Wing warper!

I assume the "boomerang-looking prop" is a photo effect of a spinning prop, true?

If not, that is one crazy looking propeller!
.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

They actually did dog fights in them too, the Fokker E3. One " nice" thing about wing warpers is how they could bite you at near stall if one wing dropped. If you applied opposite warp to lift the lower wing , you INCREASED the angle of attack of the lower wing and thus proceeded to stall the wing that you wanted to lift. That must have been fun.
Russ, did you get my PM?

 

That's probably why Old Rhinebeck never really "flies" their Bleriot; they just do a short hop over the strip: take off, fly in the air for a bit, straight and level, and then land without ever turning the airplane. And I believe that theirs is real, not a replica!

 

Doesnt an aileron technically do the same thing?"

 

Technically yes, ie: increase the lift. The wing warp rotates the entire wing section without increasing camber thus presenting the section at an increased angle of attack and promoting a separation of flow. The aileron increases camber and lift without changing the angle of attack and allows the leading edge to maintain the same profile in the airflow and preventing separation and stall.

 

Russ- The later wing warpers, like the Fokker Eindecker series, and the similar Fokker M series biplanes D.I-D.IV, had much lighter controls, even though they were wing warpers. Technology advanced quickly in WW-I and they were able to build higher mechanical advantage into the roll control systems. The system was obviously obsolete, though, and the last of the M series biplanes used conventional ailerons. Not everybody had Fokker's touch, though, and the contemporary Pfalz E.1-E.IV aircraft were much heavier on the controls and slower responding than the Fokker Eindeckers.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I was going to mention the E3 sensitivity as mentioned by Jim Appleby who built an exact replica in the 60's and he said that it was quite sensitive and tractable. If my memory serves me, Immelman invented the maneuver that bears his name while flying a Fokker E3.

 

Bob- Affirmative, except we are not sure Max Immelman's Immelman was the full maneuver or more like a Chandelle. Power to weight was not an Eindecker strong point, even the 160 hp E.IV with two guns, so pure over the top maneuvers may have been difficult. The early Oberursel U.I and U.II engines were based on the Gnome engines at 80 and 100 hp, and the 160 hp U.IV was essentially two U.Is on the same crankshaft, so P/W was not that good. These engines had nowhere near the power or flexibility of the later LeRhone based, Ur series engines.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

I knew dat. A proper Chandelle is not as easy as it sounds, maximum gain in altitude, 180 degree change of direction, and minimum speed all coming together at the same time. An Immelman as done now; a half loop with a half roll at the top would be extremely difficult in an E3. Those WW1 pilots were brave guys.

 

Yeah, cameras can be weird that way... This is taken out the window of a C-47.
Image Unavailable, Please Login