Talk:Fokker F.VII

message: I took out the small part because in its days, it was a big plane  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasdog (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not small 

message: I have some worries about this article, which may be partly owing to my ignorance.  I thought the F.VIIA (capital A, surely?) came from the F.III not F.V.  At least, this what A.J.Jackson suggests.  Should not the F.10 be listed separately, as it had only a family resemblance but different fuselage, empennage, and (mostly) wings, bigger and heavier all round?  Given that the F.10 appears in the specs, it surely should (if it is not separated off) also appear in the variants?  The Avro 618 was a variant, though with different motors. It had its own series of variants (c.f. Jackson).  The tale about the crash is told differently in the article and in the article's own ref 8.  Can we have a ref supporting the supposed structural problems, please?  Was there a F.VII (without a letter)?  If so, was not this a variant, or is it a typo?
We all know that summarising aircraft of this period is a bit of a nightmare, particularly if they worked and got licensed abroad, since local airworthiness regs, availability of engines etc lead to diverging species, and many of them, but we must try!TSRL (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree the F.10 should have its own article as it had a new fuselage and a modified wing structure. I have removed the F.10 specs as it is normal to only give the specs for one variant in an article. Agree the F.10 should be a variant if it does or doesnt have an article. Agree the Avro 618 is a variant, it has its own article to deal with any detail. There was a F.VII without a letter mentioned in variants (5 built). MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Fokker F.10 article is created. FiggyBee (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns

message: "carrying 12 passengers in an enclosed cabin"
The language implies the previous versions did not have an enclosed cabin. I find that difficult to believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Although not in a direct lineage, the Fokker Universal was an open-cockpit transport than was eventually superseded by the Fokker Super Universal. FWiW, both examples exist in the Western Canada Aviation Museum in Winnipeg. I have to agree that all Fokker transports did have enclosed cabins, although the Universal was used mainly for cargo hauling and probably only occasional passengers were carried, so the "breeziness" was not a big issue. Bzuk (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, it appears that the F.VII had an enclosed cockpit and cabin from the very start, is that not the case? If so, I'd like to remove the language in question. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enclosed? 

message: Currently the article claims that the "F.9" was a U.S.-built version of the F.VIIB-3m and that the C-2 was a military transport version of the F.9. However, the U.S. Air Force museum claims that the C-2 was derived from the F.VIIA (note "A", not "B"), and the 63-foot wingspan matches that of the "A", not that of the "B". (One C-2, "Bird of Paradise", had its wing lengthened to "B" dimensions, and this served as the basis for the C-2A, which had wings of similar length.)
The only mention I can find of a Fokker "F-9" is here; unfortunately this is only snippets, but it implies this model was never actually built.
If you look at C-2 photos and compare its nose to that in the Dutch Fokker F.VIIa-3m and F.VIIb-3m, you see that the C-2's cockpit has been shifted much further forward. Furthermore, Fokker's U.S. subsidiary also sold some C-2s commercially, using the same C-2 designation, and these too have a similar configuration. (For one mention of this in print, see here.)
So it would seem to be more accurate to say that the C-2 was a U.S. military development of the F.VIIa-3m, also sold commercially. I know that I haven't provided sufficient documentation for this claim. Frankly, easily available documentation on these Fokkers is sadly lacking, and there's a lot of confusion due to the varying designations and split development. This is frustrating, considering how important an aircraft this is. It would be nice if someone with access to high-quality sources, assuming such exist, could step in and clear up matters. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrade's US military designations says the C-2 was an Atlantic Model 7 based on the Fokker F.VIIA/3m. Three C-2s were delivered to McCook Field 26-202/P463, 26-203/P483 and 26-204 and were similar to the F.VIIA/3m but had 235hp R-790-1 engines, a redesigned flightdeck and an enlarged fuselage for eight passengers. The first one 26-202 had longer 71ft 2in wings and extra fuel tanks for the first trans-pacific flight. The second C-2 26-203 became an XC-2. A later batch of 8 C-2As (28-119 to 28-126 had 74ft 2.25in wings, four of these were re-engined to become C-7s MilborneOne (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some discrepancies in U.S. models, and what is this "F.9"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fokker F.VII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109002155/https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/refueling.htm to https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/refueling.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to The Man Called Brown Condor, by Thomas E Simmons, the Ethiopian air force operated one FVII b/3 in the mid-1930s. 216.255.171.122 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military users