Albatross D.Va D.5390/17

[+elephant 36]

Here is a close up of an anemometer mounted on the starboard V strut of an Albatros D.5a (Wingnut Wings).

 

[Olham 164]

Now that's the right picture to demonstrate the matter - thanks, elephant.

 

What makes me worry at hindsight is, that the anemometer was attached

more firmly than the V-strut reinforcement rod.

God, they knew little yet about the effects of turbulences...

Edited August 22, 2012 by Olham

[Bullethead 12]

@Elephant

Brilliant pic that shows all the important parts (although I'm wondering if it was reversed, given this would be on the right wing instead of the left).

 

That instrument's housing looks the same as that on Olham's Pfalz and the lack of rigidity is obvious, explaining how the Pfalz's got bent to face forward. Furthermore, those look like metal, not wooden, struts, and the mounting brackets wrap around as clamps, so no screw holes.

[Olham 164]

Bullet, all Albatros and Pfalz wingstruts were of metal.

 

And I'd go so far as to assume, that it was not allowed at all, to drill holes of any kind into wing struts.

 

.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Olham

[Pips 5]

Yes, exactly. That's what I've been trying to say. The AWM couldn't find any screw holes in the strut, but that doesn't mean there wasn't an anemometer (or even a Teddybär) there if it was mounted with one of those clamps (or strips of fabric).

 

I thought that might be a possibility too. So I asked John White of the AWM ( Senior Curator, Military Heraldry and Technology Section) and this is his reply:

 

Thanks for the image – the mounting via two brackets on the right strut appears to be the common approach for fitting an anemometer-type ASI to an Albatros D.V/D.Va. On D.5390 this area of the strut had been stripped of paint, probably before 1941. I would still have expected to see some abrasions of the metal from the earlier installation or removal of the two brackets, but I agree it’s hard to be sure on that basis. Fortunately, images E01684 to E01686 show the aircraft in front of 3 Squadron’s hangars at Bailleul. From the evidence of the unit diary, these images can only have been taken on the morning of 18 December 1917 – ground staff worked overnight to repair the aircraft to airworthy condition, but the German markings and airframe were still largely undisturbed. The right strut is clearly visible from several angles, and on the original glass negatives its details are really clear – no scuff marks, paint damage or anything else that would indicate that the two brackets had been removed. While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case…….

 

There are lots of images showing aircraft without the anemometer, so it seems that D.5390 was not alone in lacking one. A pity – we had several really nice examples in store to choose from, and enough photographic evidence to reconstruct the brackets.

 

Other interesting details on the Wingnut shot are the reinforcing bracket for the strut/lower wing attachment, which suggests that this aircraft is a D.V or early D.Va – the wings of later aircraft like D.5390 were strengthened structurally and the bracket largely disappears. Faintly visible between the two anemometer brackets is a stencilled ‘R’, which appears to be a standard Albatros strut marking and was also carried on our machine.

 

There were many other points we checked – two examples. Some images show a rear view mirror attached to the trailing edge ‘cut-out’ on the upper wing above the cockpit, but D.5390 showed no evidence of any fittings in this area other than the radiator shutter control mechanism. It’s worth noting that the Waugh drawings show a symmetrically placed pair of timber blocks, one on each side. D.5390 in fact has only one, on the right, to which the radiator shutter handle is attached via a bracket. I also mentioned that we looked at both ‘vee’ struts – apart from being careful, we were checking that a barograph had not been fitted on either strut. The remains of a crashed D.Va Albatros currently held by the Memorial Flight in France includes the remains of one of these instruments, with damaged fittings that suggest it was slung diagonally from the lower parts of a ‘vee’ strut and possibly attached to the inboard upper wing surface – again, no trace on D.5390.

 

In general terms, we worked to preserve or re-create the 1917 features of this individual aircraft. Having a really original example of a contemporary British design like the SE5a for comparison was instructive. The Albatros was, in distinctive ways, designed for rapid production with a lesser requirement for skilled labour in areas like the airframe construction, the fabric covering and the finish. Complex equipment was kept to a minimum. The end result was a relatively simple and efficient fighting aircraft that could be made quickly in large numbers. The TVAL reproductions have more gear fitted – there is photographic evidence to support their choices – but D.5390 was more basic in fit-out. My educated guess is that it represents the actual state of Albatros fighters at the time of manufacture; given the lack of supporting documentary evidence its preservation as a reasonably intact example is very valuable.

[Olham 164]

Other interesting details on the Wingnut shot are the reinforcing bracket for the strut/lower wing attachment,

which suggests that this aircraft is a D.V or early D.Va –

the wings of later aircraft like D.5390 were strengthened structurally and the bracket largely disappears.

 

That is an interesting detail I didn't know yet - thanks a lot for posting, Pips!

[+elephant 36]

Well, this is not quite true...

1st. The only definite distinction between D.V and D.Va is the aileron controls, (brackets can be seen on uprated D.V-s even D.III-s).

2nd. The serial number alone denotes that the machine is a D.Va of the first production batch (5165-5426/17)

3rd. Yes, there were some further reinforcements in Albatros D.Va wings, but in the OAW built machines (that had brackets BTW)

and has nothing to do with the lack of brackets in some planes (of the first batch from my brief inquiry) .

 

Here is D.5390/17 (first batch) showing no brackets:

 

 

D.5409/17 (first batch) no brackets:

 

 

D.5629/17 (second batch) showing brackets:

 

 

D.5815/17 (second batch) showing brackets:

 

 

D.7098/17 (third batch) showing brackets:

 

 

D.7327/17 (third batch) showing brackets:

 

[JFM 18]

Still, the "reinforcing bracket" never entirely goes away. You still see them rather deep into the final D.Va production batch, D.7000-7549/17. E.g., D.Va 7327/17, 7416/17, 7435/17, etc. Also visible on several D.Va (OAW)s.

 

Well, posted that and then saw Elephant had crossed the finish line well before I! Good show.