Junkers D.I almost finished BUT help needed!

[Stickshaker]

Dear fellow simmers,<o></o>
<o></o>
Andreas Becker, who gave us the Heinkel P.1079A night fighter and the Driessen D.<st1:stockticker>III</st1:stockticker> flying wing airliner, was working on a Junkers D.I all-metal monoplane World War One fighter for both FS9 and FSX. The (freeware) aircraft is almost finished, but due to personal circumstances Andreas cannot conclude this project. He has asked me to make the plane and necessary files available to anyone who is interested in putting the last touches to the aircraft. These last touches include:<o></o>
- tweaking the airfile<o></o>
- Modifying the windscreen<o></o>
- finishing some details on the VC<o></o>
- Correcting some skin issues.<o></o>
- Any other improvements that pop up.<o></o>
<o></o>
The aircraft is made in FSDS 3.0 (so not in Gmax). As is apparent from the accompanying screenshots the model is almost finished. If anyone is interested, just send me a PM. We can discuss by email or by telephone how to proceed. I have a lot of information on the D.I that I can make available.<o></o>
<o></o>
Best regards,<o></o>
<o></o>
Stickshaker<o></o>
<o></o>

[Sascha66]

Hi, I don't know anything about modelling but I'd be happy to pitch in on any texture work.

Regards,
Sascha

[Stickshaker]

Hello Sascha,<o></o>
<o></o>
That is very good news, thank you for your offer. Can you PM me a mail address where I can send material to? Or even better: a postal address that I can send a CD to? I have quite a lot of material.

[txnetcop]

Looking forward to seeing this one in the hanger
Ted

[Stickshaker]

The D.I is now available in the Warbirds library. If anyone wants to further improve the flight model, you are welcome!

[txnetcop]

Hard to improve on damned-near perfection...a little tweaking can be done but not too much! AWESOME release Amigo. Everything I read said that the D.I was a handful to fly. The handling of this aircraft seems reasonably close to what I would a imagine the real thing would handle like.
Ted

[Stickshaker]

Thanks, Ted, much appreciated! Very nice screenshots!

[warchild]

Stickshaker.
Just curiosity but is the flight model still the one i had started for it?? I had a rather huge breakdown and couldnt continue any more but i'm hoping i at least did ok. I'm thinking i'm in a place where i could probably finish it now as well..
Pam

[warchild]

ok, so I just uploaded the last version of the flight model i worked on for this plane. It is still in pre release condition at this point and has training wheels ( steering ) attached. there are no brakes and the til skid has to be used. Landing speed is still quite high as the lift and drag have not yet been balanced in this version. If you people wish, as I said i will be happy to continue from this point and finish this project, but if you do not want me working on it I cant blame you there either.. Let me know..
The download can be found here. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ks.php?catid=4

Pam

[Stickshaker]

Hello Pam,
So glad that you are ‘on line’ again! I mailed you several times but in the end we felt we had to move on. Yes, if you want to help making the FM better, excellent! It is your FM but I tuned it a bit. Just mail me and let me know how you want to proceed.
Hans

[warchild]

HANS!!!! ..you got a deal, and no worries.. I was flying it earlier and looking it over. There's a buncha things i left out of balance so i'll be working on those first. bear with me. I cant work as quickly as i used too but that also allows me the opportunity to be more thorough. Landing speed seems a bit high as does take off speed. The D.1 had brakes although they were primitive an I need to find out if they were grabby or ineffective.. Over the net couple of months i hope to slowly jockey it towards a more accurate and original type of flight characteristic. Not sure f my words here. forgive me.. but yes, happy to be on it again. will send email in the net day or so. Have a lot on my plate for today and tonight but should have time to think tomorrow ( i hope ) or Tuesday..

[wombat666]

HANS!!!! ..you got a deal, and no worries.. I was flying it earlier and looking it over. There's a buncha things i left out of balance so i'll be working on those first. bear with me. I cant work as quickly as i used too but that also allows me the opportunity to be more thorough. Landing speed seems a bit high as does take off speed. The D.1 had brakes although they were primitive an I need to find out if they were grabby or ineffective.. Over the net couple of months i hope to slowly jockey it towards a more accurate and original type of flight characteristic. Not sure f my words here. forgive me.. but yes, happy to be on it again. will send email in the net day or so. Have a lot on my plate for today and tonight but should have time to think tomorrow ( i hope ) or Tuesday..

Hi Pam.
One day at at a time please, we can wait.

[txnetcop]

Pam the way you recommended landing this aircraft was exactly what I did because it did not have brakes on the original aircraft...at least the prototype. Not many of these made it to the German front lines as they were not the performer they hoped it would be.
Ted

[Stickshaker]

Excellent, Pam. Glad you're back. Take it easy, together we'll get there. I am really looking forward to your new FM.

[warchild]

Pam the way you recommended landing this aircraft was exactly what I did because it did not have brakes on the original aircraft...at least the prototype. Not many of these made it to the German front lines as they were not the performer they hoped it would be.
Ted

they have a tendency to nose down in a bank beyond what you expect.. Georing relegated them to balloon busting.. he hated the plane..
Oh on the brakes, we had a bit of confusion there too but we got to look real close at the wheels and sure enough theres brake lines going to them. I dont know what kind of brakes they were or where they put them but the lines are there.. I left the brake etremely primitive and not as effective as they could be, but i did so on purpose. no i have to get the landing speed down to fourty mile per hour with minimal ground effects..

[warchild]

So, over the last couple days I've done a lot with this flight model: too many details to go into here, and i just maile it off to Hans for testing and approval. I do not believe it is final yet, but its at the stage where i am no longer looking at making gross changes, but rather am focusing on minute changes here and there to draw the plane into what is perhaps a much closer representation of the aircraft.
I say much closer representation because frankly, theres little to no useable data for a flight modeler out there. theres mostly impressions and pilot reports but nothing definitive. As a comparison, i've also been studying the Junkers CR-1 which was a two seater version of this plain. I merely have to scale what we know about it ( not much ) to a single seat level.

Over all, the plane is becoming a wonderful handful, if there is any such thing. It oes want to go to the left on acceleration, but the tail skid in the back acts as a sort of anchor and keeps it fairly straight. Throttle control has become a real thing. too much and your running the engine too hard, too little and you lose altitude.

Its shaping up into a fine little plane and i do hope Hans likes what he sees so far. Its been a while for me and i'm just a little rusty so we'll see how it goes..

Pam

[warchild]

Pam the way you recommended landing this aircraft was exactly what I did because it did not have brakes on the original aircraft...at least the prototype. Not many of these made it to the German front lines as they were not the performer they hoped it would be.
Ted

Yeahh, the German high command really didnt like the monoplane with metal. the previous monoplanes they encountered made by the French were easy to shoot down. Goering flat out said the D.1 wasnt good for anything more than balloon busting which is where the plane became relegated too. The CR-1 which was the D.1s two seat version made some impact, but not much.. Old man Junkers really didnt care though. His eyes were on inter-continental passenger service, and the D.1 and other planes were merely stepping stones to realize his dream. Sadly the German government confiscated Mr Junkers factories in 1936 and began using them to make dive bombers like the JU-88.

[wombat666]

It wasn't for nothing Herr Junker's WW.I corrugated sheet monoplanes were known as 'Tin Donkeys', albeit the few combat reports (mostly referring to the J.1) made by allied pilots confirmed that it was bloody hard to make a dent on, let alone shoot down.
Very few, if any of the D.1 fighters appear to have reached the Front.
Just as a matter of interest, I looked through 30+/- years worth of 'Cross and Cockade', and more copies of 'Windsock' than I knew I owned.
Plenty of speculation but SFA facts.

[warchild]

It wasn't for nothing Herr Junker's WW.I corrugated sheet monoplanes were known as 'Tin Donkeys', albeit the few combat reports (mostly referring to the J.1) made by allied pilots confirmed that it was bloody hard to make a dent on, let alone shoot down.
Very few, if any of the D.1 fighters appear to have reached the Front.
Just as a matter of interest, I looked through 30+/- years worth of 'Cross and Cockade', and more copies of 'Windsock' than I knew I owned.
Plenty of speculation but SFA facts.

Thats a LOT of magazines ::lol:; I envy you.. But yeah, this time I'm being made to prove my own words and make the plane fly by nothing kore that what it can tell me by just sitting there.. Its got good wide wings with a hell of a curvature to them, and a nice narrow body but an underpowered motor. Its a conundrum an even more so because its a standard design for canvas but it uses metal. Mr. Junkers we know now was a bloody genius, but back then i would have sworn he was nuttier than a fruitcake.

[Stickshaker]

I just received Pam's new FM - much appreciated, and the changes should make a real difference - and will test it in the coming few days. Be back soon!

[Stickshaker]

I just mailed Pam with some comments on the FM. Stay tuned!
Another perceived drawback was that the large low wing reduced the downward view so that it was more difficult to spot enemy planes for ‘boom & zoom’ attacks. I wonder whether there also was a bit of prejudice against the Junkers, perhaps because there was a superlative plane available: the Fokker D.VIIF. For bomber interception and ground attack the D.I may have been very useful because of its ability to absorb damage. I wonder what a more powerful engine would have done; there were some in development for 1919. But the corrugated fuselage and thick wing would probably have limited maximum and dive speed. Pam, what do you think as a flight model expert?<o></o>

[txnetcop]

Interesting reading on the Junkers D.I and all of it's phases

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225872180/Junkers-D-I

Ted
Apparently they did put a 195hpBenz Bz.IIIbo V-8 engine in the aircraft. It really was too clumsy an aircraft for dog-fighting but because it was so hard to shoot down, it was perfect for shooting observation balloons which were heavily defended.

The maiden flight (Einfliegen) of the first D.I fighter (referred to in Junkers records as the J 9/I) is believed to have been performed on May 12 1918 (not in April as commonly reported) when Junkers test pilot Krohn put the prototype through its paces, including sharp turns, inverted flight and loops with complete satisfaction. For the second Fighter Competition in May 1918, Junkers readied the J 9/I (D.I) powered with the 160 hp Mercedes D.IIIaii engine just received from the factory. Because of the higher compression ratio, the engine gave superior high-altitude performance matching that of the BMW.IIla engine. In the climb competition the J 9/I surpassed all other Mercedes-powered fighters with the exception of the Rumpler D.I. It is interesting to note that the Fokker V 21 and V 23 wooden monoplanes, also entered in the Mercedes category, weighed 853 kg and 848 kg respectively, marginally heavier than the 835 kg of the J 9/I fighter. The fighter was a striking example of Junkers engineering skill in the design and realization of light-metal construction. To complete the record, the second Junkers D.I prototype (J 9/II), powered by a 195 hp Benz Bz.IIIbo V-8 engine, made its appearance in June 1918. It also was scheduled to appear in the Second Fighter Competition, but problems with the experimental Benz engine kept the J 9/II from competing. Information regarding the flight trials is unavailable. On the final days of the Fighter Competition Front-line pilots were invited to test the various fighters. Their opinions, voiced in two conferences convened on July 6 and 14 1918, would in a large degree determine which fighters would go into production. Keeping in mind that throughout the post-war years and into the Thirties, fighter development was heavily biased in favour of the biplane, it is easy to understand why the low-wing Junkers D.I failed to receive much support. On July 6 1918 the following was recorded: 'Oberleutnants
Goering and Loerzer support the eventual development of the Junkers D.I as a special machine for attacking observation balloons. The new design embodied in the Junkers D.I is, in the opinion of all, a total failure.'
The second conference reiterated that position. But 'total failure' was too harsh a criticism for a fighter that had demonstrated superior performance and flight characteristics. The only real drawback, according to the Austro-Hungarian liaison officer, was the lack of downward vision from the cockpit. This needs explanation. Contemporary German fighter tactics favoured attacking from above in a high-speed dive and disengaging quickly to avoid entanglement with vastly superior numbers of Allied fighters. Such tactics required excellent downward visibility that in the Junkers D.I was partially blocked by the wide fuselage and the broad wing. On the plus side, the invulnerability of metal construction to ground fire (amply demonstrated by the Junkers J.I) made the Junkers D.I an ideal candidate for the always risky task of attacking heavily-defended observation balloons. Old habits die hard and the conservative Front-line fighter pilots preferred a biplane fighter or one with a wing above their head and not below it. While this information disturbed Junkers, on August 21 1918, Idflieg showing more faith than the fighter pilots, placed a second order for 100 all-metal aircraft and called down 10 Junkers D.l fighters.

And the aircraft had a success story in that it was so hardy in all types of weather that it did not require a hanger and became the basis for future aircraft from Junkers:
The development of the Junkers all-metal aircraft in World War 1 provided the foundation upon which Junkers built a successful aircraft business. The rugged and serviceable Junkers 'corrugated' aircraft provided reliable transport in the desert, Arctic and jungle regions for many years.
Author's note
The material above was adapted from
The Way to the World's First All-Metal Fighter,
by Peter M Grosz and Gerard Terry,
Air Enthusiast,

[Stickshaker]

Interesting reading, txnetcop! It also shows that flight reports in the form of personal opinions without hard data can be misleading or at least ambiguous.