A.Weyl Fokker: The Creative Years (Putnam)

BIPLANE FIGHTERS

   From the first weeks of 1916 it had become increasingly clear that the era of the monoplane fighter was over. The French Nieuports quickly proved their superiority; and in the British sectors the D.H.2 and F.E.2b pushers challenged the Fokkers’ supremacy. All German aircraft manufacturers were asked urgently to submit new single-seat fighter biplanes for evaluation.
   Fokker learnt that the Albatros and Halberstadt concerns were busy developing biplane fighters with water-cooled engines. He had been given the views of the operational pilots by Boelcke and other experienced fighter pilots who had visited his works. The Feldflugchef and other high- ranking officers had let Fokker understand that they expected him to produce a superior fighter as quickly as he had done in the past. It was suggested that he, like Euler, Siemens-Schuckert, Pfalz, and Albatros, might try to produce a copy of the Nieuport scout. It is not known whether Fokker was given the opportunity of trying a captured specimen.
   Fokker felt that the existing M.7 and M.10 designs could not provide the basis of a new fighter design, and that a new line of development must be initiated. Choosing a suitable engine presented a problem. The rotary was not very popular, yet it was light and conferred high manoevrability and a good rate of climb at low altitudes. The six-cylinder water-cooled engines were reliable, easy to service, and had a better performance at altitude; but they were heavy, more complicated, and demanded a larger airframe. It therefore seemed wise to have parallel lines of development, using both water-cooled and rotary engines: Fokker initiated this policy and kept to it up to the end of the war. It proved sound, and was welcomed by the IdFlieg; moreover, the flexibility it permitted enabled the firm to find a market more easily.
   Fokker and Kreutzer were aware that three qualities were of primary importance in a fighter aeroplane: climb, manoeuvrability, and speed at altitude. Immelmann had stressed these necessities, plus high fire-power to decide combats quickly.
   For a good rate of climb and high operational ceiling, weight had to be kept down. This placed the water-cooled engine at a disadvantage, even when allowance was made for its lower fuel consumption. On the other hand, the water-cooled engine gave more power at altitude and more powerful models were becoming available.
   The single-row rotary conferred the best manoeuvrability on the aircraft to which it was fitted. But the most powerful Oberursel of this kind was the U.I, which gave only 100 nominal h.p.; more powerful types by Goebel and Siemens were still experimental. As the Fok. E.IV had proved, manoeuvrability was impaired when a two-row rotary was used. The balance of favour therefore appeared to lie with the water-cooled engine of higher horse-power, especially the 160-h.p. Mercedes. The difference in drag between the two types of power unit was not great, owing to the unavoidable drag of the water-cooled engine’s radiator. The side radiators favoured by Fokker counterbalanced the smaller fuselage cross-section and cleaner cowling permitted by an in-line engine.
   In the airframe proper, Fokker had found that a short wing span generally gave best manoeuvrability, and that wing warping was more powerful than ailerons besides being simpler and cheaper. These views were shared by operational pilots, but the engineers at Adlershof preferred ailerons because the wing structure would not collapse immediately in the event of a bracing cable being severed by a hit.
   All these factors pointed towards biplanes with equal-span wings, the choice of wing-warping or ailerons to be made by the customer.
   The size of the new fighter was governed by weight and wing loading. To exceed a loading of 35 kg./m.2 (7-2 Ib./sq. ft.) was asking for trouble: aerodromes at the front were small and rough, the pilots were not accustomed to high stalling speeds, and stringent restrictions of the BLV limited the length of take-off and landing runs. On the other hand, to keep the wing loading below, say, 25 kg./m.2 (5-1 lb. sq. ft.) would have necessitated oversize wings and added structure weight. Hence the dimensions of the new fighter biplane were limited.
   The aerofoil section used in the M.5 wing had proved efficient, so Fokker decided to retain it. Aerodynamic progress did not matter to him; wind-tunnel tests and related experiments seemed to him and to Kreutzer a mere waste of time.
   Fokker considered that a two-seat fighter ought to beat all competition in the field. The IdFlieg, however, did not like the idea: they thought that, with the engines then available, the additional weight of a gunner and his armament would reduce the rate of climb too greatly.
   Fokker discussed his idea with the Austrians’ representative at Schwerin. They were interested in his proposal, and made available to him one of their new 185/200-h.p. Austro-Daimler engines. This heavy but reliable six-cylinder water-cooled power unit was the most powerful aero-engine that Fokker could get at that time.
   In an ambitious attempt to develop several ideas quickly and with a view to winning early orders, Fokker and Kreutzer pursued parallel lines of development simultaneously. This policy resulted in the construction of the types M.16 and M.18 powered by stationary water-cooled engines, and the M.17 and M.19 with rotary engines. Each of these types appeared in single-bay and two-bay versions, the greater wing area of the latter being selected for two-seaters or when a single-seater with improved climbing performance was wanted. The wing arrangement was indicated by adding to the type number the suffix letter E (einstielig) or Z (zweistielig). Each type could have either wing-warping or ailerons for lateral control.
   First to appear was the M.16E, a single-bay biplane with a 100-h.p. Mercedes engine. In an attempt to provide the pilot with a wide field of vision its fuselage completely filled the gap between the mainplanes. Upper and lower wings were attached directly to the longerons of the deep, slab-sided fuselage. All four wing panels were of equal size and shape; there was no stagger; the gap, which was made as small as possible, was slightly less than the chord. A simple V-type undercarriage was fitted. The deep fuselage earned the aircraft the nickname Karausche, a kind of carp.
   The M.16 was flown during the winter of 1915-16 but, handicapped by its low-powered engine, it had a poor performance and was unsuitable for military use. A single LMG.08/15 gun was fitted on the port side of the cockpit, but the M.16E was never flown with its full load.
   The M.16E was followed by the larger and more powerful M.16Z, a two-bay, two-seat biplane powered by a 160-h.p. Mercedes engine. As on the M.16E, the deep, ugly fuselage occupied the gap between the mainplanes, and lateral control was by wing warping. The engine was carefully cowled, even the cylinders being enclosed. This was an unusual feature on a German aeroplane; the Daimler company did not like it, but it improved the efficiency of the tail. Flat radiators were fitted on the sides of the fuselage.
   The fuselage tapered to a point at the tail. This resulted in a weak and unsatisfactory mounting for the rudder. Aerodynamically the rudder was not efficient: the large vertical area of fuselage ahead of the centre of gravity led to directional instability, and the rudder was partially blanketed by the big, badly shaped fuselage.
   When the promised Austro-Daimler engine arrived it was fitted to a modified M.16Z airframe. The engine was again fully enclosed, but only the upper part of the cowling was of metal: the lower nose contours were formed by light steel tubing that were covered with fabric. This arrangement seriously impaired the accessibility of the engine. The original side radiators of the Mercedes-powered version were replaced by block-type radiators, known as Ohrenkiihler (ear-shape radiators).
   The pilot’s seat was mounted directly on top of the main tank. The cockpit accommodation was cramped, the two seats being close together. The gunner enjoyed the small advantage of being able to fold his seat and stand up to stretch his legs; but so limited were the dimensions of the pilot’s cockpit that the rudder bar was situated under the rear of the engine crankcase.
   Petrol was fed under air pressure to a small gravity tank situated above the ammunition box for the pilot’s gun. This tank held enough petrol for fifteen minutes’ flight at full throttle. The fixed forward gun was a Schwarzlose, synchronized by a Fokker gear. The observer’s gun was a sub-machine-gun of Mannlicher type on a simple flexible mounting.
   The Austrians preferred aileron control, so large surfaces with overhanging horn balances were fitted to the upper wing. This feature earned the aircraft its designation M.16ZK, in which K signified Klappenverwindung (flap control). A new balanced rudder, somewhat like that of the M.4, was fitted a short way forward of the end of the fuselage.
   Despite its obvious shortcomings the M.16ZK was accepted by the Austrians, largely on the strength of its ability to climb. On April 1, 1916, Otto Ahlert, a works pilot, with one Henze as passenger and full load aboard, reached an altitude of 6-0 km. (19,700 ft.). This was an excellent performance for the time. Subsequently a batch of these Fokker biplanes were constructed in Austria, all with aileron control and the Austro-Daimler engine. Series production began in May 1916 under the supervision of Fokker’s assistant, F. W. Seekatz.
<...>
   Running parallel with the development of the M.17 was that of another single-seat fighter, designated M.18 and powered by the 100-h.p. Mercedes. This engine was chosen because other operational aircraft were no longer able to use the 100-h.p. and 120-h.p. Mercedes, and quantities of both were readily available. The 100-h.p. engine was well liked by front-line pilots; so its availability and popularity were regarded as justification for an attempt to develop a Mercedes-powered single-seat fighter.
   In its original form the M.18E differed little from the Karausche. The flank radiators were similar to those of the original M.16E; the engine installation was also generally similar but had a cleaner cowling. The vertical tail assembly incorporated a fixed fin and was a complete change from the tail design that Fokker had favoured until then. A single LMG.08/15 was installed in the same position as that of the M.16E.
   The M.18E remained experimental and was not developed. Like the other single-bay machines, its climbing performance was inadequate: a larger wing was needed.
   While developing his single-seat biplanes, Fokker learned that the new Halberstadt single-seater had found favour with pilots at the front. It was a two-bay biplane, not very different from the general Fokker concept, with fuselage stern and tail design fairly similar. The Halberstadt had a shallower fuselage and cabane struts, however; the upper wing was level with the eyes of the pilot, who sat with his head in the trailing-edge cut-out.
   Two examples of the Halb. D.I had gone to the front as early as February 1916 for operational evaluation. This type, which had the 100-h.p. Mercedes, was withdrawn for modification, but according to general opinion it was far better than the Fok. E.III. In June 1916 eight Halb. D.IIs, with the 120-h.p. Mercedes engine, appeared in the Somme sector and acquitted themselves very well.
   The historical facts about the Halberstadts incidentally make nonsense of Fokker’s statement that his Fok. D.I could claim to have been the first German single-seat fighter biplane with a water-cooled engine.
   A two-bay version of the M.18 was built. Like the M.17Z, it followed the example of the Halberstadts in having a shallower fuselage and conventional centre-section bracing. In fact, most components of the new M.18Z were identical with those of the M.17Z. but the mainplanes were of greater chord. The first M.18Z still had the 100-h.p. Mercedes engine. Like the M.17Z, its fuselage had a pointed stern and the precariously mounted parallelogram rudder. In fact, the fuselage was the same width (820 mm.) at the cabane as that of the M.17Z. The M.18Z had balanced ailerons on the upper wings, and the radiators were two compact blocks, similar to those of the second version of the M.16Z.
   An improved and cleaned-up prototype, but still with the 100-h.p. Mercedes, was submitted for an official type test at Adlershof on April 15, 1916; i.e., before the M.17Z. This aircraft, Fok. D.I, No. 140/16, Factory No. 670, reverted to wing warping: Fokker had found that this conferred better manoeuvrability. The fuselage stern and tail design had reverted to that of the monoplanes, with comma rudder and tripod support for tailskid and rudder. The LMG.08 machine-gun was mounted to starboard, and the radiator blocks had a more elongated form.
   Fokker claimed in his autobiography that “in its official tests the D.I proved to be the fastest and most efficient fighter available”. However, this statement is not supported by any Service records; it is doubtful if any official trial of any kind could have led to such a supposition. In fact, the performance of the Fok. D.I, even when fitted with the 120-h.p Mercedes, was inferior to that of the Fok. E.IV, which was then operational.
   So far from being the fastest and most efficient fighter available the D.I was adversely criticized. The Type-Test Record of April 15, 1916, signed by Professor Dr.-Ing. Bendemann (Director of the D.V.L.) and by Dipl.-Ing. G. Madelung, both officers of the German Flying Corps and eminent aeronautical engineers, contained this rather devastating passage:
   “When seen from a distance of twenty yards the Fok. D.I makes an excellent impression. However, Herr Direktor Fokker is advised to imitate the technological progress embodied in the construction of the Albatros D.I, of which he has taken photographs. This suggestion relates as much to the difference in workmanship between the two aircraft as to all the technical details of the Fok. D.I. Apart from these considerations, the wing warping needs the use of far too much force.”
   The inadequate ground clearance of the airscrew was also criticized, as in the case of the M.17Z.
   Fokker was present when the Type Test Committee of engineering and Service experts made their pronouncement. He was furious when he learnt that the only order he was to get was one for three aircraft with the 120-h.p. Mercedes. These three were to be evaluated to see whether a better rate of climb could be obtained from the Fok. D.I. In any case, further orders would not be forthcoming unless the aircraft’s structural strength was proved in tests to destruction at Adlershof.
   Thus was Fokker disabused of the idea that by good salesmanship he could palm off any hastily and shoddily constructed aeroplane on to the German Flying Corps because fighter biplanes were needed for the Western Front. He had thought that his contacts with high-ranking officers and leading fighter pilots would be sufficient to overcome the technical doubts raised by the engineering experts. Now he found that the engineering experts could not be swayed by any pressure.
   The Type Test Committee’s tart reference to Fokker’s photographic activities followed repeated warnings that he must refrain from photographing other firms’ prototypes and experimental ideas in the top-secret Prufanstalt und Werft at Adlershof. Civilians and cameras were strictly prohibited there, and ordinary mortals who offended against this rule were liable to be instantly arrested and charged with a grave offence against military secrecy and state security. Fokker therefore had good cause to be grateful for the lenient treatment of his photographic indiscretions.
   After a comprehensive structural test programme, including many repeats and requests for modifications, the Fok. D.I was accepted structurally, but the margin of reserve strength was small.
   The airframe supplied for the structural tests had been styled - possibly by Fokker himself - “Captain Boelcke’s aircraft”. This may have been done in an attempt to emphasize the urgency of the tests and to assure an easy passage. However, there is no record that Boelcke ever wanted this particular aircraft or took any steps to accelerate its acceptance.
   The modified Fok. D.I No. 140/16 was again submitted to Adlershof on July 12, 1916, and was passed for service.
   The structural tests cost Fokker nothing. As requested, he was present throughout the week of testing, glared at the experiments, and complained to all non-technical officers he knew that these confounded engineering scientists were biased against him. To his mind it was unforgivable that the Fok. D.I had not been sent immediately to the front, where they were so sorely needed.
   Fokker was given an order for twenty-five Fok. D.Is with 120-h.p. Mercedes engines but, as with the D.II, he was requested to ensure that all later machines had aileron control. The first production aircraft had the Fokker designation M.18ZF; the later machines with ailerons were M.18ZK. Some of the later production D.Is had a small fin in front of the rudder; others had modified undercarriages.
   The Austrians were also interested in the Fok. D.I Some examples were bought direct from Fokker; others were built under licence apparently by the Ungarische allgemeine Maschinenfabrik A.G. (M.A.G.) of Budapest. Some at least of the Austrian machines had a fully-cowled engine, doubtless an Austro-Daimler, and a large fin.
   To the orders of the IdFlieg, about eighty Fok. D.Is were delivered. They were useless on the Western Front. Up to September 1, 1916, ten aircraft had been supplied for operational evaluation. On September 22,1916, Captain Albert Ball first sighted a Fok. D.I when it was climbing away from Jasta 2’s aerodrome at Vein. Ball, flying a Nieuport, attacked it and shot it down. On September 29, 1916, an officer of Jasta 2, flying one of the first Fok. D.Is to be delivered, was shot down by a Nieuport biplane in the Somme sector.
   Boelcke rejected the Fok. D.I as being insufficiently manoeuvrable, preferring the modified Halberstadt fighter. The correctness of his judgment is borne out by the reports of British fighter pilots, who regarded the Halberstadt and Alb. D.I as superior in speed and capability to all contemporary Allied fighters. Boelcke went on to favour the Alb. D.I and D.II. So the bulk of the Fok. D.Is went to quiet sectors of the front and to home-establishment units. Up to November 1916 seventy-four Fok. D.Is were in service at the front. Their number then dropped to four.
   A few of these aircraft gave good service in Turkey and Mesopotamia,however. With them, Buddecke, Schuez and their gallant fellow pilots scored victories over obsolete British aircraft under primitive and trying conditions.
   The Fokker D.I brought loss to the Fokker organization. On the evening of June 27, 1916, Martin Kreutzer, chief designer of the Fokker aircraft company (though never acknowledged as such), took off in a production Fok. D.I on an acceptance flight. Shortly after take-off he crashed close to the aerodrome. When being taken from the wreckage he was conscious enough to explain that the rudder had jammed during the first turn. Fokker hurried to the scene and shouted reproaches at the mortally injured man. Platz witnessed this exhibition with disgust. Kreutzer died next day in the Garrison Hospital at Schwerin.

J.Herris, J.Leckscheid Fokker Aircraft of WWI. Vol.3: Early Biplane Fighters (A Centennial Perspective on Great War Airplanes 53)

Fokker M.16
  
  A first indication of the existence of a new Fokker combat biplane can be glimpsed from a patent Fokker filed for dated 29 October 1915. From this we can deduce that Fokker had realized earlier than is generally acknowledged that the mid-wing monoplane design had its limitations, and that the biplane design was at least an alternative worth of further investigation.
  Fokker's M.16 prototype was an obvious departure from his previous design practice. First, it was a two-seat biplane fighter; Fokker's previous fighter designs were single-seat monoplanes. At the time of its appearance it was not yet quite clear if single-seat or two-seat aircraft would bear the brunt of aerial combat in the near future.
  Next, the first prototype (likely works number 418), was powered by a newly-available 160 hp Mercedes D.III water-cooled engine with side radiators. The Austro-Hungarian aviation authorities had noticed the appearance of the new type as early as November 1915, by the middle of the month they reported that Fokker had a high-speed aircraft powered by the 160 Mercedes (D.III) engine under construction. This could also be powered by the Austro-Daimler of similar design and power output. On 10. December it was reported that the Mercedes-engined prototype had already been tested with good results, which indicates that the first trials had already begun in late November. At the time, the Austrian authorities complained that modern and fast aircraft could only be obtained from Hansa-Brandenburg and Fokker. Domestic designs did not offer good performance.
  As a consequence, the Austro-Hungarian Luftfahrtruppe (LFT) ordered a second prototype of the M.16 on 24. December 1915, and it was powered by a 160 hp Austro-Daimler water-cooled engine. By comparison, the earlier Eindecker fighters, which were then in full series production, were all rotary-powered monoplanes.
  The M.16 design was based on the Walfisch configuration, which had already shown promise in the shape of the new Roland C.II, with the wings attached to the upper and lower fuselage longerons and the fuselage filling the entire gap between the wings. Designed to minimize drag, the Walfisch design principle brought about the disadvantage of a limited downward field of view for the aircrew, and of numerous Walfisch designs, only the Roland C.II was generally successful.
  The first M.16 was said to have originally had single-bay wings. No photograph showing the aircraft in this configuration is available to the authors, and in the light of the following Fokker designs it comes as no surprise that this was very soon replaced by a 2-bay wing.
  The M.16 was evaluated up until around March 1916, and did not find favor with Idflieg in Germany. The reasons for this are not difficult to imagine. The aforementioned Roland C.II had already been ordered in quantity in October and was serving in considerable numbers by the time the evaluation of the M.16 ended. The Roland was considerably faster, and the M.16 offered no improved performance over it in any other respect. The fact that it looked far less streamlined than the C.II may also have played a part in reaching the final verdict. Both aircraft were powered by the same engine, which was in short supply, so the choice in which airframe the precious engines could be put to better use was obvious.
  The 160 hp Austro-Daimler engine for the second Fokker M.16 (w/n 435) was already dispatched to the Fokker factory in Schwerin on 24 December, 1915 when Fokker received the order for one M.16 prototype from the Austro-Hungarian Luftfahrtruppe. This order was marked as being "very urgent", and it included a provisional contract for 16 additional production aircraft, provided the flight trials had a positive outcome.
  Since the flight trials of M.16/II, as it was sometimes referred to in Fokker records, took longer to complete than expected, the aforementioned order was changed to 16 aircraft of the M.17E (single bay) type, which was designated B.II series 30.60 under Austro-Hungarian nomenclature.
  Simultaneously with the evaluation of M.16/II at Schwerin, the Austro-Hungarian Aviatik company was instructed to built a prototype (30.06) along the lines of the M.16/II, in preparation for possible series manufacture at Aviatik, for which the designation series 36 had already been reserved.
  Ingenieur Alfred Gassner and his design team began work on their adaptation of the Fokker design in January 1916. Modifications included a wooden fuselage replacing the welded steel-tube Fokker design, no doubt in order to adjust the type to Aviatik manufacturing procedures. Wings and control surfaces also received design adjustments, and soon after flight test began in April 1916, it became obvious that these changes hampered performance. New wings and tail surfaces were quickly fitted, but 30.06 crashed during trials of these on 7 May 1916, with the pilot being killed and the observer surviving with injury.
  Flars decided not to invest any further resources into the type, cancelled the order for series 36, and Ingenieur Gassner's employment at Aviatik came to an abrupt end.
  In the meantime, after designer Martin Kreutzer had demonstrated the aircraft for the Austrians, the M.16/II successfully completed trials at Schwerin and was eventually shipped to Aspern on 13 April 1916 for trials. However, the evaluation of 03.91, as it was now numbered, was terminated after the crash of Aviatik 30.06. on 7 May 1916. The aircraft was then assigned as a trainer to Flek 6 in Wiener-Neustadt until written off in April 1918.
  Venturing into the two-seater market had proven unsuccessful for Fokker, and his following prototypes would put the focus back on his core business, the design of single-seat fighter aircraft.


Fokker M.18 & D.I

  The first Fokker M.18E fighter prototype (w/n 434) was the water-cooled fighter variant in Fokker's strategy of exploring designs differing in critical details. Like the M.17E, the M.18E had a single bay wing of bracing, wing-warping, and a single synchronized machine gun. However, power was provided by a 100 hp Mercedes six-cylinder inline engine, cooled by side-mounted radiators.
  Also like the M.17E, the M.18E was a boxy design with the fuselage deep enough that the upper and lower wings were attached directly to the upper and lower fuselage longerons. Lacking an open cabane structure, both aircraft suffered from inadequate field of view for the pilot. Downward visibility for the pilot was severely impaired by this design, it made both spotting an enemy in the air and landing more difficult.
  The Walfisch (whale) fuselage design turned out to be a failure on single-seaters and Fokker abandoned by March. It was successful on the Roland C.II but not on many other types and new prototypes of the M.17 (w/n 499) and M.18 (w/n 501) were built. These featured a fuselage design that was obviously inspired by the Fokker Eindecker and these were built with an open cabane structure that greatly improved the field of view for the pilot.
  These revised prototypes were tested with one-bay and two-bay wings and wings with ailerons and wing warping. Two-bay wings with wing-warping were eventually chosen for both the production D.I and D.II fighters. No documentation showing the reasons for making this choice has survived, but since the previous Fokker types had employed wing-warping this seems to have been an obvious option for the designers. Otherwise, it may also indicate that Fokker's new aileron design still required further refinement.
  Testing of the new M.17 and M. 18 was already well underway at Schwerin in March 1916. By the end of the month, this duo was joined by the M.19 (the Fokker D.III prototype), just when Oswald Boelcke visited the Fokker factory. He would spend several days in Schwerin for lengthy discussions with Fokker and his design team, and also conducted several test flights on the new prototypes. A test of the Fokker machine gun synchronizing mechanism, adapted for use on the six-cylinder inline Mercedes engine in the M.18 prototype, was also conducted in his presence.
  On April 15, 1916, the Albatros D.I, Fokker M.17, and two Fokker M.18 fighter prototypes were demonstrated at the test center at Adlershof. One of the M.18 prototypes was fitted with wing warping and the other with ailerons. The verdict was that the Albatros D.I made a much better overall impression despite Fokker's extensive experience building Eindecker fighters.
  With the Eindecker fighters hard pressed by Allied fighters at the front, Idflieg submitted a letter of intent over the planned purchase of 80 D.I fighters based on the M.18 to Fokker. This can be interpreted as an expression of the trust that Fokker had gained with Idflieg officials, thanks to the success of his Eindecker fighters.
  The D.I production aircraft were to be powered by the 120 hp Mercedes D.II engine and fitted with a single synchronized machine gun. It was the largest single-seat fighter production contract awarded to any German manufacturer to that time. A war ministry contract confirmed the order in May 1916, by which time construction of the D.I fighters was already well underway at the Fokker factory. Much has been made of the fact that this was the largest single-seat fighter production contract awarded to any German manufacturer so far. In reality, it basically shows that the true role of fighter aircraft had previously not been fully appreciated. Bigger orders would soon follow; Albatros received an order for 100 D.II fighters in August, and orders for 200 to 400 fighters soon became common. A final small batch of 10 Fokker D.I fighters was ordered in October 1916, possibly to make use of available Mercedes D.II engines.
  Flight tests conducted with D.140/16, the first production aircraft, showed that the small 'button'-shaped, all-moving rudder that was installed offered inadequate directional control and a tail fin was built and tested on D.140/16. This problem must have arisen before on the first Fokker M.18E fighter prototype (w/n 434), which already received a similar modification in February. As far as can be determined, almost all production D.Is were delivered having this tail fin fitted.
  On 30 May, Fokker D.I 143/16 reached Adlershof, where it was subjected to the mandatory load tests. Only minor structural improvements were demanded, and the type was cleared for front line use on 6 June 1916, surprisingly quickly. Remarkably, due to their structural similarity, the D.II and D.III were also cleared for service simultaneously.
  On 27 June, just as the first examples of Fokker's first biplane fighters were being completed, a highly tragic accident, which foreshadowed future events, occurred. Fokker designer Martin Kreutzer took an early Fokker D.I up on a test flight, which ended in a crash. He succumbed to his injuries soon after and died just 15 days short of his 25th birthday.
  Acceptances of the first examples had commenced in the second half of June, and the first two aircraft (140/16 fitted with wing-warping and 141/16 fitted with ailerons) were shipped to Adlershof for evaluation on 12 and 13 July. The former variant was chosen for production, and by the end of August 1916 the frontline inventory listed 10 Fokker D.I fighters. Two months later, this figure had risen to 74, which indicates that virtually all aircraft of the main production batch had reached the front by then. This also made it the most numerous German fighter in the D-type category on this date.
  Photographs indicate that several examples of the type had been delivered to Jasta 1 as the initial equipment of the unit.
  Jagdstaffel 2 received two Fokker biplane fighters as original equipment, and one of these was Fokker D.I 185/16, which reached the unit on 1 September, together with Fokker D.III 352/16.
  Certainly other units also received the type, but the Fokker D.I enjoyed a fairly uneventful frontline career. Photographic coverage of the aircraft in service with the newly created Jagdstaffeln is remarkably sparse. In terms of overall performance, this was fairly similar to Halberstadt fighters powered by the same engine, which reached the front just a bit before the Fokker D.I did. But the Halberstadt had much better handling qualities and were much more robust, qualities which were much appreciated by Jasta pilots. Eventually, the products of both these companies were completely overshadowed by the Albatros D-types as they became available in ever increasing numbers.
  Virtually no reports concerning combat use of the D.I are available, and the two best known official reports mentioning the D.I shed an unfavorable light on it.
  On 30 August 1916, a Fokker D.I flown by Vzfw. Hans Miesegades of Jasta 3 lost its wings during a test flight. This may not have caused immediate concern with the higher authorities, since Jasta 3 was in the closing stages of unit formation, and determining the reason for this incident might have taken some time. However, a similar accident occurred a little over two months later. While on patrol on 4 December 1916, the wings of Fokker D.I 175/16 collapsed and the pilot, Vzfw. Karl Ehrnthaller of Jasta 1, was killed. Failure of a wing attachment bolt was determined to be the cause. As the result of these failures in addition to five recent Eindecker crashes, on 6 December Kogenluft
decreed: "Fokker aircraft primarily because of increasingly deficient factory workmanship are not permitted to be flown at the Front. As far as aircraft that have been ordered are concerned, the flight schools will be equipped with them."
  The frontline service of the D.I and its siblings on the western front came to an abrupt end, but some D.Is later served on the Russian front, and in November 1917 eight aircraft of the type were shipped to Turkey. Unsurprisingly, no information concerning their use by the Ottoman air service is available.


Fokker M.16Z Specifications
Engine: 160 hp Mercedes / Austro-Daimler
Wing: Span 11.60 m
Chord (Upper/Lower) 1.70 m
Gap 1.40 m
Wing Area 32.0 m2
General: Length 7.65 m
Height 2.85 m
Track 2.0 m
Empty Weight 620 kg
Loaded Weight 1,056 kg
Maximum Speed: 155 km/h
Climb: 1000m 5 min
2000m 13 min
3000m 26 min


Fokker Early D-Type Specifications
Fokker D.I D.II D.III D.IV D.V
Fokker Type M.18 M.17 M.19 M.21 M.22
Engine 120 hp Mercedes D.II 100 hp Oberursel U.I 160 hp Oberursel U.III 160 hp Mercedes D.III 100 hp Oberursel U.I
Wing Span, m 9.05 8.75 9.05 9.7 8.75
Wing Chord, m 1.25 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.16
Wing Gap, m 1.34 - 1.35 1.32 1.20
Wing Area, m2 22 18 21.6 22.5 15.55
Length, m 5.7 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.05
Height, m 2.25 2.55 2.25 2.45 2.30
Empty Weight, kg 463 384 452 606 363
Loaded Weight, kg 671 576 710 841 566
Max Speed, km/h 150 150 160 160 160-170
Climb to: 1,000 m 4 4 3 3 3
   2,000 m 9 8 7 - 8
   3,000 m 15 15 12 12 16
   4,000 m 23 24 20 30 24
Roll Control Wing-warp Wing-warp Wing-warp, then ailerons Ailerons Ailerons
Armament 1xLMG 08/15 1xLMG 08/15 2xLMG 08/15 2xLMG 08/15 1xLMG 08/15
Note: Climb times in minutes.


Fokker Early D-Type Identification Attributes
Type Engine Notes Qty Built
D.I 120 hp Mercedes D.II Wing warping, 2-bay, 1-gun 90
D.II 100 hp Oberursel U.I (9 cyl) Wing warping, 2-bay, 1-gun 181
D.III 160 hp Oberursel U.III (14 cyl) Wing warping (ailerons on later), 2-bay, 1-2 guns 210
D.IV 160 hp Mercedes D.III Ailerons with horn balances, 2-bay, 2 guns 44
D.V 100 hp Oberursel U.I (9 cyl) Ailerons with horn balances, 1-bay, 1 gun 300


Fokker Early D-Type Production
Type Order Date Qty Serials
D.I May 1916 80 D.140-219/16
D.I Oct. 1916 10 D.1900-1909/16

J.Herris Fokker Aircraft of WWI. Vol.6: Foreign Service (A Centennial Perspective on Great War Airplanes 56)

Austro-Hungarian Fokker M.16 Prototype (03.91)

  Fokker's M.16 prototype was a departure from his previous practice. First, it was a two-seat biplane fighter; Fokker's previous fighter designs were single-seat monoplanes. Second, the M.16 had an inline, water-cooled engine; previous Fokker fighters had used air-cooled rotary engines.
  The first M.16 originally had one-bay bracing; this was soon replaced by a 2-bay wing. The 160 hp Daimler engine for the second Fokker M.16 (w/n 435) was already dispatched to the Fokker factory in Schwerin on 24 December, 1915 when Fokker received the order for one M.16 prototype from the Austro-Hungarian authorities. The order included a provisional contract for 16 production aircraft depending on the results of flight trials. At the time, the Austrian authorities complained that modern and fast aircraft could only be obtained from Hansa-Brandenburg and Fokker. Domestic designs did not offer good performance.
  After designer Martin Kreutzer had demonstrated the aircraft for the Austrians, the M.16/II successfully completed trials at Schwerin and was eventually shipped to Aspern on 13 April 1916 for trials. Simultaneously with the evaluation of M.16/II at Schwerin, the Austro-Hungarian Aviatik company was instructed to built a prototype (30.06) along the lines of the M.16/II, in preparation for possible series manufacture at Aviatik, for which the designation series 36 had already been reserved. However, the evaluation of 03.91, as it was now numbered, was terminated after the crash of Aviatik 30.06 on 7 May 1916. The aircraft was then assigned as a trainer to Flek 6 in Wiener-Neustadt until written off in April 1918.


Fokker M.16 (03.91) Specifications
Engine: 160 hp Daimler
Wing: Span 11.60 m
Chord (Upper/Lower) 1.70 m
Gap 1.40 m
Wing Area 32.0 m2
General: Length 7.65 m
Height 2.85 m
Track 2.0 m
Empty Weight 620 kg
Loaded Weight 1,056 kg
Maximum Speed: 155 km/h
Climb: 1000m 5 min
2000m 13 min
3000m 26 min



Austro-Hungarian Fokker B.III

  In April 1916 the Fokker M.18 prototype (w/n 501 (arrived at Aspern "without prior knowledge or consent." Noted for their red tape, the Austro-Hungarian authorities were amazed at this demonstration of Fokker's aggressive sales tactics.
  The Fokker M.18 prototype was powered by a 120 hp Mercedes and had ailerons for roll control. The Austrians needed a transition trainer, and the M.18 prototype filled that requirement.
  Eighteen fighter trainers were formally ordered in December 1916. However, production actually began earlier, in April 1916. Production aircraft differed from the prototype by having wing-warping instead of ailerons. Delivered without engines, 100 hp Mercedes were fitted. Only 17 aircraft of the 18 ordered entered the inventory, assigned serial numbers 04.11 to 04.27. The prototype was originally numbered 03.92 but was re-designated number 04.11. Seven production aircraft were accepted in August 1916 and nine in September.
Some, but not all, of the B.III aircraft were fitted with a machine-gun mounted over the upper wing center section.
  In October 1916 Fliks 4, 12, 19, and 28 (on the Isonzo Front), 16 in Karten, and 17, 21, and 24 in South Tirol began to receive the B.III. In February 1917 the B.III was retired to training use with Flek 6.


Fokker B.III Series 04.1 Specifications
Engine: 100 hp Mercedes
Wing: Span 9.05 m
Chord 1.25 m
Span Lower 5.725 m
Wing Area 22.0 m2
General: Length 5.70 m
Height 2.69 m
Empty Weight 442 kg
Loaded Weight 700 kg
Maximum Speed: 150 km/h
Climb: 1000 m 6.2 min
2000 m 15.2 min
3000 m 25.4 min
4000 m 39.5 min



Fokker B.III(MAG) Series 04.3
  
  The first production contract for MAG aircraft was placed on 26 August 1916 for 50 aircraft, which included 8 Fokker B.III(MAG) trainers. These trainers were based on the Fokker M18 and were numbered 04.31 to 04.38 and powered by 100 hp Mercedes engines. Space was provided for a machine gun but none was fitted. The first aircraft was rolled out in September 1916 and the remaining seven aircraft were ready in October waiting for tires. These seven aircraft were not accepted until March-May 1917 and were assigned to Flek 6 in Wiener-Neustadt as unarmed trainers.
  Aircraft 04.36 was used by MAG for test purposes and was modified to use the experimental 11-cylinder 150 hp Steyr rotary and first flown on 26 February for engine development.


Fokker D.I(MAG) Series 04.3 Specifications
Engine: 100 hp Mercedes
Wing: Span (Upper Si Lower) 9.60 m
Chord (Upper/Lower) 1.25 m
Gap 1.25 m
Wing Area 21.4 m2
General: Length 6.70 m
Height 2.32 m
Track 1.69 m
Empty Weight 480 kg
Loaded Weight 730 kg
Maximum Speed: 135 km/h
Climb: 1000m 4.4 min

O.Thetford, P.Gray German Aircraft of the First World War (Putnam)

Fokker M 16 E
   A single-bay two-seater of 1915 with fuselage completely filling gap. Only one aircraft built, powered with 120 h.p. Mercedes D II. The somewhat lengthy wingtip skids are unusual.

Fokker M 16 Z
   A larger and more powerful aircraft, the two-bay M 16 Z was almost a complete re-design from the M 16 E. The first version was fitted with 160 h.p. Mercedes engine, but a small production order of thirty aircraft for the Austro-Hungarians had the 200 h.p. Austro-Daimler motor installed. These machines also dispensed with the somewhat outdated warp system of lateral control and had overhung balanced ailerons. They were armed with one Schwarzlose for the observer and a similar gun firing forward for the pilot.

Fokker M 18 z
   Prototype of machine which, after modification of tail surfaces, became the D I. Engine, 120 h.p. Mercedes D II.


Fokker D I and IV

   With the eclipse of the E type monoplanes, the Fokker establishment brought forth its D I biplane in the summer of 1916. Evolved from a series of prototypes designed by Martin Kreutzer, it was an uninspired and singularly mediocre aeroplane and only passed into comparatively limited production, because little else was available to replace the outdated E III on the Western Front.
   Developed from the M 18 prototypes, the D I was the production version of the M 18z, the "z" indicating zweistielig (i.e. two-strutter, or two-bay). Being a two-bay biplane spanning some 30 ft., with only a 120 h.p. Mercedes D II engine, it was decidedly under-powered as a single-seat fighting machine. However, due largely to lack of any stiff opposition, it managed to give a reasonable account of itself, sufficient at least to impress the authorities (reinforced no doubt by Fokker's persuasive volubility) to place production orders for the type.
   On the Western Front the D I soon began to encounter doughtier opponents, and could not compete in manoeuvrability and climb with the lighter and more nimble rotary-engined Nieuports the Allies were bringing into use. Hence it soon fell into disrepute with the pilots who had to fly it, and it was relegated to the Eastern Front and to non-operational duties. Some machines were sold to the Austro-Hungarian authorities. In a final endeavour to extract the utmost use from the type, Fokker slightly modified and enlarged it and re-engined it with the 160 h.p. Mercedes D III, in which guise it was designated D IV (M 21). Performance increase, however, was only marginal, and the engines could be - and were - put to much better use by the Albatros firm in their D I type.
   There was nothing unconventional about the D I; it was an orthodox two-bay biplane. The fuselage followed the same style of welded steel-tube construction as in the E type monoplanes, braced in all planes with stranded cables to form a rigid-braced box-girder structure. The nose section had to be completely re-worked to accommodate the six-cylinder in-line motor, which was quite neatly enclosed within somewhat bulbous metal panels, with just the fore part of the cylinder block remaining exposed, which facilitated servicing. The cooling system consisted of two long, narrow, "honey-combed" radiator boxes on either side of the nose, adjacent to the leading edge of the wings. Aft of this point the fuselage was fabric covered and tapered to a horizontal knife-edge. Although slightly different in size and area, the complete empennage was identical to that of the E types in both profile and proportion: again there were no fixed fin surfaces.
   The wings were of straightforward parallel-chord layout, of equal span and with a slight angular rake to the tips. The upper wing was sited quite close to the fuselage on short steel-tube centre-section struts which were welded direct to the longerons. A peculiar feature on the centre-section was the raising of the line of the leading edge. A large angular cut-out in the trailing edge, together with the wing at approximately eye level, gave the pilot an excellent field of forward and upward vision. Interplane struts were of circular steel tube faired off with wooden fairings: the middle of the inboard rear struts was "notched out" to allow passage of the warp control wires, which passed over pulleys on the rear centre-section struts and so down to the control stick.
   The undercarriage was a conventional vee-type chassis of steel tube with wooden fairings, and sprung with elastic shock cord. The wooden tailskid was hinged to an inverted tubular pylon which also served as a pivot anchorage for the lower extremity of the rudder.
   With the installation of the 160 h.p. Mercedes D III power plant and a slight increase in overall dimensions, the D IV had an improved performance and the level speed increased slightly, but it still lacked the manoeuvrability expected of a fighter. As the Albatros D types became available in increasing numbers, the Fokker D Is and IVs lapsed into the obscurity of non-operational duties with the Fliegerschulen (Flying Schools). Total production of D I was twenty-live and of D IV thirty-three.
   With the formation of the Jagdstaffeln in the summer of 1916 the majority were inevitably equipped with a heterogeneous collection of single-seaters transferred from the escort duties with the various Fl. Abt. units. One such to have some Fokker biplanes on its establishment was Jasta 2 and Leut. Grafe from this unit was surprised in a D I by Capt. Albert Ball, V.C., on 21st September 1916, when he closed with it among clouds some 5,000 ft. over the Bapaume Cambrai road. He was able to approach, apparently completely unobserved, and put in an attack from below at exceedingly close range. He plainly saw his tracers entering the Fokker in the region underneath the engine and pilot's seat, and the machine disappeared into the clouds in a side-slipping dive. The subsequent crash was not observed, and Capt. Ball was not credited with this victory. However, it was eventually established that the Fokker did crash about a kilometre east of Bapaume and that the pilot was killed.

TECHNICAL DATA
   Description: Single-seat fighting scout.
   Manufacturer: Fokker Flugzeug-Werke G.m.b.H. (Fok.).
   Power Plant:
   One 120 h.p. Mercedes D II 6 cylinder in-line water-cooled engine (D I).
   One 160 h.p. Mercedes D III 6 cylinder in-line water-cooled engine (D IV).
   Dimensions:
   Span, 9.05 m. (29 ft. 8 3/8 in.). Length, 5.7 m. (18 ft. 8 1/2 in.). Height, 2.25 m. (7 ft. 4 5/8 in.). Area, 22 sq.m. (238 sq.ft.). ( D.I.)
   Span, 9.7 m. (31 ft. 10 in.). Length, 6.3 m. (20 ft. 8 in.). Height. 2.45 m. (8 ft. 0 1/2 in.). Area, 21 sq.m. (227 sq.ft.). (D IV.)
   Weights:
   Empty, 463 kg. (1,019 lb.). Loaded, 671 kg. (1,476 lb.). D I.
   Empty, 606 kg. (1,333 lb.). Loaded, 841 kg. (1,850 lb.), D IV.
   Performance: Maximum speed, 150 km.hr. (93-75 m.p.h.), D I; 160 km.hr. (100 m.p.h.), D IV. Initial climb, 1,000 m. (3,280 ft.) in 5 min., D I; 1,000 m. (3,280 ft.) in 3 min., D IV. Duration, 1 1/2 hr.
   Armament:
   D I one fixed Spandau machine-gun forward.
   D IV two fixed Spandau machine-guns forward. (Usually not more than one gun was fitted to obtain improved performance.)

W.Green, G.Swanborough The Complete Book of Fighters

FOKKER M 16 Germany

   A tandem two-seat fighter designed by Martin Kreutzer primarily for the Austro-Hungarian Luftfahrttruppen, the M 16 was an angular two-bay equi-span unstaggered biplane with a welded steel-tube fuselage, wooden wings and fabric skinning. It was initially powered by a 160 hp Mercedes D III six-cylinder water-cooled engine and utilised wing warping for lateral control. It was subsequently fitted with a 200 hp Austro-Daimler six-cylinder water-cooled engine, the means of lateral control being changed from wing warping to large ailerons with overhanging horn balances on the upper wing. The M 16 was shipped to the Luftfahrttruppen for evaluation in April 1916, and was fitted with a single synchronised Schwarzlose machine gun offset to port and another Schwarzlose machine gun on a flexible mount in the rear cockpit. Although an order for 26 aircraft was placed by the Austro-Hungarian service, no production of the M 16 was undertaken. The designations ‘‘M 16E", "M 16Z”
and ‘‘M 16ZK” were subsequently ascribed to this aircraft to signify Einstielig (single-strutted or single-bay), Zweistielig (two-bay) and Klappenverwindung (flap control - ailerons as opposed to wing warping) but were not assigned contemporaneously, being of post-World War I origin. No specification for the M 16 two- seat fighter has apparently survived.


FOKKER D I (M 18) Germany

   A development of the M17, the M18 single-seat fighter was, in initial prototype form, frequently referred to erroneously by works of reference as the "M 16E". It was a similar unstaggered single-bay equi-span biplane with the upper fuselage contour parallel with the upper wing, but differing essentially in having a 100 hp Mercedes D I six-cylinder water-cooled engine. Unofficially dubbed the Karausche (Crucian Carp), the M 18 prototype underwent modifications similar to those applied to the M 17 (ie, cut-down fuselage decking and wing stagger), and was also flown in twin-bay configuration. It was ordered into production in twin-bay form as the D I with a 120 hp Mercedes D II engine and an armament of a single synchronised LMG 08/15 machine gun. Like the D II, the D I began to arrive at the Front in July-August 1916, 90 being built for the German Fliegertruppen, six for the Marine-Landflieger and 16 for the Austro-Hungarian Luftfahrttruppen by which the fighter was designated B III. In addition, MAG (Magyar Altalanos Gepgyar) in Hungary built eight. One of those supplied to the Austro-Hungarians was experimentally fitted with a 160 hp Mercedes D III engine and had ailerons in place of wing warping for lateral control. Another experimental model had sweptback long-span wings.

Max speed, 93 mph (105 km/h).
Time to 3,280 ft (1000 m), 5.0 min.
Endurance, 1.5 hrs.
Empty weight, 1,020 lb (463 kg).
Loaded weight, 1,477 lb (670 kg).
Span 29 ft 8 1/4 in (9,05 m).
Length, 20 ft 7 9/10 in (6,30 m).
Height, 8 ft 4 1/3 in (2,55 m).
Wing area, 215.28 sqft (20,00 m2).

P.Grosz, G.Haddow, P.Shiemer Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One (Flying Machines)

Fokker 03.91 (M 16)

  On learning that the Fokker M 16 two-seat prototype possessed superior performance, the LFT command urgently requested War Ministry approval to purchase "one experimental Fokker biplane, powered by a 160 hp Daimler engine, because the domestic designs have inadequate performance." An engine had already been dispatched to Schwerin. On 24 December 1915, Fokker received an order for one M 16 prototype and a provisional contract for 16 production machines. Because flight trials had not been completed, the production contract was changed in February 1916 in favor of 24 B.II series 03.6 biplanes. In the event that the prototype proved successful, Aviatik was to manufacture a derivative under license (see Aviatik 30.06). Following designer Martin Kreutzer's flight demonstrations for a group of visiting Flars representatives, the M 16 (w/n 435) was shipped to Aspern on 13 April 1916 for evaluation. However, the flight trials were terminated when the Aviatik 30.06 crashed on 7 May. The Fokker M 16, numbered 03.91, was assigned to Flek 6 in Wiener-Neustadt until placed in storage and officially written-off in April 1918.

Fokker 03.91 (M 16)
Engine: 160 hp Daimler
Wing: Span Upper 11.60 m (38.06 ft)
Chord Upper 1.70 m (5.58 ft)
Chord Lower 1.70 m (5.58 ft)
Gap 1.40 m (4.59 ft)
Total Wing Area 32.0 sq m (344 sq ft)
General: Length 7.65 m (25.10 ft)
Height 2.85 m (9.35 ft)
Track 2.00 m (6.56 ft)
Empty Weight 620 kg (1367 lb)
Loaded Weight 1056 kg (2328 lb)
Maximum Speed: 155 km/hr (96 mph)
Climb: 1000m (3,281 ft) in 5 min
2000m (6,562 ft) in 13 min
3000m (9,843 ft) in 26 min

  

Aviatik 30.06

  To compensate for the cancellation of 16 Fokker M 16 biplanes (in favor of Fokker monoplane fighters) in January 1916, Flars arranged for Aviatik to license-manufacture a derivative of the Fokker M 16, powered by a 160 hp Daimler engine. Ingenieur Alfred Gassner, in charge of the project and assisted by engineers from Fischamend, designed a wooden fuselage to replace the steel-tube structure and modified the wings and control surfaces. Assembly of the prototype, designated 30.06, began in mid-March 1916, at which time Aviatik learned that a pending contract of 48 aircraft (designated series 36) was contingent on the satisfactory outcome of the prototype trials.
  Disappointing flight tests in April 1916 required installation of new wings and tail surfaces. The modified 30.06 prototype crashed on 7 May 1916, killing the pilot and injuring the observer. This unfortunate event ended Gassner's association with Aviatik and stopped further development of the aircraft.

Aviatik 30.06 Specifications
Engine: 160 hp Daimler
Wing: Span Upper 11.54 m (37.86 ft)
Span Lower 10.90 m (35.76 ft)
Chord Upper 1.55 m (5.09 ft)
Chord Lower 1.55 m (5.09 ft)
Gap 1.40 m (4.59 ft)
General: Length 7.25 m (23.79 ft)


Fokker B.III Series 04.1

  Sometime in April 1916, Flars officials were astounded when the Fokker M 18 prototype (w/n 501) arrived at Aspern "without prior knowledge or consent," an unprecedented event to be sure, but one typical of Fokker's sales tactics. The 120 hp Mercedes-powered M 18 was favorably received as the LFT required a transition trainer. Consequently, the production machines were modified, fitted with a 100 hp Mercedes engine and, unlike the prototype, with wing-warping control. Production began in June 1916 but redesign of the wing to accommodate warping control incurred some delay. Eighteen fighter-trainers, less engine, were formally purchased in December 1916, although only a total of 17 entered LFT inventory. These were designated B.III 04.11 to 04.27. The M 18 prototype (w/n 501), originally numbered 03.92, was re-numbered 04.11. Seven production machines were accepted in August and nine in September 1916. It appears that some, but not all, B.III machines were fitted with a free-firing machine gun mounted over the center section.
  In October 1916, Fliks 4, 12, 19, and 28 (Isonzo Front), 16 (Karnten), and 17, 21, and 24 (South Tirol) began to receive the B.III fighter-trainers that were flown primarily "to accustom pilots to the more powerful Brandenburg D.I." The B.III trainer was retired from the Front in February 1917 and assigned to Flek 6. During 1917 MAG, who built the Fokker B.III (series 04.3) under license, repaired and refurbished several trainers, enabling them to remain in service until late 1918.

Fokker B.III Series 04.1
Engine: 100 hp Mercedes
Wing: Span Upper 9.05 m (29.69 ft)
Chord Upper 1.25 m (4.10 ft)
Total Wing Area 22.0 sqm(237 sqft)
General: Length 5.70 m (18.70 ft)
Height 2.69 m (8.83 ft)
Track 1.70 m (5.58 ft)
Empty Weight 442 kg (975 lb)
Loaded Weight 700 kg (1544 lb)
Maximum Speed: 150 km/hr (93 mph)
Climb: 1000m (3,281 ft) in 6 min 10 sec
2000m (6,562 ft) in 15 min 10 sec
3000m (9,843 ft) in 25 min 25 sec
4000m (13,124 ft) in 39 min 34 sec


Fokker B.III(MAG) Series 04.3

  MAG received its first production contract on 26 August 1916 for 50 aircraft which included eight Fokker B.III(MAG) biplane trainers, numbered 04.31 to 04.38 and powered by a 100 hp Mercedes engine. The type was based on the Fokker D.I (Type M 18). Armament was not installed although space for a single machine gun was provided. The first aircraft, 04.31, was rolled out in September 1916, and in October seven completed aircraft were awaiting the delivery of tires in order to perform the acceptance flights. Aircraft 04.31 was scrutinized by a Flars engineers at Aspern on 21 November 1916. MAG recorded that German specifications, to which the airframe was originally designed, differed from those issued by Flars, which may explain why the remaining seven aircraft were not accepted until March-May 1917. The seven Fokker B.III(MAG) biplanes were assigned to Flek 6 in Wiener-Neustadt as unarmed trainers and as of 1 July 1917, five were still active.
  An interesting development was reported in January 1918 when aircraft 04.36 (retained by MAG for test purposes) was modified for the new 11-cylinder 150 hp Le Rhone(St) rotary engine. In this form it was first flown on 26 February 1918, according to Flars "to investigate engine behavior in flight."
Fokker B.III(MAG) Series 04.3 Specifications
Engine: 100 hp Mercedes
Wing: Span Upper 9.60 m (31.50 ft)
Span Lower 9.60 m (31.50 ft)
Chord Upper 1.25 m (4.10 ft)
Chord Lower 1.25 m (4.10 ft)
Dihedral Upper 0 deg
Dihedral Lower 0 deg
Sweepback Upper 0 deg
Sweepback Lower 0 deg
Gap 1.25 m (4.10 ft)
Stagger 0.38 m (1.25 ft)
Total Wing Area 21.4 sq m (230 sq ft)
General: Length 6.70 m (21.98 ft)
Height 2.32 m (7.61 ft)
Track 1.69 m (5.54 ft)
Empty Weight 480 kg (1058 lb)
Loaded Weight 730 kg (1610 lb)
Maximum Speed: 135 km/hr (84 mph)
Climb: 1000m (3,281 ft) in 4 min 25 sec

E.Hauke, W.Schroeder, B.Totschinger Die Flugzeuge der k.u.k. Luftfahrtruppe und Seeflieger 1914-1918

01. - 010. Flugzeuge ausländischer Produktion (Самолеты иностранного производства)
03.91 Fokker Type M 16 WNr. 435 Dm 160
03.92 Fokker B.III (Type M 18) WNr. 501 (nach Umbau neue Bezeichnung 04.11) Merc 120
04.11 Fokker B.III (ex 03.92) Merc 120
04.12 - 04.27 Fokker B.III (Type M 18) Merc 100
04.31 - 04.38 Fokker B.III (Type M 18) Merc 120

30. Flugzeuge der Österreichischen Aviatik-Werke Wien, Stadlau
30.06 Aviatik DD C (Aufklärer) Dm 160