don't forget the Fokker G.I

LOVE YOUR CHANNEL GREG !!--TOP LINE STUFF !!--ADI LOVE M.A.H.-!!

That game was where I FIRST learned of the Airco DH.2. I think they are COOL!

@@Allan_aka_RocKITEman Agreed. It is a beautiful looking aircraft!

Yes, the G.1 is an example of the then modern heavy fighter or destroyer "craze"

@El Bee I remember reading somewhere that the G. 1 was somewhat of a sensation at the Paris airshow in 1936. It could be that Kelly Johnson remembered this when designing the P-38. Especially because the mission of the P-38 beeing somewhat similar as that of the G. 1. Both were meant to take of and to destroy bombers. While the G. 1 may have been originally been designed as an aerial cruiser it was eventually used as an interceptor. The P-38 may have been designed as an interceptor (pursuit), but if history played out differently, it could have then also been used as an aerial cruiser.

SR-71 💕

Petrol is a common British contraction of petroleum. Though it can be found in other other languages also.

It it, from one of the earlier producers/sellers

Petrol is short for petroleum. Gasoline is petroleum, but diesel, for example, is also petroleum; amongst many other products. Not a huge issue, but in this case, American English is more accurate.

@@TheOwenMajor yes a medieval English word but was used in branding in the 1920s

​@@scrubsrc4084 The word petroleum and what it refered to was well establsihed long before the 20's. And it's from Latin, petra - rock, oleum - oil.

This! (But less shouty)

I made a similar comment BEFORE reading this one...😊

Depends on who maintained it and how. Repainting an aircraft and maintaining it's look is difficult, considering it also puts the aircraft at risk when done.

The 4 & 5 color lozenge patterns came in upper and lower surface color variations. The colors of this ship are accurate.

Mark Hammond I understand that, but many pigments are fugitive, especially in light hence my wondering just how accurate our present day interpretations are...

The colours of the fabric fade with time, in original use, in museums, and if flown. So even if they were once 'correct', they won't stay that way!

Errol Cavit I know..am trained in dye chemistry..so my rather pointless question really was wondering if we really know what these machines looked like..it’s a feature of many aspect of history.

A domed piston reduces the volume of the combustion chamber at top center, because the piston takes up additional volume. By reducing the volume, you increase the compression ratio. Increased compression ratio improves efficiency and increases power slightly, up to the point of damaging detonation. These aircraft engines ran high enough compression ratio to cause serious detonation at low altitude on those older specification fuels. The pilot would delay opening the throttle to maximum until above a known pressure altitude to prevent detonation. Thereby the engine had a relatively flat power potential curve up to a certain height, above which it began to fall off. It's a similar concept to "Critical Altitude" for turbochargers, where the waste-gate full closes providing maximum pressure-ratio to the engine at a defined altitude. Below which it bypasses exhaust gasses and reduces "boost" to prevent detonation.

The more *$$$* you have, the more *PROPULSION* you get. 😉

Its not the same company at all. Heinrich Focke &George Wulf, not Anthony Fokker

I think you meant Cessna 172, 175, or 182...?

I would say, practically speaking, no. Bush planes are generally tail draggers. Of the two planes you mentioned that would be a Cessna 140 and possibly Piper Super Cub for bush work? (not my field of expertise.) Both Cessna and Piper used cantilever wing which eliminated most struts and all wires for support. Both used a Continental opposed cylinder engine if I recall correctly, and gave a better power to weight ratio than what was available for WW1 aircraft. The WW1 aircraft used radial, rotary, and in-line cylinder engines. Radial and in-line are still in use today, but of better manufacture. Some WW1 aircraft would be fun to fly, others would be too dangerous for all but the most skilled pilots. Still would not be a practical, every-day flyer, being open cockpit and serious drag issues. Wasted fuel, lower payloads, and frozen occupants. Just my opinion.