Ron Sands, in an update to his Fokker DR.1 plans, said that Fokker and the Germans were familiar with the steerable tailwheel. They simply chose not to use them on the DR.1 because of the stability issues and the capability of the skid to act as a keel and break when the airplane touched down. Many of the early replicas wrecked because people tried to put steerable tail wheels or wheel brakes, and other similar things that the Fokker had already figured out not to use. One wrecked in front of the FBO because the owner put motorcycle wheels on it in order to use brakes. The pilot touched the brakes and the airplane tipped forward onto its (spinning) prop right in front of the rental aircraft, picnic tables and the giant glass front of the building. Fortunately, nobody was hurt and the airplane is on display in a museum now.
with some of those WWI birds the way they were built that thing would have gotten a new prop the strut swapped and back in the air the next morning if not that same day.
I know this DR1, they shortened the landing gear 9", that can cause the nose over durring landing as it puts the landing angle more in front of the engine mount, see my vids on the true scale DR1 at Golden Age Air Museum using a LaRone rotary engine, much more stable o landing with the taller gear.
That was definitely not a hard landing. A landing in the three-point position, i.e. with the spur on the ground, would probably have been better. Much worse to look at, however, was the unqualified handling of the aircraft. It hurts to see how they tore at the end bar to put the plane back on the landing gear. The damage was probably higher than that caused by the actual accident.
I think he landed long ( too far down the runway) carried too much energy at the time he applied left rudder / brake. He may have done that as he felt he was going to run out of runway. It was a choice between a groundloop and a possibly a collision at the end of the strip. A normal 3 pointer may have been the way to go here.
@@MBCGRS you just told me you don’t. It’s best to get the tail skid on the ground sooner rather than later because it acts like a brake and helps hold it straight along with proper rudder inputs.
And the pilot say's..."oh-.crap" as he tips over. Thats whyt they do a 3-point landing and not 2 point - wheel it. They tend to tip over....................( look at the down elevator just before tips)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a classic ground loop, something taildraggers have a propensity to do, especially DR.1's, with even the slightest hint of a crosswind.
Ron Sands, in an update to his Fokker DR.1 plans, said that Fokker and the Germans were familiar with the steerable tailwheel. They simply chose not to use them on the DR.1 because of the stability issues and the capability of the skid to act as a keel and break when the airplane touched down. Many of the early replicas wrecked because people tried to put steerable tail wheels or wheel brakes, and other similar things that the Fokker had already figured out not to use. One wrecked in front of the FBO because the owner put motorcycle wheels on it in order to use brakes. The pilot touched the brakes and the airplane tipped forward onto its (spinning) prop right in front of the rental aircraft, picnic tables and the giant glass front of the building. Fortunately, nobody was hurt and the airplane is on display in a museum now.
Sands plans call for using '1972 Harley Sportster front wheels with modifications to the hubs. Brakes from said sportster could also be used.
Looking forward to the Flight Channel recreating this air disaster.
Thanks for posting . Plane didn't seem too badly damaged . I've heard these planes were hard to fly
with some of those WWI birds the way they were built that thing would have gotten a new prop the strut swapped and back in the air the next morning if not that same day.
I really hate to see these lovely old aeroplanes get damaged, even if they are replicas.
I know this DR1, they shortened the landing gear 9", that can cause the nose over durring landing as it puts the landing angle more in front of the engine mount, see my vids on the true scale DR1 at Golden Age Air Museum using a LaRone rotary engine, much more stable o landing with the taller gear.
That was definitely not a hard landing. A landing in the three-point position, i.e. with the spur on the ground, would probably have been better. Much worse to look at, however, was the unqualified handling of the aircraft. It hurts to see how they tore at the end bar to put the plane back on the landing gear. The damage was probably higher than that caused by the actual accident.
ground loop. oops.
It is really hard to land that plane. With all that did happen he still did a good job getting it down on the ground and not much damage
No it's not dummy...some need more training....all my tail wheel experience was in a B e 18!
Oooh bugger! :-(
I think he landed long ( too far down the runway) carried too much energy at the time he applied left rudder / brake. He may have done that as he felt he was going to run out of runway. It was a choice between a groundloop and a possibly a collision at the end of the strip. A normal 3 pointer may have been the way to go here.
Never make a wheel landing with this type of aircraft. It’s Best to 3 point it.
Tell me you know nothing about flying without saying it.
@@MBCGRS you just told me you don’t. It’s best to get the tail skid on the ground sooner rather than later because it acts like a brake and helps hold it straight along with proper rudder inputs.
It will buff out.
@HAFUVideo You said it before me. :)
This is now the second time that plane crashed like that I know of
And the pilot say's..."oh-.crap" as he tips over. Thats whyt they do a 3-point landing and not 2 point - wheel it. They tend to tip over....................( look at the down elevator just before tips)
If he didn't do a ground loop he would have been alright
way too fast
More dual tra.required...this would piss me off..