I don't know much about aviation, but it would seem that pivoting around the heavy engine would be more effective and slinging it around on the front. I really like the design!
The DH-2 was very effective, but also very dangerous. They were prone to catching fire in flight, and their stall-spin characteristics were bizarre. Spin recovery was very difficult, and required a technique unlike any other airplane that involved somehow rolling the spinning airplane on its back and recovering inverted. It was derogatorily known as "The Spinning Incinterator" for these characteristics. It was Maj. Lanoe Hawker who figured out how to get one out of a spin. Until then, spin recovery in a DH-2 was thought to be impossible, and DH-2s were not to be stalled or spun. Maj. Hawker died in combat flying a DH-2. While in a tight dogfight with Pilot-Leutnant Manfred von Richthofen, one of Richthofen's bullets glanced off of the DH-2s aft-mounted engine and struck Maj. Hawker in the head, killing him instantly.
@@rescue270 I disagree. The dangerous nature of this plane has been greatly over exaggerated, and was no worse than any other early 1916 plane. If properly instructed, it was very safe to fly.
It always impresses me to think of dedication and manhours of work put in by the people who keep these amazing aircraft airworthy and flying. Im very glad they do it.
Looks like he was lifting off at 35 miles an hour. The only planes I've ever wanted to own were WW1 aircraft. It's their speed and simplicity that I find interesting.
Hardly oddball in 1915; pusher designs were quite common, especially in civilian aviation. This example is a modern-era replica, using a modern engine; period DH.2s used a wind-cooled rotary whose entire crankcase rotated along with the propeller. Thanks for posting!
In late 1916 British ace, Lanoe Hawker, flew a DH.2 against everybody's favorite infamous ace, the Red Baron, Manfred von Richtofen, flying an Albatross D2. The DH.2 more maneuverable, the Albatross faster and better armed. After a lengthy battle, Hawker, running low on fuel, made a break for it, but the Baron's final burst caught Hawker with a head shot and down he went.
Superior speed will usually win any engagement. At the 2015 Classic Fighters Omaka air show, while we were watching eight Fokker Triplanes displaying, the commentator said they were slower than most of the Allied fighters that they came up against, which meant that they could get into a fight, but not leave. After that, they had to rely on their superior maneuverability, which, with a skilled pilot, was often enough, but not always. On 23 September 1917, Werner Voss, one of Germany's leading fighter aces, with 48 victories, while flying a Fokker Triplane, was killed in action against a squadron of very experienced British aces, flying the faster SE5A. In a long fight, he put holes in all of his opponents, but couldn't hold them off forever. He was only twenty years old.
A wonderful video of brilliant aircraft!! Seeing them in person would be the only improvement for me. Well done and a huge Thank You to all involved with these aircraft and those that recorded, edited, narrated and shared this with us all!!
The backwards stagger of the top wing was to improve overall performance speed, climb, endurance, not view which was dangerously lacking behind because of this. The backwards stagger reduced interference drag caused by the low pressure gradient of the bottom wing interfering with the high pressure gradient of the upper wing. The low pressure gradient of any wing leans forward above the wing, the backwards stagger put this low pressure gradient in clean air keeping it clear of the upper wing.
Imagine flying an original DH.2. They didn’t even have a throttle. The only engine controls were the ignition switch and the mixture control. The pilot would regulate his speed by ‘blipping’ the engine. That is, turning it on and off.
This was a very manuverable and deadly aircraft for its time. I don’t know for certain but the machine gun didn’t jam as badly as the other planes of the periods. It didn’t need to fire through the propeller and it had more ammunition.
@@MrZhefish As I was able to volunteer for a local airshow. I learn that many if not all, ww1 plane did not have the throttle that we have today. In facts, some have engine switches that only turn the plane engine on or off. And the real reason why it is call dog fight because of the sound of the engine on and off sounded like a dog barking from a distance.
FWIW: Negative stagger looks _good_ a Staggerwing Beechcraft, but _not so much_ on the DH-5. {I was not previously aware the DH-5 had negative stagger.} I find that a bit surprising, because I usually ♥ biplanes, including those from the WWI era.
Wonderful to see that the NZ crowd put as much effort and devotion into bringing back some of the "lemons" of WW1 aviation (DH 5) as they spend on the more recognizable rising stars. Pushers for front-firing guns, back-staggered biplanes for visibility - both great examples of form following (sometimes misguided) function. Designers can learn many lessons from these aircraft. Imagine if Burt Rutan was around back then!
Cracking, uninterrupted field of view. Better engine and more firepower would have been an even better plane. I should just add this is one of my favourite WW1 fighters. A brilliant design.
Wikipedia says its an auxiliary gravity feed fuel tank though that statement is marked citation needed. It makes some kind of sense though as its hard to see what else it could be and an offset fuel tank would not leak onto the cockpit if it were punctured.
The DH 2 has one also. I'm guessing it could be used as a header tank. Being set high and a gravity feed. It would provide positive pressure to the main tank. Assisting or negating the need for a fuel pump. Just spitballing here, can't find info one way or another.
The „pusher“ design also keeps the pilot clean. The original Gnome rotary engine was famous to spit large amounts of caster oil onto everything behind the engine. The one shown here uses a radial engine instead. Not original in look and sound and feel for the pilot.
I vaguely remember an old mechanic's joke that if you placed a bird in the middle of the rigging of a parked pusher (Gunbus, DH2, Fe2b, etc.) and it escaped, you were missing some wires! It might have been from a Biggles book, can anyone confirm? (Of course, the prop swinger has to get out of there, fast!)
The 150 HP Kinner radial in both of these planes has got to give them more speed and climb than the Monosupape Gnome rotary 100 HP, but would completely ruin the gyroscopic forces that made both challenging to fly.
A big problem with the DH5 was the staggered top wing, which gave the pilot a great view up, down and sideways, but created a huge blind spot behind. As early as World War 1 it was recognised that most of the fighter pilots who were shot down were hit by someone they never saw, most of the attacks coming from behind. Having the cockpit placed in front of the wing of the DH5 was a very poor design.
Although the pusher design solved the machine gun synchronization problem, it compounded the risk taken with the early rotary engines at that time, which due to rushed war time quota lack of quality controls, were prone to literally breaking a piston rod, thus throwing the complete jug off of the engine with the piston, which could easily smash into the bracing for the rudder and elevator controls behind it, sending the plane down in an uncontrolled crash.
Synchronisation I think the word you were looking for, they could fire through the propeller but this did slow down the aircraft for a few valuable seconds, all important in a dogfight. Just a few seconds could cost the pilot his life.
the dh.2 was, and will always be, a work of art. it was such a beautiful, effective biplane that saw much use in ww1. it wont be forgotten.
I don't know much about aviation, but it would seem that pivoting around the heavy engine would be more effective and slinging it around on the front. I really like the design!
Thrust from front being shoved under wings is great for lift and stability.
The DH-2 was very effective, but also very dangerous. They were prone to catching fire in flight, and their stall-spin characteristics were bizarre. Spin recovery was very difficult, and required a technique unlike any other airplane that involved somehow rolling the spinning airplane on its back and recovering inverted.
It was derogatorily known as "The Spinning Incinterator" for these characteristics. It was Maj. Lanoe Hawker who figured out how to get one out of a spin. Until then, spin recovery in a DH-2 was thought to be impossible, and DH-2s were not to be stalled or spun.
Maj. Hawker died in combat flying a DH-2. While in a tight dogfight with Pilot-Leutnant Manfred von Richthofen, one of Richthofen's bullets glanced off of the DH-2s aft-mounted engine and struck Maj. Hawker in the head, killing him instantly.
Its by far my favorite ww1 aircraft
@@rescue270 I disagree. The dangerous nature of this plane has been greatly over exaggerated, and was no worse than any other early 1916 plane. If properly instructed, it was very safe to fly.
Love these old planes. The DH-2 is still one of my favorites to fly in air combat simulations.
Odd ball or not they where a magnificent invention,those pilots were very brave to fly those fellows.
It always impresses me to think of dedication and manhours of work put in by the people who keep these amazing aircraft airworthy and flying. Im very glad they do it.
The DH2 was the first scale model I built as a child, I've had a soft spot for them ever since.
Looks like he was lifting off at 35 miles an hour. The only planes I've ever wanted to own were WW1 aircraft. It's their speed and simplicity that I find interesting.
Castle Bravo : these were always my favorite aircraft.
Aka bush plane and the stol plane
Nice to fly lower and slower and enjoy nature below..
Hardly oddball in 1915; pusher designs were quite common, especially in civilian aviation. This example is a modern-era replica, using a modern engine; period DH.2s used a wind-cooled rotary whose entire crankcase rotated along with the propeller. Thanks for posting!
Thanks, you've answered my question elsewhere. I thought the DH2 had a rotary engine.
In late 1916 British ace, Lanoe Hawker, flew a DH.2 against everybody's favorite infamous ace, the Red Baron, Manfred von Richtofen, flying an Albatross D2. The DH.2 more maneuverable, the Albatross faster and better armed. After a lengthy battle, Hawker, running low on fuel, made a break for it, but the Baron's final burst caught Hawker with a head shot and down he went.
Biggles is my favourite ace
Dang, Hawker must have had some serious piloting skills to survive that long against Richthofen in an Albatros in one of these
Superior speed will usually win any engagement. At the 2015 Classic Fighters Omaka air show, while we were watching eight Fokker Triplanes displaying, the commentator said they were slower than most of the Allied fighters that they came up against, which meant that they could get into a fight, but not leave. After that, they had to rely on their superior maneuverability, which, with a skilled pilot, was often enough, but not always. On 23 September 1917, Werner Voss, one of Germany's leading fighter aces, with 48 victories, while flying a Fokker Triplane, was killed in action against a squadron of very experienced British aces, flying the faster SE5A. In a long fight, he put holes in all of his opponents, but couldn't hold them off forever. He was only twenty years old.
I recall the baron commenting on how beautifully his enemies machine turned. (From his book)
A wonderful video of brilliant aircraft!! Seeing them in person would be the only improvement for me. Well done and a huge Thank You to all involved with these aircraft and those that recorded, edited, narrated and shared this with us all!!
Thanks for that feedback -- it's always good to get something positive! :-)
The backwards stagger of the top wing was to improve overall performance speed, climb, endurance, not view which was dangerously lacking behind because of this.
The backwards stagger reduced interference drag caused by the low pressure gradient of the bottom wing interfering with the high pressure gradient of the upper wing.
The low pressure gradient of any wing leans forward above the wing, the backwards stagger put this low pressure gradient in clean air keeping it clear of the upper wing.
Sir Geoffrey de Havilland was a genius. From his pencil came only beautiful planes that would make the history of world aviation.
Fantastic video! Thanks for sharing.
Cheers, we're glad you liked it.
Rise of Flight Game- I love this Pusher Fighter. Visibility is king in Air Combat..
That DH-5 is a strange animal, I'll wager it flew like it looked!
Seems like real stable aircraft, especially for the period.
Este avião foi o primeiro construido especialmente para combate,motor atras pra alojar a metranca na frente
Imagine flying an original DH.2. They didn’t even have a throttle. The only engine controls were the ignition switch and the mixture control. The pilot would regulate his speed by ‘blipping’ the engine. That is, turning it on and off.
beautiful!
This was a very manuverable and deadly aircraft for its time. I don’t know for certain but the machine gun didn’t jam as badly as the other planes of the periods. It didn’t need to fire through the propeller and it had more ammunition.
I’m only Eight but I like biplanes such as the Airco DH.2 and DH.3, Sopwith Camel, and Fokker DR1
Read biggles
👍🏿👍🏿
The old 2001 PC game Red Ace Squadron is what first introduced me to the DH.2. Not odd at all to me.
I would love to fly those aircraft!
@@MrZhefish As I was able to volunteer for a local airshow. I learn that many if not all, ww1 plane did not have the throttle that we have today. In facts, some have engine switches that only turn the plane engine on or off. And the real reason why it is call dog fight because of the sound of the engine on and off sounded like a dog barking from a distance.
FWIW: Negative stagger looks _good_ a Staggerwing Beechcraft, but _not so much_ on the DH-5.
{I was not previously aware the DH-5 had negative stagger.}
I find that a bit surprising, because I usually ♥ biplanes, including those from the WWI era.
I've always liked those old biplanes. They look so cool. Would love to go for a ride in one some day.
They are!
Gorgeous!
Thank you! Cheers!
Wonderful to see that the NZ crowd put as much effort and devotion into bringing back some of the "lemons" of WW1 aviation (DH 5) as they spend on the more recognizable rising stars. Pushers for front-firing guns, back-staggered biplanes for visibility - both great examples of form following (sometimes misguided) function. Designers can learn many lessons from these aircraft. Imagine if Burt Rutan was around back then!
Always thought this had a rotary engine, like the Sopwith Camel.
The original DH-2's did, but in this case this is a replica built in the late 20th Century and the builder only had a radial engine available.
Cracking, uninterrupted field of view.
Better engine and more firepower would have been an even better plane.
I should just add this is one of my favourite WW1 fighters. A brilliant design.
Would love to see the plans they used for the DH.2...
I believe it's a Walt Redfern replica. Not sure if those plans are still available or not....
Whats the box on the upper right hand DH 5 for?
Wikipedia says its an auxiliary gravity feed fuel tank though that statement is marked citation needed.
It makes some kind of sense though as its hard to see what else it could be and an offset fuel tank would not leak onto the cockpit if it were punctured.
The DH 2 has one also. I'm guessing it could be used as a header tank. Being set high and a gravity feed. It would provide positive pressure to the main tank. Assisting or negating the need for a fuel pump. Just spitballing here, can't find info one way or another.
Wonderful
My favorite !
You neglected to mention that the rear engine position also provided a certain protection from bullets coming from behind!
And squashes you flat when you crash-land!
I recall that Major Lanoe Hawker was taken out by Manfred von Richtofen in spite of the "rotary engine armor."
The „pusher“ design also keeps the pilot clean. The original Gnome rotary engine was famous to spit large amounts of caster oil onto everything behind the engine.
The one shown here uses a radial engine instead. Not original in look and sound and feel for the pilot.
this is the first time I've seen one of these pushers at start-up - sure looks like risky business in there!
Yes, you have to be on your toes!
I vaguely remember an old mechanic's joke that if you placed a bird in the middle of the rigging of a parked pusher (Gunbus, DH2, Fe2b, etc.) and it escaped, you were missing some wires! It might have been from a Biggles book, can anyone confirm? (Of course, the prop swinger has to get out of there, fast!)
The 150 HP Kinner radial in both of these planes has got to give them more speed and climb than the Monosupape Gnome rotary 100 HP, but would completely ruin the gyroscopic forces that made both challenging to fly.
Crackerjack footage! The ground perspectives make it easy to imagine how it must have been in the 1910 to be a plane spotter
This would make a wonderful RC model, if you preserve the engine sound with a radial or big 4-stroke nitro engine.
I like the way these old things sound.
Was not Hawker lost flying DH 2
Richtoven(sp)
Yes he was flying a DH2 when he was shot down.
A big problem with the DH5 was the staggered top wing, which gave the pilot a great view up, down and sideways, but created a huge blind spot behind. As early as World War 1 it was recognised that most of the fighter pilots who were shot down were hit by someone they never saw, most of the attacks coming from behind. Having the cockpit placed in front of the wing of the DH5 was a very poor design.
Are the engines the real type of engines from the day? They don’t sound like other planes I’ve heard from that era.
These have modern radial engines instead of the old school rotaries.
On the DH.2- does the prop have a different pitch, or does the engine rotate in the opposite direction, compared to the DH.5?
I'm pretty sure the engine was standard. Just mount it back to front and bolt the prop on the other way round!
I think this is the current nz airforce prize fighter.
untrue, the airco had a very reliable gnome engine, but no throttle controls, only on and off
Although the pusher design solved the machine gun synchronization problem, it compounded the risk taken with the early rotary engines at that time, which due to rushed war time quota lack of quality controls, were prone to literally breaking a piston rod, thus throwing the complete jug off of the engine with the piston, which could easily smash into the bracing for the rudder and elevator controls behind it, sending the plane down in an uncontrolled crash.
That DH2 with a better engine could have been a winner.. Love those pusher airplanes. Visibility is king while flying. Blind Spots Sucks.
It was a winner in 1916.
Rotary engine? It looks like a radial engine to me?
These two replica aircraft do in fact utilise radials, but the original types used rotary engines.
“I did not care if I was shot down or not, I was so utterly frozen…” - McCudden
Imagine a 450 pund engine hitting you if you botched a landing or got shot down
Is this a replica. Or original
It's a (Walt Redfern) replica, with a Kinner radial engine instead of the more accurate rotary engine.
Is there any fore sale at this time
i can see why the Air cooled engine was not as realible as it could be ! the engine is in the back so its not getting cool air as it should .
Synchronisation I think the word you were looking for, they could fire through the propeller but this did slow down the aircraft for a few valuable seconds, all important in a dogfight.
Just a few seconds could cost the pilot his life.
The interruptor gear allowed for the synchronisation of the bullets with the turning prop.
wow, i thought it was a RC plane in the beginning of the video
Me too
i suposse the engine is not original because the original one was a rotatory engine and the whole engine rotates
Correct, this is a Kinner radial engine -- no rotary engines were available when this replica aircraft was originally built.
It looks like a ww1 jet
Dh2 wasnt an oddball it was a pretty successful scout.
It's an oddball to those people who haven't seen flimsy pushers before! ;-)
@@HistAvFilmUnit and a lot of 'flimsy pushers' were used before, during and after The Great war.
I always wondered how the hell you start this thing safely. I guess you don't. It's just dangerous. Very cool plane, though.
hlo
Love these old planes- I wish we could still build these planes without the hundreds of thousands dollars they make you pay to do it now
You could just do it yourself
Due to budget cuts these are some of the newest choices for the North Korean air force.
Très mauvaise réplique du fabuleux Caudron G3
+
No wonder Uk is doing so well.
Such ingenoity.
Scotland,N Ireland r fed up.
Thatcher and churchill saved u.
Or?
Fake
Nothing fake about them. They're as real as you are.