USA TOUR Event | SAT NOVEMBER 19TH 18:00 - 22:00 UTC

[Catalanoic]

I will try to attend the event

[KeithHadden]

I shall be there with a Caproni Ca3

Keith

[PILOT]

SP-BAN AIRCO DH2 or RAF S.E.5

[IAHM-COL]

Well the expected cruise speed is a little low, as a lot of WWI pursuit planes had landing and stall speeds in the 30~40 knot range. The slowest plane in the flight would be the MFarman11 with the 80 HP Renault, it's cruise is about 65. There a few of the pre-WWI planes like the Fokker Spin and Eastbourne monoplane that could be comfortably cruised at 50 knots. Many of the WWI planes I've developed have a 75 to 90 knot cruise range.

Is there a way to add more miles to the trip and increase the speed?

Hi Lester
With this in consideration, I modified the Route over the outer rim of Cape Cod. The route is now close to 170 nm in distance.
Also, I edited to an expected 65 KTS cruising conditions. For an estimated 2h 40 minutes en-route

See the first post for all ammendments

Looking forward to patrol the Cape Cod and prevent some Attack on Orleans this weekend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Orleans

[jwocky]

Well, to land first on the main and then settle the tail, preferably combined with a little prayer, seems to be the only way to get it land half-way decent. But I looked now on several pictures. They all had those skids and they are simply too long for axe handles and the fix points are all at the forward end of them which would be engineering madness if they would be only used as rails. And keep in mind, those replicas you talk about are built 40 to 60 years after the fact, they have different engines and they are based basically on the same sources we have and their interpretation of what they saw in those sources. The interesting points here are, that Manfred von Richthofen flew the V.5 in DR.1 configuration, means already with those things while his CO, Werner Voß flew the V.4 without. Both reported back to Richard Platz at the Fokker plant who had designed the plane and the recommendation was to make the skids production model because it would decrease the risk of crash landings. Could they have done that if they were basically only skid rails? The plane would have gone still about three feet wing down and at a landing speed of 30knots or short under, it would have simply broken off the lower wing. But we know from contemporary reports, all the wing incidents with the Fokker Dr.1 were caused by moisture that penetrated the wing and compromised the wooden holmes inside and they were concentrated on the upper wing. So, there is some technical difference between the claim and the fact. Something was there that supported the lower wing's wing-tip during take off and landings and the force would be transferred via the struts to all three wings. Which would be the technical reason why the second fix point is not in the end of those "axe handles" as one would expect for a mere rail, but under the struts. My suspicion is those things were moved on an axis, but I would need better images of crashed DR.1s to prove that.

[jwocky]

no idea why this posts double ... sorry

[IAHM-COL]

I fixed it

[jwocky]

Thanks... crawls back in his coffee can

[SkyBoat]

It seems either I just don't have the touch, can't find the sweet spot, or my computer just hates the WWI planes, but after four days of doing battle with all of them, I have a grand total of three that I can reliably get off the ground. A few I can careen all over the airport and maybe finally coax into the air, but the majority just are so unstable they won't stay in a straight line long enough to get the small airspeed before they are tipping over on their wings and nosing into the ground. I've crashed a good hundred times trying to get it right.

What frustrates me is after having watched the video Lester posted of the real DR.1s, I know they can be taxied, taken off, and landed in a straight line, so I suspect a bunch of our FG models just have inferior FDMs that need a lot of work so that the aircraft acts the way it really should on the ground.

At this point, I think I'll fly the SPAD VII. It is remarkably stable both on the ground and in the air. I've flown the Albatross before, so I wanted to fly in something new for this leg. See y'all Saturday!

[IAHM-COL]

@Skyboat
I flew the Fokker Eindecker III several times.
It's a gentle plane. Did you try it?
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/Fokker-Eindecker-EIII

I tried yesterday the fkdr1 GPL (the one that JWocky is editing)
https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/fkdr1

It took me a couple attempts to know how to get it off the ground straight. and when I got the hang of it, then it was doable
Flying it is so easy that I know I can get into an ace career (red hint), and landing it is now really feasible too. There are a few easter bunnies that JWocky put on it too

Off course the SPAD VII is a fine choice too