The WW1 thread

Thought we needed a place to talk about the Great War.

There is a WW1 fly-in here near San Antonio (Seguin) on 20 June at the Kingsbury Aerodrome. They have the only ORIGINAL and still flying Tommy Morse scout, in addition to replicas like:

D VII.
Bleriot XI
Canuck (Jenny)
Dr 1

http://www.pioneerflightmuseum.org/aerodrome/index.html

The "Tommy":
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What are the price ranges for restored WW I airplanes, that are considered original ?


entry level prices and middle of the pack airplanes - scouts and fighters.

 

If you're interested in live WWI vintage aircraft and are in the Hudson River Valley, take a day and visit Old Rheinbeck Aerodrome

http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/

They've an impressive collection most (much?) of which flies regularly.

 

I found this website selling full size and smaller replica kits.

http://www.airdromeairplanes.com/

Heck, it says they take about 400 hours to build, are metal (except fabric) and a full kit is about $10 - 12K, flying for $24K
....and most are LSA!!!

One of their full size replicas, the Nieuport 17, had five made for the movie Flyboys.
They also have a full size Sopwith Pup, and they can use the new Rotax radial engines.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

These are not full size or accurate versions of the real thing. They are powered by VW engines or as mentioned small radials. They are, however, fun look-a-likes. A real WW1 relic gets mucho mucho bucks if you can find one that is flyable. The replicas can go for as much as 50 to 60 thousand or more ( based on the 20K price of a Folker D-6 18 years ago that Walt Redfern built. They aren't easy to fly but a lot of fun if you want to retrain yourself to retrograde your skills. Those that don't have rotaries mostly use the Warner radials and that changes the balance and flight characteristics somewhat.
Switches

 

For some reason, I think these would be a mindless hoot and a challenge to fly without worrying about wadding the real thing into a ball of sticks and cloth. Of course as a big guy at 6'2" and 250#, not many really fit....

I will say I have never really been a big fan of doing a homebuilt myself, except tor these WW1 planes.

 

Amen, Russ. I have flown some that are close to those replicas and it would be fun to do as you said, without "wadding a real WW1 or a replica up into sticks." From what I know, the Pup would be the easiest with or without a rotary. A beautiful and stabile little airplane. A local pilot named Skeeter Carlson has a Tommy Morse Scout with a Warner in it and it too is a nice flying airplane and he used to attend a lot of airshows with it 42 years ago. My gosh! I can't believe that it's that long ago. I think that you might have a little problem wearing one of those , too, Russ. I have helped to build several of the types and they are a perpetual basket weaving project. Lots of sticks, gussets, wires, fittings, cloth, and gallons of dope. Wonderful to see them in the air.
Switches

 

i don't really know how many real "original" wwI aircraft are actually flying...i would imagine the palen collection is the best in the US...i'm sure there are others abroad as well....to find a plane with an all original airframe and powerplant that flys is a tough challenge...i know that a few planes fly with rotaries but the combination of major control eccentricities and potential engine ..ah..problems would make it difficult to get a lot of hours in...i suspect the best "entry level" wwI unit might be a curtiss jn4 or jenny...again an original airframe and wings would be difficult to find and downright dangerous if not repaired properly..as for motors..OX5's are out there but shakey even after a careful rebuild..a small hisso might be a better choice but the price increases dramatically...i know fellow ferrari guys with OX5's and hissos in boats and race cars but that's not quite the same as putting your ass in a seat behind one in the air.to be totally authentic you have to enter the world of spruce, linen,toxic chemicals, bungees, clincher tires, on or off ignition to regulate engine speed, and wire..LOTS of wire.[ don't forget the castor oil]

just like old cars, if you get in cheap with a basket case you will pay in the end with lots of time and money...to get a turnkey [should such a thing exist] it's just big bucks....i dunno if the real antique plane guys value provenance and traceable history as much as, say, bugatti guys do but that would kick the price waaay up and the availability way down.
cool thought tho.....

 

My son and I are active in the membership and flying some of the airplanes at the Hood River museum and they have (and fly) the serial Number One Curtiss JN4D, powered by an OX-5. They also fly two others that are OX-5 powered and getting one of these things started is a mammoth undertaking to do it by the book. There is nothing more cranky than an OX and they are flimsy pieces of machinery prone to going to sleep at various and unannounced times but MAN is it fun to see that airplane in the air! It is natural clear doped fabric and when the sun shines through it in flite you can count all the sticks. AND wires! The old saying that if a pigeon can fly through between the wings without getting caught, there are some wires missing, that's true! I did a large painting of their Jenny and there are 75+ wires and cables from wing tip to wing tip. Those who fly these old crates are carefully checked for their knowledge of operating and flying the old stuff and then get a thorough check ride before they are accepted to flight status. Try www.waaamuseum.org
Switches

 

It is hard to believe the huge increases in technology that these planes represented given that the Wright Brothers flew just a handful of years previously with only a big underpowered box kite. Just a few years until they were flying high enough to be in the "need oxygen" area.

One "lost favorite" of mine is the Bristol Bullet, a very early and advanced monoplane. Not a great success in battle, but a neat little design pointing toward the future.

These planes make excellent candidates for R/C models - they fly well (and slowly) with their high drag and large wing area. I had a Focker DR-1 Triplane that was scaled about 1/6 and so had a top wing span of a little less than 5 feet.

 

1936 - P-26A monoplane could not even reach 300mph.


1956 - F-104A - Mach 2 performance.

 

Boeing had an airplane that had an enclosed cockpit for the P-26 competition but the air force insisted on an open cockpit and a few other things that hamstrung the airplane's performance. Just a statement on the military at that time. By the way, it had a landing speed of 65 MPH that frightened the pilots at that time and they asked for flaps that were installed on the B model.
The F-104 in my mind was the epitome of of interceptor design. I have seen it fly many times at some air shows in Canada and that airplane is supreme in my mind. If it had to be dead- sticked in for a landing you had to stay above 245 MPH or it was a streamlined brick.
Switches

 

But then, we by that time had the benefit of the Messerschmidt plans...

 

Intercepting in the F-104: boom, zoom... and pray the interceptee doesn't turn!

 

Chuck Yeager: Ejecting from one of these was akin to committing suicide to avoid getting killed.

 

Back to the topic - how in the hell did the WW1 thread get off into a discussion of the widomaker?

OK, one last F104 joke - my old instructor (who flew one of these for the Norwegians) - said there was a legend:

Do you want to own the remains of a surplus F104? - Then just buy some land anywhere in West Germany.

 

While back on topic, to me the interesting thing is you can't compare hp figures with modern engines. To swing those huge WW1 props, all of the power was at low rpms. While the hp rating was low, the torque figures were massive with relatively low hp ratings as compared to today.

I always wondered why repros had smaller props but more hp - they develop power from rpms and smaller displacement. Although I have never flown a WW1 plane, between the huge gyroscopes of propeller and rotary engines I'll bet what I have read about their effects on flight characteristics is amazing.

Am going to rent "Flyboys" this weekend. I know its mostly CGI (unlike Battle of Britain), but what the heck.

 

The joke has been updated, with the talk of lawn darts in Utah.



The F-104A lacked the range, radar (all-weather capabilities), and weapons to become an effective interceptor. At the time of the early 1960's, they had all been turned over to the ANG. After the Cuban Missile crisis, the USAF took all of them back from the Guard.

The PRANG, did obtain the air to ground F-104C in 1967. The 198th, was the only ANG F-104C squadron. They were fortunate to keep the F-104C until 1975.

 

You are exactly correct, Russ. The problem with using a smaller lighter high reving engine that swings a small prop at high rpm on an airplane that was designed to use just the opposite is why the replicas don't work or fly as well. The older rotaries and in-line engines had a max rpm of maybe 1250 or so but they moved an awful lot of air and produced huge thrust at low rpm and flight speeds. When Boeing had a replica B&W seaplane for their 50th anniversary they figured that a 260 HP Lycoming would be plenty good enough. It swung a small high turning prop that just about cavitated and didn't do well at all at the low speed of the airplane which had the drag and flight characteristics of a rose bush. The only way a high revving smaller engine can do the job is to equip it with a reduction gear to swing a big slow prop. They did that with the 1918 Vickers Vimy replica by using BMW Vee 12's and a reduction gear.
Switches

 

All true, Russ. Of course, not all of them had the "rotary" style engine like the Sopwith Camel and the Red Baron Triplane - it is still said that the very best of this war was the Fokker DR7 biplane and it had an inline Mercedes with water cooling. It was so good that it was specifically mentioned in the treaty of Versailles - that it would never be made again by the Germans.

<<of course, a fat lot of good THAT did us>>

 

My vote for the most beautiful fighter of WWI... The Pfalz D111
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Nieuport 28 . Sorry that I can't post a picture but that was a beautiful WW1 airplane. On the Kraut side , I still like the Fokker D7 for its handsome and elegant lines.
Switches

 

94th "Hat in the Ring" Nieuport 28 of Douglas Campbell (the first American-trained ace)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Aerodrome Airplanes full size Nieuport 28 replica, also 94th sqn markings.
Kit about $13000, less engine and 400 hours to build. I was told has same cockpit room as a Champ and flies about the same.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

James- The Fokker D.VII was at its best powered by the over-compressed BMW.IIIa engine, although they were also fitted with late model Mercedes D.IIIaü (ü for überkompremiert) engines. Late model German aircraft had high compression engines with dual throttles or throttle detents that could keep power constant from sea level all the way to 3200 meters in the BMW.IIIa engine's case. Because of the high compression ratio, full throttle could not be used at sea level, hence the dual throttles for this engine. Rated at 185 ps at 1400 rpm at sea level, the BMW.IIIa had a sea level equivalent rating of 300 ps at 3200 meters and 1620 rpm. The Germans had higher octane fuel than the allies, using a mixture of gasoline and the aromatic benzene. The allies used mostly low octane gasoline imported from the US and, even though they had altitude compensating carburetors on later aircraft, were at a disadvantage in altitude compared to the Hohenmotoren.

The large props on WW-I aircraft produced a large amount of lift from their prop blast and the aircraft fly completely differently with modern high speed props, just like Bob said. Take-off run on my friend Fred Murrin's LeRhone 9Jb (120 hp) powered Fokker F.I Triplane replica can be as little as 50 feet because of the extra lift provided by the prop blast.

The Pfalz D.III/IIIa never flew with lozenge fabric during WW-I, but did in The Bue Max. Peter Jackson owns at least one of the Blue Max aircraft and has kept it in lozenge fabric as part of movie history.

A rather rare Jasta 11 Pfalz D.IIIa, serial number 1369/17, from my collection. Basic color on Pfalz aircraft was silver-gray painted fabric glued/sewn over the plywood fuselage. This particular aircraft has a red nose, wheel covers and struts. Note the gray tires caused by not using carbon black in the rubber.

Taz
Terry Phillips
Image Unavailable, Please Login