Oshkosh invite to WWI Warbirds

[Mark Allen M]

Some people took the hint.

I took it! ... and it's not even June 28 yet


JN-4D Jenny manufactured for Curtiss Aeroplane and Motor Company, Inc 1917


SPAD XIII c 1918

[Mark Allen M]

Bring on those Fokkers and Nieuports


Fokker DVII


Nieuport 27


Nieuport 17s and Nieuport 24s at Bailleul c 1917


Fokker, D.VIII


Pfalz D.XII

[redvanner]

..........
For instance operating off grass alongside a runway is better than trying to operate W.W.I types off a hard runway, but still far, far from operating them from a full period field able to handle direct into-wind operation.
........

This is not only true for WW I planes, but several WWII era planes would feel a lot better at home on grass. One that obviously springs to mind is the Bf 109. A former pilot with Messerschmitt Foundation / EADS stated in an interview with an aviation magazine, that he would prefer a grass strip over concrete / macadam any time. Crosswinds are better to handle off grass. Operating off a hard runway would mean to cancel operation at all at crosswinds much weaker than off grass. And yes, those planes too were intended to start and land directly into the wind. Hard surface runways increase the chance of their notorious gear failure a lot (and the tendency to veer off the runway on take-off and landing).

Michael

[ErrolC]

One of the 7 Fokker Dr.1 replicas at Omaka last year had an engine failure during the WW1 scenario. While significant portions of the circular field were occupied by vineyards and the crowdline, there were still large areas available (most not containing tanks or re-enactors). Successful downwind deadstick landing.

Fokker down! by errolgc, on Flickr


D5360_WWIBat2 by errolgc, on Flickr

Hood Aerodrome, Masterton (TVAL's other location) also has large areas in and around the field suitable for emergency landings, they have been used on at least a couple of occasions.

[over/out]

Thanks for the pic.s .