The Albatros D-types Thread

[JFM 18]

Hello,

 

I'm starting this thread for the purpose of ogling and discussing the various Albatros D-type fighters. I'm not alone as an Albatros fan, so why not coalesce and share photos, info, OFF/WOFF screenshots, etc.?

 

Picking a random photo just to get started, here's a shot of Jasta 30's Gustav Nernst, standing next to Albatros D.III 2124/16. (Be sure to download and save so you can see images full-size.)

 

[JFM 18]

Albatros D.I prototype. Note the exhaust manifold, non-balanced elevator, and that the rudder cables were routed (in part) externally. 

 

[JFM 18]

The Albatros D.II(OAW) has some interesting features not usually seen on the Johannisthal-built machines. Such as:

 

The fuselages could be camouflaged, with the camouflage demarcations widely feathered and very rough. This was seen on the wings and horizontal stabilizers as well.

 

 

They had a fuel hatch on the starboard fuselage. You can see it in the image below, the bulbous hatch between the straps. It took me a while to figure out what this was, as I had noticed it on some OAW-built Alb C-types. But then I saw an image of a crashed D.II(OAW) with the fuselage torn open, and you could see the fuel filler port located right where the bulbous hatch would be.

 

 

Alb D.II(OAW)s were equipped with both the fuselage and airfoil radiators (not at the same time; each had either one or the other within the production batch). Those with the airfoil radiators often had the associated plumbing routed down the port side of the engine, rather than the starboard side, as did Johannisthal machines. The plumbing would then dogleg starboard to connect to the radiator. 

 

 

 

An interesting feature on all Alb D.II(OAW)s is this tube or pipe that "hoops" between the gun and engine. I've seen it on machines with guns and an engine; I've seen it on a machine with no engine but with guns; I've seen it on a machine with guns but no engine. What is it, and why is it plumbed externally in the air like that? Fuel expansion line that led to an overflow vent?   I still don't know for sure. BTW, you do not see this feature on the OAW-built Albatros D.IIIs. (You don't see a starboard fuel hatch on them, either.) 

[Hauksbee 103]

About that odd "hoop", Jim...

 

In the "Death of Beolcke" thread, you posted two pics of Albs on their backs and commented that the cabane struts were strong enough to stop the upper wing from crunching the pilot. Could it be that on earlier models it was not the case, and the hoop is there for pilot safety?

 

Secondarily, could it be something for the pilot to hold onto while hammering on his guns to un-jam them? The Alb pilot sat low in the cockpit. To get his butt off the seat, stand and reach forward over the windscreen, and hammer on his guns, could be a good balancing trick. (?)

 

ps: I've read that the Alb derived from a pre-war racing model, but I've never see one; do you have photos on that?

Edited May 11, 2017 by Hauksbee

[Czech6 15]

I believe that's the flexible shaft (like an old motorcycle tachometer cable) that runs from the engine to the interrupter gearbox for the machine guns.  In this photo you can see the "cable" in the upper right hand corner going into the gearbox.  Since it's not consistent in the photos you describe it could be a local preference to pull more of the "cable" up out of the way of the cockpit or engine compartment.

 

 

[JFM 18]

Hauksbee, I don't think that's any sort of safety device or handle. It's so far forward that I don't think it'd be practical for the pilot to try to stand up and lean over the windshield and guns to reach it, and in bulky flight clothing would no doubt inadvertently push the joystick forward. Which, having unfastened the seatbelt and safety harnesses to stand up, might lead to ejection out of the cockpit. 

 

DII struts were strong enough to support the plane's weight inverted. Here's one upside down:

 

Czech6, that's been a suggested possibility for sure. Look at it in this photo. Seems to lead to nowhere and go well forward. 

 

Can anyone recommend a good photo hosting site? I've used "imgbox" but I'm having a hard time uploading photos there without "error" messages. I have used Photobucket in the past but it looks like ad-hell these days. I'll use it if nobody has other recommendations. I don't want to directly insert photos here--as I did in this post--because soon my storage is used up and I have to delete stuff. No sense in having this thread for a while if the image within are gone. Once I find a photo hosting home I'll post some requested photos, Hauksbee.

[33LIMA 972]

For many of us, I daresay our interest in the real machine started, or was spurred on, by a kit. In my case it was the Airfix D.V, as included with the Dogfight Double - neither it nor the Camel was a great replica but they were all we had, at pocket money 1/72 prices anyway (the more exotic Aurora 1/48 jobs were rarer as well as costlier)...

 

 

...then came the much better Revell D.III, again with dramatic box art, and moulded in overall red (IIRC my sample's plastic was a slightly darker shade)...

 

 

Then came some books, this one being amongst the first, illustrating the famous AWM D.Va on the cover and inside, and providing annotated scale multi-views showing the variations with a decent level of detail. Not bad for the late 1960s...

 

 

I don't think we have a skin for this machine in WoFF?

 

...but it seems I'm wrong...

 

 

 

[Czech6 15]

I'm still thinking it's for the interrupter gear.  A Wikipedia Google of "WW1 interupter gear" says Fokker came up with the flexible shaft system later in the war but that Albatros stuck with their own design of a ridged shaft and cam system.  But, higher headquarters ordered all of them to switch to the Fokker system in 1917 to standardized equipment.  That may explain why some photos show it and some don't.  If they had to buy it from Fokker it may not have fit correctly and the excess had to be shoved up above the cowling.  Or, if you have ever worked on a motorcycle or bicycle you know you shouldn't have a short radius on the cables or they will bind or have unwanted drag.  Anyhoo, here's another photo from the National Air and Space Museum's book on the restoration of the Albatros D.VA.  This one shows the pilots view of the interrupter gear with one cable going in and two coming out to each machinegun trigger.  Supposedly, the Fokker system was different and only fired the guns when the bullet path was clear as opposed to the other systems which stopped the firing when the path was blocked.

[JFM 18]

Hi, Czech6!  If a 1917 switch is the cause, why is this "hoop" seen only with OAW DIIs, and not the DIII (OAW)s or Alb DVa(OAW) (rhetorical question, not a challenge)? And why only on OAW-built machines, and not Albatros? It could be the same reason why the DII(OAW) used a starboard fuel access hatch but neither the DIII(OAW) nor DVa(OAW)  nor Albatros-built machines had them: who knows? But, again, if the "hoop" is part of Fokker's gear to which everyone switched in 1917, this would not apply to the Albatros DII(OAW) because they were all built in 1916. 

The Albatros system was also a synchronizer, not an interrupter. From my research I have not seen that Albatros switched to the Fokker system. Rather, from various sources, I've gathered they used their in-house Hedtke synchronizer until August 1917, at which point they switched to the (also in-house designed) Semmler synchronizer. Wikipedia needs to be taken with a grain of salt on almost everything (especially Richthofen), but even that article you referenced states "An official order, signed on 24 July 1917 standardised [sic] the superior Fokker Zentralsteuerung system for all German aircraft, presumably including Albatroses." Presumably being the key word there. 

 

Again, the hoop being a synchronization cable is a strong theory that has been and is being considered, for sure. I'm not saying it's wrong, but we just need more evidence than "I think." Let's keep searching for absolute evidence for what it is and why it's only on Albatros D.II(OAW)s.  

Edited May 12, 2017 by JFM

[Olham 164]

Greast idea for a thread, Jim - and what a cornucopia of pics! We may find Elephant here more oftennow!

 

That pipe you don't know - do you have it in ANY other pictures?

 

Cause, I was just wondering: you pointed out that there was the fuel fill-in just in that forward are -

could it be a fuel pipe, going from a fuel tank (on the ground just aft of the wing) to that hatch?

Edited May 12, 2017 by Olham

[Hauksbee 103]

Can anyone recommend a good photo hosting site? I've used "imgbox" but I'm having a hard time uploading photos there without "error" messages. I have used Photobucket in the past but it looks like ad-hell these days. I'll use it if nobody has other recommendations.

Jim: Agreed. Once there was a picture of the "hoop" from a different angle, it definitely was not a hand-hold.

 

As far as your search for a Photo Hosting Site goes, I use www.tinypic.com   I found it after a long and frustrating search. 'Can't remember how many sites I tried, that looked simple to use, but were impossible in practice. Here's two screen shots of it

 

[JFM 18]

Thanks, Hauksbee! I'll check it out.

 

Olham, I have a photo of the fuel tank filler port. It's much bigger and thicker and it jutted out enough that it required the "bulged" door over it. Once I get a better photo hosting site set up, I'll post a photo of it. Plus other DII(OAW)s. 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Czech6, that's been a suggested possibility for sure. Look at it in this photo. Seems to lead to nowhere and go well forward.

 

Jim, the photo you posted appears to show two different cables/lines, (at least as far as my tired old eyes can tell): the one you pointed out that is well into the engine compartment and looping forward, and also the one coming up from between the guns and looping back that Czech6 notes as possibly being for the interrupter mechanism.

 

 

Or am I seeing things?

[JFM 18]

No, you are right, Lou! I thought it odd it was so far forward, it's not the one in question. To my eyes the cable in question was hidden by the tree trunk. Thanks for the arrows! (See? This thread has already paid for itself.)

 

I just went and checked all my photos of that plane in that situation. That photo is the only one that shows the, for lack of a better term, cable in that forward position where the engine would be. Deepens the mystery. 

 

Here is a shot of that same plane after the French had replaced the prop, added struts to the horizontal stabilizers, and painted it up like a Nieuport. Still good-looking in that finish! Note there are no guns--and yet the "hoop" remains. Before there was no engine, and the hoop remained. ???

 

One question I have, on which you guys can chew/theorize/educate: if a cable for synchronization, why is there be only one cable for two guns? I'll get hold of Maxim expert Dave Watts and pick his brain about all this. 

[JFM 18]

Hauksbee, here are various early Albatros designs, starting with the B.I prototype: 

 

 

 

 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Jim, upon studying the photos you've provided here as well as those posted by Czech6, I must say that the way that thing loops is odd if it where in fact a gun cable.  In the close-up showing the plate and cable fittings it is clear they are pointing towards the cockpit, i.e., rearward. So shouldn't excess cable coming from that point be sweeping up and back in a gentle curve before returning down into the bowels of the plane?  However, in the photo examples shown it is precisely the opposite of that with the cable coming nearly straight up and out from somewhere between the guns then sweeping back down in a more gentle curve.  More to chew on there as well I'd say.

[JFM 18]

Definitely a mystery, Lou! Let's presume it is a synchro cable. When the engine was gone, it would have only been connected to a gun. When an engine was put back into the machine and the guns were removed, why remove the cable from the gun and connect it back to the engine? No need to arm an evaluation machine. And, again, why only one cable since there are two guns? In the photo Czech6 showed earlier, albeit on a Johannisthal-built D.Va, there are clearly two cables. Actually, three. I believe--i.e., supposition, I'm not 100% positive--that the middle cable leads to the tachometer. 

 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Upon further consideration and study my opinion is that the loop in question is the drive cable for the tachometer.  Didn't said cable attach to the back of the Mercedes engine up at the rear of the camshaft?  That would place things just about right for a cable that was supplied in too great a length to be, out of necessity, looped upward from the back of the engine before sweeping back down under the cockpit combing and attaching to the tachometer.  

 

EDIT: I was actually posting this as you were posting yours Jim - great minds think alike eh?  :o)

 

 

ADDITIONAL EDIT:  Looks about right to me, but then I've been wrong before.

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by RAF_Louvert

[JFM 18]

Great stuff! As you were posting that, Lou, I was snooping through a bunch of photos that are right in the ballpark of what you just posted. Take a look at this tantalizing photo:

 

 

But look at THIS one. You can see the "hoop" leading right down to the cockpit, directly toward the tach.

 

There is no other engine instrument on an Albatros than a tachometer. Synchro cables connected to the bottom of the guns, and clearly that isn't the case here--single cable going past the guns. The throttle, mags switch, starter mag cables were plumbed down the port side of the cockpit, not high in the center. And from photos I've seen they weren't as thick as what we're studying. We need to see where the "hoop" attaches on the other end; in the top photo it appears to be dangling. But I agree that the tach cable stands out as the biggest possibility at this point. 

 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

Jim, those are excellent photos showing a lot of detail as regards this issue.  It's obvious in that first pic that whatever the loop is it is attached via a nut at the forward end.  Also in that pic it almost looks as if there are a pair of identical loops side-by-side, though it may just be some odd shadowing or reflection, perhaps even some "ghosting".  In the second pic it certainly looks like a cable sweeping down in under the combing and heading directly towards the backside of the tachometer.

[JFM 18]

I'd say it's one cable and there is some ghosting. You can see it with the cross and the rigging diagram, too. And in every photo of different planes there is only one cable, I've never seen two. 

 

Also, in that photo, there is another example of this cable still being present while the guns are gone. That thing looks awfully rigid if just dangling in the air. Perhaps it's a metal conduit through which a cable was routed? 

Just located a German drawing of a Mercedes engine, and sure enough that middle cable is for the tachometer. 

[RAF_Louvert 101]

I agree about the ghost image.

 

I thought that hoop looked more pipe-like as well and I am wondering if the OAW-built machines used a different block at the back of the camshaft that had the tach drive coming out the top instead of the end.  If so, a conduit with the cable running through it until it got below the decking would make sense, not only in terms of durability but also in terms of keeping the cable from flopping around directly in the pilot's forward line of sight.

 

I'd love to see that drawing Jim. 

Edited May 13, 2017 by RAF_Louvert

[Czech6 15]

I would like to change my opinion.  I think it probably is a tach cable.  Going back to my first photo showing the gearbox and three cables.  The handle shown on that gearbox is described in the photo's text as the compression release handle.  Looklng at this attached photo of the Mercedes engine, you can see the handle at the rear of the cam shaft on top of the engine (it's much clearer in the book).  So, that gearbox as I call it, is coming directly off the engine cam shaft and those three cables would be transmitting rpm's.  Looks like the center cable would be to the tach, and the other two the the gun trigger mechanisms.

Actually, I'm referring to my second photo and not the first.

[Czech6 15]

As to the abrupt angle looping of the cable above the guns, given that these aircraft were manufactured by different companies and countries, the gearbox that I referred to may have a right angle drive for the tach cable or something like that, causing it to go vertical from the gearbox, or maybe they had to use a cable supplied by a different manufacturer that was too long and had to make it work.

[JFM 18]

There's no question the center cable is the tach cable, as I identified via a labled (in German) German drawing I mentioned in my previous post. I'll post that in a second, Lou. Have to find it again in my folders.  

 

The Alb DIII and DIII(OAW) were both manufactured in Germany but you guys are no doubt right, there is some technical reason for exactly how the cable was fitted to the engine that we just don't know yet. OAW only built 50 Albatros D.II(OAW)s, and by the time they made the Albatros D.III(OAW)s that jutting cable was gone. My guess is similar to the reason for moving the radiator plumbing, they wanted to keep the pilot's aiming line-of-sight as free of obstructions as possible. If not the reason, it's reasonable to conclude that was a factor.