Pfalz Fokker or Albatross

mik · 27 October 2009, 12:26 PM

The post by dan san abbot says it all. I still would prefer to fly a Pfalz D111a until the Fokker DV11 and Pfalz DX11 arrived. Once again fokker workmanship/Quality control was shoddy although I will admit by 1918 it must have improved.

sightreader · 27 October 2009, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mik

Once again fokker workmanship/Quality control was shoddy although I will admit by 1918 it must have improved.

Wait a sec... I thought Albatros ended up manufacturing a lot of the Fokkers?

Raineranton · 27 October 2009, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sightreader

The previously posted account noted that the Pfalz D12 had a good climb rate and seemed to hold its own but felt, perhaps, sluggish. Could I infer that, perhaps, it didn't have a good roll rate (thus appearing unresponsive) but otherwise had a decent turn circle?

From the book: Deutsche Jagdflugzeuge 1915-1945, Heinz J. Nowarra:

Pfalz D XII: In September 1918 this biplane was delivered to the Bavarian fighter squadrons. This aircraft was faster than the Fokker D VII, but was not so manoeuvrable because of the two pairs of struts and the wire bracing. In spite of these facts, this model was in action to the end of the war in 1918. Although the pilots did not like it very much, the Pfalz D XII was superior to the Fokker D VII in speed and diving.

From the book: Pfalz Aircraft of World War One, Jack Herris:

...In summary, the Pfalz D XII was a good aircraft with which to replace the obsolescent Albatros D III and D V/Va and Pfalz D III/IIIa fighters that were still at the front in mid-1918. However, the D XII needed the superior BMW D IIIa engine (despite of the 160 hp Mercedes D IIIa) to reach its full potential, and it had the misfortune to reach the front after the exceptional Fokker D VII, to which it was inferior in maneuverability.

Rainer

Chock · 27 October 2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sightreader

Wait a sec... I thought Albatros ended up manufacturing a lot of the Fokkers?

They did. So if you ever drop through a hole in the space-time continuum and find yourself having to fly a Fokker DVII, remember to carry this handy 'Are the wings going to fall off my Fokker?' guide, just in case...

Al

sightreader · 27 October 2009, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raineranton

Although the pilots did not like it very much, the Pfalz D XII was superior to the Fokker D VII in speed and diving.

Hmmm.... sounds like what the pilots actually didn't like was not so much the Pfalz D12 itself, but rather the boom and zoom style of combat...

Plus, I guess, it sounds like it was pretty ugly to look at.

Hey, do you think an D12 could outturn or outperform a DVa in a scissors?

Cigogne · 29 October 2009, 12:31 PM

Rainer Anton wrote: "Although the pilots did not like it very much, the Pfalz D XII was superior to the Fokker D VII in speed and diving."

That was the intent of the design. The Pfalz D.XII w/ it's true twin-bay wing cellule w/ thin aerofoil was developed because of the influence of the Spad S.VII and S.XIII and their diving capability. Also, even though it was stated that the 160 h.p. engine was used, it was actually the uprated 180 h.p. Mercedes that was installed in the D.XII.

Dan_San_Abbott · 29 October 2009, 01:31 PM

Cigogne:
You are alsolutely correct Aaron, No Pfalz.D.IIIa or D.XII ever had a Mercedes.D.III 160 Ps engine installed. The left the Pfalz Flugzeug werke with the Mercedes D.IIIaü 180 Ps engine installed.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Raineranton · 29 October 2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Cigogne:
You are alsolutely correct Aaron, No Pfalz.D.IIIa or D.XII ever had a Mercedes.D.III 160 Ps engine installed. The left the Pfalz Flugzeug werke with the Mercedes D.IIIaü 180 Ps engine installed.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Yep!

Sorry, my fault!

Thanks for the correction, Cigogne and Dan-San!

Rainer

Cigogne · 29 October 2009, 06:22 PM

Chock,

Your joking, right, about the wings falling off of Fokker-built machines? I know of no reports of D.VIIs shedding their wings due to failure. I know that there were some instances of the rear portions of the ribs failing of the centre-section portions due to excessive stress from combat maneuvers, but not of spar or wing failure. The outer portions w/ the control surfaces did not fail. The the examples I am speaking of are seen on the ground after their pilots safely landed. The box spars were extremely strong. If an aircraft was damaged in combat due to gunfire or collision, that was another matter and not related to the integrity of the airframe.

The aircraft catching fire was due to faulty phosphorus ammunition and the high-temperatures in the summer heat. The Unseasonably warm summer temperatures of 1918 combined w/ the lack of ventilation to the ammunition boxes and the unstable nature of the Ph munition resulted in a number of fatal accidents due to the combustion of the ammo.
The summer weather was an unforeseen factor not related to the design of the aircraft. Removal of cowling panels and addition of cooling vents and louvres for adequate ventilation fixed the problem.

I don't know of any German pilots who complained of Fokker-built machines vs. Albatros or OAW-built ones. There are ample photos of many of Germany's top pilots w/ Fokker-built D.VIIs. I think you are spreading a myth here. Where are you getting your information? There were a few accidents after the war with surplus machines, but who knows how they were cared for or maintained by the occupying forces? Smells like the A.R. Weyl myth being perpetuated from his Fokker: The Creative Years book that needs a ton of salt while reading it.

The Mercedes D.III originally had 160 h.p. when it came out in 1915-16. The uprated versions of 170-175 h.p., 180-200 h.p., that added the D.IIIa and D.IIIaü to the nomenclature were improvements of the existing D.III design and not a totally new design. Hence, despite these improvements in much of the literature it was still referred to as the D.III 160 PS. (PS = h.p.)

Cheers!

Chock · 29 October 2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigogne

I think you are spreading a myth here.

Nah, I'm having a joke at the expense of a few things German aircraft were occasionally a bit notorious for, and the occasionally legendary crapness of Fokker quality control. I should have thought that was obvious from the mention of traveling through time. In any case I certainly do know the wings were not noted for falling off the DVII and I know the fires were a combination of poor venting and tracers igniting the build up of engine fumes.

Even so, there were periods where Fokker's construction methods left a bit to be desired, notably with the recall of Dr1s after a few wing mishaps, including one with

LVR. That said, the Albatros DIII, V and Va were definitely the ones where the wing design was a bit dodgy. Mostly as a result of copying the Nieuport's sesquiplane concept (hence the reference to that too) but completely missing the point of why the Bebe had a single spar; Thelen added a second spar that served very little purpose, for not being connected to the fuselage. The Nieuport had a reason for the single spar in its sesquiplane wing, being that the lower wing had a variable incidence, and even then, it too was a bit dodgy.

It's actually a measure of the skill of most German pilots flying the Albatros that they didn't have many more accidents than actually occurred. Most of them were probably thrilled to have a DVII after flying the Albatros. I know I certainly would have been.

Al