|
Romani -
As far as Albatros adopting the sesquiplane layout, I think it was simply a matter of following orders and Thelen's method of doing so. Throughout the Pioneer Era and WWI, aviation design was a game of follow-the-leader. Success bred imitation - Bleriot's success brought the tractor monoplane into fashion, the Sopwith Tabloid's record-setting performance did the same for the small, tractor biplane. As you know, the Nieuport Scouts gave a very good performance in combat and this led to the German manufacturers being ordered to "copy" the design. Some manufacturers (SSW, Euler) took this directive literally, while Albatros chose to adapt the wing layout to it's already-successful basic design. I doubt the aerodynamical pros and cons were very well understood at the time; I think the philosophy was "If it works for them it'll work for us." A similar approach was taken following the Sopwith Triplane's debut, except in that case the Albatros/Thelen system of evolutionary design was a total miscalculation.
Basically, I think it's an issue of personality and philosophy, not physics. If aircraft designers had based their machines on aerodynamic principles - or indeed if they had understood those principles well enough to even be able to design around them - we never would have seen combat aircraft that shed their wings in a dive or stubby low-aspect ailerons. As effective as some of these kites were, I have to believe that it was more by trial-and-error and sheer luck than science and theory. With the D.III, Albatros got lucky - and with their Dr.I they didn't.
|