Why a triplane?

Ricky wrote in
:

On Feb 3, 8:06*am, Matt Whiting wrote:
Ricky wrote:
On Feb 2, 4:40 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
Ricky wrote:
After reading more on this I have found that the German's were
very concerned with the ability of their aircraft to get above
the enemy as

quickly as possible. An attack from above (especially from out of
the sun), was found to be an extremely effective method of
victory. The amount of lift generated from 3 wings was found to
enhance climb performance quite significantly, thus affording
German pilots the abilty to attack from above as was desired.
I really doubt that was the reason as lift can easily be increased
in a

number of ways other than adding wings. *I think structural
strength
was
the primary reason for more wings in that era.

Matt

Well, hey, that's what I read from a guy who spent years of
research on the Fokker Triplane and then built one himself from
scratch. Maybe he's mistaken? I doubt it.

I'd be curious to see his research. *It seems quite counter to every
other authoritative source I've seen such as:

http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2008/december-
january/red_baron.php.
..

Care to post your research source?

Matt- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wasn't research exactly, just the builder/owner of a "Fokker" Triplane
commenting on his own research into the plane. He's Canadian, I think,
and built one from the ground up with a partner, then sold it in the
early 80s. I think it was on Youtube, lemme see if I can find it
again.

Walt Redfern? He made a few nice replica WW1 airplanes. But there wasnt
really anything for the builder, whoever he was, to research. Though the
original probably went through some wind tunnel testing at Aldershof or
maybe Fokker had one of their own, they weren't entirely sure of what
they were looking for. Nobody would have wasted time and effort on the
thing afterwards and it really wasn't viable to do so until the age of
computers. Most aerodynamicists even back then would have pooh poohed
the triplane, but it was worth a shot, the airplane had some good
attributes, so they made some and they had a bit of success. They were
clearly wanting in a lot of ways, though, thus the short production run.
All of those WW1 airplanes were experimental in extremis in every way
you can imagine. Materials, adhesives, engines, aerodynamics, you name
it. . they learned fast, though and the performance gains from the
Taubes and Moranes of 1914 to The Seimens Schuckerts and Sopwith Snipes
of late 1918 was only spectacular. Steel tube fuselages were introduced
by Fokker and are still used today. Hugo Junkers introduced the first
all metal airplanes. Some of the engines were fantasitc too,
particularly the Hispano Suizas which are still impressive and powered
airplanes well into the thirties.
It must have been an exciting time to live through. If you lived through
it..


Bertie

Ricky wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:06 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Care to post your research source?

Matt-

Sure, here it is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arcvl...eature=related
Since this guy is a pilot of a modern replica and, I believe, built
the one he's sitting in and standing next to, I took his comments
about the 3 wings as somewhat authoratative.
This is a good little ditty about the Triplane.

Ricky.


Unfortunately, that video is full of errors.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in news:M6qpj.141$kD5.1706
@news1.epix.net:

Ricky wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:06 am, Matt Whiting wrote:

Care to post your research source?

Matt-

Sure, here it is;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arcvl...eature=related
Since this guy is a pilot of a modern replica and, I believe, built
the one he's sitting in and standing next to, I took his comments
about the 3 wings as somewhat authoratative.
This is a good little ditty about the Triplane.

Ricky.


Unfortunately, that video is full of errors.


Yes, the makers should be shot.


Bertie