A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 14th 04, 06:32 AM
Matthew G. Saroff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane?

Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late
WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys
over the Western Front.
--
--Matthew Saroff
Rules to live by:
1) To thine own self be true
2) Don't let your mouth write no checks that your butt can't cash
3) Interference in the time stream is forbidden, do not meddle in causality
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
  #2  
Old April 14th 04, 08:05 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote in message
...
Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late
WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys
over the Western Front.


It seems to have been widely regarded as the best German
fighter of WW1 and some regarded it as the best fighter
while others preferred the SE-5

Undoubtedly it was a good aircraft but by the time it was
introduced the sheer numerical superiority of the
allies counted strongly against it.

Keith


  #3  
Old April 14th 04, 09:26 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote:

Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late
WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys
over the Western Front.


It's performance was at least adequate in all areas and it was sturdy and
reliable, but mainly it had no nasty vices, which meant that the typical
inexperienced pilot could get in it, not kill themselves, and be effective in a
reasonable period of time. Very different from, say, a Camel.

Guy

  #4  
Old April 14th 04, 10:59 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


It was the work of Ludwig Prandtl, and was the culmination of WWI
design. It had long, narrow wings for a superior lift-to-drag ratio.
The wings had blunt leading edges, which generated more lift (other
Prandtl designs also used this feature) especially a high angles of
attack, so it was less likely to stall out. The thicker airfoil also
allowed interior bracing, so the D VIII needed no struts or wires. (It
was given one, for psychological reasons, but was still much cleaner
than the other aircraft of the time.)

The Armistice document listed the war material that Germany was
required to turn over. Only one aircraft was named, the Fokker D VIII.

This from a new book by Stephen Budiansky, called Air Power. Very much
worth reading. See my review on the (free) Wall Street Journal site,
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004946 "A Long Way to Bombs
Away"


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org
  #5  
Old April 14th 04, 11:27 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I read your review on the WSJ of "A Long Way to Bombs Away".

It's true as far as it goes to say that, for a time, 63% of B-17 crew failed to
complete their tours. It's true that the USAAF largely joined the RAF in terror
bombing in 1945.

It is also true:

That the Germans are clearly on record that the USAAF hurt them far worse than
the RAF did.

That during 1944 over 1/3 of 8th AF bombs hit within 1,000 feet of the aiming
point using visual means.

That B-17's made made up a very important part of a "strike package" to which
the Germans could find no answer.

That the Germans denuded other fronts of day fighters to combat the unescorted
B-17's, when the 8th AF was only sending a few dozen on any given raid.

That on three days during May 1944, the USAAF reduced German synthetic oil
production by 50%. By September, largely due to raids by USAAF heavy bombers,
the Luftwaffe was receiving 1/15th of its required fuel allocation.

That without this havoc wreaked largely by the USAAF, RAF Bomber Command could
not have operated over Germany at all.

That B-17's are offically credited with shooting down more German aircraft than
all other USAAF aircraft types COMBINED (including fighter types). Though B-17
gunner claims were wildly inflated, they were still very deadly and dangerous.
At least two high scoring German aces were killed in combat with B-17's. A
high scoring night fighter ace, whose aircraft had not been touch in months in
combat with the RAF, was killed in his first combat with B-24's.

Without a fleet of B-17's in place in England at the start of 1944, no invasion
of Europe would have been possible. This because the Germans showed they would
only fight for the type of targets that could only be struck by B-17's, and her
stablemate, the B-24.

As Dr. Russell Weigley notes in "Eisenhower's Lieutenants", during the spring
and summer of 1944 the Allies held victory through air power in their grasp,
but did not persevere for the kill.

But that is no fault of the B-17/B-24's or their crews.

Walt





  #6  
Old April 14th 04, 01:37 PM
Gernot Hassenpflug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cub Driver writes:

It was the work of Ludwig Prandtl, and was the culmination of WWI
design. It had long, narrow wings for a superior lift-to-drag ratio.
The wings had blunt leading edges, which generated more lift (other
Prandtl designs also used this feature) especially a high angles of
attack, so it was less likely to stall out. The thicker airfoil also
allowed interior bracing, so the D VIII needed no struts or wires. (It
was given one, for psychological reasons, but was still much cleaner
than the other aircraft of the time.)

The Armistice document listed the war material that Germany was
required to turn over. Only one aircraft was named, the Fokker D VIII.


Dan, I don't have the background to decide whether you made a typing
error or not. The original poster asked about the biplane Fokker
D.VII, not the monoplane D.VIII.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan
  #8  
Old April 14th 04, 06:27 PM
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It was the work of Ludwig Prandtl, and was the culmination of WWI
design. It had long, narrow wings for a superior lift-to-drag ratio.
The wings had blunt leading edges, which generated more lift (other
Prandtl designs also used this feature) especially a high angles of
attack, so it was less likely to stall out. The thicker airfoil also
allowed interior bracing, so the D VIII needed no struts or wires. (It
was given one, for psychological reasons, but was still much cleaner
than the other aircraft of the time.)

The Armistice document listed the war material that Germany was
required to turn over. Only one aircraft was named, the Fokker D VIII.


You're confusing the D VII (biplane, probably the best all-around fighter of
the war) with the D VIII (parasol monoplane with rotary engine, not as well
regarded).

R / John


  #9  
Old April 14th 04, 09:39 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote in message
...
Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late
WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys
over the Western Front.


It seems to have been widely regarded as the best German
fighter of WW1 and some regarded it as the best fighter
while others preferred the SE-5


Even though the Fokker D.VII was the best German fighter of WW1 it was
actually the Albatros D.V and D.Vas that bore the brunt of battle in
the 1918 air offensive. The easiest explanation of superiority is that
the Albatros was not a bad fighter (having been flown by Von
Richtofen, Goering, and other German aces) but was prone to a
continuing wing spar problems that discouraged lesser German pilots
from attempting complicated dog-fight aerial engagements that would
present more danger to themselves than to the enemy. The Fokker D.VII
by comparison had no such worries and better performance too.

Undoubtedly it was a good aircraft but by the time it was
introduced the sheer numerical superiority of the
allies counted strongly against it.


Strange that you can understand that in WW1, but fail to in WW2 when
the Luftwaffe in the end was outnumbered in the sky by up to 11-to-1!

Keith


Rob
  #10  
Old April 15th 04, 12:34 AM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message

...
"Matthew G. Saroff" wrote in message
...
Looking at the stats, it seems fairly ordinary for late
WWI fighters, but it's always described as dominating the skys
over the Western Front.


It seems to have been widely regarded as the best German
fighter of WW1 and some regarded it as the best fighter
while others preferred the SE-5


Even though the Fokker D.VII was the best German fighter of WW1 it was
actually the Albatros D.V and D.Vas that bore the brunt of battle in
the 1918 air offensive. The easiest explanation of superiority is that
the Albatros was not a bad fighter (having been flown by Von
Richtofen, Goering, and other German aces) but was prone to a
continuing wing spar problems that discouraged lesser German pilots
from attempting complicated dog-fight aerial engagements that would
present more danger to themselves than to the enemy. The Fokker D.VII
by comparison had no such worries and better performance too.

Undoubtedly it was a good aircraft but by the time it was
introduced the sheer numerical superiority of the
allies counted strongly against it.


Strange that you can understand that in WW1, but fail to in WW2 when
the Luftwaffe in the end was outnumbered in the sky by up to 11-to-1!


Strange that you think that ocurred by accident !

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 March 1st 04 07:27 AM
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 February 1st 04 07:27 AM
Conspiracy Theorists (amusing) Grantland Military Aviation 1 October 2nd 03 12:17 AM
A Good Story Badwater Bill Home Built 15 September 3rd 03 03:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.