Pfalz D.III - accounts

[JG1Schorner]

Can somebody point me in the direction of discussions on the Pfalz D.III. I have heard it said several times that this aircraft has been discussed in detail, but my search attampts do not come up with the threads where this happened. I don't want to rehash old news, but I would really appreciate a link or two.

Also, can anybody post any interesting accounts written by Pfalz pilots? I cannot recall a single first hand account from a pilot that actually flew the thing.

Thanks.

P.S. I am aware of the Pfalz's basic characteristics: rugged construction, good dive, middling turning ability, not very fast, not great climb. Very good balloon buster, not nearly so good in a dogfight. I'm just looking for more.

[Barrett]

FWIW, there's probably no such thing as a "good" or "bad" balloon buster. The aircraft was the least part of the equation, well after planning, intelligent tactics, and armament/ammo. Since almost every balloon busting aircraft had near-identical armament (two synchronized MGs) the Pfalz was no different than the others.

[Barker]

Originally posted by Barrett@Jun 8 2004, 04:38 PM
[b] FWIW, there's probably no such thing as a "good" or "bad" balloon buster.

A different view-
An aircraft on a Balloon busting mission benefits from:
-Rugged construction - it will take a lot of AA fire, and if they're in the vicinity, attacks from EA.
-Ability to sustain a dive (and store Potential Energy for the pullout).
-Ability to dive at a higher speed than most aircraft (same).
-Ability to pull out of the dive without leaving your wings behind you - sturdy wing design.
-A reliable, robust powerplant - pulling your a/c out of the firestorm just created necessitates a strong engine.
-Stable (relative) gun platform. Balloons don't really move except to be winched down. A stable gun platform maximizes TOT.

A Pfalz D.III or IIIa has all these qualities.

A Nieuport 17 (much as I love that aircraft) does not.

Two contrasting examples.

FWIW.

Hi JG1Schorner,

A good book that comes to mind, written by a pilot who flew the Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa, is 'Wings of War', by Rudolf Stark. He mostly, if not always, flew a Pfalz while with Jasta 34b. Some of the best narratives on WWI flying can be found in this excellent book. You can find it at:

http://used.addall.com/

Enjoy

[Gregvan]

Hi,

I suggest you pick up a copy of "Pfalz Aircraft of World War I" by Jack Herris from Flying Machines Press (2001). I was a bit involved in the production of this book, and pp. 61-63 contain just about all of the pilot's comments on the D.III/D.IIIa I was able to dig up at the time. Generally, pilot who flew the Albatros D.III/D.V preferred those types, and those who flew the Pfalz more often expressed a preference for it - you tend to like what you fly. I think the same thing is seen with respect to P-47, P-61 and P-38 pilots in WW2.

Carl Degelow said, "When I arrived at Jasta 40 in May 1918, the Staffel was equipped with Albatros D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa aircraft...Given the choice, I selected a Pfalz D.IIIa, a type I had also flown in Jasta 7. The Pfalz was a bit underpowered and it did not climb as well as the Albatros, but I felt it was a safer aircraft. For some time the Albatros D.Va had a structural problem with the lower wing spar, which had a tendency to break under stress...So, in my case, I took the second-rate Pfalz and, having learned its limitations, made the best of a bad job."

On the other hand Paul Straehle of Jastas 18 and 57 did not like the Pfalz at all: "I did not value the Pfalz, as my Albatros D.V was by far the better machine...The Pfalz was, flight technically speaking, not in the same class."

Josef Jacobs of Jasta 7 also compared the Pfalz to the Albatros in his diary:

"28 Sept 1917: Yesterday the first Pfalz arrived. It appears to climb better and be more maneuverable.
5 Oct. Today I flew my Pfalz D.III for the first time. It climbs better but is slower.
9 Oct: In the evening I made a test flight with my Pfalz. It climbs very well; however, it is much slower than the D.V"

Hans-Georg von der Osten said the Pfalz D.III had a nasty habit of slipping in a turn, and this is why he crashed on 28 March 1918; however, Bodenschatz said von der Osten crashed in an Albatros - but von der Osten insisted it was a Pfalz.

A captured Jasta 15 pilot, Uffz Hegeler, said in an interrogation that "The Pfalz scout is "not popular with pilots owing to its lack of speed and its bad maneuverability." Of course, Hegeler could have been "feeding a line" to his captors and also attempting to justify his being captured in a Pfalz D.III !

So there you have it. I would take Jacobs' comments as the most accurate, as they were contemporary and private - even though they contradict Degelow's comments to some extent.

Greg VanWyngarden

[Gregvan]

Hello Again,

In his interview by Alex Imrie, Johann Janzen of Jastas 4 and 6 (in C & C G.B. Vol. 5 No. 3), said, "(I) was given leadership of Jasta 4 (following von der Osten's injuries on 28 March) whose Staffelfuehrer had been badly injured. The change I made was not a good one, since Jasta 4 still used the old Pfalz D.III, while in Jasta 6 we had been flying the Fokker Triplane for some time. As a result of flying the Pfalz D.III, which in their aged state could reach an altitude of about 3000 metres only, where they were almost invariably pounced upon by a bunc of cheeky SE5s, the Staffel scored only three victories in April and I myself was unable to score any, despite intensive patrol work; but at the same time we were lucky not to lose any pilots." I believe Janzen is not bothering to make the distinction between the D.III and the D.IIIa here - Jasta 4 undoubtedly had the latter by this time, but they were still worn out and not up to par.

Janzen was quite happy to return to Jasta 6 and the Fokker Dr.I later, following von R's death and Reinhard's move to command of the Geschwader.

Greg

[R Pope]

One thing the balloon busters liked about the Pfalz was the inverted-airfoil tailplane. At high diving speeds it tended to automatically pull the nose up, a desirable trait if you were close to the cold hard ground.

[ManfredL]

I will never understand why the Pfalz DIII was not a really great machine in WW1.

If just for its looks it's more like an end of the twenties than end of the tens aircraft. Looks very modern and pleasing to me compared to say the Fokkers and Camels.

Would it have benefitted from a more powerful engine a la SPAD?

Were rudder, elevators and aileron constructed wrongly?



On a different note, you get funny alternatives in the spell checkwers for Fokker ...

Allow me to put myself, so to speak, "in harm's way", and venture what makes a good balloon buster-- but first, why the Pfalz phailed...

I believe it to be a combination of an underpowered engine and a thinner airfoil; while the thinner airfoil was also true of the SPAD, one wouldn't consider the latter an underpowered aircraft. The SPAD could be, once power was cut, difficult to handle-- "the glide angle of a brick"-- especially in a landing; that's what happens, I guess, when you deal with thinner airfoils.

By the same reasoning, the Pfalz should have been faster with the type of wing that it had; so one can conclude that it really was drastically underpowered.

On to the iconoclastic:

A good balloon buster should combine, in ascending order, strong construction, high speed, and-- I hope you're all seated-- excellent climb characteristics...

Based on a great deal of what I've read concerning Lt. Frank Luke, Jr., some old-timers reminiscing mention that Luke "found" a way, and a most successful one at that, of attacking those damn sausages: from below.

Now, please, think about it: first, you probably can't be seen from a balloon basket (due to the camoflage that the Allies were prone to use; besides, you're only one plane). Then, when you are finally seen, you're so close to the ground-- and going so fast (at least to someone on the ground)-- that they can't get a bead on you, ie acquire you as a target...

Next thing you know, you're climbing (or "zooming", having gotten some more speed from your initial dive to the ground), the balloon is in your sites, you open fire... Now, it's more than possible that when you come out of your "zoom", you are almost level with the balloon; the idea being, your chances of flaming the gasbag are thus made better, because the hydrogen is floating at the top of the envelope (and not sitting on the bottom, nearest the basket).

I'm not saying that this method is infallible, only that it is supposedly the one that Luke was known to have used; it is also supposed to be the method of some French escadrilles, most notably SPA 77, "Les Sportifs", renowned as a balloon-busting outfit, and who were stationed in the same battle front that Luke was...

(Then again, this wouldn't be the first time that I'm full of hot air!)

VBR,
Captain "H" Lewis

[R Pope]

The Bavarians used most of the Pfalz DIII's. Stark was Bavarian, and liked them enough to achieve acedom in them. On another note,Captain Lewis, the hydrogen would not be "floating at the top of the envelope". The balloon would be full of the stuff, equally distributed. There would certainly be no other kind of gas in there to settle to the bottom, the only other gas available would be air, and you really don't want any of that in there! The crews took great pains to expel any air before inflating the bag. And finally, not all 'busters came up from below, the Germans seemed to prefer diving from high above.