part that I always dread is when the examiner pulls back the throttle looks at me and leers "Now what are you gonna do". I invariably 1) panic 2) pick a bad spot 3) scare the heck out of the examiner. in my determination to do complete an impossible landing approach. I guess the silver lining is that they always pass me, probably to avoid a return check ride.
Click to expand...
I'd fail because I'd just look at him, push the throttle back in and say "there, that's what I'm gonna do!"
 
Olham54 said:
Hi, WomenFly2
Another question comes to my mind, when I see this wreckage; and you're the expert. How good is the sail/glide ability of these WW1 planes, engine out? (don't know the right word. I mean, when my Albatros was badly hit, most times my fuel leaked out and the engine suddenly died in mid air. But I always managed to "sail" the plane savely down and land it. Would that not be possible?)
Cheers; Olham
Click to expand...

Many stories of the real-life incidents experienced by WW1 flyers confirm that they often brought planes down safely without power. Duck makes some important points about the 'glidability' of biplanes, yet I wonder if the light weight of the original WW1 planes helped offset some of the loss of gliding distance as opposed to that of modern biplanes, for example? I have read many accounts where they seemed to be able to glide quite a distance (usually vague, not specific) in trying deperately to glide down to safety behind their own lines.

And, of course, the altitude where the glide was started and the wind direction both entered into the actual gliding distance.
 
At 60 feet, there is not enough time for anything, you're riding that puppy in in the direction your heading. If it was on takeoff he probably had the nose up, further killing any energy immediately upon failure, and expediting his reunion with the ground.

I've only got 100 hours and a VFR rating from 10 years ago, never took it any further due to complications, but I know that "gliding" is not going to happen in that scenario. Tough luck man!!
 
Hey Duck, I just saw your from Rochester.... you may know my father, the cropduster out of Orleans county? Got a small strip near Albion.
 
Danny-
Not sure- I may have known your father if he ever dusted in Genesee county. I knew a crop duster who used to tank up at my little country airport (Perry-Warsaw). He flew an older AgCat, which is a cross between a biplane and a farm tractor ( they're built really heavy, unlike any other airplane except military). As I recall, he was a rugged person, with a crooked nose and scars from various accidents. He was more than a bit crazy. One time I was on a proper approach for landing (upwind) and his Agcat zoomed onto the runway from the opposite (downwind!) direction so I had to make a go-around. At the time I was a little irritated but the airport manager was just amused and told me that the AgCat was dusting nearby and had come in to reload the spray. Time is money with these folks and he didn't want to waste the time in the pattern. I met the duster and he was very friendly and showed me his plane (you don't often see biplanes with Nascar quality roll cages!
That occupation is one of the very few in which reaching retirement age is truly an achievement! Your dad has to be one of the best flyers in the area. I wish both of you well- looks like neither of you likes the sedate life.
 
Looking at that picture, I wonder if that's how Fokker got the idea for the DVIII?:costumes:
 
Militant_Danny said:
At 60 feet, there is not enough time for anything, you're riding that puppy in in the direction your heading. If it was on takeoff he probably had the nose up, further killing any energy immediately upon failure, and expediting his reunion with the ground.

I've only got 100 hours and a VFR rating from 10 years ago, never took it any further due to complications, but I know that "gliding" is not going to happen in that scenario. Tough luck man!!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! At 60 feet this is a power stall and tough to recover or do much of anything with little speed and no altitude.

But I thought the 'glidability' question was meant more in a general sense and not pertaining speicfically to this low-level incident. At least that's what my comment based on WW1 flyers' experiences related to.

Most of my flying was in helicopters many years ago and I was a 'passenger', so I don't claim any real life flying skills. I sure wish I could, though...:engel016:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top