MvR's Fokker D.VII

Cigogne · 22 October 2009, 06:29 PM

As for the Fokker EV/D.VIII... it wasn't based on the Dr.I at all. It was built drawing on many components that had been designed for use with various Fokker prototypes utilizing the 110 h.p. Oberursel engine (cowling), or modified for the 11-cylinder SH III, or Ur.III w/ bulged diameter when those engines were being considered and tested in the various rotary engined V-types.

The advantage of the cowling design, for example, was to direct the flow of exhaust gases and oil spray away from the cockpit area and under the aircraft. Fokker was a pilot and so was familiar with this unpleasant effect of the spray. The cowling was designed prior to or coincided with the V4, which was initially a biplane built as a tester for possible production in Austria-Hungary, but then changed to meet the triplane requirement. It was a design component utilized for all of the rotary-engined Fokker designs from then on during the war in biplane, triplane, and low, mid, and parasol designs. It can be seen on the various V-type monoplane experiments that utilized the Ur.II, III, and Sh.III, IIIa, and Goebel Goe. II, III rotary engines.

The landing gear, axle, tailplane shape, etc. were standard Fokker components pulled out of company stores or modified when necessary. They weren't designed piecemeal for each and every design. They were altered if there was a larger diameter propeller (V7) or heavier weight requirement, but basically followed the same design and production processes used and developed by the Fokker prototype shop or design bureau.

The cabane w/ the tripod struts on the E.V/D.VIII is very much based on thosed used with the the V9-13 prototypes.

All of these components were part of standard Fokker design practice and not tied to a single particular design as a whole. The evolution of the types was an ongoing process and the production types were offshoots while the design experimentation/variations continued.

Aaron

Dave_Watts · 1 November 2009, 02:58 AM

Hi all,

"MvR's D.VII" is one of my favorite subjects to speculate about.

Let me state up front from the evidence we have at this date and time, there is no proof that MvR flew a D.VII in combat or one was delivered to him before his death. The number one statement against delivery is there is no photographic evidence of MvR with a D.VII to support it and the interest of this potential photo-op would have been too good to have been passed up by other pilots or even Fokker.

My point of discussion was more of a "what if". Logistically there is no reason MvR could not have had a D.VII before April 21st.

Mercedes must have had a fresh wet ink order from the Armee to send motors to Fokker before they were shutting the gates at the airfield at Johannestahl and closing the 1st D class Fighter Trials around February 19th, as we have Daimler shipping 10 D.IIIa motors on February 22nd. Another 10 were shipped on March 4th, 11 on the 5th, 9 on the 8th, 10 on the 11th, 9 on the 19th, and 10 on the 20th to close out March shipments totaling 69 motors.

The Armee Acceptance sheets for Fokker are missing for the months of February and March. From reverse logic of utilizing the other remaining acceptance sheets we can subtract the known acceptances from the pool of aircraft ordered from the Armee and believed to have all been delivered, we can deduce the aircraft that were accepted in the unknown months of.February and March to be 24;

227/18 = V.11/i or V.11/ii tested to destruction for type test.
228/18 = V.18 brought up to final D.VII form standard.
229/18 = V.21 considered to be the true D.VII final form.
230/18 = Aircraft submitted by Fokker to Adlershof, I believe covered by Adlershof and then given to Albatros.

232/18
233/18
234/18
235/18
236/18
237/18
238/18

240/18

242/18
243/18
244/18
245/18

247/18
248/18
249/18
250/18

252/18
253/18
254/18

256/18

The above missing sequential aircraft numbers are to be found in the listings of aircraft accepted in later months from Fokker. Logistically, I don't see how anyone can argue that one of these above accepted aircraft couldn't have gotten to MvR, if the "powers that be" wanted it to happen.

I've used the case of the two solitary F.I triplanes being rushed to the front as evidence that if it was deemed that a D.VII was ordered to be in the hands of MvR ASAP, they at the least could have gotten either 228/18 or 229/18 on the airfield at the front.

Michael Backus wrote earlier in the thread he refernced from acepilots.com.

Manfred von Richthofen, a great influence on German fighter plane development, looked forward anxiously to the D VII, writing Kogenluft on April 2, 1918:

"When can I expect to receive the [new] Fokker biplanes with the high compression engines? The superiority of British single-seat and reconnaissance aircraft makes it even more perceptibly unpleasant here. Their single-seaters fight by coming over at high altitudes and staying there. We cannot even shoot at them. Speed is the most important factor. We could shoot down five to ten times as many if we were faster. ... Please give me news soon about when we can count on the new machines."

Most likely MvR is referring to the new high-compression Mercedes motors, but with his plea, they likely would have known he would prefer a BMW.

This lends credence to the likelihood since MvR did not receive a D.VII before his demise, I would speculate 231/18F could be considered the best candidate of the intended aircraft for MvR. It was the first D.VIIF to have an early "experimental" BMW motor (Nr.V.5) and it wasn't until May 3rd that the 2nd BMW (Nr.1236) powered D.VII, 323/18F was accepted. 231/18F was accepted April 25th, (note just days after MvR's death), but it appears it was very likely used by Fokker as far back as March for demonstration purposes.

Fokker retained 229/18 = V.21( Mercedes powered) and 231/18F (BMW powered) as "yardsticks" (or maybe better stated "Meter sticks" in this case), to measure against the other new aircraft at the 2nd D Fighter trials, and ol' 231/18F was still on hand at the 3rd D Fighter trials.

The argument could be made that since Fokker retained 229/18 and 231/18F he would have done the same even if MvR survived, and then we would look at the first BMW powered D.VIIF's as "best bets". Let's go with Lloyd's posting of May 20th JG1 receiving D.VII's as the first known shipment of D.VII's to the front. On that basis here is a listing of every possible one;

294/18F Accepted May 8th BMW Nr.1234
314/18F Accepted May 4th BMW Nr.1229
323/18F Accepted May 3rd BMW Nr.1236
325/18F Accepted May 3rd BMW Nr.1232
362/18F Accepted May 3rd BMW Nr.1239
367/18F Accepted May 8th BMW Nr.1241
369/18F Accepted May 7th BMW Nr.1242
371/18F Accepted May 10th BMW Nr.1240
377/18F Accepted May 15th BMW Nr.1244
378/18F Accepted May 15th BMW Nr.1243

It could be argued the last two D.VIIF's being accepted on the 15th of May would be too late to make it into the shipment to arrive at the airfield on the 20th...it's close, (all other BMW acceptances were after the 20th and therefore not possible), I went back and looked at the photo from Peter Kilduff of JG1 and you can see "325/18F" and "377/18F" in the aircraft lineup, so May 15th made it with the others.

As an aside tie-in, I discussed in a previous thread on D.VII white serial numbers, these aircraft would have either had black serial numbers with streaky finished fuselages, while others would have had white serial numbers with streaky and/or lozenge covered fuselages.

227/18 - 305/18 = black "bestell" serial numbers
306/18 - 314/18F = so far unobserved
315/18 - 377/18F = white "bestell" serial numbers
378/18F = so far unobserved
379/18 onwards = back to black "bestell" numbers

227/18 - 373/18 = streaky finish fuselages
374/18 - 376/18 = so far unobserved
377/18F onwards = lozenge finish fuselages

Food for thought!

Best wishes,
Dave W.

crankcase · 1 November 2009, 04:50 AM

Dave..."Watts up?"

Enjoyed your post...great research...food for thought...a real carrot!

marc

bristol scout · 4 November 2009, 04:47 PM

Page 285 of 'Fokker The Creative Years' says---"The first example of the Fok.DV11 to go to the front went to Manfred von Richtofens unit, Jagdeschwader 1, early in April 1918. Von Richtofen was seen flying it when visiting neighbouring aerodromes."

I have the book--and don't choose to get into another slanging match over it's worth as history.

Dave.

backusstudio · 4 November 2009, 05:20 PM

Hi Dave,

You have to understand that you basically just walked into a neighboring town's pub, told them that their football team is rubbish, and then insisted that you didn't want a fight.

Before the serious scholars that have been haunting this thread descend and begin the process of disemboweling you, I'd just like to say that I also have many beautiful books on WW1. Most of them are lavishly illustrated in color and full of fascinating anecdotal stories. Most are also grossly inaccurate. That is no disgrace to the owner of the book. We just have to take everything we see and read with a very large chaser of skepticism. Including the opinions of the experts on this forum.

If you get attacked for expressing your opinion regarding your book, try not to take it personally. Many 'experts' have weak egos and can't easily tolerate dissenting opinions. Thanks for joining in the give and take of opinions that makes this hobby interesting.

I will now leave before the blood letting begins. Best of luck.

Chock · 4 November 2009, 06:47 PM

Richthofen pictured in his DVII: He is seen here handing Beatles guitarist George Harrison the Geschwaderstock to look after, whilst he goes for a secret flight in his new Fokker. Harrison was visiting Jasta 11 to ask Manfred if he could appear on the album cover for Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, alongside lots of other famous people, although keen, unfortunately Richthofen told him that Jasta 11 were contractually obligated to appear on the cover of Led Zeppelin's second album in 1969, two years after Sgt Pepper came out. The appearance of the Beatles on the aerodrome distracted the press from photographing Manfred in the DVII, which is why there are no photographs of Richthofen in the DVII, other than this one, which I took when I went back in time next week...

Al

backusstudio · 4 November 2009, 06:50 PM

Ah, sarcasm.....

Well played sir.

Chock · 4 November 2009, 07:29 PM

Personally, I reckon MVR probably did have a few flips around neighbouring fields in the DVII, but we have to remember that he had been on the receiving end of trouble from new aircraft on more than one occasion, with the DIII and DV Albatros, and when his brother had a close call with the Dr1 when it was fairly new.

So he may well have been wary of the new Fokker when being thrown around under stress in combat. He had equipped his squadron with the Dr1 partially because of the structural issues with the DV, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that he might have harbored similar misgivings about an early DVII's abilities to take the kind of loads a combat aircraft endures in a turning fight, or some other potential issue. As it turned out, there were indeed some issues with the early DVII on the cooling front.

Photoshop jokes aside, the way Fokker buttered up big name pilots, presenting them with gifts and such like, it seems hard to imagine Fokker not wanting to get a picture of Richthofen in the DVII if he was indeed using it.

Al

backusstudio · 4 November 2009, 07:47 PM

Well I regret being cavalier in saying that I "thought" I had seen a photo of MvR in a D.VII. I forget that discussions that are new to me have been going on for decades, creating deep divisions among families and friends. I was really half hoping that my comment would bring the photo out of hiding if it existed. People have produced more amazing things to show on this forum.

When I played competitive tennis the club owner and head coach always cautioned the more advanced players to be "good ambassadors" to the sport. Bludgeoning someone new to the game may be fun for the ego of the advanced player, but it damages more than the feelings of the novice. It damages the entire endeavor, discouraging the new people who would eventually become tomorrow's experts.

I have nothing but respect for the amazing amount of knowledge held by some people in this forum. I only ask a bit of tolerance for relative novices like myself. I love this hobby, perhaps as much as anyone here, and hope to be an asset to the field in the future.

Nice Photoshop work, Al. I appreciate the humor.

bristol scout · 5 November 2009, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backusstudio

Hi Dave,

You have to understand that you basically just walked into a neighboring town's pub, told them that their football team is rubbish, and then insisted that you didn't want a fight.

Before the serious scholars that have been haunting this thread descend and begin the process of disemboweling you, I'd just like to say that I also have many beautiful books on WW1. Most of them are lavishly illustrated in color and full of fascinating anecdotal stories. Most are also grossly inaccurate. That is no disgrace to the owner of the book. We just have to take everything we see and read with a very large chaser of skepticism. Including the opinions of the experts on this forum.

If you get attacked for expressing your opinion regarding your book, try not to take it personally. Many 'experts' have weak egos and can't easily tolerate dissenting opinions. Thanks for joining in the give and take of opinions that makes this hobby interesting.

I will now leave before the blood letting begins. Best of luck.

Hi, Michael,

Well---first of all I am not alone in having the most serious reservations about 'that book'!

I have had that book for more years than I can remember----it has worth but in a flawed sense!

I have already been involved in a heated 'debate' (if that's the right word for it) in the past here re. 'that book'--but most expert feeling would, I believe, tend to support rather than castigate my stance!

I do not have a 'weak ego'--and indeed have not come across that particular trait you mention---at least not amongst the 'real' experts---nor have I, in the main, encountered any 'elitist' attitudes here ( I know they have manifested themselves sometimes---but have not (in around 800 posts) been directed at me!

Heated arguments are something else---and quite to be expected when those who seriously study history get together. I NEVER take ANY argument position against ANY stance of mine as a personal affront unless it descends to personal abuse (ad hominem) ---which some posters have descended to in the past 800 or so posts....but most of those doing so do not come under your 'experts with weak egos'

I thank you for welcoming me back to the forum (I was only away seven weeks) and looking back at some of the threads I was involved in proves---I trust two things 1) that I am not afraid of a bit of 'bloodletting' and 2) that I don't draw edged weapons first!

Dave.