Pfalz D.III - Much Maligned?

[Pips 5]

Whenever comparisons are made between the Pfalz D.III/a and the Albatross D.V/a the Pfalz always comes off second best. The usual comment is that the Pfalz performance was sub-par to the Albatross, and so was the much less preferred aeroplane.

 

But is that true? Or just good PR (and political clout) by the Albatross firm? Similar to what Fokker achieved in 1918.

 

A look at performance figures, such as they are for this period, tells another story.

NB: The following numbers are drawn from the books "German Aircraft Of The First World War" by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford, and "Fighter Aircraft Of The 1914-1918 War" by W.M. Lamberton.

 

* At low level the Albatross D.V was faster than the Pfalz D.III - 117mph @ 3,280ft to 112mph @ 2,000ft.

 

* At mid altitude the Pfalz was faster than the Albatross - 102.5mph @ 10,000ft to 99mph @ 9,800ft.

 

* At higher altitude the advantage swings again in favour of the Albatross - 96mph @ 13,100ft to 91.5mph @ 15,000ft.

 

Overall the speed advantage of the Albatross is marginal (other than low down). Climb rate however is another matter.

 

* To 3,280ft the Pfalz does it in 3.25 min; the Albatross in 4 min.

 

* To 6,500ft the Pfalz does it in 7.25 min; the Alatross in 8.08 min.

 

* To 9,800ft the Pfalz races ahead in 11.75 min; the Albatross struggles up in 17.08 min.

 

* No climb figures for the Pfalz D.III are documented at heights of 13,100ft and 16,400ft. Although the D.IIIa is listed as climbing to 16,400ft in 33 min. The Albatross figures are 22.1 min to 13,100ft; and 35 min to 16,400ft.

 

Couple the far better climb rate of the Pfalz D.III with it's wonderfully strong wings (allowing a pilot to dive fearlessly) and it would appear that the Pfalz is the better fighter in the vertical. documentation on turn and roll rates are non existent. However a British report on a captured Pfalz D.III (4184/17) had this to say:

"The view from the cockpit was exellent in all directions, with the possible exception of the approach glide, when to some extent the top wing interfered. With regard to flight characteristics, the comment was that the aircraft was stable laterally and unstable directionall and longitudinally, which doubtless meant that general manoeuvrability was good, although the rate of roll was perhaps not what it might have been. It was also reported as answeringwell to all controls - much better than the Albatross D.V."

 

Food for thought?

[Flyby PC 23]

Food for thought exactly Pips. I don't know.

 

I do know despite being inferior that some WW2 Hurricane pilots preferred the Hurricane to the Spitfire. Both could out turn a 109, but it's less well known that despite common acknowledgement the Spit was the superior aircraft, during the period of Battle of Britain specifications, a Hurricane could also out turn a Spitfire.

 

It's an interesting subject to consider why a pilot may love or hate an aircraft in spite of it's performance.

 

 

In the WW1 context, the RFC had the Bristol M1-C first flying in 1916, which was a far superior aircraft to the Fokker EIII Eindecker, but despite glowing reports from pilots it was rejected for front line service because the British Air Ministry didn't trust the mono wing construction. In fact, now I could be wrong here, but a little voice is telling me that the Hurricane was the first monowinged British aircraft adopted for service as a front line fighter.

[Pips 5]

In the WW1 context, the RFC had the Bristol M1-C first flying in 1916, which was a far superior aircraft to the Fokker EIII Eindecker, but despite glowing reports from pilots it was rejected for front line service because the British Air Ministry didn't trust the mono wing construction.

 

Yep, the Bristol M1 had the potential to be an outstanding fighter aeroplane, it's trial's in France in January 1917 being considered very successful by the trial pilots. Indeed it could well have wrested air superiority from the Albatross D.III in 1917 had Trenchard not disapproved it's use. However, the RFC's ingrained bias against monoplanes stems back to two fatal crashes following the completion of the 1912 Military Trials. At the Trials monoplanes performed very well, the RFC being so impressed with their performance that it took several on charge at the completion of the Trials in August 1912.

Then on 6 September the French-built 100hp Gnome Deperdussin, flown by Captain Patrick Hamilton with Lieutenant Wyness-Stuart as passenegr, broke up in mid air and crashed at Graveley, near Welwyn. Both Hamilto and Wyness-Stuart were killed. Just four days later, on 10 September, another monoplane, a Bristol-Coanda, crashed. Lieutenants E. Hotchkiss and C. Bettington were on a flight from Larkhill to Cambridge when the monoplane was seen to start a descent at 2,000ft over Port Meadow, Oxford. At 500ft the descent became a steep dive; at 200ft fabric tore off the starboard wing and the aeroplane plummented into the ground, killing both men.

 

Shortly after this accident the RFC imposed the well-known ban on the flying of monoplanes.

 

In fact, now I could be wrong here, but a little voice is telling me that the Hurricane was the first monowinged British aircraft adopted for service as a front line fighter.

 

Yes it was.

[Pike Bishop 0]

Whenever comparisons are made between the Pfalz D.III/a and the Albatross D.V/a the Pfalz always comes off second best. The usual comment is that the Pfalz performance was sub-par to the Albatross, and so was the much less preferred aeroplane.

 

But is that true? Or just good PR (and political clout) by the Albatross firm? Similar to what Fokker achieved in 1918.

 

A look at performance figures, such as they are for this period, tells another story.

NB: The following numbers are drawn from the books "German Aircraft Of The First World War" by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford, and "Fighter Aircraft Of The 1914-1918 War" by W.M. Lamberton.

 

* At low level the Albatross D.V was faster than the Pfalz D.III - 117mph @ 3,280ft to 112mph @ 2,000ft.

 

* At mid altitude the Pfalz was faster than the Albatross - 102.5mph @ 10,000ft to 99mph @ 9,800ft.

 

* At higher altitude the advantage swings again in favour of the Albatross - 96mph @ 13,100ft to 91.5mph @ 15,000ft.

 

 

 

Dear pips,

What I cannot understand is that with WWI aircraft there are no superchargers (excepting the DVIIF) so as one goes higher the air gets thinner proportionally. Therefore there should be a proportional change in speed. The wing loading and power loading will also show a PROPORTIONAL chage. If you know thwe wing loading this will tell you whether one aircraft can out-turn another and the power loading will tell you how much excess power is available to maintain speed (or height) while turning.

Most of this can be worked out on paper as near as dammit.

Best regards,

Pike.

 

Overall the speed advantage of the Albatross is marginal (other than low down). Climb rate however is another matter.

 

* To 3,280ft the Pfalz does it in 3.25 min; the Albatross in 4 min.

 

* To 6,500ft the Pfalz does it in 7.25 min; the Alatross in 8.08 min.

 

* To 9,800ft the Pfalz races ahead in 11.75 min; the Albatross struggles up in 17.08 min.

 

* No climb figures for the Pfalz D.III are documented at heights of 13,100ft and 16,400ft. Although the D.IIIa is listed as climbing to 16,400ft in 33 min. The Albatross figures are 22.1 min to 13,100ft; and 35 min to 16,400ft.

 

Couple the far better climb rate of the Pfalz D.III with it's wonderfully strong wings (allowing a pilot to dive fearlessly) and it would appear that the Pfalz is the better fighter in the vertical. documentation on turn and roll rates are non existent. However a British report on a captured Pfalz D.III (4184/17) had this to say:

"The view from the cockpit was exellent in all directions, with the possible exception of the approach glide, when to some extent the top wing interfered. With regard to flight characteristics, the comment was that the aircraft was stable laterally and unstable directionall and longitudinally, which doubtless meant that general manoeuvrability was good, although the rate of roll was perhaps not what it might have been. It was also reported as answeringwell to all controls - much better than the Albatross D.V."

 

Food for thought?

[Olham 164]

Pips, I guess you could be right, the Pfalz D.IIIa might have been the better fighter.

 

The sturdy dive alone would have let me prefer it to "my beloved Albatros" in real life.

The vision is at least equal, if not better in the Pfalz.

What she may lack in turn-ability, she could balance with safer energy/vertical fighting.

Her better climb is a big plus!

 

As far as I know the German ace Erich Löwenhardt from Jasta 10 flew the Pfalz, like many other aces (Carl Degelow, Josef Jacobs).

 

Maybe the Pfalz was only more difficult to build and couldn't be made in such numbers as the Albatros?

 

Now you may ask yourself, why I still fly the Albatros mostly.

Well, I know the Fokker Dr.1 or the D.VII even more, would get me better successes.

But it's the beauty of the Albatros, which I fell in love with.

No other plane makes me fall for it like she does.

Love isn't rational...

 

.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Olham

[Flyby PC 23]

On a closely related subject, despite it's iconic image, I've never understood why the DR1 was so revered. Manouverable yes, I get that, decent climb from low level, ok I get that too, but it was slow and a bit outdated in my opinion and a good number of aces were also killed, or at least died while flying them. I get the impression the German Jastas were more impressed with the DR1 than the allied pilots were, and think the appeal of the manouverability was helpful for surviving a dogfight, but it gave the plane limited edge or potency as an all out fighter / interceptor.

 

 

Iconic yes, but was such status ever fully deserved? Not convinced it was. Albatross was always the work horse, and the DVII was much more competitive adversary, and incidentally there were 10 times the number of D7's built as DR1's.

 

It was also playing catch up to the Sopwith Triplehound, so surely the RFC or RNAS were aware how tripes flew and fought.

 

 

 

Edit I wasn't thinking it at the time, but Voss survived for a time against what, 6 SE5s wasn't it? Putting rounds into all of them, (but not shooting any down). The little DR1 was good for getting out somebody's gunsight, but a limited threat to a faster and more powerful aircraft. Is that an unfair summary?The Sopwith Tripe is hardly famous at all outside limited WW1 circles, but yet in it's day was much more of a handful for the Germans, than the DR1 was for the Brits.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

Had the Fokker Dr.1 entered full service as she should have, late summer 1917, she would have been very dangerous;

but the wing failures forced Fokker to withdraw all craft, and so they were only really serviceable in spring 1918.

 

What made the craft so special was the overall "instability", it seems.

The craft didn't do anything you did not do with the stick; it wouldn't settle in the air and fly straight; you had to hold it -

but it would do almost everything you performed on the stick.

The ability to perform a "flat turn" must have been such, that the craft could almost fully turn round without even banking;

still flying horizontally! (It had no tail fin to make her fly straight - only a moving rudder).

Werner Voss made great use of that in his famous fight, and hit all 5 S.E.5a, as far as I know.

 

The Dr.1 sure was an extraordinary turn fighter - with great turnability in both directions; not only to the right like the Sopwith Camel.

The Germans used it with good effect in combination with energy fighters; like the Entente did with Nupes and SPADs for example.

But like with all fighters - it always depended on the abilities of the pilots, to make real good use of a craft.

.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Olham

[Hasse Wind 46]

The Dr.I was undoubtedly a great fighter in the hands of a skilled pilot, but it definitely wasn't the best choice for an inexperienced pilot. The Albatros and the Pfalz, which were used in the same time period, were much easier to fly and better suited to the skills of the average fighter pilot. The Dr.I was also too slow, and while it was great in a turn fight, it really couldn't get out of a fight against more powerful Entente fighters, such as the SPAD and the SE.5a.

 

One of the most important reasons why the Fokker D.VII was so extremely successful was its benign flight characteristics. You didn't have to be a Voss to fly it really well in combat.

[Flyby PC 23]

But the Sopwith Triplehound had the same advantages over the Albatross III in December 1916, and so inspired the Germans they held competitions to create their own triplane. Then there's the famous "Black Flight" of Canadian Triplehounds, B Flight, 210 squadron, claiming 87 German kills in three months. Did I say famous? Prior to my OFF enthusiam, I'd never even heard of them. Truth be known, I'd never even heard of a British Triplane!! While popular and successful during its short service life, I can't help feeling the RNAS or RFC recognised the limitations of the design and characterisitics, and discontinued their interest in subsequent developments. A noteable problem being wing stability and excess drag in a dive, the same problems which blighted the Dr1. The whole world knows the bright red Dr1, but hardly a soul outside of WW1 interest groups knows anything about the black nosed Triplehounds which in large part inspired the creation of the Dr1.

 

The Sopwith was superseded before the Dr1 appeared, and it's hard to imagine how the Allied engineers could have seen the Dr1 as anything other an obsolete design, - perhaps as an updated and powered up concept, but an obsolete concept all the same.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Flyby PC

[Olham 164]

... but it was ugly as a soap box!

[Hasse Wind 46]

There's also the logistical side of things to consider. The Triplane was difficult to maintain in the field, and often had to be shipped to a depot for repairs.

[Dej 17]

I know I'm drifting OT from the OP, as it were, but the mention of Voss' iconic battle against the SE5s of No. 56 Squadron, prompts me to wonder again why that incident is always held up as the exemplar of a Triplane's manoeuvrability.

 

On 7th April 1917 the Australian ace, Robert Little, in Sopwith Triplane N5493, flew into a flight of 11 enemy scouts over Arras and outflew them single handedly for half an hour. Legend has it that these aircraft were from Jasta 11 and that Richthofen saw the fight from the ground and reported to Anthony Fokker as to the Triplanes abilities.

 

Geoffrey Bromet, later an Air-Vice Marshall, also saw the engagement from the ground and reported, "At 6.45 on April 7th,1917, a Sopwith Triplane, working alone, attacked eleven hostile machines, almost all Albatros scouts, North East of Arras. He completely outclassed the whole patrol...diving through them and climbing above them."

 

Of the same battle a 3rd Army AA officer witnessed the dogfight as well and recorded, "At 6.45 on April 7th 1917 ....drawing them all the time towards the AA guns .... the AA opened fire on the patrol which turned eastwards ... the manoeuvring of the triplane completely outclassed that of the Albatros scout."

 

Not in any way detracting from Voss' bravery but he wasn't the first Triplane jockey to completely outfight a much more numerous foe.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Nice to have this kind of discussion on the forum. If I may, I would like to add a few words:

 

Regarding the Pfalz versus the Albatross DV.

 

Part of the bias, if there is any, I think, is due to prior reputation. The Albatross DII and DIII are most often associated with the latter part of the "Fokker scourge," and were the first German aircraft to effectively take on the DH2, Sopwith Pup, and Nieuport 11. On the other hand, I don't think the Pfalz had any such reputation. Because of this, I think most people were biased in favor of expecting the DV to be an improvement on its well-known predecessor, the DIII. In fact, it was largely a disappointment both in terms of speed, turn, and climb. But, we all know that reputation can go a long way....

 

Regarding the DR1, I think FlybyPC is absolutely right when he said that the German pilots were perhaps more impressed with the DR1 than the Allied pilots. Up until the DR1, most German scouts (including the Albatross series) emphasized climb over turning ability. For pilots used to the Albatross and used to going up against the much more maneuverable Sopwith Pup and Triplane, the DR1 must have felt like a real momentum turner in terms of the comparative advantage of one side's planes over the other. Also, in regard to the so-called slowness of the DR1, I have seen references to it having a top speed of 102 mph or 115 mph, with the latter placing it in the same category as the Camel. Of course, in terms or relative speed, the DR1 was much slower than many of its contemporaries, including the Spad VII, XIII, and the Se5a.

[Olham 164]

... wonder again why that incident is always held up as the exemplar of a Triplane's manoeuvrability.

It isn't, Dej. It is only held as the exemplar for the Fokker Dr.1's manoeuverability.

[Dej 17]

It isn't, Dej. It is only held as the exemplar for the Fokker Dr.1's manoeuverability.

 

Well, perhaps 'exemplar' is a less than appropriate word, then.

 

One rarely hears about the Sopwith Triplane anyway, MvR and Voss among others having secured that historic aviation connection for the Fokker variant... but even among WW1 aviation enthusiasts, when one talks of the Triplne in action I can count the times Little's engagement is mentioned on the fingers of one foot!

 

Incidently, I've not managed to meet Little's example in OFF. Four D.IIIs is the most I've downed in one engagement in Campaign and a full batch of aces in QC. Not that this is representative of course. As is oft pointed out, we WW1 aviation simmers have far more virtual experience than the real experience of those whose memory we attempt to honour.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Dej

[Flyby PC 23]

I think another factor was the reluctant British attitude towards portraying its pilots, particularly ace pilots as celebrities. Its perhaps only now we're beginning to review these remarkable actions in a more dispassionate context and recognising features which didn't get the recognition they deserved. Where Voss is concerned, I have always interpreted the account of his SE5 encounter as mark of his superior ability as a pilot. I confess I'd never heard of Robert Little taking on 11 enemy aircraft. Now that I have, more than ever, I can see a pattern to the exchanges, which may or may not be accurate. The third wing gave a triplane greater lift and passage of air over control surfaces, but the extra wing also created drag to slow it down. As you notice in WW2 sims, greater speeds are harder to manouvre due to the drag on control surfaces.

 

In my minds eye, I am now seeing the triplanes as nippy little 'stunt' planes which can quickly roll or turn out of trouble, but equally quickly roll back in to fall in behind an overshooting energy fighter and squeeze off a burst as it departs. Flying like this, I can see the alert triplane being very hard to hit, but getting frequent although brief and fleeting beads on targets. Perhaps it's easy to clip an enemy, but more difficult to sustain an attack to bring one down. It's this I mean when I say potency. The success of the Sopwith impressed the Germans because the issue of power (or lack of it to drive yourself out of trouble), made this manouvreability a telling factor, but when the DR1 came along, the fighters it faced were more powerful relative to itself, and I suspect it would be difficult for a Dr1 pilot to persuade an enemy aircraft to engage in a turning dogfight. The British pilots would surely know how the Sopwith Tripes flew, and be aware of it's manouvreability, and how to avoid giving them the initiative in battle. I know the Dr1's made numerous kills, but it would be interesting to know how many were bounces on unsuspecting targets, and how many were successful full-on 'jousts' with an alert enemy.

[Dej 17]

One reason for the Sopwith Triplane's obscurity of course is the fact that it saw service for a brief period before it was supplanted by the Camel, and then only with the RNAS. Nevertheless, in that brief period (April to July '17), Little, for example scored 24 victories. Nor was he the only high scorer on the type.

 

As you say, Flyby, the Tripe rewarded certain tactics. Little was renowned as a close-in fighter and superlative shot, he was nicknamed 'Rikki' by his squadron after the mongoose in Kipling's story. Some of Hellshade's Triplane videos make me think very much of Little.

[Pips 5]

The Fokker Triplane was a far more effective fighting aeroplane than the Sopwith Triplane. It was faster (although only slightly) at all altitudes (except sea level); climb rate was superior by a handsome margin at all altitudes; it turned more quickly and it did this armed with two machine guns. And it possessed excellent zoom qualities as compared to biplane fighters. However by the time of it's introduction (effectively 1918 in numbers) it was outpaced by all fighters except the Sopwith Camel. And to catch anything it had to have the height advantage; but if it did then the enemy aeroplane had a real fight on it's hand.

 

It was that same zoom quality that so impressed the Germans when the Sopwith Tripe made it's appearance. It was slightly faster than the standard Albatross D.III, and it possessed a far better climb rate and excellent zoom. This allowed any skilled pilot (and the standard amongst the RNAS was much higher than the RFC of 1917)to easily gain the height advantage and execute dive and zoom atacks as illustrated by Robert Little in the account above. But it had a slow roll rate, and although sustained turn rate was good, instantaneous turn rate was nothing to write home about. And only being armed with one machine gun out it at a decided disadvantage.

 

A really good book to read about how effective the Sopwith Triplane was, and it's impact on the Western Front is:

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Well, this post has made me decide to try a campaign again with the Pfalz....I did in the past, but it was short lived..... (maybe it should be called the Widowmaker)...but, I'm a slightly more 'sophisticated' pilot these days..and I pick my fights..rather than go steaming in...so, perhaps I shall live a bit longer this time

[Olham 164]

Dej, I must admit, that I know little about the Sopwith Triplane or Little's fight until today - I will have to read the book Pips recommended.

As a graphic designer with some PR knowledge I can only say: MvR had the better overall public relations.

You can't beat the alarming effects of red, orange and yellow - the red Triplane became THE aircraft people remember to have seen,

when it's about World War One aviation. But no doubt, Sopwith built one first.

As far as I know, both the British as well as the German Triplane were hard to maintain in the field, and had often to be shipped back

to a maintenance/Armee-Flugpark.

The Sopwith Triplane always looks to me like a high class/best material fighter. The wooden struts alone cause that impression.

Widow, you could ask our Pfalz specialist for advice - Hasse Wind.

I also need to fly her again in campaign, and I remember, she didn't turn as well as the Albatros with her nose above horizon.

Keep her horizon-level in tight turns, or below. Avoid long turn fighting.

But you can safely get out of bad situations in steep dives - she is sturdy - and in safe distance you turn the energy into height again.

.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Olham

[Pike Bishop 0]

Dear pips,

What I cannot understand is that with WWI aircraft there are no superchargers (excepting the DVIIF) so as one goes higher the air gets thinner proportionally. Therefore there should be a proportional change in speed. The wing loading and power loading will also show a PROPORTIONAL change. If you know the wing loading this will tell you whether one aircraft can out-turn another and the power loading will tell you how much excess power is available to maintain speed (or height) while turning.

Most of this can be worked out on paper as near as dammit.

Best regards,

Pike.

[Olham 164]

Pike, maybe you want to read and see through this document:

Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter Aircraft from WWI

 

http://home.comcast.net/~clipper-108/AIAAPaper2005-119.pdf

 

I guess you need to be good with physics and diagrams, but this documentation contains

a lot about loadings, weights and rates - enjoy!

 

And if you find something and can translate it into common English, I'll be grateful.

[Olham 164]

... expecting the DV to be an improvement on its well-known predecessor, the DIII.

In fact, it was largely a disappointment both in terms of speed, turn, and climb. ...

Well, it WAS an improvement over the D.III - only not as much of an improvement as everybody had desired.

 

... in terms or relative speed, the DR1 was much slower than many of its contemporaries, including the Spad VII, XIII, and the Se5a.

Still though, Manfred von Richthofen (Dr.1) chased May (Camel) over a distance of 3 or 4 miles.

Which brings up the question, how much an experienced pilot could get out of his craft, if he knew it through and through.

Since the Dr.1 climbs very good, MvR could have used short climbs, to turn the gained height into speed in shallow dives.

We'd need a physician to clear, if that makes sense.

Anyone?

 

.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Olham

[HumanDrone 4]

I don't think that short climbs followed by dives would give you more speed that flat-out straight & level. To get from "A" to "B" at a given thrust & coefficient of drag requires a given energy, so unless (1) he was able to pick up on some thermals that his adversary didn't, and/or (2) his plane was more efficient in a climb (less drag), it's going to end up slowing him down.

 

I love the discussions on this board!

 

Tom

[Olham 164]

Just found this post from 2006 at "The Aerodrome", posted by "Bletchley" (our Bletchley?):

 

Looking at my copy of Peter L Gray's "The Pfalz D.III" (Profile Publications no.43), 1965:

 

British figures from a captured D.III (160 hp Mercedes)

 

Max. speed at 10,000 ft. 102.5 mph, at 15,000 ft. 91.5 mph. Climb to 5000 ft in 6 min., to 15,000 ft in 41 min. 20 sec.

 

 

German figures (not sourced)

 

Max. speed 165 km. hr. (103.12 mph). Climb to 1,000 m. (3,280 ft.) in 3.25 min., to 2,000 m (6,560 ft) in 7.25 min., to 3,000 m (9,840 ft.) in 11.75 min.

 

D.IIIa (175/180 hp Mercedes): at a loaded weight of 911 kg. (2,004 lb) made test climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft.) in 33 min. on 4th Feb. 1918.

 

Author comments that:

 

"In service the Pfalz seems to have been a considerably maligned machine; many stories, probably most of them

apocryphal, circulating as to its unsuitability: "too slow", "does not climb", "too heavy", "won't recover from a spin",

"fuselage weak", "not properly constructed", "tail weak and liable to break off", etc. In actual fact it was quite a good,

rugged aeroplane. Initially there was a tendency to failure of the upper wing wing-tips in combat...but stronger spars

were ordered to rectify this. The Pfalz could dive a good deal faster than any other German fighter and with excellent

stability, in consequence it provided a good gun platform. Its style of construction endowed it with an ability to absorb

a fair degree of punishment. There certainly was a tendency for the machine to get in a flat spin from which it was

exceedingly difficult to recover. In a report dated 25th October 1917, Jasta 24 expressed the following opinion...'It is

slower than the Albatros D III; it is fast in a dive and is then faster than the Albatros D V. The climbing performance...

varies greatly, sometimes almost as good as the average Albatros D V but never better'

 

Also: "The tailplane and one-piece unbalanced elevator were an angular, trapezoidal shape...The section was of inverse

camber which gave stability in a prolonged dive and considerably assisted recovery"

 

Hope this is of some help!

 

Bletchley