Why a triplane?

Ricky wrote in news:db128a64-d6f7-42ac-8648-
:


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.

Yeah, the triplane climbed quite quickley. The neccesity for climb was an
advantage in combat, but also neccesary to intercept recce airplanes that
were flying as high as 20,000. That was th eairplane's primary role n that
war. Observation.
The third wing didn't help, though.



Bertie

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally
getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane had
it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of just
grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits and
then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with something
that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under suspicion by
the German government, and the military had refused to give him access to the
newest engines...so he designed the best fighters he could around an old one
until the Germans changed their minds.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot called "Enemy
Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von Hammer's" all-red triplane
featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage
door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of them.
He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel whaich was
basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were all equipped
with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data plates on
its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a "captured" engine.
Even in the middle of a war, they were worried about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid building
models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as to whether his
machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one airplane would explain
it....

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker
finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane
had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of
just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits
and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with
something that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
minds.


Never heard that but it is quite possible, He was pretty mercenary and
probably would have godn to work for the other side if he was able to
get across.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

I remember it well. I think i got the whole run back then! about three
years?

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
"captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
about licensing laws....

He he. That was more likely to keep the pilots happy. Or do you have nfo
that it was due to licencing law?

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as
to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one
airplane would explain it....

Well, the dbate rages even over those four!

One other thing about them is that all those models had one aileron
larger than the other. One of the clearest pics of a tripe is oone that
shows this clearly, but it appears that it was probablyl just due to a
field repair using one off an older or newer machine. Someone did a
drawing of it like that ( think it might have been William Wylam) and it
was taken as fact that they were all like that and it was to compensate
for torque. not so!

Bertie

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

Matt Whiting wrote in newsj6pj.130$kD5.1392
@news1.epix.net:

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.

Not in this case. One of the advantages of a bipe is the rigging allows an
extremely rigid structure with light weight and an ability to have a wing
that is unrestrained by the need to conceal a lot of structure ( thick
spar). The DR1 was revolutionary in that all the panels were canitlever.
There was no external bracing except the roll wires between the cabane. The
interplane struts were redundant.

Bertie

On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane DR-1)
would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose Fokker finally
getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the Triplane had
it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was fond of just
grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to other bits and
then lengthening this, shortening that until he came up with something
that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under suspicion by
the German government, and the military had refused to give him access to the
newest engines...so he designed the best fighters he could around an old one
until the Germans changed their minds.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot called "Enemy
Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von Hammer's" all-red triplane
featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage
door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of them.
He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel whaich was
basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were all equipped
with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data plates on
its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a "captured" engine.
Even in the middle of a war, they were worried about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid building
models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree as to whether his
machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than one airplane would explain
it....

Ron Wanttaja

In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.

It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
fading involved...

FledgeIII wrote in
:

On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was
fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to
other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came
up with something that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
minds.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
"captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree
as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than
one airplane would explain it....

Ron Wanttaja

In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.

It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
fading involved...


Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
Canada in a museum there including the seat.
One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.

Bertie

On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
FledgeIII wrote :



On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it was
probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker was
fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting them to
other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that until he came
up with something that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused to
give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed their
minds.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on the
current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four of
them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the Oberursel
whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His airplanes were
all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome data
plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it was a
"captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were worried
about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a kid
building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to agree
as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having more than
one airplane would explain it....

Ron Wanttaja

In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.

It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be some
fading involved...

Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
Canada in a museum there including the seat.
One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.

Bertie

I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if not
primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
yaw rates.

Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.

Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages in
visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings, the
middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured the least
lateral vision.

Then again, I could be all wt on that...

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.

Ricky

FledgeIII wrote in
:

On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
FledgeIII wrote
innews:7921eb53-dcc7-4bce-984a-

om:



On Feb 2, 4:38 pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 09:44:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

One would have thought the Fokker D-6 (essentially a biplane
DR-1) would have quickly superseded it, then. But I suppose
Fokker finally getting the Mercedes engine let him jump to the
bigger D-7.

I don't think the D-6 was quite as good as the Albatros, but it
was probably better than the Triplane in most ways. I think the
Triplane had it;s limited success as a sort of accident. Fokker
was fond of just grabbing bits they had developed and grafting
them to other bits and then lengthening this, shortening that
until he came up with something that worked.

I heard once that Tony Fokker (a Dutch national) was somehow under
suspicion by the German government, and the military had refused
to give him access to the newest engines...so he designed the best
fighters he could around an old one until the Germans changed
their minds.

I always loved the japanese kite face on Voss's airplane.

Back in the '60s, DC Comics had a series about a German WWI pilot
called "Enemy Ace," which was based on Richtofen. But "Hans Von
Hammer's" all-red triplane featured Voss' kite face, as shown on
the current image on my Fly Baby's baggage door:

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/pix/enemy%20ace.jpg

One last bit of DR1 lore is that Manfred von Richtofen had four
of them. He also preferred the French Gnome engine over the
Oberursel whaich was basically a copy of the Gnome anyway. His
airplanes were all equipped with Gnomes captured form downed
airplanes.

Well, uhhh, maybe. I'd heard that Oberursel sometimes put Gnome
data plates on its engines, with an additional plate explaining it
was a "captured" engine. Even in the middle of a war, they were
worried about licensing laws....

Thanks for the info about von Richtofen's four DR-1s. Back as a
kid building models, I noticed that none of the sources seemed to
agree as to whether his machine was all-red or otherwise. Having
more than one airplane would explain it....

Ron Wanttaja

In one out of the way corner in the WWI section of the USAF Museum,
there's a couple-inch square swatch of doped fabric in a frame,
purported to be from the DR.I Richtofen died in.

It's actually kind of a magenta color, but there's certain to be
some fading involved...

Yeah, it was ripped to shreds by souvenier hunters. Some if it is in
Canada in a museum there including the seat.
One of his tripes was preserved and displayed in a museum in germany,
but it was destroyed in a bombing raid during the war.

Bertie

I also seem to recall reading someplace or other that one of - if not
primary - motivations with tripes was to decrease span without
sacrificing wing area - shortening the moments to increase roll and
yaw rates.


Yeah, that would be one of the reasons. Bipes are the same lots of wing
area but you're affecting a smaller body of air. If you look at an
airplane nose on and draw a circel around it which just touches the
wingtips, you have a rough idea of the volume of air influenced by the
airplane as it flies along. A bipe or tripe will affect a smaller area.
It's morre compicated than that, of course, but it's a good ROT

Kind of squares with stories of how guys like Voss flew the thing -
bat**** crazy; flat turns, snap rolls, you name it.


Yeah I read a report on a modern one years ago and apparently it's yaw
behaviour is very strange indeed. He said it was nearly impossible to
tell if you were skidding as the thing would just fly along with the
wings level and the ailerons neutral and going mare sideways than
straight ahead. You had to be on the rudder all the time. Vigorous
application of the rudder would initiate mad flat turns of ridiculously
small radius,whihc apparently made the thing a very good gun platform.
It must have been a tremedous advantage in surprise terms alone.

Another thing I recall reading was that it offered some advantages in
visibility - high aspect ratio (narrow chord)/low stagger wings, the
middle wing aligned right on line of sight where it obscured the least
lateral vision.

Then again, I could be all wt on that...

As Dudley said, I believe you're completely blind on landing, but all
the bipes of tha era had vis issues. There were some weird experiments n
that direction as well. The DH5 used negative stagger and had the
cockpit in front of the wings, for instance. The Sopwith Dolphin had a
weird aproach that's hard to describe.

Bertie