The Biplane Forum > General Discussion > Historical Biplane Forum > Fokker DR1 Triplane



Help Support Biplane Forum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-24-2017, 03:02 PM   #26
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

What do you mean "middle finger" paint schemes?


Lotahp1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 07:57 PM   #27
Kiwi
Registered Users
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 344
Liked 100 Times on 61 Posts
Likes Given: 528

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilliamrose View Post
Wasn't the fuselage wire braced on the originals?


That's what I thought too Bill.

To the best of my limited understanding it was the Fokker D.VII which had the welded steel tube fuselage, one of the few aircraft of WW1 to be built that way. It also had a cantilever wing eliminating the need for flying wires.

Andrew.


Kiwi is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 09:11 PM   #28
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

All Fokkers had steel tube fuselages. Instead of tubes for the triangulation they used wires.
TFF1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2017, 09:13 PM   #29
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

That's the Red Barron's plane they are scavenging in the picture.
TFF1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 01:22 AM   #30
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

I heard the original steal wasn't 4130. More like 1010 or something. Anyway someone build one out of it I heard. And when it nosed over it bent so bad fuselage was scrap. They said if it was 4130 it would have been repairable. Anyway. They were steal tube but also internally wire braced as the other guy said. And the Dr1 has no flying wires either. I read it had no I struts on the protype but wings flexed so they added them to all production models. It's a built up box spar. I'm curious what failed on the wings as even the production models had several wing failures. I believe even Manfreds brother Lothar had a Dr1 wing failure but lived to tell the tale.
Lotahp1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 04:27 AM   #31
Kiwi
Registered Users
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 344
Liked 100 Times on 61 Posts
Likes Given: 528

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TFF1 View Post
All Fokkers had steel tube fuselages. Instead of tubes for the triangulation they used wires.
Thanks for clearing that up.

However I thought the D.VII had a welded steel tube fuselage, or have I mis-read or some author got it wrong?

Andrew.
Kiwi is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 04:47 AM   #32
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

Yes all the Fokkers are welded tube, but where today we just put a cross tube between the vertical members, to triangulate, they were still using wire braces in each cell.
TFF1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 05:17 AM   #33
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

If you want to geek out on Fokker fuselages, there is pretty strong evidence that each design has certain stations that measured the same across the whole line. What they think is Reinhold Platz would cut up and repurpose the fuselage jig in the design shop with each model. The one thing the Redfern plans have is Platz was contacted when the plans were being drawn. They are the least accurate, historically, but they have some provenance. Kind of odd.
TFF1 is offline  
Kiwi Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 06:19 AM   #34
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

What is not accurate on the Redfern Vs Sands? Are they the same size ? I have a set of Redfern on the way. Still looking for a set of Sands...anyone have a set they would part with?
Lotahp1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 01:41 PM   #35
Kelly
Wingnut
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 111
Liked 32 Times on 21 Posts
Likes Given: 63

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotahp1 View Post
What do you mean "middle finger" paint schemes?
The wild paint schemes that say here I am instead of camouflage so I can try to sneak up on you.
Kelly is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2017, 06:22 PM   #36
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

First. Anyone who completes any full size replica aircraft should be praised profusely. All the rest is just pickiness of WW1 hobbyest. When you start getting into it , some details are glaring and today purists are where it's at. Size wise Redfern is close visually but rudder is bigger and fittings are modernized. Sands is closer http://www.collectors-edition.de/f-t...r1_english.htm Is the closest that was for sale. He will not sell any plans now. Redfern would be great as is or could be adjusted to be closer.
TFF1 is offline  
Kiwi Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 12:38 AM   #37
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

ImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494289969.850697.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494289981.641817.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494289992.237225.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494290003.469490.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494290015.322119.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494290074.386561.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494290084.558688.jpgImageUploadedByBiplane Forum1494290106.488031.jpg
Some pics of the goal...except not as much oil I hope from my Lycoming or Rotec ;-) this one has the correct gear and wheel tire size of 30". No brakes and a tail skid. It's a great replica but I wonder how much actual flight time it enjoys with such things and a rotary? I guess it has its place, but I want brakes, some sort of steerable tailwheel...probably just use a API and purists can realize it ain't the Red Barons ACTUAL plane ;-)
Lotahp1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 03:03 AM   #38
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

Thats the right way to do it; anyway it ground loops way before a tailwheel touches. The skid is the brake and it hopefully it will keep it straight from drag. They guy I know worries more about the engine staying running more than anything. He likes flying the Jenny more.
TFF1 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2017, 07:03 AM   #39
Kiwi
Registered Users
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 344
Liked 100 Times on 61 Posts
Likes Given: 528

Default

You guys might want to check out this thread of an Airshow in New Zealand over Easter. There are a lot of WW1 aircraft shots, especially a nice Snipe and a nice Camel. Lots of Triplanes too.
http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/24...w-2017?page=16

Andrew
Kiwi is offline  
Tyabbduster Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2017, 06:51 PM   #40
race38
Member
BiP_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
 
race38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Owings, MD Based @ MD22 at the DEALE Intersection unhappily inside the SFRA.
Posts: 1,185
Liked 194 Times on 160 Posts
Likes Given: 35

Default

Chris this is on BS.
FULL SCAL FOKKER DR1 REPLICA • PARTS FOR SALE • Some damaged, repairable.Fuselage, top wing, wheels, brakes, flying wires, engine, fuel tank. • Contact Tony Pileggi, Owner - located Frederick, MD USA • Telephone: 301-696-1534 • Posted May 17, 2017 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad
__________________
_______________________________________
Mark McKibben

Clipt Cubby
Tailwind
Pitts project on deck



"Let us endeavor to live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry." Mark Twain
race38 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 03:39 AM   #41
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

Thanks for heads up! I emailed him. I'm guessing this is a Aerodrome aircraft as it says "flying wires". I'm interested in a Ron Sands or Redfern. I actually just received my Sands plans last week. I'm "builder" #329 for the Sands plans DR1. I have a deal I'm working on ribs I'm trying to close soon and have another wood working friend reviewing the plans for him to build the box spars. I also have VR3 looking at doing a fuselage, tail etc. hope to hear from them soon. Trying to get the Starduster done still and tired of waiting on ribs...I'm about to have to just make them myself ;-) (I really thought CNC routing would save me time...it's just cost time waiting. I could have cut all these out with a butter knife by now) ohhhh well. Live and learn. Can't believe it's such a hard thing to scan these tracings in and get a useable CNC CAD file? ...sorry guys, I know nothing about CAD.
Lotahp1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 04:52 AM   #42
TFF1
Registered Users
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Memphis,TN
Posts: 2,587
Liked 416 Times on 323 Posts

Default

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/sh...ad.php?t=16485 start reading.
TFF1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 07:46 PM   #43
RKO
Registered Users
 
RKO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 89
Liked 32 Times on 17 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwilliamrose View Post
The one I flew (currently my avatar) was built from Redfern plans. How did it fly? It was interesting;

It climbed well and seemed to do so without much pitch attitude needed -- it just sort of levitated.

It had zero or maybe less than zero yaw stability, you had to be on the rudder all the time to keep it pointed where it was going. It was perfectly happy to fly sideways.

The ailerons were kinda' weak. I got into the wake of another airplane pretty far ahead of me in the fly-by pattern and it just spit me out of the pattern with full opposite aileron having no real effect on the proceedings.

It is very blind on the ground when you're sitting at a normal height for flying. The middle wing blocks your view of everything from wingtip to wingtip. The one I flew had a Stearman seat that you could quickly adjust up and down without loosening the belts so you would raise yourself up about 6" for taxi and then lower yourself down for flying.

The windshield is really small so there's only one place to put your eyes height-wise.

I didn't find it difficult on takeoff or landing, I did wheel landings as instructed by the owner and that worked well. My first flights were on pavement and later I did one grass landing. I suspect crosswinds of any real significance could be a problem but I didn't fly it enough to find out.

I would not consider it a daily flier, special occasions only once the new wears off.


That was John Shively's plane? I miss talking with that guy....what a real old timer who could build some airplanes! He helped me with my EAA Biplane.
RKO is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2017, 07:54 PM   #44
cwilliamrose
BiP_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
 
cwilliamrose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 6,572
Liked 1319 Times on 987 Posts
Likes Given: 9

Default

Yes, and that's John's airplane in my current avatar. I very nice (and trusting) guy.
__________________
...........Bill

Project:Stretched Pitts S-1SS

cwilliamrose is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2017, 07:07 PM   #45
Lotahp1
BiP_SUPPORTER.png
 
Lotahp1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,335
Liked 636 Times on 459 Posts

Default

Well I've locked in a deal on a set of newly built wing ribs. Very exciting! Hope to have a nice collection of parts so when I'm done with the Starduster Too (i know, I know...I'm hurrying! I'm getting wood for it this weekend) I'll have a giant head start on seeing a Triplane fly on a reasonable amount of time.


Lotahp1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sopwith Triplane StinsonPilot Hangar Talk 3 12-11-2015 03:46 AM
Mother Fokker.. Beej Other Types 31 11-26-2015 01:14 PM
Fokker Dr1 Triplane Flybys freerangequark Hangar Talk 2 02-15-2015 02:44 PM
Oy vay! Triplane on Kickstarter freerangequark Hangar Talk 9 12-04-2014 09:25 PM
Giant Scale Fokker Triplane gerryy Other Types 8 06-26-2013 06:36 PM