My Head Tells Me One Thing, My Heart Another.

[David Davis]

I have always admired the Fokker triplane ever since I saw a bright red Walter Musciano control line version fly round our school playground in the early Sixties powered by an AM 35. I have David Hurrell's 1/4 scale plan of the triplane and a Laser 160 to power it so what's stopping me starting on it? The answer to that question is, confidence in my flying ability! I built a Flair Baronette about twenty years ago. It was fine in the air but on the ground, taking off or landing, it was a little horror. Picture below.

 

At the same time I bought a Flair Puppeteer which was much easier to fly than the Baronette. Sorry I do not have a picture of the Puppeteer. So should I build a 1/4 scale Pup or Triplane. I suppose that I could always fit a gyro to the Triplane.

 

Your views, as always are most welcome.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by David Davis

[stu knowles]

I have flown all of the Flair Scouts and a couple of 1/4 scale DR1's.  The Baronette is by far the most difficult of all of them to get off the ground, in fact mine is still in the garage loft with broken spars on all three wings. It happened so often I got fed up of repairing it.  My Dr1's were from the Balsa USA stable, so not true scale but powered with zenoah 26s.  So long as you were pretty close into wind, take off and landing was uneventful.

They have a great shape in the air and are not festooned with lots of rigging. All qualities that make a good WW1 model.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Biplanes, triplanes and small piper cubs are a headache taking off but easy to fly in the air, and the more wings the better they look.

 

My old .60 powered DR 1 was easier to take off than a .25( 4cc) Piper cub.

[Chris Walby]

100% go for it, you only live once!

Mine is a Flair although I did not build it and nor did the owner before me. 

Laser 150 powered which sounds really nice and the model flies really nice. Not difficult to fly and rewards the use of the rudder with some really tight turns at full stick.

 

Has lots of good things:

• Flies slow
• Can do all the things the full size can do
• Does not seem to have any unusual traits
• Easy to orientate in the sky 
• Quite easy to assemble (10 screws and 2 servo leads) RX and onboard glow batteries

Okay now for the down side!

• Top two wings and all the stays are in one lump so its a bit space consuming to travel and store
• The previous owner gave me some advice
  Only take off and land into wind
  Never stop flying it until the wheels have stopped rotating... or it will bite!
• Its a low wind fair weather model so occasions are limited but well worth it when you can

 

 

https://youtu.be/yvczd2nksHk

PS the take off swing is intentional as the cameraman is standing on the flight line with the big fence!  

 

Would I get rid of mine....no its too much fun!

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Chris Walby

[Don Fry]

I’ve got a Flair 1/4 scale DR1. I’ve also got a Flair scout series D V11.

I would agree the biplane is easier on the ground, to the point it is very good, with the proviso, go easy on the throttle on take off, or it falls over. Now the triplane is a bit more knock kneed, but it’s not a monster on the ground. It’s size helps. I wouldn’t  say it’s any worse than the smaller brother

A cure for side winds is to practice, on an aileron plane which is not loved, or fit tip skids, Wot 4, whatever. And do a couple of hundred landings, all crosswind, all winds, aileron to keep wings level, rudder to steer. And then the odd crosswind characteristics of these light wing load WW1 fights to a large extent disappear. One proviso, don’t even think about returning it in a wind to your feet. Without functioning ailerons, they fall onto wingtips.

In the air my DR1 is nice to fly, like a block of flats going by close in at 10mph. One oddity, it’s span and fusalage length is similar, and it’s nearly half a span tall, and get it at the wrong angle, is dead easy to lose orientation, and it needs to be flown, and control gets uncertain until I get the brain cell back on line.

[Jon H]

I have the flair nieuport and its ground handling was improved significantly by the addition of a sprung undercarriage. This, to some degree, stops it bouncing around and makes it much easier to get on and off the ground. I will be adding this to my baronette when i eventually build it. 

 

I would expect a 1/4 version to be more civilised than the smaller one and Chris's video makes it look very well behaved to me. 

 

One limitation is that WWI aircraft generally are into wind only. Cross wind is just not worth it with these types and i dont bother with it when i fly my nieuport. Fortunately it will turn on a dime so i just fly in cross wind and then pull on the handbrake to align with the wind and land across the runway. As WWI types generally float a bit this works nicely and its not normally a big issue to get it down. 

[Alan Gorham_]

I have the Flair 1/4 "Scale" Dr1. It has a completely rigid wire undercarriage frame and hard tyres. The only manouevring I do on the ground is the actual take-off and landing. No taxying or faffing about. As others have said, really, really ensure that your take-offs and landings are dead into wind and then it is no trouble at all.

 

If you have adequate power, then opening the throttle briskly on take-off the let the tail rise to the horizontal position will give you adequate rudder authority that swing won't be an issue. On landing, fly the model down with the fuselage horizontal (don't let the tail drop into a three-point landing attitude) and again, you will find you have enough control authority to make a gentle wheeler landing, after which the tail will drop on its own as speed decays.

 

I am sure that the Flair instructions mentioned the landing advice.

 

Again, to echo others advice you must be able to fly using co-ordinated aileron and rudder to get the best out of an aeroplane of this era.

 

One thing I will disagree with is that a big Dr1 need only be a light wind model. I certainly don't fly my model in light winds exclusively and, actually, a strong breeze makes take-off and landings shorter and more fun.

[Nigel R]

Triplanes are 50% better than biplanes.

 

Therein lies your answer. 😉

[extra slim]

I think a few folk have stuck a gyro on the rudder on Dr1's to aid take offs.

[Geoff S]

I remember Andy Symons had a Flair (I think) DR1 which he flew at one of the Castle Howard fly-ins he organised a life-time ago.  I don't think I saw him land without nosing over (with no damage) but IIRC, he'd only just acquired it - he probably learned the technique later 🙂.

 

I'm building a Fokker right now - but mine's only got one wing (D-VIII).  The big pain of multi-wing aircraft (and I have several bipes) is the build and (sometimes) assembly/storage.  2 wings are bad enough; I'm not sure I'd want to up that to 3.

[Alan Gorham_]

Nosing over is just faulty landing approach technique. As I said earlier, if you let the tail drop, then it becomes blanked by the fuselage and it becomes difficult to raise the nose. Flair covered this in their instructions telling you to make a level approach and landing on the main wheels. It works reliably!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Go buy one and fly it, old wives tales abound, to hear some talk you wouldn't buy a Cap/Sukhoi/Extra, ooh they tip stall, same with some at the other end of spektrum, some have quirks don't let it put you off.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Am I reading it right,

"My Head Tells Me One Thing, My Heart Another."

 

 Or is it really,

My Head Tells Me One Thing, My Wife Another."🤐

[Don Fry]

4 hours ago, Alan Gorham_ said:

Nosing over is just faulty landing approach technique. As I said earlier, if you let the tail drop, then it becomes blanked by the fuselage and it becomes difficult to raise the nose. Flair covered this in their instructions telling you to make a level approach and landing on the main wheels. It works reliably!

Yes they did cover it. Three pointer is advanced landing technique. But it is difficult to appreciate, if not used to it, just how slowly this block of flats will float along, just off the ground. I fly off a 70 by 25 meter hard area. Most early landings basically missed the patch. But the runoff is a smooth transition to grass, so accept you missed a 75 meter runway.

 These things are not common on the club patch. Learn on the job. 

[David Davis]

14 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Am I reading it right,

"My Head Tells Me One Thing, My Heart Another."

 

 Or is it really,

My Head Tells Me One Thing, My Wife Another."🤐

Ha ha, very subtle Paul!

 

For the benefit of those who are not French scholars, "Mon Coeur" or My Heart is an affectionate form of address used by French couples. Unfortunately for me, the little French size 8 who used to call me "Mon Coeur" decided that I was "not interesting" several years ago. You win some...

 

As for my original question, thank you gentlemen for all of your comments about the Fokker Triplane. I have decided to bite the bullet and build the triplane rather than the Pup, once I've repaired the battery housing in the Super 60, repared the fuselage of the Guidato and fitted an engine  and radio to the WOT 4 which I cannot give away! I am going to finish my triplane in an early paint scheme with the crosses on large white fields to aid orientation. I may chose von Tutschek's black tailed triplane or the triplane which appears in the background of the last photograph of Manfred von Richtofen and his dog Moritz. No-one knows much about this aircraft but to me it looks as if it's being prepared for Hans Weiss, one of von Richtofen's flight leaders, weiss being the German for "white." Later on Weiss had the entire top wing of this aircraft painted white and the crosses were changed to straight sided ones. My Baronette was based on this scheme.  

 

I'll have to check my stocks of black and white Solartex! 

Edited March 23, 2023 by David Davis

[Don Fry]

I’ve got black solartex David, give me a shout when you need it, as in, I’m going to cover it next month, rather than, as we are into sayings on this thread, “some day, one day, some time never.” I am, as I’m guilty, somewhat suspicious of of modelers  future planning timescales. See threads about engine numbers owned. I don’t intend to fall of the perch.
To get you started, for 1/4 scale those uneven stripes are done with  a 25mm flat brush. The full size used 100 mm brushes. 

Edited March 23, 2023 by Don Fry

[David Davis]

Yes I used oil -based glaze, sometimes called scumble glaze, on my Baronette. I think it looks pretty realistic, but now that pale blue Solartex is no more, I will have to paint the undersuraces. David Hurrell's model was painted and powered by a 120 Laser so I should be alright.

[Simon Chaddock]

If you delve into the history the full size Fokker DR1 always was a hand full on the ground and one of the reasons that it tended to flown only by experienced pilots.

The majority of German WWI airfields were as broad as they were long so you could always take off and land directly into the wind.. You had a handler on each wing tip for taxiing or the plane was simply manhandled to the take off point for you.

The big wing tip skids were a vital accessory to reduce ground loops which tended to result in a nose over.

 

The DR1, designed by Reinhold Platz, was technically advanced for the time and a captured example was examined in great detail by the Air Ministry although the results were largely ignored by the British aircraft industry. 

[Jon H]

17 minutes ago, Simon Chaddock said:

the full size Fokker DR1 always was a hand full on the ground

 

in fairness, like most WWI fighters, having a socking great gyroscope on the front really didnt help! At least we do not have that issue to deal with. 

[J D 8]

            

9 minutes ago, Simon Chaddock said:

 

 

The DR1, designed by Reinhold Platz, was technically advanced for the time and a captured example was examined in great detail by the Air Ministry although the results were largely ignored by the British aircraft industry. 

    The British had already been down the road of the triplane with the Sopwith version and although good for its time something of a dead end in the aerodynamic sense. What the DRI did was make very good use of 110hp Oberursel rotary engine at a time when most newer allied aircraft had motors in the 200hp plus level.

[Geoff S]

Tim Hooper turned up at one of the Ashbourne scale days with a quadraplane he'd built. It was scale but I can't remember the original manufacturer (Sopwith, perhaps).  There were a lot of wings. It seemed to fly well and I don't recall Tim having any problems on either take-off or landing. 

[J D 8]

Probably an Armstrong Whitworth FK10. Used in small numbers by RNAS and RFC.

[Simon Chaddock]

What is often overlooked with the DR1 was the fact the narrow chord unbraced wings had a relatively thick wing section. Coupled with the stagger it meant that the top wing acted as a slot for the mid wing and the mid did the same for the lower. This meant the DR1 could safely maintain an angle of attack well beyond that possible with the thin wing British biplanes. A characteristic noted & used by Richthofen.

The same unbraced thick wing design was used to advantage on both the DVII and DVIII which were also designed by Platz.    

[J D 8]

In my mind allied aircraft desghners stuck with the thin undercamber wing section well past its sell by date and were slow to take up the Fokker/Paltz way.

[Engine Doctor]

Hi Dave you should be far better of with the bigger Dr1 . The Barronette was a nasty little so and so on the ground but the bigger one had far better manners and looks great in the air.  They fly very well with a 120 fs for power .Enjoy.