Talk:Fokker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fokkers current operations[edit]

Fokker Aerospace Technologies still exists, it became part of GKN aerospace who also provides maintance services and updates to the still flying Fokker 50, 70 and 100 planes under the name FlyFokker. In addition to that Fokker aerospace still has operating factories where parts are made for various other companies that providing airplanes (Such as Airbus) in Papendrecht(NL) and Hoogeveen (NL), Romania, Mexico and the USA in accordance with their own website. (Source GKN Aerospace website). I find it a bit odd information like this isn't documented on the page. V60club (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Founding year?[edit]

If the company was founded in 1919,how could the Red Baron have died flying a Fokker in 1917?

-

I agree, that's got to be incorrect. I'm no expert, but Fokker were one of the first established aircraft manufacturers during WWI...Nikevs 22:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! FranksValli 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker had founded Fokker Aeroplanbau about 1912. The German government took it over and it produced Fokker aircraft. In 1919 Fokker, now in Holland, Founded the Dutch Aircraft Factory). That became Fokker Aircraft Corporation.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt this fixed nearly ten-years ago? MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker F.IX[edit]

I have uploaded a drawing of the Fokker F.IX, which dates to the early 1930's. This was a military bomber, born of the more famous FVII/3m and /b, which were the commercial transport and bomber variants, respectively. I know it's kind of silly to ask for the creation of a new article around a picture, but, I think an article should be written. The image is found here. --MyWikiBiz 04:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The F.IX was a airliner. There was a bomber version built in Czechoslovakia, the Avia F.39. At least 2 were built, possibly 12. Two were built for Yugoslavia. The F.IX was not a commercial succes. Designed in the booming 20s, it was too large for the reduced traffic of the depression.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only a ten-year wait for an answer! see Fokker F.IX. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Fokkers[edit]

I removed this "joke", because it has nothing to do with Fokker and was really too juvenile for words. --Recoloniser 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, those fokkers were flying Messerschmitts. It was astoundingly funny when I was 14.Mark Lincoln 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker's bankruptcy[edit]

At the time nothing much was said in the press about competition from Airbus and Boeing. Obviously mismanangement played a big role, but the real killer, accoring to the stories in the newspapers at the time, was a bit of dumping by BAe. BAe's 146 was a competitor for the F100, but had not been a great success, mostly due to it's high operating costs. When it was obvious that Fokker was in difficulties, BAe management apparently saw it's chance and guaranteed a lower price to all potential Fokker customers than whatever Fokker was asking them for it's F100, even if that meant selling at a loss. Since BAe's pockets were a lot deeper than Fokker's and DASA was not willing to match BAe, Fokker lost and went under. The curious thing about this is that BAe's dumping policy should have brought it into conflict with the European Commission, but apparently it didn't. --Recoloniser 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The commuter market was being stressed hard about the time Fokker went under. It was being pressed not only by BAe, but by manufacturers in Canada and Brazil.

Fokker did not have the banking connections to survive.Mark Lincoln 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Fokkers[edit]

The name of that section is hilarious, and clearly intentional.

This one is old and you might have heard it :) --MoRsE 07:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) + == ::A World War II pilot is reminiscing before school children about his days in the air force. (Joke best delivered with a good thick accent)[reply]
"In 1942," he says, "the situation was really tough. The Germans had a very strong air force. I remember, " he continues, "one day I was protecting the bombers and suddenly, out of the clouds, these fokkers appeared.
(At this point, several of the children giggle.)
I looked up, and right above me was one of them. I aimed at him and shot him down. They were swarming. I immediately realized that there was another fokker behind me."
At this instant the girls in the auditorium start to giggle and boys start to laugh. The teacher stands up and says, "I think I should point out that 'Fokker' was the name of the German-Dutch aircraft company"
"That's true," says the pilot, "but these fokkers were flying Messerschmidts." restoredBzuk 14:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anthony Fokker[edit]

I think he should be called by his real name Anton Herman Gerard Fokker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.126.238 (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not relevant to this article as he was known as Anthony Fokker in English. The Anthony Fokker article details his real name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and North American Aviation[edit]

I maintain that since North American Aviation evolved from Fokker Aircraft of America and that that company was in fact founded by Anton Fokker and was the last aviation company with which he was affiliated, North American's impact on World War II is both ironic and relevant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.47.95 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 October 2008

The activities of North American have nothing to do with the Dutch company, ironic and relevant are not encyclopedic. It might be relevant in the Anthony Fokker article but even that is doubtful. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you should delete all references to Anthony Fokker moving to the USA and forming the American branch of the company.207.103.47.95 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic was a licence holder and related to the Dutch Fokker company, North American wasnt. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no connection between Fokker and North American Aviation. When Fokker wanted to bid on US Army contracts he had to set up an American corporation in order to deal with the government. So in 1924 Atlantic Aircraft Corporation was created. To help the illusion that the new company was an American one a new official designation system was created. Thus the Fokker F.VVII became the Atlantic Model 6. Of course no one bought it and the F.7 was called just that except the arabic numeral was used instead of the roman numeral. In1924 the Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America was founded and took over Atlantic. The company expanded rapidly opening two new factories and produced some very successful designs by Robert Noorduyn. In 1929 General Motors gained control of Fokker Aircraft Corporation of America, The combination of the Knute Rockne crash and the stock market crash put FACA on the ropes, Athoney Fokker was eased out and by 1933 the name Fokker was replaced by General Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. GA produced some lemons and the low production PJ Flying Life Boat and the GA-43, which was spun off to be the Clark GA-43. North American Aviation had been created in 1928 as a holding corporation. General Motors took control of North American and in 1933 merged General Aviation into NAA. Berliner-Joyce was also merged with NAA. Thus there was no direct connection between Fokker and NAA.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier[edit]

Shouldn't there be something about the attempt by the Dutch government to entice Bombardier to buy the then bankrupt Fokker? 76.66.196.229 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fokkernadel (German) = Fokker needle[edit]

is named by or after Fokker? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokkernadel --Helium4 (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with Focke[edit]

I just got myself nice and confused by looking at this and thinking it was the Focke-Wulf page - i was thinking of adding a little "not to be confused with" line, but it might just be an example of one off stupidity on my part. Does anyone else think that these are similar enough to warrant a not to be confused with line? TommrtnTalk 07:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it needs any comment certainly never heard of the two ever being confused. Not something I would have considered as being that similar. MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker-Leimberger gatling gun[edit]

The following sentence mystifies me (at least): "Fokker engineers were working on the Fokker-Leimberger, an externally-powered 12 barrel gatling gun in the 7.92x57mm round capable of firing over 7200RPM it had the spent brass ruptured." (Emphasis added.)

This seems clear until the last six words. In this context, "spent brass" is slang for empty ammunition shells, but the significance of the "brass" is unclear. The fate of the gun is also not explained.

Does anyone know what is meant and/or the further history of the Fokker-Leimberger?

Grant | Talk 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WWI section[edit]

As the request for sources were already in since August '08, I rephrased the WWI section a bit, which was slightly biased (in my biased opinion). I hope it now is worded in a more neutral way. --Antheii (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fokker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fokker&oldid=1207257186"