Why do all modern planes have to be so expensive, refined and fast, that its practically impossible for the ordinary layman to get hold of one.
The old ww1 fighter planes where crude, simple, slow, cheap compared to modern aircraft, and that's what made them fun.
They were how aircraft where supposed to be.
>>946750
You should start a company that builds cheap ww1 replicas.
There's always the Piper Cub...or ultralights
>>946750
Im glad to finally hear someone say this. The reason that airplanes are made to be fast is that people who buy planes only look at the planes speed and range. The result is that planes are designed with high speed air foils and high wing loadings with small engines so that they have high stall speeds and will stall easily if not flown properly. This is in contrast to WW1 bi-planes which can be flown very slowly at high AoA without danger of stalling. Yes its possible to design planes that are very safe to fly, but no one would buy them.
>>946792
With modern technology I'd think we could easily design wings and control surfaces to give both safety and speed, with the help of fly by wire. But I suppose that would be insanely expensive and if a stupid Cessna minivan costs more than a Ferrari I can't imagine the price of a FBW machine that only a suicidal pilot could crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-LSDMczh7w
>you'll never fly in a ww1 RAF BE2C shooting down german zeppelins at 7000 feet
why live
>>946750
>Piper Cub
>Cessna 172
>Robinson helicopters
>DC-3
>Murphy Renegade
Okay, OP
>>946808
>>Cessna 172
whats the flaps-up stall speed of the 172?
>>946808
>robinson helicopters
sim pilot here, I hate those things because they're twitchy and the rotors have no energy so if you need to autorotate you're fucked unless you have the reflexes of a housecat
can a Real Pilot(tm) please disabuse me of my misapprehensions?
>>946849
Im not a real pilot, but you keep a helicopter autorotating by pushing the cyclic full down so that air rushing upwards keeps the rotors turning. This only works at high enough altitude, there is a 'dead zone' below this altitude and above low level off the ground where you are dead in any helicopter if the engine goes out.
>>946979
>Something like 44kts
no, thats flaps down stall speed, it stalls at a much higher speed with flaps up which makes it a dangerous plane to fly at low speed
>>946849
I've never flown one but I studied helicopters to pass my cpl test and I got many friends that fly them, they all say the R22 can auto rotate pretty well, when in doubt just look at the airspeed x height graph it has all the answers in regard to auto rotation you need, just food for thought though, sim planes handle poorly and unrealistic in most cases maybe its the same with helicotpers?
>>946750
They were also dangerous as fuck compared to modern aircraft, and the equivalent technologically to stone knives and bearskins compared to modern aircraft. If you're such a poorfag then get a kit to build an ultralight. Be sure to pack your parachute carefully and keep your insurance premium paid in full.
>simple
Turboprops are mechanically way simpler than pistons when you start going above 300/400 HP
![Fd8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/QBHXi7w.jpg "Fd8[1].jpg")
Why didn't monoplanes take off more during WWI and in the interwar period?
>>947027
>They were also dangerous as fuck compared to modern aircraft, and the equivalent technologically to stone knives and bearskins compared to modern aircraft.
this is not true, there were some WW1 fighters that had very difficult to handle flying characteristics, the sopwith camel being a prime example. But overall most WW1 planes were easy to fly, difficult to stall and built strong with steel tube fuselages. Aerodyamically these planes are just as good as modern light aircraft if not better. The only advantage of modern light aircraft is stressed skin wings and fuselages
>>946849
22s do have very low inertia in the main rotor, meaning you have roughly two seconds to react to an engine failure before the blades stall. Two seconds is not a lot but if you fly 22s enough you get pretty adept at dumping collective. 44s aren't too bad. Lot more inertia. Similar to a JetRanger.
22s are twitchy but that's what makes them great. It's like zipping around in a go-kart.
>>946888
Collective, not cyclic. And this isn't entirely true. While yeah there is the height*velocity diagram that shows the altitude/airspeed combos that you're pretty well fucked in if the engine fails, with sufficient airspeed an auto can be pulled off successfully at nearly any altitude. And any helicopter with more rotor inertia than a 22 is capable of zero speed (or nearly zero) full-down autos from pretty significant heights. It's all about how much energy the rotor can store before having to pull pitch at the bottom. Heavier blades = more inertia = more energy stored = the less mangled your shit is going to be when hit the bottom.
>>947029
Because they thought thicker wings were a disadvantage over 2 thin wings for quite some time
And technology stagnated as there wasn't a big war going on.
>Aerodyamically these planes are just as good as modern light aircraft if not better.
Certainly not.
Especially not the wings. Unless modern planes somehow lack laminar flow.
>>947069
>has nothing to do with construction methods available
>>946849
I fly R22s plenty, they're fine in an autorotation, you just need to manage the rotor RPM closely. You don't really even need to look at the gauges, you can just listen to the sound of the rotors as they spin; if the audible pitch gets higher there's increasing RPM, if it gets lower there's a decrease.
As for high-inertia rotors vs. low inertia, that's an argument I'm not getting into; some folks like high, others like low. Some like fully-articulated rotors, but they get into ground resonance if you don't put them down gently like the delicate flowers they are.
>>947029
because biplanes give you more lift at the lower speeds common at the time, and were generally stonger
>>946792
Doesn't that describe things like the MU-2, C-130s and other STOL planes?
>>947511
no, most STOL planes like the C-130, Caravan and Twin Otter rely on engine power of large turboprops in relation to the planes size and use full flaps down to get off the ground quickly. Aerodynamically there is nothing high lift about these planes
>>947505
>others like low
Nobody likes low inertia blades, what the fuck. They simply accept that's what their Robbies have and deal with it.
>>947029
Because if one wing broke off you still had the other
An-2 is the best (and only) STOL aircraft capable of significant utility operations
production begain in 1947
production stopped in 2001
why dont they modernize this plane? Give it all metal stressed skin fuselage and a turboprop engine
the slow flying characteristics and load carrying ability makes this plane the best crop dusting plane ever
>>948754
There are turboprop versions.
>2 winged
>2016
We should have been flying ufos today.
>>948836
Has already been done.
Avrocar I think
>>946750
What the actual legitimate fuck are you talking about, OP?
>>947029
what is laminar flow and when did we learn about it
also, research NACA and what they came up with
>>947502
kek
>>947069
>And technology stagnated as there wasn't a big war going on.
Planes are expensive because of liabilities. Once, a guy tried to fly a plane without any training and crashed it and died. His wife sued the plane manufacturer and won. The end.
Look it up :)
WW1 planes have lower stall speeds because their wing loading is much lower than even a cessna 172
>>946985
>Dangerous airlplane to fly at low speed
How slow do you wanna go?
Also what airplane is safe to fly at speeds lower than the stall speed of a 172?
>>947029
Engines weren't powerful enough yet.
>>947516
A straight high camber wing is known as a high lift wing. It has excellent stall characteristics and give you a higher climb gradient at low airspeed than any other wing design.
>>950355
there are very few planes designed to fly at slow speed, the piper cub comes to mind. the biplane is actually very safe to fly at slow speed, obviously no one is going to buy a biplane, so no one makes them
>>950358
by straight camber you mean the underside of the wing is flat? that does provide high lift which is why a lot of cropdusters use it, however concave camber under the wing provides even higher lift which is why it was used in WW1 biplanes
>>946750
possibly the dumbest post on all of 4chan at the moment
well done /n/
>>950361
And ww1 planes will forever have a shit airfoil
>>950568
>shit airfoil
you obviously have no real technical knowledge to make an opinion on the matter so your comment is disregarded
>>950569
>waaahhh
The Fokker D.VII was the only aircraft WW1 fighter with a thick wing airfoil and it was the only fighter the Allies took from Germany after the war.
It had a much better rate of climb than the other planes with thin wings
>>950570
Youre just picking out insignificant factors to make it look like you have an informed opinion. Thick/thin was not a deciding factor, there were plenty of thin wing biplanes that could outclimb/turn the D-VII (ie Sopwith Camel). As engines became more powerful and stressed steel construction started to be used then monowing airplanes became the norm. But for the time, the biplane was the best layout for the engine power they had to work with at the time. You dont know what youre talking about, youre just picking out facts that appear to be related.
>>950574
>stressed steel
I meant to say stressed skin
>>950574
Yes, airfoil research was already perfect in WW1
Sopwith Camel already had 100% laminar flow
>>950615
ok, youre just picking out words having to do with aerodynamics and thinking that applies to your point, Im not going to continue with this, its evident to anyone who knows about aerodynamics that youre pretending to know something you dont know anything about
>>950616
Yes, WW1 planes were superior aerodynamically.
>>946979
What is the meaning of 'kts'?
>>953269
Knots, I assume
>>950616
whoosh
>>953271
'kn' is the symbol for the knot.
>>947502
Was the throttle not invented yet?
