Cole Palen's Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome

EricGoedkoop · 24 February 2005, 05:29 AM

And a film clip of Cole in the Morane-Saulnier!

curtisswright · 24 February 2005, 06:36 AM

The new websight is a silk stocking full of *&$#.

EricGoedkoop · 24 February 2005, 09:12 AM

Maybe so, but it's nice to see some different pictures from the old days.

baldeagle · 24 February 2005, 10:32 AM

I believe that the "No. 1" Hangar was so named because Cole planned on putting up several identical hangars over there, No.1, No.2, No.3, etc, like Roosevelt Field in the 1920s, but he only ended up doing one.

EricGoedkoop · 2 March 2005, 08:11 AM

Out of curiousity, does anyone know why Cole never flew the Siemens-Schuckert?

2 March 2005, 09:38 AM

Out of curiousity, does anyone know why Cole never flew the Siemens-Schuckert?

On one of Cole's rainy day hanger talks someone asked that very question. The reason Cole gave was that the construction of the wing spar was very unique and if it was ever damaged it would be impossible to repair or replace. He felt the plane was a bit too rare to take the chance with. As I remember, I think he said the spar was a casting, but I may be wrong on that.

EricGoedkoop · 3 March 2005, 09:31 AM

That's interesting, Pat.

Didn't Cole build it? Is it possible that he had some original parts he incorporated into the replica?

3 March 2005, 10:16 AM

It was a long time ago Eric that Cole and I discussed the Seimens project. If I recall correctly, the reason he didn't complete it's construction was that the Wing arrangement onto the fuselage did not fall into the proper center of balance-so much so that the a.c could not be flown safely no matter what weight adjuxtments were made. There may be more to the story, but I can't recall it. I know at the time I was not too disappointed because it didn't look like a very stable flying machine anyway.

Dick K.

EricGoedkoop · 3 March 2005, 10:39 AM

Thanks, Dick - that makes sense. I wonder what the weight difference is between the Siemens-Halske engine the type was designed for and the Gnome that Cole put in the repro. I'm assuming the ShIII was heavier - maybe this was partly to blame for throwing the balance off?

17 March 2005, 02:24 PM

I wrote about this on the other ORA thread, but maybe it belongs on this one instead. We all are aware that the rebuild is in progress on the AVRO 504K. I was wondering what everyone else thinks about re-installing a rotary engine it again? As I wrote, These engines are getting fairly close to the century mark regarding there age. AND - it was the rotary that failed and caused the plane to suffer dire consequences in the first place. I feel that the Avro and all the other rotary types be switched to more reliable radial type powerplants. A spinning mass of metal nearly 100 years old is a BIG gamble on a otherwise nearly exact replica, and endangering the welfare of the plane & pilot is not worth the risk! A Warner or a Continental would fill the bill on these planes perfectly.
Take the Spad-VII for instance, it has a modern Lycoming 0-320 in it. So what? When it takes to the sky, you still see a Spad-VII in flight. You can't get anymore safer than with an engine like that and parts, if needed are easily obtainable.
Look at the track record of rotary aircraft that have gone down at ORA over the years: The Snipe, Coles Dr-1, The Nieuport11 a few years ago, and now the Avro - plus any others that I am not aware of!
If people want to see a rotary operate, put one on a test stand and run it for the crowd, then they can see how it looks, sounds and smells while running.
That's my opinion, what does anyone else think?

Happy landings,

PIET