FTFC23: Build-ruary by Inq: Inq'd FT MM DR1 Triplane

[Tench745]

I was sure about the flying scenes being CG, but there is one scene where they're starting up and I was giving special attention to the engines. They're the first things to get replaced with something modern which won't turn with the prop. They looked like real Rhone engines and it was hard to tell if it was CG or props with real Rhone engines. Now a days, surely they wouldn't trust a real (or even a replica) DR-1 with a Rhone engine. Too many ways to kill the pilot with the engine's nasty habits.

Watching it again right now. If this theatrical carpenter's eyes aren't wrong, it looks like the Albatross they're flying in the beginning are actually fabric-covered mock-ups painted to look like plywood. I will give them points for including the little details like the moving rocker arms on the Mercedes engines and smoke from the exhaust stacks. The details of the aircraft appear to be very accurate, even if the flying is not. They have 100mph biplane scouts flying like 500mph WWII fighters. Very Hollywood.

If you're curious what a real WWI dogfight might've looked like, allow me to share this:

 

[Inq]

Watching it again right now. If this theatrical carpenter's eyes aren't wrong, it looks like the Albatross they're flying in the beginning are actually fabric-covered mock-ups painted to look like plywood. I will give them points for including the little details like the moving rocker arms on the Mercedes engines and smoke from the exhaust stacks. The details of the aircraft appear to be very accurate, even if the flying is not. They have 100mph biplane scouts flying like 500mph WWII fighters. Very Hollywood.

If you're curious what a real WWI dogfight might've looked like, allow me to share this:

Definitely not Hollywood. But then could anyone stand a movie that had the actions scenes taking that long? Some creative license has to be taken. But it does bring up a very important point. About how much flying actually occurs compared to downed planes. WW1, there is the stat about longevity of new pilots, but there weren't that many aces in comparison. As time has moved on... post WW2. How many aces are there? I don't know that I've ever seen that stat. And even if there are... how many flight hours do they have under their belt for that stat?... 10,000 flight hours for downing one plane is more the norm.

Somewhere I read that the latter planes with the big torque radial motors (Sopwith Camel, DR-1) that turn with the prop had incredible maneuvering (in one direction) taking advantage of the P-factor, could almost turn on a dime making today's Cobra maneuver look rather tame. I just looked it up... Sopwith Camel weight: 926 lbs, Clerget 9B: 381 lbs.

40% of the plane is rotating. Incredible, talk about tail wagging the dog!

 

[mastermalpass]

Watching it again right now. If this theatrical carpenter's eyes aren't wrong, it looks like the Albatross they're flying in the beginning are actually fabric-covered mock-ups painted to look like plywood. I will give them points for including the little details like the moving rocker arms on the Mercedes engines and smoke from the exhaust stacks. The details of the aircraft appear to be very accurate, even if the flying is not. They have 100mph biplane scouts flying like 500mph WWII fighters. Very Hollywood.

If you're curious what a real WWI dogfight might've looked like, allow me to share this:

Looks like Rise Of Flight got it pretty accurate!

 

[mastermalpass]

Definitely not Hollywood. But then could anyone stand a movie that had the actions scenes taking that long? Some creative license has to be taken. But it does bring up a very important point. About how much flying actually occurs compared to downed planes. WW1, there is the stat about longevity of new pilots, but there weren't that many aces in comparison. As time has moved on... post WW2. How many aces are there? I don't know that I've ever seen that stat.

From how I've seen things play out in combat flight sims, air combat of all ages is a little too drawn out for Hollywood. Saying that, sometimes they have the opposite problem where one plane will stay in another plane's cross-hairs for far, far too long! As for aces, I think in WW2, if you had shot down five planes or more, over your entire career, you were considered an ace. Especially in comparison the vast numbers of pilots who took off once, but never landed.

Somewhere I read that the latter planes with the big torque radial motors (Sopwith Camel, DR-1) that turn with the prop had incredible maneuvering (in one direction) taking advantage of the P-factor, could almost turn on a dime making today's Cobra maneuver look rather tame. I just looked it up... Sopwith Camel weight: 926 lbs, Clerget 9B: 381 lbs.

40% of the plane is rotating. Incredible, talk about tail wagging the dog!

Wow, I guess that moment in Wallace & Gromit where a big dog grabs Gromit's plane by the propeller, causing the whole plane to spin and throw Gromit out was more realistic that I first thought! 😂

 

[mastermalpass]

How they ever managed torque roll is beyond me. Look how much the whole plane is rocked when the engine revs up a bit:

 

[Tench745]

How they ever managed torque roll is beyond me. Look how much the whole plane is rocked when the engine revs up a bit:

Yep. I heard a statistic once (probably here-say more than a statistic) that the camel killed more pilots in training than in combat due to the torque roll.

 

[FoamyDM]

Some great videos.

 

[Inq]

Had a bad day. Could not launch from the ground. Our resident instructor launched it and I was able to do several tight circular laps laps (~100 ft diameter) but finally it came down pretty hard. It looked didn't seem to have enough rudder authority to get straitened out. The next flight was even worse. I launched it and the instructor tried to fly it. He had even worse luck. It is my belief he throttled up too fast as it rolled over hard to the left and dug into the ground. Top wing came off, but the rest seems fine. It is certainly fixable.