• The Biplane Forum is a large global active community of biplane builders, owners and pilots. From Pitts to Skybolts, to older barnstormers, all types are welcome. In addition to our active community, our content boasts exhaustive technical information which is often sought after for projects and maintenance. This information has accumulated over the 12+ years the forum has been in existence.

    The Biplane Forum is a private community. Subscriptions are only $29.95/year to gain access to this great community and unmatched source of information not found anywhere else on the web. We are also a great resource for non biplane users, since many GA aircraft are built the same way (fabric and tube construction).

  • If you have bought, sold or gained information from our Classifieds, please donate to Biplane Forum and give back.

    You can become a Supporting Member which comes with a decal or just click here to donate.

Nieuport 17 Biplane

RickRice

Registered Users
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
526
Reaction score
367
Location
Collierville,TN
Not a bad price if the engine is okay. I flew one of these several years ago and it was kind of squirrelly. Not hard to fly, and not dangerous, just different. It was just as easy to fly sideways as it was with the ball in the middle. No tendency to "straighten up and fly right" at all. I'm guessing it was because it lacks a vertical stabilizer.

I never was totally comfortable myself with the single wing spar, but there have been lots of them built and flown and I know of no in-flight failures. Just different than what I'm used to.

They're pretty light. There's a reason they fly them for Dawn Patrol and sunset cruises. They'll bounce and blow around in just a little wind.

The last thing I remember about it is that it wouldn't take off in 3-point attitude. Had to get the tail up a little or it would just keep plowing down the runway. Don't know if they're all like that, but the one I flew (it wasn't mine) certainly had that characteristic.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
1,736
Continental powered is unusual for this design. I have the plans for the full scale graham lee design as the 7/8 is for vw's. The engine core is worth 5 or 6 grand if serviceable.
 

cwilliamrose

‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
2,405
Location
SW Florida (94FL)
.................. It was just as easy to fly sideways as it was with the ball in the middle. No tendency to "straighten up and fly right" at all. I'm guessing it was because it lacks a vertical stabilizer.........
The full-size Fokker Dr1 replica I flew had the same lack of yaw stability. I found it difficult to believe it was a good gun platform.
 

Lotahp1

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
4,225
Reaction score
874
That prop hub sure looks like a tapered shaft hub or I mistaken? Maybe its a 65hp?


Kris
Oklahoma City,OK
Currently restoring a Ranger powered Starduster Too
 

cashflyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
404
That prop hub sure looks like a tapered shaft hub or I mistaken? Maybe its a 65hp?
Our local "old men" tell me:
Wrong case for a 65. Wrong crank for 90 or O-200.
Has to be a 75 or 85.
 

crankyklingon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
1,711
Reaction score
713
The full-size Fokker Dr1 replica I flew had the same lack of yaw stability. I found it difficult to believe it was a good gun platform.
As I recall from reading somewhere that is exactly what made it a good gun platform. The ability to aim the gun with the rudder pedals.
 

cwilliamrose

‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ ‍ 
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
9,564
Reaction score
2,405
Location
SW Florida (94FL)
Getting it on target and keeping it on target are really two different things in that airplane. Your skills would be challenged. Being evasive when you're the target seemed to be easier. :)
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
1,736
Well, all those WW1 fighter pilots didn't know those airplanes flew sh*tty so they just flew them anyway.
 

wanttaja

Registered Users
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
371
Reaction score
232
Well, all those WW1 fighter pilots didn't know those airplanes flew sh*tty so they just flew them anyway.
Seattle's Museum of Flight had an all-day symposium on WWI aviation. For me, one of the key points was a gentleman who owned a replica Sopwith Camel, complete with rotary engine. He equipped it with modern sensors and recorders and performed a complete modern-type flight test regime on it.

It was fascinating. He blew away some modern misconceptions about the Camel (such as that it turned much faster to the left than to the right...in reality, the turn rate was about the same) and really seemed to enjoy the way it flew.

Of course, one had to fly it DIFFERENTLY from modern aircraft...it had unique characteristics, but once one was familiar with them, you could do a heck of a lot with the aircraft.

You had to survive long enough, of course. About the same number of Camels as SE-5As were built, but the Camel's rate of training accidents was four times higher.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Top