Considering that the aircraft of WW1 were primitive, what with wood, doped linen, and unusual flying characteristics (Fokker Triplane, anyone ?) the men who flew them had very large brass ones to fly day in,day out, and in poor weather.
@@sablatnic8030 At least this plane has an in-line engine. Those rotary fighters (like the triplanes) with a bloody great flywheel on the front acting like a gyro (the rotating mass of the engine) short stubby wings and short fuselages could flip in an instant. Couple that with having no throttle control (just on and off) made landing precarious because every time you flick the fuel back on that bloody great gyro effect kicks you again.
The owner likely died, and its been on loan to the museum this entire time. The will probably stipulated that the plane go to next of kin, and they want their money..
Yeah the Mercedes is not a Benz aero WWI engine, the Mercedes is OHC while the Benz in OHV/pushrods with 4 valves per cylinder and is substantially larger in displacement and power.
@@chrissimmonds3734 Well i'd rather it grounded than possibly destroyed in a mid air accident like what seems to keep happening at airshows in recent years, too rare to risk it.
@@oldmate3152 Agreed! While I love to see these beautiful rare birds fly again, the cost of them being destroyed in an accident is too great to risk. At least she’s still around in a museum!
Kudo's to camera crew.....beautiful footage, with the camera's shutter speed allowing a very natural appearance of the propeller in flight, rather than it looking stationary or turning backwards, as sometimes happens with digital videos. Great Video!!!!
One century old engine and parts...that's already very bold to let it be flown even for some minutes ...it belongs to a museum and static display for the safety of it and its pilote.
@@kaa13 But if the Shuttleworth Collection owned the aeroplane they would fly it. Just like they fly all their old aeroplanes. So it's just about who owns it and what they want to do with it. There are plenty of old aeroplanes in a museums. Arguably the MOD stole it from Germany in the first place, so their claim of ownership is tenuous. But thats another matter.
3:39 haven't seen that method before of having a second ground crew to pull the first out of the way when starting the engine but it does seem eminently sensible to do so.
230HP is quite extraordinary, for that era. I understand why the Ministry of Defense wants to ground the aircraft, since there are only 2 examples of this type remaining. Maybe someone will build an airworthy replica.
I am finishing a replica sopwith camel from the airdrome company at the moment. I am using a verner radial instead of a rotary. I am talking with airdrome about a replica of one of these aircraft. There are some obstacles to overcome such as engine. Hopefully one day though. It’s amazing to see ww1 airplanes still flying. Nothing replaces an original but replicas still allow people to see and experience what they are like
@@AlanpittsS2b A true replica is an exact copy of the original. I think it would be foolish to use an actual rotary engine. Modern radial engines are easier to control and are very reliable.
@ umm yeah. That’s why I am not using a rotary engine but a radial. And I don’t run a museum and want to survive so I am not building in design flaws the original had just to be exact. I appreciate people who do but I am going to regularly fly the airplane so I’m not doing that. It still gives people the general idea of these old planes.
It's sad to see such a old veteran like that LVG permanently grounded but looking at it cold-bloodedly it makes sense. It's the only one of its kind and if God forbid an accident happened the type would be permanently extinct. Better to display it safely in a museum where it can be enjoyed for decades to come. But I'll admit the romantic in me does question that if an airplane doesn't live to fly does it really live at all? No easy answers here. w.
I'm of the same mind. Although I do wonder if planes are a bit like violins. If they aren't in use they aren't really preserved. It's just a shadow. Still, conventional wisdom is it has worth static and they have to protect that by default.
The BMW swinging the large prop produces a surprisingly benign noise level; even by 2024 standards. Liquid cooling is helping to minimize noise impact, but it can't be operating w/ just straight exhaust pipes (?) Thanks WingsTV.
Compression is really low on those old engines, so they tend to be much milder than later high compression ones. Additionally, longer exhaust piping dissipates the sound more gently.
@@tauncfester3022 W/ either engine but lacking competitive maneuverability in 1918, an exhaust stack off a Stanley Steamer, ground handling like a punch drunk fighter...it still had a mother who loved it dearly! (Thanks!)
@tauncfester3022 yeah, it's higher compression compared to the other early Benz designs, but compared to the engines we're used to hearing now, the compression is still quite low.
I love the Shuttleworth collection. In some cases their example is not the only one flying but the only one still in existence. I remember seeing this being chased around Old Warden by the Bristol F2 Many years ago. I think the one in the German museum is actually a replica built for them I believe by the New Zealand company (whose name I can't remember) which is renowned for building replicas of Great War aircraft.
As much as I love seeing these wonderful old birds flying, I feel it is nearly criminal to risk them when there are only one or two in existence! If you must fly one, build a replica.
it is only just that the airplane can't be altered. It is primarily a historical peace if you wish flying pleasure you'd be better off buying a small monoprop plane and enjoy that, flying this plane is in itsself a historical exposition of flying mechanics during the great war, this plane couldn't get over 1300feet so that was a limit of a contemporary radiator. that's the beauty of history you can see how we got from x to y, these limitations are also the incentive for further advancements and inovations that brought us to modern airplanes of this configuration.
as wonderful as it was seeing an origional surviver flying, I would hate to see it damaged by accident like many other vintage aircraft. let it be safe in a museum so generations to come can see and enjoy it.
It's a 2 edge sword. Automobiles and aircraft tend to just start going to ruin when they aren't "exercised" by running the engine and moving about. I have a vintage car that had been reliable for 20+ years, and after a few years of sitting it has had the most mechanical problems of the entire time I've owned it.
Or handed over in a ridiculous deal,like the Spitfire was ,for the kittyhawk that never materialised? What sort of idiot did that deal! Oh yes Raf Hendon museum!
@@TheSaturnVcan still be ran on the ground, not that they will. Better to let an airplane that literally had turn restrictions below 500ft age out in a museum than risk a loss, even if lacquer clogs the fuel lines and gums the engine, and if the atmosphere degrades the rubbers.
I thought it was an Albatros. The Allies forced the destruction of the Luftwaffe so Germany would be defenseless next time France and the UK decided to start another war.
Because these were used at really high altitude, they were never meant to evade and maneuver in dogfights. They increased some other C series aircraft's wings to give it a speed and altitude advantage while up at 17~19K high, taking photos of the Entente's side front-lines.
I would be curious to know if you have also flown the "Fighter" (F2b). They are close to being of the same type in that they are both two bay biplanes. The Fighter has the advantage of larger and twice as many ailerons. The rudder on the Fighter is just a bit larger than the LVG. I found the Fighter to be very responsive in ground affect. I imagine that the LVG is restricted to no cross wind, or nothing more than a very, very, slight breeze.
So you've flown a Bristol Fighter? Most WWI aircraft were limited to taking off into the wind, if you look at the old maps and photos of WWI period airfields they were generally fan shaped with the apex aiming in the direction of the average of the prevailing winds. The F2B isn't any larger than the LVG but they have two entirely different purposes, the F2B was largely an escort and two-seater mid altitude fighter. The LVG was almost entirely a high speed and altitude observation plane. The better comparison to the F2B would be the CL series of what were "Light Two Seaters" like the Halberstadt CL.II and Hannover CL.II. The vertical fin and rudder in the LVG isn't the only vertical tail surface, there's also a pretty generously sized tail skid support that is triangular, below the fuselage.
@@tauncfester3022 I apologize if my reply missed the mark. First: realizing that you fly aeroplanes at Shuttleworth, I was wondering if you would be able to compare the two as far as landing techniques-differences-similarities. The Fighter having four hugh barndoors for ailerons as compared to the LVG having only two smaller ailerons. And being on the top, further away from ground effect. The Fighter is a cross between the J3 Cub and the DC3. Easy in the air and a real delight on landing. The ailerons worked up to the very last second in the air. (F2B: 200 hrs and 100+ landings). As an example I found the Bulldog to be a rudder aeroplane on landing. Ailerons almost worthless in the flair. I do miss flying the Fighter. For those of you wondering about the term "Fighter", the F2B was called the Brisfit by the general public, media, and aviators. It was referred to as the "Fighter" in the office, the drafting room, and shop floor. This tidbit of info will NOT get you a free pint of Green Abbots Ale. Cheers.
If the ailerons are too large, it produces lateral forces that make the stick very heavy in roll. In extreme cases, if the ailerons are too large these forces can warp the wing
If I remember correctly the French team that rebuilt this plane may have trimmed the wings with less dihedral than stock. Photos of the LVGs in service show about 2 to 3 degrees of dihedral. The smallness of the ailerons is probably because, despite their extreme washout, the wings on this plane have an undercambered airfoil and have a marked amount of angle of attack, therefor their ailerons will have an overtly large amount of adverse yaw when applied. So they treat these ailerons as more of a roll trim control. The sole purpose of this, the Rumpler CIV and the DFW CV were to climb to very high altitudes and take observation photos of enemy positions. These planes were also very fast at altitude and were generally climbed too and descended from these heights way behind friendly lines so when they reached their working altitude they didn't spend a lot of time over the enemy lines and were going fast enough than any interception could be avoided by descending slightly at speed. They would often reach over 19K, which most Allied pursuit planes had trouble climbing to or even maintaining speed with the thin air at this height. Also aerodynamics is still a somewhat dark art at this point, many WWI aircraft were an the cutting edge of what was known about building and operating high performance aircraft.
Large wings and a lot of power. High altitude and high speed. Not a dogfighter. The rudder range of movement for turning on the ground, without assistance??
Stable platform for reconnaissance. It didn't need to be flown around like a fighter. But very easy to restrict rudder travel. Don't know why they didn't.
I would go the other way. Crashing any kind of vehicle is a purely statistical endeavor past a certain point, and we have to eventually stop flying them if we don't want them all to eventually crash. Like that P400 that was supposed to be one of like three or four examples left in the world that crashed into that B17. We should keep originals in collections for analysis, build 1:1 replicas for flying.
Not really, it was quite larger , more wing area, slightly heavier and the engine was rated for running at 18K altitude which where this and the Rumpler CIV were used as fast, high altitude observation aircraft.
It would be quite easy to print instructions and components, however a motor would require expertise. Most of the construction is plywood with canvas on the wings.
Too bad that the flight sequences originally recorded with an aspect ratio of 4:3 have been stretched to 16:9. It makes for a strangely elongated fuselage and oval wheels. That is something that is simple to correct, but was not done.
As a general aviation pilot myself, I can tell you flying ultralight light sport aircraft, and of course the Cessna 150s and above, not having adequate quate? If you haven’t got adequate aileron authority, you are not going to fly very well.
With some dihedral and reasonable rudder authority you can have sufficient roll authority. This plane was never meant to be even an occasional dogfighter, purely high altitude photography and fast at altitude. Most carried no guns because of their superior speed at a slight descent from 20K.
This would be better in the hands of The Vintage Aviator (TVA) in New Zealand rather than in the RAF Museum. TVA would do whatever work was required to get it up to scratch, like a new radiator, and most importantly keep it flying.
It's beautiful but also almost a crime to fly this thing.... If it were to crash and be destroyed 😮 no I'm sorry it would stay on the ground if it were up to me it's to historicaly important
"It's actually a perfectly safe aeroplane but you have to understand it" ... I don't know about "perfectly" safe but you could put that sentence on the cover of most any flight manual. addendum: I'm trying to imagine reading a flight manual that says don't turn the aircraft below 500'. I think I would just stop reading at that point. And they actually flew the thing in a war. Actually, sounds like NASA.
There's a short YT video of this plane being flown after it was finished at the Memorial Flight hangars in Paris, in 2005, it seems that the pilot flying it was making all sorts of turns and maneuvers with it close to '400 to '700 AGL, one thing to note is that they were flying it with the throttle near wide open and not climbing or descending much while at considerable speed, so maybe the problem here is with the Shuttleworth pilots.
@@tauncfester3022 Maybe they fitted a proper radiator for sustained full throttle so the pilot in Paris had enough airspeed for maneuvering, or maybe he just got away with it. I would be reluctant to question the judgement of Shuttleworth pilots, I expect they're about the best out there at flying vintage aircraft.
@@tedchristian2235 why would they change it? According to the Memorial Flight page on this aircraft, they were rebuilding it as close to the stock aircraft as possible. I'm thinking that keeping up sufficient airspeed had a lot to do with keeping this aircraft's engine cool. As Shuttleworth's pilots do a lot of flights in a circle at lower speeds for the photographers, and they've had one of their pilots crash their Sopwith Triplane, so no, they aren't perfect. I suppose the La Ferte Alais pilot had a lot more open space and permission to fly at speed at low altitude. Secondly these German high altitude observation aircraft had a special carburetor on their Benz overcompressed engines that you couldn't open up to full throttle under '6000. Some of them even had a barometric control that hindered full throttle until you were above '6000. So were the Shuttleworth pilots not understanding the reasons why these controls were in place? The fellow they interviewing says the engine has enough power. So were they running it with the controls removed or improperly? There's a lot of reasons why this engine would run hot in the hands of someone unfamiliar with their operations.
@@tauncfester3022 The pilot at 3:00 talks about the radiator being non original and undersized so that limited how long the aircraft could be operated at full throttle. And the throttle limitation you talk about doesn't prevent the engine developing full power at lower altitude so much as it essentially flat rates the engine so it can maintain power above 6000'. Shuttleworth pilots may have flown at a lower throttle setting to extend flight time. It's very unlikely a Shuttleworth pilot wouldn't be familiar with the engine limitations of an aircraft he was flying. The handling peculiarities the pilot talks about are aerodynamic in nature and engine power would only be a secondary consideration.
The same guy who wouldn't let them cut him out the cockpit injured to try and do minimal further damage ? That John Allison ? Yeah OK. It's a shame what happened to Black 6 but they were notorious at take off and landing for exactly what happened there.
I'd pay $1000 to go up in that plane for an hour, but it probably wouldn't even cover the insurance. Does anyone know the type of plane in Shadow of the Vampire? Was it real, or just a mock up?
No he was merely giving an honest account of what the machine is like to fly. At the time it was built many of th same qualifications would apply to many allied aircraft. This was more on a par with the RE 8 which apparently was a pig to fly. By comparison with some types of that era it sounds like a completely normal machine.
@@paulreilly3904quite, all I heard was a pilot going an honest appraisal of the type's foibles. Every type has its limitations, just that some are more limited than others.
Once a British Aircraft got close enough to spot that vertical Rino Horn exhaust system, they knew it was going to add to their German aircraft kill tally. 🥸
When an seasoned British aviator says "mildly alarming", that means utterly terrifying. Big brass ones on that lad.
Considering that the aircraft of WW1 were primitive, what with wood, doped linen, and unusual flying characteristics (Fokker Triplane, anyone ?) the men who flew them had very large brass ones to fly
day in,day out, and in poor weather.
@@johnbarnes6832 As I understood it wasn't too bad, a bit like a slower and less harmonic Bristol Fighter.
@@sablatnic8030 At least this plane has an in-line engine. Those rotary fighters (like the triplanes) with a bloody great flywheel on the front acting like a gyro (the rotating mass of the engine) short stubby wings and short fuselages could flip in an instant. Couple that with having no throttle control (just on and off) made landing precarious because every time you flick the fuel back on that bloody great gyro effect kicks you again.
@@throwback19841 well noted, also the Mercedes engine was very reliable for the time. Most rotary engines had very low TBO like 20 hours or so...
A 25 year old pilot back then was considered an old man 😳.
I find it very strange that the RAF Museum demanded this back so abruptly, but then it hasn't been seen since. Great footage.
Yes, very petty it would seem
They are probably worried that it gets wrecked
The owner likely died, and its been on loan to the museum this entire time. The will probably stipulated that the plane go to next of kin, and they want their money..
@@MichaelOfRohan The owner is the british ministry of defense.
@@thevictoryoverhimself7298well some would say that the ministry has died
Fascinating to hear the flight characteristics from a pilot that has flown the aircraft.
That engine sounds heavenly! Kermit Weeks' Albatros has a similar big Mercedes inline and also sounds like a big truck pulling up a long incline.
Yeah the Mercedes is not a Benz aero WWI engine, the Mercedes is OHC while the Benz in OHV/pushrods with 4 valves per cylinder and is substantially larger in displacement and power.
This is why such very old irreplaceable items are extinct. A picture truly will not be a good replacement.
It’s now grounded in the RAF Museum not destroyed
@@chrissimmonds3734 Well i'd rather it grounded than possibly destroyed in a mid air accident like what seems to keep happening at airshows in recent years, too rare to risk it.
@@oldmate3152 Agreed! While I love to see these beautiful rare birds fly again, the cost of them being destroyed in an accident is too great to risk. At least she’s still around in a museum!
Kudo's to camera crew.....beautiful footage, with the camera's shutter speed allowing a very natural appearance of the propeller in flight, rather than it looking stationary or turning backwards, as sometimes happens with digital videos.
Great Video!!!!
Thank you very much!
Engine sounds great.
Amazing to still be flying after all those years!
Excellent video. Great information, wonderful camera work, fun and informative audio. Well done.
2:45 I thought he was going to mention the inconvenience of being doused with boiling water in the event of a radiator leak.
According to an article in Aeroplane Monthly in the mid 70s that happened frequently, until they improved the baffles around the radiator.
Oh that's a gret idea put it on static display rather than let it fly. Well done MOD.
One of 2 in the world. Better to be cautious.
One century old engine and parts...that's already very bold to let it be flown even for some minutes ...it belongs to a museum and static display for the safety of it and its pilote.
@@kaa13 But if the Shuttleworth Collection owned the aeroplane they would fly it. Just like they fly all their old aeroplanes. So it's just about who owns it and what they want to do with it. There are plenty of old aeroplanes in a museums.
Arguably the MOD stole it from Germany in the first place, so their claim of ownership is tenuous. But thats another matter.
@@robert-wr6md “they stole it”
Lmao.
@@i_commission_dspriscilla_a7486 How vulgar!
The Treaty of Versailles what a great idea that turned out to be.
3:39 haven't seen that method before of having a second ground crew to pull the first out of the way when starting the engine but it does seem eminently sensible to do so.
230HP is quite extraordinary, for that era. I understand why the Ministry of Defense wants to ground the aircraft, since there are only 2 examples of this type remaining. Maybe someone will build an airworthy replica.
Yes - it's an irreplaceable original.
I am finishing a replica sopwith camel from the airdrome company at the moment. I am using a verner radial instead of a rotary. I am talking with airdrome about a replica of one of these aircraft. There are some obstacles to overcome such as engine. Hopefully one day though. It’s amazing to see ww1 airplanes still flying. Nothing replaces an original but replicas still allow people to see and experience what they are like
@@AlanpittsS2b A true replica is an exact copy of the original. I think it would be foolish to use an actual rotary engine. Modern radial engines are easier to control and are very reliable.
@ umm yeah. That’s why I am not using a rotary engine but a radial. And I don’t run a museum and want to survive so I am not building in design flaws the original had just to be exact. I appreciate people who do but I am going to regularly fly the airplane so I’m not doing that. It still gives people the general idea of these old planes.
@ Indeed!
I saw this fly at the Shuttleworth Collection and saw it a couple of years ago langwishing at the Cosford Museum Engineering Section in pieces.
I live next to cosford and go there quite a lot, I wonder if I saw this plane without giving it much thought. Beautiful plane
@@9dvds I saw the plane at a Cosford Restoration OPen Day in their Restoration shop but it was in pieces piled up in a ocorner but I recognised it.
Absolutely stunning.... Thank you... *
It's sad to see such a old veteran like that LVG permanently grounded but looking at it cold-bloodedly it makes sense. It's the only one of its kind and if God forbid an accident happened the type would be permanently extinct.
Better to display it safely in a museum where it can be enjoyed for decades to come.
But I'll admit the romantic in me does question that if an airplane doesn't live to fly does it really live at all?
No easy answers here. w.
I'm of the same mind. Although I do wonder if planes are a bit like violins. If they aren't in use they aren't really preserved. It's just a shadow. Still, conventional wisdom is it has worth static and they have to protect that by default.
beautiful machine
I love these WW1 Aircraft. We are so lucky here in the UK to have a number of good Aircraft museums.
Beautiful aircraft , lovely sounding engine🍺
The BMW swinging the large prop produces a surprisingly benign noise level; even by 2024 standards. Liquid cooling is helping to minimize noise impact, but it can't be operating w/ just straight exhaust pipes (?) Thanks WingsTV.
Compression is really low on those old engines, so they tend to be much milder than later high compression ones. Additionally, longer exhaust piping dissipates the sound more gently.
It's actually a Benz Bz.IV the higher compression, high altitude rated Benz
@@tauncfester3022 W/ either engine but lacking competitive maneuverability in 1918, an exhaust stack off a Stanley Steamer, ground handling like a punch drunk fighter...it still had a mother who loved it dearly! (Thanks!)
@tauncfester3022 yeah, it's higher compression compared to the other early Benz designs, but compared to the engines we're used to hearing now, the compression is still quite low.
I'm so glad I saw it flying. Perhaps even at that show?
Great sounding engine.
We should rebuild such planes to show it on shows or take visitors for a flight. Best way to spend money.
Beautiful plane❤❤
Beautiful aircraft, though my personal favourite from the time is the Pfalz.
Beautiful 👍
I love the Shuttleworth collection. In some cases their example is not the only one flying but the only one still in existence. I remember seeing this being chased around Old Warden by the Bristol F2 Many years ago. I think the one in the German museum is actually a replica built for them I believe by the New Zealand company (whose name I can't remember) which is renowned for building replicas of Great War aircraft.
You mean Peter Jackson's Vintage Aircraft?
@@ToreDL87probably the people I am thinking of.
Beautiful!
As much as I love seeing these wonderful old birds flying, I feel it is nearly criminal to risk them when there are only one or two in existence! If you must fly one, build a replica.
It gets better reviews today than Boeing does.
5:56 that sounds like the doyen of airshow commentators, John Blake!
2:15 - look at them tappets go!
I love the early years of aviation. Strange the German engineers did not correct the problem with linked ailerons on the lower wing!
I remember that it flew with a FIAT car radiator for a while.
Hearing that it won't ever fly again is almost like hearing it is going into hospice.😔
Yeah but it’ll be preserved and continue to exist and be proof that the past happened.
it is only just that the airplane can't be altered. It is primarily a historical peace if you wish flying pleasure you'd be better off buying a small monoprop plane and enjoy that, flying this plane is in itsself a historical exposition of flying mechanics during the great war, this plane couldn't get over 1300feet so that was a limit of a contemporary radiator.
that's the beauty of history you can see how we got from x to y, these limitations are also the incentive for further advancements and inovations that brought us to modern airplanes of this configuration.
What a shame the RAF have effectively grounded it..
At this point, it’s probably for the best rather than potentially lose it forever in a crash.
as wonderful as it was seeing an origional surviver flying, I would hate to see it damaged by accident like many other vintage aircraft. let it be safe in a museum so generations to come can see and enjoy it.
It's a 2 edge sword. Automobiles and aircraft tend to just start going to ruin when they aren't "exercised" by running the engine and moving about. I have a vintage car that had been reliable for 20+ years, and after a few years of sitting it has had the most mechanical problems of the entire time I've owned it.
Or handed over in a ridiculous deal,like the Spitfire was ,for the kittyhawk that never materialised?
What sort of idiot did that deal!
Oh yes Raf Hendon museum!
So you could say the same about any aircraft. Stick them all in museums "to be safe"?
@@ricardoroberto7054yeah, any aircraft that is almost fully extant.
Are you dense?
@@TheSaturnVcan still be ran on the ground, not that they will.
Better to let an airplane that literally had turn restrictions below 500ft age out in a museum than risk a loss, even if lacquer clogs the fuel lines and gums the engine, and if the atmosphere degrades the rubbers.
👍👍👍🛩
They should contact Peter Jackson about having the Vintage Aviator recreate a flight-worthy example.
We need replicas
German Tanks, German Football and German planes.... Commented by a britsh..... Wow. The best language for technical Explorations
It belongs in a German museum.
I thought it was an Albatros. The Allies forced the destruction of the Luftwaffe so Germany would be defenseless next time France and the UK decided to start another war.
A shame the air-to-air footage is stretched too wide.
Looks like a Halberstadt.
Why would they not have at least increased the aileron size during production?
Because these were used at really high altitude, they were never meant to evade and maneuver in dogfights. They increased some other C series aircraft's wings to give it a speed and altitude advantage while up at 17~19K high, taking photos of the Entente's side front-lines.
I would be curious to know if you have also flown the "Fighter" (F2b). They are close to being of the same type in that they are both two bay biplanes. The Fighter has the advantage of larger and twice as many ailerons. The rudder on the Fighter is just a bit larger than the LVG. I found the Fighter to be very responsive in ground affect. I imagine that the LVG is restricted to no cross wind, or nothing more than a very, very, slight breeze.
So you've flown a Bristol Fighter?
Most WWI aircraft were limited to taking off into the wind, if you look at the old maps and photos of WWI period airfields they were generally fan shaped with the apex aiming in the direction of the average of the prevailing winds. The F2B isn't any larger than the LVG but they have two entirely different purposes, the F2B was largely an escort and two-seater mid altitude fighter. The LVG was almost entirely a high speed and altitude observation plane. The better comparison to the F2B would be the CL series of what were "Light Two Seaters" like the Halberstadt CL.II and Hannover CL.II.
The vertical fin and rudder in the LVG isn't the only vertical tail surface, there's also a pretty generously sized tail skid support that is triangular, below the fuselage.
@@tauncfester3022 I apologize if my reply missed the mark. First: realizing that you fly aeroplanes at Shuttleworth, I was wondering if you would be able to compare the two as far as landing techniques-differences-similarities. The Fighter having four hugh barndoors for ailerons as compared to the LVG having only two smaller ailerons. And being on the top, further away from ground effect. The Fighter is a cross between the J3 Cub and the DC3. Easy in the air and a real delight on landing. The ailerons worked up to the very last second in the air. (F2B: 200 hrs and 100+ landings). As an example I found the Bulldog to be a rudder aeroplane on landing. Ailerons almost worthless in the flair. I do miss flying the Fighter.
For those of you wondering about the term "Fighter", the F2B was called the Brisfit by the general public, media, and aviators. It was referred to as the "Fighter" in the office, the drafting room, and shop floor. This tidbit of info will NOT get you a free pint of Green Abbots Ale. Cheers.
What’s going to happen to it?
I wonder why the design has such tiny ailerons. What were the designers thinking.
If the ailerons are too large, it produces lateral forces that make the stick very heavy in roll. In extreme cases, if the ailerons are too large these forces can warp the wing
If I remember correctly the French team that rebuilt this plane may have trimmed the wings with less dihedral than stock. Photos of the LVGs in service show about 2 to 3 degrees of dihedral.
The smallness of the ailerons is probably because, despite their extreme washout, the wings on this plane have an undercambered airfoil and have a marked amount of angle of attack, therefor their ailerons will have an overtly large amount of adverse yaw when applied. So they treat these ailerons as more of a roll trim control.
The sole purpose of this, the Rumpler CIV and the DFW CV were to climb to very high altitudes and take observation photos of enemy positions. These planes were also very fast at altitude and were generally climbed too and descended from these heights way behind friendly lines so when they reached their working altitude they didn't spend a lot of time over the enemy lines and were going fast enough than any interception could be avoided by descending slightly at speed.
They would often reach over 19K, which most Allied pursuit planes had trouble climbing to or even maintaining speed with the thin air at this height. Also aerodynamics is still a somewhat dark art at this point, many WWI aircraft were an the cutting edge of what was known about building and operating high performance aircraft.
Large wings and a lot of power.
High altitude and high speed.
Not a dogfighter.
The rudder range of movement for turning on the ground, without assistance??
Stability it wasn't designed to be flown around like a fighter It was a stable platform for reconosance
Stable platform for reconnaissance. It didn't need to be flown around like a fighter. But very easy to restrict rudder travel. Don't know why they didn't.
Can't the RAF build a replica for museum display, instead of grounding this gem? So sad!
I would go the other way. Crashing any kind of vehicle is a purely statistical endeavor past a certain point, and we have to eventually stop flying them if we don't want them all to eventually crash. Like that P400 that was supposed to be one of like three or four examples left in the world that crashed into that B17. We should keep originals in collections for analysis, build 1:1 replicas for flying.
1100 were built in more than a year. I wonder why they never enlarged the ailerons by a rib or two.
So that means it's had it's flight feathers cut of so it won't fly again ? If It can fly it should I say.
Hadrosaur exhaust.
Nice sound coming from that aircraft. A shame to not be able to see her fly again. Stuffed away in a dusty museum... meh.
when you take a plane like this why not require a replica to be constructed with some fair safety features so that people can still enjoy history
The German equivalent of the BE2c, in fact. But much more powerful.
Not really, it was quite larger , more wing area, slightly heavier and the engine was rated for running at 18K altitude which where this and the Rumpler CIV were used as fast, high altitude observation aircraft.
What happened it crashed?
Could such an engine be reprint with modern technologies.
It would be quite easy to print instructions and components, however a motor would require expertise. Most of the construction is plywood with canvas on the wings.
Maybe its made for more power and because there is no radiator on it it cant reach this necessary power and stays clumsy.
Too bad that the flight sequences originally recorded with an aspect ratio of 4:3 have been stretched to 16:9. It makes for a strangely elongated fuselage and oval wheels. That is something that is simple to correct, but was not done.
Perfectly safe aeroplane!!...when It in in Britain, and You are in Alaska😅
Sounds like a truck going down the highway.
As a general aviation pilot myself, I can tell you flying ultralight light sport aircraft, and of course the Cessna 150s and above, not having adequate quate? If you haven’t got adequate aileron authority, you are not going to fly very well.
With some dihedral and reasonable rudder authority you can have sufficient roll authority. This plane was never meant to be even an occasional dogfighter, purely high altitude photography and fast at altitude. Most carried no guns because of their superior speed at a slight descent from 20K.
Doesn't sound like an aircraft I'd want to go up in, it seems susceptible to spin with those control shortcomings.
Very little fin area
Not an airplane I'd want to be caught in a dogfight in
This would be better in the hands of The Vintage Aviator (TVA) in New Zealand rather than in the RAF Museum. TVA would do whatever work was required to get it up to scratch, like a new radiator, and most importantly keep it flying.
It's beautiful but also almost a crime to fly this thing.... If it were to crash and be destroyed 😮 no I'm sorry it would stay on the ground if it were up to me it's to historicaly important
Wilson Patricia Jackson Sharon Anderson George
"It's actually a perfectly safe aeroplane but you have to understand it" ... I don't know about "perfectly" safe but you could put that sentence on the cover of most any flight manual. addendum: I'm trying to imagine reading a flight manual that says don't turn the aircraft below 500'. I think I would just stop reading at that point. And they actually flew the thing in a war. Actually, sounds like NASA.
There's a short YT video of this plane being flown after it was finished at the Memorial Flight hangars in Paris, in 2005, it seems that the pilot flying it was making all sorts of turns and maneuvers with it close to '400 to '700 AGL, one thing to note is that they were flying it with the throttle near wide open and not climbing or descending much while at considerable speed, so maybe the problem here is with the Shuttleworth pilots.
@@tauncfester3022 Maybe they fitted a proper radiator for sustained full throttle so the pilot in Paris had enough airspeed for maneuvering, or maybe he just got away with it. I would be reluctant to question the judgement of Shuttleworth pilots, I expect they're about the best out there at flying vintage aircraft.
@@tedchristian2235 why would they change it? According to the Memorial Flight page on this aircraft, they were rebuilding it as close to the stock aircraft as possible. I'm thinking that keeping up sufficient airspeed had a lot to do with keeping this aircraft's engine cool. As Shuttleworth's pilots do a lot of flights in a circle at lower speeds for the photographers, and they've had one of their pilots crash their Sopwith Triplane, so no, they aren't perfect. I suppose the La Ferte Alais pilot had a lot more open space and permission to fly at speed at low altitude.
Secondly these German high altitude observation aircraft had a special carburetor on their Benz overcompressed engines that you couldn't open up to full throttle under '6000. Some of them even had a barometric control that hindered full throttle until you were above '6000.
So were the Shuttleworth pilots not understanding the reasons why these controls were in place? The fellow they interviewing says the engine has enough power. So were they running it with the controls removed or improperly? There's a lot of reasons why this engine would run hot in the hands of someone unfamiliar with their operations.
@@tauncfester3022 The pilot at 3:00 talks about the radiator being non original and undersized so that limited how long the aircraft could be operated at full throttle. And the throttle limitation you talk about doesn't prevent the engine developing full power at lower altitude so much as it essentially flat rates the engine so it can maintain power above 6000'. Shuttleworth pilots may have flown at a lower throttle setting to extend flight time. It's very unlikely a Shuttleworth pilot wouldn't be familiar with the engine limitations of an aircraft he was flying. The handling peculiarities the pilot talks about are aerodynamic in nature and engine power would only be a secondary consideration.
" a british fighter found it", of course WW1 on the west front was a british-german war.
That's how it ended up in Britain
John Alison, the “Richard Cranium” who crashed Black 6 back in the 90s. What a tossed!
The same guy who wouldn't let them cut him out the cockpit injured to try and do minimal further damage ? That John Allison ? Yeah OK.
It's a shame what happened to Black 6 but they were notorious at take off and landing for exactly what happened there.
@@asm1 you mean, the pilot selected the wrong radiator setting.....and boiled the engine in flight ?.
I’m sure you would have done better eh? If you’ve never flown one, pipe down- Tossed!
The MOD probably grounded this aircraft to stop him doing the same thing with the LVG!
I wouldn't let him fly any of my planes!
I'd pay $1000 to go up in that plane for an hour, but it probably wouldn't even cover the insurance. Does anyone know the type of plane in Shadow of the Vampire? Was it real, or just a mock up?
All I heard was a guy complaining and putting down an “enemy” airplane. Damn! Why fly the plane?!
No he was merely giving an honest account of what the machine is like to fly. At the time it was built many of th same qualifications would apply to many allied aircraft. This was more on a par with the RE 8 which apparently was a pig to fly. By comparison with some types of that era it sounds like a completely normal machine.
You seem to have poor listening skills. No one else heard that
@@paulreilly3904quite, all I heard was a pilot going an honest appraisal of the type's foibles. Every type has its limitations, just that some are more limited than others.
Once a British Aircraft got close enough to spot that vertical Rino Horn exhaust system, they knew it was going to add to their German aircraft kill tally. 🥸
If they could catch it. Generally they were above 19K and going like the prevailing westerlies at that altitude.