Re: Fokker D VI & D-V
Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:36:42 -0500

Erik, Alan, and all,

Thanks for the run down on the Alb. D-V. I'm a bit confused, though. I had
been asking about the Fokker D-V, (frame/skin body, rotary engine, comma
rudder), and not the Albatros D-V, (plywood body, in-line engine, rudder &
I understand that other factories built the Alb. D-V under license, but I
did not know if the Fokker factory also built the Alb. D-V under license too.
I read in _German Combat Planes_ that the Fokker D-V was a nice plane to
fly, but wasn't up to combat grade, and so was built and delivered primarily
as a trainer. Good practice for getting used to rotaries before flying the
skiterish Dr.1. That is the machine I described as:
> a nice looking machine too, especially with that big spinner.
> Its more rounded body section seemed less stark than the Es, D-I thru
> and the Dr. 1s square section form. The slightly swept back wings had a
> graceful feel too, though the conventional bracing cluttered up its lines.
> I have read the D-V was well-liked by pilots, but it didn't make the
> as a combat machine. Any sources describe why? Too stable? Underpowered?
I understood the Fokker D-V to have followed closely behind the Fokker D-IV
(which was similar to the D-II & III, but with an in-line engine, though
still not up to the competition) in the spring of '17. That put the D-V's
delivery ahead of the Dr. 1's development. As I (think) I understand it,
Fokker was given a small contract for the D-V anyway -- despite its
inferiority to the enemy it would have to face -- because it did make a good

The Fokker D-VI, as someone here just said, came on the scene in early '18 --
past the Dr.1's prime -- so I raised one eyebrow about it being bought as a
trainer for a past-prime machine. I think someone's posting described the
D-VI as getting some combat exposure. I didn't think the D-V did.

Any background on the Fokker D-V? Pretty machine.