WW1 Plane most likely to breakup?

[Lufbery]

Originally posted by JG1Schorner@Jun 13 2004, 08:28 PM
[b] Having said that:
Lower wing failure on single spar sesquiplanes, ie. Nieuports 10 through 27 and Albatros DIII and DVa.

Upper wing fabric tears on Nieuport 28s.

Upper wing failure on the Fokker DRI.

Overheating in the Fokker D.VII could cause phosphorous ammo to cook off.

SPAD XIII Hispano Suiza engine failures (drive shaft?)

Pretty much all of the failures mentioned above were fixed in time.

The lower wing failure on V-strut Albatrosses was fixed with the addition of a small brace on the lower wing. I'm not sure what Nieuport did (if anything), but they eventually abandoned the V-strut arrangement when they designed the N-28.

The upper wing fabric tears on the N-28 were a result of the way the fabric was attached to the leading edge. I think some modifications in that area were done, but better pilot training pretty much solved the problem.

The upper wing failure on the Dr.1 was, IIRC, the result of a manufacturing defect. All of the planes were withdrawn from service until they could be fixed. After that, the Dr.1 proved to be a very strong design.

The overheating of the Fokker D.7 was fixed with a better cowl design.

The Spad 13 suffered from Hisso engine failures for a number of reasons, but the main complaint was with the reduction gear. This was a problem with other Hisso powered planes as well, like the S.E.5a (which, I think, ended up using an un-geared Hisso in some versions. The S.E.5a also used the Viper engine, not made by Hisso.)

The problems with the Hisso engines were never entirely cleared up, but engine problems would not cause the plane to break up like they do in Red Baron 3D.

Anyway, designing and testing airplanes has always been a dangerous proposition. Look at how many great pilots died during the development of the first jets, then the Centuray series of jets, and even during the development of the F-14.

Regards,

Regards,

[ww1 ace]

The Fokker DR.1 had a problem with the top wing breaking off.

[Cigogne]

The lower wing failure on V-strut Albatrosses was fixed with the addition of a small brace on the lower wing. I'm not sure what Nieuport did (if anything), but they eventually abandoned the V-strut arrangement when they designed the N-28.

The upper wing fabric tears on the N-28 were a result of the way the fabric was attached to the leading edge. I think some modifications in that area were done, but better pilot training pretty much solved the problem.

The upper wing failure on the Dr.1 was, IIRC, the result of a manufacturing defect. All of the planes were withdrawn from service until they could be fixed. After that, the Dr.1 proved to be a very strong design.

The overheating of the Fokker D.7 was fixed with a better cowl design.

The Spad 13 suffered from Hisso engine failures for a number of reasons, but the main complaint was with the reduction gear. This was a problem with other Hisso powered planes as well, like the S.E.5a (which, I think, ended up using an un-geared Hisso in some versions. The S.E.5a also used the Viper engine, not made by Hisso.)

The problems with the Hisso engines were never entirely cleared up, but engine problems would not cause the plane to break up like they do in Red Baron 3D.

Lufbery, WW1 ace... et al,

There are some clarifications for your comments:

The lower wing failure on V-strut Albatrosses was fixed with the addition of a small brace on the lower wing. I'm not sure what Nieuport did (if anything), but they eventually abandoned the V-strut arrangement when they designed the N-28. (Cigogne: That was a stop gap fix that never really solved the problem... there were other methods used as well to fix this, including metal sheathing around the lower spar.)

The upper wing fabric tears on the N-28 were a result of the way the fabric was attached to the leading edge. I think some modifications in that area were done, but better pilot training pretty much solved the problem. (Cigogne: Actually, the fabric tearing wasn't the real problem, it was how the wing was constructed and where the leading edge was joined with the rear portion of the wing. The wing didn't have adequate support at that join and the leading edge would fail with the result of the fabric tearing. It was a structural problem with the wooden structure first, not the fabric. Alan Toelle showed me a wartime diagram of the cross section of the wing and where the failures occurred. It was a failure of the wooden join that was the culprit. When that failed, the fabric gave way and stripped off.)

The upper wing failure on the Dr.1 was, IIRC, the result of a manufacturing defect. All of the planes were withdrawn from service until they could be fixed. After that, the Dr.1 proved to be a very strong design. (Cigogne: The manufacturing defect had nothing to do with the design, but with the gluing of the wing structures and varnishing to protect from moisture. When this was skimped/watered down and the wing structure was unprotected from damp... then the structure would fail. But, the spar, which was quite hefty, would not fail, but the ribs would detach themselves under stress. No Dr.I ever "lost" a top wing, but, rather the ribs and glued portions that attached themselves to the box spar would fail if not glued and varnished properly. A second, and unrelated problem were the aileron balances. They were larger on the F.I and early types than on the later production version of the Dr.I and this caused some problems when the aileron failed and the control balance bent. The vibration/flutter from this failed aileron caused Gontermann's wing failure and crash. The ailerons were redesigned with smaller balances. The entire wing structures were put under more scrutiny to make sure they met with the gluing/varnishing requirements. But, the Dr.I needed to be looked after when it was damp out to avoid this problem. MvR requested wooden portable hangars to offset this threat. )


The overheating of the Fokker D.7 was fixed with a better cowl design. (Cigogne: It wasn't the Fokker D.VII that had an engine overheating problem. It was two other factors that necessitated in more cooling/ventilation: 1. Hotter summer temperatures. 2. Unstable phosphorus ammunition. It was the instability of the latter that was caused by the former. It was not an overheating problem of the aircraft cooling system itself. The addition of additional louvers and removing cowling panels helped keep the ammunition box ventilated. Phosphorus ammunition had been used for some time without this problem. It was the extreme Summer weather combined with the instability of batches of the ammunition that created the crisis. (Worn out exhaust manifold gaskets may have contributed as well in some instances.)

The Spad 13 suffered from Hisso engine failures for a number of reasons, but the main complaint was with the reduction gear. This was a problem with other Hisso powered planes as well, like the S.E.5a (which, I think, ended up using an un-geared Hisso in some versions. The S.E.5a also used the Viper engine, not made by Hisso.)

The problems with the Hisso engines were never entirely cleared up, but engine problems would not cause the plane to break up like they do in Red Baron 3D. (Cigogne: Hisso's weren't manufactured only by Hispano-Suiza. They were built also by Peugeot, as well as several other automotive firms who were part of their war effort. Your statement is an oversimplification that glosses over the real problems. Part of this problem was that the engines were built by many subcontracting firms and in ramping up there were inevitable problems with getting suppliers, etc. up to speed and up to quality. There were also different carburretor types with two, four, and six jets (Zenith) which caused tuning headaches. Cooling problems due to various radiators manufacturers/suppliers, etc. each with varying quality. There are a lot factors to the problem than meet the eye. The Wolseley Adder, Viper, etc. engines were license built designs based on the Hispano-Suiza engine. Hispano powered S.E.5a aircraft continued to be produced simultaneously as the Viper versions. It was all about supply and whoever could produce the required engines.)

[Lufbery]

Cigogne,

Thanks for the additional information. I fully realized that my statements were oversimplifications, and I was hoping that somebody (like you, ) would chime in with more and better information.

I typed my reply quickly, and without the aid of any of my references (I was at work).

I was trying to make two points:

1) The aircraft faults stemmed from a variety of causes, were well known at the time, and efforts were made by all parties to fix them.

2) Many (if not most) aircraft designs since WWI have had fatal flaws that required redesign, special pilot procedures (like prohibiting quick pull-outs or forbidding spins), and mechanical work-arounds.

Anyway, thanks again for the additional information. It is wonderful to have so much expertise available here.

Warm regards,

[JohnReid]

The one with the most bullet holes Cheers! John.

[Cigogne]

Lufbery,

No need to apologize to me at all. I hope my message didn't seem brusque... only trying to add a little more to clarify your comments a bit more.

It is interesting the things you find out from different sources.... and in a serendipitous kind of way. I've been reading Charles Woolley's book, "First to the Front" about Waldo Heinrichs. In reading his letters in the book it is interesting what you can glean about the SPADs, and their problems from those letters. Also, other articles in OTF as well as other data shed more light. Always more to learn.

Also, Alan Toelle showed me some of his data before his speech at the OTF seminar on the reliability of the 94ths Nieuport 28s vs. their SPAD XIIIs. (I think he will publish this in Cross & Cockade, Int.) The Flight log numbers show that the Nieuport 28 was by far the more reliable aircraft, despite the wing problem. It also shows who the who the REAL pilots were and who the duds were.

As to the construction problems with the Dr.I etc. make sure to read Alex Imrie's Fokker Triplane. It is full of this kind of reliable data.

RE: the D.VII ammunition problem... as you know, there are several good sources for this.

[Lufbery]

Cigogne,

No problem.

I'm reading Hartney's Up and At 'Em again. He goes into some detail on the Nieuport 28 and how it was more reliable than the Spad 13. He also mentions modifications to the N-28s' cowls and, I think, engines.

I haven't read that far (again) yet, but when I do, I may post a couple of quotes. The study of aircraft design, use, and modifications during WWI would make for a fascinating book.

Regards,

[Cigogne]

Another problem with the Nieuport 28 was the copper fuel line and fractures from vibration that would occur causing fires. In an article with Ralph A. O'Neil, 6 victory ace with the 147th Aero, he talks about them coming up with at the squadron level a flexible rubber fuel line that solved that problem.

I'd like to read "Up and At 'Em"...