In a very non-British plane with German markings no less!

They had to steal fuel because the Germans didn't allow full tanks for obvious reasons. They were also escorted by two BF-109's on the testflight when they made a run for it.

two Belgians did the same with a stolen stampe SV4 biplane

They landed in Whales. 🐳

You might enjoy this one as well the fokker DXXIII prototype. that got destroyed during the bombing of schiphol airport. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kNOAaLxqyLa5h2w.html

@@marcusfranconium3392 Definitely a cool looking warbird, but what I love to see is the aerobatic footage from when the warbirds were in their prime. Many don't know just how capable they were because today they are flown very gently. 70 yr old aircraft should be flown gently, but I love to see what they could do when every rivet was new.

@@brianmoore1164 well hold on your hat as they are building an working replica.

You do realise that was an r/c model right?

Just what I was thinking. Good observation.

Did you forget the DXXIII ? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kNOAaLxqyLa5h2w.html

@@marcusfranconium3392 the DXXIII was a brilliant idea but never tested. It did live on in some German designs of the late war.

@@jwenting It did fly worked well but still in development.and some isues with the aft engine overheating. plus a bit of a meatgrinder when jumping out of the plane , so an ejection seat was beeing developed. The Koolhoven FK55 was another great aircraft concept . rear engined , counter rotating propelorsin the front exelent field of view . more like a 1950s jetfighter. where the cockpit was infront of the aircraft not in the center. But again in development and had over heating isues. and wrong engine type to make it work. The mock up did look verry futeristic the prototype more like a fat duck as formentioned engine was to big. oldmachinepress.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/koolhoven-fk55-mockup.jpg?w=625&h=312

The friendship is beautyfull

@@gijsbertuslaurensvandevooren Agree, and it is aerobatic as well.

The D-XXI (D-21) was pretty good-looking too

S13 is a looker as well imho. And the D.XXI

i'm going for the D23 ;)

Is it still on display? i was there about 6 months back and i have not seen it and i was under impression the replica was in storage.

@@beetlejuise Hola beetlejuise! With the Corona limitations we have not visited the Museum for about a Year and some, thus cannot answer Your question... Being a Very OLD DUDE, My Vaccination(s) shall make a visit soon possible! :}

I remember when I was a little kid (the old location), that I saw this plane there, that's when it became my favourite WW2 plane. I've been there last year, it was not there (however there was a Tiger II tank, which wasn't there the year before), but the G1 has also disappeared from their website

I was at the museum a few days ago (16/06/2021) but didn't see a full-size replica of the Fokker G1 although perhaps that's not what you mean. Nevertheless I did see in one of the WWII wall display cabinets a beautiful model (looked like 1/48 scale but I could be wrong) of the G1 with a Fokker C-10 reconnaissance bi-plane next to it. There is, however, a full-size version of the beautiful Fokker VII inside the museum. In any case, for enthusiasts of military history the military museum at Soest is well-worth a visit.

@@beetlejuise it is still available to be seen but not all year round. it’s not in the main museum, but in a separate building together with a fokker CX. You can see it when they open the building, which mostly happens during events and vacations. The building is near the pagoda.

It would have needed a lot of upgrades to put in on par with the De Havilland Mosquito

@@colinwhyte1526 The G1 was pre war and was limited on which engines Fokker could get while the Mosquito was in its concept/designing/prototype phase during 1940. The roles between the G1 and Mosquito would be different aswell, G1 would be more similar to what the P38 did.

Which company made that 1/72 scale model and +/- which year did you buy it? I am interested in trying to get it.

​@@larsrons7937MPM has a 1:72 scale kit.

Yes. The basic idea wasn't that bad but it's implementation was ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda .

Ugly, slow and looked like something straight out of a Jetsons cartoon lol... guess you can call that "futuristic" ... sort of... XD XD

There's a significant similarity, certainly, but it's more a case of convergent evolution: the Do-335 was based on patents dating back to 1937, which were themselves based on the tandem motors used on the Dornier flying boats. (source: Die Deutsche Luftrüstung 1939-1945, Heinz Nowarra)

@@EdNashsMilitaryMatters l've just been watching a number of video's on Westland 's Factory in the mid 30's Wessex , Wapiti and Lysander. Then a couple on another "failure" the Whirlwind which had it's future decided by Rolls Royce. Faster than the Spitfire in it's time . Yes, l'll have a look . Thankyou .

That video is very impressive!

I think that video is a modern rc model. Or sped up

@@chrismartin3197 Think again

Fokker not having produced aircraft for decades, it must be quite a bit of history that F28 has. Haven't seen one quite a while.

@@chubbymoth5810 croatian carrier TradeAir still has one,today in Cologne

and Aviolanda

and Van Berkel

and Trompenburg-Spyker

And Werkspoor (sort of)

Thank you. One of my very early ones, I believe.

Hold on there, "Rotary Engines" were World War I tech. The Fokker G.1 had Radial engines. ("Wankel"? Who's that?;)

@@Otokichi786 Aviation "rotaries" were not "Wankels", but true rotaries where the entire cilinders and block rotate around a fixed crankshaft, like the Gnome, Le Rhône and Clerget, used during World War I.

That's probably where Kelly Johnson got the basic layout of the Lightning from.

Did you mean radial engines?

I would say this bears much more resemblance with the P61 Black Widow

Easy to get mixed up with Focke (of Focke Wulf)

Yep, he was of course the designer of the German planes in WW 1, easy to conclude. When he started he was driven out of the country because of all the rules the Dutch government shot at him. In the end he made a long nose and was a hero for Germany, at the end of WW1 he put all of his factory and planes he had left on trains and escaped to the Netherlands to become there a hero of the people, not of the establisment, they hated his guts but couldn’t do a thing in the open because we had allowed the German Kaiser as a refugee in exile. The result was that he was always a paria for the Dutch Government, he died (during an operation on his sinuses) in New York, in 1939, age 49, by then an American citizen.

Amazing !

I though the base in the dunes was near Bergen, that's what it says in a book by Thijs Postma.

@@a.vanwijk2268 I stand corrected, you are quite right. The Valkenburg airfield was near Katwijk and the G.I's were in Bergen. I have corrected my reply.

The air bridge was never going to succeed because even without those losses the Germans just did not have the transport capacity.

@@thomasb1889 Well.they DID.... had weather and enemy action not been factors!!!!

They are building a working replica, also worth a watch Fokker D23 or DXXIII , also a twin boomed twin engined fighter, Only tandam engined , single seat , triangle retractable landing gear and with the proposed engines the same as in the Me109 and spitfires ( not able to be deliverd due to export embargos )they would fly 100 km faster than either the Me 109 and spitfire. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kNOAaLxqyLa5h2w.html

Correct. It wasn't as nimble as the German Bf-109 but it could hold its ground against it, thanks to the excellent tailgun position.

A succesful defense against Germany was impossible anyway, at least on our own. We were always reliant on the English and French coming to our aid. When that failed to materialize in a meaningful manner, it was a matter of time. Considering that the Germans thought they could do it in a day and sitll took 5 days is a testament to how well we did considering the means at our disposal. With better preparation we could have done better, but in the end I doubt we could have held out much longer.

@@kimwit1307 Well, yes and no. Since I was a kid I’ve been very interested in the Dutch defense (pun intended) after WWI so the interbellum until May 1940. And although my dad gave me the French resistance fighter for my Action man, telling me about my granddads and his exploits in the resistance, I wasn’t interested so much in that. Having especially during my work as a DA and lawyer studied psychology of conflicts. The intuitive reason is that preventing a war and thus losing it is better than to concentrate on what to do ounce it has gone wrong. So with the benefit of hindsight, we Dutch were correct in being critical like Winston Churchill and the USA especially on the French getting back at the Germans akin what happened in 1870. Payments and grabbing land instead of what Lincoln, Grant & Sherman knew and I guess was taught at military academies: when you win start flirting. Anyway Foch didn’t grasp this for he correctly predicted that the Versailles treaty wasn’t a peace treaty but a non-aggression pact for twenty years. Foch wanted to put the Germans down even harder. Simple arithmetic. It takes 18 years to build a new soldier. The horrors of the war made my granddad as a communist also a pacifist. Which was the line of the Dutch politics and for the liberals war is bad for trade and costs too much. It was as with the French a mindset problem. It simply took too long to grasp what was happening. The technology after a deep crises was in a breathtakingly fast mass production. If we Dutch had had the psychology correct team in order than we would of grasped - given that all other measures failed such as the pre UN - that the area an army and air power needs to maneuver would be greater and it would be especially with Limburg be neigh impossible to stay out of a war. Unless we were to stay abreast with the weaponry by building a sufficient arms industry also for the colonies. Assuming that the other countries wouldn’t follow our development a fairly strong Dutch army of eight field army divisions with 200 tanks and ten territorial divisions with the air arm plan of general Raaijmakers in place that was formulated in 1936 with modern first line aircraft such as the G1 and modern radio and radar which Philips the only factory we indeed did have, the Germans with neigh certainty would not even have attempted the air drop in which they successfully did what the allies failed to do in Market Garden. The plan could have been say 72 G1 fighter bombers; 72 D21 & D23 fighters ; 54 T5 & T9 medium bombers; 36 Northrop 8a dive bombers; 72 C10 scout planes (the BTW correct concept out of the Bristol Fighter contrary to the Defiant. The Fins built a replacement in 1944 for this incorrectly deemed obsolete "Apache" of its day. Correct tactical use. Also see the Finish air aces with the D21. Use radio and not the vic like the RAF. The D21 could do power dives of 700 km/u following a Stuka. And could hold its own even against a Me 109E.) Had they given the weaponry they had then attacked they would have been stopped dead in their tracks and with hindsight admiral Canaris would of disposed of Hitler that was the plan based on the assumption even of Guderian that they only had a 10% chance of winning against the mighty French top dog. Had the French not been bluffed by Rommel and Guderian not following orders the Germans might have even been stopped even with a weak Dutch. Nobody expected it to kick off this fast. And you can’t decide what we Dutch in effect did to build a modern army starting in 1935 or 1937 when you don’t have an arms industry and at least like the Germans a well trained professional nucleus of an army. Everything for a G1 fighter apart from the paint needed to be imported from other industries that couldn’t or weren’t allowed to export. Had the Germans not invaded neutral Netherlands than they would have needed to change the plan for the attack was especially needed for two critical points: 1 Simply the room to get all the mass of force needed through in time and 2. To draw the allies as far North as possible in order to be able to cut them off in encirclement. So I don’t agree with you. A strong Dutch would of deterred an attack or caused a coup against Hitler when failing as was probable even without a strong Dutch defense. My granddad having become a garage holder became a democrat overnight and a in the armed resistance non-pacifist when the Nazis started deporting Jews. He refused the resistance cross after the war due to a far larger trauma than my parents ever knew. My other granddad an MD told his friend how to deal with that. He never developed PTSS. Focus on the future stay active socially and once a year remembrance and the day after party time. I know it worked. Learn from history or relive it. We are at the brink of a Dr Ingo Piepers WW3. Wrong mindset and thinking we are strong.

@@gerhardris Thanks for the extended reply. There are a lot of ifs in these kind of scenarios. If you are interested in those kind of thing, I suggest you take a look at the Alternate History Forum. There are some (partly) dutch WWI and WWII timelines there that make for an interesting read. Funny how you mention that your grandfather refused the resistance cross. I believe mine did too and he rarely talked about his experiences in the war and never about the resistance. The family only got a clue about any of that when he was already retired. His father did get the resistance cross: he was killed in a nazi-camp.

They were a good company to work for as well.

@@pierrebuffiere5923 And even in more modern times, they produced a quite good 100 passenger jet, the Fokker-100, which was very advanced in regards to the avionics, slightly better glass cockpit than even an early Airbus A320... But being a much smaller manufacturer, Fokker went bankrupt against Airbus and Boeing. The only weak point on the Fokker-100 were the thrust reversers, that caused a terrible accident in Brazil, but overall, it was a very nice design that flew perfectly for many years.

i still though wonder whether the concept in terms of a heavy fighter was good idea. I dont know about P38s but most twin engined fighters seemed to have been too big a target and not agile enough to function effectively in the role..the Me110 being the case in point, notwithstanding the changes you mention

Eh, what? The Fw187 is the design that got its shins blown out by the RLM due to Messerschmitt’s interventions, despite it being the superior heavy fighter compared to the Bf110 and a much better escort than either the Bf109 or 110 could ever hope to be. It wasn’t successful in the slightest Something that funnily enough really ended up biting the Germans in the ass when they eventually attempted to imitate the success of the British Mosquitoes with the Ta-154, but it was too little too late

Despite being able to turn a tighter circle than the Bf-109, Spitfire & Hurricane, the Bf-110 suffered from a very poor roll rate, which nerfed its agility in a dogfight. The fastest fighter deployed by both sides, during the Battle of Britain, was the Bf-110 C4N with a top true (ground equivalent) air speed (TAS) of 362 MPH. The most common version deployed was the Bf-110 C4 with a TAS top speed of 293 MPH.

@@CZ350tuner I believe the Bf-110 were most succesful when used in independent low-level bombing raids. But as a long range escort fighter they failed.

@@AudieHolland Yep. That was in fact part of the 110's original design spec, the other aspect being long range escort fighter. They were far more of a menace to RAF Fighter Command in the first role than the second. Looking at the stats, on paper the G1 & 110 had almost identical top speed but the lower wingloading on the G1 ought to have given it noticably better manoeverability, it reportedly had usefully better rate of climb too.

More like the Northrop P-61 'Black Widow' night-fighter. The P-38 was a much smaller airframe, with inline engines and the Beaufighter was an adaptation of the Beaufort light bomber, ultimately to gain notoriety as the RAF's pioneer night-fighter.

G1 pre dates the 2 by a couple of years, so not likely. The P-38 proves the potential the G1's design had though

As far as I know the P-38 came later and probably was inspired by the G-I

@@boszdekler5304 they were actually quite close in development IIRC. The P-38 first flew in 1937. They were made for different roles though. The P-38 was supposed to be purely a wicked fast bomber interceptor, not necessarily a heavy fighter like the G1 or other European designs.

@@sethvanast8323 no, Lockheed won a contract to build the prototype in 1937. Construction began in July of 1938. The design was inspired by contemporaries like the Fokker G-1. That’s taken from the Wikipedia about the Lightning.

@@mikemontgomery2654 Aha, there it is. Thank you, I stand corrected.

Other way around. Lockheed copied the configuration.

Welcome aboard ;)

more like a fat p-38 lightning

May i suggest looking into the d.23 fighter and how it contributed in the dornier 335 pfeil

What, you have multiple rare aircraft manufacturers in your house!?! Must have a pretty big house then my mate

@@EFFEZE i meant in the sence of my home country

@@stijnVDA1994 I know mate, just pulling your leg

lol see my video that is coming out later today.

That is a Great idea!

That's what I thought.

I suspect you'll like this then: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pr2ensppu5mtd40.html

Allies are ghey

Then you would have a DH Mosquito!

And flew faster and farther away carrying more passengers per flight than the Ford. And actually, the Ford Tri motor was a copy of the Fokker, to the extent that the design was so similar that Junkers sued and won when Ford attempted to export an aircraft to Europe. In 1930, Ford countersued in Prage and despite the possibility of anti-German sentiment, was decisively defeated a second time, with the court finding that Ford had infringed upon Junkers' patent...

@@alfredomarquez9777 Are you saying Fokker paid Junkers for the patent?

Not really...lets call it parallel development.

Ha!

Yes

The idea was to stay neuteral. But the governement did invest in anti aircraft guns that caused many German losses.

Rather NEGATIVE commentary on Your Personal Life experience, rather than on the Reality of the 1930s Nederland's Aeronautical Scene; Your upside down Icon leads one to think You spend a lotta time trying to stick Your head up your ASS.... based on Your inherent NEGATIVITY, one imagines You often succeed.

And you are from which country may I ask ? Because that "too little too late" thing applies to quite a lot of the 200 something countries this Earth has. Don't let the 97 thumbs up go to your head and make you think you definetely must be one of the great thinkers of the 21st century. And no, I'm not from the Netherlands.

Before making a comment like this, you might want to do a bit more research. With pulse transmitters/receivers at the time, this type of RC flying wouldn't have been possible. That last sentence you wrote doesn't make sense. Huh!!! ha ha.

Here is the thing it was designed for more powerfull engines , and even the D XXIII was desigend with the merlin engines in mind. pushing it 100km above a spitfire and me 109. The Fokker T5 bomber was also build with larger more powerfull engines in mind.

Correct , it does show how manourverable it was as it was build on scale .

There isn't much more than a superficial similarity. The Fw 189 was designed as a slow, lightly armed short-range reconnaissance aircraft which was later given underwing racks for small bombs and up-gunned and pressed into service as a ground-strafer. It had no capability as a fighter.

@@davidjones332 hmm, or is was adopted to serve as recon plane? by 1942 it was obvious that 2 engine fighters are obsolete. But as a support plane it was a very good. the shape of the wing, tails, cabin and rear gun position are almost identical. besides, Uhu was as manuevarble and fast in a dive as many fighters. so i d say, a good adoptation of dutch ideas.