Question about WWI aircraft performance...
 

...Hi!

I posted this over at the forums at SimHQ but there doesn't seem to be any response. Since this forum is also full of WWI aircraft afficionados, I thought I'd post it here as well.

I had some questions about WWI aircraft performance, specifically, about the Ansaldo Balilla, the Fe8, the Sopwith Dolphin, the Halb. D. I and the Albatros D. II.

1) How did the Ansaldo match up against its contemporaries? I imagine the most common plane it went up against was the licensed built Albatros D. III. How did it match up against that? How did it compare to its contemporaries like the Hanriot HD/I, the Nieuport 17 and the SPAD VII's which also equipped Italian squadrons?

2) How did the Fe8 match up against its contemporaries? Did it have any advantages over them?

3) Besides its superb high-altitude performance and its exceptional forward/upward view, what other advantages did the Sopwith Dolphin have over its contemporaries?

4) I realize the Halb. D. I was more or less a stop-gap until Albatri could be supplied in numbers to the German air service but did it have any redeeming features or advantages over the Albatri?

5) I've heard that the shift to the V strut configuration in the later D. III and D. V resulted in their wings collapsing in tight turns and high speed dives...did the D. III/D. V's have ANY advantages over the D. II?

6) I'm somewhat curious about Austro-Hungarian designs - how did the Hansa-Brandenberg D. I, Aviatik D. I and Phonix D. I compare with the Albatros D. III and the Allied planes they tangled with on the Italian Front (SPADs, Nieuports, Hanriots, Camels, etc.)?

Thanks in advance!

To start you off -

The FE8 was a dog with no redeeming qualities to speak of - not to mention the fact that it was obsolete by the time it was introduced.

The Dolphin had a significant advantage in that it packed twice the armament of any other single-seat fighter, although of course the Lewis' were often removed (or sometimes relocated) by the field units. Another feature that endeared it to the pilots flying at high altitue was that the Dophin cockpit was quite a bit warmer than other types.

Welcome to the 'Drome!

Eric

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

To continue chipping away at your list of questions, the Ansaldo A-1 (Balilla) was a major disappointment. It was fast, but very limited in maneuverability. It was assessed in late 1917 by a group of Italian aces, and declared unsatisfactory for front line service. At the suggestion of the aces, some design changes were tried, but performance remained unsatisfactory. Only some 150 A-1s were built, and none were used in front line service. Several home defense units were issued A-1s because their speed allowed them to be effective as interceptors, but the HD-1 remained the principal fighter in the Italian Air Service. :(

I can answer 2 of those questions....

The Halberstadt D-series were very agile machines... not as fast as the Albatros, but a good match up for the lightweight, agile Nieuports. The disadvantage was speed and firepower. (compared to the Albatros fighters)

The V-strut Albatros varients had better visibility... which IS a factor in combat. Interestingly, the Austrian Albatros varients didn't have the problems with the lower wings. And, it LOOKS slower with the blunt nose, but the Austrian varient was in fact faster.

Brad

Thanks for welcome and the info.

I had read that the Austrian-licensed built Albatri had better performance than the German built ones but I didn't realize that they didn't seem to have the weak wing problem.

I sort of assumed the Fe8 was more agile than the Albatri (like the DH2) due to its rotary engine and its similar configuration to the DH2 but the only account I've read of the plane in battle was basically a slaughter that was inflicted upon a flight of Fe8's by Albatri. In contrast, even though the DH2 was outclassed by the Albatros, it appears that in capable hands, it had some capability to defend itself.

I'm very interested in trying to get to the bottom of the actual performance of these planes - even if it's necessary to average out differences born from manufacturing tolerances.

I've read about some people having access to results from fighter competitions, or official French data, and so on. Google really sucks anymore because there are so many pages in it's DB that you never really find what you are looking for. Does anyone here know of sources (preferably online and free) for actual test results?

The F.E.8 was indeed in most respects interchangeable as a fighting aeroplane with the Dh.2. Delays in production owing to an inexperienced contractor meant that it arrived just before the introduction of the Albatross machines, and so it never had a heyday as its stable-mate did, though its design commenced in June of 1915.

The two squadrons equipped with the type, Nos. 40 and 41, claimed between them 31 enemy aeroplanes destroyed, in addition to ten driven down, while suffering losses in combat of twenty-five machines, by official records. It is a bit more balanced than the impression given by the well-known defeat of No. 40 by Jasta 11 on 3/9/17, shortly after which the squadron received Nieuport 17s. One pilot of No. 41, Lt. E. L. Benbow, was credited officially with eight kills on the type, six of them Albatross single-seaters, including one DIII type. He was eventually shot down and killed flying an S.E.5a in 1918. No. 41 continued to fly the type until July of 1917.

F.E.8 assignments.
 

Old Man:
In addition to No.40 and No.41 Squadrons, the F.E.8 also equipped No.5 and No.29 Squadrons. The Royal Aircraft Factory designed and built 54 of the 297F.E.8 ordered. Darracq received and Vickers received orders for the F.E.8. Total deliveries were 182, of which 147 were sent to the RFC in France.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

I suggest that you model their performance and then compare. This was actually done in a paper that appeared in WWI Aero about a year ago. The paper focused its a figure-of-merit scoring which included it's turning radius (I think), and possibly some other parameters. I'll try to look at my copies and find it. I was impressed with the author's work. Very clever.
Maybe you could use his proceedure and use it for your aircraft? If you do, I suggest that you publish the results. I would like to read about it.

Old Man- Great data. Always thought of the FE-8 as complete toast against an Albatros or Halberstadt.

casitglione- There is a very well known description of two Jastaschule instructors having at each other in an early Albatros (German Spad) and a Halberstadt D.II and the Halberstadt easily outmaneuvering and pretend killing the Albatros. The Halberstadt D.II/III versions, however, were only powered by 120 hp engines, only had a single gun, and were produced in very small numbers. Still one of my favorites (can you tell?), they did not have anywhere near the impact of the heavier, faster, better armed, and far more numerous Albatros scouts. The Halberstadt D.I was only a prototype. The Halberstadt D.II was the first, in my opinion, modern WW-I biplane fighter with synchronized MG, followed only slightly later by the Spad S.VII and then by the Albatros D.I/II.

The later version Austrian Albatros D.III fighters with engines up to 225hp were more than a match for the Camel, Spad, Hanriot or anything else they fought. The Austro-Daimler engines did for their performance what the BMW did for the Fokker D.VII, take an excellent fighter and make it outstanding. They had some wing problems early on, but by the 253 series and the 225 hp engine, their D.III was a superb fighter even ordered by the Polish Air Force.

The Sopwith Dolphin had other advantages besides its 4 gun armament, it was as fast as any aircraft at the front, was maneuverable and tough, and could dive like no tomorrow. But for senior officer intransigence,the Dolphin should have replaced both the Camel and the SE-5a in early 1918 after having been successfully tested in spring, 1917. Its performance was superior to the Snipe, but its unconventionality worked against it.

Taz
Terry Phillips