Rhinebeck Museum trouble

[pietenpol]

Been reading all the hoo-haa about the Camel trashing. Bottom line is, of course, thank God that no one was seriously injured or killed! Now, other than that, once again, reading some of these comments on JR nauseated me. "Who made that decision, Board or new Director?" "Blame the board." "I'll offer condolences to the man for his embarrassment, I feel sorry for him." " Isn't it nice to have a little suprise once in a while?" " Jim was trying to indicate that an effort is being made to get the airshows back to something like they used to be." GIVE ME A BREAK!!! Read this: FAR91.3(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is DIRECTLY responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. JR is the SOLE person to blame for trashing the Camel. Once he boarded the aircraft intending to take it into the sky, he was responsible for it and himself - NO ONE ELSE! I don't feel sorry for him one bit, he made a bad choice! What I do feel sorry for is the reputation of ORA. This Spandau is just another nail in the aerodromes coffin. Perhaps he is lucky to have trashed it on t/off, because if he did manage to get airborne, in all sincerity, I feel he would have never made it back to the ground ALIVE!!!
This just goes to re-enforce my opinion of rotary engines: they are unreliable AND notorious! If these birds all had radial engines, ORA would not have this type of problem. Another ORA aircraft down the tubes because of a rotary engine, and a resulting incompetent pilot - UGH!!!
Other comments on this thread that are incorrect: "Camels & Fokker Tripes OFTEN ripped themselves open during manuevering." Go back to school son, and re-read the history books! You are way off the mark!!!! Here is another: "The Avro CRASH" When the ROTARY engine failed on the Avro, Kenny performed an EMERGENCY FORCED LANDING! Through some very quick thinking, he did the CORRECT thing, he lowered the nose to maintain flying speed and landed it under CONTROL, and as a result of the proper actions, he walked away from it! No doubt, all of us here have heard the saying: Any LANDING you can walk away from is a good one! EFL- NOT a crash!
So much for my retirement from this thread. I have to admit it, it does amuse me to read some of the things that are written on this thread. It seems to me as if some of you's are trying to impress each other MORE than trying to find a solution for the troubles at the ORA!
Until next time...

Happy Landings ( and t/offs too!! ),

PIET

[tazbat]

Originally Posted by Pietenpol

"Camels & Fokker Tripes OFTEN ripped themselves open during manuevering."

I am going to assume that this comment was directed at me, since I can only find my comment making such statement.

From the book, "The Knighted Skies," by Ed Jablonski, copyrighted 1964 it is stated, "The Fokker triplane of August 1917. Though not fast, the triplane was highly maneuverable (because of its stubby wings and rotary engine) and could dazzle enemy fighter pilots with its unexpected movements in the air. Its major defects were a tendency to shed fabric off the upper wing in a dive and crumple up in the air under the stress of combat. It took a good pilot to fly a triplane."

Although these things plagued the DR.1, it was more likely poor craftsmanship than design flaws which was responsible. German planes suffered extensively from poor quality workmanship. The Fokker DVIII's were completely pulled from service for this reason. When they were put back in service the war only had about three months left.

Its maneuverability was what endeared the plane to MvR, the craft in which he died. Werner Voss replaced Jasta 10's Albatros fighters with DR.1's, but most German pilots did not like them. The crumpling in the air under combat stress is documented in many WW1 documentary books. It is one reason for there being no original DR.1's in existence today, I believe that is what I read. But, if I am wrong on this fact, I will stand corrected.

So, that is what I based my statement on. I didn't say the Camels came apart in the air. They just killed a lot of fresh pilots who, unfortunately didn't live long enough to learn how to fly them.

And that is what the current discussion is about, the Camel crash.

Onealm, you said it succinctly in your comment above. There are no excuses for allowing pilots with little or no rotary experience to fly the Aerodrome's Camel, Nieuport, or Avro. They aren't rich boys toys. They are part of the museum's collection. They are ancient technology, tough to handle, difficult to keep running, and with few parts available. They need to be respected for this and not considered as just a another show plane.

Pietenpol, also nailed it right about the pilot being the person ultimately responsible for whatever happens while in his aircraft. Myself, I have chosen not to beat up Jim, simply because he is an employee of the trustees. While he is responsible for the crash, it is the trustees who are to protect the collection as part of their responsibilities.

In my own defense, I don't pretend to know as much about WW1 and vintage planes or ORA as anyone here or anywhere. I know what I know from what I have read or experienced. I don't expect to know it all, or even enough. This forum in general has added greatly to my knowledge about modern reproductions of WW1 aircraft and about ORA. It has also drawn my attention to what others have learned from reading and in many cases personal experiences. What we all know and pass around is important in keeping early aviation alive, as long as it is accurate. Essentially, WHO knows what and how much, is of little value. It is what's done with that knowledge, namely making it available for the present and future generations of enthusiasts.

Salute!

[EricGoedkoop]

Hey, just out of curiousity -

Does the ORA Nieuport 10 have dual controls? There are some who say it's really a Type 83 trainer, and I was wondering about that because I remember an extended period of time - at least the better part of the 1980's - when the AVRO wasn't flying at all. I presume that during these years there still were pilots trained to fly the rotary-powered aircraft, and I also remember that the Nie10 was flying for a few seasons. Was it used as the trainer?

[tazbat]

Here is ORA's website info on the Nieuport 10. In the photo it was a double cockpit. Notice who the early owner was!

The model 10 was the first in the long and successful series of Nieuport "V" strutters. It was used primarily for observation, however, many were converted to single seat fighters by simply covering the front cockpit, and adding an upward firing Lewis machine gun to the center section of the top wing. When the Nieuport 11 (factory produced single seat fighter) appeared at the front, the main duty of the model 10 became that of a training machine. There were several variants of this basic design which were used not only by the French, but also by the Americans and Russians as well.

The museum's example is an original aircraft that is said to have been brought to the United States in 1924 by the famous French ace, Charles Nungesser. Prior to this he had used it to train pilots at his own flying school outside Paris, and then brought it to Cuba for exhibition flying. Shortly thereafter he took the aircraft to Roosevelt Field on Long Island to film the first World War I aviation movie entitled, "The Sky Raider" in 1925. In 1951 the National Air and Space Museum acquired the aircraft, and in 1986 traded it for Cole Palen's original Nieuport 28.

Cole restored the Nieuport 10, and the black heart, skull and crossbones (Charles Nungesser's personal wartime insignia) were painted on the fuselage sides in tribute to the great ace. The Nieuport flew it at Old Rhinebeck from 1987 to 1990.

Salute!

[wingnut]

I think the Camel crash should be reviewed more, and also think in my last post 5-21, referring to the cost of the new hanger should be further reviewed. I do not think the Board did to much research on this expense. Even the location of it does not seem like a good idea. The planes will be on the other side of the field. On week days, what are the visitors going to be allowed to cross the field? Look honey here comes a plane, hurry, get the kids, run! Or is the new hanger just for winter storage? Why not take down the old row of hangers near the shop and build new ones there? Drainage problem? Can be fixed. Then the visitors can see the airplanes. Once again no long term thinking, no long range plan. Just quick fix thinking. Look we got a deal on a hanger. Well, I do not think they did.

[Curtiss Jenny]

Fair enough, but the AVRO is still out of commission. It's not available for training now and that brings us to another season without the Nieuport or Camel flying and Sunday shows with the SPAD, the SPAD and more of the SPAD - no offense to the SPAD.

I can image similar discussions taking place at Board meetings over this past winter. I’m going to speculate on at least one possible scenario of events. Mind you, this is just speculation but it does seem logical.

Perhaps the Board gave Bill Horrigan a directive to add more planes, especially with rotary engines for this year’s shows. Bill, being a resourceful (and responsible) air show manager realized that there is no one currently at ORA, not even himself, who is really qualified to fly behind a rotary engine and therefore not qualified to check out any of the other pilots in a rotary-powered airplane.

To solve this he could have gone back to the Board and suggested that he try to rehire Ken or Dave or maybe even Gene DeMarco. I think we can all guess the response to these suggestions. Perhaps the Board suggested he ask Chad Willy to come back and check out some of the pilots. After all Chad Willy is experienced and qualified with WWI rotary aircraft, flew the Camel last year and according to Board President Jim Kick, Chad will be back on a part time basis this year.

Bill, taking the hint from his boss, asked Chad to come back and check out some of the pilots. Jim Record, having hopped the Caudron last year would be the logical 1st choice. Since the Camel is a single seat aircraft, the checkout as specifically applied to the Camel could not consist of anything more than a series of questions followed by the observation of a couple of short flights. With checkout complete, Jim wants to feel more comfortable with the plane and takes it up one last time for the day. Whose fault is it for the crash? As Pietenpol pointed out - FAR 91.3(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is DIRECTLY responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

By all accounts, the Camel is not an easy airplane to fly because it is a very unstable aircraft, even by WWI standards. While the rotary engine contributes to the pilot workload and the gyroscopic forces can push a bad situation over the edge, the real reason for its difficulty lies in the fact that 70% of its weight is within 30% of its length, centered just behind the main gear. That also gave it the agile maneuvering characteristics it was so famous for. To anyone familiar with WWI aviation history this much would be common knowledge and should serve as a heads-up.

The pilots and mechanics have been forced to learn what was common knowledge to airmen in 1917. With no knowledge transfer from those who were there in 1917, this is a painfully slow process...

Actually, this kind of knowledge was transferred from Arthur Ray Brooks, Doug Campbell and the countless other WWI pilots and mechanics that Cole and his crew met along the way. This direct knowledge was still alive in Dick King, Dave King, Ken Cassens and the rest of the “Old Guard” who have been around the Aerodrome since the early 1990s and before. Sadly, the Board has made sure that this direct knowledge is no longer at ORA.

Are they trying? Yes, and they are to be commended for that. But as ONEALM stated, Incompetence may not be illegal, but it ought to be. Just have someone get killed or seriously injured and find out just how illegal it is and who is at fault. I wouldn’t want to be a Board member, the Air Show Director, the check-out pilot or the PIC.

[EricGoedkoop]

Originally Posted by Curtiss Jenny

By all accounts, the Camel is not an easy airplane to fly because it is a very unstable aircraft, even by WWI standards. While the rotary engine contributes to the pilot workload and the gyroscopic forces can push a bad situation over the edge, the real reason for its difficulty lies in the fact that 70% of its weight is within 30% of its length, centered just behind the main gear. That also gave it the agile maneuvering characteristics it was so famous for. To anyone familiar with WWI aviation history this much would be common knowledge and should serve as a heads-up.

This is a very good point - it's not just the rotary engine that gives the Camel its bite. The Nie.11 is by all accounts an easier aeroplane to fly and I would speculate - or at least hope - that Jim had some time in the Bebe under his belt before he hopped in the Camel. Pictures of the new hangar under construction showed the Nie.11 out on the field, for whatever that's worth.

It's a shame that so much of Old Rhinebeck's collection has gone into museum-display status over the last fifteen years and so few have come back out. The Nie.10, Morane-Saulnier AI and Thomas-Morse are all easier to handle than the Camel and if they had gotten the same attention the Jenny did we would not only have more rotary-powered aircraft flying but also more appropriate machines for the less-experienced rotary pilots to fly. All three of these aircraft types had successful careers as trainers. Not to re-open the old wound, but I always wondered why these existing, neglected and original aircraft were passed up in favor of the Spirit project. Maybe they're too far gone to bring back.

[curtisswright]

Taz's comments on the structural integrity of, at least early, triplanes is substantiated by the source he reports from. I read the same book as well as others that report Triplanes being yanked from service for construction issues related to structural problems in flight. Wheather or not that translates into wings flying off is up to interpretation.

Also, MvR (the Baron himself) left a very provocative entry in one of his flight reports commenting on the difficulty of landing triplanes. He later recorded in his journal frustration over the constant need to repair them. I don't mean to kick a beehive here, but my suspicion is that the Baron was not as happy with the triplane as he would have liked to be.

[EricGoedkoop]

The problem with the Dr.Is wasn't the design, but the workmanship. Basically, the early production Tripe wing spars weren't adequately protected from moisture and the wood deteriorated in the field, leading to failure. The wing structure itself was marvelously well-engineered and completely supported from within. The interplane struts are in fact unnecessary and were not part of the original design. A modern replica, like all of the Tripes that have flown at Old Rhinebeck, should be in no danger of structural failure if competently built.

Not being a pilot, I can't speak as to how the flying characteristics compare with other rotary-powered aircraft. Based on research and observation, though, I know any rotary-engine aeroplane that does not have brakes is a tricky beast to land. There were no rotaries flying, of course, last time I was there and now that the field is so much wider they might do things differently, but in the old days I remember there always being at least three pairs of wing-runners stationed at intervals down the strip whenever a rotary came in to land. It was these guys' job to literally catch the wingtips of the aeroplane after it touched down and keep it tracking straight to prevent a ground loop. The first team didn't always make it, sometimes the second didn't either and the whole crowd of 'em would chase the machine down the field. I was there once when Cole groundlooped his first Dr.I into the fences. The barriers did exactly what they were supposed to, but that didn't stop the entire crowd from jumping off the bleachers backwards and taking three big steps toward the woods. A Fokker Tripe at full roll is NOT what you want to see heading straight for you.

[tazbat]

I was always told the Spirit of St. Louis was a project initiated by Cole. He especially had a fondness for this plane and it was part of his plan to have it in the collection, just like so many others. Ken said that the project began before Cole passed away. Apparently it was temporarily side tracked then, just as now.


Salute!