Pflaz DIIIa - how good or bad it really was?

[Kwiatek]

Yea You right these charts are from NACA test. All these test have very low value of Cl max for all profiles so You should be right that test was made with small Reynolds Number.

These NACA data and test are very inaccurate for RL planes and airfoils.

I found some more reliable data for such airfoils:

Fokker DVII- 1.32 Clmax

RAF 15 ( SE5?) - 1.2 Clmax

Spad XIII - 1.05 Clmax

[Mogadeet]

Originally Posted by SCMc

Mogadeet wrote:


In post 12, Greg van W. wrote about Max Holtzem (a Pfalz test pilot and a combat pilot in the D.III or D.IIIa):


We seem to have contradictory opinions here, which is not surprizing for any discussion about the Pfalz D.III or D.IIIa.

Steve

Max Holtzem is far more of an expert than many of the writers out there. I mean, he actually FLEW the things. And since he was a Pfalz test pilot, he is probably the correct one.

Mogadeet

[Gatt]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Yea You right these charts are from NACA test. All these test have very low value of Cl max for all profiles so You should be right that test was made with small Reynolds Number.

These NACA data and test are very inaccurate for RL planes and airfoils.

I found some more reliable data for such airfoils:

Fokker DVII- 1.32 Clmax

RAF 15 ( SE5?) - 1.2 Clmax

Spad XIII - 1.05 Clmax

Kwiatek,

can you please tell me the source (or web page) of that NACA test? Or the number and type of airfoil study (M.I.T., Eiffel, Gottinga ....).
I have about 1,000 airfoils charts from a 1925 italian official publication but many of them are identified only by number/study and not by aircraft.

Regards,
GATT

[Akaalias]

Hi Kwiatek.

As much as I would like to see the Pfalz D.III and D.IIIa raised to a more exalted position, I place great store in the figures cited by Frank Olynyk in thread 6359 ("Most "Successful" German Fighter", 30th December, 1998).

In this thread Frank gives figures for claims by aircraft type. They include:

Albatros D.III 891
Albatros D.V 1071
Albatros D.Va 546
Pfalz D.III 43
Pfalz D.IIIa 191

As you can see, these figures put the Pfalz in a poorer light than the Albatros, even allowing for the different production figures for each type of fighter.

I sincerely hope that someone can prove me wrong, but until that happens, I accept that the above figures are (generally) in the correct ballpark and that the Pfalz was inferior to the Albatros.

Cheers,
A

[Chock]

Trouble with that assessment is, it doesn't take into account in-service dates, and with whom they were, as well as the kind of victories involved. This is just the same as if I say that both you and I ate dinner yesterday, and from that statistic conclude we must have eaten the same thing. We have to look carefully at statistics if we want to glean an informed result. To elaborate on that...

The Albatros DIII was in service about eight months before the Pfalz DIII, and the kind of enemy aircraft it met because of that, makes a huge difference on the relative ease it would have enjoyed in shooting something down. There is a world of difference between shooting down an RE8, DH2 or BE2 flopping along at 65 mph with a pilot who doesn't even know that turning is a good tactic, and something much more capable of turning, with a better-trained pilot at the controls. Furthermore, as we know, and as Von Richthofen and others pointed out, once you have got a few scalps under your belt, you begin to learn how the trick is done. And if the trick is learned on an Albatros, then it is only natural the pilots would say it was a big part of the equation.

Regardless of the craft, the early introduction of the Albatros was giving the pilots flying it the best start they could hope for when compared with what it opposed, just as the Eindecker had done with Boelcke and Immelman, despite the Eindecker being a fairly mediocre aeroplane.

We see the same thing with pilots such as James McCudden, who was fortunate enough to commence his career at a time and in a section of the front, where his initial inexperience was helped by the opposition he faced at the time, allowing him the luxury of a comparatively gentler introduction to things. It wasn't easy, but it was easier. This is something which many other pilots were not fortunate enough to enjoy, and we have to wonder how many others who did not enjoy that luxury might also have been McCuddens if presented with the chance, just as we might similarly wonder how the Pfalz might be viewed if it had been the mount of Richthofen, since there is little doubt he would have been successful in one.

But back with the Pfalz, we also have to consider what the DIII tended to go for too. With its vastly better diving speed, like the SPAD, the Pfalz was considered a good choice for going after balloons, where a fast dive to the target through the intense ground fire was the typical preferred method of attack, something that would have seen the wings falling off a DIII or DV. As you probably know, many pilots considered the downing of a balloon to be the equivalent of getting three or more aircraft, and this was also reflected officially in the way gongs were handed out to pilots too.

What is more, with the reputation for being trickier to fly, this obviously affected the quantity in which the Pfalz was ordered, but more importantly, the way in which it was deployed. The famous Jastas, in which the Germans tended to group their star pilots, held a lot of sway with regard to which aircraft they got, and it's only natural that they would not have wanted the aircraft with a reputation of being hard to fly, as well as preferring the devil they knew. That would lead to the more talented pilots getting the Albatros, with its better overall ease of flight; the kind of pilots who could work around its flutter in a dive shortcomings.

So if the talented pilots were in the Albatros, then it would be the Albatros that would rack up the kills, regardless of whether the Pfalz would likely have done the same in similar circumstances. By the same token, one would assume that as a result of that, when the more average and lesser pilots got the Pfalz, it had a similar negative effect on the statistics.

This is probably not the whole story of course, but it would make the tales of woe about the Pfalz become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, by the way those tales affected how it was deployed and who was taking it into combat. We can see some of this in many autobiographical tales from RFC flyers, who did indeed consider the Pfalz easy meat. But if we read those tales, we can see that it was often the way the pilots were using the Pfalz as much as what type of aircraft it was, that resulted in them being referred to as 'dud Huns'. None of that would show in bare statistical data, but that does not make it untrue.

A good comparison would be the WW2 Focke-Wulf 190 Dora/TA-152. By any criteria, this was definitely one of the best aircraft of WW2, if not the best, but by the time it was in combat, most of the quality German pilots were either dead or washed up from the stress of long service. This meant that it was flown mainly by inexperienced newcomers. As a consequence, we might conclude that the P-51 (which shot it down in droves) was vastly superior, but have the pilots swap mounts, and it is for sure that the more experienced pilots would still have come out on top, in either craft. A classic example of that can be found in Johnny Johnson's 'Wing Leader' autobiography, where he relates witnessing Unternehmen Bodenplatte (Operation Baseplate). By the time the Luftwaffe were able to mount that operation, they had to do it with very poorly trained pilots. Johnson points out that it was a bold stroke, and probably would have worked too, had the marksmanship and flying skills of the pilots involved matched the audacity of the plan itself.

Al

[crankcase]

Originally Posted by Chock

...So if the talented pilots were in the Albatros, then it would be the Albatros that would rack up the kills, regardless of whether the Pfalz would likely have done the same in similar circumstances.......
This is probably not the whole story of course, but it would make the tales of woe about the Pfalz become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, by the way those tales affected how it was deployed and who was taking it into combat.... Al

Hey Al,
Interesting comments. I know the works and scholarship of GregVan and others for some years now -- they supply real horsepower to the forum! ...
my question to you is: what's your excuse for joining this forum so late (augst 2009)?
just shy or what?
marc

[Chock]

Shy is probably the last thing anyone who knows me would ever accuse me of LOL Truth is, I never got replies to my emails when I attempted to register, that being a few times over the years. In the end I (recently) put a comment about that inability to register in the visitors book, which you can post in even when not registered for the forum, and it did the trick.

Al

[crankcase]

Originally Posted by Chock

Shy is probably the last thing anyone who knows me would ever accuse me of LOL Truth is, I never got replies to my emails when I attempted to register, that being a few times over the years. In the end I (recently) put a comment about that inability to register in the visitors book, which you can post in even when not registered for the forum, and it did the trick.

Al

Thank goodness for that (all's well that ends well)... reminds me of Udet's frustration trying to join the Bavarian Fliegertruppen (his "home" state) and finally signing up with the Prussians instead.

At least the Bavarians learned their lesson... in soccer at least, and made sure they didn't miss keeping talent like Beckenbauer and Gerd Mueller!
marc

[Shredward]

Originally Posted by Gregvan

Hi,
Well, as Greybeard mentions the book "The Pfalz Aces" and as I am the author of Osprey's Pfalz Fighter Aces of World War 1, I suppose I should step up here (I really thought I did find "someone to mention"?). Since I wrote that book, I have found additional information on the Pfalz D.III flown by Rudolf Berthold, and the D.IIIa fighters flown by Otto Kissenberth and some of the aces of Jasta 29.

Hi Greg,
Please do tell, particularly Kissenberth and the Ja29 gang.
Cheers,
shredward

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
I found Frank Olynyk's score totals for Albatros and Pfalz aircraft rather interesting. I don't believe they reflect correct values. Long were the each at the front? How many Jagdstaffeln were equipped with each type?
Albatros D.III served from December 1916 to at least 31 August 1918. On 30 April 1917, there were 327 at the front and for them part the most successful of the German fighters in service, Also there were 97 Roland D.IIs 44 Fok.D.I and D.IIs and 97 Roland D.II in service at the front. There were several Roland Jasta with the Roland D.II or D.IIa Jasta 25, 27, 32b, 36 and 37. I don't know, but I suspect that some of the victories reported were credited to the wrong aircraft.
The Albatros D.III and the Alb.D.III(OAW) served longer than the Alb.D.V. The Alb.D.V entered front service in May 1917 and 216 were reported at the front on 30 June along with 72 Alb.D.II and 303 Alb.D.III. The Alb.D.V peaked at 526 on 31 Oct.1917 along with 446 Alb.D.III, mostly* (OAW) and 53 Alb.D.Va machines. By 28 February 1918 reporting, there were, 357 Alb.D.III(OAW*), 250 Alb.D.V and 475 Alb.D.Va aircraft. On 30 April the front listing reported 174 Alb.D.III(OAW*), 131 Alb.D.V and 928 Alb.D.Va.
A good number of the Jagdstaffeln had a mix of aircraft, for example, Jasta 4,7, 15,16b,18 and 21s, to pick a few, had a mix of Pfalz D.IIIa and Alb.D.V in February 1918.
The Pfalz D.III entered service in August 1917 with 3 machines at Jasta 10. By 31 October 1917 145 were at the front. on 31 December 1917, there were 276 Pfalz D.III and 114 Pfalz D.IIIa in service at the front which means 34 % of the fighters at the front were Pfalz D.III or D.IIIa types compared to the Albatros types. On 28 February there were 182 Pfalz D.III and 261 D.IIIa equals 443 Pfalz machines at the front and were 40.6% of the 1089 Albatros types. By 30 June there were 708 Albatros types and 321 Pfalz types which includes 14 D.VIII and 5 D.XII machine constitute 45 % of the Albatros types. On 31 August 1918, there were 379 Albatros types which breaks down to; 52 Alb.D.III, 20 D.V and 307 D.Va and 356 Pfalz types, 3 D.III, 166 D.IIIa 19 D.VIII and 168 D.XII.
Of the fighters at the front 1505, on 31 August 1918, 828 Fok.D.VII, (53.4%)
Albatros 379, (24.5%) and Pfalz 356 (23.0). Pfalz of Albatros types 93.9%
All through this study shows the Albatros types dwindling when compared to Pfalz aircraft. The Albatros D.III, D.V and D.Va were being replaced before the Pfalz D.IIIa and D.IIIa with the arrival of the Fok.D.VII. What this shows, Idflieg had preferred the Pfalz D.III and D.IIIa over the Alb.D.III, D.V and D.Va. This most likely had more to do with structural strength than performance.
I would have liked to see the At Front Listings for September and October 1918 to see if this trend continued and what effect did the Pfalx D.XV have.
Blue skies,
Dan-San