Comparison Albatros D-II vs Albatros D-III

[leo]

I doubt if any of the AH built D III's ever flew on the wstern front. AH had none to spare. All of the Oeffag DIII"s were superior in performance to the Albatross version-series 53, 153, 253 with the 225hp Austro-Daimler had a top end of 125 mph. This was probably the fastest Central Powers fighter. Austrian pilots claimed they could successfully compete with any Allied fighter. They also claimed they could do so in complete safety with few wing problems.

[Greybeard]

1.Albatros D.III was actually faster than D.II since it reached 109 mph like D.II but at 1000 metres of altitude (3280'), equivalent to 117 mph at SL.

2.Albatros D.III was powered by Daimler D.IIIa with increased compression ratio but not flat topped pistons, only less concave, developing 180 PS at 1450 RPM according to test performed at Adlershof and 174 HP at 1400 RPM according to test performed in England on a captured example and reported on Jane's 1919 (1990 reprint).

3.Albatros D.II was powered by Daimler D.III developing 166 PS at 1400 RPM according to Technische Berichte 1917 and 162.5 HP at same RPM according to british test, mentioned source.

Thanks to better power to weight ratio, Alb. D.III climbed faster than D.II, in addition to cited superior speed. Its only weak point was insufficient stiffness of bottom wing, as explained by Koloman, whose unique competence I too acknowledge.

GB

[Romani]

Some questions to ponder:

What about the wing loading and turning radius?

It should be higher on the DIII due to smaller wing area, but wing loading alone doesn't determine turning radius, I believe, lift also must taken into account.

Wing loading indirectly tells us how dense is the airplane, wich tells us about its diving qualities. I figure out that having same weight, smaller wing area, and having less drag (smaller wing surface, wing mounted radiator instead of fuselage side mounted, the DIII would be faster in a dive, and accelerate faster initially.


And roll rates? I believe that the DIII, with less mass on the wings would roll better, but I have no clue if that's significant for a WWI airplane, or it only depends on the ailerons. Wich brings us to the next question.

What about the DIII ailerons? I think they are very stylish with that raked shape, but wonder how effective they were. On the contrary, the British seemed to think more was better and their fighters usually had two pairs of ailerons.


What about the lifting efficiency of the sesquiplane configuration? Less interference between wings has already been noted, but I wonder, does the bottom wing of the DIII qualify as one of those high aspect ratio wings (long and narrow) wich are very efficient in providing lift, or not even close?


In a nutshell, how good were they as turning fighters compared with each other and their opponents? What does the story of the duel between Manfred von Richthofen in his DII and Lanoe Hawker in his DH2 tell us? Yes, I know bringing up the performance of a pusher will elicit derision, but seriously, anachronic as they were, I have the feeling that those pushers, though slow, were quite agile and capable of quite tight turns.

How did the DII and DIII compare with their opponents, the Sopwith Pup, the Nieuport 17, the SPAD VII?

From McCudden opinion of a captured Albatros, it was hard on the controls, wich is not a desirable thing, and understandable in view of that large elevator and rudder, and the two hand grip on the control stick suggest that it recquired strength to pilot an Albatros. But on the other hand, that was a subjective opinion from somebody used to light and handy airplanes. McCudden went out saying that he couldn't figure out how the German pilots managed to handle their Albatros so skillfully, wich suggests the machines were quite maneuverable and not sluggish bricks with wings.

Yet on the other hand, the impression one gets from the analysis of the Albatros is that it was built with speed, power and climb in mind, not dogfighting. In effect it seems that the Jasta pilots were using their advantages in speed, climb and ceiling for zoom and boom tactics (or energy fighting if you will) whereas British pilots influenced by their handy rotary engine fighters were still thinking of the turning fight, (the Sopwith Camel being the logical evolution), at least until the SE5 arrived. In my view , this is one of the things that explained the SPAD VII relative lack of success in British squadrons.

So sometimes , it seems as if the DIII was only a marginal improvement over the DII, and the German aerial supremacy in Bloody April was just due to sound tactics, the simple fact the Germans had now a fighter with an engine powerful enough to carry two machineguns without performance loss, and last but not least, the woeful obsolescence of so many British types.

But then again, why did the Germans copy the Nieuport 17 wing? They couldn't play at the Allies game of light, nimble rotary scouts, and if speed, power and climb were the way to go, the DII should have been good enough. Was the adoption of the sesquiplane concept a step in the wrong direction? Hard to believe. Exactly, what made the Nieuport 17 so feared and admired by the Germans? Well, on one hand when it appeared it was so revolutionary that it surely made the German pilots flying in Eindeckers feel an inferiority complex similar to the one later felt by British fliers in pushers when faced with the Albatros.

One reason that has been pointed is improved visibility downwards. Certainly it is very important, but situational awareness comes second to performance, I think. Else, you end up with a failure like the Airco DH5, the view from the cockpit was wonderful, too bad the only thing you saw was the undersides of the enemy fighters overhead (ok ok, i am digressing and stretching it, but you get the point). I think that in order to compare the DII with the DIII, we have to begin examining what made the Nieuport 17 so good, and how was that applied to the DIII.

So I think the qualities the Germans liked in the Ni 17 and wanted to emulate were 1) visibility 2) climb 3) perhaps good turning ability and/or roll rate in spite of the decreased wing area?

That's the impression I am getting from the responses in this thread. Else, why bother with the sesquiplane concept at all? I don't think it's a coincidence that it was adopted in the last biplanes of the 1930s, including fighters renowned by the agility such as the Fiat CR32 and the Polikarpov I-15. Surely the designers must have been onto something.

I am believing now that the DIII could do everything the DII did, only better.


I hope I have managed to say something that is not wrong and makes sense in my long ramblings I have just been wondering about the true qualities of the Albatros fighters for years.

[Machinbird]

Originally Posted by Romani

Some questions to ponder:
.................................................. .................................................. .
One reason that has been pointed is improved visibility downwards. Certainly it is very important, but situational awareness comes second to performance,...................................... ........................

Romani, I agree with most of what you said, but the quoted sentences I believe are not correct. Lack of situational awareness is an order of magnitude more deadly than lack of performance in air to air combat. That's why the new guys were such grapes waiting for the plucking. An experienced pilot in a poorly performing airplane had a moderate chance of making it back from the mission. The inexperienced pilot, even in a good performing aircraft, was unlikely to survive his first air to air combat unless an experienced hand was helping keep his tail clear and the intensity of the combat was low. Of course, even an experienced pilot will have trouble maintaining proper situational awareness in an aircraft which has too many blind spots. Without situational awareness, you are nothing but a target.
Best wishes,
Sid

[Greybeard]

1. Situational Awareness (SA) is the most important factor for a pilot.

2.Alb. D.III was mainly faster than its predecessor and this is always a significant improvement for a fighter. Also, its better power to weight ratio gave it better climbing ability (you should have read my previous message: why to ask, if you don't read answers?).

3.Probably germans envied Nie.17 manouvrability, so tried to emulate sesquiplane (at that time flight was still much a matter of attempts).

4.Albatros were anyway superior to allied scouts already from D.I: kill rate, favourable to germans, during fall and winter of 1916/17 demonstrates it well beyond any possible theoretical reasoning.

GB

[Kacey]

Originally Posted by Pips

Were the Oeffag Albatross common on the Western Front? Were they allocated to specific Jasta or just allocated willy-nilly? And did Manfred fly one?

And would it be asking too much to perhaps post some details of the Oeffag's performance as a comparison to the Johannisthal version?

PIPs,

I remembered this sort of being dropped (unanwsered), so I'm getting back to it.

I DO NOT have any reported/test data from the time period giving the Austro-Daimler equipped Albatros D.II or D.III or D.V's performance.

However, I do have a calibration database that has a:

Alb D.III---Merc D.III, 160ps@1400rpm flying at 112mph@msl/110mph@3280'

The reported data it is to be compared to is 109mph@3280'(1km).
(Within 1mph)

So I subsituted an Austro-Daimler 185hp, 200hp and a 225hp engine into this
same formula and found the following results:

Alb D.III---Austro-Daimler,185ps@1400rpm at 115mph@msl/113mph@3280'
Alb D.III---Austro-Daimler,200ps@1400rpm at 118mph@msl/116mph@3280'
Alb D.III---Austro-Daimler,225ps@1400rpm at 124mph@msl/121mph@3280'

Based on the fact that I believe the Alb D.III had a "climb-bias" prop, that's the only way I could get it to match with the slow 109mph@3280' reported figure. That feature was retained in the Austro-Daimler substitutes.

They all could probable go 5-7mph faster with a more normal pitch prop. But of course they would give away climb-rate. The Germans had an absolute fixation, at that time, to reach 5000m in under 30min. With the propeller they chose the Albatros D.III was able to do this.

Anyway just my calulated results. Maybe someone has actual Austro-Dailmer powered Albatros D.III test results to compre to these numbers. (maybe not)

Respectfully Submitted,

KC

[Koloman Mayrhofer]

hallo,
unfortunatly there are no complete testing reports on the austrian built albatross D III. at least some i am aware off .

the propellers used on DII with 185 hp was
270 dia pitch 220 blade width 215
270 225 215
270 225 230

DIII with 185 hp
265 235 185
265 235 200
265 240 200

DIII with 200 / 210 HP
280 220 200
280 225 225
280 225 235

or
268 230 210
268 230 220
270 230 220

or
275 230 200
275 230 210
275 235 215


it was mandatory that from any manufacturer from any propeller type three variations was approved
hope this datas will help KACEY in his calculations.

as i sayed before i am very cautious with all this performance datas as tey are depending on so much parameters and usually the exact circumstances are not known so comparison between planes are always difficult.

will look at the engine datas i have for more details but please be a bit patient

cheers
koloman mayrhofer

[EAGLEDAD]

After reading books on World War 1 air combat, I also wonder why the Albatros was so good. I think it is vastly underated. In Norman Frank’s book Aircraft vs Aircraft, I believe it indicates that the Albatros was better than the Sopwith Pup in speed, dive, and climb (p35) and faster than the Nieuport in speed, but not as good in a climb (p38). In Pfalz Aircraft of World War I, Jack Herris indicates similar information (p27) and also indicates that the Albatros D3 is better than the Albatros D2 in climb and maneuverability (p29). Capt Albert Deullin wrote that “the 180 Horsepower(HP) Spad will outfly a 160 HP Albatros on the level or a dive at a small angle.” He also wrote that the 200 HP Spad was even faster on the level and dive and “it will also outclimb the Albatros” (Italics added by me). Does that mean in the field that a 160 HP Albatross will climb with or out climb a 180 HP Spad? In another section Captain Deullin wrote that “the average…single-seater Albatross probably nearer one hundred and ten or one hundred and fifteen” (miles per hour). (Data taken from “Fighting Airman “ by Major Charles Biddle pages 248 and 251). This fits close to the 109mph speed quoted in many sources.

Finally, less we think that the Albatros was not real maneuverable, Norman Macmillian, a pilot in 45 Squadron and a Camel flight instructor stated, “ In 45 Squadron, we used to estimate that the Camel could complete three turns to the right to the Albatros DV’s two, but when turning to the left these two aircraft were approximately equal with on another in rate of turn.” (“Sopwith Camel, King of Combat by Chaz Bowyer, pg 75).

Perhaps the Albatros was not the “lead sled” made out by some.

May God Fly your wing Always!

Eagledad

And a Joyous, Prosperous, New Year to all!

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
I have followed this thread with considerable interest. In analysing WW1 aircraft perforamce, I have arrived at how each side used their aircraft and engineeed them to fill that purpose. The French and British were not fuel starved, the German were. The Allies flew Patrols looking for a fight and wanted high speed performance in their aircraft. The Germans responded to incursions of Allied flights with Aircraft design for interception, which required good climb performance rather that high speed. They designed aircraft with low drag, with high lift airfoils.
The German engineers matched aircraft and engine to propellers to the aircraft that would produce best climbing performance. This was their design concept and was specified by Idflieg in their design specifications. High lift airfoils as opposed to thin high speed airfoils, Albatros, Fokker, Roland, Siemen-Schuckert. D series of fighters and the Pfalz D.III/D.IIIa. The exception was was the Pfalz D.VIII and D.XII which had the low drag thin airfoils like the SPAD VII and XIII, however they still had propellers designed for climb. The flight endurance was less on German aircraft than their Allied counter-parts, two hours or less. The problem is you can't have high horizontal speed and fast climbs with fixed pitch propellers. That is why both sides were trying to solve the problem of adjustable pitch propellers.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Pips]

Very interesting comments Dan.

You may well be right regarding the German design decision to go for high lift airfoils as the war progressed. Given that the initial German advantage on more powerful inline engines would ultimately whittle away as Allied technology caught up.

But does that hold true in the initial design of the Albatross D.I, D.II and D.III? I didn't think that it's wings were high lift, rather being of the thin airfoil low drag variety.