Just to keep you on your toes - what aircraft is this?

[Hauksbee 103]

LUSAC made automobiles?

[JimAttrill 24]

It was made by Packard.

[Olham 164]

Here is an interesting article from WIKI about an American pilot of German-Irish origins,

who broke the altitude record without oxygen supply with that airplane.

 

He almost got killed doing that, because he went unconscious due to the lack of oxygen.

He became conscious again at an alt of only 600 meters (ca. 1800 feet), and although

he was almost blind from the lacking effect, he managed to land the craft intact.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_William_Schroeder

 

Strange that there is no Anglo-American page for this.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Olham

[JimAttrill 24]

I read somewhere that he did have oxygen but the supply failed.  Makes more sense as nobody in their right mind would go to 22000 ft or so without it. 

I was reading about the Liberty engine which powered the LUSAC-11 and the DH9a.  I was wondering why, as a V12, it had 45 degree bank angles whereas a V12 would normally have 60 degree angles for best balance.   It turned out that it was also made as a V8 which normally has 45 deg banks.  A very good engine with lots of design features stolen from Mercedes.   Made by many manufacturers and the Lincoln company was formed specifically to do so.  A good example of KISS

[Olham 164]

A good example of KISS

??? What is KISS?

[JimAttrill 24]

K(eep) I(t) S(imple) S(tupid) !   Something that designers often forget to their peril .....  A good acronym although my favourite has always been RTFM especially when I have to explain it!  (My English-German dictionary does not have 'acronym' though I would take a guess at 'akronym' - possibly a borrowing?). 

[Olham 164]

Yes, Akronym.

As a designer, I always found that you can better copy a simple to build chair which is

also great for sitting, than to design a completely new chair nobody had come up with yet -

which is uncomfortable.

 

As for cars or aircraft, you should always think about the whole of the design.

What is it's purpose?

What does it need to fullfill that?

What does the driver or pilot need to be able to handle it best?

What do the mechanics need to be able to access everything easily, and to exchange parts?

 

Of course, after all these seemingly logical points, come the producers who give the money,

and they ask "What does it cost to produce that?"

Those guys can easily change a good design idea into a mediocre one, or even crapp.

[JFM 18]

^{Okay, steering this back to airplane photos. Not so much unusually rare planes that aren't known, but more beautiful Albatros machines. Right, Olham? Come on, confess! That Dr.I is a thing of beauty!}   

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by JFM

[JimAttrill 24]

And I didn't even know that Albatros made a triplane!  Come to think of it, I think most of the German manufacturers made one or two to compete with the Fokker.   The Albatros is prettier and has an inline engine of course.   I wonder how it handled and climbed?   On the KISS subject I reckon that the Albatri were hard to make in comparison with the more normal wooden or steel frame structure of other aircraft.    

[Olham 164]

Arghhh!!! You knew I hate it!

I LOVE the original Albatros D.V and D.Va for their beauty - but this triplane is a crime against good taste! Uargh!!!  

[JimAttrill 24]

Believe it or not this is a Fokker!   If a triplane is good, then a quintuplane must be better! 

 

[JFM 18]

The info I have states the Alb Dr.I suffered from "pronounced tail heaviness" and had problems with radiator water connections. It also had "unfavorable performance figures."

 

The Germans went through a phase when many companies were at least testing a triplane configuration, and more! Like that Fokker V8 above. Here is the Roland Dr.I:

 

 

 

 

Albatros also made a pusher, the C.II:

 

[JimAttrill 24]

It seems all these prototype triplanes offered no improvement over the biplanes.   This is most likely why the Sopwith company went to the Camel and then the Snipe and stopped making triplanes.   A triplane with the later Bentley rotary might have done well as the engine was light and powerful.  First engine with aluminium cylinders IIRC - though they were sleeved with steel.   More reliable than the Clerget 9B which it replaced which suffered from piston seizures due to overheating. 

 

It seems the French aircraft engine industry had got stuck in the rotary period and never really got going later on, being overtaken by Bristol, RR and DB and later P&W and BMW.  

[Hauksbee 103]

The Germans went through a phase when many companies were at least testing a triplane configuration, and more! Like that Fokker V8 above.

That "Phase..." was created by the introduction of the Sopwith Triplane. The Germans were so shocked by its ability to go toe-to-toe with the new Albatros fighters that, in the next six months, every aircraft manufacturer in Germany tendered a triplane design. Most were simple additions of a third wing on existing designs. Most never saw production.

 

The Fokker V8 was a case of "Tony Fokker running amok". The Dr.1 had worked out so well that Fokker got this wild notion that you could  just keep adding more wings and performance would get better and better. He ran into solid resistance in the person of Reinhold Platz (his lead designer) Platz argued vehemently against it, but, in the end, Fokker was the boss; Platz caved in and built the monster. Fokker was no engineer. He was a race driver-cum-pilot/salesman. But a very good pilot. When the V8 was ready, he took it up for its maiden flight. When he landed, he curtly ordered the V8 to be pushed into an unused hangar and it was never mentioned again.

[JFM 18]

That's an unfair assessment on Fokker. He wasn't the only one who went beyond a triplane. Other companies tried multi-wing airplanes. Euler, Friedrichshafen, Naglo all had quadraplanes.

 

Euler

 

 

 

Friedrichshafen

 

 

Naglo

[JFM 18]

And let's not forget the Tommies!

 

Supermarine Night Hawk

 

 

Armstrong Whitworth FK10

 

[JFM 18]

Even the USA was not immune. Here's the 7-wing Johns Multiplane:

 

 

[Olham 164]

Craaa - zeeeee!!!

 

It looks as if they all had not yet understood the importance of energy/engine power/forward speed.

How could they seriously go to three wings on an Albatros D.V, which was already regarded as obsolete,

when they didn't give it a stronger engine???

 

The Fokker D.VI is said to have been a great fighter craft - nimble and good climb, and a good

forward speed, even a bit higher up.

That could have been introduced instead of the Dr.1, had they not been in their triplane craze.

 

But when they finally built it, the rotaries were getting sorted out, and the Fokker D.VII

was the design of the hour - so only 47 or so were built.

 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VI

Edited June 23, 2016 by Olham

[Hauksbee 103]

But when they finally built it, the rotaries were getting sorted out, and the Fokker D.VII

was the design of the hour - so only 47 or so were built.

Was it rotary powered because, like the Dr.1 and the D.VIII, the much preferred Mercedes engine was not available?

[Olham 164]

The design design of Reinhold Platz was based on the Dr.1.

So the D.VI is much like the Dr.1, but with only two wings (which look more like the D.VII wings).

 

At low altitude it was even faster than the Fokker D.VII, by the way!

Edited June 24, 2016 by Olham

[Hauksbee 103]

But what about the choice of engines?

[Olham 164]

Maybe JFM can clear that up.

I think Fokker had a good access to those Oberursel rotaries, or even had a certain amount of them already.

Same maybe for structural parts they had built and already tested for the Dr.1 ?

An inline engine would have needed a totally new design, I guess.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Olham

[JimAttrill 24]

And of course the Germans had no source of Castor oil so resorted to inferior Ersatz oil.  The main producer of Castor oil then and now was India so the maritime blockade stopped any imports to Germany.  I don't know what they made their Ersatz from though.