Redfern Nieuport 17/24

Hi Garrett - I bought the plans a few years back with the intention of building. Since then I have done a lot or research on the original and have begun as authentic a replica as I can from original drawing sources. I won't be able to afford an original engine (and don't want  to fly behind one regularly) so it will have a modern engine. Apart from that it will be built the same as the original (eventually!!).

If you have general questions about the Redfern plans - I'm happy to correspond.

Bryan

Hi Bryan,

Thanks for the reply. I too, have the Redfern plans, however,  they are not what one needs to build an authentic replica.        I  think that the basic construction  concept is fairly sound and the end result will produce an aircraft that will look realistically like the original. However, with that said, I find that there is are a lot of details that are rather vague or completely missing. I have purchased a set of drawings from    replicraft.us.fm/plansets.htm  for the Nieuport 27 and find that they are of excellent quality and very detailed.

One question that I have concerns the wing spars. Do you plan to replicate the box spars of the original or are you going with the Redfern laminated ones? Also, what type of powerplant are you considering? I think that perhaps a Rotex R2800 would be a good substitute for the old Le Rhone rotary.

Regards, Garrett

I have been using Replicraft plans for my Pup and they are excellent.  I think the Rotec R3600 would be a better substitute, the R2800 might be a bit light on power (110 Rotec HPs will not provide anywhere the pulling power of 110 Le Rhone HPs).  The R3600 was developed with the WWI replica builder specifically in mind: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/R3600development.htm 

Garrett - there are some similarities between the Ni27 and the Ni17 and if you use the Ni17 tail and Ni27 everything else - you will get quite an accurate Ni24bis. You'll need Ni17 drawings though to build an accurate Ni17 or 24.

I am using the Rozendaal drawings as they are the only surviving detailed drawings of the Ni17 (he was working for a German aviation magazine during WW1 and drew his plans from a captured example). He doesn't cover the entire airframe though and some detail is missing (although it's shown, dimensions aren't accurate). The undercarriage and cabanes are not shown either. I have the Nieuport-Macchi drawings which are basically 'modification' drawings that only show some details, but luckily they show the undercarriage and a few other useful parts. I also have a few drawings of Ni23/24/27 series from various sources. I bought a few drawings from WW1 Aeroplanes - their 'original' drawings are very poor quality and almost useless to build from, however their Macchi and Hardesty drawings are worth buying. You couldn't build from the Hardesty drawings but they do help fill in some gaps and give you a good overview of what you are getting into! The Rozendaal translation article from WW1 Aero is also an interesting read but their Rozendaal drawings are again not very readable. I know others have some excellent copies of Ni23/24 blue prints but they don't seem willing to copy the whole set (even though I am happy to pay for them). I'll keep plugging away - in the mean time I have enough to start building. Email me if you would like to discuss sources of plans.

Adam,

I agree - the 110hp Rotec won't drag around a full scale replica. I don't think the R3600 is that powerful either. I visited the Rotec factory (I live nearby) and was kindly given a tour. Beautiful engines and they are well worth the money. But I think they are great for a 100% sized aluminium replica but not quite up to scratch to replace the 110hp LeRhone (or Clerget). I spoke to the guys at the factory but they didn't seem to grasp the point that I need to swing a big prop at low RPM - not a smaller prop at higher RPM. I'm after thrust not RPM. I have been mulling over the idea of replacing the gearing in the bell-housing with a different ratio to reduce prop RPM. This will absolutely void the warranty and is not recommended for the average builder. I'm lucky to be working in an engineering firm that has a great deal of engine expertise.

Oops - forgot to answer your question!

Yes I plan to build the spars as per the original. No one will ever see them, but it's a challenge I'm looking forward to. Modern laminated spars are probably a wiser option but I am trying to come in under the Australia ultralight weight limit of 545kg. This makes registration, etc much easier. I figure if I have light replica guns I can make it ok. So I don't plan to modify much and certainly don't want to beef up the structure.

BTW - there is an opinion circulating that 'Nieuports lose their wings' which I think is a misnomer. I have a great article on why the Ni28 top wing parted in steep dives and I think I understand the Ni17 wing fittings a lot better now. I drew up the 'female' wing fitting (that attaches to the fuselage) in CAD to get it CNC cut. See attached. I got quote $1200 a pair so I might just machine them up by hand myself.

Also - have you visited:

Prop to be used on a full scale Nieuport 24: 94" diam x 67" pitch:

 Brian,

When you visited the Rotec works, did you have a chance to examine the torque vs RPM specs of the R3600? They are pretty much advertising it as capable of powering a full scale Nieuport 24.

I have subscribed to "The Aerodrome" but have not been able to access your Nieuport posts. I would be interested, especially, to learn  what your research turned up regarding the upper wing problems.

Garrett

Brian,

On second go, I did catch your Nieuport  thread in "The Aerodrome."

Thanks for the update. I have seen a Ni28 that had the first R3600 and a big (92"?) prop on it. It should be noted that 'full-scale' doesn't mean original structure. It can mean light-weight aluminium frame (70% of the original), different aerofoil section (with less drag) and potentially less drag overall. I understand the replica Ni28 suffered from poor performance until the prop was changed and now flies much better on a smaller prop (around 84" from memory). Still noting though that the original Ni24 had a 100" prop.

The specifications provide me with figures to calculate the relative power outputs and the R3600 still falls short. But that doesn't mean you can't use it! It just means that I may have to settle on a smaller prop and probably slower speed than the original.

If you search for the username 'Ray Jarvis' on the Aerodrome forums he is the owner and can probably answer all your questions about a Airdrome replica (aluminium) structured Ni28 powered by an R3600.  I think their Ni24 replica would fly well with an R3600.

From the rotec R3600 development page:

[quote] FAQ: Prop Diameter?

The max prop diameter being used in flight with a R2800 is a 83"diameter x 43" pitch. This is on Roman Weller's Sprint. The figures coming back show that the engine is not overloaded and the performance of the craft is beyond what Roman expected.

Our recommended prop diameter for the R2800 is 76" diam with a pitch of 55" - tho' looking at Roman's figures we might be a tad conservative. 

Extrapolation would indicate that the R3600 will accommodate prop sizes up to 90" in diameter.

Current testing has established the current recommended props are as follows - these have been tested and proven to be a good all round starting props:

• 2 Blade 84" diameter x 67" pitch
• 3 Blade 68" diameter x 82" pitch

[/quote]

Ref. the Ni 28, I'm not really interested in building an aluminum tube light weight. I have looked into that  version
and it's not for me.

There is a group that is building a steel tube, wood wing type Ni 24, probably the Redfern version, that has an R 3600 installed on the airframe. They are well along in the construction. It should be interesting to see what performence they achieve with this powerplant.  http://www.aimschool.com/?cat=9  From the photos, it is obvious that a less than full size prop is being utilized.