Pips

Great thread Capt. But no walk down memory lane for me. I still have RB3D on my (old XP) computer, and still fly it two or three time a month. Just can't let it go. And enjoy it as much now as I did when I first bought RBII way back in 1998. Sure the graphics are well dated, even with all the great work done to that, the FM's, DM's and new planes by maestro's such as Pat Wilson, Charles de Thielt, Tom Harradine (von Tom), Horrido, Panama Red, Ball, Baron von Benz, Delta K, OvS, Wingstrut, jamron, Flybert, JG1Beck, Lowengrin, Uhlan, Hobbs, Demski, Bletch and Gabi Laser. To name just a few!

Fonck had the same attitude to air fighting as did McCudden, ie cause the greatest amount of damage to the enemy with the least risk to oneself. And, like McCudden, he deliberately and methodically targeted two-seater aircraft. Having been one himself (with 500 hours to his credit) he knew just how important the role of the two-seater reconnaissance was. Again, like McCudden, he often flew alone, high above the lines searching for two-seaters. He could, and often did, score against enemy fighters; but he saw his role as not just a fighter but more as thinker. And that meant depriving the enemy of knowledge. 72% (54 of 75) of his victories were two-seaters. As a comparison below are some other notable pilots victories against two-seaters. McCudden 45 of 57 - 78% Guynemer 37 of 53 - 69% von Richthofen 42 of 80 - 52% Voss 24 of 48 - 50% Nungesser 14 of 43 - 38% MacLaren 21 of 54 - 38% (of Winged Victory fame) Madon 14 of 41 - 34% Mannock 20 of 61 - 32% Udet 17 of 60 - 27% Collishaw 10 of 60 - 16% Beauchamp -Proctor 9 of 54 - 16%

This is something of a spin-off from Olham's 'Albatros D.V Cockpit Variations' thread. To me it's always been a rather confusing subject given the paucity of information (that I've found) on the subject. Especially as regards to airspeed measurement. Lets see if I have this right. * The Germans went down the line of using 'Anemometers' for measuring airspeed. The actual speed dial could either be mounted on the wingstrut with the vane, or mounted within the cockpit? Was there any rhyme or reason for not placing it in the 'obvious' location? I.E. the cockpit * The British used the pitot tube for airspeed measurement, with the dial mounted in the cockpit. I'm guessing that British dials would have been highly prized by German aviators? * What did the French use? Now both the anemometer and the pitot tube (in various forms) had been around for more than a century prior to the age of flight, and were quite widespread in both civil and naval use. Yet I gather that many (early) aircraft were not fitted with them. Given the crucial need to know airspeed, especially in relation to either stall or overstressing, one would think that it would be the primary instrument fitted to any aircraft. By the by does anyone have a complete list of which aeroplanes in the Great War didn't have an airspeed indicator or some sort or another?

Following on from the earlier topic Anemometers and Airspeed Indicators I emailed the Australian War Memorial, asking them what instruments their display Albatross was equipped with. The following was their answer: Only two Albatros D.Va aircraft survive today; the Memorial’s D.5390/17, and D.7161/17 held by the National Air and Space Museum in the USA. Of the two, the Australian one is by far the most intact and original. Although some instruments and fittings were missing from the AWM aircraft when the most recent project began, the original cabin structure survived almost completely intact. This meant that we could search for screw holes, brackets or other traces when checking to see if a particular instrument was originally fitted. Although no cockpit photos of D.5390/17 taken in 1917 are known, there is a report prepared the day after capture - on 18 December - by Captain Ross of 3 Squadron AFC (known at the time as 69 Squadron RFC). This document recorded a range of details including the engine and gun numbers, together with some major equipment fitted in the cockpit. According to the list the aircraft carried Bosch starting magneto No.48092, Revolutions Indicator (tachometer) No.84949 by Wilhelm Morill (should be Morell) of Leipzig, and finally a petrol gauge and an oil pressure gauge by Maximall of Berlin. The document also indicated that a clock had been souvenired before the aircraft was recovered. It’s also worth noting that a British airspeed indicator and strut-mounted pitot head were also fitted to the aircraft, and that these were removed some time after c.1955. Determining which instruments were fitted Given all this, the Memorial decided to re-fit the Albatros’ cockpit to its condition at the time of capture on 17 December 1917. By 2008 - when the most recent preservation works commenced - of the items listed in 1917 only the magneto switch, and the petrol and oil pressure gauges remained in position. The cockpit and airframe structure was very carefully checked to see if anything was missing or had been overlooked. There was no trace of mountings for the bungees used to attach an altimeter in either of the two known possible locations. There was no trace of any mounting for the clock mentioned by Captain Ross. This may have been a fob watch type carried by the pilot. The bracket for the tachometer was still in position on the tubular rear gun mounting structure. The brackets for the Bosch starting magneto were located on the left side. Although damaged, there was no doubt about their purpose. The compass, gimbal mounting and timber attachment block were missing from the known location low down of the right side of the cockpit. On D.5390/17 numerous small steel nails used to secure the timber block were intact and still projected out from the ply. Given that this is not mentioned by Ross, most likely the compass and associated parts were removed from the aircraft before 3 Squadron collected it. Both ‘vee’ inter-wing struts were checked for any mounting holes or marks to indicate that an anemometer-type airspeed indicator had been fitted, with no result. Photos taken on 18 December 1917 do not show a strut-mounted instrument or any trace of it. As currently displayed, the aircraft has: The correct type Bosch starting magneto, a spare item drawn from the AWM collection. The original Bosch magneto switch assembly. The correct type compass and mounting, spare items drawn from the AWM collection. The correct type tachometer by Morell, a spare item drawn from the AWM collection. It is calibrated from 4-14, and has the correct ratio – 1:2 – for an in-line engine. The original petrol gauge and an oil pressure gauge by Maximall of Berlin. Seems that in this case the number and type of instruments fitted was sparse indeed.

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.

Interesting that neither cockpit features an inclinometer or airspeed indicator. Were they not common amongst German aeroplanes?

We just got another pup. We've called her Lucy. Such a sweety, just 8 weeks old. Although sometimes she's more like a little Lucifier! But c'mon, how can you resist that cute face.

Yep, that thought scares the bejesus outta me! None of the current sticks comes anywhere near close the the FF2.

The average allocation of 'line responsibility' for a RFC fighter Squadron in Flanders (in 1917) was 20 miles. The RNAS worked on 25 miles. Depth of penetration varied quite a bit, depending on aircraft equipment and capability, mission goals and conditions at the time. But the patrol line was set, and had to be covered a minimum of three times daily. In 1918, after amalgamation of the RFC and the RNAS into the RAF, the line responsibility was established at 25 miles. But an overlap of 5 miles at either end was built into the system by then, given the greater number of fighter squadrons available for service.

My BC could do that!

Looking forward to d/loading it and trialling it (hopefully) this weekend.

What on earth are LAV's?

Whenever comparisons are made between the Pfalz D.III/a and the Albatross D.V/a the Pfalz always comes off second best. The usual comment is that the Pfalz performance was sub-par to the Albatross, and so was the much less preferred aeroplane. But is that true? Or just good PR (and political clout) by the Albatross firm? Similar to what Fokker achieved in 1918. A look at performance figures, such as they are for this period, tells another story. NB: The following numbers are drawn from the books "German Aircraft Of The First World War" by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford, and "Fighter Aircraft Of The 1914-1918 War" by W.M. Lamberton. * At low level the Albatross D.V was faster than the Pfalz D.III - 117mph @ 3,280ft to 112mph @ 2,000ft. * At mid altitude the Pfalz was faster than the Albatross - 102.5mph @ 10,000ft to 99mph @ 9,800ft. * At higher altitude the advantage swings again in favour of the Albatross - 96mph @ 13,100ft to 91.5mph @ 15,000ft. Overall the speed advantage of the Albatross is marginal (other than low down). Climb rate however is another matter. * To 3,280ft the Pfalz does it in 3.25 min; the Albatross in 4 min. * To 6,500ft the Pfalz does it in 7.25 min; the Alatross in 8.08 min. * To 9,800ft the Pfalz races ahead in 11.75 min; the Albatross struggles up in 17.08 min. * No climb figures for the Pfalz D.III are documented at heights of 13,100ft and 16,400ft. Although the D.IIIa is listed as climbing to 16,400ft in 33 min. The Albatross figures are 22.1 min to 13,100ft; and 35 min to 16,400ft. Couple the far better climb rate of the Pfalz D.III with it's wonderfully strong wings (allowing a pilot to dive fearlessly) and it would appear that the Pfalz is the better fighter in the vertical. documentation on turn and roll rates are non existent. However a British report on a captured Pfalz D.III (4184/17) had this to say: "The view from the cockpit was exellent in all directions, with the possible exception of the approach glide, when to some extent the top wing interfered. With regard to flight characteristics, the comment was that the aircraft was stable laterally and unstable directionall and longitudinally, which doubtless meant that general manoeuvrability was good, although the rate of roll was perhaps not what it might have been. It was also reported as answeringwell to all controls - much better than the Albatross D.V." Food for thought?

Thanks HPW, I'll pop over to SimHQ to grab.

Ahhh, there's no place like home.

Luv the sound of your FM improvements Herr Prop-Wasche. Methinks that we're going to have a 'true' Pfalz to fly now. Woohoo!

Superb! My favourite Allied fighter.

The Fokker Triplane was a far more effective fighting aeroplane than the Sopwith Triplane. It was faster (although only slightly) at all altitudes (except sea level); climb rate was superior by a handsome margin at all altitudes; it turned more quickly and it did this armed with two machine guns. And it possessed excellent zoom qualities as compared to biplane fighters. However by the time of it's introduction (effectively 1918 in numbers) it was outpaced by all fighters except the Sopwith Camel. And to catch anything it had to have the height advantage; but if it did then the enemy aeroplane had a real fight on it's hand. It was that same zoom quality that so impressed the Germans when the Sopwith Tripe made it's appearance. It was slightly faster than the standard Albatross D.III, and it possessed a far better climb rate and excellent zoom. This allowed any skilled pilot (and the standard amongst the RNAS was much higher than the RFC of 1917)to easily gain the height advantage and execute dive and zoom atacks as illustrated by Robert Little in the account above. But it had a slow roll rate, and although sustained turn rate was good, instantaneous turn rate was nothing to write home about. And only being armed with one machine gun out it at a decided disadvantage. A really good book to read about how effective the Sopwith Triplane was, and it's impact on the Western Front is:

Yep, the Bristol M1 had the potential to be an outstanding fighter aeroplane, it's trial's in France in January 1917 being considered very successful by the trial pilots. Indeed it could well have wrested air superiority from the Albatross D.III in 1917 had Trenchard not disapproved it's use. However, the RFC's ingrained bias against monoplanes stems back to two fatal crashes following the completion of the 1912 Military Trials. At the Trials monoplanes performed very well, the RFC being so impressed with their performance that it took several on charge at the completion of the Trials in August 1912. Then on 6 September the French-built 100hp Gnome Deperdussin, flown by Captain Patrick Hamilton with Lieutenant Wyness-Stuart as passenegr, broke up in mid air and crashed at Graveley, near Welwyn. Both Hamilto and Wyness-Stuart were killed. Just four days later, on 10 September, another monoplane, a Bristol-Coanda, crashed. Lieutenants E. Hotchkiss and C. Bettington were on a flight from Larkhill to Cambridge when the monoplane was seen to start a descent at 2,000ft over Port Meadow, Oxford. At 500ft the descent became a steep dive; at 200ft fabric tore off the starboard wing and the aeroplane plummented into the ground, killing both men. Shortly after this accident the RFC imposed the well-known ban on the flying of monoplanes. Yes it was.

Excellent! I really am looking forward to flying some very intense Schlachtstaffeln missions.

Truly amazing photo's.

Fantastic video, thanks for posting it Olham. Interesting to see that the gunner in the R.E.8 has to actually stand up to achieve full mobility of his MG. Would think that what with the full blast of the wind hitting his back it would be quite hard to actually swing the gun around from side to side, aim and hit something. Another point the video illustrates very well is the slow turning of the big props, common to all WWI aeroplanes.

I'm looking forward to just jumping into my favourite aeroplane - Nieuport 11 - and just cruise around the countryside. Want to check out all the landscape changes and get my bearings before I even consider setting out on combat missions.

Following the introduction of the less than successful Albatross D.V in May 1917, Albatross continued to develop prototypes for consideration. One that seemed worthy of further development was the D.VII. It flew for the first time in August 1917 and, on paper, appears to offer a substantial inprovement over both the D.V and the D.Va. It was fitted with wings of parallel chord (similar to the original D.I and D.II), but with ailerons at all four tips linked with a strut. Although I cannot find any information on flight performance it's reasonable to assume that this wing configuration would have proved far more durable than the relatively weak sesquiplane layout used in the D.III, D.V and D.Va. With the wing design reverting back to a more standard parallel chord shape, (both wings having two spars) the added strength inherent in that design would have solved the problem of wing failure. Couple that with ailerons fitted to both top and bottom planes, and the D.VII should have been lighter on the controls and have been able to dive without fear. A major consideration. Fuselage followed standard Albatross practice of moulded plywood, but rudder and elevators were of a new design. Overall dimensions were similar to the D.V, but all up weight was significantly reduced from the D.V (937kg) to that of 885 kg - 1 kg lighter than the D.III. Powerplant was the 195hp Benz BZ IIB, which gave the D.VII an outstanding top speed of 204 km/h (127.5mph), and a climb to 2000m in just 7 min. That's equal to the Se.5a and SPAD XIII, and runs rings around the Camel. So here is an aeroplane that can (based on a prototype version) match the very best the Allies have in speed, climbs better than even the D.III (possibly manoeuvers better too) and can be dived as well as any aeroplane in the sky. The D.VII offers exactly the fighting characteristics that von Richthofen and others were lamenting in the D.Va. Given such significant performance advantages over the D.V/a, at a time when all and sundry were crying out for a more effective fighter to combat the superior Se.5a, SPAD and Camel ........ why wasn't the D.VII put into production? It would have made a wonderful stopgap fighter until the Fokker D.VII became available in mid 1918. Anyone know the reason?

In reading about the design of aeroplanes in WWI I often come across the terms 'balanced' and 'unbalanced' controls. It can be referring to the aileron, rudder or elevator, but seldom all three on the same aeroplane. And as often as not the number and type of aeroplane's that have a 'balanced' control are exceeded by those that do not. What is a 'balanced' control? And what effect does it have on the flying characteristics of said aeroplane? If the effect is positive, why were not all aeroplanes fitted with 'balanced' controls?