TRIM (or lack of it)

[Taz]

baldeagle- Rudder turns were a way to bring your guns to bear, not make the fastest sustained turn and would have also made a very difficult target at the expense of rapidly bleeding off airspeed. Roll rate on the F.I/Dr.I was relatively poor so the act of going from no bank to bank took a finite amount of time. The P-38J/L could outturn both the Me-109 and FW-190 using maneuvering flaps once in a turn, but the P-38's initial roll rate was so slow, either German aircraft could rapidly roll out of plane and depart the fight. The Dr.I with its thick wing section, and no dihedral or vertical stabilizer, was very controllable at large yaw angles, just like it and the D.VII were very stable at high angles of attack approaching their very mild (compared to thin winged contemporaries) stall. The rudder turn was just another maneuver in the Triplane pilot's bag of tricks and Voss used it to advantage in F.I 103/17. Even though the torque of the rotary did not materially affect right or left turns, the huge, slow turning propeller undoubtedly improved effectiveness of the rudder (and probably elevator) in rotary engined Triplanes. Lucky you to have flown a Triplane. Fred Murrin and Ross Walton limit their ruddder turns because it does put additional stress on the engine, but Voss was not flying an aircraft with an 88 year old engine and was undoubtedly not worried.

Next time you get to fly the Triplane, try picking out a point on the horizon 30 or 40 degrees off your heading and try rolling to it and yawing until the nose is pointed at it (without necessarily stabilizing on that heading when you yaw) and see which is quicker. I am curious, too, but would bet on the yaw.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[baldeagle]

Taz,
Read the link on my post, I covered that in a long ago thread. The Triplane will yaw rapidly 30 degrees, but rate of turn isn't very good, and a 180 like that is ridiculous. I'm sure that when Triplane pilots were in combat they put in full rudder and aileron, obviously the yaw was quicker than the roll, and I guess excited allied pilots reported the skidding turns as flat turns, heat of battle and all that. Also, I wouldn't characterise it as controllable at high angles of yaw, once you're there controllability suffers, it will yaw quickly, but you have to work to keep it there. And I don't think rudder effectiveness has much to do with it, aerodynamically it will only yaw so much because of other factors.

I have in my possesion most of the autobiographies of the great ACES of WW1: allies and enemies, and have numerous more written about them by other authors. I have in my possesion the many autobiographies of the WW2 ACES, mostly allies, and have numerous videos of them talking about their combat expieriences. And when I write of them here, most of you self proclaimed experts (?) out there say it isn't so! I will tend to believe what the pilots who were there write before I believe what you internet experts (?) have to say. I strongly believe you are on an ego trip here to outknow what the other thinks he knows - and it all is a bunch of bally-hoo anyway. I'm glad that none of you's are flight instuctors, there would be at least 1000 different ways to fly an airplane, with 1000 different ways that lift is developed!!!! There are better ways to spend my time then to read what you experts (?) write here. I'll continue to read books by the pilots who WERE THERE and KNOW what they are talking about, and not waste my time any longer by reading entries by self proclaimed experts, but who are in reality just self ego searching amateurs TRYING to outdo each other. The laws of physics & history CANNOT be changed, but most of yous out there will always keep trying. In reading your responses, with quotes like:

I'm sure

I guess

I don't think

I've always heard

and probably

I would bet

Sounds to me that none of yous are as sure of your FACTS (?) as you'd like everyone else, or yourselves to believe!

May you all have:

Clear Skies,
Strong Tailwinds,
&
Happy Landings

The one and only, PIET

[baldeagle]

Touchy, touchy. Maybe we were just being polite.
In fact first person accounts of combat can be notoriously unreliable, or at least controversial (Bishop, anyone??), so you might want to be a little more open to other sources. The statement that a Fokker Triplane can make a 180 in four seconds without banking is untrue whether you say it, or McCudden, or Anthony Fokker himself. As you say, the laws of physics don't change, a Triplane can't do it today, and it couldn't do it in 1918.
As for the WW2 stuff, I haven't flown any of it (have had a few rides in a Mosquito though...), but I've read plenty and talked to some of the guys, and as much as you hate the phrase, I "seem" to recall that they said that in a Mustang you didn't want to get in a turning dogfight with an ME-109 since it would out-turn the P-51. I thought maybe you'd post a quote from somebody saying the reverse, it would be interesting to read, and maybe give us a different perspective. How about this one from Gordon Levett of the Israeli 101 Squadron, who flew Spitfires, ME-109s, and P-51s in the late '40s:

Gordon Levett compares the three combat aircraft flown by the 101:

In mock dog-fights, we concluded that the Messerschmitt could out-climb, out-dive and out-zoom the Spitfire and Mustang. The Spitfire could out-turn the Messerschmitt, the most important manoeuvre in air combat, and both could OUT-TURN the Mustang. The Mustang was the fastest, the Messerschmitt the slowest, though there was not much in it. The Mustang had the best visibility, important for a fighter aircraft, the Messerschmitt the worst. The Spitfire cockpit fitted like a glove, the Messerschmitt like a strait-jacket, the Mustang like a too comfortable armchair. The Spitfire had two 20mm cannon and four .303 machine guns (sic, actually, the 101 Squadron Spits had two .50s, not four .303s), the Mustang six 12.7mm machine guns (a.k.a. .50 calibre), and the Messerschmitt two 20mm cannon and two 7.92mm machine guns (sic, actually two 13.1mm machine guns) synchronised to fire through the arc of the propeller.... Despite the pros and cons the Spitfire was everyone's first choice.

Or this graph below, done by an aerodynamicist, using wing loading and drag and etc., the higher the number the tighter the turn--



we won't talk about that Nieuport 11 lower wing incidence thing...


Local internet expert on an ego trip

[Taz]

pietenpol- You have about 35 or so posts on this site and most of them are thoroughly unpleasant. Go away.

Bald Eagle- Will look up your posts. Thanks.

Taz
Terry Phillips