Fokker E.III wing section...

[Hauksbee 103]

'Was poking around on the web (with E.III's on my mind) and found this: A genuine E.III in the Science Museum, London, stripped buck nekkid.

Check it out here: http://www.wwi-models.org/app/album/Acn.php?base=%2FPhotos%2FGer%2FFok_EIII&hdr=Fokker+E.III&picInx=3

Notice all the cross bracing in the wing.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Very cool Hauksbee. The cross bracing you mention is actually webbing that is stretched tight between the wing ribs. I believe this may have been something that was done because the E.III was a wing warper.

 

.

[carrick58 23]

I know that I should hide my eyes but I cant.

[Olham 164]

A very good picture, Hauksbee, thanks for sharing.

 

Now a question I always forgot to ask: what exactly does "wing warper" mean?

Did they change the whole shape of the wing, instead of having ailerons?

And if so - how was it done?

[Olham 164]

The internet offers so much - I just found this drawing, which explains it halfways.

Now I know, what that silvery roll above the pilot's head is for.

Damn, they really moved the whole wing up and down...

 

.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Olham

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

And THEN they flew in the damn things!!...How insane is that?

[von Baur 54]

That diagram may be a bit misleading, Olham...only the trailing edge was moved, thus 'warping' the wings. That's how aircraft originally managed longitudinal control. Legend has it that one of the Wright brothers hit on the idea while fiddling with the box for a bicycle inner-tube. Further legend is that Glenn Curtis developed ailerons because the Wrights, his rivals in aircraft manufacture, refused to allow him to use wing warping (for which they held patents) in an attempt to drive him from the industry. Instead, ailerons became the preferred method because they were more efficient and allowed for a rigid, and therefore stronger, wing. Eventually Curtis bought out the Wrights.

 

One of the aircraft mods for Reb Baron 3D featured visible, although rather exagerrated, movement of the Eindekker and Morane Mono's wings. It would be nice if it could be incorporated into OFF, but alas I fear if it could be it already would have been.

Edited November 30, 2011 by von Baur

[Olham 164]

Ah, thanks for the history, von Baur!

[tranquillo 10]

I believe that the Taube had wingtips that went up and down rather like a bird but as VB said it was only the trailing edge that moved on a true wing warper.

I once built an RC model with wing warping and the difficult part is building a wing strong enough to carry the weight and flexible enough to "warp". The leading edge has to be fixed with wires to prevent it from moving.

When turning it was a bit like an old series I Landrover - turn the wheel/stick and wait, eventually it gets there.

[Hauksbee 103]

That diagram may be a bit misleading, Olham...only the trailing edge was moved, thus 'warping' the wings. That's how aircraft originally managed longitudinal control. Legend has it that one of the Wright brothers hit on the idea while fiddling with the box for a bicycle inner-tube. Further legend is that Glenn Curtis developed ailerons because the Wrights, his rivals in aircraft manufacture, refused to allow him to use wing warping (for which they held patents).

[Bullethead 12]

I believe that the Taube had wingtips that went up and down rather like a bird but as VB said it was only the trailing edge that moved on a true wing warper.

Taubes also frequently had warping tailplanes instead of elevators

 

I once built an RC model with wing warping and the difficult part is building a wing strong enough to carry the weight and flexible enough to "warp". The leading edge has to be fixed with wires to prevent it from moving.

When turning it was a bit like an old series I Landrover - turn the wheel/stick and wait, eventually it gets there.

 

Wow! . I fiddled with building an RC wing-warper but decided it was not only impractical but impossible, so gave it up after a series of non-flying experimental test rigs. My problem basicaly came down to the strength of my servo. If I made the wing too small, it was inherently too rigid for the servo to warp--instead, the eyebolts of the warping cables pulled out of the wing. OTOH, if I made the wing big enough for the servo to flex it in still air, the servo wasn't strong enough to overcome the aerodynamic forces in the wind tunnel. Of course, all my aircraft were over-engineered structurally because I like sturdiness. In RC planes, structural weight increases can easily be compensated for with a slightly larger motor for no loss in performance. So I suppose I could have gone with a weaker structure and thus made a smaller wing more flexible. However, I didn't want to do that so I abandoned hte project.

[tranquillo 10]

I did cheat in the construction and instead of using wires to do the warping I had very strong torque rods running the length of the wing inside. These were driven by a very powerful servo. Havng said that a coleague of mine built a 1/4 scale Bleriot XI that had scale wing warping that worked very well.

 

This is mine during the test flight hence no pilot yet. The top wires are functional in as much as the wing, being so flexible, would just fold without them. I found that more wires were needed to prevent the LE from moving.

 

[Olham 164]

I wonder, if anyone ever tried to model a flyable wing warper, which really warps it's wings?

[tranquillo 10]

I wonder, if anyone ever tried to model a flyable wing warper, which really warps it's wings?

 

Yes, Olham, many have.

Here's one at our flying field.

[Olham 164]

Hey, that was cute!

And here the big one: