Mini Pfeil; The Fokker D.XXIII 

Many thanks! Should get the 50k request video done later this week.

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters thanks for all your hard work on these episodes

sitting at 91k like a month later? Good for you Ed!

At a time when more powerful engines were unavalaible, push-pull configuration looked like a good idea, compared to the traditional 2 engines configuration, where, as per the old joke "one engine pulls the aircraft, while the second compensates for the extra drag".😃

indeed both look similar..

Civilian 337 Turbo fixed the power problem, and I never ha any cooling issues with it..

@@dankingjr.2088 You're also not flying at max power and low altitude in SE Asia.

Thanks for your insight. Much appreciated.

Yeah my 1st thought too. Skymaster has a high wing and solves the rear engine overheating issues with a large airscoop on the top of the crew cabin to funnel air to the rear engine. But I am sure the Fokker D.23 was in the back of some of Cessnas' engineers as a templet to start with and proof one could get high performance out of a push-pull twin engine airplane

Why do people nowadays always assume that people are copying other’s work? Could be that no one at Cessna even heard about this prototype, and most likely they didn’t. The idea of pusher/puller aircraft is nothing new and is common knowledge among aircraft designers, so it isn’t unreasonable to think that the designers at Cessna came up with the design on their own. Besides, the Cessna actually worked, unlike the prototype.

@@mopar_dude9227 I do think he was being rather tongue in cheek in his post. Perhaps you could read it again in a different light??

@@mopar_dude9227 Well even the Dodge Brothers were well aware of what Olds and Ford designing and producing from their factories before Dodge's ever solid their first truck or auto. Things rarely happen in a vacuum and Ed talks about in his video Fokker produced a push pull twin engine during WWI due to the technology of the day Fokker could not over come the issues of cooling the rear pusher engine. Similar issues plague the FokKer D23 during the run-up to WWII and the Nazi invasion ended further development. So when Cessna revisited the design 1960s, they had to be aware of the previous push pull twin engine design and believed they could over come the rear engine cooling issue that plagued previous designs. It is not a knock on Cessna, why waste good money and time on a design that's a technical dead end if it can be avoided?

@@mopar_dude9227 the prototype worked .. how else did it damage its undercarriage during landing ?.

Groan.

LOL! Douglas Bader: He was once invited to give a talk at a girls’ school about his experience as a pilot during World War II. Bader: “So there were two of these f**kers behind me, three f**kers to my right, another f**ker to the left“. At this point, the principal turned pale and intervened saying: Principal: “Ladies, Fokker was a German aircraft“. And Sir Douglas Bader answered: “That may be madam, but these f**kers were in Messerschmitts“!…

@@DavidJones-pv8zu Funny story but way out of character for Douglas Bader.

A vairant of, "these fokkers were messerschmits"

@@calvingreene90 Yes, and I heard the same story with different pilots as the lead character, so...

A video about the Saab J21 would be a really good thing.

Or, the DO-335 of 1943-45! I wonder what a Central-Turbo system feeding two Allisons might have yielded in performance, given the pre-1939 timeline on progression..?

Thing was junk; G-1 was far superior

The Fokker like the P38 still presented three times the target from the front or rear to an enemy fighter.

@@chriscarbaugh3936 Thing was still in test flight phase .Get a life and history book.

Excellent! Thanks for filling in the gaps!

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters The D.23 is my favorite propellor driven aircraft, so feel free to ask anything you'd like :P

@@super-cacti Was there any other air cooled 12V engine considered for the aircraft?

@@trauko1388 Huh that is weird. I replied to your comment hours ago. But in the comment I included Imgur links to the blueprints of the different engine layout so I think RU-vid saw it as spam and deleted it. But alright here we go again, this time without links: So in total, five different engines were discussed/proposed during the development of the D.23 (Not including the Walter Sagitta engines) The first two that show up came around the time the D.23 (At that time known as the Ontwerp 155) was in it's final design phases. It is speculated that these designs were made to apeal to the export market. The two designs are as follows: - The Ontwerp 156, with two inline Rolls Royce Merlin engines, rated at 1050 hp each. - The Ontwerp 157 with two radial Gnome Rhone M14 M engines, rated at 850 hp each. For the final three engine proposals we jump ahead to the time when the D.23 Prototype was in full testing. Now Fokker was looking towards improving the plane, and choosing an engine layout that would work best for the Armed Production models of the D.23. These engines are: - Two Rolls Royce Kestrel XV engines. - Two Junkers Jumo 210 G engines. - Two Hispano Suiza Xcrs engines. On the blueprints of these final three designs we can see that the Kestrel and Jumo versions still have the two 7.92mm and 13.2mm FN machine guns, in the same layout proposed for the Prototype. And the Hispano Suiza can be seen with one 20mm Hispano firing through the propellor hub, and four (Most likely) 7.5mm machine guns, with two in each wing. This Hispano version looks very much like a version designed for the French.

@@super-cacti Thx! Very interesting, how was the handling? Did they run into any special issue due to its configuration?

Soesterberg never had a full sized replica of the d.23. I live in the area and have been to the museum, which now has been moved to another spot in Soesterberg, and it only has a replica D21 and G1 in terms of modern ww2 dutch aircraft replicas.

@@lenx5953 I can see how 30 years can play tricks on my memory, the G1 was clearly there, I do recall the old museum having, the best plastic model displays and dioramas I have found in 2 dozen air museum world wide. Lenx5, was that a possibility of where I seen it? I 100% go with your knowledge and experience on this. Anyone that lives in a particular area of question, should always be held in the best source of information. Thank you Lenx5, the old D.7 was certainly a great surprise for me. The new huge square glass museum is truely honouring the great collection of your country.

@@richardrosenau9292 Yes that is certainly a possibility. In the old museum the plastic models were basically scattered across one hall of the museum. Now they are all located just behind the D.7 and to my knowledge they just about have every plane from 1913-1945 with a short description. I must admit it’s been a year since I’ve last been to the museum so I do not know for sure if the d.23 is also there. The d.7 is truly a beautiful plane, it always used to be my second favourite after the G1 when I was a child. Sadly the G1 is now locked away in a separate hall, together with a fokker C.X, only being opened to the public during some holidays (a real shame because these are both the last of their kind to my knowledge). I thank you for your compliments, you should visit again soon. They’ve changed a lot of stuff in the museum, even recently. My thanks for your kind reaction, I hope this info helped. :)

@@lenx5953 is the G1 actually a complete mock up? Or only the front side of the plane (nose cockpit and props.)

@@svenw688 No it’s a complete replica, even with full cockpit interior for as far as I can tell. The propellors are able to spin aswell although they’re not powered.

Well not realy the fokker G1 went from paper to prototype in less than 6 months . the Koolhoven FK 58 went from drawing to prototype also in a few months . The fokker D23 was a new concept new technology so would take some what longer.

Maybe they where inspired by it, but no blueprints are in the Dutch archives, doesn't seem logical they found there way to Hungary. Never heard of a engineer off Fokker working in Hungary? why would they? Only heard off an Hungarian jewish engineer working in the Netherlands before the war.

THere are videos of this aircraft flying and its landing gear beeing tested during construction. 포커 D.23(Fokker D.XXIII) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5NRJbR5YQRE.html Fokker D.XXIII prototype (1939) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZmP5Y9cPUW8.html

There was another , dutch figher beeing developed the Schelde S21 . De schelde was a shipbuilding company and it was building a fast longrange aircraft with twin boom pusher configuration for the far east. and quite the armament. sadly the prototype was half build before the invasion . the first test plane was quite comical the Schelde S20. but it provided the base of the S21 .

You mean the Schelde S21? Also there was another interesting design but failed due the pilot beeing cooked the Koolhoven FK-55 was also a verry interesting plane . a mid engined aircraft with 2 counter rotating propellors

Yes, covered the Czech B.135, which got used by the Bulgarians. Some Polish aircraft are on the agenda.

Bailing out is still a sticky wicket for the pilot. Ejection seat or mincemeat.

G'day, You're almost not wrong, and almost half right. Wilbour and Orville get the credit for having made the First Powered, Controlled Flight..., by a Heavier-than-Air Machine... And they secured AmeriKan Patents for Lateral Control via Wing Warping. Richard William Pearse, in New Zealand, some six months before the Wright's December 1903 Kittyhawk First Flight of the "Flyer-1"..., contrived to become Airborne in a Powered Monoplane of his own design and construction - including the Engine and Metal Propeller..., as well as AILERONS, upon which he secured a NZ Patent in 1903, covering the British Empire and pre-dating the Wright Patents. Sadly, though Pearse equipped his machine with Ailerons as well as an Elevator..., it lacked any form of a Rudder (and it's performance was not sufficient to enable "Bank & Yank" techniques to be employed) ; so he rose off the ground, nose up and slow, so P-Factor yawed him to the Left - and lacking a Rudder then his application of Right Aileron automatically invoked Adverse Yaw to the Left... So Pearse got off the Ground, yawed 90-Degrees to the Left, stalled, and descended to perch atop the Gorse Hedges which Imperial Kiwis used to fence in their Sheep. Pearse was a lazy Farmer, so his untrimmed Hedges were 10 ft high, and it took Ladders to retrieve him, and the machine. Three times, in 1903-4, he repeated the performance. He was off the ground, in a Powered, Heavier-than-Air machine...; but he was NOT proceeding under Control - he was being taken for a wild ride as a passenger, to attend the Crash-Site regardless of what his opinion or intentions might have been. Gustave Weisskopf/Whitehead is claimed to have successfully flown under control in a machine powered by an Engine running on Acetylene Gas, of his own design..., in 1901, in the USA, and to have been spied upon by the Wrights...; but the Chemical Engineers say that there is not enough Energy Density in Acetylene to produce sufficient Power to make enough Thrust as to get Whitehead's Craft off the ground. So, he might have been 60% Marketing Jism...(!) ? Pearse died in a Madhouse, of Vascular Denentia, in about 1958...., after which his achievement was recognised, his Relics (1903 Engine parts, etc) were unearthed by a team of Archaeologists, and his second Aircraft (a VTOL Convertiplane, again with a radical Original design of Engine...), constructed from 1936 to 1955, was taken to the Aukland Museum Of Transport And Travel - where a specially dedicated Wing was built to house and display it...(!!!!). Such is life. Have a good one. Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

@@WarblesOnALot, you certainly do. LMFAO.😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@gregedwards1087 Consider it a rare example of Truth In Labelling... Pussychotic, Olde Bean...! Take it easy, ;-p Ciao !

Gustav Weißkopf did it first.

@@houstonhelicoptertours1006 G'day, Thanks, So some people like to say. I once thought that he might have done - but the Chemistry Boffins call "Bullshit !" on the claims, because Acetylene is insufficiently Energy-Dense to be able to empower any Engine running on it to produce sufficient Torque to propel his quaint Craft off the Ground... And, speaking as one who has flown behind an 8-Hp Lawnmower Motor in 1978...; I do not accept that the weight and complexity of the machinery required to enable Weisskopf/Whitehead's Engine to drive his Wheels as well as his Propellers would have helped him to achieve anything except to prevent him from ever getting Daylight under his Wheels. Mad Dick Pearse at least got far enough off the Ground to perch atop his overgrown Gorse Hedges. Whitehead merely tried hard to fly, and then tried to con(vince) History that he had done so - even claiming that the Wright Brothers had "spied on him and stolen his best ideas...". Pacific Flyer Magazine (Mount Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Oz) used to publish my writings, one of which was a two-part Article titled, "Powered Flight Before The Wrights...!" So it's a field which I have ploughed through, 22 years or so ago. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

Actualy fokker already made many designs for different engines even Gnome Rhone engines there is a book about the fokker D23 with all alternate engine configurations . wingspans lenght etc . sadly only a few drawings where left after the war most got destroyed or lost . Fokker always made adaptability to their aircraft . leaving room to update and upgrade them over time.

I agree with you, Mark D. I don't understand why Fokker didn't go for liquid cooled engines from the start. Trying to cool a rear-mounted air cooled engine in a high speed aircraft seems like a bad idea from the start.

They actualy had one , the Fokker G1 nicknamed the grim reaper, the french called it Faucheur 8 machinge guns in the nose can have a devastating effect on aircraft . ground personel and hard targets as it was an excellent dive bomber as well.

Very kind sir! I must admit I am not an ex-flyer, purely an interested amateur.

Turbochargers need tungsten. Remember where tungsten ore came from.

The turbocharged Allison was a bulky unit - that is why is was used in the P-47 Thunderbolt, but was impossible in a compact interceptor such as the Mustang. The lack of high-altitude performance is why the P-51D Mustang switched to the RR Merlin, which was highly supercharged.

@@paulmanson253 That is not something I had heard. Where does tungsten come from? Jet engines rely heavily on nickel for high-temperature alloys. Britain had a long-term development program for such alloys, resulting in the Nimonic series, much used in various high-temperature applications. I have an exhaust valve in a Velocette motorcycle cylinder-head made of Nimonic 80.... During WW2, the Germans had no nickel, and used their best steels in their jet engines. They were scrap metal after 10-12 hours' run time. The British engines got routine servicing every 100 hours, for an oil change and minor checks. Many Gloster Meteors finished their service careers with their original engine still in place.

@@pashakdescilly7517 Looks like I had a memory lapse. I do recall reading a story years ago,that the P 38 aircraft Allison engine/GE turbosupercharger combination ,the manufacture was at least ,early in the war,limited to 1000 examples. And was limited because the I suppose titanium ore,not tungsten ore,was at the time only available from overseas. I believe the USSR was at the time the majority supplier of titanium ore. Without assured supply,the whole engineering package was moot. Rolls Royce continued with mechanical supercharging in part because of supply concerns about the alloys necessary for turbine wheels. Now the GE superchargers used on the B 17 were manufactured in massive numbers. The Curtiss P 40 in part had limitations because that chosen Allison engine /supercharger combination was not a two stage two speed design. Nor a turbocharger design. So something about all of this just does not add up. Was late war titanium availability increased ? If so,why not have some P 40 examples with Allison engine and turbosupercharger ? The P 38 was a prewar design,so engineering bugs were clearly worked out of that. P 47 s had a huge turbocharger as well. I spent some time online trying to find just what the GE WWII turbine wheel was made from,but gave up. Maybe you have a source that will indicate just what the alloy was.

@@paulmanson253 the Curtis P-40 was a compact interceptor, and did not have the space required for a turbocharger installation. Same problem as with the P-51. Allison had a single-stage supercharger, which they did not update. The RR Merlin went two-stage, and later two speed, so it was excellent at altitude. Allison did not follow, and simply were obsolete for high altitude combat. The Russians liked the Bell Airacobra, with its supercharged Allison, because they mostly used it for ground attack, and it was well-suited to that role - solid construction, excellent visibility, heavy armanent, etc

If you read the original documents published in the book fokker D23 ,you would know there where multiple engine configurations , From Gnome Rohne to merlin , BMW , Taurus . etc etc every engine imaginable . Fokker was no fool his company created airframes that could be adapted to multiple types of engines and future upgrades. the japanese also build a prototype like this mid war. its discused in an earlier video .

The only ones that I would take was the Tigercat or the Hornet!

Dont forget the Moonbat.. and flying pancake... You also have the Miles Lible canard.

@@clivestainlesssteelwomble7665 Now that Moonbat, it would probably never succeed because that Hyper engine that it was designed around never finished development. Target Definition for a Hyper Engine was to output 1 horsepower for every cubic inch of deplanement. The Hawker Typhoon engine, the Napier Sabre did make Hyper engine performance goals, but had enough development trouble, such as melting the piston tops, and the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 was starting to approach Hyper engine output towards the end of the war. (Hmm, perhaps Hyper Engine development would be a good subject to cover here.) Vought XF5U Flying Flapjack with the Zimmerman flying low aspect level wing would be a good choice, and the Hughes XF-11, who's prototype crash almost killed Howard Hughes

@@leonardmiyata482 You may have read it but many years ago i read and poured over the line drawings and photos in a book by the late great LJK Setwright🇬🇧🧙‍♂️😎 ...on the most ferrociously powerful and complex engines ever developed.. I remember one compound aviation engine that was so complex in its attempts to extract every morsel of energy that the thing was almost impossible to get it started.😂

Westland Whirlwind

That would not realy make sense as the Fokker G1 was already the precurser to the fokker D23 , P-38 , Me 51 . The DXXIII would be most likekend with the Saab 21, and japanese tachikawa Ki-94-I.

Much good that did the Belgians unfortunately

Well our Dutch airforce was very small compared to the Luftwaffe. Most of the planes were outdated, and only a handful were modern. The few that were able to take off did do pretty well.

The Dutch would have been better off with just more Fokker D-XXIs and G-1s, with the added bonus of NOT developing technology that might have been very useful to the Luftwaffe against B-17s in 1942 or 1943. The push-pull configuration might have given the Germans the kind of really fast Zerstorer they needed instead of the Me-110s and Me-410s, with an earlier start than the Dornier 335. They were still going to lose, but at greater cost to the Allies.

You should have seen the Koolhoven FK 55 and Schelde S21.

The Dutch had made it through the First World War without getting involved, they were hoping for a repeat in the future. Wishful thinking, but arguably less daft than the Belgians, who really should have learned their lesson about Germany and neutrality in 1914.

We produced them ourself (with american engines) Do-24K

If you need engines, planes or anything else, it does not matter where you can get them from, even if they would be your near future enemies.

Air accelerated by first engine behind feed to next engine faster you go worse effect would get till at high speed rear engine be running supersonic problems I recon

@@garypeatling7927 Its more the time a cold medium interacts with a service of a hot object , to slow and the engine is heating the surounding air , to fast and the airflow doesnt have the chance to interact and absorb the heat . It requiers a fine balance .

Yet not unique: Bell P-39 Airacobra, the B-24 Liberator and the PBY 5, off the top of my head.

@@gerardoppewal372 true, just not that many.

without a doubt, they needed an Inline engine type say with 2 x 1000 hp this would have boosted the power significantly....I bet close to 400 mph

It was not aibase Leeuwarden but Schiphol Amsterdam. It was a testflight escorted by a second Fokker G.1. It was not shot down in England but made a perfect landing on it's undercarriage. The pilot, Hidde Leegstre never flew for the RAF.

the P-38 looks more like to the Fokker G1 than the Fokker D23

FK58 would have been outfited with french gnome rohne engines . much more powerfull thant the centaur engines. The FK 55 was also a futurisic aircraft but the engine used made it a bit hot for the pilot and looked like a duck

Youre confused with the Taurus engine