Pfalz D.XII

[Craig]

First, I've got nothing against this machine. How could I? Bit it seems that it was a dog, so to speak. I have the Profile from 1965, the Windsock Datafile, and the new Pfalz book from Flying Machines Press, or Paladin, whomever. All three are rife with complaints from German pilots, as well as Allied test pilots postwar.
The common thread through these reports is that the D.XII was sluggish on the controls, which is about the worst thing a fighter can be, if I’m not mistaken. Other complaints: dangerous upon landing, poor climb, lost excessive height during turns. Only a report from Frank Tallman, postwar and with a restored machine, has much to say in a positive light: he said it was faster than any of his other planes. Curiously, this included a SPAD, an SE5a, and a Fokker D.VII - all three possessing a higher max than the Pfalz. Go figure. And this report speaks poorly of the Pfalz’s handling, as well.
Anyway, here’s what I’d like to bat about: what improvements, if any, did the D.XII offer over the Pfalz D.IIIa and the Albatros D.Va?

Craig

Carl Dixon, an American Handley Page 0/400 pilot with No. 58 Squadron RAF had a chance to fly several captured German fighters, here is a section of his report:

"Of the three other German aeroplanes I flew, the one that came closest to the Fokker D.VII was the Pfalz D.XII. In fact, it was very much like the Fokker. It had the same type of six-cylinder Mercedes engine, but was a bit lighter than the Fokker and I think that made a critical difference in the way the Pfalz seemed to zip right up easier than the Fokker. Both the Fokker and the Pfalz were fast turning aeroplanes. But the Pfalz had a bigger rudder area and you seemed to have more control over your turns; you sort of 'slid' into them and by going neutral on the rudder and applying power, you could straighten out. But with that damned Fokker, you had to have a very light foot on the rudder bar, because if you really kicked the rudder and gave it power, it would throw you into a spin. I did that once and thought I was going to crash. I pulled out just above the treetops and when I got back on the ground an intelligence officer came over and chewed me out for almost wrecking his best captured Fokker."

[Craig]

Rex,
Does THAT ever fly in the face of everything else I've read! As an HP400 driver, maybe he was used to sluggish controls, and had a set of sinews any fighter jock from MvR on down might envy.
Do you know what the "other three" German fighters were, to which he referred?

Thx,
Craig

Rex,
* * *Does THAT ever fly in the face of everything else I've read! As an HP400 driver, maybe he was used to sluggish controls, and had a set of sinews any fighter jock from MvR on down might envy.
* * *Do you know what the "other three" German fighters were, to which he referred?

Thx,
Craig

The three German fighters he compared to the Fokker D.VII were the Pfalz D.III, Albatros D.Va, and the Pfalz D.XII. He test flew a few RAF fighters as well and claimed the S.E.5 was "easily as sturdy and manoeuvrable(sp) as the Fokker D.VII and quite a bit faster."

His comments about the 0/400 seem to indicate that patience was more important than strength. Control inputs could take more than 3 seconds to actually change the course of the aircraft.

[stephen]

I've always understood that the Pfalz DXII was underrated, and would have replaced the DVII in history as the top fighter had the better BMW engines not be prioritized for Fokker instead. Everything I've heard about it has been positive, in contrast to Craig's experience.

Also, a WWI pilot pal of mine flew a number of captured German a/c. I'll have to look up his letters... I'm sure he had some time in the Pfalz DXII.

[Cigogne]

Another thing to consider about the Tallman 1960s report on the Pfalz D.XII is the quality of fuel with higher octane, and a drier, warmer climate in California. The Flying Machines Press book speaks of damp conditions during the war that would twist and warp a wooden structure and make it heavier.

[leo]

German pilots assigned the DXII came to appreciate its qualities after they overcame the disappointmnt of not getting DVII. Ground crews hated the DXII as it was much harder to set up and rig.

leo

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Craig:
* * *I am referring you to "Pfalz Aircraft of World War 1", by Jack Herris. I want you to turn to page 29, bottom photograph. This is the prototype Pfalz D.III and it has the 170 Ps Mercedes D.IIIa engine in it. This can be determined by the thin, tall air pump on the front of the camshaft housing. *now look at all the other Pfalz D.III and D.IIIa photographs and they ALL have the fat air pump! this is the 180 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü engine, and it starts with the photo on the bottom of page 30 of Pfalz D.III 1366/17. *The problem Craig, is in this instance Jack does not know which engine is which. *Go to page 86 "Mercedes versus BMW", last paragraph. In this paragraph he is confused as to which engine is which, he identifies, the 180 Ps D.IIIaü as the 180hp D.IIIa and the 200Ps D.IIIaüv as the 200hp D.IIIaü. *the identity of engines were;
160 Ps D.III, *tall thin airpump aft of the rear cylinder.
170 Ps D.IIIa, tall thin air pump in front of the front cylinder
180 Ps D.IIIaü, fat air pump in front of front cylinder. *
200 Ps D.IIIaüv, opposed dual cylinder air pump in front.
Comparing gross weights the early short (overall length 6200mm) Pfalz D.XII was 789 kg serial numbers D.1350 -1389/18, these had the original small fin and rectangular rudder. the second batch, D.1390-1549/18 were 6350mm long and the gross weight was also 897 kg. The longer D.XII, (6530mm) was heavier at 902 kg. *the early Fok. D.VII gross weight was 880 kg, (Fok. and OAW), Albatros,895 kg. With the BMW engine the Fok. D.VII was 906Kg. So the Pfalz D.XII were 17 kg (37.4lbs) heavier than the Fok. D.VII with the same comparable Mercedes engine. The drag of the Pfalz D.XII had to be more than the Fok. D.VII. the maximum airspeed @ sea level of the Pfalz D.XII with the 180 Ps Mercedes D.IIIaü was 180 km/hr for the Fok.VII with the same engine was 185 Km/hr @ sea level. I think the the two aircraft were probably were very close in performance, The D.VII most likely climbed faster. * In my opinion, Pfalz lacked a PR person like Anthony Fokker. I think the Rol. D.VIb was the equal of the Fok. D.VII, but Idflieg did not buy very many.
* * * * * * * * *Blue skies are ahead,
* * * * * * * * * * * *Dan-San
*
* * * * * * * *

[Craig]

Dan-San,
Sadly, my library is at home, and my computer is at work, and I never remember to drag this book or that up here. I did look at the air pumps in the Pfalz book a few days ago, and saw no difference in the D.III/IIIa photos, and having assumed that the D.III used the 160 hp, and MOST of the D.IIIa used the 180 hp, resigned myself to minor confusion. I'll print your last post and have a look.
What concerns me even more than photo ID, is the performance figures in the Herris book. They flatly show that the D.III, D.IIIa and D.XII had the same max airspeed (180 km/h), and the D.XII climbed the slowest of the three. Combine this with the decidedly negative pilot comments, and there you have my problem: authors seem to like the D.XII, but Great War pilots did not.
I have begun a thread on the D.XII, and hope to inspire others compare its performance to the Roland D.VIb. My only info of any depth on that ride is the Datafile by Peter Grosz. If you have it, check it out. He rags on it, but the performance figures and pilot comments on handling and maneuverability show a different reality, rather the opposite of the Pfalz D.XII.

Onward through the fog,
Craig

[Craig]

>>I have begun a thread on the D.XII, <<

Oops, well, terribly sorry, lads. I thought I was on the "D.Va Blues" thread. Blame it on a squandered youth . . . I'll just be toddling off now.