I was over at my dad's house the other day, and he pulled out this old magazine that had an article about flying a replica Dr1.

It's a rather interesting read. The replica is identical to the original except for adding brakes and a tailwheel and whatnot. It has a radial instead of a rotary, but they still talk about unique flying characteristics of the triplane. As you all know, a rotary engine would add a whole new set of quirks on top of the already unique behavior.

Here's a link to a copy of the article.
http://rwebs.net/avhistory/flight.htm

And here is a link to info about the plans used to build it.
http://www.ronsandsreplicas.com/Fokker_DR1_Plans.htm

The lack of visibility they talk about hits you straight away. The middle wing is just in exactly the wrong place. With TIR you can use the wing cutouts to get your bearings, otherwise its very hard to see forwards on takeoff.

Yes, pretty much the same comments I have posted here about the one I flew.

The Ron Sands planes are NOT by any means close to the orginal. They are over built and are very heavy. The controls are linked to a bell crank system in the cockpit area, from there cables to the control surfaces, big difference on how the controls feel. The radial engine makes the nose longer too, changes the moment arm.

Good article but, take it with a grain of salt.

Just my opinion.

I do have a copy of Ron Sand plans for the Dr.1.

I certainly respect your opinion. You are a real life pilot and I would never pick a bone on plane matters with a real pilot.... I would beg you to tell us about the DR 1 replica you flew! I am not mistaken about this, am I?

Yep, the 160hp radial Scarab engine makes flying very different from the original 110hp rotary.

Well, I did mention that the rotary would add a whole new set of quirks on top of the already rather unique behavior.