Anthony Fokker was a great aircraft Designer

G

gimpyguy

Guest
But he couldn't count ?

The EIII single gun, wing warper, 110HP Rotary

The EIV had 2 Guns, and a 160HP Twin Row Rotory, still NO ailerons

The EV was a high wing ( weak wing ) monoplane with ailerons, but only 110HP Rotory, twin gun.

Next was the DVII, very manuverable, twin gun, biplane 180HP Mercedes Water Cooled, later 200HP, 1700 Built

Then the DR1, extremely manuverable, Triplane, but slow, twin gun, 110HP Rotory

Now the DVI, shortened wing, DVII with the 110HP, Twin gun. Made as an interceptor, because you didn't need to sit there Warming Up a Rotory.
Fast enough to intercept the British Bombers, but too slow in Combat.
120 ordered - only 60 ever built

Then the DVIII The Flying Razor, High wing monoplane, 110HP, twin gun, came along to near end of war. 289 Built
 
Actually, from my memory, the DR1 preceded the DVII by quite a bit. The rotarys I've seen don't require any more than a quick run up to check the mags. I've seen 110 LeRhones, 130 and 160 Gnomes fired up, run up and then chocks away, total time under 2 minutes. These were all original engines used in flying replica a/c.
 
Hi, Gimpyguy
I'm sure, this Dutch businessman COULD count (money at least); he wasn't so much the designer of the planes, he rather sold them well.

E stands for Eindecker = Monoplane
D stands for Doppeldecker = Biplane
Dr stands for Dreidecker = Triplane

So much for todays German lesson. Have a nice Christmas time, Gimpy.

Cheers; Olham
 
The E.V and D.VIII were the same plane. It came out as the E.V then was withdrawn due to problems with the upper wing. For its re-release it was called D.VIII probably because some pilots were killed in the E.V - just psychology. But D.VIII left the naming scheme as it was not a (D)oppeldecker (biplane) but an (E)indecker (monoplane).
 
Interesting is allso the monoplane based on the D7f and the C1.
 
... the EV was refitted with improved strengthen wings as per testing, improve quality control and better weather proofing. Owning that the wings finish were just stained plywood and over coated with varnish, this must have been a real headache in field service.

With that said, the returned-to-service machines were re-designated D.VIII. There was an interim fix in that double bay flying wires were added to some EV machines in the field. Two groups of double cables were attached from the lower fuselage to the wing 1/3 an 2/3 out on both panels. There is a picture around somewhere showing this, Datafiles?

Fokker could count .... the plane designations had nothing to do with Fokker, it had all to do with the germen military government procurement dept.

German Aircraft Designations

WF2
 
I always pronounced it with a long O. I'm quite sure it was pronounced with a short "U" by some of the pilots of the day!

CJ
 
Short "O" - even shorter than "Hawker" would sound. It's like "socker" or "knocker".

Hey, WomenFly2, were have you been? Heard on the news, there was an ice storm in NH, and got a bit worried. But now that you're back: can you explain, what sort of wings that were on the Dr. I? I read, they were covered with a special airfoil developed at University of Göttingen, that was so stabile, that the plane first had no struts between the wings? Were these wings very different to those of other planes? And was yours built like that (were would one get that airfoil)?
Cheers; Olham
 
Weren't the wings on the DrI cantilevered? They were supposed to be strong enough to not need the interplane struts, much like the "Stiles Skystreak" from "The Great Waldo Pepper". "It's cantilevered, It can't fall apart!" was Ezra Stiles statement not long before it.......fell apart.
If you want some info in the DrI, here's a good site...........

http://www.fokkerdr1.com/Mainpage.htm

CJ
 
I always thought it was a long O too CJ, and I'll probably mispronounce it for a while due to bad habit.

Hey Olham. Yeah this ice storm really sucks. The whole county Im in was in a state of emergency. The power at my house went out thursday night and it still isnt on. I couldnt stay away from the forum so Im on my fathers laptop. Glad to be back too.

-Rooster
 
I had a couple of conversations with the late Peter Grosz at OTF semiars. Pete said that Fokker was a genius and really pushed the envelope beginning with his first plane the Spin. During the war, Fokker did employ an entrie design staff and made use of the cantilever wing developed by Forsemann based on research from the wind tunnel at the University of Goettingen. This where they learned that the thick airfoil gave a 2:1 purchase of lift for drag. This airfoil was the main ingredient inthe DVII's supremacy.

BTW. Rheinhold Platz did not design the aircraft, he was the master welder in the prototype shop. At best he developed how to best produce the steel tubed fuselages!
 
What puzzels me is why the Wrights did not discover the thicker airfoil. It was their use of the windtunnel that they discovered a much better airfoil than what the experts' used before them. They made very scientific notes on what they found. And they also attached a 'wing' to a biclyle to discover a much better angle of attack that what 'experts' before them suggested or they expected to find. So how they missed the thicker airfoil is a mystery to me.
 
It was the box spar of the DR1s wing that made it so sturdy it didn't need interwing struts. They were added later as a feel good for the pilots who got nervous when they saw the wings moving around independently. There wasn't any structural need or danger, just like a suspension bridge and tall building sway. The Fokker Years by Weil is a good read still.
 
I've never bought the theory that Platz was just a welder. I've heard views backed up with credible evidence that range from "Platz did it all" to "Platz was just a welder". The truth probably rests somewhere between those two extremes, as I see it. Fokker was quite strong willed, but Platz also demonstrated a gift for design. I tend to think the genius of the D.VII was produced as the work of no single designer, but rather came about through extensive teamwork right on the design between Platz and Fokker.

In any event-- Fokker as a company was fortunate to have a wealth of talent in the design category.
 
The advent of the thinker airfoil allowed for making a stronger wing. Once the wing was strong enough you did not need to have all those wires and struts, and you could put all sorts of things in the wings.
 
Great thread ...!

The Dr.1 wing was designed as a full cantilever structure. But the single box spar did have a disadvantage in torsional loading. In flight it twisted, so the outer plane struts were added. The issue with its weakness was more due to quality workmanship. In trying to keep an airframe as light as possible minimal material being used. This did create an issue with the aileron attachment spar, plus the interior varnish weather coating did not seal the wood and glue joins effectively enough to prevent degrading in service. After this was corrected and the wings replaced, at Fokkers cost, she was a fine machine.

The E.V wing suffered almost the same faith. The major issue was the top and bottom spar flanges. In constructing the box spar, both spar flanges were not held in position correctly and during the plywood and gusset assembly would move which made the spar depth greater then the opening in the wing ribs. When the total wing was being assembled the spar flanges were then planed down to fit, thus thinning the load carrying flanges under their designed thickness. This was the main cause of the wing failures. After this was corrected and some inner strengthening was added, also for torsional loads, the machine was placed back into service with improved/new wing and re-designated the D.VIII. The one I flew was fast, would out climb the D.VII but just under the Dr.1, it has a very tight turn radius equal to the Dr.1!

Side notes:

Fokker would take scraped or unrepairable aeroplanes returned to his depots, salvage all the hardware, wires, etc .... and re-use it in new production machines, then charge the government for new materials in the total cost of the new machine. One of many criminal charges the German government brought against him, as in the Dr.1 hearings, but soon dropped them do to his high value in aircraft design and production.

Excellent book "The Fokker Years by Weil" but many untruths.

Forsemann designed a E.V wing which was lighter and stronger then Fokkers, before the wing failures, but Fokker never used it.

WF2

Still no power .... day 4 ...... Coffee holding out ...... Life is good!
 
You pose an interesting question Uriah, that being why didn't aircraft designers using wind tunnels, ie...first the Wrights, and subsequently the major air forces...and Germany to be precise in this conversation, come to the conclusion early on that thicker wings are better? To start with, all of these people were using miniature scale models in thier wind tunnels. Thinner wings work very well in the moving air particles at this reduced size, so for their models, this WAS the optimum design. Scale the design up though, and you have that same thin wing acting in (comparatively) much smaller air particles, so the efficiency decreases. This ties back into the excellence of Fokker and his design and aerodynamic knowledge, in that through time...he understood this and began to realize when few others did, the benefits of the thicker wing design, increased lift, without the extra drag of a thin yet heavily cambered wing.

In addition to this, things take time to progress, as in any learning process. The thin heavily cambered wings you see on some early WWI planes is a carry over from the very first machines, ie...the Wrights..Blierots..and early Pfalzes to name a few, and those early machines needed the heavy cambered thin wing combo, just to fly with the early underpowered-enemic engines that were all that was available at the time. By mid to late war, engines were improving, but this technologic carry over in wing design was still evident, much due to the fact that it was familiar. Again, insightful people like Fokker began to catch on that these new more powerfull engines could be coupled with this new wing design for maximum efficiency. Put a LE-Rhone radial or an Oberuresal on an old Bleriot and it will have the power to fly it. Put a Fokker EV-or DVIII wing on an Old Bleriot with its original engine and I'd doubt it would leave the ground.

ZZ.

Interesting footnote about Forseman WF2. I never knew. : )
 
Let's not forget the E.Vs were also plagued by engine failures. Those planes could have been the best constructed machines on earth but because of the horrible ersatz oil they were doomed. In Greg VanWyngarden's Richthofen's Circus (Osprey, 2004), page 110, he notes Jasta 6 "endured 30 emergency landings in ten days." Ostensibly, all related to engine problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top