Ford Trimotor am Boden???

[Simeon S]

Original geschrieben von FlusiRainer
Also das mit den Gierbewegungen finde ich echt übertrieben.Minimaler Querugerausschlag,reagiert kaum drauf,und die Kiste tanzt 2,3 Grad hin und her.
Zwar ist das Seitenleitwerk nicht besonders gross,doch finde ich dürften die flachen Rumpfseiten auch ihren Beitrag zur Gierstabilität leisten.
Oder sehe ich das falsch.

Prinzipiell hast Du natürlich recht, aber die Steuerungseigenschaften scheinen tatsächlich so schlecht gewesen zu sein.

Quelle: http://www.aopa.org/special/microsof...or0204.html?PF

At 65 kt the Ford floats off the runway. Seventy-two knots is best rate of climb, all engines operating, with cruise climb just three knots faster. The controls are shockingly heavy and, at first, seem to make up for it by being ineffective. More disconcerting, the huge, high lift wing rolls one way or another in response to every thermal, despite your efforts to the contrary. As a wing drops you find yourself using both hands on that Model T wheel as you force some aileron deflection only to learn that the ailerons merely function as massive adverse yaw generators. Rudder is absolutely essential when trying to use the ailerons, but the rudder feels as if it is encased in concrete. At first you find a clearly perceptible delay between control input and any effect. Your control actions initially do nothing, and then far too much, as you sort out the concept of anticipatory delay. The problem is that the heaviness of the controls means you are not physically deflecting the surfaces very far.

Stability in roll simply doesn't exist. It's not much better in pitch, but is actually satisfactory in yaw. The controls are so painfully heavy it's difficult to decide whether there is any harmony among them. Eventually you decide there isn't. The rudder is the worst offender (your leg muscles will hurt after the flight), the ailerons are marginally better, and the elevators are almost reasonable in comparison. In any turbulence you work unceasingly to return the Tri-motor to straight and level after it is deflected by the bumps or its own natural inclination to wander away from where you left it. Because the fuselage is suspended under the wing, the sense of wandering about is not nearly as noticeable in the cabin. While the passengers blissfully gawk out of the large windows and the airplane seems, to them, to carry on in stately stolidity, there is a pilot up front who is just plain busy. You think of the transcontinental airline service in Fords and realize those pilots earned every cent of their pay.

Ein Bericht über einen Nachbau mit verbesserten Flugeigenschaften bestätigt dies auch:

Quelle: http://www.internetmodeler.com/2004/...0yr_flight.php

The Ford Tri-Motor was my first stop, as I was fascinated with what I saw. Thanks to John Boyle, I've learned that this aircraft is actually a 1960s era replica of the Tri-Motor called the Bushmaster.

The difference between a stock Ford and the Bushmaster was like looking at the aftermath of Tim Allen meets the Tri-Motor. The aircraft sports three modern radial engines turning three-bladed propellers – I could already hear the Tim Allen grunt and the cry for more horsepower. It was evident that the nose had been redesigned to improve visibility. The amazement doesn’t stop there, it was clear that the aircraft has a tail wheel that raises the tail higher off the ground and further improving forward visibility on the ground. The banner tow hook on the tail wheel strut is a nice touch – I can’t imagine a tri-motored banner tow aircraft… The final and probably most significant improvement is the vertical stabilizer. It is much larger with more modern aerodynamics to provide ample directional stability in the event of engine failure, and yes, it is still corrugated. This aircraft is an interesting blend of nostalgia and state-of-the-art safety rolled into one beautiful airframe.

Happy flyin'

Simeon