Fokker D VI - Better than the Dr. 1 ?

[Olham 164]

I had always been wondering about Fokker or someone near him saying, that actually,

the third wing of the Triplane Dr.1 wasn't really an advantage.

When it wouldn't give the craft much more lift, but was an air resistance rather - why not

build a Biplane of that type.

 

Now I found, that they had actually done so with the Fokker D VI.

It is said to have been dumped, because it was regarded inferiour to the Fokker D VII,

although it was faster on low level, and very agile.

Was this a decision for inline engines rather?

 

I wished I could try it at least in virtual air combat - it sounds and looks like a promising

fighter craft; maybe even better than the turn devil Dr.1 ?

 

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

I had always been wondering about Fokker or someone near him saying, that actually,

the third wing of the Triplane Dr.1 wasn't really an advantage.

When it wouldn't give the craft much more lift, but was an air resistance rather - why not

build a Biplane of that type.

 

Now I found, that they had actually done so with the Fokker D VI.

It is said to have been dumped, because it was regarded inferiour to the Fokker D VII,

although it was faster on low level, and very agile.

Was this a decision for inline engines rather?

 

I wished I could try it at least in virtual air combat - it sounds and looks like a promising

fighter craft; maybe even better than the turn devil Dr.1 ?

 

 

 

 

While the Dr.1 was really just an answer to the Tripe, the 3rd wing did provide more lift. Very few (if any) aircraft can climb or turn with a Dr.1. However, the troubles were many - massive drag, slow speed, landing difficulties (for both control and visibility), combat visibility, and dive capability.

 

That last point was a problem as a few died in dives. There was actually a pretty significant design flaw, I remember reading about it but not clearly enough to detail it off the top of my head, but basically it ended up ballooning the fabric on the top wing, separating it, and resulting in catastrophic failure.

 

In the end, Boelcke was right, as were the SPAD designers (even then, despite the modern romantic visions, it really was about Energy and surprise). Speed (and altitude) is life. It's great to be able to dance around in aerobatics, but the real means of winning in the air is to strike hard, from above, without warning, and escape. And if you are in an inferior position, you need to be able to disengage at will. Mostly, if you can't catch the enemy, then being able to out turn or out climb them is useless.

 

The ultimate expression of the Dr.1 concept (in essence) was the D.VIII, which is a brilliant aircraft. Though not quite as barnstorming as the hi-po D.VII.

[OvS 8]

While the Dr.1 was really just an answer to the Tripe, the 3rd wing did provide more lift. Very few (if any) aircraft can climb or turn with a Dr.1. However, the troubles were many - massive drag, slow speed, landing difficulties (for both control and visibility), combat visibility, and dive capability.

 

That last point was a problem as a few died in dives. There was actually a pretty significant design flaw, I remember reading about it but not clearly enough to detail it off the top of my head, but basically it ended up ballooning the fabric on the top wing, separating it, and resulting in catastrophic failure.

 

In the end, Boelcke was right, as were the SPAD designers (even then, despite the modern romantic visions, it really was about Energy and surprise). Speed (and altitude) is life. It's great to be able to dance around in aerobatics, but the real means of winning in the air is to strike hard, from above, without warning, and escape. And if you are in an inferior position, you need to be able to disengage at will. Mostly, if you can't catch the enemy, then being able to out turn or out climb them is useless.

 

The ultimate expression of the Dr.1 concept (in essence) was the D.VIII, which is a brilliant aircraft. Though not quite as barnstorming as the hi-po D.VII.

 

This, and also that the D.VI was a part of a larger 2-prong plan Fokker had...

 

Prong 1 was the D.VI... it was a rotary powered aircraft which would parked at dromes closer to the front, allowing the pilots to get airborne very quickly and intercept the incoming EA's.

Prong 2 was the D.VII, which was meant to be the killer and complement the Jastas that intercepted the incoming EA's. It took longer to get airborne, however, was superior to the D.VI.

 

But the idea did not sell too well seeing that they found the D.VII to be superior at all points to the D.VI, so why bother. What Anthony Fokker did instead was to sell the licenses to build the D.VII to OAW and Albatros. So the built them in mass.

 

OvS

[Duce Lewis 3]

I had always been wondering about Fokker or someone near him saying, that actually,

the third wing of the Triplane Dr.1 wasn't really an advantage.

When it wouldn't give the craft much more lift, but was an air resistance rather - why not

build a Biplane of that type.

My guess is thatb the DVI was probably better than the Triplane

But the Triplane had the political push to build it

Politicians control the money, so they get what they want

[ConradB 0]

The issue with the triplane's top wing was from exposure to the elements. There was a problem where moisture collected in the box spar and over time it reduced the strength of the spar, said by some to have the strength of a wet cigarette. That is what I read in one of my long lost books some time ago. If memory serves this caused the fabric to rot and come off too. By December the problem had been sorted out and rectified, but the pilots still had misgivings about the type.

[Hasse Wind 46]

 

But the idea did not sell too well seeing that they found the D.VII to be superior at all points to the D.VI, so why bother. What Anthony Fokker did instead was to sell the licenses to build the D.VII to OAW and Albatros. So the built them in mass.

 

 

Fokker didn't have the capacity to build as many D.VII's as the German high command wanted, so Idflieg ordered Albatros to start building them too. Albatros didn't like it very much, being Fokker's competitors, and they had to pay a royalty to Fokker for each D.VII they built. But they really didn't have a choice in the matter, because they had lost the competition to the D.VII. After the Albatros D.III, they were never able to design a really good fighter.

[Dutch_P47M 9]

Maybe the Germans were wise and did not put all the cards on the D7. So if the D7 had encounterd some problems, Fokker could start directly to the DVI production, like the did with the Roland DVI Fighter as a backup for the D7. I think Unknownpilot has right 1918 tactics for Germans, implicated performance at hight altitude and hang on your prop to get there asap. I can not find it so quickly but I do have a book were they explained that the Fokker DVI was used for home defence, but it was not a succes because of slow climing rate. So it appears that Fokker DVI plane performance is bad when it becomes to altitude. The Dr1 is maybe in flysms a good plane, but aces like Carl Degelow had there complains and did prefer the Albatros or PfalzD3.

 

Carl Degelow:

I believe that the Fokker DVII was the best German fighter aeroplane developed during WW1.

I could sing endless praises of the Fokker D.VII but, instead, I will simply point out how impressed the victorius Allied powers were by this aeroplane. The Fokker was the only aeroplane that mentioned by type to be forbidden to Germany. etc

[carrick58 23]

The Fokker III and VI are the might have beens but for polictal and nation resources. I would love to see both in OFF. As for the Spad teams Heavy fast a/c Speed and altitude is all thats needed, I read of more then one Combat Pilot remarking that they wished they had something smaller that could turn instead of those heavy fast flat irons aircraft they flew around Thud Ridge and other places.

[UnknownPilot 33]

As for the Spad teams Heavy fast a/c Speed and altitude is all thats needed, I read of more then one Combat Pilot remarking that they wished they had something smaller that could turn instead of those heavy fast flat irons aircraft they flew around Thud Ridge and other places.

 

 

Back then, you would expect sentiments like that to be expressed more often than not. They were making it up as they went along.

 

Think of it this way - take any flight sim "virgin" and put him behind the stick, what does he do? I've done with with friends, as well as seen the comments from other virgins and new commers on countless forums. It's always the same - they try to turn. Even if you tell them not to, they still do it. Because, afterall, the goal is to get behind the enemy and put your sights over him, and "how can you do that if you don't, or can't, turn?".

 

So if they end up in a less agile plane, all they do is gripe about the aircraft and how much it "sucks". However, if you put them in the most agile plane and then up against someone better, in a faster plane, they will either, STILL blame their plane for not being agile enough, or, if they know they are more agile than the enemy, they are likely to accuse the enemy of cheating.

 

The point of all that is, in 1917, all combat pilots were new commers to the field, because it was just in it's infancy, and people naturally wanted to angles fight, as energy fighting is not an intuitive concept for most. But some did figure it out and preach it early on - Boelcke, Richtofen, and Rickenbacker did ok in SPADs, as did Fonck.

 

Give me the choice of allied aircraft, and I'll take the late SPAD - a heavy, super fast diving, powerful, tough hotrod with good armament.... a WWI Jug (P-47).

[Olham 164]

Boelke in a SPAD ???

[Dutch_P47M 9]

I still asking myself why did the Germans not recycle these planes. An outdated Fokker Dr1 could be changed to a DVI or DVIII. They were short of supply caused by the British sea blockade, so there must be a reason why not doing this.

 

 

 

[UnknownPilot 33]

Boelke in a SPAD ???

 

 

Sorry... I can't tell if you are joking, or if you are giving me a hard time because you think I implied that.

 

If the latter, let me assure, I most certainly did not. ;)

 

 

I should have used a semi-colon I guess -

But some did figure it out and preach it early on - Boelcke, Richtofen; and Rickenbacker did ok in SPADs, as did Fonck.

 

Or used a period and capitolized the And. Either one.

Edited January 24, 2010 by UnknownPilot

[shredward 12]

When Idflieg announced the first fighter trials at Adlershof in Jan/Feb '18, they wanted two separate streams of entrants to take advantage of their stocks of engines - rotary and inline. Tony Fokker, who was both innovative, and who talked to front line pilots all the time to find out what they wanted, pretty much swept the competition, with the result that his designs were chosen to equip the Jastas in 1918. Because Fokker did not have the required capacity to build all the required machines, the other manufacturers were obliged to build them under license from Fokker.

Cheers,

shredward

[Olham 164]

UnknownPilot, as you can't see my face when I'm joking, I added that Smiley.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there:

 

OK, the sentiment that the Germans were duly impressed by the Tripe is true, and it ended up Fokker was in the right place at the right time, with much help for the design from Front pilots, and Pfalz.

 

According to reports done by NASA, the climb rate of the Dr.1 was analyzed to be the best of any WWI fighter. Unfortunately hard data doesn't exist, as the data posted by Fokker shows a slow climb rate to 9000, and then faster to 20,000 than the one other set of hard data produced.

 

Anecdotally the Dr.1 was the best climbing Scout of it's day, and could better the Camel. Vertically it was unbeatable, but not quite so good in the horizontal turns. In correspondence with the Swedish owner/pilot of a repro Dr.1 Mikael Carlson, he stated that the aircraft was unbelievably agile, and when stalled, would turn to the right, approximately 1 1/2 turns, floating almost, and easy recovery with a scant loss of altitude.

 

As well the dive speed of the Dr.1 from my research is reported to be 140 mph. Sifting through many reports by German pilots, climb and dive was the bread and butter of the Dr.1. It was relatively slow, but still a huge danger, when it dived on the SE5's as their forte was not a turning battle.

 

Landing did provide for awful sightlines, and the propensity to ground loop, as you lost rudder control, once you had gone below stall speed.

 

Whilst the initial design flaw and shoddy construction led to several deaths, it seems clear that the airplane was castigated unfairly as the Camel killed far more Allied pilots, than the Dr.1.

 

While it was construed by some authors that the Pilots lost faith in the aircraft, a rather famous pilot went back to it as soon as it became available. In fact, many couldn't wait to get into it, and several transfered Jasta's to fly it. In addition the Dr.1 continued to be used after it's time on the Front, as a defensive specialist, and pilot trainer.

 

There were a number of pilots who continued to fly the Dr.1 even when the DV became available, so I don't put much credence in one pilot deferring to another aircraft. The characteristics of the Dr.1 are vastly different than the Albatross and the Pfalz, which were not designed for a close turning battle, and thus not favourable for that particular pilots tastes.

 

 

My only comment with the Dr.1 in OFF, was in my last scrap, I was attacked by 3 Spad XIII's. Unfortunately they somehow were able to stay with me on my turns, and I put it down, full of holes. While I am aware of the limitations of the AI, and no fuel weight, I do feel that the Dr.1 flight characteristics could be tweaked to reflect what was perhaps the best climbing/short diving aircraft of early 1918. Given the Spad was a dive, shoot, and zoomaway for the next go, I found the end result of my battle to be somewhat unrealistic.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[Olham 164]

British_eh: ...when stalled, (the Dr.1) would turn to the right, approximately 1 1/2 turns,

floating almost, and easy recovery with a scant loss of altitude.

 

 

That would have to be changed on our flight model, which is (or at least was before HitR)

pretty bad there; some had unrecoverable stalls, which seemed to be unbelieveable for

this aircraft, from all I had heard.

[UnknownPilot 33]

The Dr.1 was a turning demon as well, be sure. The climb-rate is the first indicator. Since it was so low on power, it was not going to be climbing on it's prop (in fact, no Kite would be - that was something seen in the 40s by the 109), so that meant it was the lift of the wings. Lift, or more to the point, the excess of it, is directly related to wing loading, which in turn, is also directly related to the ability of an aircraft to turn, in comparison to other aircraft (and in the abscense of particular high-lift devices which alter all that).

 

The only thing that could limit it would be roll rate and pitch authority. I have heard that it's roll was not the greatest, but by no means was it really a liability.

 

I have read a first hand account on Air and Space magazine of a pilot, familiar with WWI types, flying a Dr.1, and he was stunned at it's ability to climb, it's infamous "flat turn" (which Voss used to great effect many times on his last flight), and it's banked turn ability. After being duly impressed, he decided to see just what it really do and started to pull back with some authority in a turn, and quickly realized he'd made a mistake - it turned so hard the Gs ripped the goggles right off his face and left them hanging around his neck.

 

It was best described by the comment that.... "if a German pilot wasn't careful, he could do a full loop and still remain in front of his opponent!" While that may be a slight bit of hyperbole, it's effect, intent, and meaning is pretty clear.

 

 

[Olham 164]

The Dr.1 in combination with the D VII - a deadly pack!

In my American SPAD campaign, I found a sudden end, when I clashed with Jasta 18,

the red-white ones. I had concentrated on the D VIIs, thinking they where the more

dangerous ones. But then an ace came down vertical and got at my bum so well and

so close, that I could only attempt a fast turn away.

I tried to roll headover, to do a vertical dive, but the SPAD did too slow.

No way could I escape that Dr.1 - he just shot me to pieces!

[Stickshaker 0]

Whereas the British had both the Camel (rotary, very maneuverable) and the SE5a (in-liner, fast) I would say that in 1918 the true complement of the Fokker D.VII was the Siemens-Schuckert D.III/D.IV.

[Hasse Wind 46]

That would have to be changed on our flight model, which is (or at least was before HitR)

pretty bad there; some had unrecoverable stalls, which seemed to be unbelieveable for

this aircraft, from all I had heard.

 

This happened to me once in quick combat as I was testing the Dr.1. It went into a tail-first spin and completely ceased to respond to stick movements. I'm not sure what I did that caused it, and I haven't seen anything like it since then.

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the so-called energy fighters of WW1 is their weak armament. If you're flying a true energy fighter, like the FW-190, it really helps to have plenty of firepower so that you can quickly shoot down your opponents, perhaps requiring only one pass at the target to do that. With 20mm and 30mm guns of WW2 fighters, that's not really difficult. But a WW1 crate such as the SPAD has only one or two light MG's, and you won't be shooting anybody down with them as quickly as when using heavier guns. Flying a plane using purely energy tactics can be a lot more frustrating in OFF than turn fighting. But fortunately a plane like the SPAD is still a decent turn fighter, unlike the heavier, pure energy fighters of WW2, and so can be used in a more versatile role, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons why I like WW1 sims so much - it's not all about zooming and booming.

[Dutch_P47M 9]

This happened to me once in quick combat as I was testing the Dr.1. It went into a tail-first spin and completely ceased to respond to stick movements. I'm not sure what I did that caused it, and I haven't seen anything like it since then.

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the so-called energy fighters of WW1 is their weak armament. If you're flying a true energy fighter, like the FW-190, it really helps to have plenty of firepower so that you can quickly shoot down your opponents, perhaps requiring only one pass at the target to do that. With 20mm and 30mm guns of WW2 fighters, that's not really difficult. But a WW1 crate such as the SPAD has only one or two light MG's, and you won't be shooting anybody down with them as quickly as when using heavier guns. Flying a plane using purely energy tactics can be a lot more frustrating in OFF than turn fighting. But fortunately a plane like the SPAD is still a decent turn fighter, unlike the heavier, pure energy fighters of WW2, and so can be used in a more versatile role, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons why I like WW1 sims so much - it's not all about zooming and booming.

 

And the much better campaign mode like in OFF3, so it feels if you are one of the guys. Thats why I did not like WoW and FirstEagles.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Dutch_P47M

[UnknownPilot 33]

This happened to me once in quick combat as I was testing the Dr.1. It went into a tail-first spin and completely ceased to respond to stick movements. I'm not sure what I did that caused it, and I haven't seen anything like it since then.

 

In my opinion, the biggest problem with the so-called energy fighters of WW1 is their weak armament. If you're flying a true energy fighter, like the FW-190, it really helps to have plenty of firepower so that you can quickly shoot down your opponents, perhaps requiring only one pass at the target to do that. With 20mm and 30mm guns of WW2 fighters, that's not really difficult. But a WW1 crate such as the SPAD has only one or two light MG's, and you won't be shooting anybody down with them as quickly as when using heavier guns. Flying a plane using purely energy tactics can be a lot more frustrating in OFF than turn fighting. But fortunately a plane like the SPAD is still a decent turn fighter, unlike the heavier, pure energy fighters of WW2, and so can be used in a more versatile role, in my opinion. That's one of the reasons why I like WW1 sims so much - it's not all about zooming and booming.

 

 

You don't need much to kill a pilot or break his engine, or.... shoot away his wires. That's another advantage the Dr.1 had, it was a bit "tougher" to down because there weren't a mess of wires in between the wings to shoot and break.

 

People who think that energy fighting is "all zooming and booming" [and btw, it's BnZ, not ZnB] don't really understand it all that well. There is so incredibly much more to it than that, however, it's a skill that is not the most intuitive and takes a long time to learn, so most eschew it.

[Dutch_P47M 9]

From my old RB3d time, a good site for the airplanes FM NASA

[Guest British_eh]

British_eh: ...when stalled, (the Dr.1) would turn to the right, approximately 1 1/2 turns,

floating almost, and easy recovery with a scant loss of altitude.

 

 

That would have to be changed on our flight model, which is (or at least was before HitR)

pretty bad there; some had unrecoverable stalls, which seemed to be unbelieveable for

this aircraft, from all I had heard.

 

 

Dan_San_Abbott of the Aerodrome is one of the most knowledgeable WWI air enthusiasts I know. In conversations with him, the Dr.1 was indeed a twitchy aircraft, (an almost vital requirement for a Scout) and one of the best fighter aircraft of that narrow time frame. I am of the belief that the flight characteristics of the Dr.1 has perhaps not had the time devoted to it recently, to reflect the significant flight characteristics that made it outstanding.

 

From what I have read, there were a few battles between the Dr.1 and the Sopwith Tripe, which must have been outstanding to have witnessed. I have read some of the Germans stats, where it seems the Dr got the better of the Tripe. However, I have not seen the RNAS stats, which I understand were exemplary.

 

At the end of the day, there should be no aircraft in OFF that can turn or climb with the Dr.1. It would be nice to see that Stalls, that include spinning backwards tail down, and not recoverable, to be eliminated, and the dive, climb a little better and smoother. Perhaps then though the AI would be unstoppable? Perhaps a little tweak, as the Stall/ Spins found in the OFF craft just didn't seem to exist, in any of the reading, and consultations I have had with those more knowledgeable than me.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

Edited January 26, 2010 by British_eh

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

At the end of the day, there should be no aircraft in OFF that can turn or climb with the Dr.1. It would be nice to see that Stalls, that include spinning backwards tail down, and not recoverable, to be eliminated, and the dive, climb a little better and smoother. Perhaps then though the AI would be unstoppable? Perhaps a little tweak, as the Stall/ Spins found in the OFF craft just didn't seem to exist, in any of the reading, and consultations I have had with those more knowledgeable than me.

Interesting information, Olham and British_Eh. Looking in Airwrench, I notice that the Dr.1 setting for "Spin Stability" is set all the way to the left, to "Unstable," and "Stall Roll Off" is set to 0, for neither positive or negative. I wonder if tweaking these settings would have an effect on the spin and stall of the Dr. 1 we currently have in HITR? OTOH, changing these values might also have a negative effect on the turning capabilities of the Fokker, so any such changes must be undertaken with caution.

 

WARNING: The above is posted for information only. I take no position on whether the Dr. 1 in OFF is correctly modeled or not.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Herr Prop-Wasche