Dutch Fokker bomber and fighter projects from the late 30ties

Hesham: A photo of a mockup identical to your third drawing appears in Aircraft in Profile, Vol 6, no 134, pg. 192, 'The Fokker G.1'. But author Bart van der Klaauw identifies this as "A mock-up of the proposed G-2 under construction in the Fokker plant". The thing is, van der Klaauw himself identifies the G-2 as a DB600-powered aircraft and this mockup is clearly fitted with Mercury engines. ::)
 
There is confusion about the Fokker G.1 design with glazed nose.

Hugo Hooftman in Vol II of the Nederlandse Luchtvaart Enclyclopedie -Fokker G.1- describes
this aircraft as a G.1 bomber. He claimed to be the first to published a drawing of it.
(early seventies of the past century)

In the new book about the Fokker G.1 (Lanasta ) the four authors had an other opinion.
Translated from the book.
...It was a planned reconnaissance variant of the G.1 based on the 'ontwerp 179'.
A early production G.1 was fitted with a glazed nose mock up but not flown.
Interest in the reconnaissance G.1 vanished in 1939...
 
lark said:
...It was a planned reconnaissance variant of the G.1 based on the 'ontwerp 179'.
A early production G.1 was fitted with a glazed nose mock up but not flown.
Interest in the reconnaissance G.1 vanished in 1939...
Click to expand...


My dear Lark,


that means the Ontwerp 179 had a different drawing ?.
 
Indeed, projected in 3 variants based on the G.1 design.
 
Hi,


you feel with those artist drawings to Fokker G.1,it was different from we have,
a little.
 

Attachments

  • Fokker.jpg
    Fokker.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 694
  • Fokker_01_popmex041937.jpg
    Fokker_01_popmex041937.jpg
    252.9 KB · Views: 677
The first drawing is indeed nothing more than an artist fantasy. I am not aware that the US was ever considering the G.1.
The second drawing is, as indicated, a Koolhoven vision and does not belong in this topic. Koolhoven iis definitely not Fokker.
 
That's always the crux with photos or drawings showing a mix of types. I've made a cut-out
from that "Twin-Tail Fokker Attack Plane" and replaced the other, maybe misleading picture with it.
Nevertheless I'm not sure, if it really is a ground attack version of the G.I, or just an interpretation
made by hearsay.
BTW, is that fancy G.I in US colours from Popular Mechanics, too ?
 
My dears Jos and Jemiba,


I will ask about the second picture.
 
Interpretations with much artistic freedom I guess...
Should be interesting to know the timeframe and source..
 
lark said:
Interpretations with much artistic freedom I guess...
Should be interesting to know the timeframe and source..
Click to expand...


My dear Lark,


the second picture was an artist drawing to attack version of Fokker G.1,made by
Popular Mechanics in April 1937;
http://www.jitterbuzz.com/MAN_1937_04.html


but I heard that,there is an attack version of G.1,and took the "P" designation,is
that right ?.


For the first picture,I am sorry,I put it wrong from few months as a Fokker G.1,
but it was unknown fighter aircraft,Probabaly from USA,and appeared in the
book; An Airplane in Every Garage,please can we open a new topic for it,it
was not related to Fokker G.1;
http://ehangar.com/forum/your-collection/guss-collection-of-originals/page-4/
 
hesham said:
it was unknown fighter aircraft,Probabaly from USA,and appeared in the
book; An Airplane in Every Garage
Click to expand...

NO. The site doesn't say that at all.

It says that the artist, known as Ted Grohs, is also known for his work on that 1958 book, which is substantially different.
 
The 1958 book quoted above was by Daniel R. Zuck, who designed the 1947 Plane-Mobile.


http://www.biblio.com/books/688883135.html
http://www.aerofiles.com/zuck-art.jpg
 
Thank you Stargazer,


but what about the second aircraft,I heard there was attack version from G.1,but
I want a confirm about this.
 
The Fokker G-1 was a 'jachtkruiser', something that loosely translate as 'fighter cruiser'. I would place it roughly in the same category as the Bell XFM-1 Airacuda and the Martin XA-15 that we have discussed elsewhere.
I do not know what missions the 'jachtkruiser' flew but I also doubt that anybody can properly explain the difference between a 'fighter' and an 'attack' aircraft, other that the first one is supposed to 'attack' other fighters, and the second one is supposed to fight 'ground' operations (pun definitely intended).

As far as the P designations are concerned, I know the Fokker projects were designated with the letter P but there was no P designation for adopted Fokker aircraft designs. A further explanation of the Fokker designations is in Aerofiles.
There is also an interesting description of the G-1 in 'De Nederlandse Vliegtuigen', by Theo Wesselnk and Thijs Postma, and nothing in there indicates a different attack version.
 
From 1938 through early 1940, Sweden was negotiating with Fokker to acquire G-1 aircraft. These would have been different from the ones in Dutch service. In Swedish service, the aircraft would have been designated B-7 - 'B' for 'Bombplan'.

In early 1940, Fokker proposed an aircraft that would have carried one 250 kg bomb internally/one 350 kg bomb externally, as well as four 50 kg bombs carried under the wings. A contract had been prepared for 18 aircraft, but was never signed. A follow-on order for 77 aircraft was planned, 12 of which would have been S-13 reconnaissance aircraft - 'S' for 'Spaningsplan'.

Source: 'Fokker G-1 jachtkruiser - deel 1' by Frits Gerdessen, Karel Kalkman, Cor Oostveen and Willem Vredeling, Lanasta 2011.

I think the Swedish aircraft would have qualified as attack aircraft.
 
Thank you my dears very much,


and for Stargazer,was the twin boom fighter artist drawing a real design or just
a hypothetical ?,someone in that site,suggested the aircraft was from Lockheed,
and developed from XP-38,but we have all early Lockheed Models,also I have all
early "L" and "V" series,and nothing in them.


http://ehangar.com/forum/your-collection/guss-collection-of-originals/page-4/
 
Well, it's described as "similar to the G.I", so it seems at least clear, that there actually
is no connection to Fokker. There's post suggesting, that it is just a fictional type, as many
details, like inlets or exhausts are missing completely.
 
hesham said:
and for Stargazer,was the twin boom fighter artist drawing a real design or just
a hypothetical ?
Click to expand...

This painter did a series of commercial works depicting real types but this is obviously something he did for a company.

The only company that I've seen his name associated with during the 1940s is Consolidated (he did illustrations for them).

hesham said:
someone in that site,suggested the aircraft was from Lockheed,
and developed from XP-38,but we have all early Lockheed Models,also I have all
early "L" and "V" series,and nothing in them.
Click to expand...

You have ALL early Lockheed models? No kidding? All the Ls? All the Vs? Not even a number missing, such as L-127 or V-301??
Then DO share it, by all means. I think that's what we've all been doing on this forum, sharing knowledge.
If you have the complete early Lockheed listings and keep them to yourself it's not quite the spirit of this forum...
 
Stargazer,


of course not all of them,but most of them,and for L-127 and V-301,they are still
missing,and for sharing info,I did that,but slowly,I can't send in one week or one
month all of those projects or anther projects from other companies,that's impossible,
for many reasons.


For Convair company,may be it was for it,many of its designs are unknown.
 
If we can get back to the G-1 ;), on the Dutch Aviation Forum, on which our friend Hesham also posts, a correspondent named Fogg suggested on 28 February 2014 that the picture of the 'attack' G-1 presented to us by Hesham, is a poor drawing f the G-1 on display at the Paris air show, and labelled incorrectly.
 
Frits Gerdessen & Co in the mighty G.1 book published by Lanasta -The Netherlands, mentions
five versions of the basic G.1. Among them is a ground attack variant.
But for the recce. version with the glazed belly cupola, there are no
external differences in the plane layout for the other versions.
 
lark said:
Frits Gerdessen & Co in the mighty G.1 book published by Lanasta -The Netherlands, mentions
five versions of the basic G.1. Among them is a ground attack variant.
But for the recce. version with the glazed belly cupola, there are no
external differences in the plane layout for the other versions.
Click to expand...


Great info my dear Lark,


but had it gotten a "P" series ?.
 
As far as I found Hesham , Fokker did not use the 'P' designation
in relation to the G-1.
 
airman said:
"Fokker Design 119 Prototype
The first Fokker heavy bomber was the Design 115, a bomber adaptation of F.XXXVI civil airliner, updated.
The second is a further expansion of the idea, brought to flying status.

Twin Nose / tail turrets, single dorsal turret and ventral dustbin, all 7.92mm. 10,000lb bombload. Structure is built to take +4,100lbs in future expansion, which is expected to be heavier arms and armor . Current max weight 62,486

1934-5 Heavy Bomber
stats are loaded
Rough field capable
Crew : 6
Powerplant : 4 x Jumo 211A 1,085hp inline
Armament : Equipped with 2 x 7.92mm MGs and a dorsal turret with 2 7.92mm MGs, radio.
Armor : 10mm armor disk
Payload : 10,000 lbs official (14,100lbs unofficial)
Range : 1,620nm at 150kts
Rate of climb : 473 fpm
Loaded Stall speed : 69kts
Ceiling : 20,500 ft
Max speed : 209kts (240 mph) @ 13,000
Corner speed : 118kts, 6.6 deg/ sec
Weight (max) : 62,486 (66,700) lbs
Cost : $224,000
Wing Span: 124 ft Length: 78 ft. Wing Area: 2,164 ft2
Wingloading : 31lbs/ ft2 loaded"
found on
http://www.wesworld.jk-clan.de/thread.php?postid=61717

speculation or not ? ???
Click to expand...


My dear Airmen,


sorry for long time to respond,but I know the Ontwerp or P.119 was a fighter,or D.XX,
are you sure about that info ?.
 
A variant of de Fokker D.XIX (or D.19) with an
air cooled radial engine was put on paper and it is possible
(but not sure !) that the designation D.XX was alloted to this design.

From : Peter de Jong in 'Fokker D.21' Lanasta.The Netherlands.

Ontwerp 119 was an other fighter design ,but very few info exist about it.
 
Thank you my dear Lark,


and I have the P.119 in my files,as a fighter also a heavy bomber,and may be
the number re-allocated.
 
Hesham,

I dont know where you have the Fokker 'P' designator have from.
Never saw that in publications about Fokker exept when they worked
in cooperation with VFW...
 
hesham said:
and I have the P.119 in my files,as a fighter also a heavy bomber,and may be
the number re-allocated.
Click to expand...

lark said:
I dont know where you have the Fokker 'P' designator have from.
Never saw that in publications about Fokker exept when they worked
in cooperation with VFW...
Click to expand...

A few minutes before hesham posted about this project, I posted an article on the Boulton Paul P.119. Maybe poor hesham got confused... ::)
 
My dear Lark,


I meant by suffix "P" the project or Ontwerp,and the problem is still there,
we don't know exactly what was Ontwerp 119,fighter or heavy bomber ?.
 
hesham said:
I meant by suffix "P" the project or Ontwerp
Click to expand...

But you see, hesham, the problem is you can't simply use the "P" letter like that if the manufacturer didn't use it. It's a source of confusion for others!

It was mostly used by German and British manufacturers.
 
Better explanation than mine.. !
"P" and "Ontwerp" is not the same...
 
lark said:
Better explanation than mine.. !
"P" and "Ontwerp" is not the same...
Click to expand...


OK my dear Lark,


and what about Ontwerp 119 ?,I get answer from anther site,it was a single seat
fighter,probably D.XX.
 
I'll take a look for ontwerp 119 tonight Hesham.

For de D.XX (D.20) see reply # 71 please.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom