Rough Flight in Fokker Triplane.mpg

Uneven run on new 80 hp LeRhone engine leaves the Fokker Triplane in a precarious position at the Pioneer Flight Museum in Kingsbury Texas. Veteran pilot pulls off excellent landing in spite of surging power.

[@pareloader5989]

That engine sounded perfect! I worked at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome where my Dad was a pilot and have alot of experience with rotary engines. Pilot did a great job with a perfectly running engine.

[@tomasinacovell4293]

Wow, imagine that a new LeRhone! LOL But if you're talking about the engine "bleeping" in and out that the magneto condenser kill, on-off intermittent button to control power, it was the only "throttle" control in the day for these simpler type of radial engines. Other than that it sounded better than one would imagine, quite robust, smooth and alive.

[@KBauer-cs1rh]

Look at that, a young Werner Voss. Great Video, thanks for sharing.

[@stephensowell3]

Pilot did a great job. I'm wondering no one has mentioned that the the throttle on the LeRone was full all the time. On and off ignition is the only throttle control. The pilot mentioned rough run on T/O we hear the engine steady (although maybe rough or low power as the pilot said speaking of long T/O roll) the captions described a difficult landing due to rough engine performance but the surging of the engine was the pilot's technique of throttle control needed to slow down to descend into approach. As long as the engine ran well enough to stay in the air it affected landing little if any. Thanks for the video love to see the old stuff fly (even if it is a replica still very cool.

[@knightsofthesky]

The Le Rhône has a primitive carburetor and thus can be throttled

[@waynepurcell6058]

@@knightsofthesky It was finicky and they didn't use it much IN FLIGHT. They would set the mixture and throttle for most optimum performance and more often just use the magneto/blip switch. As one pilot said of these engines, you mess with the mixture of one in flight to much and you may wind up with NO running engine at all or a crankcase backfire that sets the thing on fire.

[@knightsofthesky]

@@waynepurcell6058 perhaps for the British aircraft using pressurized fuel tanks. You can rich cut a Le Rhone if you have a pressurized fuel tank. On a gravity feed system such as the Dr.I, you can use the throttle as you would on any other aircraft. I hate using the blip switch at any power setting above idle because it is really hard on the crankshaft. The 80 Rhone will break if you blip it at high power. Guys who run their 80s on the blip switch break the crankshaft in time.

[@phililp421]

Actually they do have a throttle, but it is a major pain because it is a two part system. One part provides air and the other fuel. Commonly you set it up on the ground then didn't touch it until you landed. In the air you used the blip switch but carefully as it could result in oiling up the engine.

[@Motorsheep]

I thought it was crazy how on some auto engines in the 1920's you had to manually operate an oil pump to lubricate the camshafts, or how you had to manually adjust the timing on Indian motorcycle engines, and probably others, too. But making an engine where you reduce power by blipping an on/off switch is positively insane.

[@vintagepropnut]

We could just hear the engine sagging out over the distant oak trees as Steve worked intensely, balancing the gasoline flow with the engine's air flow, trying not to kill the engine in the process. We could hear the rpm changes, but the camera couldn't pick up the distant sounds very well. The surging heard near the runway was the pilot making use of the kill switch in preparation for landing -- scary, but required for a Triplane with an authentic rotary engine.

[@JohnRoberts-yh3ep]

As an aircraft maintenance technician of 24 years, I get annoyed when people post stuff on the internet which questions the competence of the crew or the safety of their machinery. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this aircraft. The simple carburettor used gives the pilot only limited control of the engine RPM and a very high 'idle' speed. When landing it is normal practice to kill the engine intermittently by 'blipping' the magnetos off in order to reduce speed. It's a lovely landing.

[@jeffkrane88]

Some comments if I may: While Fokker did build aircraft for the Germans, he first offered his services to the Allies who turned him down. The Oberursel was the German copy of the 110 H.P. Le Rhone. It did not perform well, notable Fokker Triplane pilots much preferred the French versions when available. It is said that Voss got the idea for the famous cowling "face' from Japanese fighting kites. While his cowling is often depicted as being painted black, there is strong evidence that the cowling and wheel covers were actually yellow. First, in the black and white film of that time, yellow would appear to be "black". Second, the primary marking color for Voss' Jasta was yellow.

[@2adamast]

Fokker delivering planes to the Allies from his factory in Berlin could have been problematic.

[@eefacam10434]

Excellent but I wonder why the poster didn't educate himself on rotary engine control and handling first. The landing looked quite normal with the engine being blipped as was/is standard practice.

[@G56AG]

+1 Sounded just like any WW1 fighter when landing.

[@progx8679]

Rhinebeck,NY. is a great place to go to see many of these old birds fly each summer.

[@Rikki0]

Perhaps you can appreciate an old joke, as well. One day an old Battle of Britain pilot was in a pub recounting his war stories. He said, "So there I was, after a Heinkel when a Fokker got on my tail. I broke right and another Fokker came at me head on." At that point one of the listeners said, "Hey, they weren't no Fokkers fighters in WWII !" And the old BoB pilot said, "Right ye are. Them fokkers was flyin' Messerschmitts". :)

[@GGigabiteM]

The only line of rotaries that didn't have throttles was the Gnome Monosoupape series (and copies of it), due to the way the engine worked. It had one giant valve at the top of the cylinder that acted as both an intake and exhaust valve. Most other rotaries used a conventional two valve design (like the LeRhone) where the fuel/air mixture was administered through tubes to the cylinders, unlike the Monosoupape where it used ports in the cylinder walls for fuel only similar to a two cycle engine.

[@fredjackamikoons]

When I first heard it, it was a frenchman talking to a young class with Johnny waving his hand to ask the question. Its fun to tell in a fake french accent, gesticulating wildly at all of the Fokkers. It is an old classic.

[@ericbrammer2245]

I believe the red/white/green stripes might be incorrect for Werner Voss' aircraft. The camo seems close enough to the (very) few photos I've seen of his DR-1 used in 1917, but there are a few variations of descriptions out there. I have never seen these stripes before. Wonderful plane, btw. And a thanks to whomever decided NOT to paint it Red!

[@Lee78072]

+ERIC BRAMMER Yeah. there where many DR Pilots. Like Ernst Udet. He painted his plane with black and White Stripes.

[@ericbrammer2245]

O.K., but, like, Black+White Film?? Do you know? What colors were these, really? Guessing? I try NOT to guess. The mottled green-over silver-ish-blue was not uncomommon, as the Dope Base came out with silver (metallic) hue, and was often tinted Blue or Green or Yellow-ish, before camo-paint was applied. Voss's planes seemed to be simple on the outer-overside, with green dimpled with a darker (black-green) or splotches of reddish-brown, and a light blue underneath (although, an off-white, with a Robin's egg blue tint is noted). The Face Motif is decidedly Werner Voss's little Spoof of the time, and his aircraft (at least to of them) had this on the cowling. As for plumage colors, one has to inspect other flyer's diaries, ground observations, and the rare color painting to get it right. Luckily, my Grandfather was there, with the U.S. Marines, and HE set me straight on what to look for! BTW, this is for a 1/100th scale Fokker DR-1, 90% painted, in my collection. I want it Done Right!! Decals, Paint, and Mud!

[@Lee78072]

ERIC BRAMMER With Udet's Plane, i found a Side View Drawing of it. with the Splotches you mean the Lozenge Camo right?

[@ericbrammer2245]

Lee78072 No, not the Lozenge camo, at least not on Voss' Fokker.[ Although, I think I saw that type of camo on the underside of his Albatross, done in light pastels of blue, pink, yellow and white; very odd at first glance, but it may have hid the plane's shape from below?] The splotches were green paint over blue doped fabric, but the brush strokes showed up as varied tints. Whether this was intentional or they just put some paint on too thinly, we may never know...

[@Lee78072]

+ERIC BRAMMER Ahh now i know what you mean. Maybe they thought it would camo the Plane over Forests and Grass Fields, when you look down on it.

[@zefkosta]

This is perfectly normal, there is no throttle on this engines. There is a valve to control air and a fine tuning fuel valve to regulate mixture as the aircraft climbs into thinner air. So, landings are made "full throttle" and power is controled interrupting ignition. There is a lever on the control stick to do it.

[@crobulari2328]

Spot on zefkosta. My old now departed pal learned to fly in an AVRO 504. You are correct.

[@johntischler1634]

Wrong.

[@thomasbower7727]

"It's not getting full power. Did you see how long it took me to get off the ground?" It's an 80hp engine, what do you expect? They were considered underpowered in 1917 with 110hp Oberursels (German licensed le Rhones). And what's up with that landing? I've seen airplanes with nose wheels pull more of a flare than that.

[@davecww1]

Nice, it has Baumer's markings on the fuselage and wings but Voss's cowl...

[@gmucr]

Great video thanks for posting. That was a fast landing.......

[@hoagybob]

sweet video, thanks for making!

[@danielgareis4541]

The Plain of Werner Voss,nice

[@stevenvicino8687]

Wow did I just get a perspective check. Grew up in my dads Ercoupe with a Continental 85 HP engine. My childhood playground was slightly more powerful than early fighters. How perspective does change.

[@DedhedWaldo]

I was just about to post EXACTLY what you did, when I thought, "I bet I'm not the first aero-gearhead to notice that, I'd better read on."

[@handy335]

Way to go, Steve! You must have warmed up in the Pietenpol prior to this flight! HAW!!

[@Whitpusmc]

I loved all the forward stick during that landing. My DR1 is only a 1/4 scale model but I can tell you from experience that when the tail comes down you are no longer the pilot, you are a spectator until it stops as the wings pretty much blank out the rudder and elevators.

[@carlosalvim5105]

Fllight ofthe the Rhone powerrd triplane was amazing just as its landing !

[@F1NNxsK1LLS]

that actually seemed like a completely smooth flight in a dr1

[@ThePiratonmayor]

Yesssss the plane of my dreams Fokker Dr 1

[@JustJohn505]

I would be a little terrified to even sit in the cockpit of a WW1 plane, amazing how people got on these and flew them safely

[@sdslim9012]

Thanks for that information; My comment might still define there was really no "surging-power" but rather the pilot simply reducing power for the landing.........

[@JIGGLEMYEGGO]

coming from some one who never left the ground in all probability for more than a trip up the stepstool to get more oreos while living in moms basement.

[@weirdguy564]

The engine is NOT running rough. Rotary engines don't really have throttles per say. They use a "Blip Switch" to turn off the spark plugs for a second or two during landing. It makes the plane really a handful, but that was how they worked. They basically were on or off.

[@PeterNGloor]

normal engine behaviour, smooth landing.

[@craigpennington1251]

Good flying with crapped out engine. Aircraft looked good though. Good luck in sorting it all out and hope to see it fly without a mishap.

[@vintagepropnut]

Keen observation! I hadn't even noticed it. That little Fokker is the weather vane on the top of the main hangar. It shows nicely in some of my other videos such as at 1:01 in "Why Not Land Your Fokker Triplane in a Crosswind?"

[@coolcatmc]

This is my favorite airplane i love the WW1 triplane!

[@johnlucas2037]

Perfect landing!

[@BigWolfBoy50]

Most rotaries have a throttle that works from 1/2 to full, I rebuilt the on on the LeRhone DR1 at Golden Age Air Museum.

[@elplatanokawai6830]

awesome landing

[@spitfiremk1980]

How I envy youuuuuu!!!! Good job men!!

[@FlyingAce39]

How can you hate that??

[@acrobaticcripple8176]

Engine may not have been perfect, but it was working well enough. Rotary engines are controlled by turning the ignition on and off which is the reason for the blipping. Nowt serious wrong with that engine.

[@dyer2cycle]

..This is my absolute favorite Fokker Dr1 paint scheme..Werner Voss...second would be, of course. Richthofen's all-red one...Voss' is possibly my favorite of any WW1 aircraft....

[@JimForeman]

That rotary was easy to start. I saw them crank down a couple dozen people trying to start one on a Nieuport without getting a single sputter out of it in hours of trying. Then, it burst to life and ran fine. You never knew with those engines.

[@sdslim9012]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the LeRhone has no throttle, but uses a "kill-switch" to regulate power. With the switch released, the engine makes full rpm. "Blipping" the switch is how you reduce power.

[@fredjackamikoons]

They like using old airplanes in movies, because they come with their own props.

[@19sloper]

No, not an ultralight. As a replica, it would be licensed as an Experimental Amateur Built. Old Kingsbury Aerodrome is an airport. Many airports have only grass runways. This type airplane is safer flying from the grass. It has an N-number, small ones low on the aft fuselage.so as to not distract from their vintage appearance.

[@GTOAviator]

Actually no. Believe it or not, some of the old radial engines from the first war only had a couple throttle positions (and by a couple I mean 50% or full throttle). The intermittent engine on final was surely the pilot hitting the kill switch (aka blip switch) to maintain air speed.

[@fredjackamikoons]

Here is a true story. Back in the 50s, I went to work with my dad at Detroit City Airport. There was a place called 'Q Air Parts with a cute new secretary. Her boss sent her over to the GM hangers to pick up some prop wash for a customer. He called the hanger, so when she got there, they handed her a box saying, "Here's your prop wash. The can inside doesn't have a lid, so be very careful. She took 45 minutes slowly carrying the box like it was Nitroglycerin.

[@fasold2164]

I supose this is an imitation of Lt. Werner Voss' paint scheme on his Fokker triplane (judging from the face on the engine front). In fact he flew "Fok FI 103/17", the third aircraft built. So the "Bestellnummer" (order number) partly visible is wrong, like the black-white-red diagonal fuselage band. The camouflage scheme is wrong too. The base color should be pale blue.

[@JimForeman]

All you armchair pilots making baseless comments need to consider that aviation was only about ten years old and you are talking about 100 year old designs. Also, few if any of the pilots who flew those airplanes had even the number of hours required for a private pilot these days.

[@formerice]

There is one at Owls Head in Maine among other WW1 planes they fly.

[@sblack48]

Pilot obviously knows the airplane well

[@Rob-vv5yn]

There's plenty in New Zealand do a couple of searches on the internet for Fokker in New. Zealand, also thevinageaviator which is the movie maker Peter Jacksons company which build WW1 aircraft and make replica LeRhone engines. Even more impressive is seeing six or seven flying at once.

[@marview]

@vintagepropnut o.k....now it makes all the sense....looks funny because sembles a flying plane in the background...so there's a sudden sensation that the two poor helpers in the ground are flying tied to the cockpit...!,..tanks

[@Myke...]

This looks like Werner Voss' plane except the red/white and black stripes.

[@rjwintl]

my Dad, who was an EAA chapter president, said that the new LeRhone engines made in the Czech Republic were superior to anything being built elsewhere !!! ... this one probably had plug problems , an easy fix !!!

[@KingOfAllAnimals]

I likewise wanted to say the exact same thing. It was the same thing with the Sopwith Camel. No throttle. You had to turn the engine on and off to land.

[@zorgitron]

Why can't there be a fokker triplane flying around somewhere every day so I can just go watch it fly any time I want?

[@JimForeman]

Instead of asking why someone doesn't build one for you to look at, how about you building one. It would take only four to six years and cost about $100,000.

[@zorgitron]

I'm still a mere lad, paying off college debt regrettably.

[@legion6049]

You can buy full scale flyable kits for around 8k. It doesn't come with the engine though so you'll have to find one yourself.

[@tr4nsg0th1ca]

Legion It might not be period, but if I was to be flying it regularly I'd put a radial engine in it for better manners while flying.

[@GutpileCharlie]

You are correct. I don't think the person posting this video knows what he is talking about. This seems to be be the case in many aviation videos. People with little or no knowledge are always willing to give their opinion....which is usually a crock. Rotary engines are "throttled back" for landing by periodically killing the ignition.

[@joshhorn5653]

Werner Voss's plane!

[@OverTaxed42Long]

This has got to be the only one of these still airworthy. Well, almost airworthy. Amazing landing too, those taildraggers can be tricky. Especially with an engine giving such a hard time.

[@chriscarter5720]

@Duchy of Mecklenburg-SchwerinNot true. There is an SE5a in the Shuttleworth Collection (Old Warden, UK) which is original.

[@herbertbrea4079]

perfekt landing

[@Ryansanders80]

+Herbert Brea c not k

[@davidtenshu]

if you don't feel the wind, you can't name it flight, just transportation by the air.

[@JimForeman]

A friend of mine built a Fokker Triplane from Redfern plans (using a 145hp Warner engine) and I did the first three flights on it. After flying it and with him in a Citabria, my suggestion was to sell the Fokker and buy a Cessna. He was so far outclassed that it would have eaten him alive. He sold it but didn't buy a Cessna or anything else. After spending four years building the Tripe, he was burned out on airplanes. Don't know what became of it.

[@TheCannonofMohammed]

Because the tai-plane has three wings, it climbs like a home-sick angel. Most pilots can't handle that kind of climbing prowess. And landings are tough because each on of those three wings has to be brought down to earth---together. People forget that when they have a triplane. It is unique to triplanes. Lift.

[@JimForeman]

Sorry Frank but none of the WW-I airplanes climbed very well. There is so much aerodynamic interference between the wings that it will fly almost as well on a single wing as with two or three.

[@TheSkipper1921]

What was the other little triplane on the left wing @1:39?

[@thomasbower7727]

Considering it's not actually moving, maybe a kite?

[@zellarsDD777]

It sure Fokked up.

[@mastershift18]

im in love

[@bveracka]

Is this considered an ultralight aircraft? The reason I ask is because I see it's being flown from a field (not an airport) and there are no numbers on it. Is it just a special museum privilege to fly it, or are these type of planes legal to fly without a standard pilot's license?

[@leneanderthalien]

No: it's no possible to run a rotary with a trottle. The regulation from the power is with alternative turn "off" or "on" from more or less spark plugs

[@lastfrontierforge6170]

my question is how do you guys get away from the identification numbers on the side of the plane is their a special permit just curious

[@JimForeman]

Fokker put the serial number of each ship on the side of the fuselage, my Eindecker was Fok E-III 3/68 (3/68 ws the month and year when i began consruction. I put the FAA number on the rudder using 4" numbers.

[@mmichaeldonavon]

I thought those engines ALWAYS surged (?) At least the Gnone seemed to. In fact, when they first started it, it ran SO smoothly - never heard one run that smooth. Is there a big diffeence between the Gnome and the LeRhone, as to running smoothly, etc. thanks. N-6395T

[@whalesong999]

I agree. Though I did pick up that he thought the power was low, there is nothing abnormal with cutting the power off and back on by using the "kill" button for the ignition on these. That was the only way they had to control rpm and thrust, there was no carburetor throttle, only a mixture control If I remember correctly. I've seen many flights of rotary engined WWI birds at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and that is a common and natural sound.

[@mmichaeldonavon]

whalesong999 I saw one of your comments concerning a P-40 (my favorite acft.) so I thought I'd include a few pics of my "EROS Mini-max," that I tried to "outfit" as a P-40. The basic shape seemed a bit similar to the P-40, so tried to come up with that "treatment." Flew this plane for 13 years - tried to get 1,000 hrs on it, but only made it to around 750. Retired it via the FAA. Was a great "slow cruiser" (110mph was Vne) Only cruised at 78-80mph.) www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N6395T.html Sure miss that little plane! N-6395T

[@whalesong999]

Very nice. Was it light sport or ultralight? Did the regs change or something else cause it to retire?

[@mmichaeldonavon]

Thanks for your comment. It was built in 1999 and registered as an "Experimental Class Amateur Built" airplane. (Pre Sport Pilot) Flew that plane for 13 years - And, as it was wood and fabric, the Florida heat and humidity really hurt it. It needed a new fuselage, and I had no place in which I could work. Took the plane apart and gave it all to an old flying friend. Surrendered my "Special Air Worthiness" certificate to the FAA, and de-registered it with Oklahoma, City. The Ultralight planes are covered in FAR part 103 - their max "empty" weight is 254lbs. The Sport pilot planes can have a max "all up" weight of 1320. My plane could be of any weight, as long as the weight and balance info was "good to go." Thanks, m. donavon, fl.

[@GTOAviator]

Engine running rough or blip-switch?

[@marview]

what's the mistery about a small fokker which pops up over the left wing at 1:39?....it's static, otherwise could be another fokker over the field, but the little plane simply comes out and disappears...?...!...?

[@GAFSX]

These old planes didn't like the throttle below 800rpm's and this was to fast for it to land the plane. It would be impossible to slow down and land so they had to use blipping to slow down and maintain a slow speed for landing.

[@tomwitman7465]

Almost right. There was NO THROTTLE! On or off were the choices!

[@EragonSuperM]

Tom Witman They could selectively shut off some of the spark plugs/ignition points to slow the engine down

[@tomwitman7465]

Yes, you're right. They did come up with some crude methods to short out some of the plugs to have several speeds. While those plugs weren't firing, the exhaust valves on the top of the cylinders were spewing out gasoline and castor oil all over the fuselage. HOPEFULLY, no flames from the exhausts ignited the gas!

[@MRoesterreicher1]

Looks like Paul Bäumer's plane

[@TriumphT140]

Oh my...

[@geoffreycarson2311]

SOUNDS Great !!!😁It TOOK Balls Of STEEL to Fly IT ???LET alone FIGHT In it !!!g

[@Eddyisrich403]

is that Werner Voss' plane?

[@Skyraider50]

Wow

[@LoveNotLabels]

What kind of motor is that? The crankshaft is stationary and the motor turns? How is the gas fed to the carb? How is it lubricated? How does the ignition work?

[@TheGinettag12]

Its called a rotary look it up on Google

[@EragonSuperM]

Robert Dimmack Gnome rotary

[@tomwitman7465]

LoveNotLabels the originals were lubricated with a mixture of gasoline and castor oil. That's why the pilot's faces were always covered with black oily mess.

[@tomwitman7465]

LoveNotLabels www.kozaero.com/look-at-the-gnocircme-9n-rotary-engine.html This is a great explanation of how the Gnome engines worked.

[@raccoon681]

LoveNotLabels that type of engine made the plane hard to fly given the amount of weight that was spinning around

[@AW-zy1kw]

Some of the later rotaries had a throttle I believe.

[@tomwitman7465]

They devised systems to short out some of the spark plugs so that they had several 'levels' of power instead of on/off that this one apparently has (your 'rough' running comment).

[@GGigabiteM]

Tom Witman The different levels of power by shorting out specific cylinders was only used on Gnome Monosoupappe engine types. Since the Monosoupappe series both exhausted and took in air from the top of the cylinder and got fuel and oil from ports on the bottom of the cylinder, you couldn't realistically throttle the engine. Most other rotaries were conventional with two valves at the tops of the cylinders and an induction tube to get the fuel/air/oil mixture into the cylinder. It was possible to throttle these if you had a carburetor sophisticated enough to allow it, which happened later in the war. The engine in this Fokker Triplane is a Gnome Le Rhone (or an Oberusel which was a German copy) which is of the conventional two valve per cylinder and you can see the induction tube. This engine can be throttled and indeed does have a throttle noted by the smooth power ramp. If it had the cylinder grounding system used on the Monosoupappe, you would hear significant amounts of popping and the aircraft would be jerking side to side from the abrupt change in engine speed.

[@outsider2222]

it was called "blipping" the engine . shutting off spark to various cylinders ... You wouldn't want to land on full power ( the normal mode for a rotary engine ...)

[@BushPilot444]

+Alan Waite Seems to me like I read years ago they could select different combinations of cylinders to blip so that they would not be blipping the same cylinders all the time since it fouled plugs. You would want the opposite choice to have a chance to clean up from running I guess before you change back...... back and forth, just another dance to do.

[@71259mark]

Correct

[@brinx8634]

4:56 I know a great way that you could drop 50-75 lbs of all up weight Reduce takeoff roll by 12.4% - 13.8%.

[@springerdude1]

Brits call that a "Blip Switch" .

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day... OK, I gave you a "Like", for the Camerawork. But that Bullshit Title almost got you a Dislike. Gnomes were Monosoupapes, "One-Valve" Engines, they had no effective Throttle-ability ; and ran at 2 speeds, "Full-Power", or "Idle"...., with an Ignition-Earth Switch operated by a Spring-Loaded Pushbutton on the Joystick... So, to reduce Speed in order to lose Height, the standard procedure was to cut the Ignition with the "Blip-Switch" letting the Engine first Free-Wheel & then Windmill ; but letting it run for at least 1 Second every 5, or 3 Seconds every 10 Seconds of being Earthed, to avoid oiling-up the Spark-Plugs & having the Engine refuse to run when the Blip-Switch was released. This was a perfectly healthy 80 Hp Gnome Monosoupape being operated normally. The Service DR-1 Fokkers had 110 Hp Oberusel Rotaries, but the Prototype indeed did fly with a captured (Shot-Down) 80 Hp Gnome. Sorry, but one is a Smart-Arse ; and knows a lot of obscure factoids. ;-p Ciao !

[@Sledgehammer1944]

Wasn't the original engine 110 hp?

[@AlanFrance21]

There were actually 5 or 6 Rotary Engines of WWI vintage. The Oberfusel was a German copy of a Rhone? or Gnome?- the Germans preferred captured French or British engines if they could get them. Engines by Clerget were built in England under license. None were particularly brilliant. W O Bentley, later of car fame, was commissioned by the British Gummint to create a better engine. His rotary, the BR1 was far superior, using aluminum-alloy sleeved cylinders, alloy pistons etc and making 150hp, but infighting between the services limited production so that Clerget licensed engines continued to be made in the UK. The BR1 was the preferred motor for the RFC and the Navy when available. A more powerful version, the BR2, [220hp+ ] went into production late in the war. It powered the Sopwith Snipe and was the last of the line. Conventional layouts were used in all later aircraft engines. You can sense the limitations of the design - imagine a 2000hp Merlin Rotary 'wringing out' a fuselage!

[@handy335]

The original engine was, in fact, 80 hp and was a copy of the Le Rhone rotary. You''ll want to remember that horse power wasn't the only consideration in those days (or today for that matter). It's all about "torque" or "twisting power". That's why the small engines were able to turn (twist) the huge props that they turned. It's because the engines themselves were "twisting" as rotary engines. Today's aircraft with an 80 hp engine have tiny props by comparison and have far less twisting power/torque than the Le Rhone (and other) rotary engines.

[@doktorbimmer]

# Rotary Engine

[@hichamasnabla4121]

ce bon

[@welshpete12]

Does any one know what was wrong with that engine ? And what was it like to fly ?

[@MyFabian94]

Nothing wrong with it.

[@bena8972]

nothing is wrong with it at all. but the gyroscopic precession is crazy on these planes. So they are very difficult to fly.

[@MyFabian94]

It doesn't have a collective exhaust manifold or mufflers, that's why it is so loud and you can hear every single combustion.

[@tomwitman7465]

The poster apparently doesn't know how a rotary engine's ignition was controlled. You either had full power or no power in the early years. The engine would spin without ignition and soak the fuselage with raw gas and castor oil. When he kicked the ignition back on, he prayed that a spark would not set the plane on fire. Later they had ways to only have a few of the plugs fire to give varying levels of power.

[@Beery1962]

Jeez, I hope that poor little aircraft is never going to have to carry any of the immense whales that are milling around in front of it. I mean, it's only 80hp.

[@TheCannonofMohammed]

That bird came in on nothing more than a wing and a prayer. The engine needs a tune-up; it was missing badly. Or, it could have been the pilot cutting the ignition on and off for speed control. We will never know---we were not the ones laying our lives on the line for the sake of aviation & country.

[@JimForeman]

The rotary engines didn't have a throttle and "wide open" except when the pilot blipped the kill switch which shut off the spark and let the engine spin down until another shot to keep it spinning.

[@fredjackamikoons]

I think 'Dri Dekker' means rough flight, just like Sopwith Camel. {:-D

[@geoffreycarson2311]

SOD THAT ???g

[@MrRobster1234]

I believe Fokker only ever built about 320 of these triplanes. No originals survive. It took the Allies well into WW II to destroy the last one when they bombed a Berlin museum where it was on display.

[@JimForeman]

+Rob Mackenzie Actually, Talmantz Aviation had five original Fokker Triplanes at one time. They had two of them left in flying condition in 1968 and was in the process of building one out of the wreckage of several others.

[@MrRobster1234]

+Jim Foreman Those were the "Blue Max" Triplanes and they are reproductions.

[@JimForeman]

+Rob Mackenzie Yeah, I know (complete with modern engines) The originals had become far too valuable to risk them in movies. They are all in museums or hanging in bank lobbies.

[@MrRobster1234]

Jim, You are contradicting what you just said. There are NO original DR 1 triplanes left.

[@JimForeman]

+Rob Mackenzie I stand corrected, there are no original DR-1s, the few remaining ones were rebuilt from original or remanufactured parts from original ones.

[@user-zc5jf5pj1i]

More cowbell.

[@triplanelover]

wouldn't call that rough at all ! That thing is a pain in the ass to get on the ground in wind even worse...has no xwind capability. You can grease them on, but when it slows and the tail falls that's when the trouble starts esp in a xwind

[@kerrykovarik7263]

Which is why aerodromes were square back in the day - you would monitor the wind sock and land directly into the wind.

[@Eddyisrich403]

Really? Hmmmm...

[@Dannys998877]

The engine was going off and on as the plane was landing. This is surely very dangerous.

[@vincentsmith8967]

Normal for that radial. Not rough