Albatros DR1 operational history

[Willi Von Klugerman]

Hello im back,I been trying to find out some the Albatros DR1 history on the web,but didn't find any info.Does anyone know some information about this crate?

[Cigogne]

It was an unsuccessful prototype. It didn't enter production and so didn't have an operational history. Johannisthal and Aldershof were probably where its flights were made.

[FOKKERJ]

HI Willi Von Klugerman,

Cigogne is right!
Check out the Pfalz Dr.I, a sweet little ride. I believe about twelve were built and possibly sent to front line units to be tried out. It is said that M.v.R. flew one and was not impressed with it's performance compared to the Fokker Dr.I. Also it sounds like Idflieg was getting out of the triplane ordering business. But during the Fokker Dr.I's heyday everybody's uncle was prototyping triplanes, more than I can shake a stick at!

I will look for some fotografs.

Regards, FOKKERJ

[Patrick]

According to Peter Grosz in Albatros Experimentals, the Alb Dr.I first appeared in September, 1917. By October, 1917 it was determined that the plane was tail-heavy and climbed poorly, and further development ceased.

It was essentially a D.V derivative, produced in response to Idflieg's interest in triplane designs. The single prototype unit was built using the fuselage from Alb D.Va D1573/17, powered by a Mercedes D.III rated at 160 hp and fitted with three wings of equal chord and span, no stagger and apparently zero dihedral. Each of the wings was equipped with ailerons whose motion was synchronized with connecting struts. Cooling was provided by two airfoil radiators mounted in the middle wing near the leading edge and close to the fuselage.

When you compare top and front views of the Alb Dr.I with the two best triplane designs, the Sopwith Triplane and Fokker Dr.I, it looks like a loser. The Alb Dr.I wings are too narrow in chord and too close together -- this combined with the lack of stagger meant that the top and bottom wings probably create interference in the air flow over the middle wing, reducing any lift it may have contributed. The wing arrangement probably also interferred with air flow over the tail surfaces as indicated by the reported tail-heaviness. The struts and rigging are numerous and draggy-looking.

Out of all the triplane designs I've seen, I agree with FOKKERJ -- the Pfalz Dr.I is the only one that looks like it could be in the same class as the Sopwith or Fokker designs. The Alb Dr.I and all the others are just half-hearted design exercises.

[Froggy]

Hi all

Not to be forgotten the Pfalz DIII Triplane conversion
Beautiful plane but unsucces full for the same reasons depicted by Patrick for the albatros DR1



Bruno

[FOKKERJ]

Thanks to Patrick and Froggy for the great fotografs, I apparently have lost or can't find my images!

Regards, FOKKERJ

[Willi Von Klugerman]

Patrick's right,the Pfalz DR1 looked triplane material.The Albatros DR1 looked like a body of a Albatros DVa slaped on with three wings.

[Sreiko]

Its look like the Triplane mania Look interesting and maybe easy for conversion.

[Patrick]

Especially in 1/32 scale

Very unusual subjects and the Alb even has a fairly colorful scheme. I think the Alb would be a tougher conversion than the Pfalz. Neither the upper or the lower Alb D.III/D.V/D.Va wings match the wings on the Alb Dr.I -- they're unique to this plane. Even the fuselage would have to be modded because the lower wing is hung below it. I think you may be able to salvage the stock Pfalz upper and lower wings for the D.III triplane conversion, with some mods.

[FOKKERJ]

Hi Willi Von Klugerman,

I still have not been able to access my images, but did find this one:





Mine may be bigger and clearer. I'll keep looking.

Regards, FOKKERJ