Ares Games
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 137

Thread: Was the Albatros DVa poor at climbing?

  1. #51

    Default

    Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton is one of the many sources I have looked at - profile & squadron books and the Duel 20 book you got from Mau has all this data in it too, in fact all the sources looked at have very similar data.
    Everything points to the D.III being able to out climb the D.V despite the latter being considerably lighter; the D.Va was heavier than the D.V so with the same engine (Merc D.IIIa) its performance suffered and even with the better engine (Merc D.IIIau) they could only bring it to a par with the D.V. (link to wiki Merc D.III engine info)
    Nothing I have read here or elsewhere leads me to speculate the climb rates are a myth so I have to say in conclusion that the D.V and D.Va were poor climbers compared to the D.III which maybe needs its game climb rate of 4 reviewed !
    Last edited by flash; 12-11-2014 at 00:58. Reason: Added link to engines

    "He is wise who watches"

  2. #52


    Users Country Flag


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

    Default

    Agreed – all the data and anecdotal evidence points to the fact that the DIII outperformed the DV and DVa models.

  3. #53

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    It's easy to make wise decisions when you know what happend but to me it sounds more and more as a waste of men and materials to build and fly the DVa.
    I wonder why they didn't went back building the DIII at least until the got the fok. DVII up and running.

  4. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mau Fox View Post
    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:

    .

    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
    Yes, it's a good quote about the DV. But note after a few months MvR had switched to the Alb DVa.
    I am not going to defend the DV - it was (as already discussed) a 'turd'.
    It's not unusual for a design lacking the 'a' to be a lot worse.
    The SE5a performed much better than the SE5.
    The early Fokker DVII's had severe issues.
    The Plafz DIIIa performed better than the DIII.
    Please, please, please can we focus this debate on the Alb DIII and Alb DVa only?

    PS Added
    I liked your quote about knowledge progressing through passion

    Based on the climb rate for the original DV, it should be the same (or even worse than) the Alb DIII.
    I'm just not yet seen any evidence that the same can be said for the DVa - especially later versions with the DIIIau engines.

    Another PS Added
    As an example of my point (in the article you emailed me) I believe the climb rate figures listed for the SE5 are worse than the Alb DIII. So, are we now going to argue the SE5a had a worse climb rate than the Alb DIII?
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-11-2014 at 00:41. Reason: Even more PS Added and corrections

  5. #55

    Default

    I may be applying this incorrectly but looking at the 'tools for working out stats' doc the committee uses - if you base the climb rate on 3000m as the average the D.III would have a climb rate of 4, the D.V types would have a climb rate of 5 !

    "He is wise who watches"

  6. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    I may be applying this incorrectly but looking at the 'tools for working out stats' doc the committee uses - if you base the climb rate on 3000m as the average the D.III would have a climb rate of 4, the D.V types would have a climb rate of 5 !
    OK - I give up

  7. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    It's easy to make wise decisions when you know what happend but to me it sounds more and more as a waste of men and materials to build and fly the DVa. I wonder why they didn't went back building the DIII at least until the got the fok. DVII up and running.
    The D.V was an attempt to make a lighter version of the D.III with the expected improvements in all aspects - It was faster & could climb higher (if not quicker) but the gains were not as great as expected and by lightening it they made it weaker and there were a number of structural failures. The D.Va was their attempt to correct the weakness but made the aircraft heavier - it was still faster and could climb higher. With the Pfalz and Fokkers in service at the time they had little choice but to press on with it & look for alternatives which they did with First Fighter Competition at Adlershof in January 1918.
    For the pilots the small gains were far less than expected (and probably promised) hence the big disappointment in the 'new' types - having said that they did the best with what they got and there are many 'Albatros' aces out there.

  8. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    The D.V was an attempt to make a lighter version of the D.III with the expected improvements in all aspects - It was faster & could climb higher (if not quicker) but the gains were not as great as expected and by lightening it they made it weaker and there were a number of structural failures. The D.Va was their attempt to correct the weakness but made the aircraft heavier - it was still faster and could climb higher. With the Pfalz and Fokkers in service at the time they had little choice but to press on with it & look for alternatives which they did with First Fighter Competition at Adlershof in January 1918.
    For the pilots the small gains were far less than expected (and probably promised) hence the big disappointment in the 'new' types - having said that they did the best with what they got and there are many 'Albatros' aces out there.
    OK - now I really am confused. I thought you only just argued the performance of the DVa was the same (or not that much better) than the DV. As there is clear documentary evidence the climb rate of the DV was terrible (and much worse than the existing DIII) the evidence based on this is that the climb rate should be 5.
    What happened?

    PS I just corrected this email. I made a typo.

    PPS The logical conclusion is clear. The DVa should not just be poor at climbing - it should be terrible. The logical conclusion is Tim is correct.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-11-2014 at 01:18. Reason: Corrections many

  9. #59


    Users Country Flag


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    It's easy to make wise decisions when you know what happend but to me it sounds more and more as a waste of men and materials to build and fly the DVa.
    I wonder why they didn't went back building the DIII at least until the got the fok. DVII up and running.
    The entire First World War was a waste of men and materials.

  10. #60

    Default

    Nothing happened - it may just be the way I wrote it: 'The D.Va was their attempt to correct the weakness but made the aircraft heavier - it was still faster and could climb higher.' than the D.III.
    A D.Va with the same engine (D.IIIa) as the D.V would not perform as well as the D.V due to the additional weight.
    A D.Va with the uprated engine (D.IIIau) could only perform as well as a D.V.
    Whilst they were both apparently faster and could climb higher than the D.III it seems neither the D.V or D.Va could out climb it - why we can only speculate.
    If I have used the tools for stats correctly (and I may not have) it appears to me that using 3000m as the average to base climb rates on both the D.V and D.Va models could both have a climb rate of 5 rather than the 4 currently enjoyed.
    Won't stop me using them

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Nothing happened - it may just be the way I wrote it: 'The D.Va was their attempt to correct the weakness but made the aircraft heavier - it was still faster and could climb higher.' than the D.III.
    A D.Va with the same engine (D.IIIa) as the D.V would not perform as well as the D.V due to the additional weight.
    A D.Va with the uprated engine (D.IIIau) could only perform as well as a D.V.
    Whilst they were both apparently faster and could climb higher than the D.III it seems neither the D.V or D.Va could out climb it - why we can only speculate.
    If I have used the tools for stats correctly (and I may not have) it appears to me that using 3000m as the average to base climb rates on both the D.V and D.Va models could both have a climb rate of 5 rather than the 4 currently enjoyed.
    Won't stop me using them
    OK - so can you please provide clear documentary evidence of the climb rates of the DVa (ideally with the uprated D.IIIau engine)?
    And please can we not just assume they are the same as (or little better than) the climb rates for the DV. The figures for it are so terrible (climb rate 5 is correct) I suspect the DV was an aberration - some kind of total screw-up.

    PS Added
    The one thing I think everyone can agree on was that the DV was terrible.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-11-2014 at 02:17. Reason: PS Added and many corrections

  12. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmo UK View Post

    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.
    Apart from according to most references I've read, the Fokker DVII would turn an average even sub standard pilot into more. Unless what I've read is all propaganda and bluster.

  13. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Won't stop me using them
    Me neither, good job I still can't get my head round your altitude rules. Actually it's probably just laziness. Everytime I look at the DVa I can see the ME109 in the background. All that series look amazing.

  14. #64

    Default

    My sources are: Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton; Profile Publications 9 Albatros D.V and 127 Albatros DI-D.III, give data for all types with different engine types, Osprey Duel 20 SE5a vs Albatros D V by Jon Guttman gives similar detail (check his acknowledgements too), Albatros Fighters in Action Squadron No.46 to a lesser extent but has other useful info.

    The one thing I think everyone can agree on was that the DV was terrible.
    The one thing I think everyone else can agree on was that the DVa was no better !

  15. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twisted_terrain View Post
    Me neither, good job I still can't get my head round your altitude rules. Actually it's probably just laziness. ..
    Probably - it weren't rocket science !

  16. #66

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmo UK View Post
    The entire First World War was a waste of men and materials.
    As every war...

  17. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    My sources are: Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton; Profile Publications 9 Albatros D.V and 127 Albatros DI-D.III, give data for all types with different engine types, Osprey Duel 20 SE5a vs Albatros D V by Jon Guttman gives similar detail (check his acknowledgements too), Albatros Fighters in Action Squadron No.46 to a lesser extent but has other useful info.


    The one thing I think everyone else can agree on was that the DVa was no better !
    Yes you are right - the sources state as fact the DVa was no better than the DV. But I still don't know where the evidence originally came from.


    As far as I can tell Osprey’s Duel Series 20 (SE.5a vs. Albatros D.V – Western Front 1917-1918) simply lists out the stats for the original DV and not the DVa.
    I don't have Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton. Please can you post the stats for the DVa from this (and ideally where they originally came from)?

  18. #68

    Default

    Mau has very kindly emailed me ALBATROS D.III Johannisthal, OAW, and Oeffag variants.
    This is exactly what I wanted - so I'm off to spend a happy afternoon to read it.

  19. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Yes you are right - the sources state as fact the DVa was no better than the DV. But I still don't know where the evidence originally came from.
    Bundesarchiv ?! That's my best guess for the ultimate source, IWM & Airforce Museum USA are mentioned in the 'fighters' book as well as individuals JM Bruce, Peter Gray, Heinz J Norwarra - Have to say when the like of the late Dan-Sam tell it I don't feel the need to look further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    As far as I can tell Osprey’s Duel Series 20 (SE.5a vs. Albatros D.V – Western Front 1917-1918) simply lists out the stats for the original DV and not the DVa.
    Then you have to read it - it's not tabulated - Mau gave the page number and the quote earlier

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    I don't have Fighter Aircraft of the 1914-1918 War by W.M Lamberton. Please can you post the stats for the DVa from this (and ideally where they originally came from)?
    8:08min to 6,500'; 17:08min to 9,800'; 22:10 to 13,100'; 35min to 16,400; Ceiling 20k but no time to that given.
    Compare this to the D.III: 12:00min to 9,800'; 18:45min to 13,100'; 28:48min to 16,400'.
    No info on the sources of data is given for the 300 individual aircraft listed other than those given above.

    The problem you're encountering finding individual stats is that in many references the D.V & D.Va are lumped together - this could be because there is so little to choose between them they're not worth listing separately and the figures quoted will be for the best performing version which would likely be the D.Va with the D.IIIau engine.

    PS - At the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof they put a 185hp BMW IIIa engine in an Albatros D.Va and it got to 6,000m (19,680') in 24.5min & 25.5min in two different runs and got a max ceiling of 10,500m. Postwar British tests put the rating of the BMW IIIa at 230 hp so it appears it just lacked BMW grunt !

    PPS: That's in the Profile 9 book - and no they didn't give a source for it
    Last edited by flash; 12-11-2014 at 06:41.

  20. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    ...
    8:08min to 6,500'; 17:08min to 9,800'; 22:10 to 13,100'; 35min to 16,400; Ceiling 20k but no time to that given.
    ...

    The problem you're encountering finding individual stats is that in many references the D.V & D.Va are lumped together - this could be because there is so little to choose between them they're not worth listing separately and the figures quoted will be for the best performing version which would likely be the D.Va with the D.IIIau engine.

    PS - At the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof they put a 185hp BMW IIIa engine in an Albatros D.Va and it got to 6,000m (19,680') in 24.5min & 25.5min in two different runs and got a max ceiling of 10,500m. Postwar British tests put the rating of the BMW IIIa at 230 hp so it appears it just lacked BMW grunt !
    ...
    Thanks for taking the time to post back.

    The stats you've listed look very similar to a DV with original 160hp engine. Now it's possible that someone did do a time trail with an Alb DVa with 180/200 hp engine and these are the stats. But lets just consider the possibility that even if this was done no one bothered to keep a record. Now everybody knows the stats for a DV are the same as the stats for a DVa. So, is it not possible what is happening is that what is being quoted are just the original timings recorded for the DV?

    This would explain the strange results of the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof and the 'odd' performance of the replica would it not?
    Alternatively as you've implied the 185 BMW IIIa engine compared to the 180/200hp DIIIau is some kind of wonder engine.
    Just a thought
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-11-2014 at 07:34.

  21. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    ...The stats you've listed look very similar to a DV with original 160hp engine....
    Well if the performance is no better they would wouldn't they ?! The ref I quoted was for a Merc 180 engine which is the D.IIIau

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    ...Now it's possible that someone did do a time trail with an Alb DVa with 180/200 hp engine and these are the stats. But lets just consider the possibility that even if this was done no one bothered to keep a record. Now everybody knows the stats for a DV are the same as the stats for a DVa. So, is it not possible what is happening is that what is being quoted are just the original timings recorded for the DV?
    I'd say that is highly unlikely - if the stats for a D.Va were better than the D.V I'm pretty confident the designers would make sure everybody knew about them - especially the pilots !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    This would explain the strange results of the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof and the 'odd' performance of the replica would it not?
    Alternatively as you've implied the 185 BMW IIIa engine compared to the 180/200hp DIIIau is some kind of wonder engine.
    Just a thought
    What odd performance of the replica ? I see no comparison, no timings, just a comment 'it climbs well' from a pilot who flew a replica SE5a. (Check that climb rate in Duel 20 - falls between a D.III and a D.V if memory serves). And yes the BMW engine was regarded as superior to the Mercedes - I've read that pilots used to prang their Pfalz D.XII's just to rob it of its BMW lump so they could stick it in their replacement Fokker D.VII that might come with a Merc engine !
    The British rated the Merc D.IIIau as 200hp - the BMWIIIa as 230hp apparently German ratings worked out lower.

  22. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Well if the performance is no better they would wouldn't they ?! The ref I quoted was for a Merc 180 engine which is the D.IIIau


    I'd say that is highly unlikely - if the stats for a D.Va were better than the D.V I'm pretty confident the designers would make sure everybody knew about them - especially the pilots !



    What odd performance of the replica ? I see no comparison, no timings, just a comment 'it climbs well' from a pilot who flew a replica SE5a. (Check that climb rate in Duel 20 - falls between a D.III and a D.V if memory serves). And yes the BMW engine was regarded as superior to the Mercedes - I've read that pilots used to prang their Pfalz D.XII's just to rob it of its BMW lump so they could stick it in their replacement Fokker D.VII that might come with a Merc engine !
    The British rated the Merc D.IIIau as 200hp - the BMWIIIa as 230hp apparently German ratings worked out lower.
    In my experience of versions of any kind of product, designers always claim the latest version is the best ever. When a version is a fiasco, users tend to slag off the next version based on the bad experience of the previous. Once a product has a bad rep it takes a lot to lose that bad rep.

    You do have a very good point that I've not got exact timings for the replica. I'm demanding timings for the original DVa but not providing them for the replica. So, tomorrow I'm going to ask for timings from the people who built the replica.

  23. #73

    Default

    Way to go guys!
    Keep this alive. Now, I WANT to know.

    Mau

  24. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    In my experience of versions of any kind of product, designers always claim the latest version is the best ever. When a version is a fiasco, users tend to slag off the next version based on the bad experience of the previous. Once a product has a bad rep it takes a lot to lose that bad rep.
    That may be true to some extent but the point is the designers didn't claim that and if the D.Va had a startling improvement in performance over the D.V the pilots would have known that and said so - clearly they didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    You do have a very good point that I've not got exact timings for the replica. I'm demanding timings for the original DVa but not providing them for the replica. So, tomorrow I'm going to ask for timings from the people who built the replica.
    You haven't provided any timings for the replica let alone exact ones - I've pointed out timings for the D.Va from various sources but it's becoming obvious that nothing will be satisfactory unless you can tell it's signed off by the bloke who made them on the paperwork dredged from the Bundesarchiv - then you'd probably question who witnessed the signature !!
    Hopefully Sara or someone else at TVAL can shed some further light on things for you, I'm going back to the war in the other room, currently a 31 v 31 solo effort.

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    That may be true to some extent but the point is the designers didn't claim that and if the D.Va had a startling improvement in performance over the D.V the pilots would have known that and said so - clearly they didn't.


    You haven't provided any timings for the replica let alone exact ones - I've pointed out timings for the D.Va from various sources but it's becoming obvious that nothing will be satisfactory unless you can tell it's signed off by the bloke who made them on the paperwork dredged from the Bundesarchiv - then you'd probably question who witnessed the signature !!
    Hopefully Sara or someone else at TVAL can shed some further light on things for you, I'm going back to the war in the other room, currently a 31 v 31 solo effort.
    Good luck with your solo mission - I admire your determination

    And thanks for taking the time to check the timings. As you've pointed out many works tend to lump the stats for DV and DVa together. I suspect the problem I have is I don't have access to any work which lists just the DVa stats by themselves.

    IMHO, there is something odd about the results of the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof. The engine is (we now both agree) around 15% more powerful. 230 hp versus 200 hp - a 30hp increase in power. Which by my terrible maths is 230/200 * 100 = 115%. A 15% increase in umph. The performance results for the Alb DVa are 35min to 16,400. With the improved engine it's around 24 or 25 mins to 19,680. So, we can be sure it got to 16,400 ft within 24 mins.

    35/24 * 100 = 1.458 rounded to 145. That's at the very least a 45% increase in performance (and since the plane still has another 3,280 feet to go it will need to be a lot more than this). OK this is all very crude and rough and ready but I hope it gets across the gist of my point. If the underlying problem was really just sheer engine power, it would (in theory) have needed a lot more than a 15% increase in power to get that kind of phenomenal increase in performance.


    In any case, you're right this is all very broad speculation I need exact timings from TVAL. I've sent them an email. If anyone has Sara's email address it would be great if they could PM me.

    PS Added: OK I withdraw my post about the timings for the BMW engine. I've just checked the climb rate improvement between the Pfalz DIIIa and the later Pfalz D.XII and it was phenomenal. On the Rise of Flight website its listed as 5000 m in 20 minutes. So you are right the BMW engine really was a wonder engine!
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-12-2014 at 01:26. Reason: Clarification

  26. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    Good luck with your solo mission - I admire your determination
    Thanks Nicola, I'm a week in and it's still going but the last couple of turns have seen the reaper visit and some sensible pilots leave the battle area so it is getting easier !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    And thanks for taking the time to check the timings. As you've pointed out many works tend to lump the stats for DV and DVa together. I suspect the problem I have is I don't have access to any work which lists just the DVa stats by themselves.
    You're welcome - the set I gave you does list the correct engine

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    IMHO, there is something odd about the results of the First Fighter Competition at Adlershof. The engine is (we now both agree) around 15% more powerful. 230 hp versus 200 hp - a 30hp increase in power. Which by my terrible maths is 230/200 * 100 = 115%. A 15% increase in umph. The performance results for the Alb DVa are 35min to 16,400. With the improved engine it's around 24 or 25 mins to 19,680. So, we can be sure it got to 16,400 ft within 24 mins.
    There's your problem, the engine used in the competition was the BMW.IIIa engine not the Mercedes D.IIIau (200hp) engine that we have been discussing that was used in the standard D.Va and most other aircraft in the competition including the Fokker D.VII. To my knowledge that was a one off and the BMW engine was never fitted to the D.Va combat aircraft - they couldn't make enough to equip all the Fok D.VII & Pfalz D.XII they were churning out.
    Mercedes did make a D.III av aka D.III avu engine that had about 217hp but if you followed my links in post 71 you will see that may not have seen service.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    35/24 * 100 = 1.458 rounded to 145. That's at the very least a 45% increase in performance (and since the plane still has another 3,280 feet to go it will need to be a lot more than this). OK this is all very crude and rough and ready but I hope it gets across the gist of my point. If the underlying problem was really just sheer engine power, it would (in theory) have needed a lot more than a 15% increase in power to get that kind of phenomenal increase in performance.
    Wrong engine mate so I'm not surprised you're confused; they may have changed the prop too !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    In any case, you're right this is all very broad speculation I need exact timings from TVAL. I've sent them an email. If anyone has Sara's email address it would be great if they could PM me.
    Kinda promised not to - they apparently take turns to look at the general inbox but don't count on a swift response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    PS Added: OK I withdraw my post about the timings for the BMW engine. I've just checked the climb rate improvement between the Pfalz DIIIa and the later Pfalz D.XII and it was phenomenal. On the Rise of Flight website its listed as 5000 m in 20 minutes. So you are right the BMW engine really was a wonder engine!
    Ah, you found out, it was an awesome engine apparently. If they could have produced enough to fit and retrofit all types in service they may have made some of the 'turds' highly polished ! Not sure all RoF data is accurate - I looked at the links on this thread and climb rates for the D.III & D.Va seem to be off a bit compared to the others but then who knows, maybe theirs are spot on !

  27. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    ...Not sure all RoF data is accurate - I looked at the links on this thread and climb rates for the D.III & D.Va seem to be off a bit compared to the others but then who knows, maybe theirs are spot on !
    You're not wrong there - that was what was concluded after a long thread on the subject of the DVa
    The conclusion was due to the paucity of original historical data regarding the DVa it's a case of just going for the best guess.
    But the good news is someone posted up images of the time trials done by the French for a captured DV and DVa.

    http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewto...?f=351&t=35592

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D5_engine_31102.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	215.0 KB 
ID:	152783Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D5a_no5695-17.jpg 
Views:	81 
Size:	214.3 KB 
ID:	152784

    The climb rate list for the DV for 4000m is 22min 42 seconds. This is close to what's expected.

    The climb rate listed for the DVa (160hp) engine is 12.5 minutes to 3000m (9,843ft) and 20 minutes to 4000m (13,123ft).
    That's faster than the figures you've listed for the DVa of 17:08min to 9,800' and 22:10 to 13,100'
    And remember this is for the original 160hp engine - not the 180/200hp

    The documents look legit to me - although I'll admit they're not signed by the tester.
    A signature would be nice

    PS Added:
    I should mention that although the document states it's the 160hp engine for the DVa it was suggested on the forum the "new engine" note in the header implies the new DIIIa 180/200hp engine as opposed to the 160/180hp engine of the DV. But that seems a it of a stretch to me.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-12-2014 at 09:56. Reason: PS Added

  28. #78

    Default

    I don't have the French or the maths to make comment on that little lot but the DVa stats you quote from this match those of the Alb D.III with the D.IIIa engine that I have seen in the books !
    Not such a stretch on the new model engine type - engine numbering/recognition seems woolly at best - the 160 D.IIIa was the engine mostly used in the Alb D.III. When they upgraded it to the 180 they didn't change the engine designation, the u in au is unofficial, and many engines were upgraded rather than replaced so it's possible it was marked as a 160 block but have the guts of the 180. The French may have realised it was the updated version of the 160 & just called it the new model of it. I would have thought it's unlikely to find a D.Va with a 160 engine that late in the war if at all but who can say for sure and can his mum vouch for him ?!

  29. #79


    Users Country Flag


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

    Default

    I'd ignore any timings taken from the replica: it doesn't represent a 1917/18 DV/DVa. It might look like one but the build quality, the fuel and lubricants will be of much higher quality.

    In one of the Osprey books I read that they retro fitted high-compression pistons in the field to 160hp engines. So even if a plane is listed as having a 160 block by 1918 it may well have the same power output of the 180hp engine and although better than a DV or DVa with the 160 engine it still was no better than a DIII. Lots of DIII flying into the summer of 1918.

    I say PROVE that the DVa climbed as well as you would like it to, as all the evidence suggests that the opposite remains true. If it were true that the high compression 180 hp DVa was a good aircraft and better than other Albatros, I'm fairly sure we'd have pilot references talking about the dramatic difference the new 180 hp engine made. Yet there are no such records or references that any of us have yet come across and that's in years of reading. Conversely it doesn't take me long to find pilot notes on how the BMW engine improved the Fokker DVII…

    However, it's only a game and if you want super-duper DVas in your games change your rules.
    Last edited by Timmo UK; 12-12-2014 at 12:04.

  30. #80

    Default

    Ciao Nicola and Dave,

    this is one of the most interesting academic debate I have ever read on a forum.

    Bravi! I'd like to shake your hands .

    To get on the next step, and to be able to fully understand the above data, we should take into consideration the Garuda propeller and the blade pitch ...

    As we can clearly see from the data, these are two different propellers with different measures and shape.

    Now we should know that in aircraft, blade pitch is usually described as "coarse" for a coarser angle, and "fine" for a finer and that blade pitch acts much like the gearing of the final drive of a car: low pitch yields good low speed acceleration (and climb rate in an aircraft) while high pitch optimizes high speed performance and economy.

    In modern aircraft the blade pitch can be "adjusted" to give optimum thrust over the maximum amount of the aircraft's speed range, from takeoff and climb to cruise, but this not on aircraft from 100 years ago.

    So, even a different propeller could result in completely different performances ...

    It would be extremely difficult for me to enter this argument in English ... so, both of you, please will forgive me for having thrown the stone and hide my hands

    Mau

  31. #81

    Default

    Indeed Mau but were they the standard props or different ones ? - and if you think I'm chasing that down you can think again - your English is fine so over to you mate, feel free to jump into the morass any time you like !
    The prop used on the D.Va D7117/17 fitted with the BMWIIIa engine was an Axial airscrew of 2.9m (9'6 1/2") diameter, 1.9m (6'2 7/8") pitch - it was piloted by BMW's test pilot Franz Zeno Diemer at a loaded weight of 872.8Kg (1,920 lb). The fact the airscrew was even mentioned suggests it was not standard to an Alb D.Va.
    Other things to take into consideration would be the difference in the gap between the wings, no fairing at the wing root and the fully eliptical fuselage cross section - maybe being squarer as the Alb D.III was provided some lift.
    So no, as we said earlier, it's not just about the engine but having a decent one helps, as does the package around it. Just ask McLaren in F.1 !

    And you're not wrong Tim !

  32. #82

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post

    ************************SNIP********************************

    it's not just about the engine but having a decent one helps, as does the package around it. Just ask McLaren in F.1 !

    And you're not wrong Tim !
    Oh so true! Just ask Jenson Button. (who thankfully they have finally resigned.)

  33. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    Indeed Mau but were they the standard props or different ones ? - and if you think I'm chasing that down you can think again - your English is fine so over to you mate, feel free to jump into the morass any time you like !
    The prop used on the D.Va D7117/17 fitted with the BMWIIIa engine was an Axial airscrew of 2.9m (9'6 1/2") diameter, 1.9m (6'2 7/8") pitch - it was piloted by BMW's test pilot Franz Zeno Diemer at a loaded weight of 872.8Kg (1,920 lb). The fact the airscrew was even mentioned suggests it was not standard to an Alb D.Va.
    Other things to take into consideration would be the difference in the gap between the wings, no fairing at the wing root and the fully eliptical fuselage cross section - maybe being squarer as the Alb D.III was provided some lift.
    So no, as we said earlier, it's not just about the engine but having a decent one helps, as does the package around it. Just ask McLaren in F.1 !

    And you're not wrong Tim !
    I agree about the prop. The following is just speculation but could explain things.
    The designers of the Alb DV go entirely for forward speed and so pitch the prop angle for this. With the reduction in weight and the different prop, the aircraft ends up with a faster maximum speed than the Alb DIII. Unfortunately the wings come off in a steep dive and the climb rate is terrible (Climb Rate 5 as you propose). The Alb DV is (like many early versions) a screw-up and the German pilots hate it. They very sensibly continue to fly the Alb DIII.

    By the time the Alb DVa is released there is a small improvement in climb but forward speed is the same and the wings still come off in a steep dive.
    Not surprisingly the German pilots still hate it.

    By the time the Alb DVa with the DIIIa engine is released the engine power goes to a small improvement in climb but forward speed is the same and the wings still come off in a steep dive.
    Not surprisingly the German pilots still hate it.

    Relatively each new version is a disappointment but the net effect is am improvement in climb compared to the original DIII.

    As I've stated this is just speculation.
    But I'm not continuing with this debate because your minds are already made up.
    Whatever evidence I present whether its further historical accounts from pilots, more details of the climb rate of the replica, more original source documents you will reject them out of hand.

    So, in a sense you have won this debate and I will not post further.

    PS Added:
    Life's too short. For my house rules I'm setting the climb rate of the Alb Dv to 5. I will set the climb rate of the Alb DVa based on the results of the timings of the replica. But you're welcome to do whatever you like - the evidence for the Alb DVa (unlike the Alb DV) is far from conclusive.
    Last edited by Nicola Zee; 12-13-2014 at 01:05. Reason: PS Added

  34. #84


    Users Country Flag


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

    Default

    The reality of combat history rather than theoretical projections won the debate. Had there been any real evidence to suggest that the DVa climbed like a monkey in everyday front line service I'd want to know more. However, there hasn't been anything put forward that has done anything other than reinforce the opinion that is widely held and further endorsed by historians such as the late Dan San, who's research into the period was and remains widely regarded.

  35. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    As I've stated this is just speculation. But I'm not continuing with this debate because your minds are already made up.
    Whatever evidence I present whether its further historical accounts from pilots, more details of the climb rate of the replica, more original source documents you will reject them out of hand. So, in a sense you have won this debate and I will not post further.
    It's a question of perspective I suppose, you asked the question and I amongst others in good faith answered it to the best of our abilities but you dismissed anything presented regardless of provenance, such people who have put forward in print their best findings from source's such as the IWM, Air force museums and world renowned historians & authors are apparently not good enough. So we know exactly how you feel
    Conversely, when I mentioned the BMW engined version's performance you accepted that data without question because it fitted your theory. For all we know the French example you presented has been taken into account by historians but even considering it carefully, as I did, the climb rates you quoted are still no better than a Alb D.III. and although you don't accept it the "Nouveau Modele" engine is in all likelihood the 'au' version (I'm still unsure whether they flew the D.Va in combat with the old D.IIIa engines, why would they ? I have a feeling they were all au types but lets not open that can of worms !)
    If it was as you suggest then we still have no D.Va with the au engine data and any conclusion drawn is just speculation.

    I think this has been stimulating, you have a theory, little to no evidence to back it up at present but a lot of 'What if's', 'possibly's', 'maybe's' and 'IMHO's' that have caused a lot of time and effort on research which I (and others - Mau anyway) have enjoyed.
    I hope you will post results from your enquiry with TVAL Nicola - even if the context is not acceptable to some it will be interesting to see what one can do now. I wonder what the RAF Museum has on them - one of the TVAL replicas is there with an original engine from the museums collection fitted - may be another avenue to follow.

    My P.S !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    By the time the Alb DVa is released there is a small improvement in climb ...
    By the time the Alb DVa with the DIIIa engine is released the engine power goes to a small improvement in climb ...
    Relatively each new version is a disappointment but the net effect is an improvement in climb compared to the original DIII.
    I can't see how you can reach this conclusion Nicola.
    The Alb D.III was mounted with the Merc D.IIIa engine from the get go.
    The Alb D.V was mounted with the same engine and couldn't climb as well as the Alb D.III despite being lighter.
    So why do you think an Alb D.Va that is heavier than the D.V mounted with the same Merc D.IIIa engine could climb better or as well than the Alb D.III ?
    That's not logical to me.
    The Alb D.Va was then mounted with the improved Merc D.IIIau engine - this is the 180/200hp one that we have been discussing - that some say could only match the D.Va performance to that of the D.V but might, at best, have matched that of the Alb D.III in regard of the climb rate.
    There was no further improved Merc engine used in the Albatros.

    This is why I'm dubious of your theory.
    Last edited by flash; 12-13-2014 at 06:30. Reason: spelling

  36. #86

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicola Zee View Post
    By the time the Alb DVa is released there is a small improvement in climb but forward speed is the same and the wings still come off in a steep dive.
    Not surprisingly the German pilots still hate it.

    By the time the Alb DVa with the DIIIa engine is released the engine power goes to a small improvement in climb but forward speed is the same and the wings still come off in a steep dive.
    Not surprisingly the German pilots still hate it.
    No wonder

  37. #87

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    I totaly agree with Mau. This has been one of the most enjoying threads I ever read.

    To take this back to the game. I have a thought regarding the DVa and the pointsystem.
    I know this is the work of a single member and it works very well so I'm not complaining but here's some figures.....

    Ac Hp CR Gun Points
    SPAD VII 15 2 A 82
    SPAD XIII 16 2 A 85
    Camel 15 3 A 86

    Alb. DVa 15 4 A 82
    Alb. DIII 14 4 A 79
    Pf. DIII 16 3 A 79

    As you can see here the Dva is rainted 3p higher than the DIII and the Pfalz DIII (only due to speed I suspect). The SPAD XIII is raited 3p higher than the DVa (due to speed again).
    The Camel has 4p more but that must be due to being more manoeuverable. But the SPAD VII has the same raiting.
    My point is that the differences in cr don't seem to affect the ratings. In my oppinion both the Pfalz DIII and the SPAD VII should have some extra point for being better at climbing.
    I know it's up to me to change anything that I don't like but I would like to heard some thoughts from you lot.
    Last edited by LOOP; 12-14-2014 at 23:35.

  38. #88

    Default

    You'd have to ask whoever works out the points system whether climb rate is taken into account Per, if not then I think you have a point. I myself have no interest in the points system and consequently no idea how it is worked out so it wouldn't be my place to comment further.

  39. #89

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    I have used it very little but it works well most of the times. But when I play against my son he really likes things to be equal and it's times like that when things gets complicated.

  40. #90

    Default

    There's some more info in the Pfalz scout aces, not sure the specifics are that relevant, but on the pilot opinion front some would voice the fact that although the DVa was faster than the IIIa, they'd take the pfalz over the alb, as the dive being a manouver to get out of trouble in a scrap, they'd prefer not to lose their wing.

  41. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    I have used it very little but it works well most of the times. But when I play against my son he really likes things to be equal and it's times like that when things gets complicated.
    You could always throw some ace skills in there?
    Or go down the nothing in the world is equal. The former might be the easier route.

  42. #92

    LOOP
    Guest


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twisted_terrain View Post
    You could always throw some ace skills in there?
    Or go down the nothing in the world is equal. The former might be the easier route.
    I have no problems playing uneven games. I like the fact that a skilled pilot can even the ods a bit.
    Both my son and my daughter are good pilots (thou my daughter has a tendency to crash into everything that flies )
    My son wants to fly "the best there is" that means DVII or SS DIII (on the C-side) or Snipes and SE5a (on E-side)
    I want to create more various senarios, using different aircrafts in different constalations.
    I love to fly all the Albies (DII,III or Va) against any brittish or french aircraft. I think that flying the underdog makes you a better pilot. You just have to use your cards wiser.

  43. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LOOP View Post
    I have no problems playing uneven games. I like the fact that a skilled pilot can even the ods a bit.
    Both my son and my daughter are good pilots (thou my daughter has a tendency to crash into everything that flies )
    My son wants to fly "the best there is" that means DVII or SS DIII (on the C-side) or Snipes and SE5a (on E-side)
    I want to create more various senarios, using different aircrafts in different constalations.
    I love to fly all the Albies (DII,III or Va) against any brittish or french aircraft. I think that flying the underdog makes you a better pilot. You just have to use your cards wiser.
    I love the Albie and I also like to play with the worst plane or with the good plane against several enemies. It sharpens the blade.

  44. #94

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Coming late to this discussion I must say this: I remember when we researched our own club's war-games rules back in the late 1970s we also encountered this apparent mystery of the poor climbing performance of the DV/DVa. We were all puzzled for a while until someone pointed out that the giveaway may be in the quoted service ceilings for both types. The service ceilings appear to defy logic.

    Service ceiling is the point at which the aircraft's climb rate decays to just 50 feet per minute. The service ceiling of the DIII is quoted as 18,000 feet while the DVa is usually quoted as 20,500 feet - yet the DVa has (apparently) the worse climb rate of the two types. With nearly all aircraft types, before the invention of turbo chargers, the climb rate decreased at a very constant rate and the service ceiling (50 ft per min) can always be used as the upper anchor point of any performance graph to chart those climb rates.

    In our case we have the DIII climbing better yet the high flying and later DVa has the poorer climb rate. This means one of the climb rates must be wrong. Either the DIII's climb rate has been over stated OR the DV/DVa's was actually much better. I seem to recall that when I read the Albatros performance figures for the board game Dawn Patrol I noted that the designer's had disregarded the DVa's stated climb rate in favour of one which fitted the service ceiling figure.In other words they appeared to extrapolate from the service ceiling.

    It could be that the DIII climb rate was tested while it was light on fuel or was lacking guns and ammunition. The DIII's climb rate could represent the manufacturer's optimistic claims for the type. On the other hand the DVa was tested later when the Idflieg was being much more rigorous in testing types at public comparative fighter trials. Remember also that some of Anthony Fokker's claims for the Fokker Dr1 were found to be too optimistic during the war. He claimed the DR1 was about 15-20mph faster than it really was.

    Another distinct possibility is that the DVa's climb rate may be figures from a captured type - test flown by an unfamiliar pilot or with incorrect rigging and dihedral on the wings.

    I will dip into my books and see what I can come up with…

    Barry

  45. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    Coming late to this discussion I must say this: I remember when we researched our own club's war-games rules back in the late 1970s we also encountered this apparent mystery of the poor climbing performance of the DV/DVa. We were all puzzled for a while until someone pointed out that the giveaway may be in the quoted service ceilings for both types. The service ceilings appear to defy logic.

    Service ceiling is the point at which the aircraft's climb rate decays to just 50 feet per minute. The service ceiling of the DIII is quoted as 18,000 feet while the DVa is usually quoted as 20,500 feet - yet the DVa has (apparently) the worse climb rate of the two types. With nearly all aircraft types, before the invention of turbo chargers, the climb rate decreased at a very constant rate and the service ceiling (50 ft per min) can always be used as the upper anchor point of any performance graph to chart those climb rates.

    In our case we have the DIII climbing better yet the high flying and later DVa has the poorer climb rate. This means one of the climb rates must be wrong. Either the DIII's climb rate has been over stated OR the DV/DVa's was actually much better. I seem to recall that when I read the Albatros performance figures for the board game Dawn Patrol I noted that the designer's had disregarded the DVa's stated climb rate in favour of one which fitted the service ceiling figure.In other words they appeared to extrapolate from the service ceiling.

    It could be that the DIII climb rate was tested while it was light on fuel or was lacking guns and ammunition. The DIII's climb rate could represent the manufacturer's optimistic claims for the type. On the other hand the DVa was tested later when the Idflieg was being much more rigorous in testing types at public comparative fighter trials. Remember also that some of Anthony Fokker's claims for the Fokker Dr1 were found to be too optimistic during the war. He claimed the DR1 was about 15-20mph faster than it really was.

    Another distinct possibility is that the DVa's climb rate may be figures from a captured type - test flown by an unfamiliar pilot or with incorrect rigging and dihedral on the wings.

    I will dip into my books and see what I can come up with…

    Barry
    Climb rate and Service Ceiling I believe are two independent numbers in WW1. I'm no expert in the matter. But an aircraft with a great climb does not automatically have a greater service ceiling. Does not service ceiling have more to do with the engine being able to breath at high altitudes during WW1?

  46. #96

    'Warspite''s Avatar
    Users Country Flag


    Blog Entries
    4
    Name
    Barry
    Location
    north west Norfolk
    Sorties Flown
    760
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john snelling View Post
    Climb rate and Service Ceiling I believe are two independent numbers in WW1. I'm no expert in the matter. But an aircraft with a great climb does not automatically have a greater service ceiling. Does not service ceiling have more to do with the engine being able to breath at high altitudes during WW1?
    I have a considerable number of books on the subject including J.M Bruce's magnus opus on British aircraft and did much original research in the 1970s along with other members of Harold Wood Wargamers, research which I am only just coming back to. Given that service ceiling is a direct function of climb rate (50 feet per minute is service ceiling), I assure you that there IS a close correlation. When we graphed the DIII and DV, substantially the same aircraft but with differing engines, it was clear that something was very wrong, the graphs went all over the place. Or, to put it another way, the DVa was the 'bumble bee' - theoretically it could not get to the ceiling that was claimed in the same way that, theoretically, the bumble bee can't fly. I submit that there is something seriously wrong with the data on one or both aeroplane types.

    My best guess was, and still is to this day, that either the DIII was tested with the guns not fitted or else the DVa data was sourced from captured machines which were either damaged or not flown correctly. The approach of Dawn Patrol (to extrapolate a climb rate from the DVa ceiling) appears the most pragmatic approach to this problem.

  47. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    I have a considerable number of books on the subject including J.M Bruce's magnus opus on British aircraft and did much original research in the 1970s along with other members of Harold Wood Wargamers, research which I am only just coming back to. Given that service ceiling is a direct function of climb rate (50 feet per minute is service ceiling), I assure you that there IS a close correlation. When we graphed the DIII and DV, substantially the same aircraft but with differing engines, it was clear that something was very wrong, the graphs went all over the place. Or, to put it another way, the DVa was the 'bumble bee' - theoretically it could not get to the ceiling that was claimed in the same way that, theoretically, the bumble bee can't fly. I submit that there is something seriously wrong with the data on one or both aeroplane types.

    My best guess was, and still is to this day, that either the DIII was tested with the guns not fitted or else the DVa data was sourced from captured machines which were either damaged or not flown correctly. The approach of Dawn Patrol (to extrapolate a climb rate from the DVa ceiling) appears the most pragmatic approach to this problem.
    Sorry about being confused. If there is a direct function, why is the service ceiling of the Rumpler C.IV 21,000ft and the Fokker Dr.I 20,000ft when the climb rate of the Fokker is so much greater?

  48. #98


    Users Country Flag


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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 'Warspite' View Post
    My best guess was, and still is to this day, that either the DIII was tested with the guns not fitted or else the DVa data was sourced from captured machines which were either damaged or not flown correctly. The approach of Dawn Patrol (to extrapolate a climb rate from the DVa ceiling) appears the most pragmatic approach to this problem.
    Alternatively it might be the DVa that was tested without guns or ammunition, a small pilot and half a fuel load. We just don't know. However, what we are also lacking is first hand pilot accounts of everyday combat aircraft that suggest that the DVa was an improvement over the DIII. Theory is all very well but what we are looking for is combat performance as our games are about combat not technical trials. As stated before you'll find a lot about how pilots rated the BMW powered DVII over the Merc powered version but nothing that indicates the same for the Albatros.

    You'll have to explain the direct correlation between ceiling and climb rate to me as I don't see it. For example, let's say the DIII climbs at 80' minute and the DV at 75' the DIII will reach 10,000 feet sooner, 15,000 feet sooner but as it reaches it's ceiling the slower climbing DVa catches up and overtakes it going on to reach it's ceiling. That doesn't make the DVa the faster climbing to 10 or 15 thousand feet. That the DVa was considered a faster plane might suggest a higher wing loading which which also make it a slower climbing faster diving aircraft.

    There's some good stuff on Rise of Flight about this but I've no idea where their data set comes from. Apparently the flat bottomed DIII fuselage created some lift and less drag but again I've no idea how true this is. Either way what I'd need to convince me is a few combat pilot quotes recording the difference in climbing performance of the DVa over the DIII in combat trim, no guns out, half fuel 'cooked' figures. If anything you'd have thought the figures would be cooked to make the DVa look better than the old plane it was replacing – bit embarrassing for Albatros if the replacement is worse than the predecessor.

    Don't get me wrong on this, I'd love to read those pilot quotes saying how much better the DVa was but so far nobody has presented any that might indicate that the technical data we do have has been misinterpreted or is just plain wrong.
    Last edited by Timmo UK; 12-23-2014 at 13:21.

  49. #99

    Default

    Climb rate is proportional to excess power.
    When the Merc DIIIaü engine was introduced they added a new altitude-compensating carburettor, which improved performance at higher altitudes.
    Power output: 129.75 kW (174 hp) at 1,400 rpm (rated power at sea level), 152.12 kW (204 hp) at 1,600 rpm (maximum power at altitude), it couldn't be used at max revs at sea level.
    That and the various changes to fuselage shape and construction and wing 'gapping' may explain the better ceiling but slower climb rate...?
    Or maybe not !

  50. #100

    Default

    Propellor pitch.

    You can either optimise for low climb rate but low drag or high climb rate, but low top speed due to high drag.

    The Luftstreitkrafte was on the defensive for much of the war. They needed a high climb rate to intercept intruders with little warning. This meant accepting a lower top speed.

    http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/...wing/props.htm

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	55.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	13.4 KB 
ID:	153469

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •