Influences in Fokker Design...?

[Tally Ho]

Specifically, where there any influences in detail construction in current/future Fokker aircraft design via their building under contract the A.E.G. C.IV two seater.

Knowing Fokker's great penchant for appropriating other ideas, I was wondering whether building the A.E.G. imparted any skills upon him and his design staff.

Anybody know, or care to postulate...?

[Tally Ho]

I guess that ? soared over everyone's noggin...

I became curious when I reread A.R. Weyl's book on Fokker, specifically the passage on being ordered to produce the A.E.G. C.IV, Weyl going on to say that IdFlieg was convinced Fokker building it would give him a chance to learn from a 'properly engineered' a/c, or words to that effect.

The A.E.G. being largely steel tube construction undoubtedly influenced Fokker, but how?

[Al Forbes]

Ha! Not all!

Fokkers were "forced" to Build AEGs by Idflieg during a period when their own products were not measuring-up against the opposition and were built to Fokker's dubious "standards".
Tony was well - p.... -off about the arrangement and the AEGs were badly built from inferior steels to AEGs own.
I'm always amazed that Fokker prospered in the face of the poor build-quality they so often demonstrated.

Cheers
Al

[Tally Ho]

Yeah, I'm aware of all that. I'm surprised the Germans didn't hang Tony Fokker by his you-know-whats after the DR.1 and E.V wing failures. What I want to know is whether Fokker LEARNED anything in detail by building A.E.G. C.IVs.

[mossie]

Difficult to say if he learnt anything, he already had a good design and construction approach.

Maybe the shop floor learnt more on production methods, given the size of the order.

[Maxim08]

It appears that companies built by people with strong personalities - (in an era where aviation was the newest of the new technologies) - don't take well to third parties forcing them together. An additional example would be the Junkers - Fokker collaboration. It is notable that, in the later case, Fokker took away some good theory (thick wing sections) and was able to effectively apply it to a series of aircraft. Junkers didn't seem to learn anything.

I can't comment on AEG, but Fokker built welded tubular steel fuselages prior to 1914. I'm not sure how much he would have learnt which leads to the next point.

Anthony Fokker appears to be one of the natural leaders that show up occasionally in many fields. Combined with an intuitive sense of 'what's right' from an engineering perspective (opposed to rigorous training) and a seemingly agile and curious mind that allowed him to combine disparate concepts, he is recognised, even by detractors such as Weyl, as being a strong leader with the ability to get the best out of the people around him. This is a key ingredient and a trait found in more recent times with Colin Chapman of Lotus cars renown.

I'm prety sure that the Fokker - Platz relationship has been beaten to death a few times over, the question remain as to whether Platz, or Fokker's other designers, would have achieved what they did without the support of a Fokker.

You should research more than Weyl's book to build a rounded picture of Fokker.

Regards,

John

[Tally Ho]

I have read numerous books on Fokker and his A/C.

I just haven't read any allusions to his benefitting on an engineering/design viewpoint on his contract building of A.E.G., and was curious as to whether he picked up any 'tips', since the C.IV was steel tube constructed.

I am aware, of course, that Fokker's affiliation with steel tube goes back to his 'Spin' days.

Not to hijack my own thread, but, I'm not entirely convinced Reinhold Platz was the unsung, solitary genius he's made out to be. I heard, just before he passed on, that Peter M. Grosz found out through a census listing that a man named Moser (sp?) was listed as one of Fokker's designers. He may have been behind the later Fokker designs. Anybody know about him?

[krowerke]

short answer, tally ho-- almost undoubtedly tony saw both what to do, and just as importantly what not to do during his forced association with AEG. the stressed & guyed welded steel tube design underwent constant improvement from 1915. driven by mounting wartime demands for a simple, strong, reasonably agile gun platform that could be manufactured by moderately-skilled craftsmen year-round from available materials, fokker used whatever allowed him to deliver said machines in numbers, at a profit.
junkers, a REAL engineer, never got over the fact that it was not one of his carefully engineered [but face it, slightly bulky & pedestrian] fighters that was prohibited by the treaty of versailles. nor was it any of the ugly-duckling AEG types.
one only has to look at the elegant simplicity of the Fok.D.VIII, and two decades of northrop designs directly following, to see reflections of the genius of fokker. and i would compare him to burt rutan today.
learn from AEG? probably. build better airplanes in significant numbers? certainly.

[Tally Ho]

Yup. You can over engineer just about anything. I like your comparison with Hugo Junkers (excuse me, "Herr Doktor") designs and Tony Fokker's. Certainly I would pick a Fokker D.VII(F) over a Junkers D.I.

But, I would prefer an Albatros or O.A.W. BUILT D.VII over one made at the parent factory, if contemporary reports are any indication. Fokker was a better designer (or, troubleshooter, with a superior design bureau) than a manufacturer.

[krowerke]

there's a well-researched treatise on the subject here, TH.
junkers is no less fascinating a personality than fokker; for my money, not enough has been written on either man. they were inventing aviation technology daily, less than a dozen years after wilbur and orville slipped the surly bonds. in wartime. astounding.