RAF_Louvert 101 Posted July 6, 2012 . Thought I'd share this one with you folks as I know you all appreciate such things. While I have run across this particular photo many times over the years, I've never seen an example of it as large as this one or with as much detail. Enjoy! Lou . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hasse Wind 46 Posted July 6, 2012 Poor Pfalz, missing a few parts here and there. A great pic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UK_Widowmaker 571 Posted July 6, 2012 I always think what a beautiful fuselage the DIII has...very aerodynamic, and ahead of it's time Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
angles1100 0 Posted July 7, 2012 Poor bird she wont be flying in that condition great pic thanks cheers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RAF_Louvert 101 Posted July 7, 2012 . Widowmaker, I also find the Pfalz D.III to be quite a beautiful bird and advanced looking for her time. Hasse Wind and angles1100, even though there is some damage showing in the photo, I imagine the kite as seen had been disassembled for moving. I asked for any info concerning this photo over at the Great War Forum and here is Dolphin's response: Lou The photograph of the captured Pfalz D.IIIa 4022/17 of Jasta 29 was taken at No (9) Sqn RFC's base at Montigny Farm on 1 January 1918. The Pfalz was brought down near Le Transloy by anti-aircraft fire on 28 December 1917 and the pilot, Vzfw Max Brandenburg, was taken Prisoner of War. The captured aeroplane was allotted the British serial number G116. I hope this helps you. Gareth From this info I might gather that this plane did in fact fly again as it was not common practice to assign a unit number to a pile of kindling. . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JFM 18 Posted July 9, 2012 Hello, Perhaps the most famous "kindling" the RFC assigned a G number to was Voss's wreck, designated G 72. Just as an FYI, that top photo is not 4022/17. It is actually 8282/17, a Jasta 35b Pfalz DIIIa shot down 25 April 1918 and assigned Brigade No. G/3Bde/4. In the photo below of the same plane, you can see its serial began with "82." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RAF_Louvert 101 Posted July 10, 2012 . Wowzers! Now that's a high quality photo. Many thanks for sharing it Jim, and for the correction concerning this particular plane. . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carrick58 23 Posted July 10, 2012 How did the pilot ever land on that wagon ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 10, 2012 Great pics, Lou and JFM! And - compared to many other posts here lately - not at all "OT". Thank you guys! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JFM 18 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Hey, ran across this shot in the archives. It's a Roland and not a Pfalz, but what the hell : Edited July 11, 2012 by JFM Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 11, 2012 Aaaahhh - the beautiful Roland D.VI ! A wonderful photo, JFM! Look at the cables for the ailerons! Even the Roland sticker is recognisable. What instrument is so important, that he put it in his sight? The RPM gauge? Is that an ammo counter behind the guns? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+elephant 36 Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Great pictures! Thanks Jim and Lou! I think it's an altimeter Olham and yes, it's an ammo counter... Edited July 11, 2012 by elephant Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hasse Wind 46 Posted July 11, 2012 I hope we'll have more German altimetres in WOFF. In P3, most of the German fighters lack them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 11, 2012 An altimeter? But why should anyone block his forward view with an altimeter? You'd only do that, if you needed to keep an eye on the gauge. In those days it wasn't so very important, at which altitude you just were. Except, if he went into clouds often. Maybe they did exactly that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hasse Wind 46 Posted July 11, 2012 It won't block the vision too much at that location, even though it's not the place where you typically had such instruments, as far as I know. I'd rather fly an aircraft with an altimeter than without. I'm sure many WW1 pilots felt the same way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 11, 2012 Yes, of course - I also would prefer to have an altimeter. My point is: why should I block my forward vision with a gauge? Only answer I could think of: when it is important to keep a constant watch at it. Now an altimeter is not that important that you must have it in your sight. An RPM gauge might be - when you dive after an enemy plane. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JFM 18 Posted July 11, 2012 That appears to be offset to starboard, so he could still aim the guns okay. Beyond that, IMO wouldn't be much of a problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 12, 2012 Offset or not - a gauge of that size, so close to your eyes, could hide a whole attacking fighter, until it is very close. Of course, he could move his head left and right often enough to check. But why should I do that? Why should altitude be so important? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hasse Wind 46 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) For some reason, they made that kind of field modification to the altimeter. Usually they were inside the cockpit, and not attached to the upper wing. I don't know why they did it in this case. Edited July 12, 2012 by Hasse Wind Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Creaghorn 10 Posted July 12, 2012 afaik every pilot could set the gauges to his likes. some wanted it one way, some the other. the altimeter centred or left, the fuel gauge right etc. and some also had room issues if they were taller or whatever. maybe this one wanted the rather big altimeter out of his cockpit because it too too much of space away and made him feel unconfortable Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Olham 164 Posted July 12, 2012 Good point, Creaghorn. The guy looks quite tall. Does anyone know who he is? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
