Knights of the Sky Foundation

[Chill31]

4 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

This is all so fantastic - thank you! Are you formally recording any of this data anywhere? Also, are you teasing us with hint of actually flying the SE5 or do you have something in the works?

I am building an SE5, but it is a couple or 3 years from flying yet...

 

I should get to fly a Fokker D7 in June, though not with a Mercedes, but it is an extremely nice build.

[Cynic_Al]

On 5/7/2022 at 7:59 AM, Chill31 said:

I'm trying to do some detail work so that the Dr.I is as close to original cockpit as I can get it for the upcoming Fokker Scourge.

 

I trust it will look slightly more genuine than this:

 

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I love this thread so much. Thanks for keeping us updated on everything you're doing @Chill31

 

I have a random question: how many hours do you think a typical GA pilot would need in tailwheel airplanes prior to transitioning to flying an authentic WWI reproduction aircraft? Assuming a suitable field to fly from, etc.

[Chill31]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:21 PM, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

I love this thread so much. Thanks for keeping us updated on everything you're doing @Chill31

 

I have a random question: how many hours do you think a typical GA pilot would need in tailwheel airplanes prior to transitioning to flying an authentic WWI reproduction aircraft? Assuming a suitable field to fly from, etc.

I suppose it would depend on the person and the airplane.  Assuming an average pilot in A Dr.I...to fly it and not damage it...your reactions have to be instant and instinctual. A couple of hundred prior to flying the Dr.I?  

 

On the other end of the spectrum is the Sopwtih Pup, and even the SE5, which I'm told is quite easy to fly and handle on the ground. Perhaps as little as 50 hours? Afterall, people frequently solo J-3 cubs in 10 hours. 

 

Flying a WWI airplane is not too challenging. Landing it without damage is the really tricky part.  The gentleman who first flew my Dr.I had only 100 hrs total time and only 3 hours tailwheel! He did groundloop it though and caused a bit of damage that had to be repaired.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Yes, I would think it depends on the plane. You will sometimes see even very experienced pilots ground loop or drop a wing on some of the aircraft. I recall seeing a Camel go off course during take off and lightly impact one of the structures at Rhinebeck some years ago. On some, the margins are very thin. The early type Bleriot three cylinder has very little excess power and just kind of levitates, with very little margin for error and slow reacting controls.

[Chill31]

This just happened! 

 

Looking forward to talking with him about his aerobatic experience in the Noop.  Of note, the control inputs look a lot like those required in the Dr.I. 

 

https://m.facebook.com/groups/345786888787784/permalink/5574002589299495/?sfnsn=mo&ref=share

[Chill31]

Ive been working so hard on planes that I havent had time to stop and enjoy FC.  We had a long day of work,  but it paid off today on this 80 Rhone.  Finished just in time to do a night run. 

 

 

 

[Chill31]

For anyone who wants to read about my one and only Camel flying experience so far...Camel Flight

 

Still working my way through the gopro video to post something

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

For anyone who wants to read about my one and only Camel flying experience so far...Camel Flight

 

Still working my way through the gopro video to post something

 

"The nose drops, but I hold the stick back and
force it into a deep stall where I use the rudder to
control wing drop. Bringing in the power, the nose
tracks back to the horizon, and I need to pick my jaw
up off the floor. Sure, it is a more pronounced stall
than the Dr.I, but at no point am I concerned about
my safety or a death spin to the ground. In fact, my
RV-8 has a more pronounced nose drop in the stall
than this!"

 

 

To think that the sim that got these planes down accurately was Red Baron 3D all along.

[No.23_Starling]

Great read, thanks for sharing. The Warner engine is a radial as Chilli says - I’d be curious to know how much of a difference this would have made to the handling characteristics. I’d expect more torque to the one side and the stall to be impacted turning in both directions

[Chill31]

8 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Great read, thanks for sharing. The Warner engine is a radial as Chilli says - I’d be curious to know how much of a difference this would have made to the handling characteristics. I’d expect more torque to the one side and the stall to be impacted turning in both directions

 

The rotary engine doesnt have much of an impact on stall characteristics.  Handling is impacted by predictable gyro forces, which Ive seen in the Dr.I.  It means left rudder!  And I tried to touch on the rotary in the article. 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I would tend to think part of the issue with the Camel is that a novice or marginal pilot might attempt to counter a wing-down stall with opposite aileron as the natural response, the result being a tendency to enter a spin with the rotary torque potentially complicating the equation. Initial response to stall makes a big difference in what comes next. That makes sense given many of the Camel accidents were the result of crash soon after take off, probably because a climb-turn at low speed dropped a wing, the pilot instinctively went for opposite aileron, and that pulled the plane into a spin at low level. Some of these RFC pilots by mid-1917 were pretty green. So it might not be the rotary by itself, but a combination of factors.

[Chill31]

2 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

I would tend to think part of the issue with the Camel is that a novice or marginal pilot might attempt to counter a wing-down stall with opposite aileron as the natural response, the result being a tendency to enter a spin with the rotary torque potentially complicating the equation. Initial response to stall makes a big difference in what comes next. That makes sense given many of the Camel accidents were the result of crash soon after take off, probably because a climb-turn at low speed dropped a wing, the pilot instinctively went for opposite aileron, and that pulled the plane into a spin at low level. Some of these RFC pilots by mid-1917 were pretty green. So it might not be the rotary by itself, but a combination of factors.

You are probably on to something there.

 

Another problem is the Camel fuel system.  I have studied this extensively, and I think I have the answer to why the Camels crash a lot on take off...The Camel fuel system is pressurized. A pressurization change of 1 psi is enough to cause a rich cut from too much fuel.  The pressure relief valve on the Camel is at 2.5 psi.  When pilots are running the engine on the ground, the pressure drops.  Upon takeoff, when the air driven pump becomes effective, air pressure will climb from whatever it was on the ground until it hits the 2.5 psi relief pressure.  Anyone who starts their takeoff roll at 1.5 psi or lower MUST lean the mixture during takeoff or the engine will quit during climbout.

 

This video is the perfect example of what happens

https://www.facebook.com/john.shaw.589100/videos/1759961247361428

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Interesting stuff. I was chatting with Artun the other day and we were curious about the Camel's fuel system (and other British aircraft like the Pup and SE5a). I know that many of these had a gravity tank as well as a pressurized tank. In a few of the books I've read, pilots mention the air-driven pump getting shot away, damaged, or malfunctioning, and using a hand pump or swapping to the gravity tank in an attempt to get the engine to start again. In some cases this worked, and in others the pilot was unsuccessful and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp. Its a bit off topic from the handling of the Camel in the air (great read, btw), but how did these fuel systems actually work, and how well does the game model the operation of them?

[Chill31]

On 8/6/2022 at 12:58 AM, gascan said:

Interesting stuff. I was chatting with Artun the other day and we were curious about the Camel's fuel system (and other British aircraft like the Pup and SE5a). I know that many of these had a gravity tank as well as a pressurized tank. In a few of the books I've read, pilots mention the air-driven pump getting shot away, damaged, or malfunctioning, and using a hand pump or swapping to the gravity tank in an attempt to get the engine to start again. In some cases this worked, and in others the pilot was unsuccessful and spent the rest of the war in a POW camp. Its a bit off topic from the handling of the Camel in the air (great read, btw), but how did these fuel systems actually work, and how well does the game model the operation of them?

On the SE5, the main tank was pressurized by hand pump, then valves are set to push fuel from the main tank to the gravity tank until the gravity overflows.  Then it is full!  After that, valves are seleyed to allow gravity feed or main fuel tank feed. In flight, the SE has an engine driven air pump.  I think that tje way the carburetor works in a Hisso prevents it from getting a rich cut due to fuel pressure changes.

 

I think the Camel Csmel tank arrangement is similar, but not sure right off.  The Clerget can run an engine driven air pump.  The Rotherham air pump is dependent upon airflow for pump output.  If the Rotherham was damaged, the handpump can supply pressure to keep the engine running.  However, if the engine died due to vacuum on the tank, the fuel tank may collapse and develop an air leak that would be unrecoverable.  So you would want to catch it early if your airpump failed.  

 

The Pup is gravity fed.

 

Our fuel systems in FC are extremely simplified, but Im not sure it is a bad thing.  

[Cynic_Al]

On 8/5/2022 at 9:16 PM, Chill31 said:

Another problem is the Camel fuel system.  I have studied this extensively, and I think I have the answer to why the Camels crash a lot on take off...

 

This has been mentioned here and elsewhere.  It was a known requirement that the Camel needed a mixture-leaning adjustment immediately after take-off.  Remembering to do it is another thing.

[Chill31]

For your entertainment!

Edited August 10, 2022 by Chill31

[SYN_Vander]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

For your entertainment!

 

Reminds me of this Wright engine as prop I found in a PME Legends shop. These engines are like a piece of modern art. It was funny to see all kinds of people drawn to it even if they have no clue what it is. 
 

 

[ST_Catchov]

How can anyone not be attracted to Edwardian steam punk art? Besides, the rotary is an engineering marvel that I still cannot comprehend.

[Chill31]

So....I am trying to determine if a 1:2 tach is displaying the correct RPM coming from a Rhone oil pump/tach drive. The oil pump drive turns at 1.8 times engine speed. The Jaeger tach as well as the Morrell tach display 1/2 drive speed. Does the tach drive mounted to the oil pump speed the drive up to 2 times engine speed so the tach is correct? OR am I actually turning 1300 RPM static instead of 1180??  I've had 1450 rpm displayed before (that is 1611 rpm if it is displaying .9 engine speed)!!

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Does the tach drive mounted to the oil pump speed the drive up to 2 times engine speed so the tach is correct?

 

If it's a x1.8 drive, how could it?  Your tach will under-read by 10%, so multiply the reading by 10/9, which it seems you did.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Do you have an independent means of verifying the RPM? A phototachometer and a bit of reflective tape can doublecheck whatever reading you're getting. The Navy calibrates all of its gages and meters (temp, press, RPM, etc) by comparing it to a known accurate reading.

[Chill31]

29 minutes ago, gascan said:

Do you have an independent means of verifying the RPM? A phototachometer and a bit of reflective tape can doublecheck whatever reading you're getting. The Navy calibrates all of its gages and meters (temp, press, RPM, etc) by comparing it to a known accurate reading.

Ive just purchased one! Deems that will be the only reliable way to know.

[ZachariasX]

If you don‘t have a phototachometer, then you have an iPad and measure the  engine sound. Just get a specrum analizer software. See here for example:

Spoiler

 

 

You can get rather precise rpm measurements like that.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

On 8/11/2022 at 5:44 AM, ZachariasX said:

If you don‘t have a phototachometer, then you have an iPad and measure the  engine sound. Just get a specrum analizer software. See here for example:

  Hide contents

 

 

You can get rather precise rpm measurements like that.

Shhh! Stop revealing military secrets! Analyzing sound to identify the rpm of something is SONAR 101! Unless Apple is trying to put the sonar techs out of a job...

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, gascan said:

Shhh! Stop revealing military secrets! Analyzing sound to identify the rpm of something is SONAR 101! Unless Apple is trying to put the sonar techs out of a job...

And measure the doppler shift and you know how fast they are flying in the vid you are watching... I won't stop.

 

EDIT: Seems you are watching Aaron's Sub Brief YT, Mr. sonarman.

Edited August 15, 2022 by ZachariasX

[Chill31]

Are we going to have any FC players at the Fokker Scourge next weekend?

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I am unfortunately too far away to attend, and far too busy getting ready to go underwater for a few months to watch five Fokkers flying in formation for the first time in more than fivescore years. I have faith that there will be a fair amount of footage furnished of the festival of flight for me to feast my eyes on following the fulfilment of my next patrol.

[Chill31]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/763897348229037?s=yWDuG2&fs=e

[Chill31]

https://youtu.be/zdHkCJkS9hU

[ZachariasX]

Some Nieuport documentation:

 

There are two orignal (unrestored) N.28 in Switzerland that I know of. One is at the Museum in Dübendorf, this is number 607.

 

(A pic I took from the web)

 

This aircraft was requisitioned in summer of 1918, when an American pilot got lost and landed near Solothurn instead of back in France. The aircraft was subsequently test flown and was well liked. As it had no purpose as a military aircraft (being a single item), the guns were promptly removed and they used for air combat training. They were that happy with this "civilized" aircraft, that they placed an order for another 14 N.28 just after the war, those AC being ordinary surplus items after armistice. Those 14 (N. 685 - 696) were also immediately stripped of their machine guns and used as trainers for formation flying etc.

 

(This and the rest are pics from my collection.)

 

This second N.28 is at Daetwylers private museum in Bleienbach, all located at LSPL airport. N.688 is one of the post war aircraft that never had a gun in Swiss service. Two of those 14 N.28 were destroyed in ground loops. They were disbanded in 1932, when it was discovered during revisions that they had cracks in their structure such that made them write-offs.

 

 

So much for official performance figures. It is of note that the N.28 was called the "bébé", while that nickname was more commonly used on the N.11 C1. Funny enough, the stencils label it as "Jagdflugzeug", a fighter aircraft, when in fact the first the Swiss did was taking away the gun. A very "neutral" fighter indeed.

 

 

Max. weight is stated as 665 kg. Wiki has it at 740 kg for the armed version. I bet this was a fun ride, 160 hp and 650 kg, that works.

 

 

The propeller used.

 

 

Slightly more of a concern are the ailerons and their hinging. The gap between the wing and the aileron is anywhere between 1 mm to 5 mm.

 

 

Another view of the hinges on the inner side. As we shall see, it is an identical way of doing it as they did on the Nieuport 23.

 

Speaking of, there is one reproduction of a N.23, two more are to follow.

 

 

This aircraft, HB-RNA, is documented here, I'd say it is nicer than any original. As of now, it does feature the 80 hp engine, with a planned swap to the 120 hp one once that becomes available.

 

Being up close to it, I'd say I'd rather not be shot at while flying this one. It looks as bullet proof as murano glass items.

 

 

The tail attachments. (As we remember, in the game the Nieuport is the one where the tail fell off.)

 

 

It is actually pretty simple taking it apart. It is tucked together almost like a glider, just with rigging cables added.

 

 

The V-strut attachment.

 

 

They obviously didn't mind the gap. Getting in the aircraft requires a fair bit of dexterity. One step in there and then over the side inside the cockpit. For once, it helps being tall.

 

 

The cockpit.

 

 

Oil comes out everywhere. After flying, the aircraft is literally dripping with oil. Remarkable wood and metalwork. Only the ASI is off the shelf.

 

 

Ailerons are same design as in the N.28. Up to 5 mm gaps.

 

 

The hinges.

 

Some gossip about flying the N.23. The stick gets really heavy with speed, especially the ailerons. Rudder stays light. And it does require lots of rudder all the time. If you have it inverted (in a loop) it requires full deflection to stay on course. The longest flight they did so far was a ferry flight from Grenchen (LSZG) to Langenthal (LSPL) via Langenbruck, the birthplace of the Swiss aviation pioneer Oskar Bider.

 

This aircraft doesn't have the gun installed at the moment. While the restorers (and certainly the pilot, Isidor von Arx) are notoriously pedantic about having everything original, a machine gun is flat out illegal to own in Switzeland, unless you are military or some sort of that. However, they pestered the authorities in Bern to such extent that they allowed the installation of an original gun on the plane. But these permissions are issued by the state (our canton), not by the federation. Hence when they ferry flew the aircraft to Langental, they landed with an aircraft that suddenly had become highly illegal. Hence, they had to take off the gun as a first thing.

 

I can maybe sum up the event of Bider's deah, as the genesis of that N.23 is mainly due to his legacy and the circumstances of his death.

 

Oskar Bider was a hugely prominent and public figure in Switzerland at that time. A true aviation pioneer and record flying pilot as well as being the father figure of the Swiss Air Force. His death was a huge shock to the common public.

 

The story of his final flight is quiet remarkable and very much along the lines of flying & drinking and drinking & driving, as Tom Wolfe once put it. Bider, along with his sister, friends and aquaintances were on a drinking spree the night before on July 6th, 1919, starting at the Carlton in Zurich until midnight. Then most went home, his sister back to the hotel where she stayed nearby, but as they had to wait over one hour in the pouring rain outside at the Bellevue square, Bider suggested that the remaining ones join him to Dübendorf (a city just adjacent to Zurich), as he would travel to Italy the next day. But the cab that they finally found ran out of gas about half way to Dübendorf, making them arrive at the Casino Dübendorf finally at 3 am. They had some food and more drinks, and at the break of dawn around 4.30 am, Bider suggested that he would do a flight demonstation of the Nieuport to some of his fellows. One detailed account of that happening goes to great lenghts, suggesting there wasn't really much drinking and the women present were certainly not associated in any way Bider. And not to his friends either. Around 5 am, they had made their way to Dübendorf airport closeby and it wasn't raining that much anymore and everyone "had a good time".

 

Biders pal Oblt. Fred Brunner, first thing, felt like making a check flight with another aircraft (while Bider was trying to ready the N.23), the two seater N-540 "because it supposedly didn't reach full rpm on the ground run".  He then though it was the best idea to investigate a questionable engine in flight(!). As it happened, he made said flight with the tail skid trolley cart still attached! But later, Fred was admant that this was no issue, as he found out (most likely later) that they had only one bag of sand in the rear cockpit anyway and the CG was just fine.

 

Bider in the meantime could get his N.23 engine running with the help of all the mechanics that by now were awake and on site, took off and started his usual evolutions. He usually would do aerobatics betwen 1000 m and 2000 m altitude. He flew loops and steep turns, renversements. At 6.30 am, after doing three consecutive loops and without climbing for altitude again, with reduced throttle about to half and initiated a left spin by flying a tonneau (barrel roll). He kept the rudder visibly full left, and stayed in a left spin, engine on, until impact on the ground in front of the crowd. He was found still living in the wreckage of the smashed aircraft, but he died some five minutes after. All controlls were found working, even in the broken aircraft.

 

Biders broken N23 on the site of impact at LSMD. (Pic from the web)

 

News of the death of her brother Oskar reached Leny that same day in her hotel room at the Baur Au Lac, just next to the Bellevue square, where Oskar left her midnight before. Upon hearing the tragic news, she commited suicide by shooting herself.

 

Oskar indeed lived a life on the fast lane, being in the spotlight for most of his young life, not unlike Lindbergh in the US. At the time of his death, he was 27 and at a point in his life, where it became apparent that his former life would come to an end in a world that had changed a lot and wouldn't offer him anything like he ever had before. Any mentioning of possible suicide, despite some remarks to his friends, was eliminated from the narrative, as much as his final drinking spree was glossed over. Suicide was not accepted socially. Even Leny was alleged heaving had a heart attack that day the Bider family lost both children.

 

Yet his legacy remains, and the Nieuports are to fly again.

Edited November 27, 2022 by ZachariasX
Pics were suddenly not showing, pasted again

[J5_Adam]

@Chill31 what happened with the hardened pins and rods and the power loss from the leaks you said you had? Did I miss something? Was 104mph the top speed of the Dr1?

[Chill31]

On 1/8/2023 at 7:56 PM, J5_Adam said:

@Chill31 what happened with the hardened pins and rods and the power loss from the leaks you said you had? Did I miss something? Was 104mph the top speed of the Dr1?

 

Oh its much worse than any of that.  I discovered at least one cracked piston! broke my heart to have an original piece of the engine damaged.  Short story is I need all new pistons and rings to get her going again.

[J5_Adam]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

 

Oh its much worse than any of that.  I discovered at least one cracked piston! broke my heart to have an original piece of the engine damaged.  Short story is I need all new pistons and rings to get her going again.

Oh man I’m so sorry to hear that! So that’s why you weren’t developing the speed you thought you’d get. IIRC it was 104mph?

[Chill31]

2 minutes ago, J5_Adam said:

Oh man I’m so sorry to hear that! So that’s why you weren’t developing the speed you thought you’d get. IIRC it was 104mph?

I think so.  My max was barely 106.  Hopefully, a little love will take it a further.  Even with the damage, it still far and away outperformed the 80 Rhone powered Dr.Is!

[J5_Adam]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I think so.  My max was barely 106.  Hopefully, a little love will take it a further.  Even with the damage, it still far and away outperformed the 80 Rhone powered Dr.Is!

 

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I think so.  My max was barely 106.  Hopefully, a little love will take it a further.  Even with the damage, it still far and away outperformed the 80 Rhone powered Dr.Is!

Maybe I read the posts wrong going back, but I thought you got 103mph with the 80hp. What was the speed with that one?

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

Well I’ll be damned, get a load of that!

[Holtzauge]

Does anyone know how Chris is doing? He used to be a regular here and I've been unable to get in contact as well. I know he had some serious issues with his engine so I hope it's just that keeping him busy. But it would for sure be good to know he's OK so if anyone knows anything please share.

[climbak]

I'd also love to get in touch with Chris. I know he was building an SE5 and was curious if he got it flying. I'm test flying one at a museum here in CO and would love to pick his brain if he's got his going. And for our upcoming triplane.