Talk:Fokker Dr.I

Number build

The german wikipedia "says" 420 planes. What is correct? Any sources? Vermeer (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The 320 number seems to be correct. The "Fokker Triplane" Windsock datafile (No.5) gives a production list, and says 320 were made, including prototypes on page 1. Production numbers could be inflated by Vagel-Grip Flugzeugbau production post-war (as the SP.5 Grief) but I have no source for them, however I doubt they made more than one. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Page layout

Recent edits to this page include improvements to photo placement. The primary goal was to avoid placing a series of images in a stack at the right-hand side of the page. The resulting image "stackup" is discouraged in WP guidelines: Avoiding image "stackups". In addition, it is recommended that the left-hand image should be the one in full color, for visual interest, and that it also have strong directionality so that it naturally faces into the text. These small changes should result in improvement to overall page appearance. Jack Bethune 00:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how this is an improvement. First, there is no image stackup problem here. The guideline states: "One of the problems many users of floating images hit is that multiple images sometimes 'stack up' horizontally, particularly with large screens and wide images. The best solution to this is simply to add more text, but this sometimes isn't possible. This section shows some solutions to this problem." Under this definition, image stackup is obviously not at issue in this article. Lack of text has not caused images to stack up horizontally.

More importantly, this image is not representative of a Fokker Dr.I. It is a replica, and not an accurate one. No Fokker Dr.I was ever powered by a Warner Scarab, or whatever that radial is. And the cowling is obviously designed for a radial, not a rotary. If the picture were an accurate replica, I would not object. But I fail to see why this inaccurate representation of a Fokker triplane must be featured so prominently, and I fail to see why that helps inform readers as to the qualities of the actual aircraft. 167.10.240.94 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Having learned from you that the color image is of an inaccurate replica, and not a very good one, I have to agree. This image would not be a suitable photo to lead off the page discussion. Thanks for clarifying the stackup situation. I misread the guidelines. Jack Bethune 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor correction regarding the powerplants. The Dr 1 began initially with the Oberusel, which was a radial, not a rotary layout. The Oberusel was also somewhat unique in that the cylinders and propeller rotated around a stationary crankpin. This had the unfortunate consequence of throwing off a noxious cloud of gasoline and castor oil which tended to make the pilots ill. Fokker susequently traded out the Oberusel for an inline 110hp Le Rhone.

Jarrod Roth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.206.15 (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm - actually the Oberusel and Le Rhone were BOTH rotary engines where the cylinders and propellers rotated around a staionary crankshaft - what they weren't is Wankel engines which are now commonly also known as rotary engines.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Voss's death

It appears from the entry on Werner Voss that his death had nothing to do with any problems inherent in the design of the Dr.1 but was the result of facing odds of 7:1 against. Should the main entry be rewritten slightly to clarify that? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fokker Dr.I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302130746/http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/fokker-dr-1-triplane-2/ to http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/fokker-dr-1-triplane-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302130746/http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/fokker-dr-1-triplane-2/ to http://oldrhinebeck.org/ORA/fokker-dr-1-triplane-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"No Further Information" is Non-Sequitur that Goes Nowhere

"...no further information about the Sopwith design..." Typically when reading, you expect an isolated fact like this to go somewhere, but in this Article it doesn't. Why would he not give "further information", why was this fact important, and (most importantly) why is this fact included in the Article when it doesn't go anywhere?Tym Whittier (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense - Platz was ordered to build a triplane based on reports of the Sopwith Triplane, but wasn't given any details of the Sopwith aircraft, so he had to produce his own design.Nigel Ish (talk) 19

08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Serial numbers

Here are the rules on when it is appropriate to include serial numbers: [1]. The instances where they were removed (after having been recently added) do not generally fall under these categories. Serials are even less appropriate in captions, especially since they can be added to the page with information on the image. Even worse, the photo of the museum aircraft already has its own caption - with the serial number, so duplicating it adds nothing. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

425/17 had a special paint scheme. In fact an iconic one, as one of von Richthofen’s all-red aircraft. Meets the criteria for a serial. Gonterman’s aircraft was in an accident, a very important one, because it resulted in a production halt and investigation into the manufacturing process. Meets the criteria for serial. Serial 152/17 also had von Richthofen’s all-red paint scheme and was probably the last Dr.I on public display. Meets the criteria for a serial. Please stop removing pertinent information. Your edits are not helpful. M Van Houten (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Richthofen's was the only one that actually merits inclusion - barely, while the V.5 certainly does not. Nor does some pilot's aircraft that no-one outside the specialists has ever heard of. BTW, thanks for undoing my other unrelated edits with YOUR edit warring. No one cares about the serial of the last one on display either and it adds precisely NOTHING, and is the exact opposite of pertinent. It also doesn't count as a survivor as it doesn't exist anymore. Your creative interpretation of the rules in not consistent with how they have been used for years, and you should probably read them again. The Dr.I was not built in such small numbers that V.5 is in any way significant. I have posted a request for input from the aviation project page. - NiD.29 (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The V.5 falls under “Prototypes and development aircraft.” Meets the criteria for a serial. Amusingly, you are using the project guideline as an excuse to delete information that the guideline specifically authorizes. Maybe you should read the guideline first. I’m trying to assume good faith on your part. You’re not making it easy. M Van Houten (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NiD.29 on not using serials in these instances. In particular, the V.5 is known by that designation; the manufacturer's airframe serial is a different thing and we would only use it when there was no other designator. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

They do not support your claim, Van Houten.

1. Aircraft involved in accidents - refers to aircraft accident pages where the notability is derived from it being a page about that aircraft's activities, not to a mention about a crash for an aircraft not notable enough for its own page, and it wasn't just one aircraft but several, none of which were notable in their own right beyond suffering structural failures. Now if someone were to write a page about that aircraft's accident, that could change.
2. Prototypes and development aircraft - see comment from Steelpillow.
3. Aircraft with limited production (less than 20) - fails on account of 320 airframes being built.
4. Aircraft with unique special paint schemes - at least a dozen WW1 aircraft were red, starting with a couple of Navarre's Nieuports, so not unique. Not even the only German to paint an airplane red.
5. Aircraft that hold world records - there are no known world records held by Fokker Dr.Is.
6. Aircraft that are on public display - Note "ARE", present tense - not 70 years ago. This is intended for the section on survivors and aircraft on display where it provides context. Your usage does not provide any useful context to the general public.
7. Aircraft that are notable enough for their own article - none of these have their own pages and ergo, fail this.
8. Aircraft related to the award of a country's highest military decoration - not applicable since no award is mentioned.
9. Construction or manufacturers serial numbers should only be used to identify those aircraft already listed as notable enough to mention either the military serial or registration when the other identities are not available or do not clearly identify an aircraft - again, fail.

The intention of these pages is not to duplicate the Windsock Datafile, but to provide a page for the general public - for whom the serial numbers are meaningless filler that gets in the way of its readability. - NiD.29 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

As the originator of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Registrations I have to agree with the comments that NiD.29 made, just to note that 425/17 which is a notable airframe as the last mount of the Baron may be worth a mention only to differentiate it from the other aircraft like 152/17 that he flew. In all these images is it is normal practice to provide all the extra information like locations, date. serial numbers and background information on the image page which can be accessed with one click of the image. MilborneOne (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)