Fokker E.II/E.III change-over.

[josef scott]

Dan-San

Both the British capture reports on E.III 210/16 and the French articles from L'Aérophile agree that the spans of the planes in their possession (the French had at least 3 to choose from, plus a late production E.I) were 10.05m (an imprecise 32'11" from the English). The French article, although a bit difficult to decipher, is quite precise and detailed about the span. The other general dimensions are very close as well.

Until such time as the curators of the Science Museum drop 210/16 from the ceiling and allow thorough measurements to be taken, these documents are the best sources available.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Josef Scott:
I concede, by at least Fok.E.III 210/15 the wing span was 10050mm. I don't understand the disparity in the wing span numbers. I checked out Jean Lagorette's drawing.
That raises a question about the accuracy of FOKKER TYPEN lists.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Uhlan]

Originally Posted by josef scott

Uhlan,

It's looking much better! It already appears more accurate than the majority of profiles available.

I like how you got the "square" notch in the starboard wing.

A few other details you may want to look at: the filler cap behind the pilot is actually off-center to the strbrd; there are 2 filler caps in front of the pilot, oil and gas, centered, not staggered like the later EIII's; there is another rigging wire, on both sides, from the inside forward lug on the wings to the front of the upper longeron where it meets the bracing wire from the upper pylon. This upper bracing wire passes through the upper metal deckiing at a separate, inboard hole, as the decking is raised off the main upper longeron by an additional short, smaller-guage "longeron". Finally, in plan view, the seat would appear further forward. The bulkhead behind it is angled, creating a space.

Thanks, I fixed the stuff you pointed out although it's not all visible at this horrid resolution. As far as I can tell the right wing on the E.I/II and early E.III only partially slotted into the right hand side cowl. The front corner of the wing was notched. That notch had me scratching my head until it occured to me that it was probably done so the wing would clear the ammunition belt container which was located inside the cowl. Later when the E.III gained two spherical side cowls as the ammunition tank was moved into the fuselage, both wings were made symmetrical in that they both had the front corner "sliced off". Regarding the bulkhead behind the pilot's seat. You wouldn't happen to know what it was made of? As far as I can tell it was either metal or wood and not linen.

[josef scott]

Dan-San,

It is a conundrum. I had wondered if the earlier M14 wings did not have the wider space between the wing root and the first rib than between the rest of the ribs (.40m vs .34m) but this would only account for .12m if it were so. Some photos of earlier M14's (such as the overhead shot of E.38/15) appear to have the wider gap, whereas others are difficult to tell. Perhaps the space between the ribs was increased over production while retaining the basic shape and configuration?

Uhlan,
I was under the impression the bulkhead was fabric, but I'm not sure what I based this on. Later Fokker product used fabric for this and it would seem to be the lightest option.

The drawing is looking better and better. You're dead-on about the right wing. I wish I could see it in higher res.

Some good reference photos to closely check out are pics 28 and 63 in the EI/EII datafile and page 2, EIII DF.

[kiwiflyer42]

This has been an interesting thread to follow as I'd one day like to build a full size EIII replica.

Josef you made the comment that; 'Until such time as the curators of the Science Museum drop 210/16 from the ceiling and allow thorough measurements to be taken, these documents are the best sources available'.

I understand from Achim that he has measurement data taken from 210/16, and I presumed taken before it was suspended above the gallery. If this is so then his plans / drawings will be as good as you'll ever get perhaps given his keen attention to detail and desire for historical accuracy.
cheers
Martin Taylor

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Kiwiflyer:
As far as I know it has been suspended from the ceiling of the Science Museum before WW2. I know it was in 1972 when I visited the Science Museum. I don't believe it has been taken down since. Maybe Achim is an acrobat???
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[kiwiflyer42]

Lol...well that scuppers that pre-suposition! Good to see there are well knowledged historians such as yourself Dan San to stop an erroneous story from getting in the way of the truth!
Thanks for that enlightenment.
So where do you think one can get hold of structural measurements for the EIII, such as distances between stations, station height and width (CL measurements), tubing diameter and gauge, wing measurements incl rib spacings and wing tip radii, rib profile, empennage measurements...I could go on but you get my drift I'm sure.
cheers
Martin

[Uhlan]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Kiwiflyer:
As far as I know it has been suspended from the ceiling of the Science Museum before WW2. I know it was in 1972 when I visited the Science Museum. I don't believe it has been taken down since. Maybe Achim is an acrobat???
Blue skies,
Dan-San

It wasn't there when I went to the Science museum some a couple or so years ago. I remember because I went there especially to photograph it and the trip was wasted because I forgot to pack my DSLR camera and only had an Olympus µ Minicam. Somebody told me afterwards that 210/15 was taken down for cleaning. It was there again when I went to the Science museum last year, this time with my DSLR, to take some proper photos. I think they take the exhibits down every few years for cleaning, maintenance and to properly check their condition.

[josef scott]

Dan-San,

My turn for a concession.

I picked up Paul Leaman's "Fokker Aircraft of World War One" recently and among some of the questionable assertions made therein (such as some E.III's had fins under the tail or rudders with "flattened" bottoms) was that Fokker moved the undercarriage (and therefore the mainplanes as well) forward on the M14 airframe, compared to the M5, to prevent nose-overs from the heavier 9 cylinder engine. As I could not recall anyone else presenting this info I took it with a grain of salt at first.

Then I was going over the drawings from "Avions Allemand" of the Fokker A.II (M5L) captured by the French. They give the front bay of the fuselage as being some 18 cm longer than that of their E.III. After carefully re-examining the photos of E.I's that I have, I must conclude that it is true!

The Fokker E.I's have a noticably greater distance from the wing leading edge and front u/c struts to the engine cowling, giving the nose of the aircraft a longer appearance with a more shallow-looking curve to the lower front panels when seen in profile. I concur that Peter must have been mistaken. All Fok E.I's utilised the M5 fuselage.

[josef scott]

Uhlan,

Might this mean you have some good detail photographs of said airframe?