Albatros C.III and C.V

[steel_ratt]

Here is another one for hashing about... the Albatros C.III and C.V.

C.III
* Wing area: 36.91 m² (397 ft²)
* Empty weight: 851 kg (1,876 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 1,353 kg (2,983 lb)
* Powerplant: 1× Benz Bz.III, 112 kW (150 hp) or Mercedes D.III liquid-cooled inline engine, 120 kW (160 hp)
* Maximum speed: 140 km/h (76 kn, 87 mph)
* Service ceiling: 3,350 m (11,000 ft)

C.V
* Wing area: 43.4 m² (467 ft²)
* Empty weight: 1,069 kg (2,357 lb)
* Gross weight: 1,585 kg (3,494 lb)
* Powerplant: 1 × Mercedes D.IV, 164 kW (220 hp)
* Maximum speed: 170 km/h (110 mph)
* Range: 450 km (280 miles)
* Service ceiling: 3,000 m (9,840 ft)
* Rate of climb: 2.1 m/s (410 ft/min)

These ones will be starting from scratch!

[steel_ratt]

No takers on this one yet? I'll take an initial stab at the C.III then.

Max speed suggests a 'very slow' speed - it is on the low threshold of what Andreas has suggested for speed categories. That would make it too slow for the K deck, so we would have to use something like the G deck (to avoid the wide side slips inherent in other 'very slow' decks). It may be necessary to custom design a deck with 2 normal side slips each way (both non-steep)... or use the R deck with three each.

Armament would optionally be -/B or B/B depending on whether or not the front firing Spandau was fitted.

It was reputed to be a fairly rugged aircraft. Perhaps a damage rating of 14 would be in order. Not too far off the other early war planes, but a bit more robust than the RE.8. (I'm not sure if it was, in fact, more rugged than the Harry Tate, but it seems like a good place to start! My research has been, admittedly, pretty shallow!)

So... for a start
G* - B/B - 14 (*minus Immelmann, 2nd slip is non-steep)

I have no data on climb rate, so anything I put forward for that would be mere speculation.

[macka321]

We run a campaign last year for the six months of the war jan 17 to jun 17

and the we rated the
Albatros CIII at G B/B 15 minus the imm of course
Albatros CV at K B/B 13

[steel_ratt]

Any reasoning you can share for those stats, macka?

[macka321]

As to the damage points
the CIII was well built, strong and realiable
the CV to CXII were larger aircraft but had lightened airframes and larger (generally unreliable) engines for higher speed
still have my nose in my reference books but still no details on rates of climb

always remember that the stat's are subjective
I feel that unreliable engines reduce an aircrafts damage points and good engines increase them
14 or 15 there's not much in it

[steel_ratt]

Fair enough. Any thoughts on the ease and availability of side slips for the C.III? It was, I think, reputed to be a faultless flier. Is the fact that it was smaller than the C.V any indication of relative ease of maneuverability? (ie. does that warrant a similar availability of side slips, rather than the more difficult/steep 2nd slip in the G deck?) Or does the fact that it is slower provide an inherent disadvantage in maneuverability?

[macka321]

Looking at the aircraft of the same period, ie the DH2 which uses the same deck, the CIII needs to be less maneuverable,
so either remove the 2nd side slip or one of each of the turns, so there are only two of each.
This would work for game purposes.
Really there needs to be two periods to the game with different decks for the same aircraft
depending on the that period.
Early to mid war 5mph made all the difference but late war not much.

Extra thought
I think I prefer the removal of the third l/r turn as this increases the radius of the maintainable rate of turn.
IMHO most of these early aircraft dont have the engine power to maintin that initial high rate of turn. Only allowing two turns would
restrict them a little bit. Not that I can think of many games were I have used all three turns.

[Niclas]

Hi,

For the C.III:
I lean towards the G-deck with no immelmans and with all slides non-steep. But I could go for the R-deck as suggested as well.

As I want to harmonize stats with the official planes, I've used the Roland C.II as a comparison and have reasoned like this:
Similar engine and about the same weight, would mean about the same speed, climb rate and max alt - But we know the speed and max alt aren't as good (this would be effect of the different designs then?), so climb rate should probably also be a little bit poorer. - However, only the Fokker E/A.III have a CR as low as 6, so I'm still opting for 5.
I get the impression that the Roland is somewhat sturdier, which should probably be reflected as well.

What I come up with is this:
Guns: B/B
Man: G*
Durability: 14
Max alt: 9
CR: 5