Dutch Fokker bomber and fighter projects from the late 30ties

[Arjen]

@hesham If you have a link/web-address to this 'Collection Fokker' that has worked in the past, try searching for it on www.archive.org . A simple search for 'Collection Fokker' is not specific enough.

 

[hesham]

To my dear Apophenia,

of course I know very well Ontwerp 155,156 & 157,and which I mentioned about
three variants are not related to them,and the definition projects was not from
me,but the site which put them separately.

To my dear Arjen,

that's from more than 10 years,I didn't record the title of the source to find it on Net
Archive,I will complete all I have,and I will ask about them in a Dutch forum to get
more answers or Infos and drawings if this is possible.

 

[Apophenia]

... of course I know very well Ontwerp 155,156 & 157,and which I mentioned about three variants are not related to them...

So your "three projects to Fokker D.XXIII" are "not related to" Ontwerp 155. How does that work?

 

[hesham]

So your "three projects to Fokker D.XXIII" are "not related to" Ontwerp 155. How does that work?

I don't know,that's as mentioned in the site before ?!.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

The Fokker F.XXM was a bomber project version of F.XX,1933,powered
by two engines,it was mentioned in Collection Fokker 2010.

 

[RobEARM]

Hesham ,

Can you give us the source of the F.XX two engined bomber variant in your files?
I did a lot of search work in books and mag's about but without result....

In the book about the "Fokker F.XX - Fokker's Fastest Trimotor" there is a drawing of the F.XX-2m and a colour profile.

 

[hesham]

In the book about the "Fokker F.XX - Fokker's Fastest Trimotor" there is a drawing of the F.XX-2m and a colour profile.

Thanks,and can you give us a drawing to it.

 

[Arjen]

Thanks,and can you give us a drawing to it.

RobEARM is the book's author, release date is some time in February.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

DC.II Early design was sesquiplane (not biplane),based on Fokker C.5,1933.

 

[Arjen]

DC.2 was a 1933 proposal by Fokker for a two-seat fighter/scout aircraft. Powered by Rolls-Royce Kestrel IIS or Hispano-Suiza X brs. The LVA (air division of the Dutch army) piling on more and more mission demands raised doubts about whether required performance would be achieved, eventually the LVA placed an order for 20 C.10 light bomber/scout aircraft, with another 13 C.10 aircraft order for the ML-KNIL (Dutch East Indies military aviation).
Image and data from Fokker C.5 Ontwikkeling, gebruik en ondergang by Edwin Hoogstraten, Lanasta/Violaero 2011. Pages 115-119.

 

[lark]

That's the one I am holding right now. Which page?

I cheked both , the Dutch and English versions
There is no sign of a so called 'T-XIII' bomber project...

Besides , this 'designation' never appeared in the many publication
about I saw and read over the years past...

 

[hesham]

I cheked both , the Dutch and English versions
There is no sign of a so called 'T-XIII' bomber project...

Besides , this 'designation' never appeared in the many publication
about I saw and read over the years past...

OK my dear Lark,and may the site was wrong and they meant
S.XIII instead off T.XIII.

The Fokker F.56 had a configuration from its variants as a Bomber Project,
mentione in Luchtvaartkennis 2000s ?!.

 

[Apophenia]

OK my dear Lark,and may the site was wrong and they meant S.XIII instead off T.XIII...

But this just further confuses matters. In reply #176, you said:

As I know,it was from 1970s,and its description is; T.XIII monoplane bomber, powered by twin engined,of course I know S.13 ?!.

I can't tell from that whether you were asserting that your lost reference dates from the 1970s or the project itself. However, you made quite clear that this 'monoplane bomber' was not related to the S.13 as mentioned by Arjen.

Now you are suggesting that "T.XIII" may have been a typo for "S.XIII". However, in 1949 when the sole S.13 first flew, that form of designation (ie: Roman numerals) was no longer in use by Fokker. So your "S.XIII" typo notion seems implausible at best.

We do know that a civil S.13 derivative was considered (designation unknown) and that an S.13 floatplane variant was drawn up. Had a bommenwerper variant also been looked at, it would surely have been assigned a similar designation. But that, of course, is pure speculation.