German Half Range Aircraft...

I just noticed something in the statistics of German vs. British Aircraft that blows me away, because it Carried over into WWII.

German Aircraft had horrible range. The Fokker DVII could only stay in the air for ninety minutes vs one twenty for the Camel, one fifty for the SE5a and one eighty for the Snipe.

This likely had to do with the German Aircraft being heavier and therefor having a much poorer ability to load fuel for longer flight.

Now I know that in WWII the BF109E had a range of 100 Nautical Miles. This played a major role in the Battle of Britain.

What is it about the thinking of German Engineers that so hampers the endurance ability of their machines?

[Volker_Nemsch]

I my opinion the differences in the radius of action were a result of the different policies of using aircraft.

In WW1 the Alliies airforces pursued an aggressive and offensive warfare while the Germans thought more in defensive terms (except the Gotha and Zeppelin raids).

A British pilot (for example) had to cross the lines with his aircraft, fulfil his recon, escort or bombing mission and then he had to fly back across the lines again, mostly against the wind. The German pilots were mostly waiting for the enemy aircraft and they simply attacked the machines on the own side of the trenches. Different policies with a different need of petrol. Both sides performed all kind of aerial missions but the need for long range aircraft was more on the Allied side.

Best regards
Volker Nemsch

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Grey:
Volker is absolutely correct. Idflieg directed the aircraft design that was lead by the the doctrine of defense. Check the climb performance of German aircraft against Allied aircraft and you will see that Allied aircraft had slower rates of climb. Conversely look at maximum airspeeds, now you will see the Allied aircraft are faster. Rates of climb are driven by power available and the weight of the aircraft. In order to achieve the rates of climb something had to be sacrificed,. What the German engineers gave up was flight endurance. Gasoline weighs about 7 lbs /gallon. 10 gallon=70lbs, that is a lot of weight. To make their problem worse, the Mercedes D.IIIa engine of 1916 weighed 589.6 lbs. The heavy engine requires more wing area to pick it up, the greater wing area =a heavier plane. The 200 Hp Hisso weighed about 440 pounds. The S.E.5a starts out with 149.6 lbs advantage. The wing span of the S.E. was 26'7.4" The wing span of the Fok. D.VII was over 29 ft. The BMWIIIa engine weighed 631 lbs! German aircraft were heavier and bigger than Allied aircraft because they did not have powerful light engines and this effected overall performance. At war's end, new Allied aircraft were approaching 150mph. Germany had not reached 130mph which the S.E.5a and the SPAD XIII surpassed in JULY 1917.???
Blue skies,
Dan-San

>German Aircraft had horrible range.

In the Palestinian theatre where long legs and the capability to perform multiple roles in the one flight meant air superiority, the Rumpler CI dominated the theatre until late 1917. Despite the British and Australians having four squadrons opposing the one German FA, the Germans had air superiority. The Rumpler CI not only flew over the pyramids but also participated in missions where Felmy would land near the water pipelines and then blow them up.

By March 1918, 1 Sqn AFC was totally equipped with Bristol Fighters which had long legs, powerful engines and were highly capable in multiple roles. In one mission the Australians could take the fight to the German FA's, do reconn, photography and escort all 100 miles behind Turkish lines. The same as what FA300 was doing in the theatre a year earlier. The DFW's, LVG's, Albatros and Pfalz Scouts, coupled with long supply lines for parts and fuel couldnt compete with the Bristol Fighters or SE5a's in the theatre. There were two squadrons of SE5a's but it was the single Squadron of Bristol Fighters which ranged far and wide. It wasnt unusual for the Bristols to fly a mission of 360 miles with a fuel stop at a forward airfield on the way over and on the way back.



cam

I'm very interested in the BrisFit, BTW. After I finish up my SE5a I'll try and tackle it.

And also you struck something else with me.

The various theaters of WW1 aren't very well explored when it comes to Aviation.

I'd like to know, for instance, how much of a fight Turkey put up in the air. And what about South Eastern Europe? I know, for instance, that Italy went after Albania... but that's about all I know.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Grey:
Italy and Austria had fairly good sized air forces, that were self supporting. Austria fought against Russia and Italy. Turkey, Bulgaria were supported entirely by the Germany with equipment and training. Neither could support themselves, neither country had an aviation industry. I'll do a little leg work and see what I can dig up.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan, please start a new thread when you do... That merrits some attention I think.

Thanks