Hidden food for Fokker triplane experts

[Taz]

Langdon- Any weight forward of the CG will make the aircraft nose heavier and any weight aft of the CG will make the aircraft tail heavier. I just have to figure out how much of the MGss weight was where and the fore-aft CG shift is easy to calculate. Since there are only two mounting points, the weight of the MGs levers off those two points. The rear mounts have almost no lever mechanical advantage because they were at the very end of the MG butts. May have to make some first order assumptions, but will not be off by much

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Langdon]

Taz,

Dan-San's figures - which I should have remembered - show the centre of gravity 20 mm behind the middle wing spar centreline, as you know this is forward of the bulk of the guns and magazine. The centre of lift is forward of the centre of gravity, hence the slight tail heavyness of the Dr.I so the guns do help slightly to offset the weight of the engine.

Langdon

[Taz]

Langdon- In that case, removing the guns would move the CG in the wrong direction. No sense crunching the numbers.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by Taz

Langdon- In that case, removing the guns would move the CG in the wrong direction. No sense crunching the numbers. Taz Terry Phillips

And the precise reason that Dr.I trainers had lower horse powered motors. 7 cylinder 100hp Gobel Goe.II

[Dave_Watts]

Hi,

Taz, I really enjoyed going through this exercise and I knew with all of our heads put together we would get things sorted out. I feel these prototypes are some of the topics that have more to be known. Contact me offline about what images you might be in need of for your article.

Cigogne and Taz, I hear you on the Austro-Daimler motors, but remember, don't say, "All the aircraft we have been talking about, and also the Fokker D.VIIs we have not mentioned, were ordered and shipped to MAG without engine, armament, or propeller and the A-Hs installed idigenous versions of all of them." You should say, as far as I can recall, because there will always be an aircraft that will jump out and bite you in the ass. In this case the V.22 was most certainly flown and tested at Schwerin with an Austro-Daimler motor, Schwarzlose machine guns, and propeller.

Rarely seen shot of interior of V.22 while at Schwerin. Courtesy Ebberhardt Fritsch via Vienna Archives.



I believe much of the "extras" were sent from Austria to Fokker. Even the dash placards appear to me to be of a non-Fokker manufacture/usage. They look like they're enamel.

Note the very early Fokker contol grip, non-typical of standard D.VII. This is another story in which I purpose the D.VII prototypes as well as a couple ultra-early production D.VII's I believe utilized this type control grip. I am contradicting Weyl's statement, on page 265 of Creative Years, "Von Richthofen was delighted to note that Fokker had incorporated the control grip and gun triggers that he favoured, in place of the usual press-buttons."

The V.22 was shipped to MAG in the above state. See document I posted stating "24.April.1918 1 Austro-Daimler Flugzeug". It was also listed on another document I posted which included a price of "M 30,000". Also, there is that summary bill document I posted that listed all kinds of parts with prices and included was item number "(9.) Austro-Daimler Motor Nr.23165, demontiert......24 000,-". I'm not saying this to be "cute", it just seems the more I know, the less I say, "always" or "this is the way it was". I'm not sure about the one entry on the one document I posted stating, "1 Fokker Dreidecker 160 PS 26.000,--". My gut says this had a motor on it, but I'm not sure.

I have a lot to learn!

Back to the early non-typical D.VII grip issue. Here is an rarely seen image of the cockpit of what I believe is an ultra-early production D.VII. You can see another D.VII in front of this D.VII. Look closely at the bottom and you will just make out the early "blip-button" control grip.



Here is a question for Dr.I experts. When did they switch from what I would guess is the standard early type grip as shown to what we can term the "MvR grip"?

Best,
Dave W.

[Taz]

Dave- Good point. Never say never in WW-I. It is possible MAG shipped a Steyr rotary, propeller, and MGs to Fokker for V.7 1981 the same as they did for the V.22 you just mentioned. It would certainly make the conversion for motor mounts, cowling, MG mounts, and other bits much easier to do at Schwerin. It could have been a lesson learned from V.4 WN 1661 which showed up with several pieces missing. After prototypes with A-H engines and armament had been developed, it would then be easy for Fokker to ship production aircraft with mounts and cowlings which allowed easy bolt-on of engines and MGs in Hungary. This could also have been done with V.12 WN 1980 and possibly the mysterious 1982. Since the V.7 and V.12 were both shipped on the same day, their equipment configurations were most likely (better?) similar. The A-Hs must have decided they wanted the Fokker D.VI (V.12) and not the Fokker Dr.I (V.7), because that is what they ordered.

The photos you have posted have been really fun for what Peter Grosz calls "photo archaeology". The factory documents really helped put the whole picture together, even if there are discrepencies. Fokker did not help by changing designations on his aircraft somewhat randomly from our point of view, but probably not from his point of view. It is amazing to me how Peter figured out most of this stuff all by himself, but he did.

Will contact you on the Triplane images, probably on Tuesday.

Taz
Terry Phillips