Ares Games
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 137

Thread: Was the Albatros DVa poor at climbing?

  1. #1

    Default Was the Albatros DVa poor at climbing?

    On another completely different thread there was a debate about the Albatros about the climb rate of 4. So, I thought I move the debate to it's own thread in Historical discussions.

    IMHO a climb rate of 3 is a bit overgenerous but a climb rate of 4 makes the plane relatively poor at climbing.
    The historical accounts are mostly scathing of the plane's performance. But was it really that bad in all aspects? We all know how unreliable some of the historical accounts can be.

    In recent times an exact replica has been built and the flying characteristics described.
    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...-new-albatross
    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...es-flying-d-va

    I quote from the test pilot describing it's climb

    The engine has a tremendous amount of power and the Albatros climbs well...


    This is from a pilot who has also flown a replica SE5a.
    The Alb was definitely a major disappointment to the German pilots and this disappointment may have caused them to regard the aircraft as having no good points. The Alb was definitely no match for an SE5a but maybe it was not so bad at climbing as WGF makes out?

    PS Added
    I believe the replica has the high compression Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine. There is some debate about when this became standard for the Alb DVa. If anyone can clarify when it become standard, that would be useful.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-07-2014 at 10:04. Reason: PS Added

  2. #2

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    On another completely different thread there was a debate about the Albatros about the climb rate of 4. So, I thought I move the debate to it's own thread in Historical discussions.

    IMHO a climb rate of 3 is a bit overgenerous but a climb rate of 4 makes the plane relatively poor at climbing.
    The historical accounts are mostly scathing of the plane's performance. But was it really that bad in all aspects? We all know how unreliable some of the historical accounts can be.

    In recent times an exact replica has been built and the flying characteristics described.
    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...-new-albatross
    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...es-flying-d-va

    I quote from the test pilot describing it's climb

    The engine has a tremendous amount of power and the Albatros climbs well...


    This is from a pilot who has also flown a replica SE5a.
    The Alb was definitely a major disappointment to the German pilots and this disappointment may have caused them to regard the aircraft as having no good points. The Alb was definitely no match for an SE5a but maybe it was not so bad at climbing as WGF makes out?

    PS Added
    I believe the replica has the high compression Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine. There is some debate about when this became standard for the Alb DVa. If anyone can clarify when it become standard, that would be useful.
    Hi Nicola!
    Yes I think the D.V could climb OK particularly with the improved Merc engine. Its main problem was its dive problems.
    (like the wings falling off.)

  3. #3

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    The centralpowers had great difficulties getting hold of good engineoil. I know this caused enginefailure and made a big impact on engineperformance.
    I don't know if some engines where more vunerable than others.

  4. #4

    Default

    Sound logical, I have read reports of german ground crew going out to any crashed aircraft and scavaging all the parts, oils, and lubricants they could get. Unfortunatly I do not have any reference for this as I read it in a past thread several years ago.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    The centralpowers had great difficulties getting hold of good engineoil. I know this caused enginefailure and made a big impact on engineperformance.
    I don't know if some engines where more vunerable than others.
    A good point about the shortage of good quality oil. Part of the reason why the Alb has such a bad rep is that when the war ended a British pilot tested one to find out how it performed. He was amazed at how terrible the performance was. But, IMHO, maybe the performance was so bad because the German maintenance crew neglected the obsolete (and unloved) Alb in favour of the much superior Fokker DVII. In short, what may have been tested was a old, badly maintained, clapped out version of the plane.

    I've no issue with the Alb DV having a climb rate of 4. But the DVa had a more powerful engine and (despite the slight increase in weight) this should (in theory) have resulted in more power.

  6. #6

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Well I play it with 4cc. Have done so from the start. At some point your enemy must get down to your altitude if they want to shoot at you.
    The trick is to allways have your own guns pointed at them when they come.

    Maybe a questian for Andrea...
    Do anyone know which interval of climbrate the 2, 3, 4 and 5cc have?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    The centralpowers had great difficulties getting hold of good engineoil. I know this caused enginefailure and made a big impact on engineperformance.
    I don't know if some engines where more vunerable than others.
    That was mostly a lack of castor oil, which was needed for rotary engines. The Albatross's inline engine didn't use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    A good point about the shortage of good quality oil. Part of the reason why the Alb has such a bad rep is that when the war ended a British pilot tested one to find out how it performed. He was amazed at how terrible the performance was. But, IMHO, maybe the performance was so bad because the German maintenance crew neglected the obsolete (and unloved) Alb in favour of the much superior Fokker DVII. In short, what may have been tested was a old, badly maintained, clapped out version of the plane.

    I've no issue with the Alb DV having a climb rate of 4. But the DVa had a more powerful engine and (despite the slight increase in weight) this should (in theory) have resulted in more power.
    Sometimes, the numbers just don't add up in real life. Many German pilots (MvR included) were disappointed by the lack of increase in performance with the Va.
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    That was mostly a lack of castor oil, which was needed for rotary engines. The Albatross's inline engine didn't use it.



    Sometimes, the numbers just don't add up in real life. Many German pilots (MvR included) were disappointed by the lack of increase in performance with the Va.
    Karl
    Yes, I agree. The German pilots were bitterly disappointed with the Albatros DV and they were not that impressed with the improved Va. But the account of flying of an exact replica is IMHO significant and can be regarded IMHO as a real life experience.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-08-2014 at 00:48. Reason: Varous

  9. #9

    Default

    Very hard to overprint today's results onto 100 year old history. We just don't know what factors influenced the reports.
    I am of the opinion that the closest we can get to the truth is to accept primary source material as being the best guide, and not to second guess. If a lot of pilots said it was a bad climber, it probably was, even if it was just them projecting their beliefs onto the way they handled the machines, after someone as influential as MvR had set the tone.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  10. #10

    Dom S's Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Dom
    Location
    People's Republic of South Yorkshire
    Sorties Flown
    2,081
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default

    But the account of flying of an exact replica is IMHO significant and can be regarded IMHO as a real life experience.
    Yes and no - we do need to bear in mind that even faithfully following the WWI plans with no design modifications at all, the end result won't be an exact replica, but rather an improvement. 100 years of improvement in materials (especially metallurgy) and machining (especially finer tolerances), together with the fact that it's lovingly crafted by enthusiasts over thousands of man hours, and filled with fuel the luftstreitkrafte could only dream of, mean that a modern replica is likely to be a different (probably superior....) machine to one rushed off of the production lines in 1916.

    If lots of pilots in 1917-18 said it was a poor climber, and the one guy with a shiny new one now says it's not so bad, that's interesting, but we need to give serious thought to why the one statistical outlier is the new one before counting it as new evidence.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom S View Post
    Yes and no - we do need to bear in mind that even faithfully following the WWI plans with no design modifications at all, the end result won't be an exact replica, but rather an improvement. 100 years of improvement in materials (especially metallurgy) and machining (especially finer tolerances), together with the fact that it's lovingly crafted by enthusiasts over thousands of man hours, and filled with fuel the luftstreitkrafte could only dream of, mean that a modern replica is likely to be a different (probably superior....) machine to one rushed off of the production lines in 1916.

    If lots of pilots in 1917-18 said it was a poor climber, and the one guy with a shiny new one now says it's not so bad, that's interesting, but we need to give serious thought to why the one statistical outlier is the new one before counting it as new evidence.
    I agree up to a point. But, although there are historical accounts of the Alb DVa being just basically bad at everything, there are also accounts from pilots who regarded it as not that bad. Some British pilots thought it could match the Camel in a climb or even out climb it. I believe they were mistaken but I have not come across one account of a British pilot who thought the Alb DVa was bad at climbing - with the sole exception of a British pilot who tested one at the end of the war and we don't know what condition that plane was when he tested it. I have read an account where a flight of British pilots in Camels were unable to catch a flight of Alb DVa at a higher altitude.

    PS Added: And it was not a case the Alb's flew off. Instead they kept doing boom and zoom attacks using the altitude advantage.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-08-2014 at 03:43. Reason: PS Added

  12. #12

    Default

    Here is a link to a battle involving Alb DVa's and Camels and SE5a's

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J...0climb&f=false

    The British pilot claims the Albs were climbed faster than the Camels and the SE5a's. This is clearly wrong but the key thing is that the Alb's kept their height advantage.

    PS Added: Just to avoid confusion, I'm in no way suggesting an Alb DVa could outclimb an SE5 or a Camel. Just that maybe it's climb was not poor.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-08-2014 at 04:26. Reason: PS Added

  13. #13

    Default

    It will be interesting to hear what Zoe has to say about this, especially the respective performance of the different engines at altitude, which may not have any connection with the climb rate.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  14. #14

    Default

    Ciao guys,

    Osprey’s Duel Series SE.5a vs. Albatros D.V – Western Front 1917-1918 by Jon Guttman could have some interesting hints on this subject.
    This is an excerpt from page 31 comparing different climb rates between the D.III and the D.V. It seems that the D.V was quite a few slower than the D.III.

    --------------------D.III----------------D.V
    Climb to----------minutes seconds minutes seconds
    3,050ft-------------2--------30------4------- 20
    6,000ft-------------6--------0-------8------- 50
    9,150ft-------------11-------0------14-------30
    12,200ft------------17-------0------22-------40
    15,250ft------------24-------30-----35-------0

    If anyone is interested in this .pdf book just drop me a PM.

    Mau

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Ciao guys,

    Osprey’s Duel Series SE.5a vs. Albatros D.V – Western Front 1917-1918 by Jon Guttman could have some interesting hints on this subject.
    This is an excerpt from page 31 comparing different climb rates between the D.III and the D.V. It seems that the D.V was quite a few slower than the D.III.

    --------------------D.III----------------D.V
    Climb to----------minutes seconds minutes seconds
    3,050ft-------------2--------30------4------- 20
    6,000ft-------------6--------0-------8------- 50
    9,150ft-------------11-------0------14-------30
    12,200ft------------17-------0------22-------40
    15,250ft------------24-------30-----35-------0

    If anyone is interested in this .pdf book just drop me a PM.

    Mau
    I can understand the DV being slower in climb - it did have a number of issues. But what about a DVa with a high compression Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine?

    PS Added
    I suspect part of the reason why the reports of the Alb are so contradictory is that its performance radically changed from the DV to the DVa to the late 1917 DVa. My guess is the DV was a complete dog - no better than the DIII. The early DVa's were an improvement but not that great. By late 1917, the high compression Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine was introduced and the DVa had a marked improvement in climb.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-08-2014 at 07:52. Reason: PS Added

  16. #16

    Default

    It could be of benefit having a look at the book mentioned above

    However at page 33 here is what is reported:
    << At best, all the improved Merceds motor could do was restore the D.Va's performance to that of its lighter, but more fragile, predecessor (...). >>

    Mau

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    It could be of benefit having a look at the book mentioned above

    However at page 33 here is what is reported:
    << At best, all the improved Merceds motor could do was restore the D.Va's performance to that of its lighter, but more fragile, predecessor (...). >>

    Mau
    This is interesting and helpful but upon what evidence is the author basing this statement upon? I'm not questioning his scholarship - which is certainly much more than mine - but with academic debate it's reasonable to request sources.

  18. #18

    Default

    That is why I would be more than glad to share this book with you, Nicola.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    That is why I would be more than glad to share this book with you, Nicola.
    That is very generous - thank you.

  20. #20

  21. #21

    Default

    Great discussion/debate. Very good points made. I do agree with Dom about exact replicas, and with the statement about older engines losing power.
    I believe the right answer is to go to what the original pilots said about the flying the aircraft. And looking at some data.
    28 Feb 1918
    Alb D.Va 475
    Alb D.III 357
    Hann CL.II 295
    Pflaz D.IIIa 261
    Alb D.V 250
    Halb CL.II 224
    Pfalz D.III 182
    Fokker Dr.I 143
    There might be a reason why there were 357 Albatros D.III's in service in 28 Feb 1918.

    From Wiki:
    The OAW variant underwent its Typenprüfung in June 1917. Production commenced at the Schneidemühl factory in June and continued through December 1917. OAW aircraft were distinguishable by their larger, rounded rudders.

    The D.III did not disappear with the end of production, however. It remained in frontline service well into 1918. As of 31 August 1918, 54 D.III aircraft remained on the Western Front.

    The Albatros D.III airframe was amazing. By adding an extra spar to the lower wing, the Austrians, made the lower wing stronger and the airframe could take more powerful and heavier engines. Many pilots, who had flown other new aircraft, regarded the Oeffag series 253 (225HP) as the best and finest fighter of all. I think this says alot about the general flying characteristics of the D.III.

  22. #22

    Default

    I always take comparison tests by the opposing side with several pinches of salt. There are so many things influencing their opinions, it would be next to impossible to give a unbiased evaluation. Putting the political and psychological issues aside, those "test pilots" had how many hours in the machine before doing the evaluation flight?? I would think they would be far from proficient enough to get the best out of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Here is a link to a battle involving Alb DVa's and Camels and SE5a's

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J...0climb&f=false

    The British pilot claims the Albs were climbed faster than the Camels and the SE5a's. This is clearly wrong but the key thing is that the Alb's kept their height advantage.

    PS Added: Just to avoid confusion, I'm in no way suggesting an Alb DVa could outclimb an SE5 or a Camel. Just that maybe it's climb was not poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    I agree up to a point. But, although there are historical accounts of the Alb DVa being just basically bad at everything, there are also accounts from pilots who regarded it as not that bad. Some British pilots thought it could match the Camel in a climb or even out climb it. I believe they were mistaken but I have not come across one account of a British pilot who thought the Alb DVa was bad at climbing - with the sole exception of a British pilot who tested one at the end of the war and we don't know what condition that plane was when he tested it. I have read an account where a flight of British pilots in Camels were unable to catch a flight of Alb DVa at a higher altitude.

    PS Added: And it was not a case the Alb's flew off. Instead they kept doing boom and zoom attacks using the altitude advantage.

    In this situation, it's not hard to believe that the Albatros could stay above them. The Camels and SE5s would be at a negative energy state for nearly that entire fight. The Albatros could dive down on them, force them to take evasive (energy hungry moves or even dives) actions, then use their converted potential energy to climb back to where they were... staying energy natural. It might have been more the Albatros keeping them from climbing to their height then it was the Albatros actually out climbing them in a straight race to X altitude.

  23. #23

    Default

    A Camel with a new engine at 5000 ft could outclimb nearly anything.

    A Camel with 24 hours on the clock at 15000 ft probably couldn't make it to 16000. The nominally 120hp was closer to 70 under those conditions. Few were allowed to fly without an engine change long before then though. Unless in the Home Establishment. Apparently maintenance wasn't so good there, and weaponry was particularly unreliable. The good mechanics and good ammo was sent to the Front. The clapped-out war-weary aircraft, maintained by apprentices under training, were kept at home.

    There was a reason why Camels did the low-medium level bombing, SE5a's covered them at medium-high, and Dolphins were above the SE5s at 22000, where they were unrivalled. IIRC the Luftstreitkrafte did something similar, Alb. D.Vs and Pfalz D.XIIs covered by Fkr. D.VIIs covered by SSW.D.IIIs, though there they tended to be in the same Jasta.

    So YMMV an awful lot, depending on where, when, who the manufacturer was, and how high the fight.

  24. #24

    Default

    Alright all, sorry if this has been mentioned already, I will read the posts at length. John mentions the Alb DIII, but the other DIII is compared in the Pfalz aces book (osprey) to the DV, I've not seen mention of the DVa yet and don't believe it will, i'm assuming that it's blanket reference to the DV in general.
    Any road long and short of it, all the pilots who compare the two say the Pfalz DIII was a better climber, although slower. Also it's production run ran into 1918 due to the luft America program.
    P.s. Just going to pick up my first pair of pfalz diii sent by "flying helmet" from the post office.

    Pps. Ooh shiny new rep medal. Cheers skipper, G&T waiting in the mess.
    Last edited by Twisted_terrain; 12-09-2014 at 01:19.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    A Camel with a new engine at 5000 ft could outclimb nearly anything.

    A Camel with 24 hours on the clock at 15000 ft probably couldn't make it to 16000. The nominally 120hp was closer to 70 under those conditions. Few were allowed to fly without an engine change long before then though. Unless in the Home Establishment. Apparently maintenance wasn't so good there, and weaponry was particularly unreliable. The good mechanics and good ammo was sent to the Front. The clapped-out war-weary aircraft, maintained by apprentices under training, were kept at home.

    There was a reason why Camels did the low-medium level bombing, SE5a's covered them at medium-high, and Dolphins were above the SE5s at 22000, where they were unrivalled. IIRC the Luftstreitkrafte did something similar, Alb. D.Vs and Pfalz D.XIIs covered by Fkr. D.VIIs covered by SSW.D.IIIs, though there they tended to be in the same Jasta.

    So YMMV an awful lot, depending on where, when, who the manufacturer was, and how high the fight.
    I knew that the Camels were not good at altitude, but I didn't realize those Clerget Rotarys were so fragile. Were the Bentleys as bad? Or was it the nature of rotarys in general?
    Karl
    It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    I always take comparison tests by the opposing side with several pinches of salt.
    ...In this situation, it's not hard to believe that the Albatros could stay above them. The Camels and SE5s would be at a negative energy state for nearly that entire fight. The Albatros could dive down on them, force them to take evasive (energy hungry moves or even dives) actions, then use their converted potential energy to climb back to where they were... staying energy natural. It might have been more the Albatros keeping them from climbing to their height then it was the Albatros actually out climbing them in a straight race to X altitude.
    I always take comparison tests by the either side with several pinches of salt. That was my point. All historical accounts must be taken with a pinch of salt because there are so many variables.

    Lewis wrote, the Germans reached their 'time limit' and began to disengage.
    'I saw only three above, and they were climbing away. I believe they climb better than we do, though we are a good deal faster. The SEs then went south and the Camels to the north.'
    Even assuming (and this is just an assumption) boom and zoom tactics, Lewis is claiming the planes climbed faster. In addition, boom and zoom only gains you some of the energy back. We talking about high drag biplanes and not modern gliders - they were far from even close to being energy neutral.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twisted_terrain View Post
    Alright all, sorry if this has been mentioned already, I will read the posts at length. John mentions the Alb DIII, but the other DIII is compared in the Pfalz aces book (osprey) to the DV, I've not seen mention of the DVa yet and don't believe it will, i'm assuming that it's blanket reference to the DV in general.
    Any road long and short of it, all the pilots who compare the two say the Pfalz DIII was a better climber, although slower. Also it's production run ran into 1918 due to the luft America program.
    P.s. Just going to pick up my first pair of pfalz diii sent by "flying helmet" from the post office.

    Pops. Ooh shiny new rep medal. Cheers skipper, G&T waiting in the mess.
    With the comparison of the Pfalz DIIIa and the Alb DVa, you're right that there are historical accounts that the Pfalz climbed faster. But by the time it arrived on the scene, the new Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine was (I believe) fitted as standard on the Pfalz but not on the Alb DV and DVa. An Alb DVa with an inferior engine will definitely not climb as fast as a Pfalz DIIIa.

    What it comes down to is this - was the extra weight of the Alb DVa sufficient to stop it climbing as fast? Assuming the same Mercedes 200hp D.IIIau engine.

    PS Added
    It has been claimed that the extra weight of the Alb Va meant it could not match the performance of the Pfalz DIIIa and it could only climb at the same rate as the Alb DIII. But when I checked the empty and loaded weights, the numbers don't seem to add up. I could be confused - I often am - but the numbers listed (on wiki) don't seem to me to support the argument.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-09-2014 at 01:55. Reason: PS Added

  28. #28

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    I knew that the Camels were not good at altitude, but I didn't realize those Clerget Rotarys were so fragile. Were the Bentleys as bad? Or was it the nature of rotarys in general?
    Karl
    No the Bentleys were much superior!

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    A Camel with a new engine at 5000 ft could outclimb nearly anything.

    A Camel with 24 hours on the clock at 15000 ft probably couldn't make it to 16000. The nominally 120hp was closer to 70 under those conditions. Few were allowed to fly without an engine change long before then though. Unless in the Home Establishment. Apparently maintenance wasn't so good there, and weaponry was particularly unreliable. The good mechanics and good ammo was sent to the Front. The clapped-out war-weary aircraft, maintained by apprentices under training, were kept at home.

    There was a reason why Camels did the low-medium level bombing, SE5a's covered them at medium-high, and Dolphins were above the SE5s at 22000, where they were unrivalled. IIRC the Luftstreitkrafte did something similar, Alb. D.Vs and Pfalz D.XIIs covered by Fkr. D.VIIs covered by SSW.D.IIIs, though there they tended to be in the same Jasta.

    So YMMV an awful lot, depending on where, when, who the manufacturer was, and how high the fight.
    Thanks for your reply Zoe.
    Erudite as ever.
    Rob.
    "Courage is the art of being the only one who knows you're scared to death."

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gully_raker View Post
    No the Bentleys were much superior!
    The Germans thought so anyway. Captured Bentleys were used by Aces in Dr.Is whenever they could get them. From memory, Lothar Von Richthofen's usual mount was fitted with one, but I could be mistaken.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zoe Brain View Post
    The Germans thought so anyway. Captured Bentleys were used by Aces in Dr.Is whenever they could get them. From memory, Lothar Von Richthofen's usual mount was fitted with one, but I could be mistaken.
    Things are starting to make sense. The impression I'm getting is the assumption will be that the Camel will be fitted with a good (or even best) version of the engine available while the Alb DVa will be fitted with the original (160 hp) version of the engine; even though by late 1917 Alb DVa were being manufactured with 200 hp engines. The comparative climb rates of the two planes now makes sense.

    It, also, explains the comparative climb rates of the Alb DVa and the Pfalz DIIIa. Somewhat oddly it's assumed that DVa produced at the same time as the Pfalz will have the 160 hp engine despite the standard engine by this time being the same as the Pfalz.

    The underlying issue may be having the same stats for the Alb DV as the Alb DVa.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    I always take comparison tests by the either side with several pinches of salt. That was my point. All historical accounts must be taken with a pinch of salt because there are so many variables.
    Indeed both sides had reasons to inflate the performance of their planes... but I think captured planes were deflated rather drastically. Most were captured after being shot down or making a forced landing do to some mechanical issue. So right there they were starting off with a poor base subject. I doubt many, if any, pilots of the time would have fessed up to the enemy's plane being better than their normal mount (the D.VII being the possible exception) as a whole. I think the reiews would have been more along the lines of it does this good, but ours is better at this, this and that... and is overall better.


    Lewis wrote, the Germans reached their 'time limit' and began to disengage.
    'I saw only three above, and they were climbing away. I believe they climb better than we do, though we are a good deal faster. The SEs then went south and the Camels to the north.'
    Even assuming (and this is just an assumption) boom and zoom tactics, Lewis is claiming the planes climbed faster. In addition, boom and zoom only gains you some of the energy back. We talking about high drag biplanes and not modern gliders - they were far from even close to being energy neutral.
    PS Added: And it was not a case the Alb's flew off. Instead they kept doing boom and zoom attacks using the altitude advantage.
    So were they boom and zooming or not? As I tried to relate above, there are many things that could have attributed to Lewis thinking the D.Vs were better climbers that day. Defending your self from an enemy at a higher altitude is always going to cost you performance at a greater rate than the guy boom and zooming you. And while the planes of those days were not technically energy neutral, the principle still applies applies and that is all I was trying to show.

    But honestly, I'm not sure what all the debate is about. The game now has planes with climb stats that more closely match what historical data is out there. Your normal gaming group is mostly made of gamers, not historical gamers. So, they don't like to fly with poorer performing planes. That's all good and that group should play with what they like to play with.

    Historical accounts label the D.V a turd and the game pretty much treats it as a turd. Seems spot on to me

    I personally love the "idea" of the D.Va, so fly it even though I wish it was a lot better in the game. Same with the Dr.I (speed wise).

  33. #33

    Default

    The DVa was a mediocre plane, widely used by the German airmen.
    It has also a kind of strange beauty that makes me want to play with it again and again.

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberst Hajj View Post
    ...
    But honestly, I'm not sure what all the debate is about. The game now has planes with climb stats that more closely match what historical data is out there. Your normal gaming group is mostly made of gamers, not historical gamers. So, they don't like to fly with poorer performing planes. That's all good and that group should play with what they like to play with.

    Historical accounts label the D.V a turd and the game pretty much treats it as a turd. Seems spot on to me

    I personally love the "idea" of the D.Va, so fly it even though I wish it was a lot better in the game. Same with the Dr.I (speed wise).
    I agree with all your points.
    I especially agree with your point that the DV is a turd. In general I try to avoid such a word but in this case it's appropriate. MVR would probably have been even harsher.

    My point is simple. The DVa is not the same as the DV - at least not by late 1917/early 1918. By the time the Pfalz DIIIa is been made, the DVa is being made with the same high compression powerful 180\200hp engine as the Pfalz.

    I suspect if you separate out the figures of the DV from the DVa almost as many DVa's were made during the course of the war with the high performance engine.

    The exact replica produced was made with the DIIIau engine as a typical version - and with this engine it climbs well. If they put in the original DV engine (160hp) it would climb like a pig due to its weight.

    In short, lumping the DV with the DVa is IMHO misleading. The DVa is still mediocre but at least it provides a reasonable challenge to a Camel - which somewhat matches historical accounts.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-09-2014 at 07:07. Reason: correction and clarifications

  35. #35


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    That depends which Camel you're thinking about : ) The Naval squadrons had the more powerful 150hp Bentley radial not the regular 130hp Clerget.

    It's all a bit academic though as history really suggests that it was really down to the guy flying the plane and not so much the plane itself, within reason. For example, I believe it was Fonck who wrote that he always looked to see how tight a turn an adversary could make without loosing altitude as this gave him a good idea of the flying capability of his enemy. Then there's the question of marksmanship and again Fonck was getting confirmed kills having expended next to no ammunition. Five rounds on one occasion was all he needed. Then there's the skill of being able to watch over and lead a squadron in the way that MvR was famous for.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmo UK View Post
    That depends which Camel you're thinking about : ) The Naval squadrons had the more powerful 150hp Bentley radial not the regular 130hp Clerget.

    It's all a bit academic though as history really suggests that it was really down to the guy flying the plane and not so much the plane itself, within reason. For example, I believe it was Fonck who wrote that he always looked to see how tight a turn an adversary could make without loosing altitude as this gave him a good idea of the flying capability of his enemy. Then there's the question of marksmanship and again Fonck was getting confirmed kills having expended next to no ammunition. Five rounds on one occasion was all he needed. Then there's the skill of being able to watch over and lead a squadron in the way that MvR was famous for.
    All good points. But in the game I am not in Fonck's and MvR's illustrious league. I need all the help I can get. So, it helps to have a plane with slightly better climb - especially if it's backed up by the evidence

  37. #37


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    But doesn't all the evidence suggest that the DIII climbed better? If so why not fly one of those instead?

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmo UK View Post
    But doesn't all the evidence suggest that the DIII climbed better? If so why not fly one of those instead?
    All the evidence is that the DIII climbed around the same as (or better than) the DV. They both had the same engines (160hp), the same wing area and the DV was heavier.
    I have not yet seen any convincing evidence it climber better than the DVa. The DVa had a more powerful engine (around 180hp)
    I would be amazed if it climbed better than DVa produced late 1917 and in 1918 as the standard engine by then was the DIIIau which was probably 40hp more.
    DVa produced late 1917 and in 1918 had the same engine as the Pfalz DIIIa. As they're roughly around the same weight and wing area - I'd expect them to have roughly the same climb rate.

    The problem is that people are treating the DVa as the same as the DV.

  39. #39


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    You could ask Richard Jackson's lot in New Zealand, I expect they know the real answer. With such light planes the all up weight when loaded with fuel, pilot and ammo will matter and even more so the altitude above sea level and the performance at altitude. It's never ever going to be an absolute anyway as fuel and ammo are expended and localised air and weather conditions are taken into account which is why in real terms the skill of the pilot counted for more.

    Who knows if this is accurate but if it is then the DIII is the better climber given like for like of the above mentioned.

    http://en.wiki.riseofflight.com/inde...Albatros_D.III

    http://en.wiki.riseofflight.com/inde...=Albatros_D.Va

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmo UK View Post
    You could ask Richard Jackson's lot in New Zealand, I expect they know the real answer. With such light planes the all up weight when loaded with fuel, pilot and ammo will matter and even more so the altitude above sea level and the performance at altitude. It's never ever going to be an absolute anyway as fuel and ammo are expended and localised air and weather conditions are taken into account which is why in real terms the skill of the pilot counted for more.
    I'm sorry but have you read the first post in this thread? They've built an exact replica Alb DVa in New Zealand.
    They have provided a fairly detailed assessment of its performance.

    http://thevintageaviator.co.nz/proje...es-flying-d-va

  41. #41


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    Yes but I didn't read the pilot report. However, his views are only comparing it to the SE5a not the DIII so it's not a precise study of the type that you really want. You could still get in contact with them and ask their views on the subject.

    Why does it matter so much? Either play the DVa or another plane that performs better? The Albatros, whatever model, is always going to struggle against the better Allied scouts. Its hey day was when it was fighting the allied scouts that only had one gun!
    Last edited by Timmo UK; 12-09-2014 at 10:22.

  42. #42

    Default

    Hi guys,

    I really like this sort of things as there is always something new to learn.
    And I expecially like when people struggle for their ideas (and birdies) with well thought and well supported arguments.

    So, I would like to add, to this very interesting thread, what Dan-San Abbot (1923-2011) weighed in, in another forum, about the D.Va:

    The Alb.D.V was a project to improve the performance of the Alb.D.III through a redesign of the airframe structure and a refinement of the D.III fuselage.
    The empty weight of the Alb.D.III was 673 kg.(1480 lbs.) OAW, a subsidiary of Albatros, lighted the airframe on the Alb.D.III they built to 664 kg.
    (1460 lbs)
    The entire airfame was lightened using smaller cross-section on all components and the redirection of the aileron control system from through the lower wing to the ailerons in the upper wing, instead going direct to the upper wing from the fuselage and through the upper wing to the ailerons. When the engineers completed the project, the aircraft empty weight was 620 kg.(1364 lbs). The performance improved over the D.III, with the maximum airspeed increased to 187 km/hr @ S/L, from 175 km/hr @ S/L of the D.III. The ceiling was increased from 5800 meters (19020 ft') to 6500 meters,(21320') with the D.V. The range was increased from 310 kilometers to 380 kilometers.
    The new design was designated by Idflieg, Alb.D.V. It went into production and service, but after a short time, it was discovered the lightening of the airframe structure was a mistake, it was found that structural failures were occurring in combat maneuvers and landings. Idflieg directed the Albatros Werke to take a look at the problem and resolve it.
    Albatros engineers redesigned the structure increasing the size of cross-sections, when the prototype was built, it weighed 680 kg.(1496 lbs.) Also the engine was changed to the heavier and more powerful 180 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü instead of the 170 Ps D.IIIa engine of the Alb.D.V. The aileron control system reverted to the method used on the Alb.D.III.
    The Performance of the Alb.D.Va was not improved over the D.V but had been degraded, the maximum airspeed remained the same at 187 km/hr @ S/L, the ceiling was reduced from 6500 meters to 6250 meters and the range decreased to 350 kilometers. The gross weight had increased from 835 kg
    (1837 lbs.) to 915 kg.(2013 lbs). The OAW built version was heavier still with an empty of 717 kg.(1577lbs.) and a gross weight of 937 kg.(2061lbs.) The performance of the OAW built D.Va was slightly degraded from the Albatros built D.Va, the maximum airspeed was the same, the ceiling was the same, however the range was degraded to 300 kilometers because of the less amount of fuel.
    well those are the differences between the Alb/D.V and the two Alb.D.Va machines.
    Mau

  43. #43

    Default

    Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton shows a 160hp powered D.III climbed faster than a 180hp powered D.V/D.Va, 12.01min to 9,800' the former, 17.08min the latter, 28min v 35min to 16,400'. Amongst the other things mentioned the difference of 64lb in gross weight may account for this, or maybe the difference in the gap between the wings had some bearing on it.

  44. #44


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    The tighter gap between the wings might have effected the wing efficiency on the DVa. Also I don't know if they kept the same airfoil, did they?

  45. #45

    Default

    Apparently the wing construction was identical Tim - only differing on the D.V by the way the aileron control wires routed - on the D.Va it reverted to the D.III style and the wings of the D.III & D.Va were interchangeable.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    Hi guys,

    I really like this sort of things as there is always something new to learn.
    And I expecially like when people struggle for their ideas (and birdies) with well thought and well supported arguments.

    So, I would like to add, to this very interesting thread, what Dan-San Abbot (1923-2011) weighed in, in another forum, about the D.Va:



    Mau
    A big thank you for posting this. This is exactly the kind of info I wanted. It's well worth studying carefully what you've posted in your previous post. I'd give you more rep but the system won't let me.

    I suspect the debate (even among the experts) gets confused because of mixing figures and reports for the DIII, the DV, the DVa with the original engine and the DVa with the DIIIau compression engines. On top of that the OAW built versions were significantly heavier for the DV and DVa.

    The figures for the loaded weight for the Alb DIII I have are 2,002lb with 2,018lb for the OAW built version.
    Now if we compare the loaded weight for the Alb DVa (with DIIIau engine) we have quoted 2,013lbs and 2,061lbs for the OAW built version.
    IMHO the significant increase in weight between the Alb DIII and Alb DVa really applies to the OAW built version.
    The non-OAW version has a 11lb increase in weight and between 20 and 40 hp increase in engine power.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-10-2014 at 00:40. Reason: Corrections

  47. #47


    Users Country Flag


    Name
    Tim
    Location
    East Anglia
    Sorties Flown
    510
    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default

    The difference in loaded weight could be neutralised or made worse by the guy sitting in the plane – not a lot in it in real terms. A pilot could make 40lbs of difference either way.

    What's more telling in the quote from the late Dan San is:

    "The Performance of the Alb.D.Va was not improved over the D.V but had been degraded, the maximum airspeed remained the same at 187 km/hr @ S/L, the ceiling was reduced from 6500 meters to 6250 meters and the range decreased to 350 kilometres."

  48. #48

    Default

    The Alb D.V built with the 180 D.III engine (Increased compression version of the 160 D.III engine as used in the Alb D.III) was lighter than the Alb D.III by some 120lb yet the climb rate was horrendous eg 4:20mins to 1000m compared to the Alb D.III that could do that in 2:30 min.
    When the Alb D.Va came along it was about 64lb heavier than the D.V; even adding the new engines and extra power it didn't surpass the Alb D.V performance.
    There seems to be more going on than weight/power as an issue with these types. Quite what we can only speculate, I'm sure if the designers knew they'd have fixed it !

    "He is wise who watches"

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    The Alb D.V built with the 180 D.III engine (Increased compression version of the 160 D.III engine as used in the Alb D.III) was lighter than the Alb D.III by some 120lb yet the climb rate was horrendous eg 4:20mins to 1000m compared to the Alb D.III that could do that in 2:30 min.
    When the Alb D.Va came along it was about 64lb heavier than the D.V; even adding the new engines and extra power it didn't surpass the Alb D.V performance.
    There seems to be more going on than weight/power as an issue with these types. Quite what we can only speculate, I'm sure if the designers knew they'd have fixed it !
    I agree the weight/power issue is a myth. The Albatros parent plant produced over 1,000 D.Va aircraft; the subsidiary OAW plant produced about 600. The majority of the Alb DVa produced were not OAW built and so were not significantly heavier than the Alb DIII.

    Based on the power/weight ratio, the performance of the Alb DVa replica and some of the historical accounts, I think it's reasonable to speculate if the climb rates reported for the DVa may also be another myth. Please can you provide the source for the reported climb rates?
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-10-2014 at 02:15. Reason: Added smily

  50. #50

    Default

    Ciao Nicola,

    the source for the reported climb rates is Osprey’s Duel Series SE.5a vs. Albatros D.V – Western Front 1917-1918 by Jon Guttman pag. 31.

    I like what you are doing here. Knowledge goes through passion.

    Hence I would like to add a new quote about the D.V, this time from MvR himself:

    Richthofen’s view on the new Albatros D.V was even worse. He wrote, “The DV is [so] outdated and so ridiculously inferior [to] the English singleseaters,” and expressed frustration that for almost a year Germany had produced no better machines than “this lousy Albatros and [production has] stopped at Albatros D.III, with which I have already fought in the autumn of last year… So long as Albatros has no vigorous competition, we will sit in our D.III (V).” Indeed they would, for the next several months.
    .

    This is an excerpt from pag. 62 of "ALBATROS D.III Johannisthal, OAW, and Oeffag variants" by James F. MILLER, that I am sending your way .

    Mau

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. 1 year of service... and climbing!
    By HTRAINo in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-22-2013, 02:55
  2. 700 and Climbing!
    By Dwarflord22 in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 12-23-2012, 09:10
  3. 500 Sorties and climbing
    By Burt in forum Officer's Club
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-04-2011, 06:58
  4. Shapeways? Poor service? Am I alone on this?
    By pflanzer in forum Shapeways Models
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-29-2011, 05:46
  5. Altitude changes climbing..
    By Slamdunk in forum WGF: Rules Help
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-05-2011, 03:26

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •