Talk:Fokker D.VII

Untitled

"So infamous was the airplane, that it was the only weapon specifically demanded by name by the Allies in the armistice agreements at the end of the war."

Citation? I'm pretty sure the Machinenpistolen 18 was also specifically mentioned.

Section A.IV. I can find no mention of the MP18, however.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/transcripts/aftermath/armistice_terms.htm

Dabarkey 05:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Surrender in good condition by the German Armies of [...] all aircraft of the D7 type [...]). I removed this from the article page; I don't think a previous editor intended it to be there, but retained here in case still required or for adaptation.Scoop100 12:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of it if it is riddle bith partisan claims and contradicting statements? 
"... proved to be superior to existing Allied fighters."

This blantantly unreliable claim is cancelled out by an equally unreliable claim that SE.5 was not outclassed by this plane, so I suggest that everybody who reads this keeps their opinions to themselves because it just highlights how amateur you people are. I wish you didn't dominate the internet like you do, because now many people have completely misinformed views about subjects that they wouldn't have had before. I hate you.

On a more positive note -- what about an section on replicas, in addition to the existing Survivors section? I know there is a flying replica at the Great War Flying Museum -- it was damaged in a crash last year, but is being repaired to fly again.--Plane nutz (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Allowed WP inaccuracy?

What's up with this article? Some kind of fanboy changes the production numbers without quoting any source, even adds a personal and not very serious judgement into the article "Albatros soon surpassed Fokker in the quantity and workmanship quality of aircraft produced. With a massive production program, over 3,000 to 3,300 D.VII aircraft were delivered from all three plants, considerably more than the commonly quoted but incorrect production figure of 1,700."

And nobody protests? Is it a general consensus that WP let's unquoted unverified and obviously not neutral changes?

I have been getting instant reverts on articles about french and british aircrafts on quoted and sourced facts by armies of WP users but here no one seems to protest in such an important article like fokker dVII?

To answer to the core problem. In my encyclopedia "World military aircraft history" by Enzo angelucci, page 59, it says that of 2000 orders only 1000 were produced before end of war, so my encyclopedia number is far from both the fanboy unsourced claim and the original number of 1700, also unsourced. Shouldn't we correct it?77.197.174.175 (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fokker D.VII/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lost of text needs dividing into sections. Mid importance (maybe top?)="When introduced into combat in 1918, it quickly proved to be superior to existing Allied fighters, leading to a second Fokker Scourge. So infamous was the airplane, that it was the only weapon specifically mentioned by name by the Allies in the armistice agreements at the end of the war (Surrender in good condition by the German Armies of [...] all aircraft of the D7 type [...])." - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)