On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:01:51 -0600, Michael Selig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 11/11/02, you wrote: >>I read somewhere that the aircraft was very sensitive to cross winds and >>would weather vane on the mearest whisper of such. >> >>Regards, >> >>Charlie H. > >That's true, and most of the WWI aircraft suffered from this type of >problem. Most WWI airfields were circular or square so that pilots could >always take off into the wind to avoid the cross wind problem. Basically a WWII Fighter is an (underpowered) Ultra/Microlight The other great problem they had was loss of fabric or entire surfaces at high speed, especially in manoeuvre. The Dr. 1 was apparently very prone to loosing a wing when pulling out of a dive - something that was a rare event on the very similar[1] Sopwith Triplane. They were _very_ maneuverable though. Allegedly you could do a 180+ turn of under 50ft diameter (with great loss of 'energy') in most. Any chance of an SE5a[2]? The great, often ignored, usually severely underestimated, competitor to the Camel was designed and, initially, built at the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough, on a site a short walk from my office. And when the 'Flyer' is finished, how about 'Army Aeroplane No.1'? Designed, built and flown by American born Mr Samuel F Cody it made the first sustained powered flight in Britain on 16th October 1908 at the same location. These people will have the details... http://www.fasta.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm Rick [1] Its alleged that the Dr.1 was in fact a re-engineered Tripe, based on a crashed example. The greatest change was the doubling of the armament from 1 to 2 MG. -- David Farrent and Dougie O'Hara on the Cold War role of the ROC: 'What a world of sorrow is hidden in those few words - "[Post attack] crew changes would have been based on crew availability."' _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
