Fin & Rudder vs. only Rudder, and Triplane Fallacy!

B

B Bandy RFC

Guest
Have a look at these scans of a relatively recent article (Jan. 2008) in Smithsonian Air & Space. Are the flight characteristics of early kites without fins (as well as the Dr1 !!!) interesting to some of you? Perhaps even worked into the new OFF3 flight model???

Just curious. I mentioned this in other Sim forums, but there didn't appear to be too many interested... [sorry if they are out of order...]

Wing4.jpg




Wing2.jpg


Wing3.jpg
 
From what Ive read, when choosing designs for aircraft for the war, manufacturers werent going for lift to drag ratios. They mostly chose biplane and triplane configurations because of the added strength and rigidity and not for lift. The violent manouverings necessary for aerial combat caused alot of stress that the monoplanes at the time could not hold up to although they did have greater lift to drag ratios.

-Rooster
 
That's one reason why nearly all modern a/c are single wing. In WW1 making a mono wing strong with enough lift and able to withstand the dogfight stresses was not easy plus a lot of the science as to WHY a wing worked wouldn't have been fully understood.

The a/c with no vertical are modelled in P3 where possible, it's not just about manoeuvrability it is about stability. With a fin you have some directional stability. The craft with no vertical in P3 you will find a little trickier (N11 was said to have to have constant stick adjustments to stay level).

Anyway for your info it's rather too late to add anything else to P3 as it is made/finished/done ;). We are waiting on the DVD suppliers getting their act together and then we are ready...
 
Thanks for reply,
I'm very late to this community and what you've all been waiting for for some time, but am really starting to feel the excitement that has been building here.

I do not wish to appear to be a Johnny-come-lately making "requests", just posting what I think is really interesting stuff, and asking sincere questions out of pure curiosity.
 
Hi B Bandy

Welcome here.

You started an interesting thread.No apology needed!

Keep them coming,please.

best

nio

:wavey:
 
Welcome, Bandy, and thanks for the interesting information. I wouldn't have believed it, that a fragile-looking monoplane like the D VIII could in fact carry so many men on it's wing (hey, WomenFly2, this is something for you)!
And the Smithsonian is always good for old war birds.
Well, you're definitely too late for any contributions on P3, but I'm pretty certain, that the OFF dev team will carry on, making P4 somewere in the future.
P3 will soon be on our screens, but until then, have fun and get familiar with P2 - a great development; I love it!!! (And I'm sure, you will too. Are you French - then you must be quite pleased with having almost all the French good planes available).
Cheers; Olham
 
Yep interesting info B Bandy - never can have enough info.

BTW maybe those men should be jumping up and down and trying to twist the wing whilst shooting machine guns at it ;)
 
How did those planes fly with all those men on it?:costumes:
Very interesting thread. Thank you.
 
Olham54 said:
Edit .... I wouldn't have believed it, that a fragile-looking monoplane like the D VIII could in fact carry so many men on it's wing (hey, WomenFly2, this is something for you)!

Cheers; Olham
Click to expand...

Why the men could stand on this wing. For the rest of the story.... Click here.

Happy New Year,
WF2

308196.jpg
 
The general concensus of aeroplane design at the time was...If it looked right, it flew right...they had little knowledge of aero-dynamics as we know today.
I read somewhere the problem with the dridecker was the top wing had about 23% greater lift than the rest- that's why they tended to remove themselves from the craft in a dive...perhaps had it been designed more like the Sopwith- with equal wing sizes and aerilons on all surfaces, instead of enlarged ones on the top span only, it may have been a safer more reliable craft.......just a guess on my part....
 
WomenFly2,
you're always good for a great link. Fantastic, what you can build with wood, and how stabile it can be. Thanks a lot;
and a happy new year to you too (and to everyone else around here!)
Olham
 
Olblindman said:
The general concensus of aeroplane design at the time was...If it looked right, it flew right...they had little knowledge of aero-dynamics as we know today.
I read somewhere the problem with the dridecker was the top wing had about 23% greater lift than the rest- that's why they tended to remove themselves from the craft in a dive...perhaps had it been designed more like the Sopwith- with equal wing sizes and aerilons on all surfaces, instead of enlarged ones on the top span only, it may have been a safer more reliable craft.......just a guess on my part....
Click to expand...

... no not really, it was do to poor workmanship and weather protection. It was also strengthened after the wing failures were investigated, design improvements.

The basic idea of three wings was to make an airplane more maneuverable, roll-wise, for tight and quick turning. The basic combat tactic of the day was a turning dogfight. One way to do this was to use short span wings. Now to produce the same amount of lift for a give weight you still need the same lifting area, Hence make 3-short wings. Why does it look as it does ... well aesthetic still is a human emotion of security.

WF2
 
I've read that Sopwith built his triplane in order to improve visibility up and down. He reduced the cord on the Pup's wings and added the third wing to replace the lost surface area. He apparently felt that the middle wing's impact on visibility wouldn't be significant because it was more or less on the same plane as the pilot's head and a small movement up or down would allow the pilot to see around it. Fokker, of course, built the Dr1 as a response.

I don't know if it's true or not, just what I read. And it sounded reasonable.
 
von Baur said:
I've read that Sopwith built his triplane in order to improve visibility up and down. He reduced the cord on the Pup's wings and added the third wing to replace the lost surface area. He apparently felt that the middle wing's impact on visibility wouldn't be significant because it was more or less on the same plane as the pilot's head and a small movement up or down would allow the pilot to see around it. Fokker, of course, built the Dr1 as a response.

I don't know if it's true or not, just what I read. And it sounded reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the story partly. Fokker Dr.I was indeed in response but designed more so for quick climb and maneuvering.

It is said the Pfalz DR.I Triplane was better in most areas of flight over the Dr.I. Amazing how many of them were built.

WF2
 
I seem to recall seeing an Albatros triplane, too. Or am I just imagining it? And I think there was at least one quadraplane scout design, though I can't remember if it was Allied or Central.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top