40k+ feet in a triplane, imagine that.

Flying a Fokker Dr1 must have been the greatest experience of your life, if you went high enough you could see the curvature of the earth before you ran out of oxygen.

Surely unless the engine is supercharged then it would choke and die about the same time you would.

Doubt you could hit 15k in that thing

Also, the DR1 being good had nothing to do with being a triplane and most triplanes were dogshit

>>63935602 (OP)
kill yourself

>>63935602 (OP)
The efficient wing shape is what made it so effective. Aerodynamics was very much an experimental art and not the well known equations and rapid computer simulation of today. A lot of wind tunnel work and trying new things back then. The D.VII and D.VIII were better planes with the VIII extremely underrated. Rotary engines were a weird time.

I don't understand the point of rotating the entire engine block, which was mainstream at the time.

>>63935673
Rotary engines are lightweight and high horsepower. Mixed air and fuel comes in through the static hub behind the pilot and gets flung out to the cylinders who also intake a little additinal air from their cylinder head after the exhaust stroke. Funny enough some rotary engines literally only had full throttle or off.

If you haven't checked out the workings, they are really interesting. Also inline engines were built off a beefy crank case and separate cyliders compared to the modern engine block.

>>63935673
>rotating the entire engine block,
Amazing airflow.

>>63935634
The engine had terrible intake problems and a very small fuel supply. It had at most 1.5 hours of fuel so it's altitude was limited by that as well as the pilot ability to breath.

>>63935643
love you bro.

>>63935714
>>63935673
They sort of act like gyroscopes to stabilize it and can function even if a cylinder is shot off until the oil runs out.

A modern Dr.1 would use a Rotax engine that weighed 1/2 the weight and would have the same power but not the oxygen issues. If the pilot had a oxygen bottle a Dr.1M could possibly do 25k+ feet or even higher.

>>63935793
They are really awesome.

I think that if you pushed the design and had something like nitrous feeds into the engines you could get high enough to see the stars and the curvature of the earth with wood and canvas.

Wouldn't that be glorious?

>>63935658
>D.VIII were better planes with the VIII extremely underrated
Mah Nigga!
But to be fair: As much as I got a hardon for the D.VIII, it arrived way too late at the front lines. That's the biggest reason why it's so underrated. And then:
>First E.Vs arrived in July 1918
>In August the entire fleet got grounded and production halted after two or three E.Vs crashed after sudden unexpected wing faults
>Late September production resumed with new machines labeled as D.VIII but the first machines didn't arrive at the front before mid October and it isn't clear if these even took part in active combat.

When we're talking about nimble motherfuckers who could turn on a dime then the E.V/D.VIII sure was among the very best of the best of WW1. But sadly mostly on paper.
Pic related: Engels E.6. This man is probably the biggest WW1 plane nut you can find in Germany. He's been building his own "fleet" since he was a teenager.

>>63936926
Also honorable mention for one of the lesser known german fighters, the Siemens-Schuckert D-Series (pic related is the D.IV).
Especially the refined D.IV was the best german fighter of the entire war. Yes, even better than all versions of the Fokker D.VII.

>>63935673
>>63935714
>>63936841

Rotary engines had a short window in aeroplane history where they shone.
Airframes were too slow for fixed air-cooled engines to provide cooling, and liquid-cooled engines could not provide a good power/weight ratio, so for the early years in WWI the rotary engine was the optimum for high performance aircraft, fighters namely.
The gyroscopic effect was drastic and had effects on the aircraft's stability and tendencies at different speeds and one or the other axis, but in some cases pilots learned to use that to their advantage. Right turns in Camels were tight and lifted the nose up, resulting in a maneuver hard to counter.
t. >>>/vg/simg/ for 3 decades

>>63935602 (OP)
above 1600 feet the pilots are starting to run out of oxygen.
sop worth pup tops out at about 2200 feet but at that point the pilot risks hypothermia, and the aircraft is farely close to stall speed.

>>63937273
oops slight typo just add an extra 0 to that

"If you can fly a Sopwith Camel you can fly anything".

>>63937273
I've cruised a Chipmunk at 3000. High enough to enjoy the view but still stay out of the way of the professionals.

>>63936841
>They sort of act like gyroscopes to stabilize it
no retard, the advantage is reducing weight by removing the flywheel, the gyroscopic effect is one of their main drawbacks.

>>63936926
I'm in AWE every day at the power of German autism. Love this country. PhDing here is a joy, evey day I'm surrounded by wholesome german autists

>>63936926
>Fleet
>Not circus
BAKA

>>63935673
It's cool

>>63938896
Dud got his own YT channel and makes lots of videos in english too. Just wonder why he doesn't have much more views tbqh. As far as I understand he doesn't only build these planes from OG blueprints (imagine the research he does) but also to WW1 specs AND with WW1 methods and tools.
So it's not like these planes were made with modern CNC tools and whatnot but only (or mostly) stuff that had been available in 14-18.
As I said: probably the biggest WW1 plane nut at least in germany.
youtube.com/@AchimEngels

The designers parents were both Mother Fokker and Motherfokker :D

>>63935638
>German engines were shit and the prussians looted british ones
>The fookker design was shit it was the engine
You can pick one and only one and make it make sense expecialy when The red baron said it was the best he ever flew.

>>63942932
NTA, but you seem to be imagining things that were never said. He didn't say that the German engines were bad, nor did he say that the whole design was bad, just the triplane aspect of it.
The airfoil design was the standout feature that made it a good plane.

If you could time travel to 1914 the most significant thing you could bring back would be a drawing of a clark-y airfoil.
If you remember 50/50 ethyleneglycol/water coolant, Tetraethyl lead and any other small details you would advance aerospace technology by almost a decade.

>>63942879
ICE is coming for you, Carlos.

>>63938896
What's your PhD in?

>>63946311
bio, phylogenetics stuff at one of the max plancks

>>63935602 (OP)
Never got the Fokker worship. It’s also funny how making thicker wings means you invented airfoils and aerodynamics when the British already did that a decade prior to WW1 (Lancaster)

>>63943094
>burgery channel

>>63947629
The Dr1 had the best climb rate of the war with the disadvantage of an average top speed. You are peak midwit. All the other fighters of WW1 were using inferior thin airfoils and it made a huge difference.
After the Entente got pieces of airfoil they copied it for every plane after

>>63948451

>>63935602 (OP)
>A plane called 'The Fucker'
>ww2 had the 'Fuck Wolf

Germans are a buncha perverts

>>63935602 (OP)
and you expect me to believe in 47 years, the SR-71 Blackbird flew?
Yeah, ok. Sure thing buddy.

>>63937273
they had oxygen masks back then, anon.

>>63948451
That’s not true tho. The Siemens-Schuckert D.IV and Fokker D.VII with BMW engine had better climbrates than the DR1 with the D.IV having a thin airfoil rather than the Göttingen one like Fokker later did.

>>63951268

>>63951122
Necessity is the mother of inventions

>>63935658
The flying razorblade fucks.

>>63951029
Fokker is Dutch, not that they aren't arguably bigger pervs

>>63938256
Truth

.>>63937077
Correct, one of the engines oft ignored features it they could briefly work if a few of the cylinders were shot off.

>>63938803
You clearly don't understand how the engines work, the engine mass and propeller are the flywheel.

>>63951122
Yes.

>>63951126
Correct.

A Fokker Dr.1 with a modern (Rotax most likely) engine and a bit of oxygen for the pilot and engine could hit 45lk feet, you know i am right.

Brass balls on them. I got that fear of heights where I was in a cessna that felt flimsier than my car door with that and a seatbeat separating me from the call of the void and I was pic related. These guys get in lawn-mower paper and wood and fly and shoot at eachother. Or get on the wings and fucking dance around.

Gods among men

>>63954520

>F-35 cruising
>Cloud bank ahead
>Three dozen tiny contacts show op on radar out of no where
>F-35 pilot has 5 seconds to register them before the sound of rain hits his airplane
>The sound is dozens of 7.92mm bullets
>Thump! The F-35 just hit something
>F-35 pilot tries to eject, dead when he hits the ground
>His ejection seat and parachute is fouled by canvas and pieces of laminated wood

>>63955051
Interesting question: How many modernized Fokker Dr.1s would it take to equal a F-35 or F-22? The cost isn't a issue, the Fokker wins every time. But how many?

Once a supersonic fighter realized the situation it can do things like blast through a formation of them and kill them with sonic booms but that involves getting inside the triplane swarm and possibly getting shot.

How many Fokker triplanes to kill a F-35/F-22?

The F-35/F-22s running out of fuel, their base being attacked or the pilots just giving are options.

>>63955090
I think Growling Sidewinder did a video on such a scenario. Not sure if he used a WW1 plane or a Polikarpov I-16. But the baseline was like
>Jet has so much more energy it isn't even funny
>Smol prop fighter being able to turn inside a shower stall can lead to interesting surprises
Be aware his video was a 1:1 fight, going into the merge, guns only.
Would be interesting to see BVR or at least missile distance. Would a modern Sidewinder seeker be able to lock onto the relatively cold exhaust gases of a rotary engine? Would a WW1 fighter have enough radar reflection for an AMRAAM to lock on?

>>63955198
Considering modern day drones are as small or smaller than ww1 fighters and are often powered by piston engines, the answer is yes on both counts, although the sidewinder has to get closer than usual. (Rotary/radial engines give big radar returns, even tough the wooden fuselage might not)

>>63955198
>The Merge
Reminder for everyone that fighters beat dragons every time, every old-ass WW1 plane mentioned in this thread would sweep in like a 3v1 or 2v1 at the very least, and I think the Red Baron could win the 1v1.

To a dragon, an F-14, F-15, Typhoon, Viggen, etc. is a man-made horror beyond comprehension.

>>63955262

>>63954502
>Correct, one of the engines oft ignored features it they could briefly work if a few of the cylinders were shot off.
No. Any imbalance even from a broken prop would make the whole engine wobble and tear itself off the fixed crankshaft.

>>63955720

>>63955720

>>63935634
Thats how the caproni ca 161bis did it, and it still holds the altitude record for a single piston airplane at 56000 feet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOFl2G5MsWc

>>63955198
>>63955090
As long as they had the range to reach the jets base then any long term war of attrition would be unwinnable for the jet users side. A modern industrial power could make them within days mostly being limited by the drying time for the adhesives used for the frame and skin. A month and a half-two months time to train pilots is damn good.

You might have issues getting guys to volunteer to pilot them due to the huge loss rates but there is strength in numbers, statistically survival rates would improve drastically if you were throwing out 1000 plane waves of them.

>>63954502
>Correct, one of the engines oft ignored features it they could briefly work if a few of the cylinders were shot off.
Someone's getting his rotaries and radials mixed up.

>>63958044
Shit, you are right. My bad.

>>63958038
Hmmm.. Most of the combat training was done at the front but that isn't really needed here. All they really need to know is how to turn as fast as possible towards a specific bearing and fly in formation.

You would probably need to come up with new formation tactics if they are flying in huge swarms of hundreds.

>>63951029
even weirder is that the guy who invented the fucker wolf was named "tank." no wonder the nazis lost they weren't allocating their engineers correctly.

>>63954502
>You clearly don't understand how the engines work, the engine mass
Not all engines have an internal rotational inertia without a flywheel, some have crankshaft with enough counterweights to work without a flywheel but that's still extra weight to increase the rotational mass.
>propeller are the flywheel.
Not really, in a radial the propeller is too light, slow (gearbox) and far away from the cylinders to be usable, you would bebe damaging the crankshaft and gearbox with the excessive torsional vibrations like french engines during WWII.
>The Super Rhone was a conversion of rotary into radial and required 25% of extra mass and a new crankshaft with counterweight.

>>63958459
Kurt Tank became one of the Argentinian Nazis. Designed some nice aircraft for them too.

>>63935673
because it was cool.

the process meant you had the cylinders spinning in air, meaning they were able to be made thinner, and without radiators etc. That meant that at the time, they had a greater power-weight ratio than any other engine. They were however limited in a number of ways - oiling them was a nightmare, and that meant by the 20's, fixed blocks, either inline or radial, were able to produce more horsepower / litre or more horsepower/tonne.

they're effectively the product of their available technologies, but were soon obsolete.

>>63958583
Yeah, i screwed up, i was thinking of something else.

>>63958618
It is really hard to overstate how utterly bad the Fokkers engine was by modern standards. Compression, intake, fuel efficiency, everything was trash. The modern equavalent not only has higher horsepower but weighs 1/2 to 1/3 as much as the French engine it was copied from does.

It also only had a 50 liter fuel tank and 1.5 hours of endurance. A modern engine would have close to 10x the range and several times the maximum altitude.

Isn't most of the combustion energy wasted rotating the heavy cylinders?
I heard that the castor oil that was scattered around was so bad that the pilots suffered from diarrhea.

>>63958699
They leaked badly, getting the oil was a major supply issue.

>>63958693
The internal combustion engine had existed for about thirty years at that point, comparing those with current technology makes you sound like a dick.
Go compare your abacus to an I Phone.

>>63958693
It was ok, WWI had 2 types of aircraft: with rotary, or inline
Rotary engines were a dead end and they remained essentially unchanged change during the war, improvement in flight performance were due to aerodynamic, in general, and they needed as many as possible at low cost, that's why any outlier was rare. Designers didn't take full advantage of larger inlines to increase speed or climbing rate, but mostly to make larger planes or go higher.

>>63958714
It wasn't meant as a criticism, i was simply pointing it out since many people probably don't understand how young the technology was.

Obviously comparing a Ur.II to a Rotax isn't a fair comparison.

>>63958766

>>63958755
*ahem*
V engines did exist, the Hispano-Suiza V8 was a very good engine for the time.

Here is a though that came to me in another thread: Would a slightly modernized WW1 tri/biplane be cheaper and easier to produce than a Geran? Because if the cost was comparable suddenly you are talking about division scale formations throwing 2.5 or 3k planes at you.

You would need a national network of flight simulators and you would run into a hard logistics limit although if they were cheap enough major repairs would not be a issue as you could just replace the planes instead of fixing them.

>mfw Kim/Putin read my post and suddenly thousands of free 'networked team play gaming kiosks' open up across Russia/NK, the ones with the high scores get to be 'team play leaders'

>>63960382
>major repairs
Ship them back to the factory. You could probably just send only the critical components back for remanufacturing, the air frame might be so cheap it would be more cost effective to replace it entirely.

>>63960416

>>63959663
V engines are still inline, it only applies to aeroengines because what matters is cross section.
>In aviation, an inline engine is a reciprocating engine with banks of cylinders

>>63935673
Problem: early engines had a low RPM so you needed an excessively heavy flywheel.
Solution: make the engine the flywheel.

It sounds weird but why would a modern Fokker necessarily use a prop at all, why not a really small basic jet? A small jet would probably weigh less and by removing the prop from the front it opens up a whole world of options.

A huge issue with any open cockpit is bad weather, you could give it a enclosed plexiglass bubble cockpit like a Bell 47. Of course at that point you are pretty much obligated to use the Cobra logo and play their theme song during night raids.

>>63961769
The propeller is far more efficient than a fan at converting shaft power into thrust at low speed and that matters because in general fuel is heavier than the powerplant.

>>63960382
put your trip back on norkfag

>>63947187
Any particular phylum?

>>63961787
>fan
Not a fan, an actual small jet coming out of the tail.

The current engine is 140hp and the modern equivalent weighs half that, i very much suspect that whatever basic hobby/drone jet you used would weigh even less than that.

>in general fuel is heavier than the powerplant.

Not in this case, a DR.1 only carries around 38 kg of fuel aka 50 liters. It only has one and a half hours of endurance. We would need to figure out the thrust equivalent, find a small jet that matched it then compare weights.

>>63961769
>>63961847
>>63961801
Geran-3 uses these, a pair should do it. They are more powerful than a MD550 which is 50hp, it might be able to get away with just one since the plane would be approaching the same weight as a Geran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_TJ150

>>63961847
>turbojet instead of turbofan
kys norktard

>>63962028

>>63962028
Oh hush you, i was talking about jets in general. I thought he was talking about a turbo prop. If it would work better than a UR II i'd even consider a pulse jet.

>>63962447
>I'll replace the powerplant with an Isp of +10,000 sec with this retarded pipe 10 times less efficient.

>>63962507
I did say 'if' they would work. It doesn't matter anyway, a jet isn't needed. Did some math and research;

A aluminum frame instead of steel and modern skin material (Ouratex ideally) easily get the weight to the point where a pair of MD550s on the wings would exceed the existing power to weight ratio. They would also mean interrupter gear wasn't needed. Circular rings to mount a enclosed plexiglass bubble as a enclosed cockpit probably mount the wings better than the existing design. The central spar could go behind the pilot instead of under the dash.

Sadly this probably doesn't increase the maximum altitude from the original by any significant amount (really wanted 40k) but tactically it isn't a big deal. Maybe jets can be revisited for a high altitude version, either that or the original single design with a modern prop engine. I am sure extreme altitude is possible but it isn't really needed.

The bubble cockpit would offer fantastic visibility and be just neato, you would have a 180 degree sphere of visibility, maybe even more. Looking straight ahead you wouldn't even see the plane just bare sky like it was you flying yourself not piloting a vehicle.

>>63962566
Oh, and i done goofed with the HP requirements, it doesn't need 140 HP it needs 110. I was basing the numbers off of the French engine they copied not the one they used, the German one only had 110.

Swapping out the UT.II for 2 MD550s saves 114 kg alone, the loss of 10 HP is easily compensated by cutting the aircraft weight by 1/5th.

>30 minutes to 16,000 feet
falling asleep ere brov

>>63963934

>>63963934

>>63963934
Well obviously much of this thread is trying to fix that issue, especially as it took 1/3rd of your flight time to get there.

In practice the climb rate was highly variable; wind speed had a big influence and even what lubricating oil they had available as it affected the engines compression significantly as they leaked like crazy.

A really neat thing is that once they got to altitude and had a consistent headwind not only could they hover they could fly backwards if the wind was over 40mph.

They didn't stall like normal planes, they maintained orientation (even without power) and just drifted downwards. To do a safe landing without power you had to actively point the nose down so that you started gliding instead of stay stationary and just dropping straight down or going backwards.

>>63966914
Rotary engines don't leak, they have lossy lubrication like 2S.

>>63966930

Total loss lubrication system are leaky systems, at least in practice. Getting castor oil was a issue for them.

>t. total loss lubrication expert i.e 1985 F-250 owner

>lossy lubrication
Lewd!

My concept of how air attacks should work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVcAFtQ-bAQ

>>63966985

>>63967949

>>63966985

>>63966930

>>63966985

>>63966985

>>63966985

>>63966985

>>63966985

>>63966985

>>63967949
this shit thread isn't worth the self-necrobumping

>>63966930
Ring a ding. In your face.

>>63980470
That is absolutely not me, i don't do that bullshit.

>>63966985

>>63951122
man we fell off hard, didn't we?

>>63981523

>>63981523

>>63943094

that must have been such a chilling moment, when the prey suddenly became the predator. The 7 vs 1 fight against Werner Voss was legendary

>>63984950
The guys fighting him described it like they were up against a supernatural force, half of them probably went to their graves convinced that whatever they shot down wasn't human:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Voss#Final_patrol

>>63981523

>>63951122
Absolutely mindblowing. WWI planes started with wood frames assembled to match chalk lines on floors.

>>63985476
>16 year old sergeant

>>63986127

>>63986136
It gets even better: The US Army Air Corp spent 7-8 weeks on average training them before sending them to the front. Not only had most of them never flown before, in some cases they hadn't even driven a car before.

Imagine being a teenager without even a drivers license, signing up and a few months later they expect you to fight someone like Voss.

>>63955090
>How many modernized Fokker Dr.1s would it take to equal a F-35 or F-22?
there is a science fiction short story about exactly such a scenario - "Hawk Among the Sparrows"

>>63987692
>Hawk Among the Sparrows
Reading now.

BEHOLD! CHATGPT AND /WSR/ HAS SHOW US THE FUTURE OF AIR COMBAT!

>The props would be bigger but the size for two MD-550s is about right.

It would be more maneuverable than the original, it could do flat spins better assuming that was actually possible. The guns would go underneath, i'm picturing a modular mount with 2x 7.62 for anti drone work, a 12.7mm for general duty or a 30mm AGL for ground attack.

In theory it could mount a KPV, however i have several recoil related questions.

>>63981523
Spending a third of the federal budget on >85 IQ morons is not a good idea.

>>63988845
It's idiotic, especially when you could spend the cost of a F-35 to make 2500+ Fokker DR.1-Ms.

The sad thing is it that training the pilots would be faster and cheaper. Sure they are going to die but courage is reinforced by numbers.

>>63943094
Fokker triplanes turning faster than modern attack helicopters in 1917 will never stop being a object of interest to me.

>>63987235
It makes all the stories about the uberaces being so good that they could disable an enemy plane in such a way as to almost ensure the other pilot would survive if they did their part much more understandable.
Like being a hastily knighted squire against a nobleman with dozens of battles under his belt, he can probably just disarm you and let you live if he wants. As long as he can ensure that you don't come back to stab him in the back.

>>63990276

>>63966914
>fly backwards if the wind was over 40mph
That sounds awesome and terrifying.

>>63991835

>>63935602 (OP)
Red Baron approved

>>63993423

>>63993423

Anons
Me and my friend are thinking about buying a 3/4 scale Fokker D VI kit from airdrome aeroplanes since it's so small and lightweight that we could build it as an ultralight, and the kit is straight forward enough that with two guys and maybe a few volunteer friends it could be finished pretty quickly.
From what I understand, its essentially just a DR.1 without the middle wing.
Would any anons know the potential legality of mounting a gun with an FRT or gatling style crank trigger on it, either for shooting blanks or for shooting hogs (Theres some states where you can legally shoot at hogs from an aircraft apparently, though usually they do it from a helicopter)

>>63996204
Also the fact that its an Ultralight and not legally a plane might change things

>>63996204
>>63996209
Makes me wonder, how much would a DR.1M cost at large scale production?

>Carbon/fiberglass airframe
>Very basic holographic sight
>Basic GPS/Radio
>LCD screen for basic IR camera

The engines and guns would probably be the most expensive items however at scale $15-$20k might be feasible.

>>63996275
They sell kits for those aswell at $12500
https://airdromeaeroplanes.com/FokkerDr-1%7BFullscale%7D.html

>>63989874
To be fair, modern attack helicopters in 1917 were quite underwhelming on the whole

>>63996293
so probably $20-30k assuming that you had a factory mass producing the engines and especially guns, everything else is literally available on Amazon. The twin MD550 idea solves alot of mechanical complexity since interrupter gear isn't needed.

>>63996307
It's like they weren't even trying.

>>63996209

>>63990276
Marseille and Bong were that good in WWII as well.
Both still died in the cockpit.

>>63996275
Your carbon frame and electronics are far more expensive than the guns on actual manufacturing costs.

>>63996324

>>63997943

>>63997943

>>63943094
>teleports behind you
>heh, nichts personlich, Kind

>>63997943

why the fuck does this thread need to be necrobumped so many times?
i like ww1 planes but jesus shut the fuck up, least you could do is contribute with images or something

>>64003147

>>63935602 (OP)
Max it can do is 14k feet.

>>63955090
A Hawk among sparrows

>>63997943
>After market electronics on a plane with no original electrical system are more expensive than the guns

>GPS $50
>LCD and IR camera $300
>Radio: $50-100
Vs:
>M2A2 .50 browning machine gun: $14,000

>>63997943
Synthetic rod is significantly cheaper than the equivalent strength of aluminum tubing.

>>64007372

>>64007372

>>64007372

Can someone please explain how this thread keeps getting bumped without the post count increasing or there being new posts? This is getting kinda weird.

>>64010138
>posts something
>deletes the post
>the bump remains
That anon necrobumping is a very dedicated retard.

>>64010142
Wouldn't the deleted post show up on archives if you use the extension?

>>64010153
They do, maybe not all if they're deleted too quickly because archives have time gaps.

>>64010161
Huh, the more you know. They are dedicated.

On the chance the necrobumper is a fellow biplane autist or even a fan of mine i politely ask you to stop. I applaud your support of my autistic ideas involving bi/tri planes in the modern era but if the board isn't interested enough for the thread to survive organically let it die.

I'm aware there are shills and slide threads that artificially kill threads like this but 4chan has always been a cruel board that values survival of the fittest, i do not approve of a thread i started being kept alive by artificial means.

>>63942932
>The red baron said it was the best he ever flew.
Yeah, because he could only compare it to other German planes.

>>63961769
Why not a pulse jet engine since they're even lighter and make more thrust the more air you force in them

>>64013058
They would harm it's maneuverability, it needs to be able to throttle down to a level that would force a pulse jet to flame out.

>>64013248

>>63989775
1000+ spreytard

>>63996204
>>63996209
UAVs aren't planes either and the FAA still wasn't happen when some guy put a glock on his drone and shot it.

>>64018119
arent electronically fired guns considered machine guns though?

>>64012367
Which were superior to Timmy's planes made in a shed

>>64016333
It's deeper than that.

>AEROGAVINS, SEAHOGS and F-35s launch from converted cargo ship
>Detected by AWACS Zeppelins from over the launch ships radar horizon
>Fokker swarm sent on intercept
>A-10 SEAHOGS sent to provide cover
>A-10 SEAHOGS desperately resort to ramming against the swarm to cover the AEROGAVINS as they land at the LZ
>Handful of F-35s watch helplessly as the Fokkers are too close to the AEROGAVINS to engage
>F-35s rush to engage the oncoming waves of Po-2 bombers before they hit the beachhead
>Small bombs begin falling like mildly annoying rain on the unprotected LZ as a new threat arises
>AEROGAVINS spray .50 fire everywhere as F-35s are forced to disengage to protect their converted cargo ship carriers
>'MAYDAY MAYDAY! An-2s HAVE BROKEN THROUGH THE AIR DEFENSES! WE ARE UNDER AIRBORN ASSULT! PARATROOPERS HAVE LANDED ON THE SHIP!
>'AK-AK-AK-AK-AK!' in the back ground as the sounds of AK fire fills the airwaves
>Impotent 'pop pop pop' of 9mm fire responds
>"DAMN IT IF WE ONLY HAD RIFLES THESE PISTOLS ARE USELESS!'
>'AK-AK-AK'
>'DAMN IT IF ONLY WE HAD LISTENED AND REFORMED HARDER AAAAAAAAAAAHHHH SAVE ME SPARKY!!!!
>The deafening sound of radio silence suddenly fills the weeping F-35 pilots earpieces
>Looking at their fuel gauges and knowing they has no where to land the F-35s turn and head back towards the canvas swarm of doom ready to sell their lives as dearly as possible
>Weeping Lady Liberty

>>64020977

>>63960382
>tri/biplane be cheaper and easier to produce
No, monoplanes are sadly strictly better aerodynamics.

>>64022221
They can't turn faster than a triplane, nothing can including for practical purposes helicopters.

Fokkers can just stop, then dive, pop up or even do a straight down 0 degree powered dive. Not only can they hover, the damn things can fly backyards in a decent wind. They can do really cool shit with flat spins.

If a helicopter managed to outmaneuver a Fokker then that helicopter better be flown by Hanna Reitsch.

Link obviously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch

>>64022221
quadplanes

>>63936841
>get high enough to see the stars and the curvature of the earth with wood and canvas.
sounds kinda fuckin terrifying
>mfw walking through that museam in england with all the old 1930's racing planes
>they look like barbecue skewers tied together with twine and a few flaps of jeans
>"why is the entire cockpit black"
>"oh these things leaked so much oil and directly towards the cockpit and pilot, they had to wear these massive industrial grade goggles to not be blinded
>mfw
like thanks for all the innovation but holy shit those fuckers were insane. 200 mph or some shit in a wicker basket? fuck that

>>64024819
>oh these things leaked so much oil
Some of those engines were using total loss lubrication systems, they don't recirculate the motor oil, it just gets dumped and you refill it afterwards.

>>64025158
Jesus fuck

>>64024819
>200 mph or some shit in a wicker basket?
no, more like highway speeds
you average used car can probably go faster and handle high g-forces than the average ww1 plane

>>64025425
He was specifically talking about racing planes he saw in a museum.

>>64025158
>>64024819
Castor oil sometimes, it gave you massive shits on top of everything else.

>>63935602 (OP)
>wehraboo thread
>full of obnoxious faggots

>>64025934
Oh I'm retarded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161

>>64026245
>The following year, Pezzi broke the record again in the more powerful Ca.161bis, making a flight to 17,083 m (56,047 ft) on 22 October 1938

Holy crap that is impressive.

>>64026285