JFM

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Yes.

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.

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.)

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

That's too long for me to watch on the comp but I clicked through it and watched about ten minutes combined. Pretty cool stuff.

I'll be around more, Hauksbee. Actually, I always checked here and usually heard crickets and saw tumbleweeds. But lately I've seen your efforts to post something, and I think it's creating a little life. Certainly better than before. Maybe it will grow into something new? I'll participate. I think I'm going to start a thread for Albatros fan bois, like Olham, Elephant, me, etc. Erik, will there be a Wings Over the Reich forum here eventually, even if not "official," after OBD starts releasing WIP content updates, screenshots, etc?

US: Liquor store.

I would be a gunner! I'd love to fly planes like that! In the sim, of course. In real life, I'd just like to fly it. Olham could ride up front.

Things are what they are with OBD. But I appreciate you keeping this place open despite their move. Life is cyclical and maybe this forum is on the way up. If you are going to close something, get rid of the Down in Flames forum. There hasn't been a post in there for seven years (ironically, by Dutch_P47M). It doesn't bother me that the forum is there, but why? It and the sim it discusses (which was never released) are deader than Kelsey's nuts.

My interest is more in what someone posts, not who posts it. This place has been especially stone-cold-boring for a long time. SimHQ has been better, but lately it's catching up. So I don't post much. Although this place is getting somewhat better, at least with your threads, Hauksbee. I used to post a lot of misc stuff on flight sim fora, lots of photos, etc., but there didn't seem to be much interest. So, I stopped. For miscellaneous WW1 info, go to http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6 Just a click away! Not as if we have to walk there.

What Hasse said: The Official forum is going nowhere. Plus, every forum I've ever been on has WAY more viewers than posters. Look at the "Reports from the Front" over at SimHQ WOFF forum. 85,623 views and 469 posts. That's ca. 0.005 percent of posts to views. But no reason we can't post in both places as one's mood dictates. I usually find Hauksbee over here posting various stuff--like this thread, for instance.

It's already been done forever ago. Hence the usual colors we see.

The British were pretty descriptive of the colors of Jasta 11 Georg Simon's captured Albatros D.III camouflage. More than just "light green," etc., they said "pale Brunswick green and white [meaning a mixture of the two]," "olive green," and "Dark Venetian red." And that's just for the top wing. The lower starboard wing was described as "chocolate color or common crimson oxide" and "medium bronze green." Still, lots of wiggle room there. No description of the lower port wing. The upper wing gets more UV than the lower wings, often shaded, which is likely the reason for different descriptions. Love to have Albatros factory documents about their paints!

The ortho film is what led to a lot of theories that the fuselages were stained at the factory. There is just no evidence of that. It's the film. I am not a photography expert but I'm friends with one in Germany (who is writing a book that will cover this very subject) and he sent me examples of the same plane photographed with different film. One wood fuselage was dark, one was light, neither had been painted in-field. Also, like in Geezer's Union Jack photo, most of the skies in WW1 photos are very light gray and you can hardly see any detail, due to the blue being affected by the ortho film.

Great video!

Offhand I don't know of any books about him specifically. But eventually there will be one! He'll be covered in a future volume of Lance Bronnenkant's Blue Max Airmen.

I'd say it's just a trick of the type of film making the fuselages so dark. As far as I know there is no evidence of stain used on the wood. And there are clear examples of the same plane appearing very dark in one photo but light in another, ostensibly from the different film used. The tail of an airplane generates lift--but probably not how you think. It generates lift downward. Why? The center of lift (also called center of pressure) on an airplane is located aft of the center of gravity. Without a tail, the airplane would pitch forward, because the center of gravity is pulling down and the center of lift is pushing up. The tail provides a downwards force that keeps the plane balanced levelly. When you see film of planes with their tails shot off, they immediately pitch forward and crash vertically. I just found this online real fast. Imagine the tail gone--plane pitches forward.

I love when they pull it out at 6:30. The fuselage gleams like glass! That machine has a straight rudder and footstep in the nose, revealing it's a 600 or 750 series Alb D.III.

Eye candy!