Critique Replicraft's Fokker D.VII Plan Set?

[gipsymoth236k]

FOR THOSE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HOLD REPLICRAFT FOKKER D.VII PLAN SETS:

I have a set of these excellent D.VII plans, and have been wondering if other owners of these drawings could be interested in starting a list of 'constructive corrections' to make these drawings as near perfect as possible. These plans are a rare source of EXCELLENT material for the Fokker D.VII that deserves an update. I have started a list that I have also discussed with Jim Kiger, with a few needed corrections to his D.VII plans, and would like to see if other D.VII enthusiasts agree with my list of corrections.

Let me know guys!

Regards, Gary

[Machinbird]

Gary, perhaps I'm wrong,(I don't have my plan set nearby at the moment) but the rudder/elevator/aileron hinge detail seems to involve a strap welded or brazed behind the bushing instead of deforming the metal of the bushing holder to put a strip behind the bushing. I agree that the Replicraft plan set was a tremendous value but like anything done by mankind, they aren't without flaw.
The idea for an errata thread is an excellent idea . We have to always keep in mind that the Replicraft plan set represents an OAW aircraft and there will be differences between the Fokker and Albatross versions. Perhaps we should document differences between the versions to the extent we can.
Sid

[Maxim08]

Machinbird,
Mr. Kiger's drawings do show the hinge being fabricated in 2 parts (drawing #5).
This may go against common wisdom, but look at the attached photo of the Knowlton D VII. Not very hi-res, and more obvious on the elevator hinge.
I think a drawing clarification thread is a good idea.
Regards,
Maxim08

[CORVUS]

Will a set of the updated drawings be available for purchase in the near future ?

[franzkait]

Most Fokker hinges are made from 2 parts, the 2 part hinge is stronger.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
The reason they show the OAW built D.VII is that is what I had drawn. Fok.D.VII(OAW) 4523/18. I don't know if the structure drawings reflect (OAW). For your information if the "new" drawing contains any drawings, notes, data, assembly instructions and the Fokker logo that came from my drawings, including patterns they will not be available. If he includes that information and sells one set that infringes on my drawings, he WILL be sued. He was told that before. If he redraws the drawings and deletes everything as I have outlined an submits a set for my review and they are clean, he will get my blessing. And that ends this subject.
Blue skies,
Dan-San
P.S. Between the three D.VII manufacturers, I have identified 26 physical variations in the Fok.D.VII by serial number. All are listed in my drawings catalog, 7 by Albatros, 10 by OAW and 9 by Fokker.

[cfgray]

I certainly do not want to get in the middle of whatever trouble there may be between FOK. D-VII plan makers/sellers, but I do want to state that the "Fair Use Doctrine" applies to such drawings and plans as it does to textural material.

If the use falls within a quite clear and concise set of requirements, then that use is deemed to be "Fair Use" and would likely not be considered copyright infringement in court.

Four independent factors are used by courts to determine whether the use is "Fair Use":

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes or research;

2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work;

and

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Courts have sometimes held contradictory views in determining "Fair Use" but have almost always taken the above four factors into consideration, not just one of them.

So, talk of law suits over such things must be carefully considered, as must the use people make of copyrighted material.

Best,
cfgray

[gipsymoth236k]

Gentlemen,

Well, my original intention of this new topic is ONLY for the historical accuracy of Fokker D.VII research, and does not necessarily reflect, or include, any "politically correct" posture. Politics have always bored me, so I'll avoid that area. It's kinda like poison to the mind, and mucks up the fruitful purpose of exchange, and why we are all reading this Forum in the first place, and still dreaming (probably for most of us since we were kids) of these magical, chivalrous aircraft of their day. I guess I'm feeling the need for accurate and meaningful exchange relating to these fine Fokker D.VII research drawings, which still inspire some of us into an elevated, even altered state of purpose.

My list of noted and updated corrections to the excellent REPLICRAFT Fokker D.VII Plan Set will soon follow (minus any politics included).

Regards, Gary

[gipsymoth236k]

First, the WING DRAWINGS Critique:

The Replicraft WING DRAWINGS are based on Fokker-built wings, as compared to Albatros, or OAW-built wings. The quickest way to compare Fokker-built wings from the other two D.VII manufacturers, is to look at the bottom wing's 12 x 12mm trailing edge location through the rib's trailing edges. Also, note the location of the top wing's aft 10 x 10mm wing rib stabilizer stringers. These same pieces on Albatros and OAW wings are in slightly different locations from Fokker-built wings.

These EXCELLENT Replicraft Fokker D.VII wing drawings are not perfect, but VERY close! Some minor corrections that follow would make these D.VII wing drawings more historically "correct" if updated, and beyond important to the Fokker D.VII research effort:

1. Correct the rib cap strips to the original 5 x 5mm dimension, instead of the incorrect 6 x 6mm size given (Fokker C.I).

2. The top wing's 'middle' 10 x 10mm wing rib stabilizer stringer is incorrectly placed also along the BOTTOM of the ribs. This should be removed from the mid-rib bottom location.

3. The top wing's OUTER compression ribs (rib doublers) are missing, and need to be added.

4. The aileron control horns are incorrectly designed.

5. Only the OUTER aileron hinge location has a thrust collar on Fokker-built wings (not on the middle hinge, as drawn).

6. Possible incorrect original design of internal spar/rib reinforcing blocks at every rib location, rather than just a few (per Dan-San's information).

7. Late Fokker-built bottom wings had a wood foot-step reinforcing arch joining front and rear spars at their foot step locations, as depicted correctly on the Charles Cash wing drawings. This arch is missing in the Replicraft bottom wing drawing.

8. Per Achim, Fokker-built ribs had a continuous cap strip nose, whereas the other two D.VII manufacturers used a plywood nose block.

I welcome your comments regarding my critique, and look forward to other's views.

More critique on the Replicraft Fokker D.VII airframe drawings to follow....

Regards, Gary

[Jeff Brooks]

I agree with having plans that show the differences of a particular manufacture, and production run! Picking a tail-number to build seems the best way to get accurate plans.
But keep in mind, most builders stray from original anyway to add brakes, stearable tailwheel, and what ever engine they can find. So why kill yourself with 100% accurate plans when most builders modify them anyway?