Scale flying, what's right and what's wrong

[Mike T]

Skidding turn per Werner Voss.  Plenty of rudder with opposite aileron to hoof the tail around.

 

[Ron Gray]

No rolls, Cubans, Spins or Stall turns for me!

 

Immelmann turn

[Mike T]

Immelman turn - now there's a can of worms!

[Peter Miller]

Another snippet of WW1 bomber flying.

When the anti aircraft fire (Archie) got a bit close go into a steep bank but keep flying straight ahead.

 Archie promptly started shooting where they expected you to be..way off in the expected position after the turn.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I’m not even going to suggest sustained knife edge!  🫢

[Peter Miller]

52 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

I’m not even going to suggest sustained knife edge!  🫢

Not necessary.Just steep bank for a moment and because the guns had to aim in front of the aircraft they changed aim to anticipate where the aircraft would be when the shell detonated.

[Simon Chaddock]

I am a bit surprised there has be no mention of the wing section used in the DVII or the Triplane and DVIIIfor that matter.

It was a thick section allowing the wings to be a cantilever with no wire bracing unlike the allied wing section which was thin and relied heavily on the wire bracing.

It was this thicker section that enabled the Fokkers to achieve a higher angle of attack before the stall occurred and a more rapid recovery when it did. Manfred von Richthofen specifically mentioned this characteristic in the fighter trials.

The remarkable thing was the allies knew all about this feature but the UK chose to retain the thin section wire braced biplane layout until the advantages of a cantilever monoplane was undisputed.

In my view it would be appropriate for a scale Fokker DVii to undertake manoeuvres beyond that which could be expected of a Camel or SE5.    

[Simon Chaddock]

Posted in error

Edited February 29 by Simon Chaddock

[Peter Miller]

52 minutes ago, Simon Chaddock said:

I am a bit surprised there has be no mention of the wing section used in the DVII or the Triplane and DVIIIfor that matter.

It was a thick section allowing the wings to be a cantilever with no wire bracing unlike the allied wing section which was thin and relied heavily on the wire bracing.

It was this thicker section that enabled the Fokkers to achieve a higher angle of attack before the stall occurred and a more rapid recovery when it did. Manfred von Richthofen specifically mentioned this characteristic in the fighter trials.

The remarkable thing was the allies knew all about this feature but the UK chose to retain the thin section wire braced biplane layout until the advantages of a cantilever monoplane was undisputed.

In my view it would be appropriate for a scale Fokker DVii to undertake manoeuvres beyond that which could be expected of a Camel or SE5.    

 

[Peter Miller]

Just now, Peter Miller said:

 

I do know that the DVII could not climb as high as the DH4

[Chris Walby]

My DR1 will be flown at or very well below scale altitude! But hopefully above ground level.

 

PS still think I could get away with a barrel roll (especially if its a climb in/drop out)!

[Simon Chaddock]

Peter

Difficult to compare a bomber against a fighter but the DH4 had the advantage of the RR Eagle V12 that had significantly more power than the Mercedes DIII 6 inline, 275 against 204 hp and crucially the Eagle had a higher compression ratio giving a better altitude performance.

It also appears the UK aviation fuel, supplied predominately by Shell, was of a higher quality than available in Germany allowing higher compression ratios to be safely used without detonation. Formal "octane" ratings to measure fuel detonation properties was not established until after WWI.