Any new pre WW II. Biplanes in the pipelines?

[Iowa54]

Would love to see WW1 or pre WW 2. Biplanes in the 50in range.

[fhhuber]

Yell at Dynam... that Albatross needs company.
:)

I'm odd. I want to see a couple of WWI bombers.

[farmflyer]

Absolutely agree my old parkzone se5a and dynam tiger moth need some company.

[Iowa54]

Glad to see that I have some good company!!

[Grossman56]

How about pre WWI?
The Maxford USA Curtis Pusher ARF is pretty cool

http://modelaviation.com/maxfordusacurtisspusher

Grossman56

[XF-15DCC]

Even a Fokker DR1 would be nice to see.

[Iowa54]

How about pre WWI?
The Maxford USA Curtis Pusher ARF is pretty cool

http://modelaviation.com/maxfordusacurtisspusher

Grossman56

That looks pretty sharp... Couldn't tell in the where the battery was

[doctormike]

P-6E Hawk... The most beautiful bipe ever designed, in my never so humble opinion. As I understand, it's the last military bipe, and never saw service. There is only one left. I have the Great Planes ARF. Doc

[boomer108]

P-6E Hawk... The most beautiful bipe ever designed, in my never so humble opinion. I have the Great Planes ARF. Doc

I would have to agree doc.

Roy B.

[Grossman56]

Hey Iowa54, just sent off an e mail to find out, good question as it isn't very obvious.

Grossman56

[Bajora]

That looks pretty sharp... Couldn't tell in the where the battery was

These photos might help a little. The blue battery is just visible in the first in-flight photo. The close-up studio photo shows the hook and loop material that held it in place on the square pilots seat.





The assembly manual mentioned it could go several places. The preferred location, IMO, would be longitudinally, below the rectangular motor box. It would almost be hidden from view there. However, the CG just would not allow that to happen. I should have tried to mount the motor on the INSIDE of the motor box, instead on the rear surface of it. This model needs some weight on the forward end. I thus mounted the battery crossways, on the pilots seat. I wanted to find a pilot figure and put him there.

As I mentioned, this model looked fantastic and performed in a scale fashion. It even sent a few goosebumps up my back on the slow passes.

[Iowa54]

Very Nice!!

[Konrad]

I have to say not much comes close to the Curtis P-6E Hawk! There has always been one on my building bench (or it seems like there is always one).

Here is a build thread of my latest, a Dumas 17.5 conversion of a gummy band to R/C flight. That screaming chicken was a bear to cut out!
http://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/...?topic=11737.0

I've built them from the Carl Goldberg P-6E to this one. They all suffer from lazy ailerons if built to scale size. But I still love the look on the tarmac!

[doctormike]

Nice work! My great planes ARF is still in the box. So many planes, so little time! Doc

[fhhuber]

A WWI series SHOULD include at least the best known planes: Sopwith Camel, Fokker Dr1, Se5a, Fokker D-VII, Spad XIII, Neuport 17.

Its desirable for it to expand to lesser known (by the masses who just know the Red Baron legends/myths) aircraft which should include Fokker Eindeker, Albatross (any of the fighter series), BE-2, DH-4, Gotha (G-IV, G-V), Calderon (any from the many in the series), Handley Page, Roland CII ... And over a hundred other possibilities!

Unfortunately, the lesser knowns would have low interest as consumer products.

Few know that Richthofen (the Red Baron) mostly flew Albatross aircraft and only after recovering from wounds over several months did he begin flying the Fokker Dr1, which he only flew in the final appx 3 months before his death.

[doctormike]

I love aviation history. Thanks for the Von Richthofen bit. The Fokker Eindeker was known as the "scourge". It was the first plane with an interupter on the machine gun. The pilot had to pump fuel from the main tank, behind him, into the smaller gravity feed tank in front...while in a dog fight! In it's short lived glory, it was to be feared. I scratch built a small one. I call it my "Little Fokker" Doc

[fhhuber]

Fokker Dr1 prototype didn't have interplane struts. They added the struts to please some pencil pusher. They could be shot out and have no effect on the aircraft. (but usually something else got shot out too... and that did have an effect...)

The Oberusel rotary engine was a bad copy of the LeRhone. Germans recovered all of the LeRhones they could and replaced the Oberusels for better performance.

[Konrad]

The pencil pusher was Anthony Fokker himself! The test pilots (Fokker was one of these pilots) reported that the triplane showed some vibratory issues in certain flight regimes. Not wanting to loose the confidence of the pilots, like the Albatros D.III “Vee Strutter” had as she shed her wings, Fokker added the inter-plane struts. (This concern would prove ironic as the Dr.1 would shed her top wing as a result of manufacturing and environmental issues, nullifying much of the tactical surprise she enjoyed early in her deployment.) Also some operational issue also became apparent and he added the axe handles to the lower wing tips. This is the function of flight testing to bring out weaknesses in the design and to address them.

So yes, the inter-plane struts are NOT primary structural members.

The true legacy of the Dr.I was that she is the start of the practical application of the cantilevered wing. Fokker would use this box spar to great effect on the D.VII and D.VIII.

What is lost to history is the Fokker D.VI. A much better airframe built on the Dr. I’s fuselage but with only 2 wings. Fokker had to spend his own money and resources to correct the issues with the Dr.I, as a result the Dr.VI languished in obscurity.

Now a design that the “bureaucrats" killed was the Bristol M.1c. There was an edict in the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) that there was no place in the RFC for monoplanes. Funny nobody knows who issued this edict, but many think he was German!:rolleyes: The bureaucrats should spell out what they want in the performance of their systems, but not ham string the engineers as to how the reach these requirements!

[fhhuber]

The ultimate (in my opinion) for a design being killed by bureaucracy... Moskalev SAM-7 "SIGMA"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf7DbMjr5Ec

2 seat fighter, flying wing with a tail-gunner. Performance exceeding almost all other fighters in production at the time.

Rejected by the Russian (before entry into WWII) military essentially for being too different.
Only a few test flights performed before it was scrapped!

[Konrad]

I know little of the Moskalev SAM-7 but as this was in Stalin's Russia logic would be the last thing I'd expect to find.

I could not find any reference to proven performance. It looks like all she did was some straight line hops before being scraped