Four Noisy WW1 Fighter Aircraft 

They are nippy little aircraft, that's for sure!

ILITTHEWORLDONFIRE ! But of course, they all had one thing in common; they were all made of wood n cloth, so ..... lol

Carsten Hahn Well that’s part of it, but just notice how much lift the Fokker triplanes gets. That extra wing allowed it to maneuver at slower speeds while maintaining the proper amount of lift. I wish planes like these were still widely produced. I feel like a 9 year old could fly these without much risk haha

it sure is a long way from a P-47 or an F-4 Phantom !

They were like the super stol plane used today for competition in the shorting take off and landing

Many of them are replicas. Often with original engines though and built 100% to original plans.

Why wouldn't they be? Assuming the wood was well taken care of and the engine was maintained, they could be covered in a fresh fabric layer easily enough.

@@randomlyentertaining8287 Why? Because they are over a 100 years old and historical relics. I know this is hard to believe, but being a machine it doesn't matter how much maintaining they have had they will still wear out. And they weren't made that well back then. Oh, and btw, these are REPLICAS. That DR1 surely isn't original and you can tell the engine is a MODERN radial and not a WW1 rotary.

​@@timothyhouse1622If it sat in storage and was well kept, the engines and wood would still be in factory condition with whatever miles were put on it in the war. Also, they were absolutely quality made back then. They had to be, else they would fold in half mid air. The engines wouldn't be usable over 100 years later either. Same reason you can pull a rotten car from the 40s out of a forest and get the engine running after two days work. Those old engines, while primitive, were indestructible due to their simplicity.

​@@timothyhouse1622Actually they were extremely well made back then, by real craftsmen. Those old myths about them being fragile stick and fabric machines are the invention of pulp writers and hollywood.

Crochunter AHHH YA BLOODY KIWI

Thanks for that -- appreciate your enthusiasm :-)

But you had the fear that your Aircraft could catch fire if hit and that you could be burnt alive as you plummet to the ground

Pushed, pulled, same thing

@@donaldsalkovick396 he means that lift was obtained more with well engineered wings instead of just brute forcing it with high powered engines

@@melissaharway4547 Exactly!

@@melissaharway4547 Yes, no advanced aerodynamics to be found on modern aircraft...LOL!

+sailrjim There's always Rise of Flight.

I flew in an open cocktail pit biplane in Hawaii many years ago. Wasn't a WWI plane but a WWII trainer. Fun.

@@TheSkipjack95 thanks, but I fly 1/4 scale radio controlled WWI models. Better than a video game.

@@sailr But not as cheap, even a full sim-rig costs but a mere fraction of one of your planes, and when you crash it, it's gone, in sims = You can go again, and you can actually use the planes for aerial dogfights as well.

They were dangerous to use *back then* and gave pilots diarrhea with their total-loss lubrication system in which castor oil was used... More pilots died landing a Sopwith Camel in training and after returning from a mission than through enemy action. It did also down more German aircraft than any other allied aircraft of the war, so it was dangerous both to the enemy and the pilots using them.

Your reply, inaccurate and whimsical, doesn't address anything regarding the posters comments about rotary engines and the engines were not to blame for any landing issues. You appear to be the type that posts....just for the sake of posting.....about issues which you "think" you have knowledge about. Your post was a long winded nothing burger.

Ted Kyzenski : Your observations are absolutely correct. Too many people have the misconception that these aeroplanes could barely fly, the problem in reality was that most pilots had very little experience, the aeroplanes are still flying today, 100 years later, so they cant be that bad.

There were about one hundred more pilots killed in combat than killed in training accidents. About four hundred KIA, about 300 killed in training flights. I don't recall the exact numbers. That was still a very high rate of training accident deaths. That was the nature of flight at the time. The torque of the engine pulled the plane to the left, forcing the pilot to use hard right rudder to keep it from turning and flipping. Good pilots loved it but it was not easy an easy landing or take off .

@@macnutz4206 The gyroscope action of the rotary made the turns to the right very quick with a tendency to dive and enter a spin..conversely left turns were slower.

Agree, but the other guy was also struggling with the same issues, unless his engine was an "in-line".

@@analogdino1 Indeed, but then he couldn't turn as well either, putting him on the defensive unless he got in a solid burst on you first.

Welcome to combat, son, in any age, in any plane. The workload always expands to or beyond the limits of the pilot.

​@@ToreDL87 But then he can out-turn you in your weak direction, and if he's survived this long, he probably knows that. Gyroscopic turning advantage is a one way street. He probably also knows that if he can't beat you in a turning fight, he needs to go vertical, where his greater mass, power, and better L/D give him the advantage. (if he's a D7)

Especially since most of them did not have parachutes. If your plane was damaged or malfunctioned, you had a good chance of not making it. Now strap on your gear, cock your machine guns and off to the dogfights!

Working perfectly. That's just how the Gnome sounds.

Scott. Yes Bealton VA. At 13 I loved these planes, built many a model. While in school in Boston, I brought home an article about an air show in VA. My dad drove us down to watch during a Sumer vacation. They offered rides just before the show. As my dad grabbed me to bring me for a ride, I saw the planes doing all types of maneuvers in the sky. I started to say” you know dad, I don’t need to go up it’s fine just watching “ my dad a WW2 vet said, no way kid, you’re going up! Greatest thrill of my life! Since first we did a touch and go. I’ll never forget it

Awesome game. Many happy hours playing that

I've always suggested that doing comparative displays like that at airshows would be good.

sounds to me like he was flying tigermoths , austers or piper cubs , all bloody neat aircraft to fly , real aircraft and real flying , so glad i learnt to fly in these and in later years fletcher 400hp .

Our local airport used to be visited by our state's only cropdusting service, who flew Stearman PT17s upgraded with P&W 450 HP engines. Their pilots had the biker gang persona: dirty clothes, dirty mouths, and rowdy behavior, and were not welcome anywhere on the terminal side of the field, where the only restroom facilities were. When it came time for a bladder break, they would land in the grass, taxi over by the treeline, set that big R985 to a ticking over idle, climb out and relieve themselves in full view of the airport restaurant windows, driving the manager ballistic. By the time the cops got there, they would be long gone.

Yes a biplane/triplane has tremendous lift. I had a flight in a Waco biplane at Kissimmee some 20 odd years ago, and was shocked as we were airborne in about 15 yards.

Indeed!

What have you been smoking? Long glide slopes, NOT! They're very light, and have lots of lift, but their high drag makes for a short steep glide slope. If your engine quits, you better pick a real close landing spot, because you're not gliding very far. On the other hand, you'll touch down so slow you'll probably walk away, no matter how rough your landing site is.

@@wcate8301 Oh excuse me, didn't realize an expert jackazz would be reading this, you putz.

@@sandspar Sweat thyself not, brother. I'm sure there are other topics you're an expert in and I'm not. Maybe we'll meet again someday on your turf. Stay safe!

ELKFILMZ "funner" ...

Yeah! :) Puke your guts out, too. :) lol! :)

Woooheee "funner" you'all! "Dotty be a good sister wife and get me unuttha beer gal - daddy's thirsty"

Biplanes are way cooler than modern aircraft, don’t listen to these ninnies

These are replicas, but some of them do have original parts, such as the original rotary engines.

Thanks for the reply!

You mean to say, those are the same engines that would have been inside one of these birds back in the Great War itself?

+Clyde Marshall yes he means that the bodywork is replica but dome have the same engine.

Wow.

It was in fact the slowest of the ones you see in this video . It's a Nieuport 11 known as bébé Nieuport . In 1915 it was a fast and agile plane . The camel and the Fokker triplane appeared in 1917 and the Fokker D-7 appeared in spring 1918 .

You misspelled nuts

@@donaldsalkovick396 Ha ha!

Jolly good show

A rather delayed response. If I recall correctly, the way the engine power was mainly managed with the selection of how many of the 9 cilinders would fire. There was the possibility of using 3, 6 or 9 cilinders, and that's the reason it sounds scuffed. Please anyone correct me on this if they have more information

In line six cylinder engine with enough power to let the pilot physically hang the aircraft in mid air, nose up!

The D7 has an online water cooled engine with the radiator just behind the prop.

These old engines had lubed fuel and dry crankcases like a 2 cycle engine, but they were 4 cycle. Must be a trick getting fuel for these engines.

Lol the Fokker.

I stand to be corrected but I've heard the Fokker D.7 was such an outstanding fighter compared to its contemporaries that it was specifically mentioned in the Versailles treaty ending the war.

@@tomveatch2994 Pretty sure that you are correct. I think I remember reading somewhere that Germany was required to surrender all examples and that the model equipped some European air forces for several years after WW 1. Manfred Von Richtofen, the Red Baron, test flew one and was very impressed with it, but was killed a few weeks before the D VII entered front line service.

I think the Spad 13 was about equal to a D7. It's like comparing a Spitfire & Me109....

@@stevebrownrocks6376 or an F86 to a MiG15. In all these cases the pilot makes the difference. This tips the fickle finger of fate in favor of the D7. In an era of challenging to fly airplanes, the D7 was not only easy to fly, but easy to fly WELL. And solid as a rock; even the most ham handed pilot couldn't break it in flight. It kept minimally trained young pilots alive long enough to truly learn their trade, hence was an ace maker. The SPAD was a great plane and a close performance match to the D7, but rewarded an expert pilot and punished an inept one. It took skill to extract the decisive performance edge from the SPAD. Societe pour Production des Appareils Depperdussin

The Camel engine in this case is a 160hp Gnome. The engine in the Nieuport is an 80hp Le Rhone. I the case o this triplane the engine is a 165hp 7-cylinder Warner Scarab radial from the 1930's, but the original aircraft used 110hp Oberursel rotary engines.

Historical Aviation Film Unit Thanks for the info! You've probably seen it but there is a video of a Clerget powered Camel being started up, different sound to the Gnome but awesome all the same!

Yes, the various rotary engines did/do sound different to one another.

The gun could be fired from a sitting position via a cable/trigger. However, to change the ammunition drum was a different story.... in these earlier aircraft with overwing guns, you basically had a single drum to use. Later aircraft such as the SE.5a had the gun on a Foster mount so it could be brought down to the pilots level and then re-armed there. Still, flying and changing ammo drums at the same point was not going to be an easy proposition.

@@historicalmachines thanks for the info

Classic Fighters Omaka and Warbirds Over Wanaka air shows are held in the South Isand on alternate Easters, and Wings Over Wairarapa in the North Island is held every two years. Classic Fighters Omaka is the only one of those air shows where you will see three Spitfires as the Mark XIV is based at Omaka and, as I found out at this year's CFO, for insurance reasons does not display anywhere else in the country.

It is a fantastic venue, airshow and museums!

The engine sound you're hearing is primarily that of the Sopwith Camel -- it has a rotary engine with no throttle but rather a 'Blip' switch that changes the number of magnetos that are firing at any one time. The funds could fire through the prop because there was an interrupter mechanism fitted between the gun and the engine such that as each blade swings in front of the gun barrel, the gun is stopped for firing. So the gun only fires when the blade is not in front of the propellor.

The Neuport 11 was an earlier design that was made before the prop- gun synchro was invented, so it was up there to fire outside of the prop. The airco DH-2 (not in this video) was a pusher for the same reason. All the other planes in the video were developed after the prop synchro was invented .

The triplane has a radial engine (not original), not a rotaryThe DVII has an inline engine.

The inline engine in the D VII has an exhaust manifold which makes the engine a little quieter than the rotary in the Camel, which exhausts straight out of the exhaust valve in each cylinder, with no manifold at all. Even on the ground, watching them fly overhead, they are very noisy. The radial engine in the D1 is also quieter, but not by much.

Correct.

Eric Husher rotaries are either on or off. They had a switch on the stick to blip the engine. It killed the ignition.

also to aid braking when landing, because they never had brales

Difficult to arrange a throttle on a spinning engine, so a multi position magneto switch was used. Position one had 3 cylinders, position 2 had 4 or 5 cylinders, position 3 had 7 cylinders and 4 had all cylinders for full power. turning spark off to individual plugs to reduce power and thus slow the rotational speed, the mass of the engine needed spark to all plugs for maximum power, cut a few plugs from the cycle and it cuts the power output right away, but the spinning mass keeps the engine from stopping completely. It was a fine balance between slowing and stopping the engine, yet another thing for the pilot to think about when landing, as if one of these wasn't already a handful. It works fine, but makes the motor cough and splutter like it's about to stall, and fills the engine with castor oil. Makes the distinctive sound, as the Camel and DR1 show in this video to perfection. Some WW1 machines had only a 3 position magneto switch, some others had field mods that included up to 7 positions on the magneto. Or twin inline switches that had a manual override.

never knew that about the engines, cool stuff

And the highest death count.