"Albatros Man" strikes again - No wing failures with Albatros D.III OAW ?

[Olham 164]

I was surprised to read in the VanWyngarden book, that the majority of all ever built Albatros D.III

had been produced at Ostdeutsche Albatros-Werke (OAW) Schneidemühl.

While Albatros Johannisthal had produced 508 Albatros D.III, the Ostdeutsche Albatroswerke

had produced 838 - that 330 aircraft more.

 

But what really surprised me most was, what he wrote about wing reinforcements on the OAW-

built D.III. That sounds like there weren't any wing failures recorded on Albatros D.III (OAW).

Interesting read - here is the excerpt from the book:

 

 

[+elephant 36]

The Albatros D.III (OAW) and the D.V were produced in the same time frame.

The first D.V-s were operational with Jasta 11 at mid May 17,

while the D.III-s (OAW) in June.

The lower wing reinforcement didn't stop with the D.V wing.

The D.Va-s built by OAW, had additional lower wing reinforcements, adding more weight to the plane,

so the reduction of the fuel tank capacity was decided in order to counter the weight increase, without performance compromise.

Considering this, I guess that the problem with the lower wing in steep dives was never eliminated.

I believe that the pilots just were aware of it and flew the plane accordingly, (thus the reduction of wing failure incidents).

The problem was most prominent at the transition from D.II to D.III,

when pilots flew the D.III as if it was a D.II, resulting the lower wing flutter in steep dives.

 

Edited July 31, 2012 by elephant

[Hasse Wind 46]

Were those wing problems ever satisfactorily solved in any sesquiplane fighter type of WW1?

[Panama Red 22]

Yes, the Austrian version of the D.III.

[Olham 164]

I guess that the problem with the lower wing in steep dives was never eliminated.

I believe that the pilots just were aware of it and flew the plane accordingly, (thus the reduction of wing failure incidents).

Yes, that's what I had thought, until I read a passage about Arthur Gould Lee getting chased down by an Albatros.

Lee dived down almost vertical, and he heard the structure of his Pup make aching noises.

Still though "yellow-nose" was after him, following his dive firing.

 

When you look at the reinforcements, they are very solidly built metal works.

We will never know for sure, who of us assumes the right version of course - we can only make assumptions.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Maybe we could hire a pilot to test one of those Albatros replicas in a steep dive?

[Panama Red 22]

Hasse Wind:

To continue the answer to your question, in the Flying Machine Press "Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One" page 248. it talks about the Austrian version of the Albatros D.III (Oef) and says:

 

Not content with the original German design, Oeffag engineers developed a stronger wing and airframe-in the process creating a tough, beautifully-built aircraft that could take increasingly more powerful engines without extensive modifications.

 

... as a precautionary measure triggered by reports of recurring D.III wing failures on the Western Front. The farsighted action of the Oeffag engineers was vindicated for, by refusing to copy the German wing cellule, they had made signicant improvements which were outlined in an LFT report: 1) The German spars and ribs are appreciably weaker than those of the 53.2 series. 2) Ribs between the main and auxiliary spar are solid and constructed of heavier plywood. 3) Spar flange thickness is increased from 10 to 20 mm at stress points. 4) Metal reinforcing is added between the main and auxiliary spar. 5) The front auxiliary spar is prevented from twisting by a metal fixture at the fuselage juncture.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Panama Red

[Hasse Wind 46]

That's very interesting. Thanks for the post, Panama Red.

 

Now all we need is the Italian front in OFF and then we can fly that Austrian super-Albatros!

[Beanie 4]

 

Now all we need is the Italian front in OFF and then we can fly that Austrian super-Albatros!

 

As if Olham needs any more excuses to fly an Albatros!

[Olham 164]

According to the German Wikipedia page about the Albatros D.III OeFFAG, she must

have been much superiour over her German sister. Here is the essence of the article:

 

The OeFFAG Albatros D.III had a stronger engine (Austro-Daimler with 185 PS),

and most important, a totally new designed, resistant to twisting lower wing.

There were the series 53.2 and 153, and in 1918 the series 253 - each with a

stronger engine than it's predecessor.

 

The last series had no spinner, because the nose had to be elongated to fit

with the larger engine. With this, the OeFFAG D.III outperformed by far her

German model.

 

The OeFFAG Albatros could even compete with the Sopwith Camel; she was (only!)

slightly slower than the SPAD VII.

About the 1918 version 253 the pilots from Flik 61J and 63J said things like:

Outstanding - the best aircraft we have ever flown; and superior to any other

fighter aircraft; solidly built, reliable, agile and well-climbing.

They even prefered the OeFFAG D.III 253 from the more modern Aviatik Berg or

the Phoenix D.I and D.II.

 

Only drawback of the OeFFAG D.III was the low firing cadence of the Austrian

Schwarzlose machine guns.

 

Source: http://de.wikipedia....ki/Oeffag_D.III

 

What a great aircraft could the Albatros D.III have been with the Austrian lower

wing, and their stronger engines; and the German 08/15 "Spandau" MGs.

 

Note: see the performance chart in the WKIPEDIA website!

 

.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Olham

[Olham 164]

Now I have for comparison a photo of the lower wing of Koloman Mayrhofer's OeFFAG Albatros replica,

and another of the lower wing of "The Vintage Aviator" Albatros D.Va.

 

The major visible difference seems to be the differing thickness of the wing spar on the OeFFAG-Type,

to which the V-strut got attached. But also the other spars look by far more solid than those on the German

D.Va. One should think, it would have been easy for the German producers to change this?

 

 

 

 

[Hasse Wind 46]

Maybe it's another example of the poor cooperation between Germany and Austria-Hungary during WW1. They were allies, but compared to the Entente powers, their alliance was more troubled.

[JFM 18]

Koloman told me the German designers looked down their noses a bit at the Austrians.

 

 

BTW, in future, Eastern Front Expansion for WOFF?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Olham 164]

Well, eastern front might be a bit far east - but the Italian front would be a great next goal.

 

I always thought Austria was the older, senior Kaiserreich. But maybe since Prussia had beaten

the Austrians, they did look down on them a bit.

We Germans are still named "Piefke" by the Austrians, or at least the people from Vienna;

after the composer of the Prussian victory march, which was played, when they paraded in Vienna.

The composer had got his will, to march in front of the musicians and direct them, and the Viennese

pointed at him from their windows and said: "There comes Piefke!"

 

I guess we Germans still fall into other peoples houses with the front door (an old saying in German

about a person who is always a bit too direct).

Edited August 4, 2012 by Olham

[Panama Red 22]

JFM:

You do know that there is an Italian Front mod for FE / FE2 as well as an Eastern Front mod that is in the works at the moment.

 

As for the OFF series, yes, I would love to see an Italian Front and Eastern Front Campaigns in the future too.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Me too! Great thread BTW everyone, very informative.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Imperial Germany did exactly that - they treated Austria as their little brother. That was one of the reasons which made their alliance in WW1 troubled. For example in the Eastern front, the relationships between the top generals of Germany and Austria-Hungary were often very ugly. The Entente powers had their fair share of troubles, but in the end they were able to better overcome them and form a very strong alliance.

 

But in case of the Albatros design, it seems that the Germans were the little brothers!

[Olham 164]

They were pig ignorant I'd say!

[JFM 18]

In haste I typed "Eastern" but I really meant "Italian"--although I'll take any front. Especially WOFF's Western Front.

 

Yes, Panama, I have the Italian Front mod for FE2. That was right when CA went down and the official WOFF forum was switched to SimHQ. Awful lot of downloading, etc., but I got it going. I made a few new menu screens for it, as well. It's been fun, and lovely terrain to fly over.

[Olham 164]

As we posted about the Albatros D.III (OeFFAG) from Austria;

here is a long video of Mayrhofer's replica with the original Austro-Daimler engine

(hear that sound!) on it's maiden flight day. Enjoy!

 

http://s306.photobucket.com/albums/nn277/kolomay/?action=view&current=AlbatrosErstflug.mp4

[Hauksbee 103]

Which model Albatros is this? I've never seen one without a prop spinner. Also, it seems that he has a self-starter in the cockpit. His crew 'pulled' the prop through several rev's to get fuel and compression, but all were standing clear when the engine fired.

[Bullethead 12]

Which model Albatros is this? I've never seen one without a prop spinner. Also, it seems that he has a self-starter in the cockpit. His crew 'pulled' the prop through several rev's to get fuel and compression, but all were standing clear when the engine fired.

 

The Austrians didn't like the propeller spinner on their Albs. Originally, Oesterreichische Flugzeugfabrik AG (Oeffag) built Albs per the German design with the fuselage faired into a spinner ahead of the prop. But the troops didn't like the spinner and often removed it. This was so common that Oeffag redesigned the fuselage to end behind the prop. This change was introduced partway through the production run of the 153 series and was standard in the later 253 series. Here are some pics from Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One by Grosz, Haddow, and Schiemer.

[Olham 164]

This is the Albatros D.III (OeFFAG)*, which was built in Austria under license.

The craft had a different (stronger) engine - the Austro-Daimler.

The Series 253 had a longer engine; that's why the spinner was dropped.

Another major improvement was a much sturdier lower wing, which did not

fail in dives, like on the German Albatros sesquiplanes.

 

The craft is said to have had a great climb and speed.

It was prefered by the Austrian fighter pilots before even later designs of other

fighters, until the end of the war.

 

Series 153 / 253

Engine: Austro-Daimler 200 PS......... /.. 225 PS

Top speed: ...................188 km/h......./...202 km/h

Climb to 1.000 Meter:....2 Min 30 Sec /...2 Min 15 Sec

Climb to 3.000 Meter: .10 Min 15 Sec /...9 Min 15 Sec

Climb to 5.000 Meter: .21 Min 40 Sec / 20 Min 15 Sec

 

 

* Oesterreichische Flugzeugzeugfabrik AG (Austrian Aircraft Factory PLC)

 

.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Olham

[Bullethead 12]

The craft is said to have had a great climb and speed.

It was prefered by the Austrian fighter pilots before even later designs of other

fighters, until the end of the war.

 

The Austrian Alb D.IIIs were definitely good machines, especially the D.III(Oef) Series 253. They were also the only fighters the Austrians had in any real quantity, although "real quantity" in Austrian terms means "precious few" to any other air force. Of this small number of planes, most were total crap. On top of this, they were handicapped by a lack of a synchronized gun mount until well into 1917. So it's not surprising the Austrians really liked their Albatri :).

 

]Series 153 / 253[/b]

Engine: Austro-Daimler 200 PS......... /.. 225 PS

Top speed: ...................188 km/h......./...202 km/h

Climb to 1.000 Meter:....2 Min 30 Sec /...2 Min 15 Sec

Climb to 3.000 Meter: .10 Min 15 Sec /...9 Min 15 Sec

Climb to 5.000 Meter: .21 Min 40 Sec / 20 Min 15 Sec

 

My book on Austrian planes disagrees with the climb numbers. It says:

 

Series 153 (with spinner):

1000m in 2m35s

3000m in 11m30s

5000m in 33min

 

Series 253:

1000m in 3m5s

3000m in 11m20s

5000m in 27m

 

So, the 253 started out with a slower climb but got better at higher altitude than the 153. And even with the numbers shown here, the 253 still climbed better than any other Austrian fighter (most of which were prototypes, not production machines) tested at the July 1918 competition at Aspern.

[Bullethead 12]

This is the Albatros D.III (OeFFAG)*, which was built in Austria under license.

The craft had a different (stronger) engine - the Austro-Daimler.

The Series 253 had a longer engine; that's why the spinner was dropped.

 

FWIW, here's what my book says (besides the caption of the pic above)...

 

Albatros D.III(Oef) Series 153

As soon as it became available, the high-compressions 200hp Daimler engine was mounted in the standard production airframe (meaning the earlier D.III(Oef) Series 53.2) and output continued under the designation Alabtros D.III(Oef) series 153. Between July 1917 and June 1918 a total of 281 fighters, numbered 153.01 to 153.281, were delivered. The second production batch (starting with 153.112, ordered October 1917) was designed with a rounded nose to eliminate the spinner, which was prone to fly off and damage the airframe. In addition, German wind tunnel tests had demonstrated that replacing the spinner by a simple, rounded nose improved propeller efficiency, which in this case resulted in a speed increase of of some 14kmph (9mph).

 

And from then on, this type of nose was standard and thus was on the Series 253. Meanwhile early Series 153 flew with their spinners removed, leaving a flat nose. It's a shame, really, because I think the German-style spinner nose looks a lot cooler and the Austrian nose spoils the plane's otherwise beautiful lines.

 

As to the sizes of the various engines, the Daimler 185hp in the D.II and D.III Series 53.2 was the exact same size as the 200hp in the D.III Series 153, and from what I can tell, the 225hp of the Series 253 was little or no longer than these. But the spinnerless nose came in with the 153 a good 7 months before the 253 entered production.

 

The change in design of the nose from spinner to spinnerless was really very simple because it didn't involve any structure. It was just replacing 1 sheet metal fairing with another. The original was a truncated cone, the slope of which was continued by the spinner. The new type started at the same attachment points to the main structure but was a short, blunt dome with a hole in the middle for the crankshaft.

 

Otherwise, all Austrian Albatri used the exact same fuselage from the D.II to the Series 253. The only difference between a D.II(Oef) Series 53 and a D.III(Oef) Series 53.2 was the wings. The only difference between a D.III Series 53.2 and a Series 153 was the engine (and the different nose fairing in later 153s). And the only difference between a late 153 and a 253 was the engine again.