Did the Halberstadt D.II shed its wings?

[Hauksbee 103]

When there's nothing on the telly, sometimes I like to go to YouTube and watch dogfight clips. Last night I found this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8PoJYW6y0w

It's a beautiful bit of film editing; well worth your time. In it ("How Not To Fly A Halberstadt") J. Hamm makes life difficult for a succession of SPADs. And, every time but one, without warning, his wings, all of them, will simply leave the airplane. Did the Halberstadt D.II have a reputation for shedding its wings in real life? 

.

ps: It has a very annoying bit of intro music. Fast Forward thru that and get to the good stuff.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Hauksbee

[corsaire31 7]

Good Spad drivers would never go into a turning fight at ground altitude with Halberstadt DIIs ...  

 

Never happened to me yet in RoF to loose the wings on the Halbie DII but I drive carefully... always go down in spirals, same with Albatros DII.  I only trust the Pfalz DIII for deep dives and brutal ressource !

Edited October 13, 2013 by corsaire31

[Olham 164]

The wing-shedding is overdone in RoF and sometimes ridiculous IMHO.

Aha! A (virtual) urban legend.

(My apologies, Olham. My response seems to have changed your post. Not sure how that could have happened)

Edited October 14, 2013 by Hauksbee

[shredward 12]

Quoting from the Halberstadt Fighters Datafile:

The Halberstadt fighter was universally esteemed for its facile flight characteristics, quickness of control response and excellent performance, praise probably not equalled until the arrival of the Fokker DVII....Indeed, during a meeting of fighter pilots in Cambrai on December 22 1916 to discuss the future of fighter development, most of the participants opted strongly for the Halberstadt DV powered by a 120hp Mercedes and armed with two machine guns. The reason given was that the Halberstadt was a 'delight to fly'....Frankl flew the Halberstadt in the wildest banks and loops that I had ever seen...The machine was extraordinarily easy to fly, was very fast and stable, and possessed no vices...The wings, unusual for a fighter in that they were of a two-bay configuration, were robust but at the expense of drag-producing struts and wires.

    Cheers,

        shredward

[Olham 164]

Thanks for the good historical knowledge, Shredward. Now I know why I always liked the craft.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Olham

[corsaire31 7]

Besides this, good Spad drivers would never go into a turning fight at low altitude with Halberstadt DIIs...

[Olham 164]

Watched the video now.

It seems they have made the DM so, that you easily shed your wings,

when you pull out of a dive too hard. I have lost the wings of Albatros

planes, when I pulled stick to hard/turned real tight in turn fights.

 

But I have given up telling them. Every time I mentioned something I found wrong

or overdone, the same group of RoF-defenders jumped at me, and if I didn't stop,

my threads got closed pretty soon. Could be a great sim, but...

[Hauksbee 103]

Thanks for the good historical knowledge, Shredward. Now I know why I always liked the craft.

Thanks, Shred. Olham, too. I guess the wing thing is only an (virtual) urban legend.

[Olham 164]

I guess it depends on what you did with an aircraft - after all they were less sturdy than today's craft..

If you dived until you had gained a fast speed, and then suddenly pulled up in a brutal way...

F. K. Kurt Jentsch witnessed his commander falling like that.

He dived onto a lower flying SPAD with his Albatros, and when he caught up the plane,

the wings came off - all four - and the fuselage fell like a stone, while the wings looked

like slowly tumbling down sheets of paper.

But that was obviously a very brutal manoeuver, and it was an Albatros D.III or D.V.

I guess generally the pilots would have felt, how far they could go, and only a handful of men

ever drove their aircraft to extremes - maybe only in dispair.

[Tamper 9]

...But I have given up telling them. Every time I mentioned something I found wrong

or overdone, the same group of RoF-defenders jumped at me, and if I didn't stop,

my threads got closed pretty soon. Could be a great sim, but...

 

Amen.  +1,000,000,000,000...(what's that number that's a 1 with 100 zeros...?)

[Hauksbee 103]

 

But I have given up telling them. Every time I mentioned something I found wrong

or overdone, the same group of RoF-defenders jumped at me, and if I didn't stop,

my threads got closed pretty soon.

 I, too, have noticed that they're not a very congenial lot.

[Tamper 9]

It probably bears mentioning that, unlike many models that were known for shedding wings, the Halberstadt was also not a "V-strut" sesquiplane.

 

The DM in RoF is/has been touted by it's producers forever as being somehow better or more accurate than others, but as I've said any number of time in any number of places, it's nothing so much more special in my observation than many others.

 

Their logic is that there's so much more math being done at a much greater level, that it's a better DM...my perspective is, it doesn't matter how hard you worked to get there, if you wind up at about the same place every else does.

 

The journey isn't the point, the destination is.  And if you wind up in the wrong place altogether...well...

Edited October 14, 2013 by Tamper

[Hauksbee 103]

Was the Halberstadt D.II much used in the German Air force? I rarely see it mentioned. I've never heard it being discussed around here. After this discussion, I think I shall look into this plane more closely.

[shredward 12]

The Halbs first appeared in frontline service in June '16, peaked in December at 104 examples, and disappeared with the mass arrival of the Alb DIII from Feb to April '17.

          Cheers,

             shredward

[Tamper 9]

It's always been my impression the Halberstadt was significant but not because of numbers (apparently there were only a few hundred made).  I recall realizing this when I learned how few there were.  From an evolutionary perspective, it always seemed to fit right in for me between the Eindecker and the Albatros.

 

The significance would (possibly) have been that it was the (first?) German biplane; following the Eindecker and far more manueverable by comparison, having ailerons instead of wing-warping.  As far as I've always known it was well regarded as being reasonably capable and handling well (all things being relative, mind you).  Among the few flaws were lack of fixed elevator and rudder surfaces (although these weren't thought of as 'flaws' until later, I think).

 

I found a reference that seems to apply:

 

"Although it must have shared the typical "Morane" elevator sensitivity and the controls cannot have been well harmonised, it was very maneuvrable in skilled hands and could be dived safely at high speed." Munson, Kenneth. Fighters, Attack and Training Aircraft 1914-1919 War. London: Blandford Press, 1968.

 

If I were to pursue an early war career in a sim, I'd much sooner find myself facing Noops in one of these than an Eindecker.

[Hauksbee 103]

If I were to pursue an early war career in a sim, I'd much sooner find myself facing Noops in one of these than an Eindecker.

"Amen!" to that.

[Olham 164]

Well, if we see the fast development of aircraft in WW1, the Fokker Eindecker
and the Halberstadt were actually like "different generations".

According to WIKI, the last of the Eindeckers, the E.IV, was test-flown by Boelcke
as early as November 1915 (and Boelcke was rather stand-offish about it).

The Halberstadt D-types were conceptioned as the successor of the Eindecker.
The first prototype flew in February 1916; three months after Boelcke's testing
of the Fokker E.IV. Three months were a long time in a development race that
lead from the Taube to the Fokker D.VII F; or from the Morane Saulnier to the
SPAD XIII - in only 4 years.

The Halberstadt could not carry two machine guns very well; the D.IV and D.V
did have the installation option for a second machine gun, but that overcharged
the aircraft with it's OPEL 120 PS engine.

With the Albatros D.I and D.II the Germans received a new fighter concept
in late September 1916.
Although much heavier than any other fighter before, it's 160 PS Mercedes
engine allowed it to carry 2 machine guns and still be some 20 km/h faster
than a Nieuport 11 or Airco DH-2.
This new concept must have been the end for the Halberstadt.
 
 

[corsaire31 7]

Watched the video now.

It seems they have made the DM so, that you easily shed your wings,

when you pull out of a dive too hard. I have lost the wings of Albatros

planes, when I pulled stick to hard/turned real tight in turn fights.

 

But I have given up telling them. Every time I mentioned something I found wrong

or overdone, the same group of RoF-defenders jumped at me, and if I didn't stop,

my threads got closed pretty soon. Could be a great sim, but...

 

I still think it it a very good sim with its drawbacks like all have (OFF has some too...). Nothing like flying a squadron mission with 10 other guys you've been weekly flying and training with for the pas two years  and a human gunner in my DFW...

Updating to my new machine I can now have all the sliders on high and it looks great in 1920 HD on my 27" screen.

But the forum is not a great place, just besause of a few individuals with lots of free time always beating the same old horses. I only drop there once in a while for updates on Pat Wilson's splendid campaign generator.

As much as I like Pat's work, for solo flights I always end up spending a lot more time in OFF.

Edited October 15, 2013 by corsaire31

[Dej 17]

The Halberstadt D.II cannot have been a poor machine.

 

When Von Richthofen's Albatros D.III cracked a wing at the beginning of February '17 he elected to fly the Halberstadt rather than comandeering another Albatros (albeit the wing problems may have put him off) and flew it from beginning of February through to late March, scoring a dozen-ish victories in the process.

[JFM 18]

The Halberstadt D.II cannot have been a poor machine.

 

When Von Richthofen's Albatros D.III cracked a wing at the beginning of February '17 he elected to fly the Halberstadt rather than comandeering another Albatros (albeit the wing problems may have put him off) and flew it from beginning of February through to late March, scoring a dozen-ish victories in the process.

 

Hello, just to clear the waters a bit, MvR had no choice but fly a Halberstadt after his wing cracked 24 January because three days later all Albatros D IIIs were grounded by Idflieg. Beyond that, there were only 4-5 Albs in all of Jasta 11, so it was already primarily still a Halberstadt Staffel, mostly the Halb DV. My research indicates that claims MvR flew the Halberstadt through late March are exaggerated. He had to fly a Halb when the Albs were grounded to get their wings fixed, of course, but the grounding for all Albs was rescinded 19 February. He indicates using the Halberstadt in one combat report on 1 February, during the grounding, but that's it. His other accounts in March talk of flying the Albatros--although he cetainly could have flown a lingering Halb here and there, there's just no concrete evidence of such. Besides, by the end of February all the Halbs had been replaced by Albs, anyway, except for 414/16 that lingered until 13 March and then went to Jasta 30.

 

Pedantic info, I know.

[Dej 17]

Thank you Jim.

 

Pedantry and truth are never to be confused and I'm always genuinely happy to be corrected by a greater authority.

 

Mind you, although it's bad enough when one's memory plays one false it's worse when you check a reference work and find that to be incorrect also. I begin to feel the need to start putting a 'reliability rating' on all my books. 'Under the Guns of the Red Baron', -2 points.

[Olham 164]

Pedantic info, I know.

 

Better than guesswork or half-knowledge, anytime - thanks, Jim!

[Hauksbee 103]

Pedantry and truth are never to be confused....

Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive, either. Sometimes, when you really need the truth, a good pedant can save the day.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Hauksbee

[Tamper 9]

By definition, being accurate ('truth') doesn't exclude one from being a pedant.  In fact, excessive attention to detail is the primary characteristic that defines pedant.

 

But that's the thing:  In this case, we're discussing detail, and it's a subject where no one can hope to be entirely accurate - we simply don't have the means to accurately collect empirical data on this matter.   So (again, by definition) this isn't pedantic, because the information being offered isn't excessive.  It's a helpful part of discourse on the subject.  At least in my opinion.

 

Back on the OP's point, I think it's about context.  The question posed directly was "Did the Halberstadt D.II shed its wings?" and the question is furthered by the video posted.  What (I think) that actually makes the question is more like "Did the Halberstadt D.II shed its wings? (Because this video from RoF seems to impy it did)"

 

I believe the direct answer is "No, the Halberstadt was no worse - all things being relative - than its contemporaries, and there appears to be some evidence to suggest this wasn't a problem with the Halberstadt".

 

To the (albeit unstated, indirect) point made by the video, I believe what Olham said way up top is the most accurate: The wing-shedding is overdone in RoF and sometimes ridiculous, IMHO.

 

I also believe he's right about trying to discuss this topic (or any other) where RoF misses the mark with it's producer or it's proponents.  I recall a discussion early on, over at 'the other web site' where someone had posted a video of a Dr1 continuing to fly after both wings had peeled off, down to near the roots/inner struts...there was actually a group of these proponents, trying to explain how it could be possible, etc.   Mind you, the discussion, IIRC included some of the aforementioned "The RoF DM includes (more math on more precise variables, etc) and therefore it must be possible"

 

Not too long after this was posted, of course, along came one of the staff (I think) with a post saying they had found the bug in the DM and fixed it. 

 

Imagine that.

 

There was another, similar discussion about (again, IIRC) a H-P 0/400 flying with one side's wings practically gone, while the other side was still intact...or some such.  Again, group of proponents suggesting how it must be correct, since the DM allows it...

 

I don't think it's a stretch to say the DM in RoF isn't necessarily better than any other, and continues to this day to 'get it wrong' on occasion, irrespective of how much/how 'good' the math was that got 'em there.  Which is what I've said, and why I say it that way, to this day.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Tamper

[Olham 164]

I recall a discussion early on, over at 'the other web site' where someone had posted a video of a Dr1 continuing to fly

after both wings had peeled off, down to near the roots/inner struts...there was actually a group of these proponents,

trying to explain how it could be possible, etc.   Mind you, the discussion, IIRC included some of the aforementioned

"The RoF DM includes (more math on more precise variables, etc) and therefore it must be possible"

..and if we had to prove it with Einstein's relativity theory - a German wonder weapon!

Mmuahahahahaaa!!!