it’s not that he wasnt a brillian man, he wasnt a good designer: some of the technical solutions (like the tubular/telescopic steel framing of the fuselage) were superb, but in the mean time there were some major deficiencies. The frame behind the Dr.I engine mount suffered torsion due to the lack of a decent structure drawing and was field modificated. The monospar wing was lighter but suffered of eccessive torsion and many Fokkers landed with several snapped ribs.. in the era of experimentation it’s no surprise to see a rampant builder having such success, he was the right man at the right time, but his “non-aeronautical” background is evident (not that there was a lot of background to have though..). It’s no surprise that the Fokker projects of the 30s, where the requirements started to grow bigger and bibber, were a failure..

Alex

I’m not a WW1 expert, but I was told that Anthony Fokker was not that genius: his Eindecker was a copy of a french Bleriot or Morane Saulnier N which landed behind enemy lines.. Even the Dr.I was a copy of the concept introduced by the Sopwith Triplane. The materials used (on the Dr.I in particular) were not suitable for the G load requirements of the era, and as with the Albatros spars, there were several in flight structrural breaks.

Alex

it would be true if u could find ANY military installment with serviceable vehicles and no guard garrisons.. I believe they even lied on the beers: it was more than one per head…

Alex

As Aj March pointed: UN markings on a fighter plane? uhm………….

Yikes – the ASBO collective- thanks for that!

I look like this – (with the machine gun)

Italian Harvard looks like this (with the Harvard)

TT

of course I’ll come without the Harvard (sadly!) and Ben without the gun (fortunately!)

Alex

is that corrosion or more probably a bullet hole on the prop? As with the wooden prop on the other thread, if u feel like it takes too much room in your house, feel free to ship it to me 😀
.. I’ll take the “non” echo as a reply…

Alex