Graham Lee 7/8 scale Nieuport N.11?

Yooper Grrrl

Yooper Grrrl

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Nov 27, 2023
Messages
20
Display Name
Display name:
Madeline
I have about 5/8 of a 7/8 scale Nieuport Bébé sitting in my parents' garage / my workshop right now... With today's high of 22°F, and low of 18°F, we were "gifted" with another 1/4 inch of snow today. She'll be ready by spring.

Anyone else build one to plans? Or have an Aerodrome? And what happened... I know some were built, but they aren't even listed anymore...

Engine is a two-cylinder 1037cc VW (92 bore x 78 stroke) with short stacks, a Slick, and two one inch Mikunis (26's). I'm looking at props and leaning towards a 56 x 24 laminated Maple airscrew... Max RPM should be 3500, putting maximum tip V at ~71% M1... Light weight on the completed N.11 should be ~307 lb and gross weight per the plans is 550.

Ideas? Thoughts? Donations? (I need a working .303 Lewis gun...)
 
If it's 7/8 scale shouldn't that be a .265 Lewis gun? :confused:

My Fisher FP404 had a Mosler CB40 which is 1083cc (94x78). Long pipes and a single Zenith carb. Prop was marked 56x24, but I measured it at more like 27" pitch. That got me 3000 rpm static and 3200 when climbing, I forget the airspeed. I think a 58" prop with less pitch would have been better for a draggy biplane.
 
Good friend of mine has 2 Nieuport replicas, a single seater and a 2 seater. Both are rotax powered, I believe. He collects vintage aircraft and warbirds.
PXL_20210206_200819558.jpg
He says they are death traps and will never fly them again. Barely controllable due to poor rudder authority. The two seater got blown over the fence into a cow pasture and badly damaged during a recent windstorm, so it definitely won't fly again.
PXL_20230722_004638032~2.jpg
 
I can't post a link. But the KC Dawn Patrol has a ton of information on their website: dawnpatrol(dot)org

They started with the Graham Lee plans, but are physically bigger guys who have incorporated bigger engines (1835cc), bigger props (60x28), bungee trim controls, steerable tail wheels, and ~12% bigger rudders.

I'm thinking (hoping?) that 1037cc will be a good fit with a takeoff weight of 550 lbs. High isn't an issue at ~800 ft ASL, and I don't have any mountains to climb over. Neither is hot or humid with 77°F being July's average high, and only 23% of those days rated as being "muggy".

My methodology for selecting a prop size was to look at other homebuilts with similar VW powerplants and good flight performance. I tried to compute their drag factors, and selected the one that I felt best replicated the Nieuport's DF.
 
You might think about posting over on the EAA Forum, Homebuilders Corner. The EAA Forum is not near as active as POA, but there are number of builders of Airdrome Aeroplane replicas and maybe there's someone there who has built a Grahm Lee aircraft and could provide insight.
 
My Fisher with the 40hp Mosler was marginal, not surprisingly as it was designed for a 50hp 503. It was ok on a cool day but density altitude was an issue on hot days even near sea level. The Fisher had a 540# gross, so similar to yours but maybe you have more wing area?
 
Just sort of curious about the Aerodromes. Mine is built to the GL plans except that some specified items are unobtainable and I have no need to remove the wings for transport or storage. If I recall correctly, there was a website a couple years ago that had a story about three or four Aerodrome N.11s that had been used in a movie being up for sale. I can't find that site now, and it may have been garbled info about the full size N.17s used in Flyboys.
 
Dana said:
My Fisher with the 40hp Mosler was marginal, not surprisingly as it was designed for a 50hp 503. It was ok on a cool day but density altitude was an issue on hot days even near sea level. The Fisher had a 540# gross, so similar to yours but maybe you have more wing area?
Click to expand...
The plans say 114 sq ft of wing area and 550 lb gross takeoff weight. Graham's original flew behind a Cuyana 430. But the plans recommend a 447 or 503. With 10 gallons of fuel -- which should be warm-up, takeoff, climb, 2-1/2 to 3 hours of cruise, and a reserve -- I should max out about 510 lb.
 
Yooper Grrrl said:
The plans say 114 sq ft of wing area and 550 lb gross takeoff weight. Graham's original flew behind a Cuyana 430. But the plans recommend a 447 or 503. With 10 gallons of fuel -- which should be warm-up, takeoff, climb, 2-1/2 to 3 hours of cruise, and a reserve -- I should max out about 510 lb.
Click to expand...
Pretty close to mine, then. The stock 404 is 120 ft², but the lower wings were clipped on mine so about 115 ft². The big issue is that the VWs turn a small prop at a relatively high rpm compared to a 2-stroke with a redrive, so the prop efficiency is limited. Climb was 4-500 fpm on a 50° day but maybe 250-300 on a hot day.
 
Happened to be at the hangar today. Here are a few pics of the single seater. Complete with replica Lewis gun.
PXL_20231128_205121409.jpgPXL_20231128_205244045.jpgPXL_20231128_205205790.jpgPXL_20231128_205225846.jpgPXL_20231128_205150267.jpgPXL_20231128_205140885.jpg
 
I am sitting with my buddy right now. He confirms they are Graham Lee kits. He also confirms the aircraft are very dangerous due to rudder size and he will never fly them again.
 
Mr. Lee's prototype flew behind a 30-35 HP Cuyuna 430. The Dawn Patrol uses a larger rudder with their 60 HP 1835 cc engines. Apparently this was a matter of some controversy between the two. At 37 HP I am going with the original. (Drawing from the FAQ pages: dawnpatrol.org website.)
1701310949241.png
 
Yooper Grrrl said:
Mr. Lee's prototype flew behind a 30-35 HP Cuyuna 430. The Dawn Patrol uses a larger rudder with their 60 HP 1835 cc engines. Apparently this was a matter of some controversy between the two. At 37 HP I am going with the original. (Drawing from the FAQ pages: dawnpatrol.org website.)
Click to expand...
In addition, they add some vertical surface by putting fabric on the tail wheel support structure. That's the little triangle under the fuselage in back.
1701313317175.png
The Nieuport has no fixed vertical surface, that's what causes much of the issue. Filling in that zone helps.

Had a friend with a Fokker Triplane replica, which had the same type of all-flying tail as the Nieuport. Said the plane had no yaw stability at all, was happy enough to fly in a skid and stay there.

Ron Wanttaja
 
IIRC, Dick Lemons of the Dawn Patrol built a 3/4 scale 1835 powered Aerodrome Dr.I.

Also from the FAQ pages at dawnpatrol.org

"The question was asked as to what we think is the most important instrument in our Nieuport panels and the unanimous choice was...

The skid and slip ball..
skid-slip-ball.jpg (4203 bytes)
​


(this little sucker)​

"Why? We hear you ask... It doesn't even have any gears of actual moving parts.. It's simple... The Nieuport (except for the 24 and it's a tiny little thing.) DOES NOT HAVE A BUILT-IN VERTICAL FIN FOR INHERENT DIRECTIONAL STABILITY. All its got is a full flying rudder which,since it's not fixed and just kinda floats in place, gives you no built-in directional stability at all. What do that mean? It means that if you relax pressure on the rudder bar while flying, the plane can go into a skid or slip without you knowing it. In fact, torque will automagically do it for you if you're not on the bar and ON THE BALL (so to speak.) We all swear that we've been able to hear that "click" when we really get outta whack in a turn and bury the ball on one side or the other of the tube. If you don't pay CONSTANT ATTENTION to that little booger... It'll quickly and without warning, sneak up and bite you right in the ass.

"Mark Pierce does a heck of a demo in his air show act showing how the Nieuport can almost be flown sideways with very little rudder input... Or, another way of putting it would be to say.. With very little pilot attention to the ball. We call it the "Pierce Horizontal Knife Edge." While he's doing it on purpose, a little inattention on your part can have it happen to you NOT ON PURPOSE and at a low altitude at low air speed... You ain't gonna like the outcome!! What happens is that as the plane gets more and more screwed up, you start to feed in aileron to try and keep things "feeling right." Then you suddenly end up with a cross-control stall/spin and THAT'S A REAL BAD THING."
 
The Nieuports replica kits with the larger rudders and 60hp VW1835 racked up quite a few flight hours. One of the Dawn Patrol squadrons actually went to France aboard a C-5 to take part in a Remembrance Day celebration a few years ago. One of their airplanes is hanging from the ceiling at Historic Flight Museum now.

Check out http://homebuiltairplanes.com. There's a couple of very knowledgable guys on there.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
He also confirms the aircraft are very dangerous due to rudder size
Click to expand...
So were the originals, by modern standards.

People are fascinated by WWI aircraft and want to fly replicas and I totally get it, but you have to remember they were designed only 10-15 years after the very first plane flew. They don't fly very well by modern standards, and they and the pilots were expendable, to a greater or lesser extent.

Build an exact replica and it's going to have all the bad flying characteristics of the original... which is why people change things like making the rudder larger, using a different airfoil, or adding a tailwheel when the original had a skid... not to mention the engine! Purists are appalled, but most modern replica builders don't really want a WWI plane; they want a more modern plane that looks like a WWI plane.
 
Dana said:
So were the originals, by modern standards.

People are fascinated by WWI aircraft and want to fly replicas and I totally get it, but you have to remember they were designed only 10-15 years after the very first plane flew. They don't fly very well by modern standards, and they and the pilots were expendable, to a greater or lesser extent.

Build an exact replica and it's going to have all the bad flying characteristics of the original... which is why people change things like making the rudder larger, using a different airfoil, or adding a tailwheel when the original had a skid... not to mention the engine! Purists are appalled, but most modern replica builders don't really want a WWI plane; they want a more modern plane that looks like a WWI plane.
Click to expand...
I visited a museum, a number of years ago, that had flyable aircraft (some replicas) in its fleet. I spoke to the man who flew most of them. He said planes don't look like that anymore because people don't like airplanes that *fly* like they do.

One of the aircraft he flew was a replica Sopwith Pup, complete with rotary engine and operational Vickers machine gun.
1701363371082.png
He had some interesting stories on how the machine gun worked with the interruptor gear...rate of fire depended on engine speed.

One of the "Dawn Patrol" stories illustrates problems with replicas. Dick Starks wrote a lot about how prone to ground-looping the Nieuports were. He jokes a lot about it ("cutting circles in the corn") but it was obviously frustrating.

After a few years, someone suggested they adjust the main gear so the wheels were a bit further aft. Took care of the ground-looping problem.
1701364177409.png
To a purist, it doesn't LOOK accurate...that vertical front landing gear leg imparts a lot of the character of the airplane. The airplanes were easier to fly, but it took them years to come up with the solution....

Ron Wanttaja
 
If I am not mistaken, an Australian gent backwards engineered a Gnome-type rotary engine from a museum piece and has operated it on an engine stand (perhaps by now it has flown in an aircraft).
 
I read a story not long ago about a guy flying a very accurate Fokker Dr.I triplane. Rotary power, rudder bar and all. Said it was unstable in all three axes, there’s no trim of any sort and you’re working every minute to fly it.

I’m really happy to see that planes like this still exist. That said, if I want to fly a Dr.I or a Sopwith or something, it will be something that LOOKS like one but maybe flies with some of the lessons we’ve learned over the past 100+ years.
 
I was serious about building an AA aircraft some years ago. After researching the construction techniques I decided otherwise. I never had a good feeling about the riveted gusset build technology and I doubt the longevity. The designs are just above an ultralight.
 
bflynn said:
I never had a good feeling about the riveted gusset build technology and I doubt the longevity.
Click to expand...
There are many designs using this type of construction that have stood the test of time.
 
Salty said:
The infamous emergency takeoff. Worked out about as well as you might expect.
Click to expand...
Not the first airplane to convert a taxi test into a test flight and probably won't be the last. There's a reason it's standard (professional) flight test practice to prep an airplane for flight and brief an "emergency takeoff [sic]" when doing taxi tests.


Nauga,
who knows when to go
 
nauga said:
Not the first airplane to convert a taxi test into a test flight and probably won't be the last. There's a reason it's standard (professional) flight test practice to prep an airplane for flight and brief an "emergency takeoff [sic]" when doing taxi tests.


Nauga,
who knows when to go
Click to expand...
Certainly true. But did you read the explanation? I'm finding it hard to seriously believe anybody would think "Gee, I'm out of control on the ground and going to hit something, maybe I should lift it off". Sounds like a good cover your arse after the fact excuse to me. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

I'll have to add that to my pre flight briefing so I don't make his mistake: "If out of control, don't take off and see if it flies any better than it taxis.

I mean really, if it was out of control on a taxi, why would you think you could land it and stop it any better if you managed to fly it around the pattern?
 
Salty said:
Certainly true. But did you read the explanation? I'm finding it hard to seriously believe anybody would think "Gee, I'm out of control on the ground and going to hit something, maybe I should lift it off". Sounds like a good cover your arse after the fact excuse to me. But who knows, stranger things have happened.

I'll have to add that to my pre flight briefing so I don't make his mistake: "If out of control, don't take off and see if it flies any better than it taxis.

I mean really, if it was out of control on a taxi, why would you think you could land it and stop it any better if you managed to fly it around the pattern?
Click to expand...
I think you are probably attributing too much deliberation to what was a panicked reflex action.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I think you are probably attributing too much deliberation to what was a panicked reflex action.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. From what I've seen of those things, nothing really happens all that fast.
 
Salty said:
Certainly true. But did you read the explanation? I'm finding it hard to seriously believe anybody would think "Gee, I'm out of control on the ground and going to hit something, maybe I should lift it off".
Click to expand...
Did you see the F-16 first-flight ("flight 0") video I linked? That's *exactly* what happened.

Nauga,
who cannot share video of at least one other
 
nauga said:
Did you see the F-16 first-flight ("flight 0") video I linked? That's *exactly* what happened.

Nauga,
who cannot share video of at least one other
Click to expand...
There's a tiny bit of difference between the aircraft in question, which, I would think would be relevant. What's the top speed of the aircraft in question? 50 knots if it's pointed straight down with full throttle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top