Fokker DV `The forgotten Fokker`

[batesyboy]

Gentlemen, Here comes a brand new bag of worms for all you birdmen to tuck in to !
I had a flick through a book about Fokker fighters and i may have unearthed a little gem !
With it`s sleek fully stringered out fuselage, neat spinner and mean looking swept back top wing, she`s certainly a looker ! and i`m about 50% through designing a card model of her.
According to most sources she was very nimble, but underpowered and sported a single
`spandau`
Most reliable sources of information state that she was just used as a trainer !
This is where a few things don`t fit, firstly Mannock recognised one and indeed claimed that he shot one down.
I have found a picture of one with a in need of repair label on it and bullet holes in it`s leading edge.
If it was underpowered, then so was the DR1 as it had the same 100hp oberursel engine, and the DV was lighter and sported less drag as it had 1 and a half wings less !
OOOooooh i do like a good can of worms.....comments ?
Back to the card model
Batesyboy

[rote Flügel]

oooooooooo I'm very interested to see this one... I may spend some time looking this up on Google too.. hmmmmmm.. *Scurries off to practice Google-fu.. *

[Hunter]

Do you have a pic or a link to gaze upon this gem?

[batesyboy]

Can`t find the article that inspired this...will look later...batesyboy

[Skullduggery]

Hmmm... with the swept wing it looks very Neiuport-esque

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Very interesting Lee. Just when I thought it was safe to come away from my workbench.
Rob.

[Max Headroom]

Somebody actually requested this so I thought I'd paste it here:

[Guntruck]

The performance was indeed poor, which relegated it to a training role pretty quickly.

[Dan-Sam]

Beautiful silhouette! Is it from same era like Dr.I?

[batesyboy]

Sorry, but that poor performance quote looks to be questionable...As i`ve already said it was lighter, cleaner and used the same engine as
the DR1.
I`ve seen it described as a thoughrobred...
There are conflicting reports stating that there were between three and five hundred built !
That`s substantially more than the DR1.
It was contemporarly to the Albatros DIII .
It was later used to familiarise pilots with the working of the 100 hp Oberursel, as precursor to flying the DR1
This aircraft`s top speed was 100mph, it was highly manouverable, so she would have been very different to
the Zoom and Boom tactics used by the Albatros types of the time.
She would have been a tight turning dogfighter !
Max, It looks like we`ve used exactly the same paintpot !
What an awesome card !!!

[phililphall]

From GERMAN AIRCRAFT OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR by Gray and Thetford.

Contemporary with the Alb D-I and D-II
100 hp Oberursal U I 9 cylinder rotary
Top speed 106.25 mph
Climb to 3000 meters 19 min.
216 were built and used mostly as fighter trainers although Jasta 26 had them on its establishment 2642/16 being one of them.

This was an improvement on the Fok. D-III and the largest number of a Fokker type built up at that time. Commonly armed with a single Spandau there is some indication that some may have carried two.

[batesyboy]

Found the article...webpages.charter.net/hel0695/forgotten_fokker.htm

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Had a look at those and a few more. Very stylish looking aircraft.
Rob.

[Hunter]

That is a slick looking scout. Like the prop spinner too. I wonder if it was more sturdier than the DrI? I see that it has the same damage points, but what I mean, with the bi-plane configuration was it more structurally sound?

[Linz]

Hi Guys
Bet you to it. Check out the Fokker DVI. It has the looks and the moves.
Problem with D V is the rate of climb 3000m in 19 mins is real slow need 4-5 climb counters per level. The D VI could do 3000m in 9 mins
I've used the DV three times and got shoot down twice. Its nice to have a early fokker that can compete with the pups nieuports etc with out being to powerful.
Photo of Fokker DII/DIII DV DVI

Linz

PS Yes the card was for me.

[Dan-Sam]

Nice collection Lindsay

[batesyboy]

Cool Linz,
All Dr1 conversions ?

[batesyboy]

That is a slick looking scout. Like the prop spinner too. I wonder if it was more sturdier than the DrI? I see that it has the same damage points, but what I mean, with the bi-plane configuration was it more structurally sound?

I`m not sure that it would have been far removed in structural strength to the DR1, both had question marks in this sphere.
Max`s card would suggest that speed and manoverabilty were on a par with the sopwith triplane...i would think closer to the Nieuport 11-17 or Hanriot HD1.

[Linz]

Yes they are all Revell Dr1 converts.
As to Movement cards they are in the same speed band as the Dr1 and from reports I've seen they where quite nimble in turns but poor climbers.
The Fokker I feel sorry for is the DVI Faster than a Dr1 or DVII, Equal to a DVII to 1000m better climb to 5000m than a DVII Better climb than a Dr1 fullstop, Only 59 where built and some made it to the front line Jasta 18 rest where used for pilot training. Very nimble exciting aircraft to fly. I believe it's production was hindered because of the aircarft build competitions rule that the aircraft had to have Mercedes engines the one that the DVII won.
To me it is the logiacl step from the Dr1 and the DVIII is the next step in the design process.
If you look at the Fokker aircraft you can see the development going through them From th E's to the B's then to D's
Linz

[Volant Gun]

Great collection Linz!
I'm very impressed. I really like the lozenge paint job.
Thanks for sharing your pictures.
VG

[Bartman]

Hmmm... with the swept wing it looks very Neiuport-esque

Exactly What I thought when I saw this SD. It's somehow a bit prettier than the Neiuport though I think. The front cowling and that beefy spinner make it very attractive.

I may have missed it above, but what were the service dates of this aircraft?

[Linz]

Debut September 1916 216 where built very few went to the frontline however Jasta 6 had some opperational. The rest where used for Fighter pilot trainers. No Idea when they were fazed out probably when they were shot down.
Linz

[batesyboy]

Finished drawing the card model...got a jacobs DR1 to complete, then
i`ll do the test build
Batesyboy

[gully_raker]

Hmmm... with the swept wing it looks very Neiuport-esque

Iam pretty sure it was Fokker's attempt to copy the Nieuports which had eclipsed the Eindekkers but was not considered to be of sufficient Preformance compaired to the Albatross which also sported the twin M/Guns.

[batesyboy]

More of Batesyboy`s conjecture to follow...lol
The Swept top wing may make the DV look like the Nieuport fighters at a glance, but they
are very different types.
The DV was a biplane and the Nieuport a `sesqiuplane` (one and a half winger)
The Sesquiplane was really a parasol type with a rudimentary lower wing.
There may have been lots of propaganda going on too, as Fokker was pretty much in the doldrums.
The eindecker was a poor aircraft, a handful of exceptional pilots made it look better than it really was.
The D series were also poor, quite a long way behind the Halberstadt and Nieuport fighters.
Compared to the earlier Fokkers,the DV was a big step forward, but a lot of prejudice had to be repaired.

The step forward may have been due to the change of the designer, Kreuzer (not sure of the spelling)
had died and Platz had completed the DV
As Linz has already stated, the DVI ( another Platz design) Out performed the Fokker DVII in most respects
But the `powers that were` decided that the new fighter had to be powered by the Mercedes engine.
Ironically the DVII didn`t really come into it`s own until it was fitted with the new BMW engine.
A similar prejudice thing happened in reverse in Britain, The `powers that were` decided to go with the Snipe rather
than the far superior Martinsyde Buzzard.
As far as service dates, It appears that the DV was contemporary to the Albatros D1...At that time it would have
appeared to have been a very good aircraft.

[batesyboy]

Righto !
Here`s the completed scratch built card model,
Managed to lose the artwork three times, at last it`s done...
Now you can see what i mean about Max and i using the same paint pot !
Many thanks to Andy for the loan of his camera
ATB
Batesyboy

[JackalWSU3]

Beautiful! Very well done! Nice to see such an obscure aircraft come to (tiny) life!

[flash]

Nicely done Lee - wish I had the skill & patience !

[Ravenlord]

Wow - looks very nice!
The same for linz!

Here ´s some data for the Fokker D.V:

Because the Mercedes inline motors where reseved for the Albatros fighters an Fokker had ownes shares of the Oberursel-Motorenwerke he decided to build this machine around the Oberursel U.I rotation-motor.
The D.VI was a steeltube construction with a rounded frame for better streamlining, flattened at the tail.
The perfomance of the plane was not good enough to serve as a frontline fighter but 300 aircraft where built as trainers.
Some machines where used at the Jastas - mostly to convert pilots to rotation-enginged machines.

The reason for the better performance of the Dr. I and D.VI was not only the more powerful engine - Dr. I and D.VI had no wire bracing and therefore fewer drag.

D.V are build in following numbers

D. 2600-2799/17
D. 650-699/17
D. 1600-1650/17

[Jager]

I'm sure that while some lingering dislike of the earlier Fokker offerings had something to do with the pushing aside of the DV, the poor climb rate and single MG probably had more.
With the DVI, being a rotery engine would have made it difficult with the imitation castor oils avalable. One wonders if the DVIII/EV would have done as well as post war flights indicated, without good castors?
That aside, good info, and a very nice model. Might try to make a couple myself.
Karl

[batesyboy]

I`m missing ol`Baldrick` chipping in to this !
(he`s on leave )
I`m still less than convinced that the DV was a poor aircraft...I`m more than convinced that politics
played a significant part
Despite being powered by the oberursel u1....(copy of the gnome 100hp)
It was only 3 mph slower than the Albatros DIII and was far more nimble.
And the DIII had lots of problems with the bottom wing collapsing, due to the spars being
in the wrong place...(MvR went back to the Halberstadt fighters for a while)
The Dr1 was 8mph faster, but it did have the oberursel u11 (copy of le Rhone 110hp)
Why didn`t they use the u11 on the DV ? particularly as pilots trained on them
to get used to the rotary engines, prior to flying the DR1...(but i`ve already said that previously)
Most aces actually had le Rhone engines that were `captured` fitted to their DR1`s
I don`t buy into the less drag theory, as the DR1 had thick draggy wings,and an extra 1 and 1/2 of them
and no spinner to clean up the nose area
I`d fly a DV before any Albatros marque...and with the uII engine, or a captured le Rhone (or Bentley....lol)
I would have that second Spandau too...
Now we`re talkin`....

[Hunter]

I`m not sure that it would have been far removed in structural strength to the DR1, both had question marks in this sphere.
Max`s card would suggest that speed and manoverabilty were on a par with the sopwith triplane...i would think closer to the Nieuport 11-17 or Hanriot HD1.

Thanks for your answer, it was very informative. Based on the DV comparision to the Nieuport 11-17's & HD-1 aircraft, plus your running commentary of the info supplied, it seems that this 'forgotten Fokker' would've been a good match for the Entente scouts of the day. I agree that politics probably led to the lack of support for this cool little scout. based upon what I've read that Fokker himself had the 'natural' ability to alienate his co-workers, partners, designers, and High Command/procurement people. Primarily through subterfuge and undercutting of the targeted individual. I can not remember where I heard/read this as it was over 20 years ago, it was somewhat disconcering to read that this famous developer of some of the best WWI a/c was an anal orifice kind of guy.

[Ravenlord]

I`m missing ol`Baldrick` chipping in to this !
(he`s on leave )
I`m still less than convinced that the DV was a poor aircraft...I`m more than convinced that politics
played a significant part
Despite being powered by the oberursel u1....(copy of the gnome 100hp)
It was only 3 mph slower than the Albatros DIII and was far more nimble.
And the DIII had lots of problems with the bottom wing collapsing, due to the spars being
in the wrong place...(MvR went back to the Halberstadt fighters for a while)
The Dr1 was 8mph faster, but it did have the oberursel u11 (copy of le Rhone 110hp)
Why didn`t they use the u11 on the DV ? particularly as pilots trained on them
to get used to the rotary engines, prior to flying the DR1...(but i`ve already said that previously)
Most aces actually had le Rhone engines that were `captured` fitted to their DR1`s
I don`t buy into the less drag theory, as the DR1 had thick draggy wings,and an extra 1 and 1/2 of them
and no spinner to clean up the nose area
I`d fly a DV before any Albatros marque...and with the uII engine, or a captured le Rhone (or Bentley....lol)
I would have that second Spandau too...
Now we`re talkin`....

The Fokker fighters in 1917-18

Anthony Fokker was a god businessman but had great problems with his quality management. In October 1916 all Fokker D. Fighters where ordered to be withdrawn from the front because of ther structural weakness.
The Fokker D.II was also built with the U.I engine but because of there low power only in 181 pieces (incl. 28 for A-U k. u. k. Luftfahrttruppen) - pilots mentioned that ist was slow and underpowered.

The Fokker D. V where delivered from december 1916 till october 1917, when the Dr. I was come to production and the Ur.II enginge was availible - with was at higher altitudes less powerfull than its french original.

The Fokker Dr. I had thicker wings than the D. V with no wire bracing - producing little fewer drag. But most advantage of the thick wing profile was the higher manover ability. The thicker airfoil also warns the pilot before a stall when the plane beginns to shake (flutter) (for example the Pfalz D. XII gained its speed through her thin wings, making her suspectible for stalls without warning). Fokker told later that " it climbs so good that nobody realised how slow it was".
The Fokker Dr. I was extremly nimble but had problems with her flight stability in a straight flight or when landing because of her short fuselage and little "comma"-tailplane.
It was only suitable to good pilots.

Fokker D. VI was a little bit faster because it had fewer drag because the eleminating of one wing. But I suggest it had the same problem as the Dr. I.

The Fokker D. VII was the highest point of the series that reached the frontline in numbers. It had a strong engine, thick wing airfoil with that allowed the pilot to move to the edge of the planes flight performance (while in most other WWI planes you have to be careful in narrow turns because the wing stalls without warning) and a long fuselage with a big tailplane, giving it stability and making it easy to fly.

The Fokker works had never a good reputation for their workmanship and quality was a problem till their last fighters (Dr. I wings had to be strengthened - D.VII had cooling problems - E.V/D.VIII wings had to be sthengthened an was fit for the front only in october 1918).

I think the forgotten Fokker-fighter D.V had no chance to be a frontline fighter because it had the performance nearly the Halberstadt D.II wich arrived to the front in June 1916 - so the D.V was too late and the intended purpose by IdFlieg (Inspektion der Fliegertruppen) was always as a fighter trainer.

Matthias

[batesyboy]

Many Thanks Matthias....
I have seen that the DV was around at the same time as the Albatros DI and DII...that would have made it a good aircraft at that time
The DVI was an even better aircraft, certainly better all round than the DR1.
All this conjecture surrounding aircraft that are closing in on 100 years old.
We look through now ancient tomes and glean fragments from many sources...I think the performance figures were
close, the real difference was the Pilots themselves, a good Pilot would use each aircraft to it`s strengths..
Perhaps many potentially good pilots were killed before they got the chance to fly the better aircraft....
How many were lost in Be2`s, when far better aircraft were available....anyway, i digress as usual...lol
Batesyboy

[Pooh]

I have read that the Dr1 was a tricky plane to fly. The DV being a rotary engined fighter was used as a trainer for pilots transitioning from inline engined scouts to the Dr1. Very few of the DV's saw front line service.

Pooh

[Hunter]

The Fokker fighters in 1917-18

Anthony Fokker was a god businessman but had great problems with his quality management. In October 1916 all Fokker D. Fighters where ordered to be withdrawn from the front because of ther structural weakness.
The Fokker D.II was also built with the U.I engine but because of there low power only in 181 pieces (incl. 28 for A-U k. u. k. Luftfahrttruppen) - pilots mentioned that ist was slow and underpowered.

The Fokker D. V where delivered from december 1916 till october 1917, when the Dr. I was come to production and the Ur.II enginge was availible - with was at higher altitudes less powerfull than its french original.

The Fokker Dr. I had thicker wings than the D. V with no wire bracing - producing little fewer drag. But most advantage of the thick wing profile was the higher manover ability. The thicker airfoil also warns the pilot before a stall when the plane beginns to shake (flutter) (for example the Pfalz D. XII gained its speed through her thin wings, making her suspectible for stalls without warning). Fokker told later that " it climbs so good that nobody realised how slow it was".
The Fokker Dr. I was extremly nimble but had problems with her flight stability in a straight flight or when landing because of her short fuselage and little "comma"-tailplane.
It was only suitable to good pilots.

Fokker D. VI was a little bit faster because it had fewer drag because the eleminating of one wing. But I suggest it had the same problem as the Dr. I.

The Fokker D. VII was the highest point of the series that reached the frontline in numbers. It had a strong engine, thick wing airfoil with that allowed the pilot to move to the edge of the planes flight performance (while in most other WWI planes you have to be careful in narrow turns because the wing stalls without warning) and a long fuselage with a big tailplane, giving it stability and making it easy to fly.

The Fokker works had never a good reputation for their workmanship and quality was a problem till their last fighters (Dr. I wings had to be strengthened - D.VII had cooling problems - E.V/D.VIII wings had to be sthengthened an was fit for the front only in october 1918).

I think the forgotten Fokker-fighter D.V had no chance to be a frontline fighter because it had the performance nearly the Halberstadt D.II wich arrived to the front in June 1916 - so the D.V was too late and the intended purpose by IdFlieg (Inspektion der Fliegertruppen) was always as a fighter trainer.

Matthias

Thanks, Matthias, for the informative history of the Fokker aircraft. Very interesting!

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Nice bit of infill on Fokker Matthias. It ties up a lot of bits and pieces that I had gleaned over the years, without putting them together.
Rob.

[Ravenlord]

Thank you for your feedback.

It´s sometimes difficult to get informations about the flight characteristics of the WWI airplanes and sometimes you have to read between the lines in some books.
The speed of the Fokker planes is often overstated (like most german WWI airplanes).
1. Because data was taken over from Antony H. Fokkers memoirs (where he placed the D.VI and D.VII rotary-engined fighters at around 200 km/h).
2. There is no confirmed official data from IdFlieg for speed above 2000m altitude, because it was impossible to messure speed in higher altitude - at the fighter competitions in 1918 the planes flew in pairs together to find out the faster plane. But IdFlieg found out that most Aircraft producers overstated the speed of their fighters at high altitude about 10% or more.

Fokker tried to place his products in a better light and blames others for his failures (for example D.I - D.IV he told that he could not recive inline engines for his better performing aircraft.)

Sometimes the reputation and flight charakteristics of planes are overstated.
For example the Rumpler D.I:
It was flown at some flightshows after the war by aces like Udet and von Schleich.
The flight performance (of the pilots!) was so impressive that the press stated the Rumpler D.I as the best german fighter just ready for action in the last days of the war.
In real the Rumpler D.I was far away from what you could call ready for frontline service. Many failures in handling and flight characteristic (short fuseslage and therefore no stability in a straight flight) it was a dangerous aircraft in hands of mediocre frontline pilots.

Matthias

[batesyboy]

As this thread draws to a close if not conclusion, i`m thinking of starting a sequel !
Politics may well have served to the Fokker DV`s disadvantage and the total opposite surrounding the DR1.

This too rare bird will feature in the sequel...
Cheers
Batesyboy