bad Albatros

Jan · 5 September 2006, 12:03 PM

Hello,

I would like to ask a question about the general performance of the Albatros D.Va scout. I have read many posts and articles in different sources and tried to get an impression of the performance of the Albatros D.V/Va and D.III. It is often said, that those fighters have been obsolete since the arrival of for example the SE5a.(I know about the weaknesses, like wings etc.) But at first there was no better "standard" fighter for Germany and later the D.Va remained in service very long. So the pilots had to deal with that Aircraft. My question is: Was the Albatros D.Va, especially late exemplars really so bad? Or did a good pilot have the possibility to get "acceptable results" flying that plane? Thank you for any answer.

Greetings, Jan

Romani · 5 September 2006, 02:50 PM

Jan, for a start search in the Archive and try to find these threads

Albatros D.V and D.Va.. Whats the difference ?? on: 3 January 2002

The Albatros DV/DVa and the Mercedes DIIIau engine on: 24.02.2002

Albatros D.V.a, or Pfalz D.III.a? on: 26.02.2002

If you can't find them (I can't, else I would post a link) send me a PM with your e-mail and I will send you the saved posts

Jan · 6 September 2006, 03:46 AM

Thank you

I have already taken a look at those posts. My question was indeed a little bit strange. I just thought that later D.Va versions with more powerful engines and some upgrades in strenght might have been not as outclassed and obsolete as the plane is often regarded. This thought just came up, when I was wondering how the aircraft could stay in the skies for such a long period with some succeses.

Greetings

TomVrille · 6 September 2006, 07:49 AM

Greetings Jan....

There are several factors which contributed to the longevity of the D.Va in front line service. Perhaps the most important consideration was that of tactics. The D.Va had some performance deficiencies against opposing types, such as the S.E.5a and F2B, that might have been decisive in one-on-one engagements with pilots of roughly equivalent skill. By the time the D.Va came into service, however, one-on-one engagements were becoming rather infrequent. In many-on-many engagements between formations of aircraft, factors such as numerical odds and initial conditions drive the outcome more than individual aircraft performance figures.

Additionally, in many-on-many engagements, a wide range of pilot skills are likely to be found. The skilled, experienced pilot will usually be able to identify the novices on the opposing side, and remove them from the engagement in short order.

In regard to this last point, while the D.Va had some performance deficiencies relative to the latest opposing types, these were not so serious as to make inept pilots into victors in most cases.

All of the above is just my opinion, FWIW, if anything!

StephenLawson · 6 September 2006, 01:55 PM

Several captured Alb. D. types (III & V) were written about by RFC & RAF pilots. I have included here the information about the D.III 2015/16 and the D.V 1162/17.

Noted historian and Aerodrome member Greg VanWyngarden has in recent years done a small study on the allied impressions of enemy aircraft and has taken time to gather some of these reflections. “...In his marvelous book, Sopwith Scout 7309 the Australian Sopwith Pup pilot Sir Gordon Taylor (66 Squadron) recorded his impressions of flying the captured Albatros D.III 2015/16, ( G.42.)

'...I badly wanted to fly this aeroplane, to discover just what went on in the minds of our opponents when we met them in the air, and to know exactly the strong and weak points of the Albatros performance...I climbed up over the streamlined plywood fuselage, and down into the black leather pilot's seat. I felt immediately how heavy everything was after the light, fabric feeling of the Sopwith Scout. Next I noticed the view from the pilot's seat: excellent, with virtually no blind spots anywhere - a very important feature in a fighting aeroplane....

...The big Mercedes fired on the first swing and turned over slowly with a deep-throated burble from the exhaust. I let it warm up, then ran it up on the chocks to full take-off [power. The noise was savage and impressive after the little LeRhône. I drew back the throttle and waved to McFall (his mechanic) to pull away the chocks...

...The machine moved away with a bellowing roar and began to gather speed. It seemed to run quite a distance before it showed any inclination to leave the ground. Then I could feel the wheels rattling light upon the surface of the stubble field. A little back pressure on the stick and the Albatros was airborne, and away. I held the machine in a steady climb to 1000 feet, then applied the controls to a left-hand turn. Laterally it was quite light, but when I steepened the turn and tried to pull the machine around with the elevator it seemed very heavy, putting up a resistance to the turn. I could see immediately why the Albatros pilots kept out of the close dueling turns...

...I opened the engine out to full throttle again, and tried the climb. It was deceptive. This machine did not go up with the lift-like action of a slow and lightly loaded aircraft, but rather to surge forward, reaching out for height. But it went up, I realized with some disappointment, very convincingly; and when I drew it up to a high angle of climb it seemed for a while to go reaching up, hanging on the propeller. The climb to 3000 feet was a few seconds over three minutes; and to 6000 feet in seven minutes...

...Then I let the nose down. The speed built up steadily, giving me the impression that the heavy Albatros would go on accelerating indefinitely, drawn on by the power of its engine, unopposed by the beautiful, streamlined fuselage. It was fast, that was obvious. As fast as I could judge, its maximum speed was about 125 mph, perhaps a little more...

...I brought the machine in...Its personality was utterly different from our own airy Sopwith scout. Ours was , in some indefinable way, a sporting weapon, with a slightly smiling, light-hearted personality; a machine which did not identify itself readily with the slaughter of war. But this Hun was a war machine, a weapon of ruthless efficiency; cold-blooded in the metal of its V interplane struts, the Spandau guns, the big engine under the streamlined cowl in the nose, and the instruments and fittings in the cockpit... My thoughts, as I got out of the Albatros' cockpit, can be...expressed, "Give me this aeroplane to fight the war. Let me keep the Sopwith Scout to enjoy myself in the air when the war is won...

Mr. VanWyngarden also notes “...Gordon Taylor wrote this in 1965, from memory and referenced to his flight log. There's little doubt he was impressed, even though he'd been forbidden to try aerobatics in the Albatros. He was probably unaware of its tendency toward wing failure !...Cecil Lewis had the opportunity to fly exactly the same machine that Gordon Taylor had, and wrote this in "Farewell to Wings"

...already in 1917 the Germans were using a 'monocoque' construction of molded ply (far in advance of us) for the body of the Albatros. I don't know what it was made of; but it gave the impression of papier maché. However, it being rounded out like a fish, it was far more roomy and the whole machine seemed larger because of this cavernous cockpit. The water-cooled engine had a neat radiator in the centre-section, but it was big and heavy. In fact the German temperament showed up all along. The machine was sluggish, strong, reliable, and determined. It had none of the feeling of lightness and grace that our aircraft had. Of course, every aeroplane has its own characteristics and very few pilots take over the controls of a strange type and really measure up its capabilities in an hour or so. So it is probable we never really stretched it; but I am certain of one thing - to throw an Albatros about in the air was hard work and it would have made you sweat in a dogfight..."

James McCudden briefly flew an Albatros D.V, D.1162/17 from Jasta 4 (Vzfw. Clausnitzer) and similarly said, '...On November 5th I went to Hendon with Capt. Clive Collett to fly a V-strutter Albatros which he had for demonstration purposes, and I had a nice ride in it, but I could not think how the German pilots could manoeuvre them so well, for they were certainly not easy to handle." Later, of course, Capt. Collett was killed flying this same Albatros over the Firth of Fourth, apparently when a portion of the exhaust manifold came loose from the engine and struck him and stunned him. It dived straight into the water."

Intrepid · 6 September 2006, 02:22 PM

" The Albatros was able to give a lively account of itself , especially in the hands of skilled pilots. " As a matter of fact", states Peter M.Grosz, a recognized historian and authority on German World War I aircraft ,"it was an excellent-handling aircraft even in the hands of a mediocre pilot and that is one reason it remained at the Front so long.""

"The Albatros D.V was better than any other German fighter when it was placed in production . If a better fighter had been designed by Pfalz, Roland, Fokker , LVG, etc., then it would have been ordered and built in quanity. Although politics may have played some part in the matter( but far less than often implied), the choice of fighters, bombers, and two-seaters was a very sophisticated process, based on many hours of careful testing. If the Albatros D.Va had any shortcomings, it was due to the fact that it remained at the Front to long and was then surpassed by newer and superior British aircraft. Perhaps the Fokker D.VII with its 180- hp Mercedes was not that much better than the Albatros D.Va. The Fokker D.VII did not win its handsome reputation until the advent of the BMW. IIIa 'high altitude' engine. "

All quotations from Peter M. Grosz

Bruno Stachel · 7 September 2006, 08:15 AM

I am just speculating here; but wasn't the Albatros good in a dive? I imagine it as the P-40 against the Zero during WWII - not necessarily as good as it's opponent in a turning dogfight, but good at a speedy diving attack, where the pilot could use his speed to extend and get away, or climb, turn around, and make another pass. Maybe those in charge saw the advantages the Albatros had and kept it around. Also, the P-40, in action for the Americans at the onset of WWII, was produced until well into late 1944.

Tripehound · 7 September 2006, 11:57 AM

The Albatros was maybe too good in a dive. The lightly built and heavily undercambered lower wing quickly reached the "Flutter Zone", often resulting in failure of one or both lower wings. By the summer of 1917 the D.III-D.V series was surpassed by superior Allied designs, although it remained a reliable, though flawed and underpowered, workhorse until the end of the war. The Germans failed to come up with something better until Fokker's fluke, the D.VII.

The Austrians seemed to have had a much better version of the Albatros. They started out with 185 HP (the Germans only went to that very late in their version), then quickly went to 200, then 225 HP. This allowed a strengthened wing structure from the beginning, and the Austrians don't seem to have had the aeroelasticity problems the Germans did.

Roadhog · 9 September 2006, 09:41 PM

Dear Forum mates, I was always under the impession that when the Albatros D-V and D-Vas arrived at the front they were a disappointment. They were not that much faster than the D-III and, in some instances, not as fast. The headrest obstructed the pilot's rear vision and was usually removed and the lower wings sometimes had to receive additional strengthening. Still, in the hands of a decent pilot in a large dogfight, they were dangerous foes. VR, Roadhog "Memento mori."

Lucky Dog · 10 September 2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StephenLawson

James McCudden briefly flew an Albatros D.V, D.1162/17 from Jasta 4 (Vzfw. Clausnitzer) and similarly said, '...On November 5th I went to Hendon with Capt. Clive Collett to fly a V-strutter Albatros which he had for demonstration purposes, and I had a nice ride in it, but I could not think how the German pilots could manoeuvre them so well, for they were certainly not easy to handle." Later, of course, Capt. Collett was killed flying this same Albatros over the Firth of Fourth, apparently when a portion of the exhaust manifold came loose from the engine and struck him and stunned him. It dived straight into the water."

Any interesting study of Albatros DV 1162/17 that I do not believe has been published. This is from an album that I had in my possession to scan and copy couple of years ago. The details are wonderful in the full res image.