← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 63935602

406 posts 130 images /k/
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63935602 [Report] >>63935643 >>63935658 >>63937273 >>63947629 >>63951029 >>63951122 >>63993423 >>64006519 >>64025956 >>64055174 >>64064372 >>64078607 >>64094014 >>64096866 >>64097386
Fokker DR1
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.
Anonymous No.63935634 [Report] >>63936841 >>63957966
Surely unless the engine is supercharged then it would choke and die about the same time you would.
Anonymous No.63935638 [Report] >>63942932
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
Anonymous No.63935643 [Report] >>63936841
>>63935602 (OP)
kill yourself
Anonymous No.63935658 [Report] >>63936926 >>63954116
>>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.
Anonymous No.63935673 [Report] >>63935714 >>63935793 >>63936841 >>63937077 >>63941815 >>63958618 >>63961613 >>64102745
I don't understand the point of rotating the entire engine block, which was mainstream at the time.
Anonymous No.63935714 [Report] >>63936841 >>63937077
>>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.
Anonymous No.63935793 [Report] >>63936841
>>63935673
>rotating the entire engine block,
Amazing airflow.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63936841 [Report] >>63937077 >>63938803 >>64024819
>>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?
Anonymous No.63936926 [Report] >>63936948 >>63938896 >>63938907
>>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.
Anonymous No.63936948 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.63937077 [Report] >>63954502
>>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
Anonymous No.63937273 [Report] >>63937279 >>63938300 >>63951126
>>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.
Anonymous No.63937279 [Report]
>>63937273
oops slight typo just add an extra 0 to that
Anonymous No.63938256 [Report] >>63954502
"If you can fly a Sopwith Camel you can fly anything".
Anonymous No.63938300 [Report]
>>63937273
I've cruised a Chipmunk at 3000. High enough to enjoy the view but still stay out of the way of the professionals.
Anonymous No.63938803 [Report] >>63954502
>>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.
Anonymous No.63938896 [Report] >>63942849 >>63946311 >>64089572 >>64089585
>>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
Anonymous No.63938907 [Report]
>>63936926
>Fleet
>Not circus
BAKA
Anonymous No.63941815 [Report]
>>63935673
It's cool
Anonymous No.63942849 [Report]
>>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
Anonymous No.63942879 [Report] >>63946289
The designers parents were both Mother Fokker and Motherfokker :D
Anonymous No.63942932 [Report] >>63943004 >>64012367
>>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.
Anonymous No.63943004 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.63943094 [Report] >>63948405 >>63984950 >>63989874 >>64003147 >>64135324 >>64139523
Anonymous No.63943102 [Report]
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.
Anonymous No.63946289 [Report]
>>63942879
ICE is coming for you, Carlos.
Anonymous No.63946311 [Report] >>63947187
>>63938896
What's your PhD in?
Anonymous No.63947187 [Report] >>63961811
>>63946311
bio, phylogenetics stuff at one of the max plancks
Anonymous No.63947629 [Report] >>63948451
>>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)
Anonymous No.63948405 [Report]
>>63943094
>burgery channel
Anonymous No.63948451 [Report] >>63951025 >>63951268
>>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
Anonymous No.63951025 [Report]
>>63948451
Anonymous No.63951029 [Report] >>63954139 >>63958459
>>63935602 (OP)
>A plane called 'The Fucker'
>ww2 had the 'Fuck Wolf

Germans are a buncha perverts
Anonymous No.63951122 [Report] >>63952701 >>63954502 >>63981523 >>63986127 >>64035322
>>63935602 (OP)
and you expect me to believe in 47 years, the SR-71 Blackbird flew?
Yeah, ok. Sure thing buddy.
Anonymous No.63951126 [Report] >>63954502
>>63937273
they had oxygen masks back then, anon.
Anonymous No.63951268 [Report] >>63952649
>>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.
Anonymous No.63952649 [Report]
>>63951268
Anonymous No.63952701 [Report]
>>63951122
Necessity is the mother of inventions
Anonymous No.63954116 [Report]
>>63935658
The flying razorblade fucks.
Anonymous No.63954139 [Report]
>>63951029
Fokker is Dutch, not that they aren't arguably bigger pervs
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63954502 [Report] >>63955720 >>63958044 >>63958583
>>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.
Anonymous No.63954520 [Report] >>63954693 >>64140683
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
Anonymous No.63954693 [Report]
>>63954520
Anonymous No.63955051 [Report] >>63955090
>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
Anonymous No.63955090 [Report] >>63955198 >>63958038 >>63987692 >>64006643 >>64089593 >>64140676
>>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.
Anonymous No.63955198 [Report] >>63955207 >>63955262 >>63958038 >>64139528 >>64141541
>>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?
Anonymous No.63955207 [Report]
>>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)
Anonymous No.63955262 [Report] >>63955438
>>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.
Anonymous No.63955438 [Report]
>>63955262
Anonymous No.63955720 [Report] >>63956718 >>63957792 >>64097419
>>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.
Anonymous No.63956718 [Report]
>>63955720
Anonymous No.63957792 [Report] >>64137013
>>63955720
Anonymous No.63957966 [Report]
>>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
Anonymous No.63958038 [Report] >>63958089
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958044 [Report] >>63958089
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958089 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958459 [Report] >>63958602
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958583 [Report] >>63958670
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958602 [Report]
>>63958459
Kurt Tank became one of the Argentinian Nazis. Designed some nice aircraft for them too.
Anonymous No.63958618 [Report] >>63958693
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958670 [Report]
>>63958583
Yeah, i screwed up, i was thinking of something else.
Anonymous No.63958693 [Report] >>63958714 >>63958755
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958699 [Report] >>63958704
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.
Anonymous No.63958704 [Report]
>>63958699
They leaked badly, getting the oil was a major supply issue.
Anonymous No.63958714 [Report] >>63958766 >>64137125
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958755 [Report] >>63959663
>>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.
Anonymous No.63958766 [Report] >>63959374
>>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.
Anonymous No.63959374 [Report]
>>63958766
Anonymous No.63959663 [Report] >>63961099
>>63958755
*ahem*
V engines did exist, the Hispano-Suiza V8 was a very good engine for the time.
Anonymous No.63960382 [Report] >>63960416 >>63961801 >>64022221 >>64137018
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'
Anonymous No.63960416 [Report] >>63961068
>>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.
Anonymous No.63961068 [Report]
>>63960416
Anonymous No.63961099 [Report]
>>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
Anonymous No.63961613 [Report]
>>63935673
Problem: early engines had a low RPM so you needed an excessively heavy flywheel.
Solution: make the engine the flywheel.
Anonymous No.63961769 [Report] >>63961787 >>63961897 >>64013058 >>64137023
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.
Anonymous No.63961787 [Report] >>63961847
>>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.
Anonymous No.63961801 [Report] >>63961897
>>63960382
put your trip back on norkfag
Anonymous No.63961811 [Report]
>>63947187
Any particular phylum?
Anonymous No.63961847 [Report] >>63961897 >>63962028
>>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.
Anonymous No.63961897 [Report]
>>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
Anonymous No.63962028 [Report] >>63962163 >>63962447
>>63961847
>turbojet instead of turbofan
kys norktard
Anonymous No.63962163 [Report]
>>63962028
Anonymous No.63962447 [Report] >>63962507
>>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.
Anonymous No.63962507 [Report] >>63962566
>>63962447
>I'll replace the powerplant with an Isp of +10,000 sec with this retarded pipe 10 times less efficient.
Anonymous No.63962566 [Report] >>63962733
>>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.
Anonymous No.63962733 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.63963934 [Report] >>63965565 >>63966801 >>63966914
>30 minutes to 16,000 feet
falling asleep ere brov
Anonymous No.63965565 [Report]
>>63963934
Anonymous No.63966801 [Report]
>>63963934
Anonymous No.63966914 [Report] >>63966930 >>63991835
>>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.
Anonymous No.63966930 [Report] >>63966985 >>63971659 >>63980483
>>63966914
Rotary engines don't leak, they have lossy lubrication like 2S.
Anonymous No.63966985 [Report] >>63968069 >>63970415 >>63972823 >>63974251 >>63975123 >>63976816 >>63978619 >>63980262 >>63981232
>>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!
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63967949 [Report] >>63968968 >>63980470
My concept of how air attacks should work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVcAFtQ-bAQ
Anonymous No.63968069 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63968968 [Report]
>>63967949
Anonymous No.63970415 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63971659 [Report]
>>63966930
Anonymous No.63972823 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63974251 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63975123 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63976816 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63978619 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63980262 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63980470 [Report] >>63981091
>>63967949
this shit thread isn't worth the self-necrobumping
Anonymous No.63980483 [Report]
>>63966930
Ring a ding. In your face.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63981091 [Report]
>>63980470
That is absolutely not me, i don't do that bullshit.
Norktard 5PczJ/8PMc No.63981232 [Report]
>>63966985
Anonymous No.63981523 [Report] >>63983857 >>63984912 >>63986120 >>63988845
>>63951122
man we fell off hard, didn't we?
Anonymous No.63983857 [Report]
>>63981523
Anonymous No.63984912 [Report]
>>63981523
Anonymous No.63984950 [Report] >>63985476
>>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
Anonymous No.63985476 [Report] >>63986136
>>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
Anonymous No.63986120 [Report]
>>63981523
Anonymous No.63986127 [Report] >>63986739
>>63951122
Absolutely mindblowing. WWI planes started with wood frames assembled to match chalk lines on floors.
Anonymous No.63986136 [Report] >>63987235
>>63985476
>16 year old sergeant
Anonymous No.63986739 [Report]
>>63986127
Anonymous No.63987235 [Report] >>63990276
>>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.
Anonymous No.63987692 [Report] >>63988212
>>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"
Anonymous No.63988212 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.63988845 [Report] >>63989775
>>63981523
Spending a third of the federal budget on >85 IQ morons is not a good idea.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.63989775 [Report] >>64016333
>>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.
Anonymous No.63989874 [Report] >>63996307
>>63943094
Fokker triplanes turning faster than modern attack helicopters in 1917 will never stop being a object of interest to me.
Anonymous No.63990276 [Report] >>63990709 >>63997933
>>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.
Anonymous No.63990709 [Report]
>>63990276
Anonymous No.63991835 [Report] >>63993000
>>63966914
>fly backwards if the wind was over 40mph
That sounds awesome and terrifying.
Anonymous No.63993000 [Report]
>>63991835
Anonymous No.63993423 [Report] >>63994665 >>63995913
>>63935602 (OP)
Red Baron approved
Anonymous No.63994665 [Report]
>>63993423
Anonymous No.63995913 [Report]
>>63993423
Anonymous No.63996204 [Report] >>63996209 >>63996275 >>64018119 >>64083310 >>64139515
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)
Anonymous No.63996209 [Report] >>63996275 >>63997827 >>64018119
>>63996204
Also the fact that its an Ultralight and not legally a plane might change things
Anonymous No.63996275 [Report] >>63996293 >>63997943
>>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.
Anonymous No.63996293 [Report] >>63996324
>>63996275
They sell kits for those aswell at $12500
https://airdromeaeroplanes.com/FokkerDr-1%7BFullscale%7D.html
Anonymous No.63996307 [Report] >>63996324
>>63989874
To be fair, modern attack helicopters in 1917 were quite underwhelming on the whole
Anonymous No.63996324 [Report] >>63998586
>>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.
Anonymous No.63997827 [Report]
>>63996209
Anonymous No.63997933 [Report] >>64138295
>>63990276
Marseille and Bong were that good in WWII as well.
Both still died in the cockpit.
Anonymous No.63997943 [Report] >>64000733 >>64003109 >>64004444 >>64007251 >>64007372
>>63996275
Your carbon frame and electronics are far more expensive than the guns on actual manufacturing costs.
Anonymous No.63998586 [Report]
>>63996324
Anonymous No.64000733 [Report]
>>63997943
Anonymous No.64003109 [Report]
>>63997943
Anonymous No.64003147 [Report] >>64006014
>>63943094
>teleports behind you
>heh, nichts personlich, Kind
Anonymous No.64004444 [Report]
>>63997943
Anonymous No.64004492 [Report] >>64138287
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
Anonymous No.64006014 [Report]
>>64003147
Anonymous No.64006519 [Report]
>>63935602 (OP)
Max it can do is 14k feet.
Anonymous No.64006643 [Report]
>>63955090
A Hawk among sparrows
Anonymous No.64007251 [Report] >>64089929 >>64101511
>>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
Anonymous No.64007372 [Report] >>64007447 >>64009245 >>64010064
>>63997943
Synthetic rod is significantly cheaper than the equivalent strength of aluminum tubing.
Anonymous No.64007447 [Report]
>>64007372
Anonymous No.64009245 [Report]
>>64007372
Anonymous No.64010064 [Report]
>>64007372
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64010138 [Report] >>64010142
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.
Anonymous No.64010142 [Report] >>64010153
>>64010138
>posts something
>deletes the post
>the bump remains
That anon necrobumping is a very dedicated retard.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64010153 [Report] >>64010161
>>64010142
Wouldn't the deleted post show up on archives if you use the extension?
Anonymous No.64010161 [Report] >>64010173
>>64010153
They do, maybe not all if they're deleted too quickly because archives have time gaps.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64010173 [Report]
>>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.
Anonymous No.64011676 [Report]
Anonymous No.64012367 [Report] >>64020432
>>63942932
>The red baron said it was the best he ever flew.
Yeah, because he could only compare it to other German planes.
Anonymous No.64013058 [Report] >>64013248 >>64039131
>>63961769
Why not a pulse jet engine since they're even lighter and make more thrust the more air you force in them
Anonymous No.64013248 [Report] >>64016138 >>64039131
>>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.
Anonymous No.64013965 [Report]
Anonymous No.64015292 [Report]
Anonymous No.64016138 [Report]
>>64013248
Anonymous No.64016333 [Report] >>64020977
>>63989775
1000+ spreytard
Anonymous No.64018081 [Report]
Anonymous No.64018119 [Report] >>64020235 >>64138278
>>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.
Anonymous No.64020226 [Report]
Anonymous No.64020235 [Report]
>>64018119
arent electronically fired guns considered machine guns though?
Anonymous No.64020432 [Report]
>>64012367
Which were superior to Timmy's planes made in a shed
Anonymous No.64020977 [Report] >>64022034 >>64138267
>>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
Anonymous No.64022034 [Report]
>>64020977
Anonymous No.64022221 [Report] >>64022357 >>64023143 >>64138251
>>63960382
>tri/biplane be cheaper and easier to produce
No, monoplanes are sadly strictly better aerodynamics.
Anonymous No.64022357 [Report] >>64038759 >>64039228 >>64138261
>>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
Anonymous No.64023143 [Report]
>>64022221
quadplanes
Anonymous No.64024819 [Report] >>64025158 >>64025425 >>64025934
>>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
Anonymous No.64025158 [Report] >>64025184 >>64025934
>>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.
Anonymous No.64025184 [Report]
>>64025158
Jesus fuck
Anonymous No.64025425 [Report] >>64025934
>>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
Anonymous No.64025934 [Report] >>64026109
>>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.
Anonymous No.64025956 [Report] >>64138236
>>63935602 (OP)
>wehraboo thread
>full of obnoxious faggots
Anonymous No.64026109 [Report] >>64138241
>>64025934
Oh I'm retarded
Anonymous No.64026245 [Report] >>64026285
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161
Anonymous No.64026285 [Report] >>64027522 >>64030424 >>64032663
>>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.
Anonymous No.64027522 [Report]
>>64026285
Anonymous No.64030424 [Report]
>>64026285
Anonymous No.64032663 [Report]
>>64026285
Anonymous No.64032747 [Report] >>64138229
Let it go ghost bumper
Anonymous No.64034489 [Report]
Anonymous No.64034766 [Report] >>64034786 >>64138203
post some fucking planes you bitchasses, its called an imageboard for a reason
Anonymous No.64034770 [Report] >>64034821 >>64138209
Anonymous No.64034786 [Report] >>64138213
>>64034766
The DR VII was awesome enough to get mentioned by name in the treaty, the USA even flew them for a while with US engines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.VII
Anonymous No.64034821 [Report] >>64034984
>>64034770
That is an amazingly effective dazzle paint job.
Anonymous No.64034896 [Report] >>64034967 >>64034973 >>64138215
Anonymous No.64034961 [Report] >>64138218
Anonymous No.64034967 [Report] >>64034984 >>64047059 >>64138224
>>64034896
I can't help wonder something about them: they could do a 180 degree flat spin within 30-40 feet. If it had two smaller wing mounted engines as suggested above could it turn even faster? Would there be a point to even trying?
Anonymous No.64034973 [Report]
>>64034896
Also look at it: Shouldn't that really be seven wings not 3?
Anonymous No.64034984 [Report] >>64035033
>>64034821
not sure whether i prefer stripes or lozenges
maybe the answer is a combination of both
also gotta appreciate the cockpits
>>64034967
two engines would probably be too much drag and weight, the plane already suffers from such high drag that it breaks apart in dives that other planes could handle
the real trick would be to make the engine run as slow as possible, and since turning at low speeds makes for sharper turns you get it done faster, and the stall speed on it is very low in addition to stalls being a lot more recoverable on them if they do happen than other planes
Anonymous No.64035033 [Report] >>64035038
>>64034984
>two engines would probably be too much drag and weight,

The engines suggested (the 550s used in drones) as a pair would be smaller and weigh less than the singe one it had. They would be far more efficient and allow for the chatgpt plexiglass bubble canopy as well as remove the need for the interrupter gear.

>not sure whether i prefer stripes or lozenges

The stripes are far more disorienting in terms of telling which way it is pointed, against a modern aircraft that split second of indecision would really matter alot.

I just realized something: If they were in the skies today there would be entire squadrons with MLP themes and they would use the pony names as call signs.

Imagine being the chump drifting down in your parachute impotently waving your fist in rage as Twilight Sparkle or Rainbow Dash give you the gg wing wave.
Anonymous No.64035038 [Report] >>64035071
>>64035033
>MLP themes and they would use the pony names as call signs
anon, dont give me ideas for the fokker d6 i'm gonna be building
Anonymous No.64035071 [Report] >>64138194
>>64035038
Nightmare Moon would make for a pretty damn good paintjob and if i'm not mistaken she had a entire squad that were literally evil Pegasus ponies with flight goggles.
Anonymous No.64035322 [Report]
>>63951122
>SR-71 Blackbird
checked, (You)r picrel is maiden flight of the Lockheed A-12 OXCART s/n 60-6924 Article 121 over Groom Lake on 30 April 1962
for this flight and first year of operation the airplane flew with J75 engine powerplants (the J58 engine wasn't ready until 1963), at speeds only up to around Mach 1
Lockheed's A-12 was a secret CIA project and flown only by CIA pilots (just like the original 1955-60 U-2 was)
The A-12 was a single-seat, photographic overflight recon plane (just like the U-2), designed solely to fly *over* enemy territory to take pictures with its huge cameras which were the largest ever fitted to an airplane.
A-12s at the Groom Lake test site didn't start getting the iron ball black paint until 1963 and even then, it was only a portion of their outer surfaces (leading edges of wings, nose-fuselage chines); the overall black scheme for A-12s didn't appear until 1964 and still, the top moving surfaces of their vertical stabilizers were left unpainted.

(SR-71 which first flew 22 December 1964 had smaller/less powerful-capable camera than A-12, but was fitted with more electronic sensors, and an additional crewmember in longer fuselage)

SR-71 didn't exist until 1964 and was a different, separate multisensor reconnaissance aircraft for the Air Force (and the "Blackbird" nickname for the A-12/YF-12A/SR-71 family didn't come along until after the mid-1970s initial public displays of the Air Force's SR-71 at airshows)
Anonymous No.64035806 [Report] >>64035813 >>64047056
anybody know what this instrument is called? i assume its for speed but i want it on my kit plane
note that this is a 1/3 scale version
Anonymous No.64035813 [Report] >>64035826 >>64035921
>>64035806
It's called an anenometer.
It measures windspeed.
Anonymous No.64035826 [Report] >>64047056
>>64035813
*anemometer
Anonymous No.64035921 [Report] >>64035969 >>64047056
>>64035813
its damn hard to find a good one of these with a dial that would actually read high enough for a plane
i found these russian ones but i dont think they work in a way that would work on an aircraft
a guy going by the vintage aviator seems to make them but they might be pricey
Anonymous No.64035969 [Report] >>64036023
>>64035921
If you are looking for flight data over authentic instriumentation then you could easily us a differential manometr to make a pitot static tube airspeed sensor.
This is a good cheap one: https://trutechtools.com/HD350
There are cheaper ones out there, even on the same website, but Extech is cheap and cheerful.
Anonymous No.64036023 [Report] >>64036124
>>64035969
nah, something authentic looking specifically
doesnt have to be the exact one used back then atleast
Anonymous No.64036124 [Report] >>64036377
>>64036023
I get it, you want period appropriate.
Those Russian ones look nice but they don't have the gearbox to reduce the rpm load on the indicator unit.
Anonymous No.64036377 [Report]
>>64036124
i could probably just buy one of these electric ones, give it a paint job and dress it up a bit to look older, and hook it up to a dial that uses electric input
Anonymous No.64038759 [Report] >>64039168
>>64022357
That has nothing to do with being a triplane and is due to having an all moving tail on a very light aircraft. That allowed it to do very sharp rudder turns without banking. You are also massively overstating it's capability. Literally everything good about the Fokker triplane is good in spite of it being a triplane. Educate yourself, you ignorant monkey.
Anonymous No.64039131 [Report]
>>64013058
>>64013248
A pulse jet can be throttled to near zero by tweaking the intakes, the problem is that the vibration would tear apart a super lightweight wood and canvas structure.
Anonymous No.64039168 [Report] >>64043552
>>64038759
makes me wonder, is the fokker d.VI just as capable as the dr.I since they share a lot of similarities other than the difference of the middle wing
Anonymous No.64039228 [Report] >>64049577 >>64137108
>>64022357
>I asked Hermann Göring one day, "What is this I am hearing that Germany is killing Jews?" Göring responded angrily, "A totally outrageous lie made up by the British and American press. It will be used as a rope to hang us someday if we lose the war."
Anonymous No.64043552 [Report] >>64044140 >>64138183
>>64039168
Wings were a little dinky. The D.VII, which the D.VI is based on, was very good. The D.VI was basically a Dr.I fuselage with a set of shortened D.VII wings stuck to it. The engine was also under powered. They didn't make many before the war ended and it never really went anywhere. The D.VII however was excellent. The Entente explicitly demanded all of them in the November 11th armistice.
Anonymous No.64044140 [Report] >>64044149 >>64049577
>>64043552
heres the thing, i dont think the dr.I was actually as amazing as people think it is
it would seem to me that if the d.VI wasn't particularly great, the dr.I was probably even worse
so comparing the d.VI to the d.VII probably isnt fair because it was just a massive improvement in general to aviation while it seems like the d.VI was born from an earlier generation
Anonymous No.64044149 [Report]
>>64044140
also i mean all this comparatively speaking, all planes had issues in ww1 but just some less than others
Anonymous No.64044185 [Report] >>64138189
Do it in the tower
Anonymous No.64047056 [Report]
>>64035806
>>64035921
>>64035826
Anemometer, German "Schalenkreuz"
Julius Drach built these for many of the Austro-Hungarian and German types.
There's an aircraft replica manufacturer not far from here who has subcontractors for these sorts of things.
Anonymous No.64047059 [Report] >>64057154
>>64034967
>they could do a 180 degree flat spin within 30-40 feet
This is your brain on History Channel
Anonymous No.64049577 [Report] >>64050313 >>64129195
>>64039228
Hanna was a precious little sack of crazy, also super super smol. Like verge of violating race purity laws smol. There a bunch of pictures where she is obviously standing on a chair or crate when she has her picture taken with Himmler, Kurt Tank, one of the Hortons or Goering.

There is a amazing picture i used to have where she was part of a group picture looking at a ME162 or manned V-1 and they sent her to the back to cover up how tiny she was. Offended by this her and her buddy photo bombed it, in the back she is sitting on Otto Skorzeny's shoulder in what looks like a feather boa with her elbow resting on his head.
>>64044140
Mostly the DR.1 is being spoken of here either as a ultra low altitude harassment craft or for anti drone work, given how often expensive jets are getting hit by drone bits the maneuverability is the main point. Almost every later war plane outperforms it besides the acrobatics
Anonymous No.64049875 [Report] >>64050170
Lets go bigger: Just using ford 300 straight sixes would keep the HP the same (or more) but cut half a ton from the weight. Also shocking to any Ford owner they would be more fuel efficient as they probably would eat less than 30 GPH. Maybe.

Use aluminum tubing instead of steel and a Gotha V obj 2030 could easily have half the weight of the original and several times the range, a ATACMS is just barely possible but a pair of PrSMs (or one with a glide kit) would bring the Gotha into the 21st century with a 1500+ mile strike range.

Any fools who point out that the missile costs several times what the aircraft does and that the airframe should just be a semi disposable unmanned range extender will be ignored as lacking honor and unworthy of Sto'vo'kor.
Anonymous No.64050170 [Report] >>64050188 >>64050280
>>64049875
how common were dedicated bombers for actually bombing
it feels like their numbers would've been so low and their issues too numerable that it would've just been more common to send out a whole fighter/recon squadron with some bombs instead of one or two huge ass bombers at a time
or maybe like sending the fighters who are meant to protect the bombers in with bombs too
Anonymous No.64050188 [Report] >>64050280
>>64050170
and half the reason i say this is because a lot of bombers from ww1 just look like flying death traps compared to the decently airworthy looking smaller planes
Anonymous No.64050280 [Report]
>>64050170
>>64050188
There weren't too many, i think there were only 200 or so Gotha Vs. My impression is that the airframe technology combined with the need to carry a useable bombload over distance is why they looked so awkward. They litarly had just invented the idea and didn't know what they were doing.

Given that all biplane 'heavy bombers' have the same layout and it was a decade between having a usable aircraft and dropping bombs over the channel they did really well.
Anonymous No.64050313 [Report]
>>64049577
Dang. Spinner who flew spinners.
Anonymous No.64054799 [Report] >>64086893 >>64137088
Except that you wouldn't see the curvature of the earth because the earth is flat
Anonymous No.64055174 [Report] >>64056589
>>63935602 (OP)
>Flying a fucker
Anonymous No.64056589 [Report] >>64056743
>>64055174
A what?
Anonymous No.64056743 [Report] >>64138179
>>64056589
WW2 pilot Douglas Bader, giving a speech at a girls' school sometime in the 50's:

> “So there were two of these fuckers behind me, three fuckers to my right, another fucker to the left“.

At this point, the headmistress on stage with him turned pale and intervened, saying:
> “Ladies, Fokker was a German aircraft“.

To which Bader answered:
“That may be madam, but these fuckers were in Messerschmitts...“
Anonymous No.64057154 [Report] >>64061215
>>64047059
Turning into a headwind they can do a flat spin while flying backwards for 90 degrees of it.
Anonymous No.64061215 [Report] >>64061556
>>64057154
No way.
Anonymous No.64061556 [Report] >>64064315
>>64061215
Many bi/tri planes can hover or even fly backwards. The DR.1 had a stall speed of about 40 mph so if the wind is higher than that it can stay stationary or even get pushed back. All the pilot needs to do is wait until it stops moving and flip it around.

The stall speed of planes like DR.1s and Po-2s is so low that many modern carriers can exceed the stall speed, even fast WW2 craft could do it. With a cable tying them to the deck they can VTOL and get dragged behind them like a kite. It used to get done in WW2 although they used gyrocopters.
Anonymous No.64064156 [Report] >>64064604 >>64064614 >>64138176
Rhinebeck Dr1 repro
Anonymous No.64064315 [Report] >>64064604
>>64061556
Again, absolutely none of that has anything to do with it being a triplane, retard. The Camel has a stall speed only mph higher than the Dr.I, but it doesn't do all that because it doesn't have an all moving tail. There is literally nothing better about having three wings, it only increases drag.
Anonymous No.64064372 [Report] >>64079747 >>64138320
>>63935602 (OP)
The Fokker Dr.I is 30 years closer to the introduction of the B-52 than you are right now.
Anonymous No.64064604 [Report] >>64064865 >>64129208 >>64138174
>>64064156
Object 2040 DR.I carrying a W54 atomic device from Pyongyang to Helsinki, colorized.

>>64064315
>Again, absolutely none of that has anything to do with it being a triplane, retard. The Camel has a stall speed only mph higher than the Dr.I, but it doesn't do all that because it doesn't have an all moving tail. There is literally nothing better about having three wings, it only increases drag.

Lift, turn ratios and the ability to just stop then turn triplanes and some biplanes outperform helicopters in dogfighting.

Richthofen vs Hanna Reitsch is the hypothetical fight you are looking for.
Anonymous No.64064614 [Report] >>64138314
>>64064156
red dr.Is seem a bit soulless to me desu
yea i get it the whole reason you built it was because of the red baron and its iconic and everything but i just feel like you can go for so much of a cooler color scheme and pattern on those german planes instead of being the 1053rd red baron flying around to airshows and stuff
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64064863 [Report] >>64137083
Ghost thread bumper, if you are a fan of me listen to me now: I don't want you bumping my threads.

I recognize the effort you have made and appreciate it greatly but please stop and let this thread live or die organically.
Anonymous No.64064865 [Report] >>64065313 >>64071070 >>64079054
>>64064604
>Lift, turn ratios and the ability to just stop then turn
I'll say it another time. None of that has anything to do with the number of wings on the plane. Literally none. The only, and I mean absolute only, thing adding wings to a plane does in increase the drag. That's it. None of that shit you're babbling about is affected by the plane being a biplane or a triplane. You're just making up bullshit.
Anonymous No.64065313 [Report] >>64079054
>>64064865
>'ll say it another time. None of that has anything to do with the number of wings on the plane. Literally none. The only, and I mean absolute only, thing adding wings to a plane does in increase the drag. That's it. None of that shit you're babbling about is affected by the plane being a biplane or a triplane. You're just making up bullshit.


You are the one who does not understand. I am talking about kites and you are talking about bottle rockets.
Anonymous No.64067827 [Report]
Anonymous No.64069820 [Report]
Anonymous No.64071070 [Report] >>64074488 >>64074489
>>64064865
An airplanes wing area doesn't affect how much lift it has? Are you aware of what function they perform?
Anonymous No.64072079 [Report]
Anonymous No.64074488 [Report] >>64078607 >>64078617 >>64078622 >>64079054 >>64079698 >>64138319
>>64071070
Are you aware that they cause large amount of drag where they meet the fuselage? The E.V/D.VIII had great performance with only a single wing due to the massive reduction of drag. And why are you assuming that a triplane has more wing area? The D.VII has more wing area than the Dr.I and it's a biplane. Not to mention all the retarded STOL stuff that bush pilots get up to in planes like the super cub, which is also a monowing with less wing area than the Dr.I.
Anonymous No.64074489 [Report]
>>64071070
no
Anonymous No.64076281 [Report]
Anonymous No.64078004 [Report]
Anonymous No.64078607 [Report] >>64079054 >>64079054 >>64137048
>>64074488
Anon, i......
>DR.I Wing area: 18.7 m2 (201 sq ft)
>DV.VIII Wing area: 10.7 m2 (115 sq ft)

If you count the tail and landing gear the DR.I has twice the wing area and was only 17 mph slower with the same engine.

You do have a bit of a point about drag, the VIII has much better rate of climb although i can't seem to find the lift to drag ratio for it nor the stall speed.

Not to say that the D.VIII wasn't a great airplane or that it couldn't serve in the same modern capacity as a DR.I, a DR VIII-M would undoubtedly be a better dedicated drone chaser than a DR.I. Since modern construction/engines would halve the weight the 17 mph speed advantage and rate of climb would become much more significant.

>>63935602 (OP)
>07/03/25
Well shit. Ghost poster or not one month one day.
Anonymous No.64078617 [Report] >>64137051
>>64074488
>D.VII
>Not D.VIII
>Got confused

Brb, Jägermeister of shame.
Anonymous No.64078622 [Report]
>>64074488
>The D.VII has more wing area than the Dr.I
*attempts save(
Well yeah, it's bigger!
Anonymous No.64079054 [Report] >>64081684
>>64078607
>one month one day
He's resorted to posting gay porn. Not even full size images, but thumbnails, so I'm not impressed.

>>64078607
>>64074488
>>64065313
>>64064865
Have any of you watched Greg's video on the Dr.1? It's very good if you have 15 minutes to spare.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zELul8q0HjM
Anonymous No.64079698 [Report]
>>64074488
drag queen
Anonymous No.64079747 [Report] >>64097535 >>64137056
>>64064372
For more than half the history of manned flight we have had the ability to hover on a pillar of jet thrust.
Anonymous No.64081313 [Report] >>64081321
Anonymous No.64081321 [Report] >>64137053
>>64081313
This isnt a russian barracks, go away fag
Anonymous No.64081684 [Report] >>64137067
>>64079054
I always have time for WW1 planes.

>He's resorted to posting gay porn
That isn't the ghost bumper just random z spam, ghost bumper blank posts then self deletes so fast even the archive doesn't always catch it.
Anonymous No.64083010 [Report]
Anonymous No.64083310 [Report] >>64083440 >>64086925 >>64089048
>>63996204
>3/4 scale D.VII
Does anyone make a full scale one? Fuck this weeny partway bullshit.
Anonymous No.64083440 [Report] >>64084579 >>64086925 >>64089048
>>64083310
it was designed to be an ultralight which is why, and the designer also just used some of the same shit as his 3/4 DR.I
Anonymous No.64084579 [Report]
>>64083440
no
Anonymous No.64086893 [Report]
>>64054799
based
Anonymous No.64086925 [Report] >>64087130 >>64089048
>>64083440
>>64083310
There is a pretty hard limit on weight when it comes to engine size, even with a modern equivalent (Rotax 916) weighing 1/2 the original there are still huge problems with keeping it legally a ultralight.
Anonymous No.64087130 [Report] >>64087351
>>64086925
stop concerning yourself with the details
all you need to know is that its an ultralight
Anonymous No.64087351 [Report] >>64089048
>>64087130
Without autistic details this isn't /k/
Anonymous No.64089048 [Report]
>>64087351
>>64086925
>>64083440
>>64083310
Anonymous No.64089093 [Report] >>64137004
Every time I come to this thread it feels like somebody got banned.
Anonymous No.64089572 [Report] >>64138298
>>63938896
Unfortunately you are also surrounded by t*rks
Anonymous No.64089585 [Report] >>64137000
>>63938896
lol youre also surrounded by terrorist muslims
Anonymous No.64089593 [Report] >>64095509 >>64096771
>>63955090
about 3 or 4. one would be bait and the other 2 would destroy the F35
Anonymous No.64089929 [Report] >>64090596
>>64007251
>Omitting the carbon frame
>believing that a fair price for an HMG is $14,000
The 2009 contract for M2s from US ordinance that all of the AI websites site for M2 pricing was a fixed price contract for under 600 guns plus parts support.
Anonymous No.64090596 [Report] >>64092721
>>64089929
Wiki lied to me?
Anonymous No.64092721 [Report]
>>64090596
Anonymous No.64094014 [Report]
>>63935602 (OP)
Anonymous No.64095509 [Report]
>>64089593
Anonymous No.64096771 [Report]
>>64089593
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64096866 [Report] >>64096932
>>63935602 (OP)
>07/03/25
Current date:
>08/08/25

At this point i'm going to try to make a /CWG/ (canvas wings general) just to see how good the Ghost Bumper is. The Ghost Bumper is really good, i love the topic but this thread should have died a few days after i posted it.

Whoever you are Ghost Bumper, good job. While i officially don't endorse your actions i acknowledge them and that you are damn good at it. If you are doing them in support of me i really do appreciate it, however i cannot officially condone your actions.

That said, i love you.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64096932 [Report]
>>64096866
My theory about how the the Ghost Poster is doing it is as follows:

>Post a period or a ASCII character that 4chan does not recognize, the ASCII character for Iran would be a good example
>Immediately delete it seconds after they post
>Time it so the archives don't record it

When the thread started they got caught on the archives multiple times, there were a few unrelated Zigger spam posts that were also deleted but they are unrelated to this. Most of Ghost Bumpers posts are unrecorded, the times they show up on the archives are aberrations.

Someone has been bumping this thread artificially for a month without increasing the post number, they are very good at it. I wish i could figure out their exact method and why they are bumping me of all people, it seems i'm being specifically targeted for promotion.

I wouldn't really mind it if it didn't harm my reputation by such artificial means of promotion, i'd just like to know why me. My obsessions are my own and i don't need help with them.
Norktard !5PczJ/8PMc No.64097074 [Report] >>64137046
Also: Hanna , one of the Hortons (?) and Himmler while she is standing on a stool to hide how short she is in the ME-162 trials. They used alot of angled perspective shots to hide how small she was although they didn't hide how much the guy in the middle hates Himmler. Hanna got her face ripped off testing one of them when it crashed and she went through the windshield, she spent months in a medically induced coma while they fixed her face.

I think the guy in the middle might be either Walter Horten or Reimar Horten, either way he is an amazingly handsome man.
Anonymous No.64097386 [Report] >>64097431 >>64097469 >>64137107
>>63935602 (OP)
so what what the reasoning for 3 wings? or even biplanes, really. why dont we see modern aircraft with 2 or 3...."planes"?
Anonymous No.64097419 [Report] >>64097469
>>63955720
>could briefly work
does not contradict
>imbalance even from a broken prop would make the whole engine wobble and tear itself off the fixed crankshaft.
Anonymous No.64097431 [Report] >>64097469
>>64097386
high lift for a smaller plane
in the same amount of wingspan you can double your wing area over a monoplane
works good for early heavy engines that needed more lift to get the most out of their power
and with how easy it was to stall a plane it was that much more important to lower your stall speed as much as possible (you could cruise on them at highway speeds and still be perfectly fine up in the air but it'd stall a modern plane)
Anonymous No.64097469 [Report] >>64097486 >>64097491 >>64097495 >>64097902
>>64097386
Prop planes with multiple wings have a huge amount of lift and can fly with very low horsepower. It was only briefly after humans figured out how to fly after all. The primary advantage besides being able to make them out of cloth, wood and wire was that they are extremely maneuverable. They also have very low stall speeds.

A DR.1 has a stall speed of 41 mph. That means that if it has a a 41 mph head wind it can hover. If the wind is higher it can actually fly backwards. It can actually gain altitude while flying backwards if there is enough wind. A modern aircraft carrier at full speed could fly them on a line like kites.

Early aircraft have very weird capabilities, there is this thing they can do where they can do a flat spin in a shorter distance than a modern helicopter moving at the same speed or just stop the prop and drop straight down then hope that the dive lets them kick start the engine.

>>64097431
Early engines had terrible power to weight ratios not to mention engine compression and often used total loss oil systems. Fokkers used castor oil as a lubricant that would splatter the pilots, it gave them the shits.

A modern engine with the same HP as a Fokker DR.1 weighs half as much, has a order of magnitude better fuel efficiency and twice the theoretical altitude before it chokes out due to lack of oxygen. DR/1s only had 1.5 hours of flight time, they only had 51 liters of fuel.


>>64097419
By 'still work' we are talking 30-45 seconds on a total loss engine without seizing if you got lucky, that mattered.
Anonymous No.64097486 [Report] >>64097495 >>64137100
>>64097469
That image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etrich_Taube

Besides the rudder it had no hinged flight surfaces, you used manual strength to pull wires that warped the wings to control it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping
Anonymous No.64097491 [Report] >>64097507 >>64097527 >>64099493
>>64097469
>It can actually gain altitude while flying backwards if there is enough wind
i have to see this. not saying i dont believe it, it totally makes sense that its possible. but seeing that with your own eyes must be wild. imagine that. you look left and a plane in the corner of your eye goes in the absolute opposite direction and angle its ever seen before.

in a heavy enough headwind, could it, if locked in place, and then let go, be "released" from a stand still and then, take off by going backwards and slowly rising. as if you just reverse the footage of a landing?
Anonymous No.64097495 [Report] >>64136942
>>64097486
>>64097469
The first combat aircraft in human history, funny enough Germans vs Japan in WW1:
Anonymous No.64097507 [Report] >>64097544
>>64097491
>in a heavy enough headwind, could it, if locked in place, and then let go, be "released" from a stand still and then, take off by going backwards and slowly rising. as if you just reverse the footage of a landing?

Yes. Po-2s and many other biplanes have stall speeds even lower than DR1s, piper cubs and a few other light mono planes can do it as well.

You could put 100 WW1 biplanes on the deck of a modern US carrier (45-50 knots/MPH) with tethers and once you released them they would not only VTOL but if you throttled the engines a bit the carrier would be moving faster than them.
Anonymous No.64097527 [Report] >>64097544 >>64136988
>>64097491
In WW1 there were a few times where they would notice fast moving clouds and hide inside them, sort of hover then dive out of them.

It was dangerous since if the clouds were 'wet' enough the engines were taking in water but the advantage was worth it.
Anonymous No.64097535 [Report] >>64097570
>>64079747
Anonymous No.64097544 [Report] >>64097552 >>64097570
>>64097507
>>64097527
its crazy how simple of a wild experiment this seems to be. like, yeah. if your plane operates and works under 200 mph, and you put it into a wind tunnel thats 300 mph. then yeah. its going to look like you took landing footage and reversed it. (sorta). if you reversed the wind speed of a real landing, and just matched the inverse for a plane "taking off". you could probably absolutely record a plane taking off that looks basically like a plane landing, in reverse.

why not. we already do latched plane landings. aircraft carriers. reverse the footage and recreate one of those with a model or a real plane and become fucking legendary. thats the gist
Anonymous No.64097552 [Report] >>64097570 >>64137060
>>64097544
or keep it under wraps, and then just one day drop an inauspicious video of a plane landing, where the spectators are gyrating wildly, everyone screams a.i, fake, yadda yadda, "why are they moving so weir-"
then someone reverses it and its just a plane taking off in heavy winds. imagine. in reverse.
Anonymous No.64097570 [Report] >>64097596 >>64099182 >>64128800
>>64097535
Don't make me tap the sign in a thread where Po-2s are mentioned....

>>64097544
>>64097552

You seem to really like the idea but it is simple: If the plane can fly at speeds lower than the wind speed then obviously it can keep flying even if the wind pushes it backwards.

Passenger jets do it all the time in reverse: They fly near the speed of sound but get into a high altitude jet stream so they are technically breaking the sound barrier in relation to the earth but since they are in a 100+mph wind they don't make a sonic boom.
Anonymous No.64097596 [Report] >>64136982
>>64097570
i just want to actually see it. it sounds awesome. something that makes sense, is real, but looks wrong when you see it because puny monkey brain. like when they spun nuts and bolts in space and saw this shit in zero gravity. provable, repeatable science.

that shit does not look real to your brain.
Anonymous No.64097902 [Report] >>64136967
>>64097469
Nothing you just said about triplanes is remotely true.
Anonymous No.64099182 [Report] >>64099455 >>64136965 >>64138171
>>64097570
People really don't believe you when you tell them that a plane, or balloon doesn't feel wind.
Anonymous No.64099455 [Report]
>>64099182
Anonymous No.64099493 [Report] >>64101498 >>64105733 >>64136938
>>64097491
>i have to see this
Paddle a canoe slowly in a river. If you paddle upriver you are moving forward in the water, but backwards relative to land. If you paddle downriver the river speed is added to your canoe. If you paddle across the river you will move across the river while being pushed downriver.
Anonymous No.64101498 [Report]
>>64099493
Anonymous No.64101511 [Report] >>64102639 >>64113692 >>64113740 >>64138165
>>64007251
>M2A2 .50 browning machine gun: $14,000
You cannot actually believe this.
Anonymous No.64102639 [Report]
>>64101511
Anonymous No.64102745 [Report] >>64104319 >>64106667 >>64136936
>>63935673
OMG IT SPINS!!!
Anonymous No.64104319 [Report]
>>64102745
Anonymous No.64105733 [Report] >>64109290 >>64111282
>>64099493
Decent analogy.
Anonymous No.64106667 [Report]
>>64102745
Anonymous No.64109290 [Report]
>>64105733
Anonymous No.64111282 [Report]
>>64105733
Anonymous No.64113692 [Report] >>64113740
>>64101511
Actually you are right, it's more:

>The U.S. Army awarded a firm-fixed-price contract for the M2A2 .50-caliber machine gun in October 2023, with a value of $16,364,451 for the delivery of the weapons, which was estimated to be completed by May 1, 2024.
Anonymous No.64113740 [Report] >>64115705 >>64118228 >>64119465 >>64121463 >>64122524 >>64123237 >>64124427 >>64136943
>>64113692
Oops, bad math. Deleted due to embarrassment not ghost bumping.

>>64101511
>The Unit Replacement Cost of the standard M2 Machine gun is around $14,000

AI has spoken.
Anonymous No.64115705 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64118228 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64119465 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64121463 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64122524 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64123237 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64124427 [Report]
>>64113740
Anonymous No.64127229 [Report] >>64127348 >>64127364 >>64136977 >>64137039
Biplane bump
Anonymous No.64127348 [Report]
>>64127229
Anonymous No.64127364 [Report] >>64128757
>>64127229
>Fokker DR
>Biplane
Anonymous No.64128757 [Report]
>>64127364
Anonymous No.64128800 [Report] >>64136975
>>64097570
>Don't make me tap the sign in a thread where Po-2s are mentioned
but did it win them the war?
Anonymous No.64129195 [Report] >>64136971
>>64049577
> is sitting on Otto Skorzeny's shoulder in what looks like a feather boa with her elbow resting on his head.
Skorzeny moment
Anonymous No.64129208 [Report] >>64130827 >>64132202 >>64134018 >>64136146 >>64136933
>>64064604
>Richtofen
Manfred or Lothar?
If you hesitate to answer you will be shot.
Anonymous No.64130827 [Report]
>>64129208
Anonymous No.64132202 [Report]
>>64129208
Anonymous No.64134018 [Report]
>>64129208
Anonymous No.64135324 [Report] >>64136923
>>63943094
How
Anonymous No.64136146 [Report]
>>64129208
Anonymous No.64136923 [Report]
>>64135324
Anonymous No.64136929 [Report] >>64138866
get this shit gone already
Anonymous No.64136933 [Report]
>>64129208
who gives a shit
Anonymous No.64136936 [Report]
>>64102745
trip on
Anonymous No.64136938 [Report]
>>64099493
ok
Anonymous No.64136942 [Report]
>>64097495
that's not funny
Anonymous No.64136943 [Report]
>>64113740
>AI
Anonymous No.64136965 [Report]
>>64099182
post planes you fucklicker
Anonymous No.64136967 [Report]
>>64097902
wow
Anonymous No.64136971 [Report]
>>64129195
>a photo i used to have
thrilling anecdote moment
Anonymous No.64136975 [Report]
>>64128800
asking questions you know the answer to is so based. like a lawyer!! so cool
Anonymous No.64136977 [Report]
>>64127229
kill yourself
Anonymous No.64136982 [Report]
>>64097596
only good pic in the thread
Anonymous No.64136988 [Report]
>>64097527
fantasy
Anonymous No.64137000 [Report]
>>64089585
>>>/pol/
Anonymous No.64137004 [Report]
>>64089093
if only
Anonymous No.64137013 [Report]
>>63957792
spam
Anonymous No.64137018 [Report]
>>63960382
trip on
Anonymous No.64137023 [Report]
>>63961769
trip
on
Anonymous No.64137039 [Report]
>>64127229
faggot
Anonymous No.64137046 [Report]
>>64097074
ugly so who cares
Anonymous No.64137048 [Report]
>>64078607
neither serves in a modern capacity
neither will
Anonymous No.64137051 [Report]
>>64078617
herp derp alcohol
Anonymous No.64137053 [Report]
>>64081321
at least he posted images
the same can't be said for the rest of you
Anonymous No.64137056 [Report]
>>64079747
I'm not the same person I was three seconds ago
Anonymous No.64137060 [Report]
>>64097552
>inauspicious
This is your brain on nork press releases
Anonymous No.64137067 [Report]
>>64081684
>always has time for them
>doesn't post them
Anonymous No.64137083 [Report]
>>64064863
you could have solved this by posting pics at any time
Anonymous No.64137088 [Report]
>>64054799
trvke
Anonymous No.64137100 [Report]
>>64097486
Everyone knows what wing warping is
Anonymous No.64137107 [Report]
>>64097386
bigger number better person
Anonymous No.64137108 [Report]
>>64039228
big if true
Anonymous No.64137125 [Report]
>>63958714
the abacus is superior technology. it's not even close.
Anonymous No.64138165 [Report]
>>64101511
government budgets are retarded
Anonymous No.64138171 [Report]
>>64099182
They do. It's how they fly.
Anonymous No.64138174 [Report]
>>64064604
trip on
Anonymous No.64138176 [Report]
>>64064156
mid
Anonymous No.64138179 [Report]
>>64056743
nobody would have said a word about planes or the war to unaccompanied women at that time
Anonymous No.64138183 [Report]
>>64043552
>french
Anonymous No.64138189 [Report]
>>64044185
huh
Anonymous No.64138194 [Report]
>>64035071
go back
Anonymous No.64138203 [Report]
>>64034766
They would rather let the thread be bumped for 9000 years
Anonymous No.64138209 [Report]
>>64034770
>take this to your hookup
>yeah I fokk on the first date
Anonymous No.64138213 [Report]
>>64034786
Li
Anonymous No.64138215 [Report]
>>64034896
decent
Anonymous No.64138218 [Report]
>>64034961
nemesis of imho
Anonymous No.64138224 [Report]
>>64034967
no they couldn't
Anonymous No.64138229 [Report]
>>64032747
sad life
Anonymous No.64138236 [Report]
>>64025956
>full of
there are like three posters in the thread
Anonymous No.64138241 [Report]
>>64026109
obviously
Anonymous No.64138251 [Report]
>>64022221
missed digits
Anonymous No.64138261 [Report]
>>64022357
trip on
Anonymous No.64138267 [Report]
>>64020977
aerogavins were never good
Anonymous No.64138278 [Report] >>64139498
>>64018119
it was on private property
get bent FAA
Anonymous No.64138287 [Report]
>>64004492
serial retard needs rape correction
Anonymous No.64138295 [Report]
>>63997933
ww2 was a real war with real stakes
Anonymous No.64138298 [Report]
>>64089572
hate tarks
Anonymous No.64138314 [Report]
>>64064614
www was ahead of its time
Anonymous No.64138319 [Report]
>>64074488
fokktarn
Anonymous No.64138320 [Report]
>>64064372
2017 was 30 years ago
Anonymous No.64138866 [Report]
>>64136929
Anonymous No.64139494 [Report] >>64139505
>bumped again
Anonymous No.64139498 [Report]
>>64138278
It was a kid. He wasn't charged with anything.
Anonymous No.64139505 [Report]
>>64139494
Not for much longer
Anonymous No.64139515 [Report]
>>63996204
>doesn't give his state
Anonymous No.64139523 [Report]
>>63943094
>firing blindly at nothing
slop
Anonymous No.64139528 [Report]
>>63955198
Their videos are shit
Anonymous No.64139532 [Report] >>64139930 >>64140671
>triplanes
just filter them lol
Anonymous No.64139930 [Report]
>>64139532
Anonymous No.64140671 [Report]
>>64139532
kek
Anonymous No.64140676 [Report]
>>63955090
100
Anonymous No.64140683 [Report]
>>63954520
wing walkers are all young gymnasts for good reason.
Anonymous No.64141541 [Report] >>64141646 >>64142028 >>64142228
>>63955198
>Would a WW1 fighter have enough radar reflection for an AMRAAM to lock on?

The engine itself is enough for a lock on.
Anonymous No.64141646 [Report]
>>64141541
Anonymous No.64142028 [Report]
>>64141541
Anonymous No.64142228 [Report] >>64144274
>>64141541
The biggest issue would be extreme low level flying and proximity fuses, alot of AA missiles arc up to hit low level threats from above for that very reason.
Anonymous No.64144274 [Report]
>>64142228
arc