Albatross Family

[Hamburger]

Was the DIII Albatross any good? Were the 2 seaters better? Was the DVa as effective as a Fokker DR1? I am a noob to WWI airplanes, please enlighten me!

[Coog]

The Albatros DIII was a very good aircraft during the mid-war years when going up against aircraft such as the Nieuport 17 and DH2. They wreaked havoc on a lot of Allied aircraft. However when newer allied aircraft came out, like the Spad XIII, Sopwith Camel, and SE5, it was at a disadvantage. The Albatros DVa was not much of an improvement over the DIII. The Fokker Dr1 was much more maneuverable but also more fragile. It wasn't around long and both fighters started to be replaced by the Fokker DVII. The Fokker DVII was one of the best, if not the best fighter, of the war. But by the time of its arrival, the Allies were far too numerous and fate of Germany was already cast. The Albatros series of two seaters were decent aircraft but built for the roles of observation and some bombing, not engaging enemy fighters. This is a very basic overview and I recommend that you invest in a book or two about WWI aircraft to learn more. One of my favorites is Aircraft of World War I 1914-1918 by Jack Herris and Bob Pearson, but there are also a lot others out there. Check the thread on books. There are a lot of good ones listed there. Hope this helps.

[AlgyLacey]

The Albatros DIII was a very good aircraft during the mid-war years when going up against aircraft such as the Nieuport 17 and DH2. They wreaked havoc on a lot of Allied aircraft. However when newer allied aircraft came out, like the Spad XIII, Sopwith Camel, and SE5, it was at a disadvantage. The Albatros DVa was not much of an improvement over the DIII. The Fokker Dr1 was much more maneuverable but also more fragile. It wasn't around long and both fighters started to be replaced by the Fokker DVII. The Fokker DVII was one of the best, if not the best fighter, of the war. But by the time of its arrival, the Allies were far too numerous and fate of Germany was already cast. The Albatros series of two seaters were decent aircraft but built for the roles of observation and some bombing, not engaging enemy fighters. This is a very basic overview and I recommend that you invest in a book or two about WWI aircraft to learn more. One of my favorites is Aircraft of World War I 1914-1918 by Jack Herris and Bob Pearson, but there are also a lot others out there. Check the thread on books. There are a lot of good ones listed there. Hope this helps.

Excellent points - you must remember that the technology of aicraft design improved by leaps and bounds during the war and that by the time a type reached the front there would already be something faster,more maneuverable, better armed etc coming up the pipe. The technological balance swung back and forth a great deal and many brave pilots were left flying worn out, obsolescent airframes well after their type had been superceeded by better ones. The guy who flies a Fokker DVII won't always win but he has an advantage.
There's a timeline in the files section that shows the operational life of the main types of the war.

[Flying Officer Kyte]

Excellent points - you must remember that the technology of aicraft design improved by leaps and bounds during the war and that by the time a type reached the front there would already be something faster,more maneuverable, better armed etc coming up the pipe. The technological balance swung back and forth a great deal and many brave pilots were left flying worn out, obsolescent airframes well after their type had been superceeded by better ones. The guy who flies a Fokker DVII won't always win but he has an advantage.
There's a timeline in the files section that shows the operational life of the main types of the war.
As Algy says here the plane development was critical. As Herris and Pearson say in their book, aforementioned, The advent of the DVII made an average pilot into a good pilot and a good pilot into an ace.
Rob.

[Hamburger]

How much of an improvement though over the DIII by the DVa??

[AlgyLacey]

How much of an improvement though over the DIII by the DVa??

From jolly old Wikipaedia:

Development and production

In April 1917, Albatros received an order from the Idflieg (Inspektion der Fliegertruppen) for an improved version of the D.III. The prototype flew later that month.

The resulting D.V closely resembled the D.III and used the same 127 kW (170 hp) Mercedes D.IIIa engine. The most notable difference was a new fuselage which was 32 kg (70 lb) lighter than that of the D.III.[1] The elliptical cross-section required an additional longeron on each side of the fuselage. The prototype D.V retained the standard rudder of the Johannisthal-built D.III, but production examples used the enlarged rudder featured on D.IIIs built by Ostdeutsche Albatros Werke (OAW).[2] The D.V also featured a larger spinner and ventral fin.

The upper wing of the D.V was repositioned 4.75 inches closer to the fuselage, while the lower wings attached to the fuselage without a fairing. The wings themselves were almost identical to those of the standard D.III, except for a revised linkage of the aileron cables, which were contained entirely in the upper wing.[3] Idflieg therefore conducted structural tests on the fuselage, but not the wings, of the new aircraft.[4]

Early examples of the D.V featured a large headrest, which was usually removed in service because it interfered with the pilot's field of view.[3] The headrest was eventually deleted from production. Aircraft deployed in Palestine used two wing radiators to cope with the warmer climate.

Idflieg issued production contracts for 200 D.V aircraft in April 1917, followed by additional orders of 400 in May and 300 in July.[4] Initial production of the D.V was exclusively undertaken by the Johannisthal factory, while the Schneidemühl factory produced the D.III through the remainder of 1917.

Operational use


The D.V entered service in May 1917 and, like the D.III before it, immediately began experiencing structural failures of the lower wing.[4] Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that the D.V was even more prone to wing failures than the D.III. The outboard sections of the upper wing also suffered failures, requiring additional wire bracing.[4] Furthermore, the D.V offered very little improvement in performance.[3] This caused considerable dismay among frontline pilots, many of whom preferred the older D.III. Manfred von Richthofen was particularly critical of the new aircraft. In a July 1917 letter, he described the D.V as "so obsolete and so ridiculously inferior to the English that one can't do anything with this aircraft." British tests of a captured D.V revealed that the aircraft was slow to maneuver, heavy on the controls, and tiring to fly.[5]

Albatros responded with the D.Va, which featured stronger wing spars, heavier wing ribs, and a reinforced fuselage.[6] The D.Va also reverted to the D.III's aileron cable linkage, running outwards through the lower wing, then upwards to the ailerons, to provide a more positive control response.[3] The wings of the D.III and D.Va were in fact interchangeable.[3] The D.Va was also fitted with a small diagonal brace connecting the lower section of the forward interplane strut to the leading edge of the lower wing. These modifications made the D.Va 23 kg (50 lb) heavier than the D.III,[7] while failing to entirely cure the structural problems of the type. Use of the high-compression 130 kW (180 hp) Mercedes D.IIIaü engine offset the increased weight of the D.Va.

Idflieg placed orders for 262 D.Va aircraft in August 1917, followed by additional orders for 250 in September and 550 in October.[6] Ostdeutsche Albatros Werke, which had been engaged in production of the D.III, received orders for 600 D.Va aircraft in October.[6]

Deliveries of the D.Va commenced in October 1917.[6] The structural problems of the Fokker Dr.I and the mediocre performance of the Pfalz D.III left the Luftstreitkräfte with no viable alternative to the D.Va until the Fokker D.VII entered service in the summer of 1918. Production ceased in April 1918.[8] As of May 1918, 131 D.V and 928 D.Va aircraft were in service on the Western Front. Numbers declined as production ended, but the D.Va remained in use until the Armistice (11 November 1918).

[Von Pupp]

Must be said that the only good quality of the DV and DVa was that they were easy to fly,so much than the Dr1,and it was a great advantage in a stage of the war when german pilots came out of the flight schools with low flight experience.
It is nearly the same difference that there waas between the Se5 and the Camel

[Willi Von Klugermann]

Was the DIII Albatross any good? Were the 2 seaters better? Was the DVa as effective as a Fokker DR1? I am a noob to WWI airplanes, please enlighten me!


If my memory is correct the DIII was the aircraft responsible for Bloody April and became outdated subsequent to that with the introduction of the Se5 and Camel. The DVa was only a modest improvement on the DIII.

[Wolfbiter]

@Hamburger:

As a fellow new player, I just thought I'd mention I tried out both the Albatros D.Va and the Fokker Dr.I when I first started playing last week, and the Albatros D.Va is becoming my favorite plane. The Fokker Dr.I is excellent and very maneuverable, but slow. I've been finding that the Albatros D.Va's combination of speed and durability works well for my playstyle. However, part of it is just sheer luck...I've had very good damage deck draws so far when I've flown it.

While the real-life planes suffered from mechanical problems, I think the Wings of War version is quite fun. :)

Just my novice's opinion, but so far there seems to be a good balance from planes from the same period of the war. I think it really boils down to what you enjoy most. If you want super-tight turning and maneuverability, the Fokker Dr.I is a good choice. If you want more speed, go for the Albatros D.Va. (And of course, the Fokker D.VII will give you both speed AND tremendous maneuverability).

[csadn]

A note on Albatros D-series lower-wing failures: It is believed the problem lay in the strut design -- the single attachment point allowing the lower wing to flex excessively, and eventually break off.

A note on "Bloody April": The problem there wasn't so much the German acft. had evolved as the British and French acft. *hadn't* -- the Hidebound Traditionalists running the Allied militaries were infamous for their distrust of anything "new", and wouldn't allow updated acft. to be used, thus delaying in-service dates and full-production runs. For a visual aid of the problem, read the historical-data packet included in the old _Richthofen's War_ game; it provides a time-scale showing what acft. were in service when. The newest British acft. was the Sopwith Pup, with the Sopwith Triplane and SE5 just being introduced; the newest French acft. was the SPAD VII. Most of the RFC acft. in service in April '17 were rear-engined jobs (DH2; FE2) which had been in service as far back as 1915. The situation with observation/bomber acft. was even worse; the predominant design was the BE2c....

[Jäger]

I really like the Albatross fighter family, it was like the Me 109 was to the Luftwaffe, a robust workhorse with adequate fighting quality.

[Jager]

I also like the appearence of the Albatross aircraft. It's oddly disappointing that (in a retrospective way), that the successor design was so mediocre compared to the DVII. In some ways, the planes were a victim of "the customer is always right" as they designed the "V-Strutters" to copy the successful neuport "Vs", and that gave them the lower wing problems.
I just picked up a brace of DVas for repainting (soon....soon....soon).

[Pooh]

The Albatros DI & DII when they came out, re-established German air superiority over DH2s and N11s. The DIII was even better (more manouverable and could climb better though the DII could outdive it). The DIII became outdated as newer planes became available for the allies (as stated above). There were high hopes for the DVa which was disapointing. It was only 5 or 6 MPH faster and was about the same otherwise to the DIII.
The DIII and DVa had structural problems with the single spar lower wing much like the Neiuports it copied. Its interesting to note that the Dr1 also had structual issues with its wings and engine reliablity problems. This wasn't uncommon in this era. The Spad's engines, for example, were notoriously unreliable.

In the game, the DVa is a good plane without any real virtues or vices. It makes it easy to fly in the game as in real life. I prefer it over the DR1 which is too fragile and too slow.
The DIII should be flown against earlier planes to be competative but in the war were in service right up to the end.

Pooh

[Raffvantye]

Also, where as all of the earlier planes mostly had one gun, it's clame to fame was to be mounted with twin guns, as upposed to the Newports and the like, they also were a touch faster.