New Video Fokker Dr.1
Triplanes are a bad design choice, there is just no way around that. However the Fokker Dr.1 was a pretty good airplane. It's good in spite of the fact that it's a triplane NOT because of it. So what are the design features that gives in an edge?
Link below:
Comments (14)
I hope I have not missed any such video, but could you do one explaining the advantages, if any, of biplanes over monoplanes, and maybe also strut-braced versus cantilevered. The latter seems rather obvious, but I still find it intriguing that in our club, the Archer III and the C172S have almost identical performance despite the opposite layouts. And I always appreciate the additional insights you bring to topics I thought I had understood.
If the WW1 content proves to be something you guys want, then I'll keep adding them and of course the Nieuport 17 will be in there. I'll cover the Camel's engine in the next video and I'll talk about how the spinning effects things.
Hey Greg was just hoping maybe you’d be able to do a video on the Nieuport 17. It’s my personal favorite aircraft and was hoping to hear your thoughts on it. Love your content and hope to see more 😊
I think both the Sopwith Camel and the Fokker DR1 were affected by their spinning crankcase rotary engines which made turning to the right quicker than turning to the left. Do you think it’s possible that some combination of the effect of the spinning engine and its position gave the Sopwith Camels a faster turning ability in one direction only and that’s what the pilots were reporting? BTW - Great video (as always). Please do more WW1 stuff especially the aero engines.
This specific book is from NASA.
As with the Wright Brother's propeller design, the Dr.1 propeller design provides the important difference in performance. in earlier pursuit of why a windmill type propeller vs boat screw type propeller vs the carefully studied propeller performance of the Wright Brothers lead me to Vincenti, W.G., (1990). "What engineers know and how they know it, (Analytical studies from aeronautical history)," The Johns Hopkins University Press; Chapter 5 "Data for design: The air-propeller tests of W. F. Durand andE. P. Lesley, 1916-1926," p 137-169. I am fascinated all over again.
Greg, Your analysis of the DR1 is excellent. Very well done! Is this your synthesis, or did you run across it in your references? This analysys made the expense of Patron membership a bargain!
It's from a NASA book. It's not really information I put together, I'm just bringing it to you.
Super not relevant to flying or fighting , it still needs to be said how great looking the DR1 is
Seems throughout history, the planes that “look” right, seem to be the ones who perform right. Not sure whether it’s the cart or the horse who makes that statement true.
Great video! I would have never guessed that the DR1 was more slippery in all the right places.
Hi Daniel, No, in this case it's a NASA book.
thanks, I'm surprised they were writing about things that old.
you refer to a NASA book, do you mean NACA? or was it that much later?