Nieuport 17 for sale / detailed plans for building one

[cubsfan4life]

First off, let me say 'thank you!!' to the user 'Baldeagle' for recommending the Polish Aviation Museum to me, (http://www.muz-lotnictwa.krakow.pl/estrona.html) I am in Krakow, Poland and visited the museum today and was quite impressed. I told him of my interests as a historian and he took me on a two hour personal tour of the grounds, which was VERY nice of him!! He gave me a BUNCH of very neat inside info, such as, is it public knowledge that the DH9 at Hendon was originally at this Polish museum, and they swapped for a Spitfire?!? I found this very intersesting.

Anyways to get to the point, he mentioned that the museum is looking to either build or purchase a flyable Nieuport 17 to use in special occasions for this museum. I remember seeing in a thread that the 'Admin' posted that the planes from the movie are for sale? I would love to pass details of this on to this man, or help him find detailed building plans so the museum have have/ build an aircraft. Any help would be MUCH appreciated thanxs!!!!!

[Major Larabee]

Not sure the one used for "flyboys" will be what there after as they where actauly ultra lite versions. Good full size reps are available and could be made for them at a price!

[Brad]

Let me clarify that: Those planes are NOT part 103 legal US Ultralights. They ARE however built using the same materials and techniques as many ultralights, aluminum tube for the main structure for example. (And covered in cloth just like the original, although not the same TYPE of cloth, a modern equivilant.) They ARE much lighter than the originals, probably more durable, safer to fly, a LOT cheaper, and VERY, VERY close to authentic in appearance. I bet (without looking inside the cowl) that most folks on here, even the "experts," couldn't tell the difference from most angles even as close as 20' away. There are differences, but they aren't that large.

These are not museum pieces though, they are "sportplanes" and there are compromises. For a flying aircraft, these would probably be a better option than an "authentic" replica. For display, the authentic one wins hands-down of course.

Note that these MIGHT be "ultralights" under some countries' regulations, but not under US regs, not even close.

Brad

p.s. these are full-scale aircraft, but built much like Graham Lee's replicas which were available in both full and 7/8 scale... I'm personally building a 7/8 scale replica for my own use.

[baldeagle]

Cubsfan,
Did you talk to Piotr at the museum?
If they want to build one they should get a hold of the Rozendaal drawings, made by the Germans from a captured example. The other option is the Redfern drawings, which are a simplified version using a steel tube fuselage for modern homebuilders.
As far as buying one, the movie ones wouldn't interest them, as the aluminum ones were actually quite a lot different from the real thing, thicker wings, different proportions, etc, good for the movie, but not for a museum. Two privately owned ones were also rented for the movie, both quite accurate, but neither is for sale, I think. One, from Kermit Weeks' collection, was from the Rozendaal drawings, and the other, belonging to Bob Gauld-Galliers and John Day, was built from the Redfern plans and is based in England. The latter is easily the nicest one around, and is seen in airshows in England and sometimes on the continent.
There is also a Redfern Plans Nieuport 17 that recently got done and is flying in western New York State, but don't know if it could be bought. It has a Kinner engine.
Also, the last original 17/23 is being restored at the museum in Brussels, photos are available online, http://users.skynet.be/fa233213/En/R...ort/Nie23.html . And a group in Switzerland is building I think three Nieuport 17 replicas, and has a web site, http://www.nieuport.ch/ .
On the movie set we also had two static Nieuport 17s that were built in the Czech Republic using the Rozendaal plans, they were quite well done, and I'll bet that a flying replica could be built there relatively economically, maybe in Poland also.

[Dogtail2]

Nieuport line up during filming for 'Flyboys'.

The authentic and non authentic are given away by the wing thickness. Ultra lights having the much thicker wing section.

[Brad]

Actually it isn't so much the thicker wing section that gives it away... it is the much rounder leading edge. The original airfoil has a very sharp leading edge. The rounder airfoil on the "ultralights" (as you insist on calling them, even though they are not) makes for a gentle stall and docile handling compared to an authentic bird. From almost any angle they look the same, but yes, from that angle, it is obvious.

In that pic, from left to right... 1 = "authentic" (still a replica) 2 and 3 "ultralights," and after that???? You tell me. I can guess, but that is about it... from a moderate distance, you really cannot easily tell, especially if there isn't another one to compare to. I'm assuming 4 is supposed to be authentic, but the upper wing has no sweep, so it isn't "right." 5 and 6 are also probably Robert Baslee's birds like 2 and 3, but not based on the wings... (you can't really tell at that distance, or at least I can't) I'm guessing based on the extra length of the cowl for the VW powerplants.

Even at this least advantageous angle, I think this shot goes a long way toward showing how convincing the "ultralights" are as replicas. And there are HUGE differences in cost, effort to build, and flight safety.

Brad

[greatwarpilot]

Brad,

I find the following comment from your last post rather interesting:

Originally Posted by Brad

And there are HUGE differences in cost, effort to build, and flight safety.

In particular the comment regarding flight safety. I spend a lot of time flying in a military environment and at least in the Canadian Air Force the idea of flight safety has some pretty distinct connotations associated with it. Namely the chief aim "is to prevent accidental loss of aviation resources" and this is accomplished through educational programs, post accident investigations and attempting to instil a safety conscious attitude in those involved in flight operations (the flight safety team as they put it... being ground crew, pilots, supervisors, etc).

That is what frames my concept of flight safety, and as a result I don't think I agree that making an airplane easier to fly is necessarily going to make a huge difference in flight safety. In terms of "preventing accidental loss of aviation resources", as it is put in the flight safety program, I would say that flying a more authentic replica can be just as safe as operating one of these aluminium or scale versions. However the pilot just needs the correct experience, and some guidance when becoming familiarized with how the type flies.

Further, by experience I don't mean someone necessarily needs a huge amount of time. Rather a good amount of recent tail dragger experience, with lots of take offs and landings (personally I find towing gliders ideal for this) with an emphasis on developing good "hands and feet" as it were. Based on my personal experience once you get to a certain comfort level, a light airplane is basically a light airplane - minor differences aside. In my organization I started flying an 80% SE5a, and a few months later moved into a full scale version. Another relatively new pilot in the group had advised me that the little one flies "more like a modern airplane" and that the big one is a real pig. However in terms of actual aircraft handling I didn't find one particularly more difficult than the other. Certainly there were differences, but at the end of the day an airplane is an airplane (if you have the right habits).

Sorry for the bit of a tangent here, I know its well off topic from the intent of this thread. I just thought the flight safety comment was worthy of discussion. Also - Brad, I know you're a big fan of the scale/less authentic replicas. This isn't intended to be a criticism of that as I agree that there are good reasons for this style of replica to exist and for people to want to build/fly them. I just don't think that they're necessarily "safer" to operate than the full scale birds, and at the end of the day that comes down to the quality of construction and the background of the pilot that’s flying it.

Cheers

Edward

I have a reasonably complete set of blue prints for the Nieuport 23/24/27 (from the original Nieuport factory drawings, not the Rozendaal redrawn ones available elsewhere.) I am currently in the process of copying them electronically, so that I can supply the full set on CD-ROM.

I believe that Poland "aquired" several 23, 24 & 24bis aircraft from the Bolsheviks, and used them well into the 1920's, so the museum may consider building one of these? The drawings could certainly be used to build a static replica, and they do not seem to be any less detailled the the Sopwith drawings that we are building our airworthy Camel to.

I will let you know when I have completed the copying exercise.

Robert.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by greatwarpilot

Brad,

I find the following comment from your last post rather interesting:



In particular the comment regarding flight safety. I spend a lot of time flying in a military environment and at least in the Canadian Air Force the idea of flight safety has some pretty distinct connotations associated with it. Namely the chief aim "is to prevent accidental loss of aviation resources" and this is accomplished through educational programs, post accident investigations and attempting to instil a safety conscious attitude in those involved in flight operations (the flight safety team as they put it... being ground crew, pilots, supervisors, etc).

That is what frames my concept of flight safety, and as a result I don't think I agree that making an airplane easier to fly is necessarily going to make a huge difference in flight safety. In terms of "preventing accidental loss of aviation resources", as it is put in the flight safety program, I would say that flying a more authentic replica can be just as safe as operating one of these aluminium or scale versions. However the pilot just needs the correct experience, and some guidance when becoming familiarized with how the type flies.

Ok... but I said this (about flight safety) for 3 reasons:

1) Ease of handling the aircraft. For example, an airfoil with a sharp leading edge means an abrupt stall. The modern replicas have modern airfoils with a gentle stall. No nasty habits (the airplane that is, not the pilot.)

2) Survivability in the event of an accident. Graham Lee's replicas (which Robert's are essentially based on) have NEVER had a fatality, or at least not that I am aware of. As Hank explained to me (btw not just any Joe... he's a retired NASA engineer) the aluminum tube structure will "give" and spring back, dissipating the shock of impact. A wooden structure that is otherwise equal in structural strength can break, splinter, and instead of preventing injury actually contribute to the injuries received by the pilot.

3) Energy involved in any potential accident. At half the gross weight, with the same wing area, the same wires, essentially the same drag, things are going to happen slower. Slower = more survivable.

Further, by experience I don't mean someone necessarily needs a huge amount of time. Rather a good amount of recent tail dragger experience, with lots of take offs and landings (personally I find towing gliders ideal for this) with an emphasis on developing good "hands and feet" as it were. Based on my personal experience once you get to a certain comfort level, a light airplane is basically a light airplane - minor differences aside. In my organization I started flying an 80% SE5a, and a few months later moved into a full scale version. Another relatively new pilot in the group had advised me that the little one flies "more like a modern airplane" and that the big one is a real pig. However in terms of actual aircraft handling I didn't find one particularly more difficult than the other. Certainly there were differences, but at the end of the day an airplane is an airplane (if you have the right habits).

I suspect there are some machines out there which could change your mind about that. The level of skill of the pilot needs to be appropriate for the machine they are flying. For example, you don't take a newly signed off pilot
fresh from his checkride and throw him in a Pitts S1... at least not if you expect a positive outcome. Now granted, that is one extreme to the other... I'm just saying that the aircraft is a large part of the safety equation.

Sorry for the bit of a tangent here, I know its well off topic from the intent of this thread. I just thought the flight safety comment was worthy of discussion. Also - Brad, I know you're a big fan of the scale/less authentic replicas. This isn't intended to be a criticism of that as I agree that there are good reasons for this style of replica to exist and for people to want to build/fly them. I just don't think that they're necessarily "safer" to operate than the full scale birds, and at the end of the day that comes down to the quality of construction and the background of the pilot that’s flying it.

Hmmm... as for the smaller scale birds being safer... that isn't what I mean specifically. The smaller scale ones might be a bit more of a handful in some areas (particularly takeoff and landing) due to being very short-coupled and sensitive.

Don't get me wrong... I'd LOVE to have an authentic, full-scale replica. Make mine an Albatros DIII please! Or a Fokker E (I-IV, I don't care!) I would happily fly either of those... although that rotary engine on the Fokker could stand a bit of work to make it more reliable. There are MANY different birds that I'd love to have.

The reduced scale ones fit my budget AND garage better. The construction method used by Graham Lee or Robert Baslee fits my skills better. (easier to learn, more "fudge factor" allowed... although modern glues mean wooden parts don't have to be a perfect fit like they used to.) They go together MUCH faster and easier, so the "instant gratification" (although it isn't instant by any means) comes into play here.

I am however one of the first to point out "big" errors on replicas, so I guess I tend to like things both ways. (BTW that 80% SE5 isn't exactly accurate either... )

Brad

[baldeagle]

Actually, the movie pilots who flew both would tell you that the real Nieuports were easier to fly than the aluminum ones....

Mirrors, are those the drawings from Macchi? I've read that copies of factory drawings used by them in Italy in WW1 were available, also another possible resource.