Crashed D.vII ....

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 safely down and land it. Would that not be possible?)
Cheers; Olham
Click to expand...

Good question. These aircraft are of very high drag, not just in the configuration i.e. wires, struts, thick airfoils and such, but also in a windmilling propeller. I my experience when the power is pulled back you actual, your body that is, goes forward as if you were to touch the brake on your car. In landing a WW 1 plane you basically keep some power in her until you are ready to flare. At that point pulling to idle or cutting of the engine will set you down, then you need to start tap-dancing on the rudder to hold her straight with up elevator to dig the tail skid in, yes a real tail-skid. This is tricky on a strip runway, hence landing in a big field is more to ones liking. On a rotary blipping the engine on roll out will more or less put you in a ground-loop.

Glide distance is very much less then say a Cessna, Taylorcraft, Aeronca or Piper. Compare it to a half a side slip in a Cub.

Cheers,
WF2
 
The incident report mentions that he clipped a tree and that led to the hard landing. The aircraft was probably gliding fairly well (by high drag standards) up to that point, but sometimes, there can just be stuff in the way! It sounds like this was on of those occasions!

Personally, I hate the thought of a real world engine out situation. I chose powered aircraft over gliders for a reason!

Have a GREAT wait until P3, all!
 
Yes, I meant the glide ability in general, not only on this incident - thank you all, especially WomenFly2.
Me, I'm only a sim pilot, but I realised on another engine-out-landing today (yes, they always seem to hit my tank), that I have to dive the nose pretty much down, to keep up speed and so airflow over the surfaces. It looks frightening, but it works. Touchdown was pretty hard still; the Albatros almost fell down, in an angle of maybe 30 degrees. Bad for the back spine... But I made it, and while I still sat there with relief, the Strutter I had attacked, crashed very nearby. It was a burner, and so I can state here: it's not right, that burners always keep flying on and on. The burning won't down them, that may be true, but when I gave her another blast from the Spandaus, huge parts came off, and it finally crashed.
Cheers; Olham
 
Someone owned a white one in my area (Clearwater, Florida) with the Goering paint scheme - I used to pass the little local airport all the time and see it out there. It looked full size but I never saw it fly.

It made the news when the pilot was killed doing an emergency dead-stick landing in a rural field. The landing went long, off into a creek and flipped, hitting the creek bank on the other side, upside down.

I saw footage of the field and crash on TV - I don't think he could see the creek as he was landing - probably thought he had plenty of room, the treeline was about 100 yards beyond the creek.

Such a shame...
Cobra427so
 
Olham, I offer this formula for average gliding distance that was developed, apparently, by some pilot... with past experience (I assume)...

Glide Distance - Half the distance from an airplane to the nearest emergency landing field.

:costumes:
 
Duck,

That may or may not have been him. He has always used AgCat biplanes, depending on how long ago that was he may or may not have put three Japenese "kill" flags below the cockpit by then (loves the War in the Pacific history). His biggest business is in "the Muck" just north of Batavia, so its well within his reach. Based out of Albion in Orleans county. Though I don't know if he ever used Perry-Warsaw as a base of operations. Sometimes if the grounds too wet at the house, he'll head over to Pine Hill south of Albion and fly out of there. He may have gone down to Perry to help out another duster he knows at the time. Yes, he has been in a few crashes haha All unscathed though luckily.

Let me see if I can dig up some pictures of the old man haha
 
Hey, Jimko
It's not that bad, I think. As I wrote: an Albatros would rather fall but glide, but as long as there aren't trees or something else in the way, it can be done (wouldn't like to try though, in real life). The pilot of this D VII had only 60 feet - that's just not enough to gain any airflow, so much seems clear to me.
Have a nice Christmas.
Olham
 
Olham, yes... I'm certainly aware of that very low, almost no-altitude factor, in this particular case! Like you, though, I am curious about the gliding ability of these types of planes from the more usual 'working' altitudes and I've certainly read of many wartime instances of gliding down and landing. I suppose it's a simple matter of the higher the initial altitude, the longer the glide distance, given the unique characteristics of these aircraft. I wonder though, if the light weight and wing design helped their ability to glide in spite of the acknowledged amount of airflow resistance that they have due to struts, wires, etc. Perhaps not...

That aside, I had to quote that definition which was obviously created by someone with a good sense of humour and which I enjoy.

And, Merry Xmas and best wishes for the season to you!
 
I remember when reading Rickenbakers memoir a couple years ago that he discussed having to glide back over the lines flying a Nieuport 28. Going by memory here, so hopefully I haven't got this totally wrong, but I believe he said you could glide about a mile for every 1000 feet of height or something like that. So from 10k feet you could glide 10 miles. Or was it kilometres? Can't remember...damn brain.

Anyway, I recall it seemed to me when reading about it that these planes could glide very well and go a long way with no power. Most of the planes in OFF don't seem to glide very well, and I too find that you need to put the nose way down to keep gliding.

I also read a memoir that covered flight training by the French in great detail (I think it was James Halls memoir, probably circa 1916/1917) and I recall him saying that they always landed with the engine shut off. This was considered the correct way to land (??). Not sure why that would be...less chance of a fire maybe. Regardless, it still shows they were great gliders.
 
Hey 77, I read Rickenbackers memoirs too. I definately remember reading that. And its miles not kilometers. Being American he always used miles.

-Rooster
 
Thanks Rooster for the confirmation. Yah, I figured miles, but then second-guessed myself wondering if they went 'metric' being in France and with the influence of the French training in the Lafayette Esc.
 
Seem? You can glide quite some way from 10k if you are careful certainly a few miles. We don't have the N28 yet in OFF so hard to compare it lol. In P3 it's even more important to glide and watch your life giving altitude now you can be CAPTURED! Mwhahahaha .

Sorry there's the laugh again.
 
This has become quite an interesting thread. I was most impressed by WomenFly2 saying this: "In my experience when the power is pulled back you actual, your body that is, goes forward as if you were to touch the brake on your car." After reading all, I assume, the glide was different on the various planes. A Nupe 28, or a Sopwith Pup, might have a better glide than an Albatros or the D VII, as the latter should have a worse lift-to-weight ratio.
If I find good data, I may do another diagram, that should show simply, in which angle each plane would go down (like: heavy plane > 30 degrees; light plane > 45 - 60 degrees).
Interesting observation, I made on the ILA (Internationale Luftfahrt-Ausstellung) Berlin: a Fieseler Storch made a lift off just by turning it's nose in the wind and rolling 3 - 4 meters. Then, it "stood" in the air, just 2 meters off the ground, just held up by the airflow - like a falcon. That plane should have an almost endless glide (?).
Cheers; Olham
 
Actually Olham, I was watching a Natgeo program on the DVII, and the wing desgn lent itself wonderfully to low power slow flight characteristics. Even with power off it would handle quite well. The windtunnel tests on the airfoil were quite interesting, as the thick centersection of the top wing, and inner sections of he lower wings, and the airfoil over the axle on the main gear were part of the reason the DVII could perform the "hang on it's prop and shoot" manoeuver. Also why the BMW powered models with "overgas" feature as the pilots called it then, could perform well at altitudes where opponents were mushing in turns and rolls if they performed them. The only big problem is the windmilling fixed pitch prop with no feathering controls. The drag on the struts, and crossed bracing wires on the landing gear. I do know the glide path of my old scale R/C WWI and 20s and 30s biplanes were affected by all the parasite drag inherent with the type. Planes that were in real life powered with vee or inline engines had better glide performande than those that were rotory or radial powered. my Albatros DIII and DVa and Pfalz DIII did better than triplanes or Sopwith types. Even the Neiuport 17 although lightly constructed had a slower glidepath, so turns were executed with care. The nice thing was the field I flew from was huge, and if engines failed on takeoff, you could glide forward and land with no real problems. Which was nice. As it took up to a year or more to build, cover, paint and rig the models out.
 
CAMELJOCKEY, you're always good for keeping words short, and an interesting link. Great performance - didn't know, any other planes could do this. Thanks.

Thank you, HYLANDER, that must be fun to fly these R/C models, may try that too (with a rugged, simple one first, so damage won't hurt the creator so much).
 
Olham,

One thing that may help you in future "engine-out" encounters. Every plane has a relatively fixed stall speed. I say relatively because some factors like wind direction and maneuver types do apply to alter this a smidge. But for our case, a standard controlled straight trajectory glide is what we are shooting for. I've found that on the Airspeed indicator, the usual stall-speed for the Albitri, and most Fokkers, seems to run around 50mph....or whatever measurement these little german gauges read in. So, what I do, and what may help you in maintaining a constant glide, is to toggle this gauge on when the occasion demands, (I usually drag it to the lower edge of the screen and remove all of the other silly ones, except maybe the altimiter, by dragging them clear off, Then maintain your glide by watching the airspeed indicator, by keeping just above the 50mph mark, then when it starts to sink below 50, dropping the nose and gaining speed a bit till your well above it, you can maximize your glide length. Pushing it to the max if you will with some practice. Now..dont try this all the way to the ground or you will die. To land smoothly (please forgive me if you already know this)...find an open patch when your still a good 1000 feet up. This will give you enough room to drop your nose a bit and pick up speed, (yes counterintuitive) for a nice flared landing. Here you dont want to be flying close to stall as we were in the previous process, we want enough speed so when you hit that final flare above the ground, the plane doesn't stall, drop a wing, and you tumble.

Hope this helps!

By the way, the speed indicator also helps when you are trying to climb hard to gain altitude to intercept enemy bomber formations up high. Tired of looking up at the target, pulling back hard and stalling out? Keep an eye on it, you won't anymore.

ZZ.


PS. If you ever get a chance, get a copy of an old flying book called "Stick and Rudder". It's the best,and most concise text I know, and is simply amazing at filling in all the blanks on flight dynamics. I can't refer it highly enough.
 
77Scout said:
I

Anyway, I recall it seemed to me when reading about it that these planes could glide very well and go a long way with no power. Most of the planes in OFF don't seem to glide very well, and I too find that you need to put the nose way down to keep gliding.

Ive found that you do need to put the nose down slightly to keep up air speed, The trouble is that whenever I get hit in the tank over the enemy lines, & try to glide back to my own lines, I seem to get hit by the flak & become a lawn dart - Again!:banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...
 
Hi, LEGION
Don't upset yer about the anti-aircraft guns - when the Albatros is hit, the tank is leaking out almost every time; and even when the AA don't hit you, you won't make it to the other side of "the mud". From the first stutter to engine out, it doesn't take more than a minute (rather less).
But yesterday, I got hit by an S.E.5a, over my own airfield, and the engine stuttered after a while. I had target marked the b:censored:r, and he made the mistake to assume, I wasn't dangerous anymore - he flew in front of me, and I added some weight to his plane by firing all the remaining 560 rounds at him.
He crashed, before I had to make my forced landing. Huh!
I hope, in P3, they have changed that. Leaking tank sometimes is okay, but always - quite annoying.
Cheers; Olham
 
That is odd your fuel tank always gets holed in the Albatros. With me, its always my radiator!! Like 95% of the time. Maybe its how we fly? hehe.

ZZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top