Knights of the Sky Foundation

[Chill31]

On 5/1/2020 at 2:08 PM, vonrickenbecker said:

Dude!! That is incredible. Props for being willing to fly that bird like it was originally designed too! I have got to stop by and see your tripe next time I'm GA visiting family. 

Definitely. Send me a message when you are in town

[Hohenadler]

Cool bird! I am a young man of 28, beginning my journey of flight IRL once the "plague" clears.I have a great interest in building and flying a few of these majestic early war-bird replicas(along with some interwar planes like the Falco Cr.42). One of the aircraft I would like to build is the Junkers J2 prototype with modern materials(not really an authentic replica I know)or the Junkers J7(the plane in my profile pic).For the mass produced fighters of WWI; I like the Fokker VIII  and wondered how it would have turned out if it had an inline six like the Fokker VIIF?  On the Entente side, I like the Spad 7 with its clean design and V8 power( I like speed and BnZ tactics). How long did it take you to build your replica?what was the overall cost?(ballpark)and what are your certs?and how closely does it resemble the original? To conclude, I have a feeling that the interest in WWI aviation(and WWI in general) will increase with  the new films about that  era coming out. After all,  the film 1917  won some academy awards and just fell short of best picture.

[Chill31]

On 5/4/2020 at 10:11 PM, Hohenadler said:

How long did it take you to build your replica?what was the overall cost?(ballpark)and what are your certs?and how closely does it resemble the original? To conclude, I have a feeling that the interest in WWI aviation(and WWI in general) will increase with  the new films about that  era coming out. After all,  the film 1917  won some academy awards and just fell short of best picture.

 

 

I didn't build this one myself.  I only converted it from a modern engine to the WWI rotary engine.  However, it took the original builder 8 years to build it.  The cost to build one depends on how authentic you want to build it, since an original WWI rotary engine in running condition is going to cost about 30-40 thousand dollars US, so it is an extra car payment for an airplane engine.  

 

This airplane is very close to the original.  It does have some slight cosmetic differences, but you will have to study the Dr.I a while to see them.  I would definitely encourage you to pursue WWI aviation if you want to experience a raw and primitive feeling from the earliest age of flight.

 

Here is a video of the in flight footage from our recent air to air shoot.  I have some pretty good cockpit footage coming soon too.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by Chill31

[Hohenadler]

Wow eight years? Amazing during the World War One Era they went from prototype to mass production in a year. How was that possible I wonder?

[Chill31]

15 hours ago, Hohenadler said:

Wow eight years? Amazing during the World War One Era they went from prototype to mass production in a year. How was that possible I wonder?

They had a whole factory of people working on them instead of just one guy working in his garage.

[J5_Gamecock]

 Thanks for the vid, I'm envious.

 Closest I've ever been is a 30 minute flight in this New Standard D25

  

[Hohenadler]

11 hours ago, Chill31 said:

They had a whole factory of people working on them instead of just one guy working in his garage.

Yes I know they had factories for mass production, that is kind of a common sense thing and actually the reason why WWI was  bloody being the first war on a large industrial scale and all. The point of the  question was more like how they went from the design stage to the prototype stage to the factory stage before there was an industrial standard for airplanes. Building an entirely new airplane with new parts requires  retooling and even  building a new factory. The only exception being, if the airplane is designed with standardized parts. Another thing I hoped to get at was how could the process of building a WWI replica be shortened in the modern day? So instead of taking eight years to build one it would take  less than that.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Hohenadler

[J5_Adam]

1 hour ago, Hohenadler said:

Yes I know they had factories for mass production, that is kind of a common sense thing and actually the reason why WWI was  bloody being the first war on a large industrial scale and all. The point of the  question was more like how they went from the design stage to the prototype stage to the factory stage before there was an industrial standard for airplanes. Building an entirely new airplane with new parts requires  retooling and even  building a new factory. The only exception being, if the airplane is designed with standardized parts. Another thing I hoped to get at was how could the process of building a WWI replica be shortened in the modern day? So instead of taking eight years to build one it would take  less than that.

Of course we knew that’s exactly what you originally meant ?

Edited May 12, 2020 by Adam

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Hohenadler said:

Another thing I hoped to get at was how could the process of building a WWI replica be shortened in the modern day? So instead of taking eight years to build one it would take  less than that.

 

Robots that are programmed to build WW1 aircraft.  Or maybe giant 3D printers.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Hohenadler said:

Building an entirely new airplane with new parts requires  retooling and even  building a new factory.

It doesn‘t matter if you build a SPAD or a piano. All you need is lots of hands and space to work. You don‘t retool anything. The carpenter doeswhat the carpenter does and you end up with airframes.

[Hohenadler]

10 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It doesn‘t matter if you build a SPAD or a piano. All you need is lots of hands and space to work. You don‘t retool anything. The carpenter does what the carpenter does and you end up with airframes.

I guess I am thinking about modern day airframes with metal alloys. That all makes sense when you consider the time period when planes were made of wood and fabric.

[Chill31]

Here is a clip of left and right turns, accelerated stalls, etc.  

 

You can see the sustained turn rate to the left and right is about 11 seconds for 360 degrees.  What do you think? 

 

Also, notice the stall behavior when the plane is turn left vs what happens in FC. 

 

Hope you enjoy!

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

You can see the sustained turn rate to the left and right is about 11 seconds for 360 degrees.  What do you think? 

If you did that at ~1500 ft altitude, you‘re hitting some preliminary simulations of the Dr.I performance almost on the spot. What was the altitude? You are doing a tad above 60 mph IAS during the sustained turns?

[Chill31]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

If you did that at ~1500 ft altitude, you‘re hitting some preliminary simulations of the Dr.I performance almost on the spot. What was the altitude? You are doing a tad above 60 mph IAS during the sustained turns?

My IAS indicates about 9 mph too fast at that speed. My actual airspeed is about 55mph there.

 

At 120mph IAS it is indicating 15 mph too fast.

 

I just got the Levil BOM for flight testing though! And the next flight will be behind the 120 hp Le Rhone 9Jb

Edited July 27, 2020 by Chill31

[Holtzauge]

Thanks for doing the testing and posting the results! Must say you hold it quite steady in the stationary turns, especially the one to the right about 30 s in which looked really solid. The ball was in the middle too and as I understand it from a brief chat with Mikael Carlson is that in yaw you really have to chase the Dr.1 since there is basically no direction stability.

 

If you have gotten the Levil BOOM that sounds great since as far as I know it it can give you IAS, TAS and GS meaning you could do a speed/altitude chart. Doing that for a Dr.1 would be great since there seems to be some controversy as to how fast it actually was at SL and I have seen numbers as low as 165 km/h and as high as 180 km/h.

 

In addition, recording a climb time chart would be superb since there are a lot of different numbers floating around on the internet indicating quite different climb times, especially up to 5 Km but I guess that would be really pushing it unless you have oxygen of course. I asked Mikael Carlson about climb tests and unfortunately he was unable to do that due to air space restrictions over his home field.

 

Some questions about your current setup: Do you have a tachometer installed and if so what was the rpm during the stationary turn trial?

 

As I understand it from Zacharias, the Dr.1 standard prop on the 110 hp Le Rhone was 2.62 m in diameter with a 2.3 m pitch (8.6 x 7.55 ft) . What prop do you have on your 80 hp Le Rhone?

 

Another thing I'm curious about is what oil do you use for the 80 hp Le Rhone? Are there good synthetic alternatives available today?

[ZachariasX]

37 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

What prop do you have on your 80 hp Le Rhone?

IIRC a replica of the 90.5 inch pitch prop that was on the Samuel Morse (see NACA test I sent you) with 2.5 m diameter. I‘ve seen it labeled as 91 inche pitch as well, but by all means it should be a 2.3 m pitch prop.

 

As for the Fokker, IIRC the different props used vary between 2.2 m pitch initially (according to Anton) to a full Camel front in Jacobs Dr.I. The 2.3 meter pitch was supposedly for the 110 Oberursel UR.2.

 

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

I just got the Levil BOM for flight testing though! And the next flight will be behind the 120 hp Le Rhone 9Jb

Thats grand! Can you mention the propeller you will put on the 9JB?

 

Also, if you exchange the engines, would it be possible to put it on a bench to get a power readout? In my experience, if there is something that historic engines don‘t do, that is producing nominal power. Usually less, but restored and in good shape also sometimes way more. I still remember your engine significantly outperforming the one mounted on the Morse scout in the NACA test.

 

As of now, all we can do is compare static rpm (with respective prop) to get an idea what is actually going on. Engine names alone won‘t tell us that much.

[Chill31]

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

If you have gotten the Levil BOOM that sounds great since as far as I know it it can give you IAS, TAS and GS meaning you could do a speed/altitude chart. Doing that for a Dr.1 would be great since there seems to be some controversy as to how fast it actually was at SL and I have seen numbers as low as 165 km/h and as high as 180 km/h.

Once I have that, along with the new engine/ propeller, I will make that chart.

Quote

 

In addition, recording a climb time chart would be superb since there are a lot of different numbers floating around on the internet indicating quite different climb times, especially up to 5 Km but I guess that would be really pushing it unless you have oxygen of course. I asked Mikael Carlson about climb tests and unfortunately he was unable to do that due to air space restrictions over his home field.

I could maybe get to 3-4km if I can find a small plane that will keep up with me in the climb.  The 80 hp Rhone gives me about 950 fpm climb rate after take off, so I expect about 1300-1500 fpm with the 120 Rhone.

Quote

 

Some questions about your current setup: Do you have a tachometer installed and if so what was the rpm during the stationary turn trial?

I do have one, and I did the turn at full power which is about 1200 rpm.

Quote

 

As I understand it from Zacharias, the Dr.1 standard prop on the 110 hp Le Rhone was 2.62 m in diameter with a 2.3 m pitch (8.6 x 7.55 ft) . What prop do you have on your 80 hp Le Rhone?

ZX was said it correctly.

 

Quote

Another thing I'm curious about is what oil do you use for the 80 hp Le Rhone? Are there good synthetic alternatives available today?

Pure castor oil.  You can use 120 weight mineral oil...but it doesn't smell as good.

57 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

IIRC a replica of the 90.5 inch pitch prop that was on the Samuel Morse (see NACA test I sent you) with 2.5 m diameter. I‘ve seen it labeled as 91 inche pitch as well, but by all means it should be a 2.3 m pitch prop.

Yep!

 

Quote

 

As for the Fokker, IIRC the different props used vary between 2.2 m pitch initially (according to Anton) to a full Camel front in Jacobs Dr.I. The 2.3 meter pitch was supposedly for the 110 Oberursel UR.2.

 

Thats grand! Can you mention the propeller you will put on the 9JB?

The propeller going on the dr1 with the 120 Rhone is an exact copy of an original Dr1 propeller stored in a European museum.  It is also the same one on Mikael Carlson's dr1.

 

Quote

 

Also, if you exchange the engines, would it be possible to put it on a bench to get a power readout? In my experience, if there is something that historic engines don‘t do, that is producing nominal power. Usually less, but restored and in good shape also sometimes way more. I still remember your engine significantly outperforming the one mounted on the Morse scout in the NACA test.

I would love to do this!  I'm not sure how I will do it just yet, but I will work on a way to gather that data at some point.

 

Yes, without actually measuring an engines output, ypu can never know for sure.  With an actual Dr1 propeller on it, we should have a good idea based on RPM and performance. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Chill31

[Holtzauge]

Concerning engine power: As I understand it Zach says these old engines can vary a lot in power output which is a bit worry some since it will be difficult to determine which historic figures are the correct ones. Anyway, I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it: Absolutely fabulous would be to get some solid measured data on climb rates, climb times, turn rates and speeds to begin with and as I understand it the Levil BOM will do just that with good accuracy and that should at least give us a good relative relationship between these numbers for a given power. This would be good I think since with old historic numbers there is no way to be absolutely sure if the climb time figure was with a climb optimized prop and the speed or turn figure with a speed optimized prop or some other combination which could add to the confusion on top of the fact that an engine with a nominal rating could put out a power figure quite different from the rated one. In addition, knowing which of the old historic numbers were done with a reasonable accuracy is also difficult to determine. Doing renewed testing with accurate measuring equipment like you are planning will change all that!

 

I think Zach has a good point about the power you are actually getting on the shaft from your nominal 80 hp Le Rhone and 950 fpm SL climb rate sounds a lot for just 80 hp. BTW: How did you get the 950 fpm number Chill? Do you have a rate of climb indicator installed or is it an average based on a climb time to a certain altitude?

 

About the climb test: I have modeled the Dr.1 with 122 hp and that gives me a 1410 fpm climb rate in the simulations so smack in the middle of your prediction. However, with that kind of SL climb rate that’s a bit faster than your average Cessna or Piper but do you really need a plane to fly alongside? I thought that the Levil BOM would give you that kind of data on its own with good accuracy? Anyway, if you could do a climb test to 3-4 Km that would provide  really valuable data since I don’t think either Javier Arango ever did that or Mikael Carlson has either so it would be a first.

 

In addition, really looking forward to the speed/altitude chart since there is so much controversy about the Dr.1’s top speed. Also, good that you plan to do this with the standard 2.62 x 2.3 m propeller which will then make it directly comparable with historic data.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Holtzauge

[Chill31]

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Concerning engine power: As I understand it Zach says these old engines can vary a lot in power output which is a bit worry some since it will be difficult to determine which historic figures are the correct ones. Anyway, I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it: Absolutely fabulous would be to get some solid measured data on climb rates, climb times, turn rates and speeds to begin with and as I understand it the Levil BOM will do just that with good accuracy and that should at least give us a good relative relationship between these numbers for a given power. This would be good I think since with old historic numbers there is no way to be absolutely sure if the climb time figure was with a climb optimized prop and the speed or turn figure with a speed optimized prop or some other combination which could add to the confusion on top of the fact that an engine with a nominal rating could put out a power figure quite different from the rated one. In addition, knowing which of the old historic numbers were done with a reasonable accuracy is also difficult to determine. Doing renewed testing with accurate measuring equipment like you are planning will change all that!

Yeah, I am hoping that the 120 Rhone with the Dr.1 propeller will tell us how strong the engine is based upon the static RPM.  So far, the engine is looking very nice.

 

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

I think Zach has a good point about the power you are actually getting on the shaft from your nominal 80 hp Le Rhone and 950 fpm SL climb rate sounds a lot for just 80 hp. BTW: How did you get the 950 fpm number Chill? Do you have a rate of climb indicator installed or is it an average based on a climb time to a certain altitude?

I do have a rate of climb indicator!  I need to mount it though.  The 950 fpm was based upon timed climb using GPS recorded altitude.

 

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

About the climb test: I have modeled the Dr.1 with 122 hp and that gives me a 1410 fpm climb rate in the simulations so smack in the middle of your prediction. However, with that kind of SL climb rate that’s a bit faster than your average Cessna or Piper but do you really need a plane to fly alongside? I thought that the Levil BOM would give you that kind of data on its own with good accuracy? Anyway, if you could do a climb test to 3-4 Km that would provide  really valuable data since I don’t think either Javier Arango ever did that or Mikael Carlson has either so it would be a first.

The Dr.1 has no ATC transponder, which is required above 10,000 ft, so to fly up that high, I would need a chase plane with a transponder installed.  The BOM will give me all the data you mentioned plus AHRS (heading, altitude, pitch, roll), so it should be pretty comprehensive data.

 

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

In addition, really looking forward to the speed/altitude chart since there is so much controversy about the Dr.1’s top speed. Also, good that you plan to do this with the standard 2.62 x 2.3 m propeller which will then make it directly comparable with historic data.

Yes, same here!  It will be the real deal, or as close as we will get in modern times.

[Holtzauge]

25 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Yeah, I am hoping that the 120 Rhone with the Dr.1 propeller will tell us how strong the engine is based upon the static RPM.  So far, the engine is looking very nice.

 

Yes, I had a look at the restoration pictures and it looks real nice!

 

25 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

I do have a rate of climb indicator!  I need to mount it though.  The 950 fpm was based upon timed climb using GPS recorded altitude.

 

The Dr.1 has no ATC transponder, which is required above 10,000 ft, so to fly up that high, I would need a chase plane with a transponder installed.  The BOM will give me all the data you mentioned plus AHRS (heading, altitude, pitch, roll), so it should be pretty comprehensive data.

 

OK, then I get why you need the chase plane. Better get one with a good climb rate then because the 120 hp Dr.1 will as MvR put it "climb like a monkey"

 

But even so, getting a climb time/climb rate histogram to as high as 10,000 ft for a Dr.1 would be great as well!

 

25 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Yes, same here!  It will be the real deal, or as close as we will get in modern times.

 

Well when speed is concerned whatever chase plane you choose should be able to keep up though!

[Chill31]

For the inquiring mind

 

 

[Chill31]

There are some really talented graphic design/skin editors here, so I am reaching out to see if anyone is willing to help me create a digital logo that I can use for Knights of the Sky....I got the name from the very old Microprose game by the same name.  Microprose and KOTS are beyond copywriter limits, so the name is definitely up for grabs.

 

I’d love to do a close resemblance to the attached box cover such as the name with a Dr1 (preferably a black and white one, but Richthofen red would suffice) as a bit of tribute to the WWI sim that inspired me to pursue my interest in WWI aviation. 
 

 If you can help me with this, I can offer you the chance to sit in the Dr1 and do a ground run of the 120 hp Le Rhône if you can make it to where the plane is located.

 
Please let me know if you can help,

[Chill31]

I'm curious...if you could have a flying SE5a in 5 years...it would take a lot of work....would you do it? 

[ZachariasX]

Wife permitting, why not? It would certainly depend on what you get as substance to restore. It better be an original airframe or a very, very good quality replica to invest that much time on.

[Chill31]

So...going to go for it...anyone feel like building airplane parts??

And next year, we will start building a N23 powered by the Clerget to represent Nungessers bird!

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

You make me want to move to near where you live.

[Chill31]

17 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

You make me want to move to near where you live.

You should! I need more people to enjoy WWI Aviation with me.  We build them and fly them!

[Chill31]

Since about 2011, it has been my goal to provide this to the WWI community, especially the WWI sim community...

 

The 120 hp Le Rhone 9Jb is almost complete.  I am waiting on new valves, and then the las components will be added to the engine. 

 

I also have a copy of an original Dr.I propeller, the same one which is fitted to Mikael Carlson's Dr.I.  

 

I hope to provide flight data to the WWI community as an early Christmas present. 

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I hope to provide flight data to the WWI community as an early Christmas present. 

Can we take bets un flight performance? My bet is same airspeed, better climb and sustained turn times. Higher ceiling. (But you wouldn't test that, would you?)

 

Regarding anectotal performances, I've came across an original Le Rhône 80 with propeller (mounted in improvised manner on an aircraft that never had it) at the Caproni Museum in Trento, Italy.

Spoiler

 

It is of note that they placed a D245 / P210 prop on it. It is a flatter propeller than your copy of the Morse scout prop with ~230 pitch.

 

From the descriptions that I saw, I was my impression that this particular engine was a rather early build. I still think that, even tough nominal power output was always considered 80 hp, actual hp that could be derived from the engine was a tad higher. This progressively so in later builds, hence the choice of higher torque propellers. I'd say with this propeller on your Le Rhôhne, you'd easily overrev it.

[Chill31]

Haha, yes! I am really curious if the math lives up to reality. With full throttle on the 80, I was right around 100-103 mph and about 1350 rpm and about 1000 ft/min climb. 

 

Full throttle on the 120, I should be in the 110-115 range, and around 1400 ft/min climb.

 

Regarding the ceiling, I would love to test it.  I just need to have a companion aircraft to monitor traffic since the Dr.1 has no radio or transponder. 

 

The principle modification between the 110 ho Rhone 9J and the 120 hp Rhone 9Jb is replacement of the steel pistons for aluminum pistons which added about 10 hp to the engine output. My "80" hp Rhone 9C has aluminum pistons installed...so my assumption is that it is making about 10 more hp than the original motor.

 

[Todt_Von_Oben]

Chris,

 

I'll never be able to afford a WWI airplane but I am interested in the technology.  

 

Today, I found and bought one of these metal and wood 1/16 scale models of a Clerget 9B.  Haven't received it yet but hoping it will make a nice desk ornament.  The description sounds pretty good.  Here's the URL in case you're interested.

 

Prosit!

 

https://www.micromark.com/Model-Airways-Clerget-9B-WWI-Rotary-Aircraft-Engine-Wood-Metal-Kit-116-Scale?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIlaLHmb2P7QIVMQHnCh0dmw7bEAEYASABEgLPxvD_BwE

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Wouldn't it be nice if they made a working model of that engine for a RC camel, like this one  

 

[Todt_Von_Oben]

3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Wouldn't it be nice if they made a working model of that engine for a RC camel, like this one  

 

Yep.  That guy does fantastic work.  Must be like working on a watch.  Superb workanship.  I've seen a couple miniature rotary engines on Youtube but I think they were all custom made.  Don't know if there's a company making and selling them.  

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

It took him 5 years to build that, Probably most of it on the engine. I looked for someone who built rotary's but doesn't look like there is one. Would cost an arm and a leg I bet. 

[Chill31]

Those are really cool. There was a guy here in the US building quarter scale engines. Dunno if he still does it

 

http://www.airbum.com/NeatShtpix/NeatShtOX-5.html

[BMA_Hellbender]

OMG OMG

 

OMG

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

46 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

OMG OMG

 

OMG

 

 

 

Vid removed bud

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Vid removed bud

 

Looks like he just reuploaded:

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

OMG OMG

 

OMG

[Chill31]

Looks like Bender beat me to it!  This engine seems to be more sensitive to mixture settings, so I am still learning how to run it well.  Got it purring nicely in this video though!