|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 13, 2016 17:02:44 GMT -7
Since some have been talking on about aircraft (i.e. thread hijacking ), I figure we might as well have a dedicated thread for that as well... If I were able, financially and time-wise, I would love to learn how to fly for real. I've played flight-sims for years and don't even begin to get airsick on any flight so, why not? THE aircraft I would love to fly, just because is: www.airpowerworld.info/other-fighter-planes/curtiss-p-6-Hawk.htmAnd in that classic 17th Pursuit Squadron livery at that...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 6:12:08 GMT -7
Now you've gone an done it... I agree, finances are a killer when it comes to aviating. But there are reasonably-priced options. Planes are not like cars, they don't actually wear out. Every year they get a thorough inspection and fix-up, so they last a really long time. That means you can actually buy a plane for less than a Harley. Even so... I can't afford wings or a prop for my plane right now. With the Sport Pilot rule, flying got a lot less expensive. And there are a lot of Light Sport Airplanes out there. The Flight Design I flew was just a wonderful plane. I had to unplug my headset because I was laughing so much it was driving the owner nuts. That old Curtis is really cool. So many of the inter-war planes are just stunning! They could also be a handful - definitely NOT your "Piper Cub". The three planes I would love to have are the Cessna 177RG Cardinal, Cessna 172RG Cutlass, and the Grumman American AA-5A. The reasons are actually pretty practical; they are actually pretty efficient planes, getting almost 20 mpg (kind of useless performance measure in airplanes, but it helps make it relatable to a car-oriented world). 20 mpg may not sound great, but that's 4 people and some bags at about 120 mph. Also, airplane miles and car miles are not the same. To drive from Atlanta to Detroit takes about 12 hours and covers 750 miles, in the air that is 500 miles and about 4 hours. My cars both get about 40 mpg highway so I would burn 19 gallons each way on the trip (2 stops in the wife's car, 3 stops in mine). The planes would burn 25 gallons (non stop flight). Of course this is not directly apples to apples. AvGas is about 2 to 3 times the cost of MoGas. And AvGas is full of lead - fortunately, the planes on my list can use MoGas (low compression engines and valves that do not require lead for lubrication), another reason for them to be on the list. If I get really crazy, there is this little gem; the SubSonex. Yes... it is a single person jet. I love turbines! The run on almost anything, make gobs of power for their weight, and let you fly REALLY high. but they also suck down a LOT of fuel. But DANG that thing looks fun!
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 14, 2016 16:26:26 GMT -7
Yep - lots of fun choices out there for enthusiasts!
Of course, saying that old P-6E is a handful to fly is probably true but, I'm quite sure it's easier than a Sopwith Camel or Fokker DR1 (both of which used rotary engines - torque out the wazoo).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2016 17:12:55 GMT -7
Those WWI planes were notoriously hard to fly. And they were unpleasant to fly. They used castor oil for lubrication (one reason the engines did not last long back then) and it sprayed out of the engine as it spun around. Open cockpits, no heat, and they would fly hours-long missions (4+) with nothing but a thermos of Coffee-and-Whiskey. There was not armor, no parachute, and the skin of the plane was almost as flammable as the gas! But they were glorious old things. Made of spruce and Irish linen, fully aerobatic, and surprisingly fast for a gaggle of wings and wires. The Fokker Albatross was about as pretty as any plane in WWI.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 14, 2016 19:03:30 GMT -7
The level of ignorance on display here is stunning.
You guys should try War Thunder. You can fly some of the later model (post WWI Craft but still passable) like the Gladiator, the P-6 and some of the Russian planes. Good times. It's free and I'd love to see if I could smoke an actual pilot with the game physics. No black outs or whiplash! So realistic!
I was always a fan of the Fokker DR1, for every class of war plane, there is one that is just the top tier. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this one is it for WWI fighters. I saw an episode of "Aces" where Von RIchtofen kept scoring kills in this machine even outnumbered 10 to 1 solo.
www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/manfred-baron-von-richthofen (friends don't let friends read Wikipedia).
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 14, 2016 19:05:28 GMT -7
Actually - Albatross was a different manufacturer from Fokker. The Albatross fighters (and 2-seater recon planes) used plywood construction that made the fuselage quite sturdy but, a bit heavy compared to the linen and stringers construction of most WWI aircraft.
The inline engine fighters of WWI didn't have to use castor oil since they were built more like a car engine than the rotary engines.
Most of the best WWI fighters were equipped with inline or V-8 type engines - the Spad VII and XIII, the SE5 series, the Fokker D-VII and the Albatross and Pfalz fighters. Those were a fair bit easier to handle, especially the SE5a and Fokker D-VII (only aircraft specifically mentioned to be turned over in the Treaty of Versailles).
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 14, 2016 19:09:12 GMT -7
Fucking Germany, man. I didn't know that.
Usually the WWi planes are represented as far more maneuverable than any subsequent aircraft. Is that accurate? Even over planes like the Zero or the Hawker Hurricane?
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Oct 14, 2016 21:10:11 GMT -7
Yes, WW1 biplanes could fly circles around anything of WW2 vintage.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 15, 2016 1:41:03 GMT -7
/\ the level of ignorance on display here in astonishing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 6:25:12 GMT -7
An EXCELLENT fighter from WWI is no match for an OKAY fighter from WWII. The WWI planes could enter a maneuver more quickly than a plane from WWII, because they were 1. flying slower, and 2. weighed a lot less (less inertial to overcome). But once in the maneuver, the more modern plane very quickly regains the advantage. Especially in climbs (where the WWII plane has much more reserve power) and dives (where all those struts and wires slowed them down). This was all pretty well demonstrated in the Spanish Civil War, Germany's invasion of Poland (and even the Soviet Union), and Japan's invasion of China. Biplanes can avoid the inevitable for a while, but they can never go on the offensive against something like a Me-109, Zero, Sptifire, Warhawk, or Wildcat. Think of it like this; the difference between a Camel and a P-51, is about the same as the difference between a P-51 and an ME-262. The only way a guy in a P-51 could shoot down an Me-262 was to be really lucky, or managed to catch the jet on take-off or landing. I used to know a guy who shot down a Soviet MiG with a P-51 over Korea (he said he got lucky)- I listened to everything he ever told me about flying, and flew with him at every opportunity... The Zero was a really cool plane, but was only maneuverable up to a certain speed (about 200 kts ±). It had really big flight controls so it could maneuver very well at "combat speed". It was also really light, so it was nimble and could climb very well. By comparison the US was flying big, cumbersome tanks. The US planes had better guns, armor plate to protect the pilot, self-sealing fuel tanks, and basically a tougher plane. On the other hand the zero was said to "simply vanish" when it took a hit from a P-38's 4 .50 cals + 1 20 mm. Every advantage the Zero had (except for lower speed maneuverability) vanished with the introduction of the Hellcat and Corsair, and even the upgraded Wildcats proved equal to the Zero. There are stories from WWII where Zeroes would empty their guns into an American plane, and the Yank flew back to base and landed safely. The same thing happened over Europe with Me-109's and FW-190's vs P-38's and P-47's. By the end of WWII, we had reached the end of the evolutionary line for piston-and-prop fighters. A turbo-prop may have given a slight advantage, but not much. Once we got jet fighters, we never looked back. At present, an F-22 Raptor can maneuver with a Sopwith Camel - or anything else (even without the stealth, it is an "alpha predator"). Basically the USAF brass sat down, drank some beers and came up with their ultimate dream fighter. Lockheed got back with them and said "We can give you everything on the list, except the laser." (Lockheed now has a BizJet with the airborne laser [ LINK]). But then, maneuverability is not as important as GUNS. The deadliest fighter-killer of WWII was the B-17. Today there are scenarios where F-22's or F-35's act as spotters for B-1's, B-2's or B-52's stuffed to the gills with long range air-to-air missiles. The Fighters select the targets, the bomber launches the missiles, and the other guys fall out of the sky.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 15, 2016 6:29:16 GMT -7
The thing about WWI aircraft - they were VERY light compared to anything between the wars, let alone WWII. Literally string bags!
The Fokker Dr.1 (and the F.1 - the prototype) could almost literally turn on a dime.
They - along with many WWI aircraft could also do side-slips like nothing since (the rudder usually had no separate vertical stabilizer).
The Sopwith Camel was also insanely agile (and unstable) but, was dangerous to fly.
Many of the more agile types were notorious for their bad behavior during take-off and landing as the torque effect of the spinning rotary engines meant that they tended to roll towards one side or the other (depended on the spin of the engine).
The Spad and SE5 family, along with the Fokker D.VII were a fair bit faster than the Dr.1/F.1 and Camel and didn't have the same bad take-off/landing issues. They weren't quite as agile but, speed is life!
I've heard of War Thunder but, I've also heard that it isn't particularly realist in terms of the physics. It's surprising but, some of the most accurate flight sims are from the 1990's. Most modern games being more like arcade games than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 15, 2016 6:33:48 GMT -7
^ Ironnerd just covered the core details very well. Speed and firepower make a huge difference in combat. The gun is certainly not obsolete as there is always a chance that an air-to-air engagement will devolve into a fur ball (dog fight).
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Oct 15, 2016 10:13:46 GMT -7
My point was WW1 planes had a masive advantage in turn rate and acrobatics to WW2 planes. When you talk speed, rate of climb or dive, and toughness, WW1 planes were hopelessly outclassed. A WW2 plane couldn't hope to turn with a WW1 plane mainly because of higher stall speeds would cause them to spin out. As an air force, WW1 had no hope of resisting a fleet of WW2 types.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 12:22:19 GMT -7
I think a more apt comparison might be a scooter and a "crotch rocket". When I took my motorcycle test, I found myself wishing for a scooter due to the light weight and easy maneuverability on the closed course. On the road... I was very happy with the CBR.
Realistically, a fighter from WWI was on par with many of the WWII trainers or spotter/liaison aircraft. Down in that lower speed band, these light planes were really amazing. The plane Harrison Ford crashed is a really good example. Just as acrobatic, and a lot easier to fly.
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Oct 15, 2016 15:41:23 GMT -7
Yep - many WWI planes are VERY acrobatic - until the wings come off!
Look up the history of the Fokker DR.1 and Albatross D.III - along with the Neiuport 11 Bebe etc...
|
|
|
Post by pericles on Oct 15, 2016 16:04:49 GMT -7
That speaks to the toughness of WW2 aircraft compared to the reinforced kites of WW1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2016 19:11:20 GMT -7
Military planes are cool and all, but I like my civil planes. Back in WWI, airplanes were only 9 years old - amazing what they were able to accomplish in that short time. The inter-war years saw some of the most beautiful aircraft ever built - The De Havilland Comet and Dragon, the Hughes H1 Racer, the Northrop Gamma, the Beech 17, or the Ford Flivver (beautiful in it's own weird minimalist way). It was also a time for some really weird crap - like this: [ LINK] or this [ LINK]. The Beech 17 is noteworthy for many reasons. First, it's a biplane, just like the SPAD S.XX. It was covered in fabric, just like the SPAD. I'll grant that the Beech 17 was not acrobatic, but it did carry four people (including the pilot) in serious style. It had an enclosed cockpit and retractable landing gear - and actual instruments! The Beech had 50% more HP than the SPAD's 300 (so 450), and the engine was a Radial rather than a Rotary. The SPAD maxed out at 135 mph (on par with a . The Beech maxed out at 212 mph (when it was introduced in 1932, it was faster than any fighter then in existence). Something like a modern Mooney M20 has 280 hp, and has a max speed of 242 mph. The Flivver was supposed to be a plan for every man. Small, cheap, efficient, and easy to fly. Unfortunately the prototype crashed into the ocean off Florida after flying to Melbourne from Detroit, and the pilot's body was never found. The pilot was a close friend of Henry's, and after the crash, Mr. Ford shut down the project. Some guys from my original home town built a replica and flew it around for a while, then they donated it to the EAA museum. <addendum> Another really cool plane is the Culver Cadet. This little beauty hummed along at up to 145 mph on a frugal 80 hp. Not bad for a pre-war design. Another slick little plane of the same era is the Wittman Buttercup that moved out at 150 mph on 100 hp. For an efficient airplane, HP says a lot. figure it like this, HP x 0.075 = gallons per hour. HP x .06 = gallons per hour at normal cruise (75% power). Do our Cadet would use 4.5 GPH, and the Buttercup would use 6 gph. Both of these planes have interesting wings. The Cadet has slotted wings to help reduce stall speed, while the Buttercup has a leading edge flap (the entire leading edge of the wing tilts down) to increase lift and allow for a slower stall speed and allow it to take off in 300 feet! </addendum>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2016 18:27:40 GMT -7
My candidate for an electric plane: Jack Northrop's wonderful N-9Mb flying wing airplane.
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 17, 2016 6:19:10 GMT -7
That's a cool plane. I've looked into some kit planes myself...would love to fly but the license is SO expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2016 10:21:02 GMT -7
▲▲▲ Seriously, look into Light Sport license - or go all in with an ultralight. That's my next step. I'm going to look into a real part 103 legal Ultralight.
You can gt into a legal ultralight for less than the price of a new Harley-Davidson.
Stay the heck away from an RV anything - nothing but a bunch of rivets held in place by small pieces of sheet metal. I wanna fly, not buck rivets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 15:43:30 GMT -7
This plane always makes me smile. The Goodyear Inflataplane! As the name suggests, it's a plane that is inflated to provide structural strength
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Oct 22, 2016 16:32:29 GMT -7
Ouch. Too bad they didn't land in water. "This aircaft is designed to function as a flotation device."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 17:09:29 GMT -7
WATER?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 9:13:08 GMT -7
Ouch. Too bad they didn't land in water. "This aircaft is designed to function as a flotation device." Actually... they did land and take-off from water. My plane is no longer a "plane" but a collection of 6061-T6 Aluminum tubes. The FAA said "NO" to simply registering it as a Light Sport plane (due to some regulatory stuff I knew about, but I still had to ask, right?). So I figured I could use it's parts to build a "new" plane. Then I looked at how the plane had been built. I disassembled it, and will scrap the aluminum. Had the plane been rebuilt, it would have killed me or some other pilot due to some really bad workmanship issues. To "repair" the plane would require an entirely new kit. So... I have elected to take the engine (which I'm pretty sure works) and instruments (which I know work), and drop them into a new airframe. It's a Hi-Max. Made of wood and fabric.
|
|
|
Post by tinker on May 20, 2017 18:41:06 GMT -7
Yep - many WWI planes are VERY acrobatic - until the wings come off! Look up the history of the Fokker DR.1 and Albatross D.III - along with the Neiuport 11 Bebe etc... Indeed, the Sopwith Camel killed almost as many aviators flying them as it did enemy ones!
|
|