Withdrawn?

I am fascinated with aircraft that for whatever
reason "soldiered on" 'til the end. So here is
my question, forumites. John Connors in Albatros
Fighters (Squadron/Signal)(p.20) writes that
"Alb DIIIs remained in front-line service much longer than is generally believed" (and has a
photo from May 1918). Could Germany afford to
withdraw aircraft after, say, 1/1/1918?
Despite the production from Fokker and all the
Amerika Program aircraft didn't she need all
servicable aircraft? Or perhaps after 6/1/1918
she couldn't afford it. Thoughts? Harold Hartney
claims to have fought Albatroses in Summer 1918
(no doubt, DVs)( his was 27 Squadron) but were they ever withdrawn?

[leo]

Somef the DIII Oeffag ships fought in the Polish and Ukranian airforces all through the period when those countries were in gaged in warfare among themselves and with the Germans, Lithuanians and Russians between 1918-1922.

I imagine the German Albatros DIII were forced to soldier on as long as they coulld fly simply because of the great need Germany had for any serviceable aircraft. The same could be said for thre Pfalz DIII-DIIIa and Fokker DR-I. There just weren't enough Fokker DVII, Pfalz DXII, and Roland DVI to go around. Add to that mix, Fokker DVI, DVIII and all flyable Albatros models of any mark and I imagine they had a mechanics nightmare on their hands.

[Darryl]

Hi,

No references at the moment but I recall that many later Albatros DIII's had, or had the tailplane replaced with, the DV tailplane. This made the two aircraft virtually identicle, at least to the observer intent on flying his own aircraft and avoiding getting killed. I'll hunt out the reference later. Seem to think that one or two particular factories used the DV tail.

regards

Darryl

The Albatross DIII was acually a better aeroplane than the heavier DV and DVa. I see no need for the Germans to have pulled them off the line unless beyond repair. As far as tail planes go, I wouldn't know why they would put the DVa tail on one unless it was fully interchangable and readily available for repairs.
Cheerio,
Lt. Dwight Rudder, RFC

[stephen]

Did an article on this a few years ago, but I'm going from memory here. First of all, I can't comment on the tail exchange but the DIII and the DVa were almost identical and could exchange complete wings with no modifications. The DV was a different animal in many respects, and actually, only around 500 of them were ever produced whereas the DIII and DVa production went well into the thousands. The DIII was indeed used at the front at the Armistice and it was still a somewhat viable aircraft on lesser fronts where it met the equally venerable SPAD VII (yes, still in use at the Armistice), Clerget and Le Rhone powered Camels and SE's that it had been fighting since early '17. It was also relegated to home defense duties where it was found inadequate, but sometimes all that was available. The Seimens Schuckert DIII however, also considered outmoded at the Armistice, turned out to be an excellent choice for home defense against the IAF. The difference was in climbing ability; the SS could scamper up quickly to intercept the incoming DH4's, while the Albs struggled along far behind. Charles Heater, who saw a ton of action as CO of the 11th Aero, told me that when they did manage to intercept that the DIII pilots were, in his words, "tenacious" and fought bitterly. He also said that their mounts were noticably more sluggish at altitude than the DVII's and SS's (the IAF went in at around 12-16,000 feet). Most of the DVII's they met were near the front; the IAF's competition changed once they reached areas patrolled by the home defense jastas. Regardless, Heater and his boys considered them formidable and a very, very serious threat. In that respect, the DIII soldiered on quite well until the Armistice and was still in the thick of the fight. BTW, the DVa can always be distinguished from the DIII and DV by the tiny mini-strut that was attached to the bottom of the front V strut and connected into the lower front wing spar. For an excellent example of this mini-strut, look at the mis-identified DV on this site under "Aircraft."

[leo]

Can smeone straighten something out for me? What was the difference between the Alb DV and DVa. I read somewhere that the differnce was the way the control lines were routed. Right? Wrong?

[stephen]

Yes, you are correct. Mishmash of info from Connors' Albatros Fighters and memory: the DVa was 80 lbs heavier than the DV, featured a rounded monocoque as opposed to the slab sided DIII, the DV had control cables thru the upper wing while the DVa had them thru the lower wing, DV and Va had 180 horsies to the III's 160. And I stand corrected on the # of DV's... Connors says they made around 900, still paling in comparison to the larger numbers of DIII's and Va's produce.

The DV series also may have carried the additional strut forward of the V strut, many DV and DVa aircraft were modified in the field with these stuts,additional drift and flying wires to try and eradicate the problems with the lower wing finding its own way in life.I have come across reference to the curved DV/DVa tail being fitted to DIIIs in the factory, I will try and find just where the mention came from...

The rounded rudder originally appeared on OEF-built Albatros DIII's, and was then incorporated in the DV/DVa design.

Rich