Ares Games
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Fokker D.II Unofficial Stats

  1. #1

    Default Fokker D.II Unofficial Stats

    I’ve been looking around for a one gun fighter to kind of bridge the gap between the E.III and the Halberstadt D.III. Lots of rather short lived Fokker biplanes, but the D.II seems like the one to go with. Looking at the unofficial stats for a plane that is described as outclassed by even a Nieuport 11, it’s basically 1 hit point worse than a Halberstadt D.III, and that’s about it, and seems almost an even match for the Nieuport 17 and Airco DH.2. Optimistic stats? How best to detune it to something just slightly better than the E.III, which is what it is generally described as? Or do the learned think the stats are spot on? (P deck, B guns, 13 hits, ceiling 10, climb 4).

    Shapeways order on hold for the moment.

  2. #2

    Default

    Ah...the pregnant pause that invites me to ramble on my own!

    Speed of the Fokker D.II; about 93 mph, about the same as the Halberstadt and Airco DH.2; 4 and 6 mph faster than the Morane-Saulnier N and Fokker E.III, respectively. So, dog slow for a fighter, but on par in WoG terms. The Nieuport 11 clocks in at 101, and the Nieuport 17 at 110, and the Nieuport 16 somewhere in between. The I deck of the 17 is the next speed up, so that’s out. The R deck of the Nieuport 16 should in theory be the least maneuverable of the Nieuport, with the front heavy engine unbalancing the airframe - and comparing it to the other two, it’s still more maneuverable.

    So, P or T? The only difference between those two is a wide side slip in both directions for the P deck, in place of a short side slip for the T deck. But the Fokker D.II is still using wing-warping, same as E.III, if in a biplane configuration. I just don’t see it as maneuverable as either the Airco DH.2 or the Halberstadt. Admittedly, the simplicities of Wings of Glory don’t always capture the subtle differences between planes, but I think you’ll get something closer to the limitations of the Fokker D.II with the T deck rather than P. Possibly you could declare the wide side slips as stall maneuvers, but for myself, I prefer the simplicity of just using a T deck. The added bonus is you can still find The Morane-Saulnier N out there for fairly cheap, and getting the P deck with the Halberstadt or Aircois prohibitively expensive.

    This would change the Fokker D.II from essentially a one-hit point challenged Halberstadt D.III, to a tougher E.III in nature. Dunno enough about the inherent toughness of the construction of the Fokker to say one way or the other about it being given 13 hit - I’d be prone to call it 12 in light of poor materials and building practices in the Fokker Factory (yes, I’d pay money to say that five times fast), but one controversy at a time.

    Opinions yeah or nay?

    Looking at the points, that would bring the Fokker D.II in at 52 points, four more than the E.III, six less than the Halberstadt, which I think places it better within the heirarchy of planes than it would be at the 56 it weighs in at the (unofficial) moment.
    Last edited by Dawn Patrol; 06-20-2020 at 16:51.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post
    Ah...the pregnant pause that invites me to ramble on my own!

    Speed of the Fokker D.II; about 93 mph, about the same as the Halberstadt and Airco DH.2; 4 and 6 mph faster than the Morane-Saulnier N and Fokker E.III, respectively. So, dog slow for a fighter, but on par in WoG terms. The Nieuport 11 clocks in at 101, and the Nieuport 17 at 110, and the Nieuport 16 somewhere in between. The I deck of the 17 is the next speed up, so that’s out. The R deck of the Nieuport 16 should in theory be the least maneuverable of the Nieuport, with the front heavy engine unbalancing the airframe - and comparing it to the other two, it’s still more maneuverable.

    So, P or T? The only difference between those two is a wide side slip in both directions for the P deck, in place of a short side slip for the T deck. But the Fokker D.II is still using wing-warping, same as E.III, if in a biplane configuration. I just don’t see it as maneuverable as either the Airco DH.2 or the Halberstadt. Admittedly, the simplicities of Wings of Glory don’t always capture the subtle differences between planes, but I think you’ll get something closer to the limitations of the Fokker D.II with the T deck rather than P. Possibly you could declare the wide side slips as stall maneuvers, but for myself, I prefer the simplicity of just using a T deck. The added bonus is you can still find The Morane-Saulnier N out there for fairly cheap, and getting the P deck with the Halberstadt or Aircois prohibitively expensive.

    This would change the Fokker D.II from essentially a one-hit point challenged Halberstadt D.III, to a tougher E.III in nature. Dunno enough about the inherent toughness of the construction of the Fokker to say one way or the other about it being given 13 hit - I’d be prone to call it 12 in light of poor materials and building practices in the Fokker Factory (yes, I’d pay money to say that five times fast), but one controversy at a time.

    Opinions yeah or nay?

    Looking at the points, that would bring the Fokker D.II in at 52 points, four more than the E.III, six less than the Halberstadt, which I think places it better within the heirarchy of planes than it would be at the 56 it weighs in at the (unofficial) moment.
    Makes sense to me.
    Part of the problem of balancing the planes is having to work within movement decks makes it hard to implement subtle differences in speed.
    Sometimes the best course is to reflect how good a plane was compared to existing planes.
    If plane A was known to be better than B and B was known to be better than C then things have gone a bit astray if C ends up better than A.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think part of the problem stems from the stats being worked out 4 years ago or more, and then being upset by the later introduction of Official models, which throw the balance out.

    The data sources are also wildly different, some Nationally biased, and many are speculative at best.

    So long as the overall feel for the match-ups works out OK, then I'm happy to use them.

    But some are so far off their historical levels that I have to House Rule them.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post
    ...Or do the learned think the stats are spot on? (P deck, B guns, 13 hits, ceiling 10, climb 4)...
    As the learned wrote them and had them approved by the game's designer then they're probably as close as you'll get without messing with other decks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post
    Ah...the pregnant pause that invites me to ramble on my own!
    ...So, P or T? .... Possibly you could declare the wide side slips as stall maneuvers, but for myself, I prefer the simplicity of just using a T deck. The added bonus is you can still find The Morane-Saulnier N out there for fairly cheap, and getting the P deck with the Halberstadt or Aircois prohibitively expensive.
    Opinions yeah or nay?
    If you make the wide sideslips of P deck steep then you have created the G deck, though this seems to be driven by deck availability rather than anything else.

    Deck P (18) – Slow speed- 2.9cm - (arrow is 40% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    1 right sideslip
    1 left sideslip
    1 broad right sideslip
    1 broad left sideslip
    1 climb
    1 dive

    Deck G (18) – Slow speed - 2.9cm - (arrow is 40% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    1 right sideslip
    1 left sideslip
    1 right sideslip - steep
    1 left sideslip - steep
    1 climb
    1 dive

    Deck T (18) – Slow speed - 2.9cm - (arrow is 40% of the card)
    3 straight
    3 right turn
    3 left turn
    2 stall - steep
    1 Immelmann !
    2 right sideslip
    2 left sideslip
    1 climb
    1 dive

    You'll find a G deck in Watch Your Back box set or Immelmann booster set (which also has P decks), or, someone may have a digital copy. It will be in the WoW style though as, so far, no WoG models uses it. Of course this deck was available when the committee made their decision and they still selected the P deck.

    "He is wise who watches"

  6. #6

    Default

    The "steep" sideslips in the 'G' deck aren't Wide, just Regular - so if you make the 'P' deck Wide sideslips "steep" it actually becomes a new deck...………...
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  7. #7

    Default

    D'oh - more tea required !
    The G deck may still be an option though.

    "He is wise who watches"

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    D'oh - more tea required !
    I've just had Coffee!!!!, so I'm finally switched on!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  9. #9

    Default

    G deck: well, that seems if anything worse than the T deck. I was looking at an older graphic of deck speeds, and the G was illustrated by the Airco DH.2, so I presume that’s what it used in the pre-models era and it was decided that it wasn’t a good match and that’s why we have the P deck. Though I’ll keep the G deck in mind for the Fokker D.III that still had wing-warping and the weight of two guns - but the idea with this is to find a one-gun plane that is a better match up in game terms.

    The Powers That Be: May well in their collective wisdom decided to go with the P deck. I am questioning that choice in that the end result yields a plane that is a whole lot better in game terms than it’s description from the collective descriptions of the actual plane’s performance. “Marginally better”, “barely improved”, and similar opinions are what I read about most of the early Fokker biplanes in relationship to the E.III. It was damned by faint praise, while the Halberstadt was viewed as a definite improvement and relief to the German pilots. Now, it may be that the faint praise was more in response to shoddy construction rather than the plane’s actual capabilities, but that’s not the impression I get.

  10. #10

    Default

    On the house rules section, I noted a discussion (a very old thread revived) on the Fokker E.IV deck, and it becomes more obvious as to what happened. The Fokker E.III originally had the P deck, and the Airco and Halberstadt had the G deck. Ares reversed those but upgraded the G to T deck. Which would mean that the Fokker D.II was simply matching the E.III, but became a victim of inertia, and didn’t get downgraded along with the E.III.

    So, for me personally, I’ll be house ruling the Fokker D.II to the T deck (and perhaps this discussion should be moved to the house rule forum). Whether or not the unofficial stats should be officially changed to a new unofficial stat I leave to The Powers That Be, but would suggest a review.

    Shapeways order now two Fokker D.II, one Fokker E.III (because I actually snagged a real Ares one for a non-outrageous price), and two Airco DH.2, which will firm up my 1916 end of models.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post
    On the house rules section, I noted a discussion (a very old thread revived) on the Fokker E.IV deck, and it becomes more obvious as to what happened. The Fokker E.III originally had the P deck, and the Airco and Halberstadt had the G deck. Ares reversed those but upgraded the G to T deck. Which would mean that the Fokker D.II was simply matching the E.III, but became a victim of inertia, and didn’t get downgraded along with the E.III.

    So, for me personally, I’ll be house ruling the Fokker D.II to the T deck (and perhaps this discussion should be moved to the house rule forum). Whether or not the unofficial stats should be officially changed to a new unofficial stat I leave to The Powers That Be, but would suggest a review.
    You got it right, that is exactly what happened. Review will be conducted, with high likelihood deck will change to T for D.I and D.II, both of which had wing warping, and although better at high altitude than E.III, at lower they weren't, and were nowhere near as good as an N11 or N14 at any altitude.

    It's time we issued a new version of the unofficial stats anyway.

    Are there any more issues? We rely on your feedback and peer review.

  12. #12

    Default

    Watching my Shapeways Fokker D.II (and Airco DH.2) finally switch from pre-production to production. The decals and stands from the Aerodrome are gonna be here maybe by tomorrow. And those solo play templates! Drumming fingers impatiently...

    Painting Pz III and IV while I wait.

  13. #13

    Default

    Hope to see those Fokkers in the monthly workbench thread.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by camelbeagle View Post
    Hope to see those Fokkers in the monthly workbench thread.
    Will do. Been looking at paint schemes for D.II, which seem kinda like the Halberstadts.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Patrol View Post
    Will do. Been looking at paint schemes for D.II, which seem kinda like the Halberstadts.
    You know, my favorite thing about Fokker D.II & IIIs, is the schemes they were painted with in Kesta 4. Alternate black tail w/white rudder, white tail w/black rudder, and b&w horizontally striped tails with both black and white rudder versions. Very nice variety while keeping to a theme. I would like the whole flight someday, if we could ever get Ares around to making them!

    Name:  Kesta_4_Fokkers.jpg
Views: 295
Size:  93.9 KB
    Last edited by greenalfonzo; 10-31-2020 at 08:58.

  16. #16

    Default

    Germany had a rather mixed bag of scouts in mid 1916 before the Albatros truly took over. Yeah, there were Halberstadts, but there never really were that many, and all those funky here today, gone tomorrow Fokker biplanes were scattered about. The photo is a great illustration of that.

  17. #17

    Default

    Btw, did anyone ever determine if that mark in front of the cross on the side of the Halb. is an individual marking, or just a flaw in the photo? I was leaning (optimistically) towards a marking.

  18. #18

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by greenalfonzo View Post
    Btw, did anyone ever determine if that mark in front of the cross on the side of the Halb. is an individual marking, or just a flaw in the photo? I was leaning (optimistically) towards a marking.
    G'day Kev, when I came across that photo quite a few years ago I researched it on the Aerodrome historical site & the consensus there was it was a flaw on the negative.
    Like you I hoped it was a personal insignia but I took their advice & painted up my shapeways plane with just the number 10.
    Photo below.

    Name:  <acronym title=WSF Halberstadt D.II side.jpg Views: 286 Size: 56.3 KB" style="float: CONFIG" />

  19. #19

    Default

    Ooooh, nice one Barry!

    So, to sum up the decks; Both Fokker D.I and D.II will likely be 'T' deck; what about the D.III? Twin-row Oberursel U-III 14 cylinder 160 hp engine, with strengthened fuselage. A bit faster, two guns, latter half having ailerons instead of wing-warping?

    Just found the Fokker D.III listed on Wings of Linen
    'P' deck, A guns, Damage=13

    Is this ratified by the Unofficial aircraft Stats Committee?
    Last edited by Flying Helmut; 11-01-2020 at 02:19.
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    G'day Kev, when I came across that photo quite a few years ago I researched it on the Aerodrome historical site & the consensus there was it was a flaw on the negative.
    Like you I hoped it was a personal insignia but I took their advice & painted up my shapeways plane with just the number 10.
    Photo below.

    Name:  <acronym title=WSF Halberstadt D.II side.jpg Views: 286 Size: 56.3 KB" style="float: CONFIG" />
    Nice work. It's really weird if both it and the Fokker in the immediate in front of it next to the crew *both* had photo flaws in the same spot where you'd expect a personal marking, and proportionately to scale with their respective planes.

  21. #21

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by greenalfonzo View Post
    Nice work. It's really weird if both it and the Fokker in the immediate in front of it next to the crew *both* had photo flaws in the same spot where you'd expect a personal marking, and proportionately to scale with their respective planes.
    True Kev but someone over on the Historical site got a enhanced copy & blew it up to see & they came to the conclusion it was a flaw.

  22. #22

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    As mentioned on here a long long time ago, turning circle is directly proportional to wing loading but is also affected by speed. If speeds are equal, the aircraft with the lowest wing loading will turn tighter. Divide the take-off weight by the wing area. The lowest is normally the Sopwith Pup which comes out about 4.8 as I recall. The Camel and Dr1 are about 6 or 6.5, the rest fall in the range of 7 to 9. If wing loadings are equal but speed is different, the faster one will always turn wider. This also explains why early WW2 dogfights were often in the 250mph range, by the time a Spitfire or 109 went full throttle their controls were very heavy.

    (As an example of how wing loading works, if you compare the Pup's 4.8 with the Albatros' 8.8 [from memory] you begin to understand why Pup pilots claimed they could turn two circles to the Albatros' one, especially at altitude)

    In the case of warp wing designs I do not know enough about the differences in control effectiveness and harmony between warp and conventional ailerons. One reason warp was discontinued, as I understand it, was that warp used a lot more wire to twist the wings and hence greater drag, loss of speed, slower dive rate. Also warp wing was more susceptible to damage if the central post which the warp wires passed through was hit. All the wires could be lost.

    The chief problem with all Fokker designs was that Anthony Fokker did not understand numbers. His biography states he disliked maths and preferred 'seat of the pants' testing. One aircraft which came under criticism was either the Fokker D II or D III (not near my books). After improvements he had the top wing photographed with a lot of men standing on it to prove that it exceeded strength requirements. So the Fokker D II may not have been inferior, it may have been discontinued due to either a lack of trust in Fokker's design and methods or due to aileron designs being more efficient and getting more speed out of the small engines of the time.

    It should also be pointed out that lack of trust was something which dogged Fokker throughout his career. As you may know his Triplane designs suffered catastrophic wing failures due to skimping and quality control which is probably why the DVII was never produced at the small Fokker factory. All production was outsourced to larger and more reliable companies like Albatros and OAW.

    When Fokker did get back into production again it was with the EV/DVIII high wing monoplane 'flying razor' and, yet again, there were fatal crashes. One of the reasons why Fokker skipped out of Germany at the end of WW1 was to escape civil and criminal charges. His biography suggests he was going to be charged with manslaughter over the DVIII debacle. Time to go...

    Barry
    Last edited by 'Warspite'; 11-05-2020 at 01:52.

  23. #23

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    As to how this may be modelled…
    1) if the Fokker DII was dropped due to mistrust, then go with the next nearest deck (Halbertsadt DIII?).
    2) if a case can be made that warp wing was less effective than ailerons then the simplest option may be to limit the number of turn cards.

    "Only two turn cards can be played per three-card period for any warp wing design of aircraft".
    OR
    "No two continuous turn cards can be played by any warp wing design of aircraft".
    Thus the Fokker EIII and the Fokker DII are both penalised for having warp wings. They cannot play three turn cards per turn as the increased drag from the warp wires will cause them to stall.
    This might also explain why Immelmann favoured vertical manoeuvres more than horizontal in his EII/EIII.

    Barry

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post


    One aircraft which came under criticism was either the Fokker D II or D III (not near my books). After improvements he had the top wing photographed with a lot of men standing on it to prove that it exceeded strength requirements. So the Fokker D II may not have been inferior, it may have been discontinued due to either a lack of trust in Fokker's design and methods or due to aileron designs being more efficient and getting more speed out of the small engines of the time.
    That was the Fokker E.V
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post

    It should also be pointed out that lack of trust was something which dogged Fokker throughout his career. As you may know his Triplane designs suffered catastrophic wing failures due to skimping and quality control which is probably why the DVII was never produced at the small Fokker factory. All production was outsourced to larger and more reliable companies like Albatros and OAW.
    Nope.
    The Fokker factory DID produce the D.VII, and in considerable numbers.
    Albatros and OAW were roped in to massively increase production, since the Albatros D.Va had reached the end of its upgrade span, and was considerably inferior to the Fokker D.VII
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  26. #26

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Wiki provides us with this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_warping
    "In practice, since most wing warping designs involved flexing of structural members, they were difficult to control and liable to cause structural failure."
    and
    "Lateral (roll) control in early aircraft was problematic at best. An overly flexible, involuntarily twisting wing can cause involuntary rolling, but even worse, it can convert attempts at correction, either from wing warping or ailerons, into a counteracting "servo tab" effect. Once this was fully understood, wing structures were made progressively more rigid, precluding wing warping altogether – and aircraft became far more controllable in the lateral plane."

    I would therefore suggest my second option:
    "No two continuous turn cards can be played by any warp wing design of aircraft".
    This would effect Fokker E II/III, the Morane Saulnier L and N and the Fokker DII and DIII.

    Wiki also has this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.II
    "In service, the D.II proved to be little better than the earlier Fokker Eindecker fighters - in particular, it was outclassed by the Nieuport 11 and 17. "
    (93 mph and ceiling of 13,125 feet)
    and this:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.III
    "While the D.III offered better performance than the D.I and D.II, Boelcke nevertheless found the D.III to be too slow."
    (100 mph and ceiling of 15,420 feet)

  27. #27

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    I am working from memory here but, as I recall, Anthony Fokker was very upset that the majority of manufacture was taken away from him. I will check for actual figures when I get near my books.
    The German view was that his Schwerin works were too small to provide the quantity they needed quickly plus there must have been lingering doubts about the quality of his work. This would be reconfirmed with the EV/DVIII.

    Barry


    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    Nope.
    The Fokker factory DID produce the D.VII, and in considerable numbers.
    Albatros and OAW were roped in to massively increase production, since the Albatros D.Va had reached the end of its upgrade span, and was considerably inferior to the Fokker D.VII

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    I am working from memory here but, as I recall, Anthony Fokker was very upset that the majority of manufacture was taken away from him. I will check for actual figures when I get near my books.
    The German view was that his Schwerin works were too small to provide the quantity they needed quickly plus there must have been lingering doubts about the quality of his work. This would be reconfirmed with the EV/DVIII.

    Barry
    All true!

    "the MAJORITY (not 'totality') of production was taken away from him" <<by the way, if this is from Fokker's own personal memoirs disregard it; it is almost certainly embellished exaggeration, as were practically all of Fokker's published memoirs>>

    "too small to provide the quantity they needed quickly" - yes indeed, but to leave that production facility empty and idle while they waited to set up production lines in other factories instead would have been utterly stupid.



    But what you posted earlier was NOT true......"the DVII was never produced at the small Fokker factory" and "all production was outsourced"

    Dozens of photographs exist of Fokker-produced D.VIIs, and the differences exhibited by Albatros engine cowlings are recorded in books and magazines everywhere - differences from what, if there were no "Fokker" D.VIIs at all?
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  29. #29

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    I am working away from home. I am not near my books.
    I made an error. It happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    All true!

    "the MAJORITY (not 'totality') of production was taken away from him" <<by the way, if this is from Fokker's own personal memoirs disregard it; it is almost certainly embellished exaggeration, as were practically all of Fokker's published memoirs>>

    "too small to provide the quantity they needed quickly" - yes indeed, but to leave that production facility empty and idle while they waited to set up production lines in other factories instead would have been utterly stupid.



    But what you posted earlier was NOT true......"the DVII was never produced at the small Fokker factory" and "all production was outsourced"

    Dozens of photographs exist of Fokker-produced D.VIIs, and the differences exhibited by Albatros engine cowlings are recorded in books and magazines everywhere - differences from what, if there were no "Fokker" D.VIIs at all?

  30. #30

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    That was the Fokker E.V
    It was also the Fokker D II or D III, I have seen the photograph.
    He simply repeated the stunt for the EV/DVIII.

    Barry

  31. #31

    Default

    According to Dan_San_Abbott http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8589
    The number built by Fokker, 794; Albatros,1073 and OAW, 1072 for total of 2939 - BUILT and accepted up to 11 Nov.1918.
    but DELIVERED up to 11 November 1918: Fokker 733, Albatros 1060 and OAW 975 which equals 2768 Fokker D.VII.
    He was reasonably confident of the figures.
    Fokker simply couldn't produce the numbers required so Idflieg had production outsourced - Fokker may well have been upset as he only got a small percentage for each plane produced.

    "He is wise who watches"

  32. #32

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    I seem to recall Fokker was 'only' getting 5% of the price on each one manufactured elsewhere, which is a bit rich coming from the man who owed the German government millions in unpaid tax and who never settled four judgements against him for patent infringement for his so-called invention of the interrupter gear.

    Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    According to Dan_San_Abbott http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8589
    The number built by Fokker, 794; Albatros,1073 and OAW, 1072 for total of 2939 - BUILT and accepted up to 11 Nov.1918.
    but DELIVERED up to 11 November 1918: Fokker 733, Albatros 1060 and OAW 975 which equals 2768 Fokker D.VII.
    He was reasonably confident of the figures.
    Fokker simply couldn't produce the numbers required so Idflieg had production outsourced - Fokker may well have been upset as he only got a small percentage for each plane produced.

  33. #33

    Default

    Whoa! What an amazing amount of info! Good stuff!

  34. #34

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    I totally agree with you, Fokker's biography "The Flying Dutchman" earned him the nickname of 'the Lying Dutchman'.
    I prefer A.R. Weyl's book, Fokker: The Creative Years, published by Putnam, a copy of which I cherish. It was Weyl who tracked down Rheinhold Platz, then still alive, and got the full inside story in the 1960s.
    According to Platz (a numbers savvy engineer) the German government would send Fokker sheets of tech specs and graphs on requirements for wing loadings, etc. Fokker distrusted numbers and just threw the pages in his safe. Platz said he was left behind to clear out the safe when Fokker fled to Holland and was amazed to find the very numbers which he, as an engineer, had been demanding from Fokker. He told Weyl his job would have been a lot easier if Fokker had just handed it over.

    Barry

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    All true!

    " <<by the way, if this is from Fokker's own personal memoirs disregard it; it is almost certainly embellished exaggeration, as were practically all of Fokker's published memoirs>>

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    I totally agree with you, Fokker's biography "The Flying Dutchman" earned him the nickname of 'the Lying Dutchman'.
    "The Lying Dutchman" - I love it!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  36. #36

    Default

    All fascinating, but I’m more focused on the glacial Shapeways process - kinda like vote counting in Pennsylvania - followed by waiting for the next UPS update which probably remain a news blackout until it crosses from New York to California. C’mon, ya showboat Fokkers!

  37. #37

    Default

    My latest Shapeways order from the Netherlands has shipped 6 days early, and will arrive tomorrow!
    I laugh in the face of danger - then I hide until it goes away!

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flying Helmut View Post
    My latest Shapeways order from the Netherlands has shipped 6 days early, and will arrive tomorrow!
    An omen! Looks at update - my order landed in Fontana (California). Should have them tomorrow. Got my basic nationality decals from the Aerodrome. Looking forward to some painting this weekend.

  39. #39

    Default

    Name:  200B760D-A8AE-4A08-9903-5B2A7F49BE68.jpg
Views: 172
Size:  93.0 KB

    There was much rejoicing...

    Oh, and these arrived. ;-)

    On to painting!

  40. #40

    Default

    They look like sandstone
    I thought SW was getting things smoother.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  41. #41

    Default

    PA12 - they are just mottled in appearance. Even comes through a primer and base coat. Feels about the same as WSF. Hadn’t cleaned them in the previous photo, either (I could feel the material dust on them).


    Name:  B6D45D28-E8B5-437C-B827-E4E9F0EDA352.jpg
Views: 185
Size:  84.3 KB

  42. #42

    Default

    Sounds like they need the same prepping steps that WSF needs.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus



Similar Missions

  1. WGS unofficial stats
    By johnbiggles in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-20-2014, 17:00
  2. Unofficial aircraft stats
    By Doug in forum WGF: General Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-07-2014, 05:02
  3. Unofficial Stats
    By Doug in forum WGS: General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-08-2014, 03:22
  4. Revisions to the unofficial stats
    By Guntruck in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-22-2013, 15:08
  5. WGF New unofficial stats are up
    By Guntruck in forum Hobby Room
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-01-2013, 21:32

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •