WWI Digest 446 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Saturday, 24 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 2) Re: E. III Decals? Injection kit? by "S.M. Head" 3) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 4) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Jeffrey Heinen 5) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 6) Re: Cannon Armed Spads by Pedro Soares 7) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 8) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 9) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Jeffrey Heinen 10) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Sandy Adam 11) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Jack Berlien 12) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 13) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 14) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Alberto Rada 15) RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Shane Weier 16) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 17) RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Alberto Rada 18) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Erik Pilawskii 19) Vickers Vimmy by SOPWITH@worldnet.att.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:01:26 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Re: Saturday, 24 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just Message-ID: <3313EDD6.1873@host.dmsc.net> Mary-Ann/Michael wrote: > > At 09:17 AM 2/25/97 -0500, Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson wrote: > >Muggy day. Got up late this morning as there was no flying possible. > >Wrote to Dave Wheeler and another letter to dear little Mother. The > >S.P.A.D. Company is putting out a 200 h.p. monoplace aeroplane carrying > >two machine guns (Vickers) fixed in front which fire thru the propellor > >the same as the single one does. They must be mighty good. Had some > >visiting officers to dine with us this evening. > > > >from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet > > > >************************************************* > > > >A SPAD monoplane? --Bradley > I believe that, early in the war, monoplace meant a single seater, biplace > meant a 2-seater. > Mike Muth Thanks, Mike. Some days I fancy myself an historian. Not today. Bradley the Brainless ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:39:59 -0500 From: "S.M. Head" To: wwi Subject: Re: E. III Decals? Injection kit? Message-ID: <9702252341.aa01145@mail.iapc.net> >> > I would like some injection wheels for my Eduard "nekkid" E. III >> > and maybe some aftermarket decals. Any thoughts? Sounds like a tongue-in-cheek line to me. I'll not bite this one! Cheers! Scott H ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott M. Head (smh@iapc.net) | IPMS/USA #32841 | "Make it idiot proof - IPMS/Houston Scale Model Forum | and someone will make a better idiot!" http://web-hou.iapc.net/~smh | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:23:41 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702260623.AA16822@ednet1.orednet.org> Sandy wrote: >I remember participating in a thread a month or two back concerning the >general east wind that blew aircraft ever deeper into German territory and >somebody opined that WW1 aircraft were inherently unstable and had to be >flown at all times. (I think it was Bill Shatzer.) >I knew I had a reference somewhere that completely disproved that and >having looked at the time with no success, of course it popped out of the >blue last night when I was going through PK's book on Richthofen for >soemthing else. >p121. Lothar von R relates "At the front when nothing is wrong, from time >to time...one puts one's hands on the fuselage sides and admires the view. >Then the aeroplane flies by itself, so to speak." >Now there were obvious exceptions - Camels, Morane Monoplanes (ref >McCudden-Flying Fury) and I'm sure many others. But apart from the Fok >Dr1, most German aircraft of note used in-line engines and could be >expected to behave as LvR records. I can't think offhand of any >two-seaters (which were about the only German planes that >ever ventured behind Allied lines in daytime) that used rotary engines. >Anyway, if anybody's interested - better late than never! Well, the Fokker M.8's were rotary engined two-seater observation aircraft which were in service during the first two years of the war. There were some others, I believe. But, while you could certainly set up some WW1 aircraft to "fly themselves", with the exception of some overly stable types like the Be.2's, you did have to "set 'em up" - i.e. center the controls, adopt the correct angle of attack, and get the engine running at the right power setting. Under those circumstances, it _was_ possible to get some WW1 aircraft to "fly themselves". But, I'd submit that would be a very unlikely situation for an aircraft with a dead pilot on board to be in. The more usual situation would be for the aircraft to be maneuvering, more or less violently, to avoid or escape the attacker when the pilot was shot. Even were an aircraft to be "jumped" unawares while the aircraft was cruising properly "set up" for "hands off" flight, the impact of several machine gun bullets into the aircraft and the pilot is likely to seriously disturb that "set up". And, again, with the exception of the overly stable types like the BE.2/BE.12's, typically WW1 aircraft had negative stability on the controls - any loss of stability led to even greater loss of stability unless corrective actions were taken with the controls. The process rapidly led to total loss of control without a live pilot available to take appropriate corrective measures. If you read the flight test reports on just about any WW1 aircraft, the test pilots typically complain about instability in at least one of the three axis and that's with a live pilot at the controls. For instance, on the Rumpler C.IV, it was reported: "In powered flight, very tail heavy. ... Great tendency to spin. Gliding flight very good with same manueverability as with power on. In gusty weather, very unstable. ... In full power turns the aircraft is not without faults, tendency to spin. In gusty conditions, very unstable." And that is with a live pilot at the controls of an undamaged aircraft. Could an aircraft, properly "set up", motor deep into friendly territory with a dead pilot at the controls? Sure. Did it happen often enough to be statistically significant? I seriously doubt it although I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 22:37:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Heinen To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: Richthofen's Dr.I essentialy landed itself when he was killed, no? -Jeff +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Jeff Heinen | "Neccessitas non habet legem." | | jheinen@mcl.ucsb.edu | -St. Augustine | | http://www.calpoly.edu/~jheinen | | |=================================+===================================| | Department of History | Senior Consultant | | University of California | Microcomputer Lab | | Santa Barbara | UCSB | +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:16:37 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702260716.AA04399@ednet1.orednet.org> Jeffrey Heinen wrote: > >Richthofen's Dr.I essentialy landed itself when he was killed, no? Depends on what ya' mean by "essentially landed itself". Allowing for the effects of the souvenir hunters, the photos of MvR's downed 425/17 seem to show the aircraft in about in the same or worse condition than Gontermann's 115/17 which suffered a total structural failure of the wing. We can be pretty sure that Gontermann's aircraft didn't "essentially land itself". The fact of the matter is that, except in some very unusual circumstances, WW1 aircraft just didn't tend to hit very hard. The surface/weight ratio was such that the impact, even of an aircraft totally out of control, was likely to leave the basic structure more or less intact - while not improving the health of the crew, of course. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:57:38 +0000 From: Pedro Soares To: wwi Subject: Re: Cannon Armed Spads Message-ID: <3313FB02.1A8F@anaep.pt> Rob wrote: (Sniiiiiip) An experimental, > turbo-prop version of the F-84F had supersonic propellors that worked > (they were very thin and short), but the high-frequency vibration was so intense > that airmen couldn't work around the airplane (made them nauseated). Blessed be the mailing list where you make a translation mistake and end up getting so much useful information. Thanks guys, I really don't understand why it took me so much time to join this list. Happy modeling Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:33:04 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <331465C0.44AA@host.dmsc.net> Bill Shatzer wrote: > > Jeffrey Heinen wrote: > > > >Richthofen's Dr.I essentialy landed itself when he was killed, no? > > Depends on what ya' mean by "essentially landed itself". Allowing > for the effects of the souvenir hunters, the photos of MvR's > downed 425/17 seem to show the aircraft in about in the same or worse > condition than Gontermann's 115/17 which suffered a total structural > failure of the wing. We can be pretty sure that Gontermann's > aircraft didn't "essentially land itself". > > The fact of the matter is that, except in some very unusual circumstances, > WW1 aircraft just didn't tend to hit very hard. The surface/weight > ratio was such that the impact, even of an aircraft totally out of > control, was likely to leave the basic structure more or less intact - > while not improving the health of the crew, of course. > > Cheers, > Bill Shatzer Wasn't it Boelcke's squadron that dropped down on an British two-seater, several of them firing on it at close range in succession, with no discernable effect,-- until they noticed both men were dead and the plane flying itself. Anyone know which incident I'm thinking of-- and what type of plane it was? Bradley ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:34:10 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702261634.AA12516@ednet1.orednet.org> Bradley wrote: >Wasn't it Boelcke's squadron that dropped down on an British two-seater, >several of them firing on it at close range in succession, with no >discernable effect,-- until they noticed both men were dead and the plane >flying itself. Anyone know which incident I'm thinking of-- and what >type of plane it was? Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is why they were such lousy combat aircraft. Overly stable equals unmanueverable. Most aircraft avoided this vice although some erred (by intention or poor design) to the other extreme. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:36:44 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Heinen To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote: > Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft > was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is > why they were such lousy combat aircraft. A friend who used to fly a JN4 'Jenny' said he used to be able to fly it by sticking his arms out to turn. He would take his hands and feet off the controls and just extend his arms as control surfaces. -Jeff +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Jeff Heinen | "Neccessitas non habet legem." | | jheinen@mcl.ucsb.edu | -St. Augustine | | http://www.calpoly.edu/~jheinen | | |=================================+===================================| | Department of History | Senior Consultant | | University of California | Microcomputer Lab | | Santa Barbara | UCSB | +---------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:02:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Bill Shatzer wrote: > >Wasn't it Boelcke's squadron that dropped down on an British two-seater, > >several of them firing on it at close range in succession, with no > >discernable effect,-- until they noticed both men were dead and the plane > >flying itself. Anyone know which incident I'm thinking of-- and what > >type of plane it was? > > Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft > was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is > why they were such lousy combat aircraft. > > Overly stable equals unmanueverable. Rubbish! Sorry Bill but you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into this. Some of the most successful WW1 combat aircraft were inherently stable. The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you do to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thing. I have spoken to one of the pilots who flew the Old Warden Pup and he said that the SE, and the Brisfit were rock steady inflight - unfortunately the F2B kept busting oil seals but that's a different thread. McCudden talks about standing up in SE cockpits with the control column between his knees to change Lewis drums - sounds pretty unstable eh? With regard to German machines,I quoted you Lothar von R's comments - do you not believe him? I didn't know where to start replying to your direct response so I was going to let it ride but really this is nonsense, and I had to come back in. You also quoted the well-known Fokker M8 as an example to prove that the Germans used two seat rotary powered aircraft. The what? I had to get Gray & Thetford down to find what it was - and found that they built 30 in total!!! And in 1914 before air combat ever began! In Summary There were a number of unstable aircraft which were rejected for service because they just flew badly. (eg MvR's Halbersatdt) There were a number of unstable aircraft which were pressed into service for want of anything better.(eg McCudden's Morane Parasol) There were a number of unstable aircarft where the instability could be mastered and resulted in an agile dogfighter (Sopwith Camel) Then there were a great number of very stable aircraft which would fly straight and level unless the pilot overrode that. (eg McCudden's SE5 and Lothar von Richthofen's example - Albatros?) There are too many reports of pilots emptying guns into opponents, witnessing the crew slumped in their seats, but the plane cointinuing on its way to try to defend a position which says that "all WW1 aircraft were inherently unstable" Sorry Bill but you got my dander up. Cheers Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:08:15 -0800 From: Jack Berlien To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: > > > Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft > > was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is > > why they were such lousy combat aircraft. > > > > Overly stable equals unmanueverable. > > Rubbish! > Sorry Bill but you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into this. > Some of the most successful WW1 combat aircraft were inherently stable. > The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. > If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you do > to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thing. I would like to comment and defend Bill on this. I'm no WWI expert but I do know that Bill's comment is generally correct - the more stable an aircraft is the less manueverable it is. This is fact. Look at a 747 vs. an F18. One flies by itself but takes 5 minutes to make a turn, the other turns on a dime but is so inherently unstable it requires an on-board computer to fly it! I believe the SE5's advantages primarily came from it's power and ruggedness, not necessarily it's manueverability, isn't that true? Stable means that an aircraft will settle into normal flight on it's own, even after perturbations. Just because a plane will fly straight for awhile, after being trimmed, or by accident, does necessarily make it inherently stable. I mean, I can ride a bike no handed for awhile, that doesn't make it stable! > > With regard to German machines,I quoted you Lothar von R's comments - > do you not believe him? > I certainly wouldn't doubt the comment, but there again, the plane was probably trimmed, calm winds, limited period of time, etc. Best regards, Jack ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:52:46 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702262057.PAA04145@newman.concentric.net> > > > Overly stable equals unmanueverable. > > Rubbish!... The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. > > If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you do > > to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thing. OK. I'll bite. In a word, I'm sceptical of the SE5 argument. [1] Model aerodynamics and full-scale aerodynamics do not necessarily have any relation to one another (Reynolds numbers, scale effect, and other stuff I don't remember the definitions of--this gave the Wright Bro's and others no end of trouble). This is why flying scale models are seldom if ever perfect reductions of real airplanes. [2] Maneuverability and stability ARE inversely proportional. The F-16, F-22, MiG-29 (latest versions), Su-27, Rafale, and EF2000 are all unstable in all axes--unfliable, in fact, without continual, high-speed, computer-controlled control activation. [3] I'd be surprised if stability and maneuverability did not have a lot to do with the exact rig of the aircraft. Groundcrew and pilots did tweak the official setups for better performance. So I doubt if even BEs were completely stable in service. [4] Again, with exception of BEs, I don't remember any WW1 accounts that describe flying hands off. Lots of flying with the knees while changing Lewis drums, but no hands-off (and some stories of planes flipping over during the knee stunt). I certainly haven't read all of the accounts, but still ... [5] Rotaries did not automatically produce unstable airplanes. In fact, in a way, they added stability, like a gyroscope. The Camel would whip round in the direction the engine turned and sluggishly turn against it. This is a sort of stable behavior. The instability of WW1 fighters is probably a function of the size of the tail surfaces, the degree of dihedral, wing area, and centers of gravity and lift rather than a product of the engine type. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:56:19 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702262100.QAA05858@newman.concentric.net> Jeff wrote: > A friend who used to fly a JN4 'Jenny' said he used to be able to fly it > by sticking his arms out to turn. He would take his hands and feet off > the controls and just extend his arms as control surfaces. My late grandfather, Col. Carl Iverson Ferris, flew lots of Jennies in the early 1920s and always said exactly the opposite. Again, I suspect the state of rigging and trim is the reason. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:09:38 -0400 (AST) From: Alberto Rada To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702262209.SAA18463@fw.true.net> At 04:04 PM 26-02-97 -0500, you wrote: >Jeff wrote: >> A friend who used to fly a JN4 'Jenny' said he used to be able to fly it >> by sticking his arms out to turn. He would take his hands and feet off >> the controls and just extend his arms as control surfaces. >My late grandfather, Col. Carl Iverson Ferris, flew lots of Jennies >in the early 1920s and always said exactly the opposite. Again, I >suspect the state of rigging and trim is the reason. > > Just a question due to my lack of knowledge, could you really trim these planes in flight ? saludos ALBERTO ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:53:40 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: Brad asks, >>Wasn't it Boelcke's squadron that dropped down on an British two-seater, >>several of them firing on it at close range in succession, with no >>discernable effect,-- until they noticed both men were dead and the plane >>flying itself. Anyone know which incident I'm thinking of-- and what >>type of plane it was? and Bill comments >Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft >was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is >why they were such lousy combat aircraft. I don't know whether this is the same incident (and doubt it), but there is a famous occasion in which an RE-8 of 3AFC was involved in a dogfight in which at least one German aircraft was shot down - and credited to it. The aircraft then left the scene flying West on a straight and level path. Other aircraft involved tried to get their attention without luck, then assumed that they had a problem and let them go. The RE-8 was eventually found, landed and virtually undamaged, but both pilot and observer were dead with headwounds, killed instantly. This is not an apocryphal account, but a well documented and frequently quoted one. I'll pull out the date, names of crew and the full story if anyone else cares. Finally, Alberto chimes in: >Just a question due to my lack of knowledge, could you really trim >these planes in flight ? To some extent, on some aircraft. The Bristol Fighter is one which has a trim control for the tailplane in the cockpit, though it's a lever rather than the now usual wheel. I've seen others which have wheels though. Hope some of this is of interest Shane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:08:58 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <3314FACA.285B@host.dmsc.net> Gents, thought it might be interesting to get the take of a friend of mine who flew combat aircraft a good deal, F-15s I think, on the stability/maneuverability question. Bradley > >>Mike, > >>what follows is a bit chopped, but contains the gist of a debate that has >>been going on much of the day on the WWI aviation list, and I'd dearly >>love to hear your opinion on the relationship between the maneuverability >>of an aircraft and its inherent stability. The most maneuverable planes >>of WWI tended to those with rotary engines, which made them capable of >>amazing snap turns, but which also meant they had to be =flown= >>continuously and were also liable to whipping unexpectedly into nasty, >>deadly spins. Anyway, in your experience, would you say there is a >>direct negative relationship between stability and maneuverability? > > Okay--I'll try to give the short answer to a very complex--and only > partially remembered--series of multi-leveled syllabi about aircraft > aerodynamics as it pertains to your question. And I may wander > completely off course. > > The term "stability" has little or no meaning in the flying of combat > aircraft. Now--before everyone jumps into my latrine-leavings with > squawks of outrage--let me explain that statement. > Today's--well, 25-odd years ago, or so; and it ain't changed a lot, I'm > sure-- military/combat pilot learns to fly in increments, and to adapt > to each "aircraft level" as he goes along. Id est, you learn to fly > trainers, which, by nature, are very forgiving and, if you will, stable. > These "entry-level" aircraft *want* to fly straight and level but, like > everything else in life (animate and inanimate), there is a tradeoff. > They are less maneuverable and less able to get out of their own way. > The progression continues, confidence grows, ability to handle--to > fly--craft that are less "stable" and more maneuverable--and, to someone > who's never been through the "levels", damned hard to control. > When you reach the level of competence to fly high-performance a/c, the > word "stability" disappears. You automatically input > corrections--instinctively--so that the a/c, to you, is always "stable". > Maneuverability also takes on a different definition, in a sense, too. > Certain "enemy" a/c may be able to climb faster--more thrust--but this > may result in a tradeoff, too; they might not be able to turn as quick, > for instance. > So, what does all this mean? > All high-performance a/c are unstable, if only in the true definition of > the word--and as offered by someone who compares his 200 hours in a > ("classically" stable) Cessna 172 to an equal number of hours a rookie > F-18 pilot might have in his a/c. > In WWI--and I'm hardly an expert on anything aviation during that > conflict--it has been said that some of the less "stable" a/c were able > to turn tighter, roll more quickly, et cetera, and, therefore, were more > maneuverable. The good pilots learned quickly--and luck had a lot to do > with all this--the idiosyncrasies of these "unstable-but-maneuverable" > platforms and did well; the not-so-good/not-so-lucky didn't and bought > farms. > In answer to your question, it can generally be said that, in most case, > better maneuverability is gained at the expense of "classic" stability. > > And I just read some of the bottom of this message; they've got it about > right, I think. > > Mike > > > > > > > Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft > > > > was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which > > > > why they were such lousy combat aircraft. > > > > > > > > Overly stable equals unmanueverable. > > > > > > Rubbish! > > > Sorry Bill but you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into this. > > > Some of the most successful WW1 combat aircraft were inherently stable. > > > The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. > > > If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you d > > > to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thin > > > > I would like to comment and defend Bill on this. I'm no WWI expert but I > > know that Bill's comment is generally correct - the more stable an aircraf > > is the less manueverable it is. This is fact. Look at a 747 vs. an F18. > > One flies by itself but takes 5 minutes to make a turn, the other turns on > > a dime but is so inherently unstable it requires an on-board computer to > > fly it! I believe the SE5's advantages primarily came from it's power and > > ruggedness, not necessarily it's manueverability, isn't that true? > > > > Stable means that an aircraft will settle into normal flight on it's own, > > even after perturbations. Just because a plane will fly straight for awhi > > after being trimmed, or by accident, does necessarily make it inherently > > stable. I mean, I can ride a bike no handed for awhile, that doesn't make > > it stable! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:57:43 -0400 (AST) From: Alberto Rada To: wwi Subject: RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702262357.TAA21963@fw.true.net> At 06:00 PM 26-02-97 -0500, you wrote: > >Brad asks, > >>>Wasn't it Boelcke's squadron that dropped down on an British two-seater, >>>several of them firing on it at close range in succession, with no >>>discernable effect,-- until they noticed both men were dead and the plane >>>flying itself. Anyone know which incident I'm thinking of-- and what >>>type of plane it was? > >and Bill comments > >>Don't remember the incident but I'd be willing to bet the aircraft >>was a BE.2 or BE.12 - now those WOULD almost "fly themselves" - which is >>why they were such lousy combat aircraft. > At 04:04 PM 26-02-97 -0500, you wrote: >Jeff wrote: >> A friend who used to fly a JN4 'Jenny' said he used to be able to fly it >> by sticking his arms out to turn. He would take his hands and feet off >> the controls and just extend his arms as control surfaces. >My late grandfather, Col. Carl Iverson Ferris, flew lots of Jennies >in the early 1920s and always said exactly the opposite. Again, I >suspect the state of rigging and trim is the reason. > > > >The RE-8 was eventually found, landed and virtually undamaged, but both >pilot and observer were dead with headwounds, killed instantly. > >This is not an apocryphal account, but a well documented and frequently >quoted one. I'll pull out the date, names of crew and the full story if >anyone else cares. > >Finally, Alberto chimes in: > >>Just a question due to my lack of knowledge, could you really trim >>these planes in flight ? > >To some extent, on some aircraft. The Bristol Fighter is one which has a >trim control for the tailplane in the cockpit, though it's a lever >rather than the now usual wheel. I've seen others which have wheels >though. > >Hope some of this is of interest > >Shane > Taking into account all of the above I can imagine that the incident of Boelcke's squadron and the other ones commented can be true, but aviators are like sailors we have a tendency to exaggerate a bit on our tales, if not we would have to believe all those stories of phantom ships etc. now I will agree completely with Feff's Granpa Col. Carl Iverson Ferris even today's planes can not be that easily flown, the weight distribution will change the gravity center, and the direction of the winds will affect too, etc. etc. so even with excellent trimming mechanisms and three point auto pilots things are not that ease. So taking your hands from the controls ( like in a bike ) or flying straight and level for a short while with a dead pilot on board, is one thing , but concluding that they where stable flying platforms is something else. There are a lot of flying replicas around, so maybe one of their pilots could let us know I also hope this is of some interest SALUDOS ALBERTO ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 16:06:26 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Pilawskii To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Sandy Adam wrote: Sandy, Well, I'm gonna have to side with Bill on this one, for more than just a few reasons. In the first case, as I recall, this actually got started as a discussion of victory claimants, and the related "accrediation" proceedure involved in each country. The point made by Bill about aircraft with dead crews flying off back to their own lines making up a statistically insignificant is utterly valid. I mean, the very idea of significant numbers of WWI machines flying back to friendly territory, so that they might be conveniently noted and accounted for, is preposterous. Indeed, in all the many years I have researched aviation related matters, I have read of exactly *three* such occurances, ever. Two did involve WWI aircraft, yes, but this is hardly a statistically useful number. There are the manyfold reasons, both aerodynamically and logically, why this must not be so, and some have been well stated by others. It seems that you have taken particular interest with the issue of a/c stability in WWI machines, however, to make your point. Speaking as one of the few piots on this list actually to fly a biplane, I can assure you that the notion of WWI era machines having such stability in flight so as to return to their own lines with dead/incapacitated pilots is high rubbish. First of all, there were NO means, at all, for trimming these aircraft in flight to maintain either course or attitude. A very few such aircraft exhibited a 'natural' Positive Static Stability (the BE.2, for example), but these were far-and-away the exception. But, even still, WWI era engines operated very irregularly (when at all!), and anyone who has flown a machine with such a light wing loading, even in the case of 75-80 hp (and most WWI machines had appreciably more power than that), can tell you that such purtubation from the powerplant will often upset the yaw (lateral attitude) and pitch (vertical attitude) of the machine in question, completely defeating any such "stability". And, this is to say nothing of atmospheric phenomenon, let alone enemy fire, etc.! Furthermore, these machines had to be 'tuned' regularly (the tension in their flying and control cabled had to be carefully adjusted to spec.) like some absurd aerial grand piano, via a bewildering maze of rigging that most ground erks never managed to navigate with any alacrity. And, add to this the fact that the machines themselves were very far removed from a uniform, mass-production standard, and each machine _of the same type_ was expected to have different handling and performance properties, you can quickly see the impossibility of it all. For the remainder of WWI aircraft, they were 'hands on' flyers at ALL TIMES. Even the briefest lapse in _attention_ in a *well behaved* machine like the Pup-- let alone removing one's hand and feet from the controls!-- would result in a very rapid loss of control, a condition that would escalate to catastrophy very quickly, indeed. It is always an amusing item to read the accounts of *modern* pilots who go up in these older machines-- basically, they are horrified! They handle, without exception, atrociously by modern standards. The accounts written by such long-term Shuttleworth pilots as Neil Williams and John Lewis have been widely reproduced, and I suggest them as a starting point if you'd like to read about the actual flying properties of these aircraft (in fact, in a volume called "Flying the World's Great Aircraft"--nee "In the Cockpit", Orbis Pubs, 1979, there are several of their accounts, and other's, of flying WWI machines). > The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. > If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you do > to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thing. > *Heh heh heh*... I can't help but laugh at that. "One of the most stable machines ever built"!? Surely, you must be jesting.... > McCudden talks about standing up in SE cockpits with the control column > between his knees to change Lewis drums - sounds pretty unstable eh? > Well, with regard to tales of Pilot Darring-do, I assure you that they are all tall tales. I remind you that McCudden, whose bluff was called by a rather less-easily duped reporter, invited him to repeat this performance in front of an audience and a camera; he expressly refused. Pilots, seemingly, are always telling stories like these (even I do)-- it must just be part of the thing.... > With regard to German machines,I quoted you Lothar von R's comments - > do you not believe him? > No, of course not. His account is ridiculous. > > In Summary > There were a number of unstable aircraft which were rejected for service > because they just flew badly. (eg MvR's Halbersatdt) For the time, the Halb.D.II was regarded as well-behaved and maneuverable, something of course which must be taken in context (i.e., 'behaved' by the standards of the day). I have not heard it damned as "unstable", thought I might just be difficient here. > There were a number of unstable aircraft which were pressed into service > for want of anything better.(eg McCudden's Morane Parasol) The vast majority of WWI service types would fit this category. In retrospect, we tend to assume that designers of the time had the sort of (somewhat) advanced knowledge of aerodynamics that we have today. They most certainly did not, and when a type was found to be ill-behaved, some brief attempts were made to affect its handling by local changes born of experience, but thereafter, it was simply abandoned-- there was generally no knowledge available to the designer about what was wrong with the design. > Then there were a great number of very stable aircraft which would fly > straight and level unless the pilot overrode that. (eg McCudden's SE5 and > Lothar von Richthofen's example - Albatros?) Even though modern aircraft are designed specfically-- from the ground up, and with the aid of 70 more years of aviation science and big wind tunnels and the like-- to fly 'hands-off', most aircraft can achieve this only in a perfunctory and temporary fashion. How a WWI era, improperly rigged, sputtering, aircraft with no trim tabs or wheels, was supposed to have accomplished this is quite utterly beyond my comprehension.... > > There are too many reports of pilots emptying guns into opponents, > witnessing the crew slumped in their seats, but the plane cointinuing on I'm afarid I would have to ask, "from whom?" Where are these alleged reports, and who issued them? I am unaware of any such large body of claims. ...Ah, well-- Back to my Pfalz! Cheers, Erik :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "If you're not living Life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!" .............................................................................. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 00:41:18 +0000 From: SOPWITH@worldnet.att.net To: wwi Subject: Vickers Vimmy Message-ID: <19970227004112.AAB22471@LOCALNAME> Just got in a Polish copy of the Frog NOVO Vickers Vimmy in 1/72. Price is $14.00 + postage. Also SMER SVA5 1/48-1/50 @ $4.00 each + postage. ($3.50 up to 30.00, $4.00 up to $60.00) SOPWITH HOBBIES PO. BOX 560442 Miami, Fl. 33256 ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 446 *********************