Eduard Fokker F.1 potential Issue

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

We got the Eduard 1/48 Fokker F.1 in stock today and both kits have exactly the same issue in them. Part C 22 ( I think that's the right one) is snapped (it's a long thin strake that goes under the fuselage). I would imagine looking at how and where it fits, it might not be an issue for some modellers but to others it will be and we certainly don't want to knowingly sell kits with broken parts.

So if anyone has bought one, please check it for the fault and if it is damaged, please report it to Eduard in case it's a common problem, they won't know unless they get told. You can of course return it to the seller for a refund but that would take more time and effort (and cash) posting it back or driving to the shop. We'll report the issues with our stock to both the UK supplier and Eduard in the morning.

 

thanks

Mike

 

Here's a link to the product page on Eduard's website. The instructions can be viewed or downloaded as a pdf and if you look at page 7, you should see part c 22, which is the broken part I was referring to.

 

https://www.eduard.com/store/eduard/fokker-f-i-1-48.html?cur=1&force_sid=a13f9d93245f71b430d92a47f8f775bb&listtype=search&searchparam=8493

Edited April 4, 2017 by Mikemx

[melvyn hiscock]

I am surprised there is no curved leading edge to the tailplane and there is no external underside  strake on any Dr1 drawing I have ever seen. It could be this is meant to show where the fabric was laced. My Leaman books are not here a the moment (in the summer palace) but I would recommend researching first before worrying too mch about a small strake that may not be there and can be made of strip plastic.

 

[Beardie]

That part is indeed where the underside is laced up.IIRC the lacing was molded onto this strip on the profipack kit, don't know if it is on the weekend kit but I see there is a decal to represent the lacing so I am guessing it isn't in which case the line just needs neatly filled and smoothed before painting and putting the decal in place.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

15 hours ago, melvyn hiscock said:

I am surprised there is no curved leading edge to the tailplane and there is no external underside  strake on any Dr1 drawing I have ever seen. It could be this is meant to show where the fabric was laced. My Leaman books are not here a the moment (in the summer palace) but I would recommend researching first before worrying too mch about a small strake that may not be there and can be made of strip plastic.

 

 

To many modellers this won't be a problem but to some it will. As a seller, you can't knowingly sell a kit as 'new; if you know a part is broken and you can't guess whether it will bother the person who buys it or not. Our supplier is sending us a replacement sprue and raising the issue with Eduard. It's important that Eduard know if this problem affects many of their kits, otherwise they could have some annoyed private and trade customers. This is also the F.1 kit not a DR.1. I've no idea if this makes any difference as WWI stuff isn't my thing.

 

14 hours ago, Beardie said:

That part is indeed where the underside is laced up.IIRC the lacing was molded onto this strip on the profipack kit, don't know if it is on the weekend kit but I see there is a decal to represent the lacing so I am guessing it isn't in which case the line just needs neatly filled and smoothed before painting and putting the decal in place.

 

The kit in question is the new F.1 weekend kit, which has the plastic part for the seam, (which is the part that is broken). It also includes a decal, so the modeller has the choice. I had no idea it was a seam, having little knowledge and interest in WW1 aircraft, the plastic part just looks like some kit of strake to me.

 

thanks

Mike

[melvyn hiscock]

I see your point now, regartding  a 'new' kit. As regards the tailplane, you are righ, of course, I wonder how long a replacement part will be in resin?

 

As an aisde I often wonder how many DR1 replicas there have been as it must be close to the numbers of original DR1s! That was just 320.

[Beardie]

I agree that it would be a bit off to sell kits with broken parts although I do have to say that I have had quite a few kits with broken parts in recent years, particularly from Roden and Special hobby which I guess is largely down to trying to produce finer and finer parts which are also pretty frail.

 

As for the horizontal stabiliser is concerned as far as I can recall the F.1 prototypes of which there were three built, had curved leading edges on the stabiliser and smaller ailerons on the top wing so the kit seems, from what I can see in the quite small images on the Eduard site, reasonably correct for an F.1.

[melvyn hiscock]

I was going by the artwork in the instructions and that shows it straight

 

[melvyn hiscock]

aha, the Melvynator learns to look at Sprues.... It does look like  there is a choice of aileron and tailplane. I might need to buy one of these to add the the 'one day I will start making' pile!

[Chris B]

Re Beardie's reply above     "as far as I can recall the F.1 prototypes of which there were three built,"    the Putnam "Fokker the Creative Years" says    "Thus 102/17 and 103/17 remained the only Fokker triplanes to bear the designation F.1."

 

This book was published in 1965 so later research may have turned up a 3rd.

 

Alas the Putnam doesn't explain the reason for part 22.

 

Chris

Edited April 8, 2017 by Chris B
Finger trouble :-(

[Beardie]

There were apparently three Fokker V.5 prototypes designated by Idflieg as F.1. Fokker F.1 101/17 was apparently tested to destruction at Adlershof on 11th August 1917, Not sure how this was done whether it was a ground test or a really daring or suicidal pilot. 102/17 and 103/17 were sent to Jastas 10 and 11 for evaluation.   Kurt Wolff was shot down while flying 102/17 and then Voss was killed flying 103/17. The remaining pre-production aircraft were then sent to the front designated as Dr(Dreidecker).1 although I don't know if this means that they would have had the convex curve to the horizontal tail and smaller ailerons or not.

 

F was apparently the original designation code for a single seat armed triplane and was ammended to Dr for Dreidecker and, by the end of the war all single seat fighters were designated 'D'.

[Chris B]

Hi Beardie

 

I've looked at the Putnam again and it may be of interest if I set out in more detail what it says about 101/17, 102,17 and 103/17. In doing so I hope that you'll accept that I'm not doing so to start a row or argument but because, I suspect like you, I'm interested in historical accuracy wherever  possible. As mentioned previously the Putnam dates from 1965 so further research may have brought new facts to light. For example were the three prototypes originally designated V.5 or V.4? Anyway on to what's in the Putnam.

 

"Fokker had been given an order for the supply of three experimental examples of his triplane design. The V4 prototype (Military Order No.101/17) was sent early in August to Adlershof for structural testing prior to operational evaluation at the front. The other two aircraft, No. 102/17 and No. 103/17 were nearing completion at Schwerin. The Flugzeugmeisterei condected the strength tests with all speed between August 7 and 10 with Fokker present. The type was, at that early date, referred to as Fok.Dr1."

 

101/17 having passed its tests without major mods  

 

"On August 11, the prototype V.4 was tested to destruction in Case A. The ultimate load factor proved to be 7.92 which was highly satisfactory"

 

"With the type designation Fokker F.1 No. 102/17 and No.103/17 underwent acceptance flight tests at Schwerin on August 16,1917. They were taken by  Fokker To Manfred von Richthofen's fighter wing at Courtrai on August 21. It is not known with certainty why the two aircraft were designated Fok. F.1. Perhaps the Kogenluft had decided on a new category that that followed naturally from on the official category letters A,B,C,D and E. But the Idflieg had already settled on Fok. DR.1 (or more correctly Fok. D.1) at a very early stage, as  a Flz. drawing dated August 7 1917 clearly proves."

 

There then follows the quote in my earlier post followed by

 

"They (that's 102/17 and 103/17) differed visibly from the V.4 only in having the elevator horn balance lying within the contour of the horizontal tail surfaces."

 

A little later it mentions that 

 

"About the middle of October 1917 six new triplanes were delivered from Schwerin, all now bearing the designation Fok. Dr.1 and differing from the F.1s in some details. The only external difference was the addition of wing tip skids under the lower wings. The order numbers of these first six Fok .Dr.1s were 104/17 ....... 113/17."

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

[Beardie]

Hi Chris,

 

I have no dispute with much of that although, looking at a couple of photos of the V.4 I don't believe that 101/17 would have been a V.4. The V.4 didn't have interplane struts although these were added as the wings produced a disconcerting vibration in flight  and the centre wing was the same length as the bottom wing where the V.5 had the centre wing extended to be midway between the length of the top and bottom wings. It is also stated that tests revealed that the V.4 required an unacceptable amount of force on the controls during flight. According to the book " Germany's Triplane Craze" (Aeronaut books 2013) there were two V.4 prototypes although it doesn't say what their serials were. It does say, interestingly, that the first V.4 prototype was armed with two synchronised machine guns and shipped to Austria-Hungary in August 1917. This would go against the idea that it was 101/17 and had been tested to destruction. I wonder what happened to it. If I were to guess I would say that Fokker was supposed to present a V.4 prototype serialed as 101/17 but slipped in a substantially modified (V.5) version instead with the flaws in the original design ironed out.

 

Oddly the Wikipedia entry for the Dr.1 gives credit for the details in the entry of the V.5 being substituted for the V.4 to "Fokker The Creative Years". I would be surprised if Idflieg would have accepted anything other than the exact version for testing even if modifications were minimal.

 

As for the 'F' designation I think that, up to the tri-plane, there had been serendipity in having 'E' for Ein and 'D' for Doppel but there wasn't any appropriate single letter spare for Drei and so F was adopted until some bright spark came up with the little 'r' and the 'Dr' designation was taken up.

[Chris B]

Hi again Beardie

 

I hadn't thought to compare Wiki to the Putnam but have now done so.  Confusion reigns.

 

The photo on Wicki noted as being  V4 prototype -  equal small span lower and middle wings - is also in the Putnam but captioned as "The first Fokker triplane, the V3".

 

Wiki refers under 'Design and Development' to the V5 being a revised V4 with longer wings and interplane struts. The Putnam on the other hand puts  an increased span middle wing , an increased span upper wing with horn balanced ailerons and interplane struts on the V4.   

 

Putnam refers to the V5  as being a re-engined Dr.1 108/17 with a 160hp Goebel Goe.111 that was test flown 30 October 1917.

 

For the sake of completeness the Putnam refers to the V6 as being a revised Dr.1 with a 120hp Mercedes (a photo is shown) and the V7 as having  a 160hp Siemens-Halske Sh.3.  Wiki agrees with the V7 details and mentions the Goebel but doesn't give a V number to that nor does it mention the Mercedes installation.

 

In essence the Wiki starts with the V4 as being the first incarnation leading to the V5 being the original production version. 

Putnam puts the same sequence as V3 and V4.

 

I wonder if there's ever going to be a definitive answer ?

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

 

 

 

[Beardie]

Hi Chris,

 

I am guessing that, as with a lot of things WWI it will be a case of picking the 'most likely' as the probable. Interestingly Jack Herris in "Germanys Triplane Craze" starts with the V.4 stating it to be the first triplane prototype with no bracing struts. There are three photos in the book. Two showing it in plain canvas with light showing through the wings and vertical tail and one painted up in a solid, dark colour, possibly black, with white vertical tail marked with the Maltese style cross and a plain aluminium cowling. He gives it a 110hp Le Rhone engine. Herris gives the horn balanced ailerons and interplane struts of the V.5 as coming from the final configuration of the V.4 but the wider centre wing as being introduced on the V.5

If I was to guess, I would say that one V.4 prototype was built and tested by Fokker where it displayed the wing vibration and stiff controls and he therefore had another V.4 prototype built with interplane struts and control horns and, being happy with the performance of this he commissioned three prototypes where he extended the centre wing as he was now pretty certain that he was onto a winner. Being a shrewd business man I would guess that he decided to label this one as the V.5 just in case Idflieg had heard about the problems with the V.4 prototype which might have prejudiced them against it.

 

Next Herris deals with the V.5/Dr.1 which he says was powered by the Oberursel Ur.II (copy of Le Rhone). After that he covers the V.6 stating that it was developed in parallel with the V.5 but was powered by a 160hp Mercedes D.III inline engine with wingspan, chord and area all increased but the resulting aircraft had poor climb and manoeuverability compared to the Dr.1 and so development was dropped.

Finally he deals with the V.7 which he states was based on the Dr.1 airframe but with a lengthened fuselage to balance more powerful engines. He says there were four prototypes built-

V7S Powered by the 11-Cylinder 160hp Siemens-Halske sh.III (Not suitably developed to be put into production)

V7O Powered by the 14-Cylinder, twin row, 160hp Oberursel U.III (Outdated and heavy)

V7G Powered by the 9-cylinder 160-200hp Goebel Goe.III (Not suitably developed for production)

V7R Powered by the Austrian built 11-Cylinder, 150hp Steyr LeRhone (Only available in very limited numbers)

 

In addition to the problems listed next to each engine variant there was a lack of suitable lubricant for rotaries in Germany due to Allied blockading and the fact that it was becoming clear that the triplane configuration had too much weight and drag to be worth pursuing led to this being the last attempts by Fokker to continue with the triplane design.

 

Basically it would seem that all the Fokker Triplane V's were simply Fokker testing out different powerplants and tinkering with handling.

 

regards

 

Marty

[Beardie]

Oh I meant to add, there was one final incarnation built under the direction of Anthony Fokker, the V.8 which is positively insane. A V.6 triplane fuselage with inline Mercedes D.III engine standard Dr.1 set of three wings in front of the cockpit plus another pair (Upper and middle wing) mounted behind the cockpit.

 

Marty

[Chris B]

Marty

 

Thanks for the thoughts . It looks as if the V numbers Fokker gave (or didn't give) to the early Dr.1s  just about 100 years ago will remain a riddle wrapped in an enigma unless someone researches and  publishes contemporary 1917 documentation, always assuming that such records exist.

 

It's almost as opaque as trying to establish the shade of grey or brown (or some say green) used to camouflage British WW1 tanks or the multi colours used to repaint those captured and reconditioned by the Germans.  I've spent many a day over the last few years looking for a definitive  answer only to conclude that it's mostly a matter of opinion or conjecture.

 

Still, one reason why I enjoy modelling is in coming across such  questions and researching the answers, albeit that often answer is there none.

 

Regards

 

Chris

[melvyn hiscock]

I picked up my copy of Paul Leaman's overwhelmingly excellent book on the Dr1 today from my summer palace.

 

The V4/V5 is more complicated than would first appear.

 

The V4 was originally ordered as a biplane but was re specified as a triplane. (work no 1661) Originally destined to be demonstrated to the Austro Hungarian forces as a biplane

 

Powered by a 120hp Le Rhone when converted to the triplane is had no interplane struts

 

V5 Work No 1697 120hp Le Rhone, first true triplane. Modified through its life. Interplane struts and, originally, longer span wings. Curved leading edge to tailplane and square balanced elevators. Rebuilt as first true triplane with shorter span wings. This was numbered F1 101/17 and used in static load and flight tests

 

Work numbers 1729 and 1730 were also known as V5 and were F1 102/17 and F1 103/17

 

This is an excellent book and well worth reading

 

 

 

 

[Beardie]

Sounds like a very good book but the asking price on the internet is a touch on the high side.

[melvyn hiscock]

Perhaps, but it is about as good as you are likely to get. Paul wrote some of the first 'proper' articles on the DR1 in the Airfix Magazine in 1969. I have known him for about thirty years and he is a good researcher and genuinely a DR1 expert. Personally I would listen to him before some of the other experts. Just my opinion.

 

If you only by One DR1 book, it should be this one.