World War One Whifs

Started by stevehed, April 10, 2015, 12:07:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stevehed

Hi All,
        Originally planned as super Eindekker with a big Mercedes engine. However, a stocktake of the spares department revealed a build up of lower wings so a redesign was instigated. The main donor for this venture is the Revell Fokker EIII. I'm using the remains of the fourth kit used in the Fokker KI whif posted earlier. The upper wing wing will be made from the port and starboard halves joined to a centre section from a Roden Albatros. As it does not have a radiator I'm going to use side radiators. The lower wing is off the Airfix Hannover as I currently have three in the spares. The tail unit will comprise the original Fokker comma from the kit and the elevators are vac form remnants from a Rumpler sea plane. Engine and gun from spares and probably rod for the struts. That's the plan for now but you never know. Back story first.

At the beginning of 1917 the German aerial units on the Eastern Front faced a serious shortage of fighter aircraft. During 1916 types such as the Pfalz E types and their Fokker counterparts had been the mainstay of the protection flights. However, in August all Pfalz aircraft had been ordered withdrawn from frontline units after a series of fatal crashes which were traced to metal fatigue in the elevators. In December all Fokker aircraft were withdrawn after crashes that were blamed on poor quality control in the Fokker factories. Some Fokker aircraft did return to operations so presumably they were tested and where necessary upgraded. Luckily for Eastern Front units this occurred during the winter when most combat flights were curtailed. In the northern sector the Spring saw the introduction of Roland D types and later some Albatros D's but the southern sector remained short of fighter aircraft. The Fokker E types were sent but the Russians had re-organised their aerial units and dedicated fighter squadrons equipped with Nieuport scouts were beginning to appear. Aware of these shortcomings the air park at Krakow which had been a test and repair station for the Fokker monoplanes was given permission to further improve the type. The initial plan was to install a Mercedes engine which would require an increased wingspan and a new tail unit. The engines would come from B types, which had the observer in the front seat, which had been withdrawn from service and used as trainers. These engines produced 120hp which was thought sufficient for the Fokker airframe. However, most of the engineers and design staff operating at the airpark were well aware of developments on the Western Front and thought a biplane design would be better suited. Permission was obtained and work began on the wings. The Mercedes was considerably heavier than a rotary engine and radiators had to be added too. The engine compartment was extended using panels from a Brandenburg trainer. The upper wing retained the broad chord of the Fokker while the lower was narrower and reflected current thoughts in Germany after inspection of captured Nieuport designs. In addition, a slight sweep back was incorporated and forward stagger to alleviate the increase in weight. The tail unit was enlarged and an off the shelf solution came from Rumpler designs. The Fokker comma rudder was retained but a fixed fin was added. Six aircraft were constructed with one being tested to destruction and the others were issued to field units on the Southern Front.  Progress to date.






NARSES2

Looking forward to seeing this one  :thumbsup:
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

Old Wombat

Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

stevehed

Thanks Guys. Work so far has centred around getting the pieces ready before serious construction begins. The lower wing had sweep back incorporated so the upper was made to match. A slight angle was filed into the butt end of the Fokker sections with the trailing edge end farther back than the leading. When joined to the centre section there is sweep back. Nothing drastic as most examples I've come across seem to be in the 3-5 degree range. The nose section is a remnant from the Eastern Express HB Starstrutter. It was lengthened by laminating three pieces of 80 thou card. When secured I used a small grinding wheel to blend the contours to a match. The hole for the engine was drilled out and I've used a Revell Fokker DVII cylinder head/exhaust part to represent the Mercedes. Rear elevators were designed for a tapered fuselage so had to extend then with card to make them match up to the straight Fokker fuselage. Iron crosses are from Almark and I've used plastic rod for the cabanes. I have some white white metal N struts which I thought would be useful. Problem is that they need superglue which has such an effect on wiggle time that I wouldn't have been able to set them up to accept the location holes in the wing. Far easier using cement and plastic.



Regards, Steve

stevehed

A little bit of progress. Bit of reshaping of the upper nose so the machine gun could fire past it rather than through it. Mg added and the cabane struts have been dry fitted to death to make sure the top wing will be reasonably straight. Lower wing added and gaps filled and some rigging holes drilled into the fuselage sides. Tail strut from the kit as is the rudder. Scratched fin and next were the tail elevators. They are in place but to my eyes are too large. However, I've managed to find a pair that I scratched years ago which look better when compared.





Old Wombat

Is that a "false tail" painted on the tail planes, &, if so, are you leaving the outer edges white? :unsure:
Has a life outside of What-If & wishes it would stop interfering!

"The purpose of all War is Peace" - St. Augustine

veritas ad mortus veritas est

stevehed

I'm thinking that the white tail is too big and out of proportion to the rest of the aircraft. The false tail pieces were laid out to see how they compared. If I stick with a biplane I'll use the smaller set but a sudden thought has made me wonder how a parasol would look.

Regards, Steve

Mossie

I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my mule don't like people laughin'. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it.

NARSES2

Quote from: stevehed on March 06, 2020, 02:29:30 PM
I'm thinking that the white tail is too big and out of proportion to the rest of the aircraft. The false tail pieces were laid out to see how they compared. If I stick with a biplane I'll use the smaller set but a sudden thought has made me wonder how a parasol would look.

Regards, Steve

A parasol would certainly fit in with 1918 thinking  :thumbsup:
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

stevehed

#129
I've decided to go with the parasol version this time but have not forgotten the biplane as I have another E111 in the stash.  The parasol means I can keep the large tail planes for extra lift and will give me a rest from lots of rigging. Top wing is in position and the cabane strutwork will be like the 1918 Fokkers but, hand on heart with eyes skyward, where do you think they got the inspiration from. No cantilevers here though so there'll have to be some additional wing support.


Regards,
            Steve

NARSES2

I do like where this is going  :thumbsup:

Seeing your Pegasus box made me  have a look in the stash and I still have a couple nestling in there. Both monoplanes as well  ;D
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

stevehed

Thanks Narses2. I've built several Pegasus kits and they all had short run issues but proved buildable. Most recent was the Halberstadt DII in the aforementioned box and you can see a blue tail in the previous post. This is a Pfalz D111a. Building two Pegasus kits at the same time is not recommended hence my decision to seek calmer waters and sail to Whifland to recuperate.

NARSES2

I must admit I am tempted to look at building the Junkers C.1 I have in the stash. Would probably build it alongside a Tamiya kit so as to keep temper tantrums to a minimum  ;D
Do not condemn the judgement of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong.

stevehed

Quote from: NARSES2 on March 14, 2020, 03:39:13 AM
I must admit I am tempted to look at building the Junkers C.1 I have in the stash. Would probably build it alongside a Tamiya kit so as to keep temper tantrums to a minimum  ;D

Sounds sensible to me.

stevehed

#134
Got her finished. Wing struts are 35 thou rod and the undercarriage, both legs and axle, are remnants from an Airfix Albatros. Wheels are spares and the prop is an Airfix Camel refugee. Side radiators came from the Airfix Roland. This is a Parasol Fokker, one of a small series of aircraft built by Air Park engineers using predominately Fokker Eindekker parts, in response to the wishes of the front line squadrons for an escort fighter with a better performance than the Fokker E111. The Parasol was powered by the 120hp Mercedes and armed with a single Spandau machine gun. It had a top speed of over 100mph and served between March and June 1917 on the southern sector of the Eastern Front. Records are scarce but it is possible that one such aircraft downed an observation balloon during May and Russian records mention Fokker monoplanes during this period.






Regards, Steve