Questions about SPAD VII, Albatros D.II and Albatros D.III

[Wolfbiter]

Hello! I was hoping some of our knowledgeable forumites might be able to answer a few questions I have about the Albatros D.II, D.III and the SPAD VII.

1. I have not had a chance to play the Albatros D.II in WGF, but have played the D.III. Many of the articles I've read on Wikipedia seem to suggest that the D.III and D.V were in some ways inferior to the D.II. How did they compare, performance-wise, in the war? (Note: I'm speaking about the German D.III, not the Austrian D.III variants which I recently learned here had superior performance).

2. To add to my confusion, last night I was watching an episode of "Dogfights" about Guynemer's duel with Udet. Guynemer was flying a SPAD VII, which has a climb rate of 2 in the game. Udet had a D.III, which has a climb rate of 4. Imagine my surprise when the Dogfights program said the D.III had superior climb to the SPAD VII! Was the show completely off-base, or is there something odd going on with climb rates?

(The fact that so many climb rates have been changed between the old Nexus edition of the game and the Ares edition has just added to my confusion.)

If anyone can help me out with these questions, information would be most appreciated, please. Thanks!

[john snelling]

Funny, I was just briefing up on the Alb D.II last night.

Early Spad VII's had a 150hp Hispano-Suiza engine, spring of 1917 the 180 Hispano-Suiza 8Ab became available.
Climb rates were
150hp
2,000 meters 6 min 40 sec
3,000 meters 11 min 20 sec

180hp
2,000 meters 4 min 40 sec
3,000 meters 8 min 10 sec
WOG uses the 180hp version

Albatros D.II with 160hp Mercedes
2,000 meters 10 min
3,000 meters 19 min

Albatros D.III
2,000 meters 6 min
3,000 meters 10 min

German D.IIIs had problems shedding it bottom wing the D.IIs did not.

The Austrian D.IIIs had no problems with the lower wing due to a redesign.

Climb rates differ due to altitude that is why I like using climb to 1,000's of meters over climb rate expressed in ft/sec.

[Teaticket]

I wonder how many pilots would pump up the enemy pilot and aircraft to make their victory look that much more impressive?

[john snelling]

I wonder how many pilots would pump up the enemy pilot and aircraft to make their victory look that much more impressive?

By all means yes, would it be a great victory if your opponent just rolled over and crashed?
He fought like a mad man.
He was a great shot just missed me by inches.
It was just him or me.
I could see the rear gunners bullets flying past my head.
There was ten of them and I attacked anyway.

[Flying Helmut]

Eye witness accounts often disagree with analytical performance data.

I have two books in which RFC pilots describe flying Sopwith Triplanes against Albatros DIIs and DIIIS; they both clearly state that the Albatri were faster, and could choose whether to run from a fight, or mix it and prevent the RFC planes from escaping, owing to their superior speed.

And yet, the 'U' deck is one of the fastest in the "Early War" game!

[Nicola Zee]

Hello! I was hoping some of our knowledgeable forumites might be able to answer a few questions I have about the Albatros D.II, D.III and the SPAD VII.

1. I have not had a chance to play the Albatros D.II in WGF, but have played the D.III. Many of the articles I've read on Wikipedia seem to suggest that the D.III and D.V were in some ways inferior to the D.II. How did they compare, performance-wise, in the war? (Note: I'm speaking about the German D.III, not the Austrian D.III variants which I recently learned here had superior performance).

2. To add to my confusion, last night I was watching an episode of "Dogfights" about Guynemer's duel with Udet. Guynemer was flying a SPAD VII, which has a climb rate of 2 in the game. Udet had a D.III, which has a climb rate of 4. Imagine my surprise when the Dogfights program said the D.III had superior climb to the SPAD VII! Was the show completely off-base, or is there something odd going on with climb rates?

(The fact that so many climb rates have been changed between the old Nexus edition of the game and the Ares edition has just added to my confusion.)

If anyone can help me out with these questions, information would be most appreciated, please. Thanks!

I suggest reading the following thread. It may help to clarify the different climb rates between the 180hp and the 150hp Spad VII.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...=Guynemer+udet

To quote the Game Designer Angiolillo

True, the 150 hp SPAD would be a 3 based on these data:

SPAD 7, 705 kg, 150 hp HispanoSuiza 8Aa:
2000 m .......... 6 min 40 sec;
3000 m ........ 11 min 20 sec;

[Nicola Zee]

Funny, I was just briefing up on the Alb D.II last night.

Early Spad VII's had a 150hp Hispano-Suiza engine, spring of 1917 the 180 Hispano-Suiza 8Ab became available.
Climb rates were
150hp
2,000 meters 6 min 40 sec
3,000 meters 11 min 20 sec

180hp
2,000 meters 4 min 40 sec
3,000 meters 8 min 10 sec
WOG uses the 180hp version

Albatros D.II with 160hp Mercedes
2,000 meters 10 min
3,000 meters 19 min

Albatros D.III
2,000 meters 6 min
3,000 meters 10 min

German D.IIIs had problems shedding it bottom wing the D.IIs did not.

The Austrian D.IIIs had no problems with the lower wing due to a redesign.

Climb rates differ due to altitude that is why I like using climb to 1,000's of meters over climb rate expressed in ft/sec.

In the opinion of the game designer, you're spot on with the climb rate of the Spad VII (150hp) - See my quote above.

But...

The climb rate of the German Albatros DIII is a mine-field. The issue all comes down to the Mercedes DIII engine. It produced a British rating of 160hp but these tests are suspect due to the use of a British carburettor instead of the German one and testing to destruction as opposed to 'normal' operation. In addition, mods to the engine (DIIIa and DIIIau) produced more output (possibly 20hp?) at high altitude but possibly less at low altitude.

My personal opinion is a case can be made for the Albatros DIII with an upgraded Mercedes DIII engine having a Climb Rate of 3. I'm not sure I'd be able to make that case for the standard DIII but that's only because I suspect the 160hp rating may be overly generous.

[Added]
To further illustrate my point about the critical nature of the engine please consider the following email I received from the Vintage Aviation company who produces exact replicas of WWI planes

Dear Nicola,
While the D.III may have a climb rate exceeding 1000 ft/min (I will let you know if this is true after I fly one)I know from first hand experience the D.II can climb at around 1100 ft/min and the DVA at around 900/ft /min these were both using the high compression 200 HP Mercedes engines.
Best Regards,
Gene DeMarco.

With the DIIIau engine the Albatros DII would climb surprisingly well. I'd not be surprised if a DII with DIIIau (nominally200hp) engine would outclimb a DIII with a standard DIII (nominally 160hp) engine.

[Nicola Zee]

...
1. I have not had a chance to play the Albatros D.II in WGF, but have played the D.III. Many of the articles I've read on Wikipedia seem to suggest that the D.III and D.V were in some ways inferior to the D.II. How did they compare, performance-wise, in the war? (Note: I'm speaking about the German D.III, not the Austrian D.III variants which I recently learned here had superior performance).
...

Many articles on Wiki (and elsewhere) give the impression the Albatros DII was a better plane than the DIII and the DIII was a better plane than the DV and DVa. So, it seems the German designers were working diligently to produce versions of Albatros where each one was worse than the previous one

This is not really what happened. What occurred was the DIII was a slight improvement on the DII and the DV\DVa was a slight improvement on the DIII. For a time the DII and DIII dominated the skies because the opposing planes only had 1 machine gun. Later on, the opposing planes had 2 machine guns and large leaps in design and engine power. For example a German pilot flying an Albatros DIII (with 2 machine guns) may have faced say a SE5 with 1 machine gun and a 150hp engine. Not surprisingly he would be very happy with his plane. Later on in the war, the same German pilot might be given an Albatros DVa to face an SE5a with 2 machine guns and a 200hp engine. Not surprisingly he might regard the DVa as completely inadequate - because compared to an SE5a it was. It was not that the DVa was worse - rather it was the SE5 had become much better.

[john snelling]

In the opinion of the game designer, you're spot on with the climb rate of the Spad VII (150hp) - See my quote above.

But...

The climb rate of the German Albatros DIII is a mine-field. The issue all comes down to the Mercedes DIII engine. It produced a British rating of 160hp but these tests are suspect due to the use of a British carburettor instead of the German one and testing to destruction as opposed to 'normal' operation. In addition, mods to the engine (DIIIa and DIIIau) produced more output (possibly 20hp?) at high altitude but possibly less at low altitude.

My personal opinion is a case can be made for the Albatros DIII with an upgraded Mercedes DIII engine having a Climb Rate of 3. I'm not sure I'd be able to make that case for the standard DIII but that's only because I suspect the 160hp rating may be overly generous.

[Added]
To further illustrate my point about the critical nature of the engine please consider the following email I received from the Vintage Aviation company who produces exact replicas of WWI planes

Dear Nicola,
While the D.III may have a climb rate exceeding 1000 ft/min (I will let you know if this is true after I fly one)I know from first hand experience the D.II can climb at around 1100 ft/min and the DVA at around 900/ft /min these were both using the high compression 200 HP Mercedes engines.
Best Regards,
Gene DeMarco.

With the DIIIau engine the Albatros DII would climb surprisingly well. I'd not be surprised if a DII with DIIIau (nominally200hp) engine would outclimb a DIII with a standard DIII (nominally 160hp) engine.

After considering Vintage Aircraft data. The DIIIau was not introduced until late 1917. Only 6 Alb D.II were on the front lines on 31 Dec 1917 and only 2 in 1918. I doubt if any of the most desirable engines were installed in an aging airframe. I understand why Vintage Aircraft uses the DIIIau because the cost of making an engine would be prohibitive. So they use the engines that are available and rebuild.

[Nicola Zee]

After considering Vintage Aircraft data. The DIIIau was not introduced until late 1917. Only 6 Alb D.II were on the front lines on 31 Dec 1917 and only 2 in 1918. I doubt if any of the most desirable engines were installed in an aging airframe. I understand why Vintage Aircraft uses the DIIIau because the cost of making an engine would be prohibitive. So they use the engines that are available and rebuild.

I agree 100%. In a sense that's the point I was making. When dealing with the Albatros knowing which engine was installed is critical - just as it's important with the SE5 and Spad. The trouble with some of the figures we have for the Albatros DIII, DV and DVa is it's sometimes not clear which version the engine it has. For the Albatros DII we can usually safely assume its a Merc DIII (nominally 160hp). With the Alb DIII it could be a Merc DIII or a DIIIa. With the Alb DVa it could be Merc DIII, DIIIa or DIIIau. What's even worse is due to the high altitude carburettor with special throttle settings different pilots got differing amounts of hp out of the high compression engine. In theory, according to British tests the Merc DIIIau could produce a very respectable 200hp but unless the pilot knew exactly what they were doing this could result in engine failure. This may help to explain some of the widely different test results for the Alb DIII and Alb DV compared to the fairly consistent test results for the Alb DII.

[john snelling]

Yes, but the game does not reflect different mods of aircraft. I believe the "unofficial stats" mostly missed this chance also.

[csadn]

Eye witness accounts often disagree with analytical performance data.

Eyewitness accounts often disagree with *everything*:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyew...testimony.html
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issu...er&tversky.htm

[john snelling]

Eyewitness accounts often disagree with *everything*:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyew...testimony.html
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issu...er&tversky.htm

Excellent articles, there is one exception to that though and that is if the eye witness knows the defendant.

[zenlizard]

Hello! I was hoping some of our knowledgeable forumites might be able to answer a few questions I have about the Albatros D.II, D.III and the SPAD VII.

1. I have not had a chance to play the Albatros D.II in WGF, but have played the D.III. Many of the articles I've read on Wikipedia seem to suggest that the D.III and D.V were in some ways inferior to the D.II. How did they compare, performance-wise, in the war? (Note: I'm speaking about the German D.III, not the Austrian D.III variants which I recently learned here had superior performance).

Two things come into play here:
1. You can always trust everything you read on the internet: especially the stuff that contradicts itself; that 's the most trustworthy of all!

2. Climb rates, speeds, even things like horsepower output are usually based on manufacturer's claims, and of course they tend to be a little "optimistic" when talking aobut their own products. The climb rate of any individual airplane (of the same models, I'm talking here) can differ, depending on weight distribution, actual engine output (which usually has to do with maintenance), whether or not there are extra drag-inducing 'features" on that particular airplane, even things like the day the airplane in question is tested on (things like air density, which plays a large part in both lift and drag).

So, game performance is always a 'best guess' situation.

And the most critical factor in any given aircraft performance? Nothing to do with the airplane. It's a matter of pilot skill & confidence, (e. g., how much angle of attack can *I* put on this plane before it stalls? Is this AoA the one that give me the best climb rate now?).

[Nicola Zee]

Two things come into play here:
1. You can always trust everything you read on the internet: especially the stuff that contradicts itself; that 's the most trustworthy of all!

2. Climb rates, speeds, even things like horsepower output are usually based on manufacturer's claims, and of course they tend to be a little "optimistic" when talking aobut their own products. The climb rate of any individual airplane (of the same models, I'm talking here) can differ, depending on weight distribution, actual engine output (which usually has to do with maintenance), whether or not there are extra drag-inducing 'features" on that particular airplane, even things like the day the airplane in question is tested on (things like air density, which plays a large part in both lift and drag).

So, game performance is always a 'best guess' situation.

And the most critical factor in any given aircraft performance? Nothing to do with the airplane. It's a matter of pilot skill & confidence, (e. g., how much angle of attack can *I* put on this plane before it stalls? Is this AoA the one that give me the best climb rate now?).

I agree reported climb rates must be treated with some caution. That's the reason I try to consider other factors as well such as power-to-weight ratios and the pilot's experience of flying the plane. I pay especial attention to what I refer to as Zoe's Rule of Thumb - which is to put particular emphasis on how enemy pilots described how a plane performed.

On the subject of manufacturer's testing (considering the usually well-deserved reputation for efficiency and accuracy of the Germans) Albatros was surprisingly bad at testing their planes. This was due to two things.
1. A laid back approach to the authorities to getting aircraft through the tests. In particular, by 1917 the minimum requirements for performance (especially climb) was simply too low.
2. A severe and growing shortage of engines - leading to testing using planes fitted with whatever engine was lying around at the time.

By 1918, with the disappointment with the performance of planes such as the Alb DVa, the German authorities had finally realised the issue and started a series of one day fighter trials at Adlershof. This resulted in an excellent comparison of performance.

[Nicola Zee]

Yes, but the game does not reflect different mods of aircraft. I believe the "unofficial stats" mostly missed this chance also.

Yes, you are right but the good news is the game designer has hinted this may be rectified in future releases

[john snelling]

Yes, you are right but the good news is the game designer has hinted this may be rectified in future releases

That would be good news! A DH-4 that could be used in 1917 (K deck).

[Nicola Zee]

That would be good news! A DH-4 that could be used in 1917 (K deck).

Sorry to disappoint but the game designer was considering "different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes" - not different movement decks.

http://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sho...pecific-planes

[zenlizard]

Sorry to disappoint but the game designer was considering "different climb rates and top altitudes for different engines of a few planes" - not different movement decks.

Still an improvement, and I look forward to it.

['Warspite']

Eyewitness accounts often disagree with *everything*:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-eyes-have-it/
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyew...testimony.html
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resource...essmemory.html
https://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issu...er&tversky.htm

About 20+ years ago, before DNA got into its stride, Channel 4 TV invited a group of guests to a studio and - as they arrived - they staged a fake armed robbery in front of them. The audience were then questioned on what they saw and it was surprising how many got key details very wrong. The number of robbers, what each was doing, and the ethnicity of at least one robber were all critical mistakes which many made. Some areas of dialogue were also wrong. Attempts to pick them out of a subsequent 'line-up' were also flawed. This was at a time when eye-witness testimony was a key part of prosecutions in many British court cases. CH4 were trying to highlight the difficulties.

In one particular high profile case which I remember, two famous armed robbers eventually 'got off' at the Old Bailey after the eye-witnesses were discredited, despite police officers being present for part of the crime and naming them. One officer was shot and wounded during a high speed chase. The police then bided their time… Two years later they got a tip-off that the same team were planning to do a north London bank. The police invited photographers from several national newspapers along on the stake-out, which was conducted from the flat above a shop, opposite the bank. In due course armed police grabbed the robbers, tore off their masks and allowed all to be photographed from the stake out flat by every newspaper photographer. The police then waited 24 hours before charging them which meant the national newspapers could run the photos - and imprint on the mind of every potential juror that these men really WERE guilty. Only happened the once but it was effective, they were all convicted and got long sentences.

['Warspite']

Eye witness accounts often disagree with analytical performance data.

Another factor to consider is whether one aircraft is 'factory fresh' while the other is tired from frequent use and misuse. I found an informative set of figures in my huge WW1 volume on British aircraft where a British aircraft was re-tested after 24 hours of combat flying. Speed had dropped about 5-7% and climb rate had deteriorated about 10-15% as I recall.

It should be noted that for some aircraft types we have comparatively few sets of performance figures or we are using figures derived from tests of captured aircraft which may have been damaged during capture or just not flown in optimum condition.

I have raised this before during the Pfalz DIII, Albo DIII, Albo DV climb rate and top speed discussions. On that matter, if we disregard quoted climb rates and look at service ceiling (which for WW1 was the point at which climb rate fell to 50 feet a minute) then the disparity in the service ceiling should serve as an upper point of reference for all three types.

[john snelling]

Was there a big drop off in German inline engines also? Rotaries were very notorious for drop off. Also the French Spad XIII engine was extremely unreliable.

[Nicola Zee]

Another factor to consider is whether one aircraft is 'factory fresh' while the other is tired from frequent use and misuse. I found an informative set of figures in my huge WW1 volume on British aircraft where a British aircraft was re-tested after 24 hours of combat flying. Speed had dropped about 5-7% and climb rate had deteriorated about 10-15% as I recall.

It should be noted that for some aircraft types we have comparatively few sets of performance figures or we are using figures derived from tests of captured aircraft which may have been damaged during capture or just not flown in optimum condition.

I have raised this before during the Pfalz DIII, Albo DIII, Albo DV climb rate and top speed discussions. On that matter, if we disregard quoted climb rates and look at service ceiling (which for WW1 was the point at which climb rate fell to 50 feet a minute) then the disparity in the service ceiling should serve as an upper point of reference for all three types.

I think part of the discrepancy between climb and service ceilings for the German aircraft with the compressed DIIIa and DIIIau engines can be explained in terms of the over-compression of the engine. The German engineers increased the compression of the DIII engine so that it could produce more power at altitude and reach a higher altitude but this meant that the engine was over-stressed at low altitudes. The result was that if the pilot stuck to the recommended safety limits the plane performed worse at low altitudes than with the original DIII engine. This is why the rating of 180hp for a DIIIa and 200hp for a DIIIau is nominal. It is, also, why at low altitudes a Camel would easily outclimb an Albatros but at high altitudes things were different. In consequence, Camels were mainly sent on low altitude missions.

When testing the planes my guess was the pilots sensibly stuck well within the recommended safety margins and so in effect the extra 'umph' of the engines was not reflected in the results - especially at low altitudes. In combat experienced pilots soon learnt when they could stretch the power of the engines and so get more of the extra horse power that was available.

In short, I don't think of the 40hp engine power difference between a DIII and a DIIIau as always on and always available. In a sense it's a bit like a supercharger that can produce extra 'umph' depending on the skill, bravery and desperation of the pilot.

[Doug]

I will have to play the deviles advicate here. Not critsizeing the outstanding the work that has done by individuals, but my view is are we are going to deep for what is a basic simple game without the need to complicapte it further

[Nicola Zee]

I will have to play the deviles advicate here. Not critsizeing the outstanding the work that has done by individuals, but my view is are we are going to deep for what is a basic simple game without the need to complicapte it further

In no way am I suggesting that the game needs to reflect these factors. I like the laid back approach of the game and the community. Wings of Glory is the only wargame my husband and I regularly play. I would be very much against having say different climb rates for different altitudes.

But the original poster asked the following question:
1. I have not had a chance to play the Albatros D.II in WGF, but have played the D.III. Many of the articles I've read on Wikipedia seem to suggest that the D.III and D.V were in some ways inferior to the D.II. How did they compare, performance-wise, in the war?

Unfortunately, there is no simple easy answer to that question and a key factor is the difference between the DIII and the DIIIa engines.

[Nicola Zee]

Was there a big drop off in German inline engines also? Rotaries were very notorious for drop off. Also the French Spad XIII engine was extremely unreliable.

The inline engines were studier and had a longer shelf life than the rotaries but the engines were kept in service longer and re-conditioned more often than they probably should have due to an extreme shortage of engines in Germany - especially later on in the war.

[john snelling]

The inline engines were studier and had a longer shelf life than the rotaries but the engines were kept in service longer and re-conditioned more often than they probably should have due to an extreme shortage of engines in Germany - especially later on in the war.

Thanks