Hey, you just wrote down your impressions with the Albatrtos - and I
defended it, because I find, people often don't give it time enough
to get used to a different feeling. No problem - take your time, Aris!

I have a Jasta 5 pilot with 23 kills,alive!, I can get in a furball , kill , dive and escape, but with the ALbatros I always feel unconfortable, at a disavantadge, like in a poorly balanced role playing game, so sometimes, it gets frustrating,...unfair,...My next campaign will be a RNAS 8 with theirt lovely Triplanes. Then, trasnfer to 56, ....super SE5s .

Two excellent choices surely.
The Albatros will never be like one of those. But I love it, still.

Although it's likely non-albatros pilots made the reports of the "new" Nieuports they spotted or captured leading to influences so doesn't matter when the DI came to the front as such.
i.e. not Alb pilot reports, but any pilot reports.

ArisFuser, once you flown the Sopwith Tripe you won't want to fly anything else. It has a great climb rate and is very agile. In May 1917, there isn't anything that the Germans are flying that I'm not totally confident in fighting and winning. I'm flying with RNAS 3 and I'm going to be really sad when I have to turn my Tripe in.

You can lead the horses to water…

Yes, you guys are right, the Nieuport is what inspired the sesquiplane design of the Albatros DIII in spring 1916. The Nieuport’s inspiration isn’t the issue; the issue is how it inspired the sesquiplane redesign of the Albatros. You think the Germans thought that after flying a captured Nieuport 11—an airplane of ca. 480 kg—that if they simply stuck a narrow-chord lower wing onto a ca. 900 kg airplane like the Alb D.I that they were going to get the same sort of performance as a Nieuport 11? Of course not. And when they didn’t get such performance with the Alb DIII, if they were ever going to expect it in the first place, when they built the DV why didn’t they just switch back to the two-spar, larger-chord lower wing of the Alb DI and DII? Downward visibility.

Even Nieuport itself held this quality in high regard! From noted aviation researcher JM Bruce’s Nieuport Fighters: “The line of Nieuport fighter biplanes with the characteristic V-form interplane struts and narrow-cord single-spar lower wings began with the Nieuport Type XB…an aircraft developed from a design of an aircraft intended to compete in the Gordon Bennett trophy contest in 1914. The XB’s essential design was the subject of French Patent No. 477.457, applied for on January 30 1915. Its designation, Type XB, reflected the aircraft’s derivation from the Type X two-seat monoplane: the suffix B signified Biplan. Drawings in the Patent specification faithfully delineated the sesquiplane configuration of a two-seat biplane that, like the Type X monoplane, accommodated the observer in the forward seat; the text explained that the unusually narrow chord of the lower wing gave the observer the widest possible downward view [JFM emphasis]… As that wing had only a single spar, annular collar-form attachments at root and interplane strut facilitated the rotation of the wing about the spar.” So, right there in the patent, long before the Nieuport fighters were even thought of, it specifically lists visibility as the reason for the narrow chord, not performance—specifically, maneuverability, as is being discussed in this thread. Again, it said: “The unusually narrow chord of the lower wing gave the observer the widest possible downward view.” What would better serve a two-seat reconnaissance plane: the best downward view possible, or maneuverability? If you say maneuverability, why? What would the XB have to outmaneuver in January 1915? The Fokker Eindecker? They were wing-warping machines not known for their maneuverability. Not to mention that there were no Fokker Eindeckers in service in January 1915 to outmaneuver in the first place.

So who was test flying captured Nieuports in late 1915 or early 1916, in time to influence the design of the Albatros D.III? Not Albatros D pilots, as I’ve already established, nor Halberstadt D pilots—Halberstadt D-types didn’t enter combat until June 1916, when the Albatros D.III was already designed. Seems it must have been two-seater pilots. Although, the Pfalz and Fokker Es were in service and not especially maneuverable wing-warpers so, yes, the Nieuport 11 would seem maneuverable in comparison to either, whether sesquiplane or biplane. And, besides, as regards maneuverability, when they became available the Halberstadt D biplanes were regarded as a very light-on-the-controls, nimble and maneuverable biplanes. No complaints there! But what did the pilots really want? Two guns. Furthermore, as MvR wrote: “The view above, below and to the sides must be faultless. Albatros D.III good, Albatros D.II especially poor downwards, Albatros D.I impossible in a dogfight.” And German military Nieuport test flight reports described the excellent downward visibility via the Nieuport’s narrow lower wing.

Nieuport sesquiplanes suffered the similar lower wing problems as the Albs did. For example: “[Re: the N17] …The RFC had suffered several cases of Nieuport lower wings twisting when diving [JFM: ostensibly as the airspeed increased beyond that which could be attained in straight and level flight] the most recent on A307, which had gone to No. 60 Squadron on December 14 1916. Pilots who had experienced this alarming failure included Caldwell, Conners and Meintjies, and it was to recur repeatedly. Although Brooke-Popham was to defend the structural strength of Nieuport Scouts in a memo dated April 23 1917, the aircraft continued to suffer a disquieting history of assorted wing failures in the ensuing weeks. Many of these were attributable, directly or indirectly, to the lower wing junction with the V-strut, and by mid-May extensive reinforcing of the lower wings was ordered.”

Returning to Nieuport, I’m no expert on them but the company first designed/manufactured monoplanes. The Nieuport 10, a two-seater, was its first multi-wing plane after the run of monoplanes. As is written in Davilla and Soltan’s French Aircraft of the First World War: “Many design features of the Nieuport 10 would be repeated in virtually all the Nieuport aircraft built during the First World War. First of all, Delage [Nieuport’s chief engineer] had to contend with the army’s decision that biplanes were ideal in the reconnaissance role as they offered a better view for the crew, had a superior climb rate, and were sturdier than monoplanes. The Nieuport firm, on the other hand, had advocated lightweight monoplanes capable of high speed. Delage’s solution was to offer a compromise between a monoplane and a biplane. For the Nieuport 10 he selected a sesquiplane layout: literally, an airplane with one and a half wings. The standard fuselage of the prewar Nieuports was retained and a conventional upper wing was fitted, but the lower wing had a much narrower chord.” This lower wing was braced in such a way that the angle of incidence could be adjusted on the ground to compensate for differing weights. “While this feature does not appear to have seen widespread use in service and was abandoned in later Nieuport designs, the V-shaped struts were retained and became a hallmark of the Nieuport firm… Another advantage of this layout was that the reduced chord of the lower wing resulted in a significant improvement in downward view for both the pilot and observer.” There it is again…

Nieuport 10s were initially used in reconnaissance patrols—where downward visibility is important. This is why the sesquiplane design was there in the first place. As its role naturally expanded and it met increasing enemies aloft, the N10 morphed toward a fighter role but was hamstrung by being underpowered—for a crew of two, that is. Thus, they got rid of the obs and lo and behold, the speed and maneuverability increased. The Nieuport 11 came along after “The Aviation Militaire needed an aircraft to replace the makeshift Morane-Saulnier L and LA series of fighters and the Nieuport firm readily provided such a machine by the simple expedient of producing a smaller, single-seat derivative of the Nieuport 10.” I.e., to make a fighter they just re-used the sesquiplane design they had already used for the N10 and scaled it down.

The sesquiplane design didn’t guarantee stellar maneuverability—look at the Albatros DIII. It was no dog, but it was no Nieuport, either. But also look at the Nieuport 16. It was virtually identical to the maneuverable N11 but several sources reveal it was heavier overall, nose-heavy with the 110hp Le-Rhône, and “sluggish during aerial maneuvers.” What’s this? “Sluggish during aerial maneuvers?” Even with a sesquiplane design? The kind of airplane the Fokker pilots could be test flying—that still flew rings around their machines? How did the French fix this—make the bottom wing even narrower? Nope. For their next fighter, the N17, they increased the wing areas of both wings. But, as described for that plane, “…The Nieuport 17 retained the sesquiplane layout, resulting in a better field of vision for the pilot.” Seeing a pattern?

Over and over one sees a regard for the sesquiplane’s good downward visibility but few to no credible claims that the sesquiplane’s employment increased the maneuverability of those particular machines. To me, the wording in the patent that introduced the sesquiplane design with Nieuport makes it clear visibility was paramount; same with MvR's comments. The sesquiplane design wasn’t some golden egg for maneuverability—again, as shown by the D.III. And both the French and Germans had problems with wing failures. Ultimately, the French abandoned the design with the Nieuport 28 and designs after that. Albatros reverted to the biplane design with the Albatros D.IV—a plane never intended to enter production, it was to test geared engines fully enclosed within the cowl (and although quite irrelevant to mention here, it was the best-looking Alb D of them all, to my eyes)—and although Albatros lost favor to Fokker they still designed fighters, and all their designs after the DVa were biplanes, not sesquiplanes. Downward visibility never became unimportant, but the price paid for that visibility ultimately was too expensive. However, Albatros’s post-DVa D-types and their biplane designs are largely unknown because they never reached production. This gives the impression that Albatros slavishly clung to their sesquiplane design because their D-types so designed could be found through the end of the war. But the last D.Va production batch was ordered in October 1917 and with a ballpark-estimation of two months from production order until appearance, it can be estimated that all Alb DVas were built by the end of 1917. Absolutely no later than very early 1918. By then, Albatros was subcontracted by Fokker to build Fokker D.VIIs, which they were certainly doing by February 1918. They even built a wooden-skinned one, a la the Alb Ds!

Anyway, if you are still reading this I am 1) amazed and 2) sorry.

Forgot to include this, from Gray & Thetford’s German Aircraft of the First World War:

Almost before the Albatros DIs and IIs were well into production, Robert Thelen [Alb designer] had set about ensuring a successor which adopted some of the advantages of the French Nieuport Scout design. Several of these had been captured and thoroughly type-tested by Idflieg (Inspectorate of Army Air Corps) to assess which of their characteristics could best be adapted to German requirements.

By increasing the compression ratio of the standard Mercedes D III it was possible to uprate the basic 160 hp to about 170 hp, but this did not give much scope for an improvement in performance. Additional armament on such a marginal power increase would doubtless have affected performance adversely. The designers therefore decided to concentrate their efforts in improving visibility from the cockpit, which in combat would be an immediate advantage. Knowledge gained from the assessment of the Nieuport Scouts resulted in a drastic revision of the wing arrangement. A sesquiplane layout was adopted, similar to that of the Nieuports, with resultant increase in field of vision.

"Anyway, if you are still reading this I am 1) amazed and 2) sorry."

Why? I found it very interesting, thank you! No need to appologise

B.

Yes thank you JFM for your time and effort.
I think I got a headache from reading all of that on my phone without spectacles but it was very interesting.
And it shows that reading a lot of books by a lot of different authors does not neccessarily give good information.

Thank you for all the historical detail, Jim!
Already from combat experience only gained in flight sims, the better downward visibility makes perfect sense.

What I still do not understand (and I'd love to see technical drawings of the difference!) is:
when the Austrians were able to build a sesquiplane with a (much?) more stable lower wing -
why on earth was this not at some point copied by Albatros in Germany?

Excellent question!

If I read all that on my phone, Duke, I'd have to finish doing so in a bar!

Olham, I'll see what I can dig up in the files but I'll quote some info from Austro-Hungarian Army Aircraft of World War One, by Peter Grosz, George Haddow, Peter Schiemer: "The far-sighted action of Oeffag engineers was vindicated for, by refusing to copy the German wing cellule [of the sesquiplane Alb DIII], they had made significant improvements which were outlined in an LFT report: 1) The German spars and ribs are appreciably weaker than those of the 53.2 series [the first Oeffag-built Alb DIIIs]. 2) Ribs between the main and auxiliary spar are solid and constructed of heavier plywood. 3) Spar flange thickness is increased from 10 to 20 mm at stress points. 4) metal reinforcing is added between the main and auxiliary spar. 5) The front auxiliary spar is prevented from twisting by a metal fixture at the fuselage juncture."

The Austrians had problems with spinners detaching and damaging the airplanes (I've read about this on German Albs, but not as often). They first just removed the spinner and then with the Series 153 redesigned the plane to have that rounded nose. This had a bonus of improving propeller efficiency and increasing speed by 9 mph. With a 200 hp engine, the plane was described as "a superbly designed aircraft, beautifully balanced and especially suited for aerobatics. Its rate of climb was equal to the Hanriot and the Camel, but slower in level flight than the SPAD." THEN for the Series 253 they put a 225 hp engine in it! Flik 56/J wrote the Series 253 "meets every demand, is solid and well constructed, climbs rapidly and is preferred over the Aviatik D.I because of its peerless flight characteristics." Elsewhere, "Unquestionably the most maneuverable and safest fighter at the Front. It has the pilots' complete trust. Because of its excellent handling and performance, it is preferred over every other fighter." If any flight sim company ever covers the Italian Front we Albatros fans are in for a big treat!

I don't know why Germany didn't gleefully follow the Austrians' lead. They assuredly knew about what had been done, and there are photos of a German-built Albatros in service with a Series 153/253-style rounded nose (Jasta 17). Someone (I can't remember who) once explained to me reasons that were social in nature, something along the lines that Germans wouldn't "lower" themselves to take advice from Austrians. I am too ignorant of the cultures to chime in on that but I mention it now in case it rings a bell with someone, or someone more learned than I can chime in.

I can't speak to the culture but I believe I read a thought from MvR (in a letter to a friend at HQ who's name I won't attempt to spell) expressing concern about, basically, the "entrenched Albatros company monopoly in aircraft matters" in, I think, the summer/fall of 1917. Apparently he felt that, for reasons that are probably economically obvious, but unknown to me and detrimental to the war effort, that the Alb company was bad for, or suppressing, the development of advanced aircraft by other companies.

JFM, excellent posts absolutely full of information! Thanks for taking the trouble to writing all of them.

Regarding German and Austrian co-operation, generally speaking it was pretty damn awful during the Great War. The German high command considered their Austrian colleagues incompetent bunglers, and actually this judgment wasn't that far from the truth, because the Austro-Hungarian army's performance was for the most part abysmal. Obviously the Austrian leaders despised this arrogant attitude of the Germans and often went out of their way to do things without first informing their allies or even sharing any kind of information. The Austro-Hungarian army suffered several humiliating defeats in the hands of the Russians, all thanks to their incompetent commanders and poor preparedness for war.

The lack of co-operation between the German and Austrian Albatros engineers was probably a part of this larger picture of general distrust and inefficiency that hurt the Central Powers' war effort.

@ Duke: Yeah, he was definitely frustrated/sick of them because each new variant of the Alb was pretty much like the last one. Meanwhile, by summer 1917 the Germans were facing more and more and better RFC fighters. And I know that as regards suppressing development, Fokker claimed Albatros did so by "hogging" (my term, not Fokker's) the Mercedes engine and this prevented him from developing a twin-gun fighter at the time the Albatros D.I was developed.

@ Hasse: That rings familiar. It might have been you who discussed this before!

Thanks for the History lessons!

Maybe I found something on the TVA Albatros and Mayrhofer's Albatros D.III OeFFAG.

If these two replicas were both built according to the original plans, then a major difference is visible here for the wing ribs.

While the German wing rib is made of thinner wood, which is fortified by a glued-on stripe of wood around it's outer edges,
the Austrian wing ribs were made of solid wood with the same overall width.

With this difference, the Austrian wings must have been heavier, but also more stable.

Makes sense to me from those pics, Olham.

I looked up 'sesquiplane' in the dictionary and apparently 'sesqui' is from Latin for 'one and a half'. From that I suppose that the Sopwith 1½ Strutter could have been called the 'Sesquistrutter'

And on the cultural side, Bismarck is quoted as saying "A Bavarian is half way between an Austrian and a human being" which gives you some idea .... (he said it in German, of course).

I scored some kills today in the early am with my Jasta 15 DiD pilot.