[subsea]

the only "fluid dynamics" I know about was the advice my Dad gave me as I was off to the University of Illinois - Urbana.

I was of legal drinking age -18 - and the advice was for me and my buddies to buy the best beer on tap for the first pitcher and then switch to the cheapest for any other because we wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

he was right.

that is the "fluid dynamics" you refer to correct???

That's the only fluid dynamics that counts! Especially when heading off to college!

[aslyfox]

ok first sorry about the length of the post, second, the disclaimer:

I am not a pilot, nor an engineer, nor a person trained or educated in any fashion in aeronautics, [ nor have I portrayed a doctor on stage or screen - large or small and I did not "stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night" ] but I discovered recently at the Combat Air Museum something which totally throws off my pitiful efforts to draw a mutliwinged plane - a bi or tri wing plane

__________________________________________

in order of appearance, the plane or model photographed are:

Nieuport 27 WWI French Biplane Fighter [ 7/8th flying replica ] - "Per Wikipedia, the Nieuport 27 was a French biplane fighter aircraft during World War I designed by Gustave Delage." - Nieuport 27 Replica

"The Nieuport 27 was a French biplane fighter aircraft during World War I designed by Gustave Delage. The model 27 was the last of the line of Nieuport "V-strut" single seat fighters stemming from the Bébé of early 1916. When introduced, the Nieuport 27 was widely used by the United States Air Service. It was faster than the Nieuport 17 and was armed with twin machine guns. The Nieuport 27 shared the same defect as previous models, it tended to lose fabric from the upper wing. For this reason it was unpopular with pilots and was soon replaced by the new SPAD XIII." - French Aviation 1917

******************************************

Sopwith Triplane (model) "The stack of three wings reduced wingspan and increased wing area making it handle and climb better than biplanes. Visibility from the cockpit was outstanding but it was slower and less heavily armed than it's German opponents. The Sopwith Triplane was a British single seat fighter aircraft designed and manufactured by the Sopwith Aviation Company during the First World War. Pilots nicknamed it the Tripehound or simply the Tripe. The Triplane became operational with the Royal Naval Air Service in early 1917 and was immediately successful. The Triplane was nevertheless built in comparatively small numbers and was withdrawn from active service as Sopwith Camels arrived in the latter half of 1917. Surviving aircraft continued to serve as operational trainers until the end of the war." - British Aviation: Fighters 1916

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Airco de Havilland 2 (80% scale replica) - "Developed in 1915, the DH-2 biplane was one of the first effective British fighters of World War One. Designed by Geoffrey de Havilland, the DH-2 was a response to the arrival of the Fokker Eindecker appearing over the Western Front" - Airco DH-2 [ follow link for a very interesting story IMHO, YMMV ]

"The D.H.2 biplane was Geoffrey de Havilland's second design for the Aircraft Manufacturing Company. This highly successful pusher had good maneuverability with an excellent rate of climb. Mounting the engine to the rear of the fuselage permitted the use of a fixed, forward-firing machine gun before the advent of the synchronous machine gun.

Superior to the Fokker E.III, the D.H.2 helped end the "Fokker Scourge." Well past its prime and almost two years after its introduction, some squadrons of the Royal Flying Corps were still equipped with D.H.2s."

British Aviation: Fighters 1915

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______________________________________

the first photo shows Nieuport 27 WWI French Biplane Fighter and what I always expected and try to draw: a single top wing extending in one piece from the starboard side of the plane to the port side.

the second photo show the entire model of the Sopwith Triplane and then the third shows the detail of the wings while the fourth shows the Airco de Havilland 2 and fifth show the details of its wing

What what I learned by precise observation- that at least with these types of biplanes or triplanes with a split wing design (one wing going from the fuselage to the starboard and one wing from the fuselage to the port side), the top wings as well as the middle wing on the triplane do not go straight across but are slightly angled as they approach the fuselage toward the rear of the plane.

I have no idea why but when I first saw it, I noticed the model of the triplane first, I thought "how weird and that can't be correct, can it"

[subsea]

Without getting into too much detail, what you see as the non-standard angles associated with the Sopwith and Airco wings are different in character and purpose. Effectively, the three aircraft configurations each has a different method of attaching the wings to the fuselage, independent of the number of wings used. The attachment points are dictated by structural considerations and the angles you mentioned are attempts to compensate for the effect of the attachment points. The differing wing angles on the Sopwith and Airco aircraft are intended to address specific problems involving the aerodynamic performance of the planes. The Sopwith has the top two wings swept very slightly forward (i.e. leading edge at the tip forward of the leading edge at the root, due to an inability to design a way to actually attach them at the desired location, which would have required attaching them to the engine cowling). The intent of the forward sweep angle is to fine tune the stability of the aircraft in pitch (making it slightly less stable), and make the aircraft more maneuverable. The Airco seems to have wings with dihedral (wingtip higher than the wing root). The intent of this is to increase the stability of the aircraft in roll. In other words, if the pilot slightly rolls the aircraft and then removes his hand from the stick, the aircraft should return to wings-level flight on its own. All three aircraft were designed at approximately the same time and the effects of wing sweep and dihedral were just becoming more widely known and hadn't, yet, filtered down to all of the aircraft designers. If I had to guess,I'd say that the Nieuport required greater pilot effort to control in straight and level flight than the other aircraft. By the way, note that the lower wing on the Nieuport also exhibits dihedral, but since it's only one of the two wings, it has less of an effect than seen on the Airco.

Hope this helps in associating what you observed with the impact.

[wtlwdwgn]

BAW238 A388 EGLL KLAX FL400 506 KT. K-3, Sigma 150-500 Bigmos at 500mm, 1500 @ f/11, ISO 400, handheld.

[Racer X 69]

BAW238 A388 EGLL KLAX FL400 506 KT. K-3, Sigma 150-500 Bigmos at 500mm, 1500 @ f/11, ISO 400, handheld.

How do you get the flight data Steve?

Oh, and A388, is that the plane model?

[wtlwdwgn]

How do you get the flight data Steve?

Oh, and A388, is that the plane model?

Racer, you can get the info on FlightAware. The A388 is the competition's A380-800.

[gatorguy]

Without getting into too much detail, what you see as the non-standard angles associated with the Sopwith and Airco wings are different in character and purpose. Effectively, the three aircraft configurations each has a different method of attaching the wings to the fuselage, independent of the number of wings used. The attachment points are dictated by structural considerations and the angles you mentioned are attempts to compensate for the effect of the attachment points. The differing wing angles on the Sopwith and Airco aircraft are intended to address specific problems involving the aerodynamic performance of the planes. The Sopwith has the top two wings swept very slightly forward (i.e. leading edge at the tip forward of the leading edge at the root, due to an inability design a way to actually attach them at the desired location, which would have required attaching them to the engine cowling). The intent of the forward sweep angle is to fine tune the stability of the aircraft in pitch (making it slightly less stable), and make the aircraft more maneuverable. The Airco seems to have wings with dihedral (wingtip higher than the wing root). The intent of this is to increase the stability of the aircraft in roll. In other words, if the pilot slightly rolls the aircraft and then removes his hand from the stick, the aircraft should return to wings-level flight on its own. All three aircraft were designed at approximately the same time and the effects of wing sweep and dihedral were just becoming more widely known and hadn't, yet, filtered down to all of the aircraft designers. If I had to guess,I'd say that the Nieuport required greater pilot effort to control in straight and level flight than the other aircraft. By the way, note that the lower wing on the Nieuport also exhibits dihedral, but since it's only one of the two wings, it has less of an effect than seen on the Airco.

Hope this helps in associating what you observed with the impact.

You certainly sound quite knowledgeable about these WWI era aircraft, and perhaps have experience with restorations? Great post!

I'm working on a restoration of Sopwith markings now for a nearly finished rebuild. One of just dozens of early aircraft restoration projects I've been asked to reproduce logos, decals, control panel and flight surface markings for. The client is of course very particular and detail oriented as would be expected for these rare aircraft.

[Racer X 69]

Racer, you can get the info on FlightAware. The A388 is the competition's A380-800.

Thanks Steve!

Come to think of it, I believe I asked that question before, with the same result, so thanks again.

I was out shooting near the factory in Everett one day last summer and there was a guy with several cameras (we don't mention those names here) and was using an app on his phone to know when plane were taking off and landing. Since I don't have a phone like that I am forced to simply sit and wait, just like I've always done.

[wtlwdwgn]

Thanks Steve!

Come to think of it, I believe I asked that question before, with the same result, so thanks again.

I was out shooting near the factory in Everett one day last summer and there was a guy with several cameras (we don't mention those names here) and was using an app on his phone to know when plane were taking off and landing. Since I don't have a phone like that I am forced to simply sit and wait, just like I've always done.

I have a Radio Shack handheld scanner with the local frequencies programmed that works great when shooting at the airport. You can Google for the freqs.

[subsea]

You certainly sound quite knowledgeable about these WWI era aircraft, and perhaps have experience with restorations? Great post!

I'm working on a restoration of Sopwith markings now for a nearly finished rebuild. One of just dozens of early aircraft restoration projects I've been asked to reproduce logos, decals, control panel and flight surface markings for. The client is of course very particular and detail oriented as would be expected for these rare aircraft.

Actually, I was an aerodynamicist in my previous life (I.e. before I retired)! I was lucky enough to have the chance to work on a bunch of advanced aircraft and help develop a lot of state of the art techniques to design them.

[p38arover]

How do you get the flight data Steve?

Oh, and A388, is that the plane model?

I use an iPhone app called FlightRadar24. Click on an aircraft symbol and it tells you the airline, flight no., aircraft type, and destination. For example, sitting at Sydney Airport is Qantas QF7 A380-842 SYD-DFW departing in 15:52 minutes. The app even shows aircraft tugs.

There is a Robinson R44 VH-XBT approaching the airport.

[wtlwdwgn]

FlightRadar24 is pretty cool. You can point your phone at a plane and it'll tell you what it is.

Took these with the K-3 and Sigma 150-500 at 150mm.

FDX380 B752 KMEM KBIL Final 28R.


UPS2592 A306 KSDF KBIL Final 28R.

[redpit]

A few more pics after quite a long time! I hope you enjoy... (by clicking on the pics you can see larger versions in my Flickr).

[wtlwdwgn]

Great series of images redpit!

[subsea]

In 1982 an airshow was held at the Nasa/Ames Research Center in California. Noise complaints from the neighbors limited the flight maneuvers allowed during the airshow. However, no such restrictions were in place the day before the airshow (when most of the aircraft arrived) or after the airshow finished. I was lucky enough to be out there on business and was allowed out on taxiways before and after the event with my camera (Pentax ME with a 50mm ƒ/1.7 lens and a 2x teleconverter). These are a few scans of 35mm slides that I took. The first is of a Stearman PT-17 biplane being parked following its arrival for the show. The second is a P-40 beginning to taxi out for it's departure following the airshow. The third is a Grumman F-14 (my all-time favorite aircraft) parked after its arrival. The final picture is a Grumman E-2 being directed to its parking area for ground display following its arrival at the field, with a Navy P-3 in the background. Hope you like them!