Mini Pfeil; The Fokker D.XXIII
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- When the Netherlands realised in 1937 they needed high performance fighters, local manufacturers didn't have anything available that met the criteria.
But determined not to lose home orders, the famous Fokker company developed a potentially revolutionary aircraft that would have put them right at the lead of the industry...if it had gotten into service in time.
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatter...
If you like this content please consider supporting me at Patreon:
/ ednash
Want another way to help support this channel? Maybe consider buying my book on my time fighting ISIS:
amzn.to/3preYyO
I flew the Cessna O-2 in combat, and cooling of the rear engine on a "suck and blow" airplane was still an issue in the 1970s. Performance gains are also minimal. We got single-engine performance with twice the fuel use, in effect. And the O-2 would not hold level flight on one engine, so the hoped-for safety factor wasn't there, either. It's another one of those great ideas that turn out to be less than stellar.
At a time when more powerful engines were unavalaible, push-pull configuration looked like a good idea, compared to the traditional 2 engines configuration, where, as per the old joke "one engine pulls the aircraft, while the second compensates for the extra drag".😃
indeed both look similar..
Civilian 337 Turbo fixed the power problem, and I never ha any cooling issues with it..
@@dankingjr.2088 You're also not flying at max power and low altitude in SE Asia.
Thanks for your insight. Much appreciated.
Looks like the Cessna designers had had their hands on some blueprints of the Fokker D.XXIII when they created the Skymaster! Elegant, ahead of its time, definitely another interesting "what if".
Yeah my 1st thought too. Skymaster has a high wing and solves the rear engine overheating issues with a large airscoop on the top of the crew cabin to funnel air to the rear engine. But I am sure the Fokker D.23 was in the back of some of Cessnas' engineers as a templet to start with and proof one could get high performance out of a push-pull twin engine airplane
Why do people nowadays always assume that people are copying other’s work? Could be that no one at Cessna even heard about this prototype, and most likely they didn’t. The idea of pusher/puller aircraft is nothing new and is common knowledge among aircraft designers, so it isn’t unreasonable to think that the designers at Cessna came up with the design on their own. Besides, the Cessna actually worked, unlike the prototype.
@@mopar_dude9227 I do think he was being rather tongue in cheek in his post. Perhaps you could read it again in a different light??
@@mopar_dude9227 Well even the Dodge Brothers were well aware of what Olds and Ford designing and producing from their factories before Dodge's ever solid their first truck or auto. Things rarely happen in a vacuum and Ed talks about in his video Fokker produced a push pull twin engine during WWI due to the technology of the day Fokker could not over come the issues of cooling the rear pusher engine. Similar issues plague the FokKer D23 during the run-up to WWII and the Nazi invasion ended further development. So when Cessna revisited the design 1960s, they had to be aware of the previous push pull twin engine design and believed they could over come the rear engine cooling issue that plagued previous designs. It is not a knock on Cessna, why waste good money and time on a design that's a technical dead end if it can be avoided?
@@mopar_dude9227 the prototype worked .. how else did it damage its undercarriage during landing ?.
Congratulations on being Halfway ….to 100k Subscribers
Many thanks! Should get the 50k request video done later this week.
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters thanks for all your hard work on these episodes
sitting at 91k like a month later? Good for you Ed!
Anthony was a very smart Fokker
Groan.
LOL!
Douglas Bader:
He was once invited to give a talk at a girls’ school about his experience as a pilot during World War II.
Bader: “So there were two of these f**kers behind me, three f**kers to my right, another f**ker to the left“.
At this point, the principal turned pale and intervened saying:
Principal: “Ladies, Fokker was a German aircraft“.
And Sir Douglas Bader answered:
“That may be madam, but these f**kers were in Messerschmitts“!…
@@DavidJones-pv8zu
Funny story but way out of character for Douglas Bader.
A vairant of, "these fokkers were messerschmits"
@@calvingreene90 Yes, and I heard the same story with different pilots as the lead character, so...
As a consideration to how this could have been developed, have a look at the SAAB J-21.
Twin boom, tri-cycle undercarriage, catapult ejection seat.
The main difference being that the J-21 only had a pusher prop, with the same heating problems though.
A heat problem solved but substituting a "pusher" jet engine.
A video about the Saab J21 would be a really good thing.
Or, the DO-335 of 1943-45!
I wonder what a Central-Turbo system feeding two Allisons might have yielded in performance, given the pre-1939 timeline on progression..?
Thanks for this one Ed.....As a Dutchy it is always nice to see some Dutch history on YT..btw the designer was not Fokker himself but Marius Beeling, whom help to build the Fokker G-1 and the Fokker D XVII (shown in your video)
I've learn't something else today. Never knew about this aircraft. The Dornier 335 was the only one i knew until now with the pull push technology. Marvellous.
Look at the Rutan Defiant. I think that was a very elegant design.
Awesome video! A little correction on the armaments:
For the Dutch the 2 x 7.9mm FN and 2 x 13.2mm FN was chosen. These can also been seen present on the Mockup of the D.23.
But Fokker also looked at the export market, so other weaponry was also proposed.
On a blueprint with French Hispano-Suiza engines, we can see an armament of one 20mm Hispano 404 firing through the nose, and four 7.9? Maybe 7.5mm machineguns in the wings (Two MG's per wing)
Excellent! Thanks for filling in the gaps!
@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters The D.23 is my favorite propellor driven aircraft, so feel free to ask anything you'd like :P
@@super-cacti Was there any other air cooled 12V engine considered for the aircraft?
@@trauko1388 Huh that is weird. I replied to your comment hours ago. But in the comment I included Imgur links to the blueprints of the different engine layout so I think UA-cam saw it as spam and deleted it. But alright here we go again, this time without links:
So in total, five different engines were discussed/proposed during the development of the D.23 (Not including the Walter Sagitta engines)
The first two that show up came around the time the D.23 (At that time known as the Ontwerp 155) was in it's final design phases. It is speculated that these designs were made to apeal to the export market.
The two designs are as follows:
- The Ontwerp 156, with two inline Rolls Royce Merlin engines, rated at 1050 hp each.
- The Ontwerp 157 with two radial Gnome Rhone M14 M engines, rated at 850 hp each.
For the final three engine proposals we jump ahead to the time when the D.23 Prototype was in full testing. Now Fokker was looking towards improving the plane, and choosing an engine layout that would work best for the Armed Production models of the D.23.
These engines are:
- Two Rolls Royce Kestrel XV engines.
- Two Junkers Jumo 210 G engines.
- Two Hispano Suiza Xcrs engines.
On the blueprints of these final three designs we can see that the Kestrel and Jumo versions still have the two 7.92mm and 13.2mm FN machine guns, in the same layout proposed for the Prototype.
And the Hispano Suiza can be seen with one 20mm Hispano firing through the propellor hub, and four (Most likely) 7.5mm machine guns, with two in each wing.
This Hispano version looks very much like a version designed for the French.
@@super-cacti Thx! Very interesting, how was the handling? Did they run into any special issue due to its configuration?
This is one of the most fascinating pre-war designs in my opinion.
Shame it never got a chance to shine.
Thing was junk; G-1 was far superior
The Fokker like the P38 still presented three times the target from the front or rear to an enemy fighter.
@@chriscarbaugh3936 Thing was still in test flight phase .Get a life and history book.
Fokker is so underrated, the G1is a prime example, love your channel
There'a very good book on Anthony Fokker, Anthony Fokker: The Flying Dutchman Who Shaped American Aviation, I highly recommend it. Fokker didn't understand much about aerodynamics, and hardly done any technical education. But he was a very skilled test pilot, and managed to combine some good technical ideas.
Fokker’s use of air-cooled V-12 engines for the D.XXIII meant that virtually any engine change would require a major redesign. Either radiators would have to be added or the bulkier radial engines would have to be accommodated.
Similar, but pusher-only is the SAAB 21. Seems to have its design origins about the same time, but actually produced.
Also with ejection seat. It was later evolved into 21R, SAABs first jet engine fighter/attack aircraft.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAAB_21
It's a beautiful looking aircraft. It reminds me of my 1968 Skymaster 337. Affectionately called the "Skymoggot"
Soesterberg NL had a air museum in the 1992 to 1996 and I do believe the full sized version was on display there. It really stood out and was indeed even a true diamond in the rough.
Soesterberg never had a full sized replica of the d.23. I live in the area and have been to the museum, which now has been moved to another spot in Soesterberg, and it only has a replica D21 and G1 in terms of modern ww2 dutch aircraft replicas.
@@lenx5953 I can see how 30 years can play tricks on my memory, the G1 was clearly there, I do recall the old museum having, the best plastic model displays and dioramas I have found in 2 dozen air museum world wide. Lenx5, was that a possibility of where I seen it?
I 100% go with your knowledge and experience on this. Anyone that lives in a particular area of question, should always be held in the best source of information. Thank you Lenx5, the old D.7 was certainly a great surprise for me. The new huge square glass museum is truely honouring the great collection of your country.
@@richardrosenau9292 Yes that is certainly a possibility. In the old museum the plastic models were basically scattered across one hall of the museum. Now they are all located just behind the D.7 and to my knowledge they just about have every plane from 1913-1945 with a short description. I must admit it’s been a year since I’ve last been to the museum so I do not know for sure if the d.23 is also there. The d.7 is truly a beautiful plane, it always used to be my second favourite after the G1 when I was a child. Sadly the G1 is now locked away in a separate hall, together with a fokker C.X, only being opened to the public during some holidays (a real shame because these are both the last of their kind to my knowledge). I thank you for your compliments, you should visit again soon. They’ve changed a lot of stuff in the museum, even recently. My thanks for your kind reaction, I hope this info helped. :)
@@lenx5953 is the G1 actually a complete mock up? Or only the front side of the plane (nose cockpit and props.)
@@svenw688 No it’s a complete replica, even with full cockpit interior for as far as I can tell. The propellors are able to spin aswell although they’re not powered.
This design reminds me of that Hungarian RMI 8. Another great vid!
There were many push pull nacelles, but the main reason was available engine power.
As engines became more powerful the need for twin engine push pull designs (nacelles) disappeared, replaced by more powerful engines.
Push pull became interesting again as an alternative for twin engined fighters, reducing yet again the drag of engine nacelles.
The Do335 being a good example vs the P-38 as twin engine example.
Alternatively you could have two engine and double prop, like the Arsenal VB10.
Good video, thanks ! As a german guy I appreciate the clear spoken language. I do know something about airplanes but the fokker 23 I have never seen before. Thanks again !
Love it !!! A top Dutch design , thanx Ed 🛩
I have to say that through all the different WW2 Aircraft sites on UA-cam, This one by Ed Nash is far better than the likes of Dark Skies and Dark Docs.
Again you introduce me to an aircraft that I have never heard of. To my eyes it's a very appealing design that is of course flawed from the outset. Regardless of performance I would not want to be a pilot that had to quickly abandon it.
Another Fokker with push-pull configuration was the F.32. It was a failure too, with performance much lower than expected and cooling issues with the rear engines. Could make for an interesting video! It was a product of Fokker's company in the US.
Ed, your channel is bloody fabulous!
Looks like an XP-54 and O-2 had a child.
On that note, an XP-54 video would be cool.
Another aircraft I am aware of but, as happens so often here, much added to what I already knew.
Wow! I had no idea this aircraft existed. Once again, great video Ed. I accidentally learned something today despite my best efforts!
This was a perfect example of how weapon development and production time lag can hamper the defence of a nation when there are war clouds on the horizon. Today, the adage "Come as you are war" is more relevant than ever.
Well not realy the fokker G1 went from paper to prototype in less than 6 months . the Koolhoven FK 58 went from drawing to prototype also in a few months . The fokker D23 was a new concept new technology so would take some what longer.
Hungary later in the war also tried this pull-push configuration. Some said a blueprint of the Fokker D.XXIII made its it way to Hungary some time after the capitulation of the Netherlands, a lot of engineers from Fokker worked in Hungary at that time. The prototype was built in around 1943, it was called RMI-8X/V. It used some Bf-109 components, including the DB605 engine. Sadly the prototype along with the documents were destroyed by Allied bombing in 1944, so not a lot of info known about this aircraft.
Maybe they where inspired by it, but no blueprints are in the Dutch archives, doesn't seem logical they found there way to Hungary. Never heard of a engineer off Fokker working in Hungary? why would they? Only heard off an Hungarian jewish engineer working in the Netherlands before the war.
The Cessna was used in Rhodesian bush war. But had a high wing configuration
Mr. Nash, you find so many interesting and obscure aircraft. Thank you for sharing!
Getting some strong North American Rockwell OV-10 Bronco vibes here.
Interesting as always, Ed. Thanks for sharing your work 👍
2:04 What a beauty!
I have a weak spot for twin boom aircraft, and this one checks all of my marks needed for being a cool aircraft. It's a shame she was never matured into a true combat aircraft.
There was another , dutch figher beeing developed the Schelde S21 .
De schelde was a shipbuilding company and it was building a fast longrange aircraft with twin boom pusher configuration for the far east. and quite the armament. sadly the prototype was half build before the invasion . the first test plane was quite comical the Schelde S20. but it provided the base of the S21 .
There was an another dutch aircraft like this however it had only a pusher prop and a very unique cockpit for a fighter, sadly the prototype was never completed and it used the Daimler-Benz DB600 as engine
You mean the Schelde S21? Also there was another interesting design but failed due the pilot beeing cooked the Koolhoven FK-55 was also a verry interesting plane . a mid engined aircraft with 2 counter rotating propellors
One thing that is confusing is that the wikipedia said that the d23 was tested by the germans(non flight testing) but was dismantled and it's nose gear setup seems to have possibly been used in the do335 in a modified sence.
This is a Fokker design I didn't know of.
It was a clever design, having a lightweight fighter powered by 2 smaller and cheaper engines instead of one large powerful engine which were difficult to acquire in those years of re-armament.
A 500 horsepower engine was easier to lay hands on until the war started.
The tail boom front ends were ideal for fitting machine guns or even 20mm cannons.
Had the Netherlands started 3-4 years earlier starting to develop and produce this plane and the G1 they could have stand a chance until allied forces stepped in.
The D.21 although being a capable plane it was no match for the Bf-109.
Bailing out is still a sticky wicket for the pilot. Ejection seat or mincemeat.
So many fascinating designs that were being developed just before the war began and that never made it. I believe that the Czechs and Poles had similar stories.
Yes, covered the Czech B.135, which got used by the Bulgarians. Some Polish aircraft are on the agenda.
It seems like the pilot would be sitting between a V-12 hammer and a V-12 anvil in the case of a crash!
I find it interesting looking at pre-WWII black and white photos and seeing the subtle 'touch ups' that were done to make it easier to recognize details that would otherwise have faded into the gray mush of low contrast printing. (Check out the main landing gear in the last photo.) Your great-grandfather's Photoshop!
This is an amazing set to photos considering that the plane was a one-off prototype. Thanks for the video!
THere are videos of this aircraft flying and its landing gear beeing tested during construction.
포커 D.23(Fokker D.XXIII)
ua-cam.com/video/5NRJbR5YQRE/v-deo.html
Fokker D.XXIII prototype (1939)
ua-cam.com/video/ZmP5Y9cPUW8/v-deo.html
Excellent tea break entertainment. Thankyou squire me lad.
Great video, Ed...👍
Rear mounted props never get to bite into 'clean' undisturbed air like a front prop does.
Best picture I have ever seen of the 4-engine Russian Ilya Mouromets
Any interesting design and one I had not heard of.
Excellent video. Thank you for posting.
A fascinating history. Well done!
An Allison engine ala P40 might have been the answer despite Allisons not working out in the Mustang it was a good and a Powerful engine especially if Turbocharged. in fact one turbo Allison would probably have supplied as much power as was needed
Turbochargers need tungsten. Remember where tungsten ore came from.
The turbocharged Allison was a bulky unit - that is why is was used in the P-47 Thunderbolt, but was impossible in a compact interceptor such as the Mustang. The lack of high-altitude performance is why the P-51D Mustang switched to the RR Merlin, which was highly supercharged.
@@paulmanson253 That is not something I had heard. Where does tungsten come from?
Jet engines rely heavily on nickel for high-temperature alloys. Britain had a long-term development program for such alloys, resulting in the Nimonic series, much used in various high-temperature applications. I have an exhaust valve in a Velocette motorcycle cylinder-head made of Nimonic 80....
During WW2, the Germans had no nickel, and used their best steels in their jet engines. They were scrap metal after 10-12 hours' run time. The British engines got routine servicing every 100 hours, for an oil change and minor checks. Many Gloster Meteors finished their service careers with their original engine still in place.
@@pashakdescilly7517 Looks like I had a memory lapse. I do recall reading a story years ago,that the P 38 aircraft Allison engine/GE turbosupercharger combination ,the manufacture was at least ,early in the war,limited to 1000 examples. And was limited because the I suppose titanium ore,not tungsten ore,was at the time only available from overseas. I believe the USSR was at the time the majority supplier of titanium ore.
Without assured supply,the whole engineering package was moot. Rolls Royce continued with mechanical supercharging in part because of supply concerns about the alloys necessary for turbine wheels.
Now the GE superchargers used on the B 17 were manufactured in massive numbers. The Curtiss P 40 in part had limitations because that chosen Allison engine /supercharger combination was not a two stage two speed design. Nor a turbocharger design.
So something about all of this just does not add up. Was late war titanium availability increased ? If so,why not have some P 40 examples with Allison engine and turbosupercharger ? The P 38 was a prewar design,so engineering bugs were clearly worked out of that. P 47 s had a huge turbocharger as well.
I spent some time online trying to find just what the GE WWII turbine wheel was made from,but gave up. Maybe you have a source that will indicate just what the alloy was.
@@paulmanson253 the Curtis P-40 was a compact interceptor, and did not have the space required for a turbocharger installation. Same problem as with the P-51. Allison had a single-stage supercharger, which they did not update. The RR Merlin went two-stage, and later two speed, so it was excellent at altitude. Allison did not follow, and simply were obsolete for high altitude combat. The Russians liked the Bell Airacobra, with its supercharged Allison, because they mostly used it for ground attack, and it was well-suited to that role - solid construction, excellent visibility, heavy armanent, etc
Explosive bolts on the rear prop for emergency exits.
I wonder how much redesign would have been necessary to fit larger, heavier, and more complicated liquid cooled engines. It's a pretty small machine for so much feature creep. Perhaps more a proof of concept than a prototype.
Actualy fokker already made many designs for different engines even Gnome Rhone engines there is a book about the fokker D23 with all alternate engine configurations . wingspans lenght etc . sadly only a few drawings where left after the war most got destroyed or lost .
Fokker always made adaptability to their aircraft . leaving room to update and upgrade them over time.
I agree with you, Mark D. I don't understand why Fokker didn't go for liquid cooled engines from the start. Trying to cool a rear-mounted air cooled engine in a high speed aircraft seems like a bad idea from the start.
0:05, The Wright Brothers did not prove that, "flight for heavier than air vehicles was possible", that had been established earlier by the use of gliders and kites by several people, the brothers were credited with the first "Powered flight" and went on to develop more reliable control methods for aircraft, as well as the concept of the Wind Tunnel and the concept of propeller blade twist.
G'day,
You're almost not wrong, and almost half right.
Wilbour and Orville get the credit for having made the First
Powered,
Controlled
Flight..., by a
Heavier-than-Air
Machine...
And they secured AmeriKan Patents for Lateral Control via Wing Warping.
Richard William Pearse, in New Zealand, some six months before the Wright's December 1903 Kittyhawk First Flight of the "Flyer-1"..., contrived to become Airborne in a Powered Monoplane of his own design and construction - including the Engine and Metal Propeller..., as well as AILERONS, upon which he secured a NZ Patent in 1903, covering the British Empire and pre-dating the Wright Patents.
Sadly, though Pearse equipped his machine with Ailerons as well as an Elevator..., it lacked any form of a Rudder (and it's performance was not sufficient to enable "Bank & Yank" techniques to be employed) ; so he rose off the ground, nose up and slow, so P-Factor yawed him to the Left - and lacking a Rudder then his application of Right Aileron automatically invoked Adverse Yaw to the Left...
So Pearse got off the Ground, yawed 90-Degrees to the Left, stalled, and descended to perch atop the Gorse Hedges which Imperial Kiwis used to fence in their Sheep.
Pearse was a lazy Farmer, so his untrimmed Hedges were 10 ft high, and it took Ladders to retrieve him, and the machine.
Three times, in 1903-4, he repeated the performance.
He was off the ground, in a Powered, Heavier-than-Air machine...; but he was NOT proceeding under Control - he was being taken for a wild ride as a passenger, to attend the Crash-Site regardless of what his opinion or intentions might have been.
Gustave Weisskopf/Whitehead is claimed to have successfully flown under control in a machine powered by an Engine running on Acetylene Gas, of his own design..., in 1901, in the USA, and to have been spied upon by the Wrights...; but the Chemical Engineers say that there is not enough Energy Density in Acetylene to produce sufficient Power to make enough Thrust as to get Whitehead's Craft off the ground.
So, he might have been 60% Marketing Jism...(!) ?
Pearse died in a Madhouse, of Vascular Denentia, in about 1958...., after which his achievement was recognised, his Relics (1903 Engine parts, etc) were unearthed by a team of Archaeologists, and his second Aircraft (a VTOL Convertiplane, again with a radical Original design of Engine...), constructed from 1936 to 1955, was taken to the Aukland Museum Of Transport And Travel - where a specially dedicated Wing was built to house and display it...(!!!!).
Such is life.
Have a good one.
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
@@WarblesOnALot, you certainly do. LMFAO.😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@gregedwards1087
Consider it a rare example of
Truth
In
Labelling...
Pussychotic,
Olde Bean...!
Take it easy,
;-p
Ciao !
Gustav Weißkopf did it first.
@@houstonhelicoptertours1006
G'day,
Thanks,
So some people like to say.
I once thought that he might have done - but the Chemistry Boffins call "Bullshit !" on the claims, because Acetylene is insufficiently Energy-Dense to be able to empower any Engine running on it to produce sufficient Torque to propel his quaint Craft off the Ground...
And, speaking as one who has flown behind an 8-Hp Lawnmower Motor in 1978...; I do not accept that the weight and complexity of the machinery required to enable Weisskopf/Whitehead's Engine to drive his Wheels as well as his Propellers would have helped him to achieve anything except to prevent him from ever getting Daylight under his Wheels.
Mad Dick Pearse at least got far enough off the Ground to perch atop his overgrown Gorse Hedges.
Whitehead merely tried hard to fly, and then tried to con(vince) History that he had done so - even claiming that the Wright Brothers had "spied on him and stolen his best ideas...".
Pacific Flyer Magazine (Mount Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Oz) used to publish my writings, one of which was a two-part Article titled,
"Powered Flight Before The Wrights...!"
So it's a field which I have ploughed through, 22 years or so ago.
Such is life,
Have a good one...
Stay safe.
;-p
Ciao !
Neat video and a neat airplane!
More video ideas: The Douglas XB-19, Boeing XB-15 and the Convair XC-99 - the transport version of the B-36.
Looking back and knowing everything we know today, I honestly am not sure what the solution could have been for them (considering their constraints). I'm not familiar with that engine but if it could be boosted via turbo and/or supercharging, go with one engine and build the lightest, smallest airframe you possibly can - probably out of wood. And make the configuration the sleekest conventionally configured monoplane possible. Since it would only be used as a defensive aircraft over their relatively small country, it would not require long range. So the short-range tradeoff that comes with small size would not be an issue. Also, the small size would make for a smaller more evasive target that's more maneuverable than their adversaries. Analyze what armament you had available at the time and use the biggest guns you can that kept weight to a minimum. Probably twin 20mm cannons would be best (armed similarly to the Me163 Komet).
There was somewhere a video that the 23 was the little sister of the later build German Donier (Pfeil) it was the other way around, the Donier was inspired by the 23.
The Cessna 337 is one of the best aircraft ever!
Great as usual. Interesting bird!
Can you do a video on the HE-112?
If you are continuing your series on twin engine heavy fighter development, we still have
Bristol Beaufighter
de Havilland Hornet
Grumman XF5F Skyrocket
Grumman F7F Tigercat
Beechcraft XA-38 Grizzly
North American F-82 Twin Mustang
Northrop P-61 Black Widow
Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster
Fisher P-75 Eagle (with its W engine block counts a 2 engines)
Ryan FR Fireball (Hybrid piston engine/jet)
Ryan XF2R Dark Shark (Hybrid turboprop/jet)
The only ones that I would take was the Tigercat or the Hornet!
Dont forget the Moonbat..
and flying pancake... You also have the Miles Lible canard.
@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Now that Moonbat, it would probably never succeed because that Hyper engine that it was designed around never finished development. Target Definition for a Hyper Engine was to output 1 horsepower for every cubic inch of deplanement. The Hawker Typhoon engine, the Napier Sabre did make Hyper engine performance goals, but had enough development trouble, such as melting the piston tops, and the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 was starting to approach Hyper engine output towards the end of the war. (Hmm, perhaps Hyper Engine development would be a good subject to cover here.)
Vought XF5U Flying Flapjack with the Zimmerman flying low aspect level wing would be a good choice, and the Hughes XF-11, who's prototype crash almost killed Howard Hughes
@@leonardmiyata482
You may have read it but many years ago i read and poured over the line drawings and photos in a book by the late great LJK Setwright🇬🇧🧙♂️😎 ...on the most ferrociously powerful and complex engines ever developed.. I remember one compound aviation engine that was so complex in its attempts to extract every morsel of energy that the thing was almost impossible to get it started.😂
Westland Whirlwind
I always forget Fokker is Dutch... give me a couple of weeks and I bet I shall have forgotten again, for the thousandth time.
Didn't know anything of this, as a Dutchman.
Towards the beginning of the video, he mentioned the Fokker DXXI, but not the G1?
Fokker was a true pioneer...
Thank you
Someone is building a static replica of the Do-X. That will be awesome to see!
Here is a crazy idea, make the rear engine a liquid cooled model. Put the radiator in the tail boom assembly. This would allow the rear engine to be cooled by the propeller wash from the front engine. This era of aviation was the most innovative in aviation history, from all metal airframes to the introduction of the jet engines. Donier did this midway through the war and produced the fastest propeller driven fighter of the war.
If you read the original documents published in the book fokker D23 ,you would know there where multiple engine configurations , From Gnome Rohne to merlin , BMW , Taurus . etc etc every engine imaginable . Fokker was no fool his company created airframes that could be adapted to multiple types of engines and future upgrades. the japanese also build a prototype like this mid war. its discused in an earlier video .
I think only the Germans got anywhere near having a good push/pull twin with the Do335 Pfeil. Ok, it wasn't perfect by any means, but damn it was fast as heck. Even the USAF P51 Mustangs had a struggle to intercept them. I believe that Pierre Closterman was the first allied pilot to down one, and it was a difficult combat conducted at tree top height.
Squirrel approved 👍
1:51 Hitler holds an imaginary tray of drinks. “Stick with me and everyone gets free schnapps.” M
3:11 "Fokkers needed to up their game." I see what you did there.
A beautiful design. Instead of a Forked Tailed Devil, The Dutch could have a Fokked Tailed Devil.
They actualy had one , the Fokker G1 nicknamed the grim reaper, the french called it Faucheur 8 machinge guns in the nose can have a devastating effect on aircraft . ground personel and hard targets as it was an excellent dive bomber as well.
Unusual Hollander
Well the germans did send an evaluation team to examine the landing gear . Just one of the 4 interesting aircraft . as the Schelde S21 was also an interesting design. but was also still beeing build as prototype . As where the Koolhoven FK-55 it was build but there where some isues . and the fokker T IX bomber.
Fighter, with tricycle landing gear, pre war. interesting!
Yet not unique: Bell P-39 Airacobra, the B-24 Liberator and the PBY 5, off the top of my head.
@@gerardoppewal372 true, just not that many.
With more powerful engines and a swept wing would be awesome. Somewhat like a piston powered DH Vixen...
What's the problem with getting the aerodynamics right in a puller-pusher configuration? Seems pretty straightforward. I would love to learn that!
Air accelerated by first engine behind feed to next engine faster you go worse effect would get till at high speed rear engine be running supersonic problems I recon
@@garypeatling7927 Its more the time a cold medium interacts with a service of a hot object , to slow and the engine is heating the surounding air , to fast and the airflow doesnt have the chance to interact and absorb the heat . It requiers a fine balance .
3:30 So many people misuse the word "utilized". Cliffs notes version is that 99% of the time, you are safe just using the word "use". Utilize is not synonymous with the word use, and you don't sound smarter using the former unless justified. Utilize is when something is used creatively in a way for which it was not designed. So for example a prison inmate could utilize a sharpened toothbrush as a shiv. But you can not utilize a door handle to open the door anymore than you can utilize airplane engines to propel the airplane... its their primary design intent.
Mr Nash ,are you ex RAF not RAAF as your ability to get into the Nitty gritty of each example is both remarkable and refreshing..which is more than can be said of the lowsome history channel.
Very kind sir! I must admit I am not an ex-flyer, purely an interested amateur.
Hi Rex. Where's your outro gone? I rather liked it. Could I have the name and artist please and thank you?
Also, please keep up the good work. It is helping a lot.
I like to compare the D.XXIII's development to P-38, Me 110, and MiG-3.
That would not realy make sense as the Fokker G1 was already the precurser to the fokker D23 , P-38 , Me 51 .
The DXXIII would be most likekend with the Saab 21, and japanese tachikawa Ki-94-I.
I am always surpriced by overheating problems from rear mounted engines in planes. I think it is caused by neglecting the chance of overheating during design fase by using the same sort solution from the front mounted engine.
In the case of this Fokker DXXIII switching to liquid cooled engines with radiators located under the wings (like Spitfire) the problem would be solved straight away.
I hear the "bailing out" issue mentioned with every pusher propeller design. I seriously doubt this is an actual problem. I would be happy to be proven wrong if anyone knows of any experiments or real life instances of this sort of thing happening. Pilots don't hit the tail, and it sticks out farther than the prop. When the pilot jumps (or falls) they're moving the same speed as the aircraft, and are going to drop nearly straight down relative to the aircraft. Yes, I know their drag coefficient is higher, and they are not being propelled forward by the propeller, but for the pilot to be "blown into the propeller" the force of gravity would have to be negligible. And the pilot isn't being "blown backward" anyway, he's experiencing the same windspeed as the plane. When you watch bombs drop from a bomb bay, they fall straight down relative to the aircraft. When parachutists jump out of planes it looks to me like they are several feet below the aircraft by the time the tail reaches their position.
In the absence of real world information I'm very skeptical of this scenario.
It was NOT damaged in the fighting, the Dutch destroyed it so the Germans wouldn't get their hands on it. This to make sure they wouldn't get yet another option for their airfleet. Unfortunately the Fokker G.I did fall into enemy hands. One of these at Airbase Leeuwarden where a Dutch pilot was ordered to fly it to Germany after the surrender of the Netherlands, this under escort of 2 Messerschmitt's. While the aircraft was empty, the fuel tanks were full, the Dutch pilot managed to escape his escort almost right away and fly his aircraft to England where he came in low to land. Yet got shot down as the British had no clue what aircraft that was. While the aircraft was heavily damaged, the pilot managed to crash land it and get out safely before it went up in flames completely. The pilot ended up flying again in Spitfires very quickly and survived the war. (I got this information from the pilot himself and for the D.XXIII I received the information from someone who was part of the ground crew at that time. He didn't touch the aircraft to destroy it, however he did hear the order and see it happen first hand)
It was not aibase Leeuwarden but Schiphol Amsterdam. It was a testflight escorted by a second Fokker G.1. It was not shot down in England but made a perfect landing on it's undercarriage. The pilot, Hidde Leegstre never flew for the RAF.
You call it a Mini Pfeil, I call it a very angry Cessna.
They were so close to building a P-38.
the P-38 looks more like to the Fokker G1 than the Fokker D23
They pause your make after ":612 kilometers" at 7:30 or so made me hope you'd end that with "per second" or "per year".
hmm, 16 maart 1937 Fokker G.I forget that one for sure
Another great “what if” design.
You should have seen the Koolhoven FK 55 and Schelde S21.
Correction he would not be hit by the rear propeller he would hit the rear propeller LOL 😂
Please the engine was not an inline, but was an inverted V12.
The USAF have a good standard that uses V for such engines and I for genuine inline. V = 2 rows of cylinders, I = Single row of cylinders.
....If is the biggest little word in the world....!
Koolhoeven FK 58 - monoplane fighter being built for France, could reach over 500 kph (300 mph) Problem was
used British Centaur engine which British refused to ship, forced them to use lower power Bristol Mercury which limited performance armament was 4 rifle caliber MG
FK58 would have been outfited with french gnome rohne engines . much more powerfull thant the centaur engines.
The FK 55 was also a futurisic aircraft but the engine used made it a bit hot for the pilot and looked like a duck
Youre confused with the Taurus engine
Fokker was a genius really when you look at the stuff he produced over the years.
Look at the Fokker G1
The fact that the Dutch were considering German aircraft and/or German engines, is glaring evidence as to how clueless the Dutch were as to their actual threat.
The Dutch had made it through the First World War without getting involved, they were hoping for a repeat in the future. Wishful thinking, but arguably less daft than the Belgians, who really should have learned their lesson about Germany and neutrality in 1914.
We produced them ourself (with american engines) Do-24K
If you need engines, planes or anything else, it does not matter where you can get them from, even if they would be your near future enemies.
0:02 George Cayley established that in the 19th century.
Looks like the postwar Promotor plane
a really fascinating plane thats always intrigued me far more than the huge Fokker G.1
without a doubt, they needed an Inline engine type say with 2 x 1000 hp this would have boosted the power significantly....I bet close to 400 mph
Neato!
The tails looked a lot like those of the G1 and D21.
Another great vid on a pretty Dutch plane!
Although the D.XXXI was quite intrigueing, it probably wouldn't have cut it as a capable fighter. The Netherlands might have been better off acquiring Hurricanes in time, like Belgium did.
Of course there was also the initial attack on the airfields on May 10th with many planes destroyed on the ground, so any 'what-if' order of battle still may not have made much difference..
Much good that did the Belgians unfortunately
Well our Dutch airforce was very small compared to the Luftwaffe. Most of the planes were outdated, and only a handful were modern. The few that were able to take off did do pretty well.
The Dutch would have been better off with just more Fokker D-XXIs and G-1s, with the added bonus of NOT developing technology that might have been very useful to the Luftwaffe against B-17s in 1942 or 1943. The push-pull configuration might have given the Germans the kind of really fast Zerstorer they needed instead of the Me-110s and Me-410s, with an earlier start than the Dornier 335. They were still going to lose, but at greater cost to the Allies.