Fokker DVII Performance

Belis4rius · 17 November 2009, 01:19 AM

I have been collecting performance details for a fleet of WWI models which I have i.e. max speed, rate of climb, endurance and max ceiling. I find it a struggle to get all of these in imperial measures and some are not available in metric or imperial.

I also notice that on many sites and books they are obviously copied from one source.

Anyway, from what I have gained in simple statistics it would seem that the Fokker DVII is overrated.

Now I have no wish to denigrate this great aircraft, but I am confused with the statistics, can anyone shed some light on this?

Greybeard · 17 November 2009, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belis4rius

... it would seem that the Fokker DVII is overrated.

What is datum that you think it's overrated?

Probably, confusion is generated by different powerplants that Fokker DVII had: early Mercedes DIIIaü and late BMW IIIa.

GB

Belis4rius · 17 November 2009, 04:17 AM

I am not saying the aircraft was underrated, it has the reputation of being the best fighter of the war.

I am talking about the cold facts that I could find i.e. it seems significantly slower than the SE5a and Spad XIII and it has a very poor climb rate, a figure which is at odds with its reputation (787 ft per min).

If someone could point me in the direction of more accurate statistics I would be very happy, no matter which engine as they seem impossible to find in my internet searches.

I was hoping one of our experts could simply put me straight.

YavorD · 17 November 2009, 05:01 AM

I am looking for quite a while for all kind of performance data, including Fokker D.VII. According to my current best estimate, even in the captured example with a poorly performing Mercedes D.IIIaü engine, the rate of climb of the Fok. D.VII was comparable above 5000 feet with a geared engine S.E.5a and Spad 13C1, albeit at somewhat slower best climbing speed. It was a bit slow on all altitudes. With a BMW.IIIa engine the rate of climb of a D.VII F was much better above 5000 feet and speed above 10,000 feet was good too. Above 16,000 feet the performance advantage of the D.VII F was overwhelming.
Regards,
Yavor

Sagittarius · 17 November 2009, 05:02 AM

Don't get fooled by rather insecure figures, Belis4rius. There are already various discussions on this board questioning the validity of data sources.
Some performance figures are just incorrect, others to the contrair may be pretty believable - but ty to separate the wheat from the chaff in that case...

What remains as a fact is that all the figures havent been recorded under the same wind/weather conditions and not even with the same methods. So the possibility of misinterpretation is big.
Regarding to sources like combat statistics, combat reports, interviews - and even the armistice treaty - the Fokker D.VII must have been an excellent weapon.

Gitter · 20 November 2009, 12:03 PM

Hello Belis4rius.The datas I have collected states:climb performance at ground-level for DVIIaü 918ft/min,DVIIF 1312ft/min,Spad XIII 1377ft/min,SE5a Viper 1312ft/min.At this level the Fokker is inferior.But at 10000 feet

IIaü 610,DIIF 1033,Spad 820,SE5a 656.At this altitude the DVIIaü is a little inferior,the F is a little better and the difference increase with more altitude.With speed it is a little other way.The Fokker is at the most altitudes slower,except the F above about 13000 feet.In a dive the Spad and I assume the Se5a could outrun the Fokker.But when the Spad or Se5a try to dogfight with the Fokker they are doomed.And one other point for the Fokker:It was easy to fly at the edge," newcomer becomes aces",in this way.Greetings,Gitter.

Belis4rius · 20 November 2009, 01:01 PM

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

Dan_San_Abbott · 20 November 2009, 01:15 PM

Gentlemen:
It is all about energy, The power to weight ratios. The S.E.5a and SPAD XIII have the advantage in airspeed, rate of climb. Both can out dive the D.VII with either the Mercredes D.IIIa♀or BMWIIIa engine. The terminal velocity of the S.E.5a is 250 mph. This was attained in terminal velocity tests at Farnborough. Also it stayed together. The total drag of the D.VII is higher coefficient because of the thicker wings and larger footprint.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Belis4rius · 20 November 2009, 02:02 PM

I asked the same question on some other forums and basically it comes down to the DVII being either as good as the Spad/SE5a or worse, whether it be at different altitudes or whatever.

Why then does the DVII have the reputation of being the best all round fighter of WWI and specifically mentioned as having to be handed over in the treaty which ended the war.

It would seem to me that it was indeed a very decent fighter for 1918 but not the best, somehow however it got a reputation deserved or not.

Ransom E. Olds · 20 November 2009, 04:14 PM

Belis4rius: Another aspect of the Fokker D.VII in addition to its performance that received much favorable attention was its lack of structural complexity. The D.VII was a modern industrial product, requiring far fewer hours and less exotic materials to produce than its opponents. Particularly in the U.S. there was a strong tendency to follow the precepts of Fokker through much of the twenties in military and commercial aircraft design. The fact D.VIIs soldiered on in various air forces into the late 1920s and even the 1930s is a tribute to the strength and repairability of its simple structure. Ransom