Fokker Dr-1 Triplane - Flight & Early Engine Discussion - WWI Event at FOF 

I think so also. Even though it’s a German plane it’s the coolest plane because of the 3 wings and it’s the Red Barron .Found this channel today and really like it .

@@joegilly1523 Even though it German? LOL! It's actually Dutch. Germans have kick ass aircraft, they got merica to the moon with the Von Braun Saturn, The Germnans had awesome ww2 birds known as the Foke Wolf, Messerschmit, Junkers among others. Porscha comes from Germany. German quality and precision makes for the best of the best....even though its German, Bah!

@@free-birdrocker8809 It's because Germany was the enemy, not because of German engineering, which I agree, is very good.

It is indeed sweet. Seriously innovative for the time, being shorter wings, but 3 of them for maneuverability! That is so cool! Haha. Anyways, I'm so glad people have kept these things preserved after all this time so we can see them for ourselves too

Seems like the low speed G's this thing could pull were comparable to modern fighers at high speeds!!. Just SO much surface area with those 3 wings!

RC: Thomas Sopwith was only 24 when he started building planes. An amazing time.

Social media has ruined 19 year olds now

@@relevation0 I was still in school at 19 and didn't even have my first job at 24. Social media didn't even exist back then...

Absolutely. Such an iconic machine.

1:24 Says April 2013. Wouldnt that be an Obama-era video?

yes!…absolutely. I don’t know why/how I thought this was filmed in ‘02…I don’t know why/how I missed that. either way, the Hardware is from Woodrow’s time & way before G. W. Bush busted Mach I in an F-4, but well after Alfred Einstein discovered Gravity while Inventing the Lightbulb

Please don't mention politicians they are a buzz kill.

If flight simulators are accurate effortlessly is a understatement, those 3 wings produce so much lift it basically goes into the air on its own with no stick input. Awesome aircraft, along with the Sopwith Triplane, only really obsoleted during the war because the high lift also meant lower speed, as the war progressed energy fighting tactics and speed became more and more valuable, but right up until the end nothing stood with the triplanes in acrobatic performance.

Que bueno que no soy el único que habla español :D Y tienes razón

Jajaja ,bueno ,por lo menos ya somos dos ,saludos

@@cop0425 Si XD, saludos también.

it was copied from British design triplane

@@nickhill934 The mass is rotational, for the most part. Lot's of harmonics going on, but remember, the crank doesn't turn, the crankcase does. A lot of early planes used brass fuel lines. They were very prone to cracking from vibrations. Fires were not uncommon, until they switched to copper, which is softer.

..being the early 1900's were early internal combustion engines, and tended to be the ultimate in simplicity, I just never got why they even messed with the rotary configuration..seems like the arse-backward, complicated way of doing things...I can't imagine any situation where a rotary configuration would make more sense than a conventional layout..and it seems like with the entire crankcase and cylinders spinning around, almost every system(ignition, fuel delivery, exhaust, etc.)would be more problematic to design/engineer/build...and for what benefit?....

@@dyer2cycle Cooling, the radials couldn't get the heat away fast enough. The engineer's knowledge and metal technology at that time were still developing and being able to make a cylinder that was strong, light and able to dissipate the heat effectively and efficiently was still a challenge.

@@vumba1331 Yes the airflow past the plane wasn’t fast enough for the engine cooling fins of the time so spinning the engine fixed that.

Rhinebeck. Ahhh. Look at my response to dyer2cycle, below.

@@gregshamieh6339 👍 That place was a blast. A great place to be in the summer.

Rhinebeck was, and is, really cool. The first Fokker Triplane replica (which was red, of course) they had crashed some 15 or 20 years ago, and was destroyed in the accident. They then built a second one (black). Really great with the on/off rotary engine.

@@k_enn Funny thing, that. The aircraft you're referring to as 'The First' replica, was actually the second. The Actual First One was pulled from a barn in France -- with the actual Rhone Rotary Radial still in place -- and was 'bitsa'ed back together by removing rotten airframe bits and using them as patterns to create new parts. When that airplane was later inspected by a Modern Working Aeronautical Engineer, he pronounced it as 'Patently and Spectacularly Unsafe', at which time it was retired to ground-bound display duty, and the Rhinebeck boys set about creating the Second airplane, and making use of structural knowledge newer than 1917. ;-) Wanna guess which plane I took the ride in? =8-o Everything after that day of my life is apparently gravy. ;-)

And they have a throttle.

They’re much safer. I’m all for authenticity but I wouldn’t hesitate to put a radial on one of these.

Thanks for the kind comments. Appreciate your support.

With his knowledge and experience, Kermit should be given an honorary PhD from somewhere.

Third function. Wipe the caster oil off your goggles.

@@massmike11 True Michael, the real reason. Thanks to the castor oil mist they never got constipation.

There's waaaaay more to it than that. The rotary has some functional and physics features that make the standard radial reproductions a VERRRRY different airplane. To start with, the rotary radials don't have throttle plates -- the engine is controlled with an ignition kill switch. You have two engine speeds -- WFO, or coasting (with the ignition killed). In level flight one controls speed by turning the ignition on and off with the ignition toggle switch. The second difference is that the spinning engine generates a whole lot more gyroscopic precession -- when the ignition is on and the engine is spinning at full rpm, the precession makes the airplane want to rotate around its vertical axis -- washing the tail to the left. Managing that -- during take off, for example -- is quite the handful. Under full throttle the airplane wants to wash the tail out, The D1 control surfaces will allow the airplane to climb, or turn, but not both at the same time. So on initial climb, one would climb until the tail washed out, then level off, steer to straighten out, then go back to climbing. Wash and repeat. Add a rotary engine that is either on or off, and a D1 pilot has a lot of things to manage simultaneously. Watching one take off with the original rotary is like the staircase of death. ;-) The reproductions with the fixed radial are far easier to fly. If it sounds like I know a lot, its because when I was a Cub Scout in the early 70s, my Den Mother's husband worked for Cole Palen at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome. Apart from the fact that a Spad I was 'enslaved' to help restore is now in the Smithsonian, I also got to ride on Cole's lap in his D1. It was the single scariest ride I ever took (in anything), even if Cole was a master of flying the crazy thing.

This a check out flight with non-standard engine. Not the time for aerobatics.

Then you’ll love these shirts of mine! store.kermitweeks.com/?page_id=89

I’m trying to keep them in good shape for future generations.

Likewise. What a concept, a person thinking "how can we cool the engine better" and has the 'wild' idea to spin the engine block!? How many would have thought he had lost the plot?