Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stiffy

Anyone got 2 million dollars they can lend me?

Recommended Posts


Read that! Normally, the British are known for their understatement, but this guy wrote:

the most famous fighter of world war one. No I dare to assume, that the Fokker Dreidecker,

especially when painted all red, is the most famous fighter of WW1, mein Herr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smithsonian or Old Rhinebeck should buy it-- it would be great to have an original in flying shape available to the public for demonstrations. We have several local small airports here in DC Smithsonian could use-- perhaps they could partner with the College Park Air Museum in buying the plane and doing joint demonstrations at the College Park Airfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read that! Normally, the British are known for their understatement, but this guy wrote:

the most famous fighter of world war one. No I dare to assume, that the Fokker Dreidecker,

especially when painted all red, is the most famous fighter of WW1, mein Herr.

 

good.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't argue the Fokker DR1 is the most famous, but probably not by name. Ask the man in the street what a Fokker DR1 was, and I'm guessing a fair number wouldn't know. Call it a Fokker triplane, or show them a picture, and I would guess they'd all know it at once.

 

Mention Sopwith Camel, even Sopwith Pup, and most folks will know exactly what you're talking about right away, but I'll bet they couldn't identify one in a picture.

 

 

Edit - You might also misinterpret the word 'most'. It doesn't have to mean the actual most famous. The word most stresses the fame, not the aircraft. It's hard to explain, but say you have vistors calling and you say, "Come in, you're most welcome". - It's the welcome you're stressing, but it doesn't mean they are the most welcome of the guests.

Edited by Flyby PC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is not 'the most famous' especially to those who know little about WWI.

 

But it is the aircraft that holds two records: the most kills of any, and Barker's Camel B6313 had the highest individual score by one airframe. 46 IIRC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, if you asked a layman on the street what is the a/c that they think of when you mention WWI, they will probably reply "Sopwith Camel", but only if they are fans of Charles Schultz' Peanuts. So in that regard, it is the best known a/c of that particular war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The total kills of a certain type must be seen in relationship to it's production numbers.

In a quick search I found, that about 5490 Sopwith Camels where produced.

Of the Fokker Dr.1 only 420 where built.

So, for 13 Camels only 1 Dr.1 was built - and it still reached at least the same fame.

 

I also read, that the Camel had more losses of craft and pilots than it had victories.

And I'm pretty sure (yet searching for statistics), that, when you regard the victories

related to the production numbers, the Fokker Dr.1 would be leading.

 

Searching, I found this interesting statistic about losses in general at "The Aerodrome":

 

Aircraft lost, shot down, damaged

 

France: 52.640

Britain: 35.937

Germany: 27.637

 

If anyone has statistics about the total victories of the Camel and the Dr.1,

I'd like to nkow them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

Stiffy, that Camel has been on the market for a while now, and I'd buy it in heartbeat if I were ever to win the lottery. As to which plane is the most famous fighter, I agree that it will depend on how the question is raised. If you ask the general public what is the most famous plane of WWI it will undoubtedly be MvR's red triplane. But if you ask the same general public to name the first WWI aircraft they can think of it will likely be the Sopwith Camel. At the end of the day though it may well be a wash.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read that! Normally, the British are known for their understatement, but this guy wrote:

the most famous fighter of world war one. No I dare to assume, that the Fokker Dreidecker,

especially when painted all red, is the most famous fighter of WW1, mein Herr.

 

Olham,

 

The Fokker DR1, is only the best known because MVR was killed while flying it, most people don't realise that he got most of his victories flying the various Albatross variants.

 

Also the DR1 was a poor copy of the Sopwith Triplane iMO, but that is another debate.

 

Thanks

Fenwick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Lou.

 

Certain amount of deja vue regarding this sale. I'm sure it was mentioned months ago.

 

Regarding the kill 'scores', I feel my blood beginning to boil that so many Brits were sent into action in obsolete aircraft with minimal training. I am priviliged in being able to express my outrage about it now, but my heart breaks for those poor lads who knew what was going to happen but just had to get on with it.

 

I forget who added the excellent quote to their sig, but it went along the lines " ....instead of parachutes, they send us schoolboys with 15 hours flying".

 

Surely, it didn't have to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Lou.

 

Certain amount of deja vue regarding this sale. I'm sure it was mentioned months ago.

 

Regarding the kill 'scores', I feel my blood beginning to boil that so many Brits were sent into action in obsolete aircraft with minimal training. I am priviliged in being able to express my outrage about it now, but my heart breaks for those poor lads who knew what was going to happen but just had to get on with it.

 

I forget who added the excellent quote to their sig, but it went along the lines " ....instead of parachutes, they send us schoolboys with 15 hours flying".

 

Surely, it didn't have to be that way.

 

That is why the Canadians (and the Americans trained by the Canadians like Lambert) were so successful in WWI. They arrived at the war with many hours of flying behind them. It is rather noticeable that the gap between the British and the Canadian pilots had evened out due to similar training in WWII. And the British sent many RAF men to Canada and Southern Africa to be trained due to the better weather there. So the military sometimes do not repeat their mistakes :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugbyfan: The Fokker DR1, is only the best known because MVR was killed while flying it...

 

That may be true. But two of the greatest aces of the British Empire agreed about this

craft as being incredibly agile - Werner Voss fought 5 of their S.E.5 in it, and they had

never seenanything like that.

 

Rugbyfan: Also the DR1 was a poor copy of the Sopwith Triplane iMO, but that is another debate.

 

That is only true so far, as the Sopwith Triplane (and the impressed reports about it by

pilots such as MvR, saying it was a very agile craft) led the German high command to the

belief, that Triplanes where better than biplanes. Now they wanted a German triplane.

Anthony Fokker, being the clever businessman he was, built them one.

Later tests showed, that the third wing was more a hindrance for speed development,

than an improvement. The Fokker Dr.1 might have even been a greater biplane.

So copy, for the basic idea, yes. But the word 'poor' would not come to my mind.

As far as I know, MvR was excited.

 

But it wasn't much of a copy. Fokker used the thick Goettingen airfoil, a new invention,

that made stabilisers and wires unnecessary. When you look at the shapes of both craft,

they are pretty different. The Sopwith has much longer wings.

The Fokker is extremely small and has short wings - that made it such a turndevil.

 

It wouldn't be fair though to compare the two craft directly, as the Fokker was developed

after the Sopwith Triplane, and entered service, when the Triplane's was over.

 

PS: I said recently, there was no beautiful British WW1 aircraft. Now, beauty as for the look

is somehow relative - one man's meat... etc. - but I started a British campaign in a Triplane,

and I must say, flying-quality-wise it must have been a very dangerous fighter in it's time,

and for it's flying performance, it definitely is beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There was no beautiful British WWI aircraft". I am inclined to agree, although they did have a few that were good-looking in a utilitarian sort of way, like the SE5a and the Bristol F2B.

And as for the Fee, the less said the better. Although I do like flying it in OFF. I must be a masochist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not alone there, JimAttrill - Bullethead seems to have the same vice.

The S.E.5 looks impressive in it's bulky appearance. It looks good, although

it isn't really beautiful. It looks British, and like understatement. I like her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hadn't seen it before, and to see so many replicas flying at one time is amazing. I wonder how many of the planes actually have rotary engines rather than more modern radials. I remember watching the 'Blue Max' and noting that one of the DR1s had a rotary, much to my surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks aside, I wonder how many pilots would have swapped their SE5a for a DR1.

 

A good big'un is always better than a good little'un as they say.

 

And I also have to defend the FE2. When this rolls out the hangar, it looks like a war plane. It doesn't look so frail as it does in drawings, but I think that's down to the fact it's bigger than you expect, & early. I kinda like it. (It might just be me though. I like machines, especially old ones with minimal electrics, where I can get my head around how it works. Hate to see old engines and impliments reaching the end of the line).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, lucky America, lucky Australia and New Zealand - you have those birds in

flying condition and such numbers, that you can even form a whole Jasta

with one type, it seems. Wonderful to watch!

 

What came to my mind watching the formation of Dr.1 - you really see, that

they fly VERY careful, as if to avoid any collision or other accidents.

Now, when we transpose that to war, to air combat - how big must the danger

have been to collide! How small was situational awareness, when you chased

an opponent, or you where chased. I cannot imagine that they did live up to the

aerobatic abilities of their fighter planes very often.

 

And Flyby, as I said to JimAttrill already - you're not the only Fee fan.

Bullethead loves them, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the WW1 aircraft i feel, could be described as Beautiful really could they? (certainly not by lay folk)

The nearest to that description, would possibly be the Albatros...but even that just looks what it is...

 

I reckon, for an aeroplane to look beautiful...it's first priority is that it should only have one wing.

 

The Spitfire is Beautiful.

 

Albatross?....hmmm

(just my opinion of course) :drinks:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree that cetainly in England if you mentioned a fokker triplane or fokker DR1 to your average man in the street they wouldnt know what you where talking about...

 

As soon as you mention ww1 flying they say "oh you mean in sopwith camels?"

 

If however you ask them to describe what german planes looked like they will usually say "they were all red weren't they?"

 

 

They would recognise a picture of a DR1 better than a sopwith though (as long as it was bright red!)

 

So...

 

Sopwith camel - more famous name

 

Red Fokker DR1 - More famous image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Widowmaker: I reckon, for an aeroplane to look beautiful...it's first priority

is that it should only have one wing.

 

The Spitfire is Beautiful.

 

Absolutely! No need to debate!

 

Albatross?....hmmm

 

I know what you mean - but I love her anyway; like you may love a girl

with a hooked nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

"Once again, we find ourselves in agreement." (to quote Ulysses Everrett McGill)

 

Outstanding videos there as well. I love that Fee too, but then I am a utilitarian sort.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.