Found on the Internet

[carrick58 23]

I found this on the internet and it seems to fit in this forum

 

[carrick58 23]

[carrick58 23]

This one is un real. I would not get near this thing for love or money ( well maybe a Hot and sweaty 22 yr old female)

 

 

http://youtu.be/aRDkddXKABI

[Olham 164]

Wow, never seen the Bristol Monoplane Fighter so close; good video quality.

Thanks for sharing, Carrick!

[von Baur 54]

Wow, never seen the Bristol Monoplane Fighter so close; good video quality.

Thanks for sharing, Carrick!

 

 

Nor had I. I had no idea they had cutouts at the wing root. I trust that will be represented When this plane is included in OFF.

 

What am I saying? With the attention the devs give to detail, of course it will.

[NS13Jarhead 6]

That 14 bis in the 3rd video is wrong is so many ways. It looks like it's flying backwards, the combo elevator/rudder box moving around and the pilot is flying it standing up.

[Hauksbee 103]

I withdraw my entry for most favored non-military biplane. Actually, the Lillenthal glider was tongue-in-cheek, but if I could own a flying machine, I could not think of anything that would be more fun than a Curtis Pusher. If I were to order one built, I'd ask for two modifications. First, some dihedral in those wings for stability, and second, a thicker airfoil. Those razor-thin wings had vicious stall properties. But what a plane to fly on a summers day!

Edited January 23, 2012 by Hauksbee

[Hauksbee 103]

That 14 bis in the 3rd video is wrong is so many ways. It looks like it's flying backwards, the combo elevator/rudder box moving around and the pilot is flying it standing up.

All true, but easy for us to say 100 years after the event. Back then, all ideas carried equal weight until disproved. (Usually by meeting the ground abruptly) The British aviation historian, Charles Gibbs-Smith, made an interesting distinction about the pioneers of flight. He sorted them into two categories: the "Airmen", and the "Chauffeurs". The latter were sure that an inherently stable design could be found that required only that the pilot steer it in the direction he wanted to go. Santos-Dumont, for the most part, fell into this camp. That's why he designed the 14bis with the pilot standing up. The "Airmen", on the other hand, realized (in the words of one of the Wright Brothers) that flying was like riding a high spirited horse. It required constant attention and the ability to react instantly.

 

Brazil loves to replicate the 14bis in the hope of challenging the Wrights. It's here that Gibbs-Smith made another important distinction. He said there is "true flight" and "powered hops". The pioneers knew exactly what they wanted. They wanted to soar like eagles, not flutter like barnyard chickens. (the latter being uttered by Wilbur in one of his less charitable moments in France). Gibbs-Smith pointed out that 'powered hops' of several hundred meters were all well and good, but to claim 'true flight', a plane should be able (at a minimum) to take off, fly for 1/4 mile, make a controlled turn, fly back, make a second controlled turn and land at the starting point. This the Wrights did, and Santos-Dumont was gracious in ceding the laurels to them.

 

It's interesting to see the 14bis actually fly, and as far as I can see, better and longer than Santos-Dumont's attempts in France. I'll assume that it landed safely further on down that runway, but I'd really like to see it make a turn and come back.

[Flyby PC 23]

That Bristol M1 was a decent aircraft I believe, a good little fighter, but the Air Ministry frowned on monoplane designs. A frame of mind which survived the war, and was still around when the Hawker Hurricane made it's appearance....

[carrick58 23]

Anyone know the History of this A/C ?

 

[Flyby PC 23]

It's a SAAB B17 dive bomber, contemporary with WW2, but Swedish, so with Sweden being neutral, it wasn't very busy.

 

I don't know the story with the clumbsy looking landing gear, but it could take skis, which may or may not be relevant.

 

I don't know if it was any good or not, but it was probably built like a tank and had heated seats ... being a SAAB.

 

 

 

Here's Wiki on it - but I think the one you posted on Youtube aircraft has the Mercury engine, like a Blenheim or a Gladiator.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_17

 

 

 

Edit - actually maybe it doesn't. The intakes are different, it looks more like a Hercules, but I'm already wishing i hadn't been such a smarty pants...

It actually looks like the american engine of a DC-3.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Flyby PC

[carrick58 23]

Thanks, My wife's Honda has heated seats luv those things.