WI: Dutch Fokker D.XXIII

Allow me to be skeptic. For all ita unique design, the F.23 was only powered by two 530hp engines. That makes for a total of 1060hp, less then one Rolls Royce Merlin or one DB.

But those engines were 850 pounds, so about half the weight, and acts as a nice shield for the pilot, fore and aft, plus the reliability of a twin, and negates torque on takeoff.

Not a bad plan, really
 

Driftless

Donor
Allow me to be skeptic. For all ita unique design, the F.23 was only powered by two 530hp engines. That makes for a total of 1060hp, less then one Rolls Royce Merlin or one DB. If Fokker would have access to one of these engines, I'm sure he'd ditch the pusher-puller configuration in a heartbeat and go with something more conventional. For all its fancy features the plane was more of an exercise in making do with what puny resources they had available.

And for the question of what would happen if Fokker would have been able to produce the F23 in series before the German invasion: Again I am sceptic, but now for another reason. Right up to the invasion, the Netherlands were trusting their neutrality and were not really in a hurry to spend new money on new planes. France, and in lesser extend Belgium were buying every plane they could get their hands on. So my guess is that all F23's Fokker would be making would.eventually be flying with French, Belgian, Norwegian, Finish or even Romanian cockades.

But those engines were 850 pounds, so about half the weight, and acts as a nice shield for the pilot, fore and aft, plus the reliability of a twin, and negates torque on takeoff.

Not a bad plan, really

Given that the airframe itself was pretty light, was there another engine alternative available that could have goosed the horsepower more, but limit the weight increase somewhat? Basically, split the difference between the Walther and a Merlin?
 
Brewster Buffalos were built in two versions: heavy and light.
Light (Finnish) Buffalos shot down hundreds of Russian airplanes.
Heavy (USN) Buffalos were so over-loaded with armour, self-sealing fuel tanks, radios, etc. that they could not turn with Zeros.
Even one American fighter ace (Boyington? or Bong?) admitted that early, light-weight Buffalos were decent fighters.
 
Heavy (USN) Buffalos were so over-loaded with armour, self-sealing fuel tanks, radios, etc. that they could not turn with Zeros.
.

Actually, they were produced in many variants, such as with new powerful engines, less powerful engines and old, poorly rebuilt crap with wrong fuel pumps. The USN operated the F2A2 which was good, but not good for carriers and taken from service. The F2A-3 was the whale operated by the USMC and good for a bad reputation.
 
Twin-boom pushers suffer from a variety of airflow problems around and through their rear engines.
The first problem is cooling, which Fokker did not quite alive with that large ventral scoop. Eventually, they may have been forced to install a ground-cooling fan.
The second problem is external airflow around the wing roots and engine cowling. It is difficult to keep airflow attached. As soon as airflow detaches, it becomes turbulent and draggy. Note that Cessna's 337 Skymaster (aka. Push me pull you) has a better single-engine climb rate with the front engine failed because the rear propeller helps smooth airflow around the stubby rear engine cowling. A few Cessna 337s have crashed because they could not climb after the rear engine failed.
That being said, the Fokker push me pull you has a longer, more streamlined aft engine cowling. With variable side-scoops and maybe a ground-cooling fan, they would have eventually solved rear engine airflow problems.
If they could shut down one engine (in cruise configuration) the Fokker might make a decent long-loiter fighter.
The next question is: how fast was it compared to a Messerschmitt 109e?
 
....The next question is: how fast was it compared to a Messerschmitt 109e?

According to my books, the D.23 had an estimated top speed of 525 km/h - 325mph, which is also the top speed of the Grumman Wildcat and the Messerschmitt 109 C/D versions. The 109E clocks at 550-570 km/h, the Spitfire I at 580 km/h. So both of them would be able to run away from a D.23 if they needed to. The D.23 could however still outfly France's mainstay fighter the Morane-Saulnier MS406 (480 km/h), which might make it an attractive choice for smaller countries who wanted something that could hold their own against a MS406, Brewster Buffalo or comparable aircraft of that time.
 
Comparable plane: Saab R.21

It is interesting to compare the Fokker design to the Saab 21 which was developed around 1939, but put on hiatus until 1941 and only flew in 1943.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_21)

The Saab was originally designed for a 900 hp Bristol Taurus engine, but in 1941 featured a 1,455 hp Daimler-Benz DB605 that the Swedes built in license. This one engine, giving it a 50% power increase over the D.23, propelled the aircraft to 640 km/h - 400mph, a good 100 km/h faster then the D.23 prototype. Also mounting the engine in the rear kept the nose free for an impressive cannon armament. May be a glimpse of what the D.23 could have evolved into if for some ASB magic the Netherlands weren't invaded in 1940?


300px-Saab_J_21A-3.jpg
 
Update

I just found this on another site dedicated to building alternate (model) aircraft:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,40845.0.html

It features a Fokker XXIII licence built in Finland equiped with 2 1050 hp Daimler-Benz engines bought from Germany. (which would double the crafts horsepower compared to the Dutch prototype). Not much in the way of a technical discussion, but some nice pics anyway.
 
Top