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

"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

"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

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

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

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

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...

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

??? What's the connection? The German defences against night bombers
were not the same as those used against day bombers. The RAF was
operating over Germany long before the USAAF started to have an
effect.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

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

"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

"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