K&C Foker D VII aircraft (1 Viewer)

[Shyguy151]

Guys,

I might be wrong, but I have been looking at pictures of this aircraft because the tail does not make sense. In all the pictures and other models I have and the two actual versions show the plane with struts on the bottom of the tail for bracing the rear horizontal stabilizer for lateral and vertical forces. This would make it a similar design like the ME 109 which makes sense.

Yet the K&C model shows it without the struts on the tail and has what appears to be fishing line used for the rear stabilizer on the upper section of the vertical stablizer through the upper part of the vertical stabilizer. I may be off base here, but I think the model is wrong.

If any of you fellow collectors have any pictures of it configured the way K&C did it I would be interested to see them. From an operational standpoint lower struts and bracing would make more sense on the aircraft like the John Jenkins version.

Thanks for your help and input.

 

[Shyguy151]

For the record, I am not picking on K&C I just would like to see some pictures of the way they did their version. I have a fair number of planes in my collection and this does not make sense. Any websites or pictures would be appreciatted.

 

[lancer]

Guys,

I might be wrong, but I have been looking at pictures of this aircraft because the tail does not make sense. In all the pictures and other models I have and the two actual versions show the plane with struts on the bottom of the tail for bracing the rear horizontal stabilizer for lateral and vertical forces. This would make it a similar design like the ME 109 which makes sense.

Yet the K&C model shows it without the struts on the tail and has what appears to be fishing line used for the rear stabilizer on the upper section of the vertical stablizer through the upper part of the vertical stabilizer. I may be off base here, but I think the model is wrong.

If any of you fellow collectors have any pictures of it configured the way K&C did it I would be interested to see them. From an operational standpoint lower struts and bracing would make more sense on the aircraft like the John Jenkins version.

Thanks for your help and input.

The short answer is that KC didn't make the lower tail bracing, probably a short cut. It should be there. On the other hand, the upper bracing wire is correct, which JJD left off. All schematics I have show both the upper bracing wire and the lower bracing strut. The upper bracing wire is very difficult to see in most photos, in evidence on some, invisible on many. There is a possibility that some D-7's may not have had the upper bracing wire and whether this is type (Fokker, OAW, Alb) or date specific, I couldn't answer. Anyway, that is just speculation on my part from photo study. As I said, schematics show the wire. The missing lower struts are a error that is hard to explain, as it is one of the D-7's iconic ID characteristics. -- Al

 

[Shyguy151]

The short answer is that KC didn't make the lower tail bracing, probably a short cut. It should be there. On the other hand, the upper bracing wire is correct, which JJD left off. All schematics I have show both the upper bracing wire and the lower bracing strut. The upper bracing wire is very difficult to see in most photos, in evidence on some, invisible on many. There is a possibility that some D-7's may not have had the upper bracing wire and whether this is type (Fokker, OAW, Alb) or date specific, I couldn't answer. Anyway, that is just speculation on my part from photo study. As I said, schematics show the wire. The missing lower struts are a error that is hard to explain, as it is one of the D-7's iconic ID characteristics. -- Al

Al, thanks I kind of figured that was the case, and in the schematic prints I do see the upper wire. I doubt that plane could fly without the tail bracing. It was the hottest stick during WWI. Thanks for the follow up!