#2887492 - 10/25/09 03:52 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: Ming_EAF19]
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
Lieste
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,340
|
I've seen footage of (scale-model) RC prop planes having lost one wing but still being roughly controllable, flying on-edge
Can this behaviour scale up so that real planes can lose a wing and still be (roughly) controllable, not to fall out of the sky immediately?
I wonder if smaller planes with only one wing have (proportionally) less drag than real-size planes with only one wing, so that allows them the soft landing. While the proportionally more draggy full-size plane would drop like a stone perhaps in the Gedanken
There is a well known case of an F15 that landed after a mid air, with only the immediate 'root' area of one wing attached.
|
|
#2887534 - 10/25/09 04:53 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: Gr.Viper]
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
FlyRetired
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,380
|
Another source for the Fokker Dr.I bonfire, this one from The Fighting Triplanes, by Evan Hadingham. Hopefully once the ROF Fokker Dr.I comes out, we won't start feeling all the other aircraft airspeeds need to be "ranked up" too.
|
|
#2887539 - 10/25/09 05:03 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: FlyRetired]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
|
Shows excatly same numbers as in Profile publicatios Nro 55 (except it doesnt mention that Dr.I 141/17 recorded speed was 118mph at unspecified altitude). To get things even more interesting: Flight magazine (february 12, 1920) states in its fokker comparison (page 175) to max Dr.I speed to 124mph and climb to 3300ft 1,75min, 6600ft 3,75min
You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
|
|
#2887554 - 10/25/09 05:32 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: MIG77]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Pooch
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 5,503
Orlando, FL
|
Blue Raven, I have a lot of time in Cessna's. Tooling around in a 172s, now. Learning the glass cockpit. Bit in intimidating for an old timer like me. If your plane isn't conforming to those numbers, something is wrong because I've flown few Cessna products that didn't comply with the specs. Planes that have a lot of time on the airframes, and which have seen a lot of student pilot training, may not be "straight" anymore, if you know what I mean.
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
|
|
#2887555 - 10/25/09 05:34 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: FlyRetired]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
|
Ofcourse they closely correlates as they all use same primary source. But problem here is that we (atleast I) dont know what plane was used in that adlershof test. Now if it was front line Dr.I with oberursel engine (which had worse quality than Le Rhones) then it is very likely that it was worn out already (Dr.I 141/17 was new).
So it is very likely that 115mph was top speed (as other similar planes could reach comparable speed) in new Dr.I and max speed dropped as engine degraded to that listed in adlershof test.
You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
|
|
#2887576 - 10/25/09 06:01 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: 2005AD]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
|
Agree, except not all planes use best stats. IE as showed in this thread N17 have better stats (107mph@2km) than used in game. So I think Neoqb go usually for most common stats (safest way to model planes).
You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
|
|
#2887579 - 10/25/09 06:13 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: MIG77]
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
2005AD
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 902
|
Agree, except not all planes use best stats. IE as showed in this thread N17 have better stats (107mph@2km) than used in game. So I think Neoqb go usually for most common stats (safest way to model planes). This could go round and round What if the most common stats are only common because they all repeat the same incorrect primary source? As is the case with the Fokker D.VII. I don't envy the Neoqb FM programmers one bit
|
|
#2887584 - 10/25/09 06:17 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: 2005AD]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
|
This could go round and round What, you dont like carousel? What if the most common stats are only common because they all repeat the same incorrect primary source? As is the case with the Fokker D.VII. I don't envy the Neoqb FM programmers one bit Then they will make same mistake that many others before them I think that is better option to constant accusation of bias to way or other (as best stat might be way too optimistic. Like 124mph for Dr.I )
You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
|
|
#2887589 - 10/25/09 06:24 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: Vati]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
MIG77
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 587
Finland
|
It is interesting to note that in this whose 'speed' is better contest, people forget that there were errors in measuring the speed. The best method to give minimal error was German (you can find this in NACA reports after ww1). Next very important thing to keep in mind is that build quality from prototype to serial production reduced aircraft performance. In some cases dramatically. Camel is one of the examples where there were continuous complaints that perf. specs of frontline fighter is nowhere near the prototype numbers.
On paper everything looks so white and black.. but when you start reading what was reported at the frontline, many things would contradict published perf. tables. All true, but those perfomance report are way more accurate than pilots opinions (when some planes they didnt even have speed gauge). Atleast in those they tried to make scientific accurate measurements. BTW these Dr.I perfomance reports are from serial production planes.
You can get used to everything, but icicle in the a**. It melts before you get used to it.
|
|
#2887724 - 10/25/09 10:37 PM
Re: The Wonderful Fokker Dr I
[Re: FlyRetired]
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
RocketDog
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 939
Bath, England
|
"What made the Fokker Dr I particularly well suited to equip the high-flying Jagedgeschwardern was its climbing ability which, despite a falling-off in power of its rotary engine at altitude, meant that it could at least climb quickly to heights of around 5,000 meters - something that other German fighters of the period, such as the Albatros D V and Pfalz D III, could not. Rate of climb was still seen as a more important attribute in a fighter aeroplane than mere speed, and although it was appreciated that the triplane was slow, height could be converted to speed by diving off a height advantage over an enemy; thus speed deficiency was not considered to be too much of a handicap."
Alex Imrie, The Fokker Triplane, Arms and Armour Press, 1992.
Cheers,
RD.
Beyond gliding distance
|
|
|
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|