Help on plane type!

[Martin DK]

Hi all of you.

We are a small group of 4 people, who has decided to build two WW1 planes.
We have experiece in restoring aircraft, but not in building from scratch.

The thing is, we want to ask you people of advice, when it comes to type. Since it is our first, we would like a "easy beginner plane".(we know it isnt easy at all, but some must be harder than others).

Our initial thoughts is:
Fokker D.7: was earlier in the Danish Airforce (we are from Denmark), we think its easier to get engine(inverted ranger), and we can see in here that we can get alot of help!

Fokker DR1: Also a popular aircraft to build in here, so posible to get alot of advice in the process. A great plane that brings evryones thought to ww1.

Sopwith Snipe/Camel: More out of wood, than metal. We are used to work with wood.

Hopefully you will share your thoughts, and if any of you out there have used jigs we can buy for what ever we might deside on building, we are more than interested. Also if you have knowledge of what plans to use.

best regards
Martin

[Chock]

The general consensus from most builders is that Fokker replicas are 'easier', because you can make a welded steel tube fuselage, and that's simpler than wood of course, but still authentic. They are less prone to be damaged in a heavy landing too. This is why you tend to see more Dr1 Triplane and DVII replicas than other types, and of those two, the DVII would probably be simpler, because it not only involves making fewer wings, but it is also easier to conceal a less authentic engine, whereas with the Dr1, if you don't fit a rotary engine, it's a dead giveaway up close, although many Dr1 replicas have used a Warner Scarab radial, which fits under a Dr1's cowling and apart from not rotating, still looks reasonably authentic. The advantage of the Dr1 on the other hand, is that it is fairly small, so does not require a massive hangar. Exterior wire bracing on Fokkers is often a lot simpler than on other craft too, which is something else to consider.

As you noted, for something like a DVII, you could use a Ranger engine, which can run either the normal way around or be inverted (this choice will affect how authentic the nose profile will appear). But, the Ranger has a comparatively short time between overhauls alongside more modern engines, which means more time/money, and of course less flying. Purists might scoff at using a modern flat four or something of that nature, but the chances are that both certification and maintenance will be easier if you do, and it is likely to cost less too in terms of acquiring one and running it.

As far as aircraft go, you might consider something a little more esoteric for other reasons. The most obvious one being that if you make a two seater, not only can two people enjoy flying it, but you could also fit such a craft with dual control, making it possible for the most experienced flyer to teach the less experienced pilots to handle the thing. And of course a two seater is likely to enable you to make a business out of the thing as well, in charging for rides, which might help to offset the costs of creating or maintaining it. The other plus point to making a two-seater, is that many of them were designed with very stable flight characteristics, so they would be better bombing and reconnaissance platforms, and since you are not likely to have to get the Red Baron off your tail, you might enjoy such stability, which would also be desirable for long distance flights, because most WW1 types are not known for having brilliant aileron response.

There's a lot of variety in two seaters as well, from fairly light aeroplanes such as the BE2 and RE8, on to more sturdy combat craft such as the Bristol Fighter and some of the big German reconnaissance craft like the DFW CV and or Roland CL2, so if hangarage is an issue, you've got a lot of scope as far as wingspans go. Problem with taking that route is that you might find yourself being something of a pioneer where drawings and construction are concerned, whereas the Dr1 and DVII are well-trodden paths as far as replicas go, so there's more people around who could help point the way.

Al

[Martin DK]

thanks Chock.

To be honest, im all done with stability I fly almost each day as a captain on a passenger aircraft, so A-B flights with no "fun", its not gonna be. But thanks for the advice, anyways. I have the posibility to fly tiger moth too, so even though the ww1 plane will be a different kind of flying in many ways, we have a learner.

We have no acces to a certified welder for the fokker planes, but I get your point, when it comes to both the hard landings and the newer engines. The group has agreed, that if we build a plane that needs a radial engine, then we will get one. If it needs to have its propeller at the lower part of its nose, it will have just that. We dont need original engines, but we want the plane to look as real as posible. Im not sure you can get a newer engine with the posibility to have a "true" fokker D.7 nose.

Martin

[Jeff Brooks]

Originally Posted by Chock

This is why you tend to see more Dr1 Triplane and DVII replicas than other types, and of those two, the DVII would probably be simpler,

Al

Well, I think that if I could do it all over again, I would have started with a Dr1 first, then work up to the DVII. The wing geometry on the DVII is tough! The Dr1 is simpler to build ... one rib jig for all the wings. On the DVII, you need a different rib jig for evry rib. lots of extra work.
Plus the DVII has C/G issues that always lead to stretching the nose so you can keep the weight down for the underpowered, under weight ranger.

[John McKenzie]

Hello Martin , One thing that is not clear is , How accurate do you make the structure ... Along with the Fokker types ( DrI , DVI ,DVII and EV ) that you can easily find the drawings for , there is also the (Redfern ) Nieuport 17 to 24/27 series which is made similar to Fokkers ,with steel tube fuselage .
With ANY aeroplane , you are going to need a welder ,..
Virtualy all the british aeroplanes , and French SPAD and Nieuports(original structure ), These all have a LOT of metal work in them .
I think it is fair to say that these are certainly not the "Wooden" aeroplanes that they appear to be at first glance .Generally the metalwork will take far longer than the wood work..Even allowing for Lazer/Waterjet cutting .
You could probably build 3 Fokkers to every Sopwith type with original structure .
Assuming you are looking for a proven /approved by air authaurities deseign ,and would like to have good progress ( and not to loose interest along the way )..Then I would suggest steel tube fuselage , Such as (Redfern) Nieuport 17/24 ..or (N28 to other Steel tube fuselage Drawings )..and a Fokker type of your choosing .
There may be approved plans for others ..ie Steel fuselage SE5a etc ..? .The original structures are VERY tim consuming .
Of course if it has to be as original , then you can get drawings for most British and French aeroplanes , BUT , these will be a LONG time in the making
Hope this is of some help to you ,....Regards John

PS Original Drgs. for Alb DIII ( Austrian ) are available ..along with Berg and some others .

[Martin DK]

thanks to you both.

I know there will be metalwork, but I did not realize the amount of it on "wooden" planes. I gues it wouldnt matter to us, if the frame and other parts are truely acurate, as long as the plane looks as if it came out of the war. If we can get drawings for a steeltube plane, that originally was ment to be of wood, its just fine. As long as it can get a flying permission. I gues im not that much into rules and regulation at the moment when it comes to that.
Nieuport is offcourse also an option.

When it comes to steeltube planes, I gues Jeff´s advice is very usefull. Build a DR.1 for starters(regarding ribs). If we get hooked on building these planes, as much as we are hooked on this planning stage, we will build others too. But as I earlier mentioned, we need a good model to begin with.

As of drawings. Is sand´s the best? -and were do I find these? -and others? I have only really seen those from replicraft.

[John McKenzie]

Hi Martin , You can get the plans of Redfern DrI , N17/24 and DH2 from the late Walter Redferns family ..Address via WWI areoplanes Inc. USA.. They are probably about $100/150 a set .....They are all steel tube fuselage and the Nieuport does not have the lower wing problems of the original ...If you go for these plans , then it helps to know a bit about building ,( but you have some experience already ) , more so with the DrI , which was his first deseign ...It is probable that more triplanes have been built useing Redfern drawings than any others , (Except in WWI by Fokker ! )
Ron Sands drawings were originaly based as I remember , on improving the redfern set ...They are probably easier to use and there are more sheets than the Redfern ones ....Neither are exactly like the original in quite a few ways ..There may not be a lot to choose between them ...The Redfern N17/24 are quite good and for all of his aircraft , you can (or could once ) get an information package .
All the above are approved here in UK , and there are not many countries more strict and regulated than here !
If your regulations are anything like over here , then you will not be able to use Replicraft or any other non original manufacturer drawings , other than those ( above ) which have already been approved by you countries representative body acting on behalf of the CAA...( FAA in USA )..
To get a new deseign approved , you may have to provide a complete stress analysis to the layed down requirement ....You will need the services of a competent stress engineer for this work ...This way you may be able to get a Replicraft set approved .
For the D VII , a set of drawings was / is available from Reausoet (?) aviation .France..( This was the ones in " Blue Max" film ) Then use a inverted Gypsey 6 (cylinders at top )...The plans are not as accurate as others , but they ARE approved ,..The man who knows about these is Maxim08 (John ) in Canada .( PM him if he doesn't come on here. )
In the USA ,replica building is less problematical and there are not the same restrictions there as in some European (UK especially ) countries ; in the USA , comparatively , you are free to do as you please within limits of where you overfly etc., with you replica .
Many plans , though available , you may find are not approved in your country without the stress analysis .
(Of course , you could build it ,and then get it certified in Rumania etc ,then biing it back to your country ! ! )
Best regards John .
...

[franzkait]

My opinion , after 25 years with old aircraft .

1. If you need a forum to build one , better do not start .
2. You need enaugh money to finish the project, not only some to start .
3. You need knowlige , if not ,you need much more money .
4. You need space and all the possibilitys .
5. Look first for a person who can do all the work you can not do .
6. Buy the engine first .
7. After the engine is in running condition , start with the aircraft .
8. Do not take any advice from people what never build anything already flying .
9. In the end it will always cost more money and time .
10.Do not start , if you are not 100% sure that you can finish it.
11. Do take advice from people with an engineer background .

If you follow this 11 steps ,you save money , time and frustation .

[Martin DK]

Thanks for the advice franzkait!
Although I dont agree with some of them. If you are a beginner in airplane building like we are, a forum is i nice thing. It gives you ideas, contact with other builders, contact information about were and how to get parts you can not build(or would take ages), and a fine motivation factor when writing and reading in the forums.

I do agree on being realistik. If you have 10 thumbs on you hands when it comes to building, you need help. And you need it before you start. This is not a factor here, because we do have experienced builders in the group. I mentioned earlier, that we could not do much metalwork our selfes, that issue is solved with a helping hand from outside the group now.

Funny enough, one in the group who is building vintage aircraft wings from scratch allready, actually had some Fokker DR.1 drawings. I went there today, and they were redfern drawings, so they are on my kitchen table right now!

Eventhough franzkait thinks a forum is no good, this small convention has cleared my mind. We are heading down the DR.1 track, and the things seem allready to be rolling, with the drawings and the people going to be involved. We do how ever have a questions about drawings. the first one is refern vs. Sands? I understand that Sands are made from redferns more or less, with some improvements, but will it be better for us with the Sands drawings, now we have the redferns?

Martin

[franzkait]

Sands is better