Replica home builts

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,368
Jeez... my old model builder instincts are way off. I was convinced that the DH-2 would be a good flyer just by looking at the proportions, areas, and shapes. Perhaps the the V-twin engine was not providing enough power and the cruise was just not accelerating past the stall speed. But if that was the case they could have installed more power and resolved that issue.
Robert said he though their might be a problem with the wing airfoil....too much sag of the fabric between ribs. Power to weight is also an issue. I'll bet you could buy the plane at a good price!
 

Little Scrapper

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,674
Location
Wisconsin
How many V-Witts have been built? I'm not sure how "historic" it is but it would sorta be a classic I guess. I guess I've never researched it so I'm pretty clueless.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,403
Location
Canada
Fokker used thick airfoils to hide the deep, wooden box spars in his wings. Fokker was a pioneering builder of cantilever wings. Many of Fokker’s fighters had cantilever wings and outboard interplane struts were installed to pacify generals who preferred wire-braced wings.
 

Tiger Tim

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
3,128
Location
Thunder Bay

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
7,223
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
The actual real-world hard-ass reality is a one-two punch that has knocked down a lot of dreams :

1) smaller size replicas usually do not fly as well as the full size airplanes they were derived from, and
2) the original full size airplanes that inspired us as kids or beckon us from the history books as adults very often did not fly very well to start with.

I have an acquaintance who is a very high-end test pilot and F-4 combat vetreran, a real live Edwards AFB guy with all the bells and whistles. I'm not physically strong enough to lift his resume'. Someone asked him what airplane was the biggest disappointment in his career, and without hesitation he said "the P-51".

You can't say all replica aircraft don't fly well, I'm sure there are some that do just fine. I spoke to a guy who has one of the "Criquet" brand replicas of the Fieseler Storch (Rotax 912), and he says it flies well, does almost everything the original did, but fits in a normal size hangar.

But IMHO before anyone should plunk down money or time on anything like this they owe it to themselves (and their family) to do their due diligence and get one or more expert opinions on what they are going to actually wind up with.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,005
Location
USA.
The actual real-world hard-ass reality is a one-two punch that has knocked down a lot of dreams :

1) smaller size replicas usually do not fly as well as the full size airplanes they were derived from, and
2) the original full size airplanes that inspired us as kids or beckon us from the history books as adults very often did not fly very well to start with.

I have an acquaintance who is a very high-end test pilot and F-4 combat vetreran, a real live Edwards AFB guy with all the bells and whistles. I'm not physically strong enough to lift his resume'. Someone asked him what airplane was the biggest disappointment in his career, and without hesitation he said "the P-51".

You can't say all replica aircraft don't fly well, I'm sure there are some that do just fine. I spoke to a guy who has one of the "Criquet" brand replicas of the Fieseler Storch (Rotax 912), and he says it flies well, does almost everything the original did, but fits in a normal size hangar.

But IMHO before anyone should plunk down money or time on anything like this they owe it to themselves (and their family) to do their due diligence and get one or more expert opinions on what they are going to actually wind up with.
There are several homebuilts that in MHO do not fly well.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,403
Location
Canada
The DH-2 is sitting in Robert's shop. I think it hasn't been flown since Harvey test flew it and recommended it not be flown again. I think something about top speed and stall speed being too close together.
...........................................................
Sounds like it flew just like the original DH-2!

Many WW1 airplanes stalled at higher than normal speeds often close to their cruising speed. They only had tail skies and no brakes which meant that they needed assistance to make right turns on the ground. Just another task for mechanics who struggled to keep them airworthy! Even at the best of times, engines were less than reliable.
Many had tiny rudders. Finally, they were tail-heavy so required constant control inputs to fly straight and level. That aft centre of gravity allowed them to fly faster but some were balanced so far aft that they could not recover from stalls or spins. As many young pilots died in lonely crashes as were shot down.
 
Last edited:

larr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
157
Location
markham, ontario, canada
Fokker used thick airfoils to hide the deep, wooden box spars in his wings. Fokker was a pioneering builder of cantilever wings. Many of Fokker’s fighters had cantilever wings and outboard interplane struts were installed to pacify generals who preferred wire-braced wings.
No.
Boring History Moment
Hugo Junkers used his windtunnel to determine that a thick section wing did not have a significantly different drag profile to a thin section wing, a fundamental fact in the development of a cantilever wing. During WWI Idflieg was unhappy with Junkers ability to produce the new cantilever aircraft and forced Junkers and Fokker to work together. Essentially, Fokker stole Junkers technology leading to law suits thet outlived them both.
Fokker was not hiding anything in the thick wing. It was necessary to have a spar that was strong enough.

Less OT, only replicas of aircraft up to the 1920's can be reproduced accurately. After that they are too heavy and sub scale replicas are never accurate.
I don't think there is anything out there that is going to meet any kind of exacting requirement.
Aviation is always about compromise.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,403
Location
Canada
Hmmmm?
Fokker installed wooden box spars while Junkers built space frames from aluminum tubing.
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
7,281
Location
World traveler
Oooh, if we’re going for the separate pilot cockpit and passenger cabin types then I vote for a DH.83 Fox Moth. Full size is not too huge and even at 7/8 scale it could be a three seater. It just has so much raw style. The wings even fold!

6D872AD3-78F3-4C65-9B45-CBAE2A596805.jpg 6D876CAE-96F1-4BFB-B2AA-E3B0B95AD33E.png BA10E85A-D20B-4B14-9F4A-696D252D4E33.png
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,403
Location
Canada
After WW2, deHavilland of Canada converted war-surplus Tiger Moths to 4-seater Fox Moths.
Meanwhile Thruston (Australia) converted 17 Tiger Moths to 4-Seater Jackaroos with double-wide Perspex canopies. They advertised it as the “cheapest four-seater airplane!’
Rollason converted the 18th Jackaroo.

Considering how many different Tiger Moth replica plans are available, you would only need to widen the fuselage. Mind you, I doubt if a sub-scale replica could carry 4 or 5 people. Three people is more realistic.
 
Last edited:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,198
Location
CT, USA
For a really obscure WWI plane, perhaps a Macchi M.5 flying boat...




Or perhaps a Packard-LePere LUSAC II, a US built fighter that was too late to see service:

 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,402
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Re: Fokker vs. Junkers.

Fokker's greatest strength was frankly the ability to steal & have his crew improve. He was a great salesman, good pilot, and had a decent sense as to what flies well.

Junkers developed the thick airfoil. Fokker had a "legal" partnership with Junkers, arranged by the High Command.... And yeah, the lawsuits outlasted the principals.

Fokker's first cantilever "theft" was having designed wood wings for the famed Triplane. No wires , and the prototype didn't even have outboard interplane struts, as Riggerrob points out. They were added because the pilots were frightened by the wings ( safely ) flexing.

Yes, it was a concept "stolen" from Junkers. What really annoyed Junkers was that Fokker wasn't making Junkers airplanes, instead he was translating the thick wing shapes in wood, instead of using metal, to make copies that Junkers wanted Fokker to pay royalties on.....

Fokker did several prototypes with cantilever wings before the D.VII. None were purchased in large quantities. The D.VI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VI saw some use.

What is seldom mentioned is that Fokker, being Dutch, wasn't given priority to get the more powerful Mercedes-Benz and BMW inline 6 cylinder engines. Instead he was limited to the German copy of the French rotaries, for most of the war. That's often a hundred horsepower deficit.
 

Aesquire

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2014
Messages
2,402
Location
Rochester, NY, USA
Re: bad flying machines.

https://www.amazon.com/Corky-Meyers-Flight-Journal-Corwin/dp/1580072038

Although WW2 era, this is an excellent book, not on being a test pilot ( although the advice there is priceless ) but on comparing the different planes, from the perspective of a Grumman pro test pilot. With a great sense of humor.

Several iconic planes do not get high praise. Deathtrap isn't too strong a word, considering training fatalities in the Air Corps.

One item not commonly discussed in the magazines is the P-47 handbook was very clear, that you should not do a split S under 15,000 feet AGL. The Thunderbolt picked up so much speed in the dive you could not pull out before impact from lower than about 3 miles.

Consider that when we argue techniques for the "impossible turn". :)


Also consider that nearly as many died in training in a Sopwith Camel as were shot down. The Sopwith Pup, otoh, was a much easier plane to fly.

How about these, for inspiration?
http://www.air-racing-history.com/aircraft/Howard DGA-4 DGA-5.htm
 

blane.c

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 27, 2015
Messages
3,881
Location
capital district NY
Those "Rotary Engines" were total loss oil, castor oil. Everything behind the propeller blast was coated in oil, I wonder if it had anything to do the development of tracer bullets.
 

radfordc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,368
One item not commonly discussed in the magazines is the P-47 handbook was very clear, that you should not do a split S under 15,000 feet AGL. The Thunderbolt picked up so much speed in the dive you could not pull out before impact from lower than about 3 miles. ]
So, you're saying that a P-47 doing a loop has to top out at 15000 ft in order to recover. Now where did I put that BS flag?
 
2
Top