One of these hangs in my basement and one in Mom's house. I built one as a profile only, with flat board wings, and .049 Cox engine and it flies beautifully on control lines. Then I enlarged my plans thru a Xerox to 1/5 scale, never covered it, and it hangs from my vaulted ceiling as I type this. Beautiful skeleton! It was planned for RC, but never got there.
Wow dejavu...I built a control line version in the 70s and crashed it. I then scratch built a larger RC version that I've flown since the 90s. Now I'm building a smaller micro RC version right now!
Nice build and good job getting her to fly. I love building these old Guillows kits out of the box and getting them to fly with rubber. Once again, good job and thank you for posting.
The extremely short nose moment makes these Fokkers very difficult. My strategy is to make the stabilizer and rudder as low mass as possible in order to recover from upsets quickly. But I can see that you are making it work very elegantly. Good job.
I built one in the 1970s and put in a Cox 0.49 for control line. 1 flight, way too tail heavy, about 20 laps when the motor quit, stall, crash!! My brother destroyed it when I left for college. I now have an upsized RC scratch built version and another under construction! The Baron lives!
This is yet another Guillow's model with more potential than the Guillow's critics seem to think. I built one for 3ch rc many years ago, which flies well without aileron control. I had to reset the wing incidences as well as possible, which were way off. The model wants a slight gradual increase in positive incidence from the bottom to the top wing, to avoid a continuous tail heavy stall cycle if in the reverse order. Set incorrectly the model ends up flying on the upper wing with an aft CG and drops the tail, when the lower wings stall where the model pitches up until it fully stalls, drop the nose, and recovers. Done again, I believe I could get excellent results from the model.
These Guillow's kits come up so heavy. Try a Dumas kit. Much higher quality. I think you'll like them, Lots to choose from! The Dr.1 is a challenge, no doubt. Good job!
I used to build these old kits, and what I was shown by my uncle, was to sand the sheets to 1/32 thickness, which really cuts down on weight. The stringers are left alone since you need the strength. Also, the old Aerogloss Dope we used to get could be used full strength, but again to save weight , we would mix it 50/50 with lacquer thinner, and avoid opaque paints or dope colors. And the tissue only got 2 light coats of dope. As such, we made very light weight models that way. I know some things have changed since to old days, with better and lighter weight adhesives, and paints, but sanding the parts sheets to 1/2 their thickness was always the key.
Great flight and airplane! I have a mostly completed Guillows kit in my closet (a monoplane.) It's been there many years. I need to finish it and take it out to fly.
Really neat! I wish I had your courage! I have a Guillow's Albatros and it looks promising but I haven't packed in the winds like you have. Congratulations! -Dan
The DR1 is a particularly good flier for a Guillows kit, which are not known to do so very well without much modification, lightening, and better power. The three wings, greatly lowering the wing loading is part of the reason. Adequate tail surfaces and the small airframe are others. The extensive weight reduction of the airframe really helped in this instance. More weight reduction could have been done, especially with regard to the fuselage which is designed to be way overbuilt, without compromising structural integrity. With a tube motor, the fuselage can be very light, indeed. Built to scale as this one is, this aeroplane is extremely short-coupled (resulting in a very close CL to CG) and short-nosed (those old Oberursel Ur. II 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary piston engines weighed 323 lbs., plus the huge laminated wooden prop, altogether a high percentage of the overall weight of an aeroplane that weighed only 895 lbs. empty) making balance a bit tricky. Even with the very light structure behind the CG, this model was predictably tail heavy. These kinds of WWI scale models, Sopwith Camel, Nieuport, Thomas Morse Scout, etc., are problematic in this regard. All told, even a very primitive Wakefield will fly rings around a model of this kind. They're really for show, but if you enjoy the challenge of flying them, which I fully understand, you'll have your hands full. You did eventually get a good flight out of it, albeit with a monster motor and prop that undid your trim circle. With really large motors I usually trim to the left or use R/C rudder assist to keep it nearby. I understand that a de-thermalizer is not required in this one. :D Also, and this is just a small personal gripe. Did we really need another red DR1? There were hundreds of others, many in bright colours. Any one of them would be refreshing. Great job.
The decals in the kit have serial FI 102/17, the second prototype, assigned to Rittmeister Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen. Oberleutnant Kurt Wolf was killed flying this plane. This plane was painted with the standard streaky green upper surfaces, sky blue under surfaces and white panels for the crosses on rudder, fuselage sides and wings. The three prototypes had no wingtip skids and smaller ailerons than later production models. The kit follows that practice, although the 3-view shows the skids and the box art shows a red plane. One advantage of the red on a model is that it is easier to see in grass or trees.
The power lasted well with the larger prop, which also provided the much needed tad of noseweight.. The sustained torque swing is what made this, somewhat, 'fly away'.. 👍
I built this model many years ago. It never flew well, so I left it as a display model. I heard of someone who who put a micromotor and micro receiver and flew successfully.
Massive field, one tree, it hits it! I've known trees and walls and fences and hedges like that. It always seems to defy credibility that they attract model aeroplanes in that way ... ?!?!?!
One of these hangs in my basement and one in Mom's house. I built one as a profile only, with flat board wings, and .049 Cox engine and it flies beautifully on control lines. Then I enlarged my plans thru a Xerox to 1/5 scale, never covered it, and it hangs from my vaulted ceiling as I type this. Beautiful skeleton! It was planned for RC, but never got there.
Thank you for watching.
Wow dejavu...I built a control line version in the 70s and crashed it. I then scratch built a larger RC version that I've flown since the 90s. Now I'm building a smaller micro RC version right now!
Go for it now. Why not?
I am impressed that you made an old model like this fly. Especially a triplane using a kit. I wouldn’t be surprised if you could make a doghouse fly.
Thank you for your comment.
Nice recovery pole! Glad you got it down out of the tree.
This time it was recovered unharmed.
Nice build and good job getting her to fly. I love building these old Guillows kits out of the box and getting them to fly with rubber.
Once again, good job and thank you for posting.
Thank you for watching.
@@freeflight7750 YW.
Wow! It fly's so well it could be in a contest yet it looks so nice it could be a display model. Really cool!
Thank you for watching. It's also good for displays.
I have fund my teenager very handy for "Tree Recovery Missions" such as this one. Thanks for sharing this beautiful plane and flight with us.
Thank you for watching.
I subscribed I watched one of your videos and I was hooked
Thank you for subscribing to the channel.
Beautiful flights ! And what amazing scenery. Very nice work on the model
Thank you.
The extremely short nose moment makes these Fokkers very difficult. My strategy is to make the stabilizer and rudder as low mass as possible in order to recover from upsets quickly. But I can see that you are making it work very elegantly. Good job.
Thank you for watching.
As you pointed out, reducing the weight of the tail is important for obtaining "CG".
This plane must be really difficult to trim, but you've done a great job. It flies great!
Thank you for your comment.
well done - that's about the best I've seen one fly!
I built one in the 1970s and put in a Cox 0.49 for control line. 1 flight, way too tail heavy, about 20 laps when the motor quit, stall, crash!! My brother destroyed it when I left for college. I now have an upsized RC scratch built version and another under construction! The Baron lives!
Thank you for watching.
I put a 35g weight on the nose of the DR1.
This is yet another Guillow's model with more potential than the Guillow's critics seem to think. I built one for 3ch rc many years ago, which flies well without aileron control. I had to reset the wing incidences as well as possible, which were way off. The model wants a slight gradual increase in positive incidence from the bottom to the top wing, to avoid a continuous tail heavy stall cycle if in the reverse order. Set incorrectly the model ends up flying on the upper wing with an aft CG and drops the tail, when the lower wings stall where the model pitches up until it fully stalls, drop the nose, and recovers. Done again, I believe I could get excellent results from the model.
Thank you for watching.
And thank you for your high level comments.
These Guillow's kits come up so heavy.
Try a Dumas kit. Much higher quality.
I think you'll like them, Lots to choose from!
The Dr.1 is a challenge, no doubt.
Good job!
Thanks for your advice.
I used to build these old kits, and what I was shown by my uncle, was to sand the sheets to 1/32 thickness, which really cuts down on weight. The stringers are left alone since you need the strength.
Also, the old Aerogloss Dope we used to get could be used full strength, but again to save weight , we would mix it 50/50 with lacquer thinner, and avoid opaque paints or dope colors. And the tissue only got 2 light coats of dope.
As such, we made very light weight models that way.
I know some things have changed since to old days, with better and lighter weight adhesives, and paints, but sanding the parts sheets to 1/2 their thickness was always the key.
Thank you for your further advice.
Amazing model nice job on the built. So cool.
Thank you for watching.
Patience and perseverance was the true lesson of Guillow's scale models. If you could get these models to fly, you could do anything.
thank you. I'm happy.
Great flight and airplane! I have a mostly completed Guillows kit in my closet (a monoplane.) It's been there many years. I need to finish it and take it out to fly.
Thank you for watching.
I would be happy if the scale flew.
Fantastic build and great flights! You make it look easy but I know it isn't. Good you managed to recover it from the tree!
Thank you for watching.
I'm really happy if the scale plane flies.
good looking build, spectacular flying field, great to see one fly. Well done! :)
Thank you for watching.
Very nicely done! I love ww1 planes, they fly so nicely.
Thank you
Really neat! I wish I had your courage! I have a Guillow's Albatros and it looks promising but I haven't packed in the winds like you have. Congratulations! -Dan
Thank you for watching.
It will be encouraging．
The DR1 is a particularly good flier for a Guillows kit, which are not known to do so very well without much modification, lightening, and better power. The three wings, greatly lowering the wing loading is part of the reason. Adequate tail surfaces and the small airframe are others. The extensive weight reduction of the airframe really helped in this instance. More weight reduction could have been done, especially with regard to the fuselage which is designed to be way overbuilt, without compromising structural integrity. With a tube motor, the fuselage can be very light, indeed.
Built to scale as this one is, this aeroplane is extremely short-coupled (resulting in a very close CL to CG) and short-nosed (those old Oberursel Ur. II 9-cylinder air-cooled rotary piston engines weighed 323 lbs., plus the huge laminated wooden prop, altogether a high percentage of the overall weight of an aeroplane that weighed only 895 lbs. empty) making balance a bit tricky. Even with the very light structure behind the CG, this model was predictably tail heavy. These kinds of WWI scale models, Sopwith Camel, Nieuport, Thomas Morse Scout, etc., are problematic in this regard.
All told, even a very primitive Wakefield will fly rings around a model of this kind. They're really for show, but if you enjoy the challenge of flying them, which I fully understand, you'll have your hands full. You did eventually get a good flight out of it, albeit with a monster motor and prop that undid your trim circle. With really large motors I usually trim to the left or use R/C rudder assist to keep it nearby. I understand that a de-thermalizer is not required in this one. :D
Also, and this is just a small personal gripe. Did we really need another red DR1? There were hundreds of others, many in bright colours. Any one of them would be refreshing.
Great job.
Thank you for watching.
And thank you for your advice.
The decals in the kit have serial FI 102/17, the second prototype, assigned to Rittmeister Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen. Oberleutnant Kurt Wolf was killed flying this plane. This plane was painted with the standard streaky green upper surfaces, sky blue under surfaces and white panels for the crosses on rudder, fuselage sides and wings. The three prototypes had no wingtip skids and smaller ailerons than later production models. The kit follows that practice, although the 3-view shows the skids and the box art shows a red plane. One advantage of the red on a model is that it is easier to see in grass or trees.
@@aeromodeller1 Yellow or orange is better still.
that model is very unstable, even the real plane, you chose perhaps the most challenging model, congratulations!
Thank you
The power lasted well with the larger prop, which also provided the much needed tad of noseweight.. The sustained torque swing is what made this, somewhat, 'fly away'.. 👍
Thank you for watching.
Surprised you got it to fly at all. Well done!
thank you.
I need to persist with mine. It needs a decent prop and the right rubber, the correct c of g and some long grass!
Thank you for watching.
I CAN SEE VON-RICHTOFFEN,-SNEERING OVER HIS SHOULDER,-AT THE BRITISH !!-I'M GONNA BUY ONE-!!
Please buy it and give it a try.
Love the DR 1 😊
Thank you for watching.
Awesome 👏
Awesome work all around!
Thank you very much.
I built this model many years ago. It never flew well, so I left it as a display model. I heard of someone who who put a micromotor and micro receiver and flew successfully.
Thank you for watching. I think it's the best airplane for display. I only have free flight, but RC conversion is also good.
Excellent
Thank you for watching.
Good stuff
Thank you for watching.
I love it, even though you look like a cat, you make beautiful airplane videos!
Thank you for watching.
I added a lifting stab to help with the DR 1's short nose moment. It was better but not the best flyer.
Thank you for your advice.
It's the purity of doing it this way, as if with scraps and paper.
And they FLY.
I think it would fly better if it was a little lighter.
@@freeflight7750 Hey: you BUILT it, you trimmed it, you FLEW it.
After that, it's all gravy!
Massive field, one tree, it hits it! I've known trees and walls and fences and hedges like that. It always seems to defy credibility that they attract model aeroplanes in that way ... ?!?!?!
Thank you for watching.
That's a neat little fukker!
Thank you for watching.
I built then pre-built this model when I was 13.
Thank you for watching.