Mercedes D.III engine

charles · 30 August 2001, 12:55 PM

I am trying to learn more about a specific, numbered Mercedes D.III engine which I examined in a private collection on a recent trip through Europe.

The markings in the crankcase of this engine are : "B.N.567.M.N.58." and "MN.31257"

In addition, the engine is also marked with what is perhaps a unit marking, "Flz Abt. B/4" and what may be a date "9 X 16.

I have been told that the engine is a relatively early Mercedes D.III made in February or March of 1917.

Can anyone shed some light on this engine? I believe it was in an Albatros D.V.

Dave_Watts · 30 August 2001, 04:56 PM

Hi Charles,

I saw your post over on CCI as well.

You stated;

Quote:

I have been told that the engine is a relatively early Mercedes D.III made in February or March of 1917. *

I find this interesting since it is the same language I used in my reply below which I sent Rich Beinhauer. *Did Rich tell you this or Marco? *???

I know about this motor. *Marco has it. *The same guy with the Rumpler parts.

About a month ago I investigated this motor.

I have many, many delivery sheets for motors from Mercedes, (all for Fokker), and unfortunately this one is too early for the records I made copies of. *:-/

This motor is a D.III. *It is a relatively early D.III, made in February or March of 1917. *I don't have the exact log sheet for it, so I can't tell you which aircraft manufacturer it was shipped to, but the log sheet would be available through the Daimler-Benz archive in Stuttgart. *

"Flz Abt. B/4 and a date: 9 X 16"

I am to assume these markings were on the motor crankcase as well? *???

Interesting about the Abtielung B/4 number.

The date is the warranty date from the delivery shipment day. *Go back six months, and you have the motor date of manufacture, so in this case, March X? of 1916? *???

I am certain this is a 1917 motor, so maybe he has the date wrong? *???

Sounds like he has the bottom end of the motor only. *

I take it to understand this fellow only has the one partial motor? *???

Very best,
Dave *

Sorry, these smileys are addictive.

Dave_Watts · 30 August 2001, 04:58 PM

Hey Charles,

I forgot to ask, why do you think the motor is from an Albatros D.Va?

Anything tangible?

Best,
Dave W.

rammjaeger · 30 August 2001, 10:20 PM

Please note:

date: 9 X 16 = 9 October 1916!

Dan_San_Abbott · 31 August 2001, 07:32 AM

RammJaeger:
With the date of 9 October 1916, it would be very unlikely that this engine was ever set in a engine bed of an Alb. D.Va. I suspect the engine is a D.IIIa and "if"it was shipped to Albatros Werke it would have gone into an Alb.D.II 8), it would have been a little early for Alb. D.III aircraft. The first order for the Alb. D.III was awarded in October 1916, production would get started immediately following the completion of the Alb. D.II in November 1916. The first Alb. D.III machines were completed in December 1916.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

rammjaeger · 31 August 2001, 07:46 AM

Sorry Dan-San,

I can only repeat: The "date" (if it is a date!) is 9th October 1916. There is no doubt possible. The Germans used (sometimes) a mix of arab and roman numbers for dates to avoid confusion between the numbers for days and month. The day got an Arab number but the month a Roman number!

As well it is and was not the style of my German compatriots to write a date in the style MM/DD/YY - we use in general the DD/MM/YY-format. I think you should believe a German in this matter despite a the surprising result.

I think it is necessary to search for another explanation concerning the use of the engine.

VBR
Rammjaeger

Dan_San_Abbott · 31 August 2001, 08:37 AM

Rammjaeger:
I don't doubt the date at all. That is the European standard form. What I doubt is, that engine was ever in an Alb.D.Va in the October 1916 form. Orders were not issued to the Albatros Werke for the Alb. D.Va until August 1917. The Mercedes D.III engines were recycled and over hauled againand again, either at the hugh overhaul facility in Brussels or at the Daimler Factory in Stuttgart. Alb. D.Va aircraft had Mercedes D.IIIaü version of the engine. 8)
Blue skies,
Dan-San

rammjaeger · 31 August 2001, 09:46 AM

Sorry Dan-San,

I was really misinterpreting your last post. :-[
You are right, if the engine was really used in an Albatros D.Va then a modification of the engine was required and would be visible in a relevant info at the motor.

VBR
Rammjaeger

charles · 31 August 2001, 09:59 AM

I have in my collection a section of wing spar from an Albatros D.V and various other pieces which are from a DV or DVa including a right rear under carriage leg and fitting, a section from a seat rail, a few small bulkhead pieces, and a tachometer of the type used in the DV/Va but not necessarily from the same aircraft. All of them came from one source and that source believed they were all from the same Albatros.

I have written a lengthy study complete with photographs of comparing my wing spar root fitting with those of the DVa.s in the National Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C., and at Canberra and concluded that my spar came from a DV, not a Va. This goes back a few years and Dan Abbott doesn't agree with me about it, but there you are, I wont go into all of that.

Marco Fernandez-Sommerau contacted me this summer because he had seen my web page and believed that an Albatros DV/Va left undercarriage leg and rudder in his collection were from the very same aircraft that my pieces were from.

I was in Europe at the beginning of August, first London researching material at the PRO, and then visited Marco and his lovely wife for two days at their home in Ghent, Belgium, where I inspected these peices. His left rear undercarriage leg and my right rear one have an identical and very distinctive paint pattern of black and green paint, as well as the same odd white chalk-like marks which seem to have been marked on the pieces sometime after the aircraft crashed or was destroyed after the war. I tend to think the aircraft crashed due to the amount of stress necessary to bend the metal and shear-off bolts on the fittings.

I brought with me a copy of the rudder blueprint drawn by the folks at the Garber facility when they restored the D.Va 'Stropp' and Marco's rudder matched.

We parted with the general thought that they may well be from the same aircraft, but we had more work to do. Marco obtained the Mercedes D.III from the same source that he obtained his other Albatros parts from which is why I am researching his D.III engine.

Dan, if we suspend the old debate over my wing spar for the moment, what is the likelihood that this Mercedes D.III could have flown a D.V, rather than a D.Va?

By the way, the Rumpler is magnificent. You can see it when you lay out all of the pieces. Peter developed a concordance between the known werke number and the actual serial number and then sent Marco a copy of a photograph of the very same aircraft. I will post it here, if anyone is interested.

By the way, I can't believe none of you afficianados replied to my 'other aviation' post about the Flugsport sign with the Fokker Schwerin poster 'Image within Image within Image.' I thought it brilliant. Is everyone asleep? No back-slapping here? No 'job well done?'

Dan_San_Abbott · 31 August 2001, 02:26 PM

Charles:
First of all, you should be congratulated, the "image within an image'" was remarkable

, I have just kicked my butt, :-[ My reaction was, "I'll be damned ,that's neat!"

.
It is quite possible that, that Mercedes engine wound-up in this Alb. D.Va, but not in a 1916 configuration. It would have been up graded to the D.IIIaü configuration which was a 180 Ps version, that what I was saying. Dave Watts, in a thread on the old Forum in a simular discussion said there were a lot of versions of the engine because they were rebuilt over and over again.
Blue skies,
Dan