...so weak structurally, that many many missions will end up with wings collapsed, bent, torn apart, after a minute or two of furball. I speak out of frustartion, I know,...but , oh man, how the hell were these german able to cope with better airplanes if their airplanes were falling to pieces?

Respect.

The DII seems sturdier to me. I also prefer the way it sits or hangs in the air, seems to be more nose up than the DIII which I find needs frequent pull back on the stick.

I have often said it sir. "How in the world were the Germans able to do it?"
The DIII really excels at nothing and, performance wise, seems surpassed by contemporary Entente types. Takes a real wizard to survive for long in a Alb career.

And you are almost certainly right Mudwasp. The DII had the "old fashioned" but probably stronger wings and the DIII had the fancy Neiuport type - which also has the same problem. The reason it was adopted at all is because it reportedly increased manuverability.

I swear I can maneuver better in a DII. I do like the cockpit view of the DIII better, it is also a little faster.

Yep, ever try a Fokker E series?

Mmm wonder why most German's were reluctant to get into a turn fight for serious reasons.

Anyway as per other threads you need to not yank the stick, and gently increase pull back carefully (good tip for most craft).

Olham's Albatros tips are somewhere may help, maybe he can repost.

When you fly a Pup or a Trip, a Se5,..you think about the enemy, when you fly the D.III, you think about your lower wings,...then about the guy 50 yds behind you.

Hehe.
I have Dicta Olham saved on my computer. Next time I am up on my WOFF machine I will post it here.
For all its warts I always am flying a campaign with it though. Probably like the hot girl you know will be bad for you in the long run but she is just so much fun!

Once you get the hang of the Alb, using Olhams tips, it's not too bad AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PUT YOURSELF IN A BAD POSITION. Because once there it has hard to get out of it against the better performing Entente types.
And sorry for all the caps. Hard to do fancy bold and italics on my phone.

OK, got on to install my new SSD drivers (thanks Pol for the idea) so I will post Albmeister Olham's words of wisdom. These have been compiled over the months and I read it before flying in my always present Alb campaign. Without further ado I present "Dicta Olham":

DICTA OLHAM

1) Nose below horizon rather than above (will gain and keep you more energy)

2) Fly away from a furball rather than into it (there may still be a single E/A following you -
fighting that single plane will be a much easier task than controlling everything around you in the furball)

3) You can never outrun a SPAD or an S.E.5a; so when they fly away from you, use the time for getting into
a better position for their return, for flying closer to your wingmen - or for running away

4) If you cannot outturn Nupes, Pups, Tripes or Camels, use vertical combat more.
Fly kind of 45° ellipses; gaining energy on the down way; using hammerhead or similar manoeuvres on the upper point

5) And as soon as you feel you are getting dizzy from it all, try to get out of it - check six and try to offset yourself a bit,
until you have full overview; then regard and valuate the situation, before you attack again.
There's no use for a dizzy, disorientated combat pilot in a turmoil - he only calls for a collision.

6) And a funny, but seriously funny note: give up any ideas, that you could win the war single-handedly.
All those who fiercely tried that, were dead before the war was over.

7) With all these underpowered aircraft, it is essential to fly them as they can be flown -
not as you want to fly them.

8) When opponent comes down on you from higher up, peppers you and then goes into a climbing curve.
Then you cannot follow his climbing curve without the same energy. If you had been in level
flight before (not coming out of a dive) then you just don't have the energy to follow him up.
What you could do is, to follow his curve - but not climbing. So you remain below him while
he climbs - but you fly the same curve (left or right) and so you keep the distance between
you and him as short as you can.
If you keep that distance as short as possible, he cannot so well make another strike -
his way to you is so short, that he cannot line up and fire long enough.
This is often the most you can do.

You should not ruin a heavy horse horse by trying to do what the Arabian horses can perform.
Treat it good and find out what it can do, and it will carry you through the bloodiest battles.

Sorry, I don't remember where the advice for Duke was posted - but Duke seems to have a copy.

You are my hero sir!
Who else can defend one of my favorite aircraft as well as you.
I just die real fast but I don't hold a grudge. If the Fat One can do it it then so can I darnit!

Well, if you mean the later "Herr Meier" - he wasn't fat back then.

Yes, you can do it. Just fly her so that the wings won't break.
It has to do with G-forces, and they multiply, the harder you manoeuver.
It took me VERY long until I could fly the Albatros effectively in combat.
Have patience.

I've seen a couple pics of him back then where he seems to be sticking out his middle to appear more portly or well fed.

The Albatros D was not designed to be a turn fighter, ever. Maneuvering is defensive. It was built for speed and twin-gun firepower. The switch to the narrow lower wing was an effort to overcome the Albatros D.I and D.II's poor lower visibility--and when one is hunting with a height advantage, downward visibility is extremely important. To quote Peter Grosz, "...[the] narrow lower wing appears to impart no obvious aerodynamic advantage seen in light of today's aeronautical knowledge."

Also, the Alb DIII was not an effort to improve the D.I/D.II's performance based on the latter two's combat performance. The D.III was already designed and the prototype built before the Albatros D.I even reached the front lines.

Just FYI stuff.

"...in light of today's aerodynamic knowledge" may be the key phrase here.
You are the expert but I have always heard (and it could be a case of numerous sources repeating one bad bit of information) that the narrowed lower wing was an attempt to make the plane more Nieuports-like based on Alb pilots reports of the their combats against them.
After all the problems with the wing design it continued for the rest of the war, basically unchanged, for the sake of "downward visibility"? Hard to imagine!

Albatros were made for fast, dive attacks. But, you see, the D.III Early is slower than any other Allied fighter in summer 1917. So, summing up, they are, slower, less reliable (that lower butter wing), less manoeuvrable and,...well, they have two great Spandaus. Diving, one pass attacks are not as deadly in WOFF as they were in real life and the thing is, you soon end up, almost always,...fleeing.

Yes, that's wrong. As I wrote, the DIII was designed and the prototype built BEFORE the D.I entered combat. The first DIII prototypes were built in June 1916. The Albatros D.I entered combat in September 1916. How could the wing be re-designed to be narrow based on combat reports with Alb DI/DIIs that had not been in combat yet?

They kept the design because they tried to fix the wing problems--and the Austrians did! Comparatively, their Albs were sh*t-hot machines with no wing problems at all. But consider the German Alb. The DIII production was first ordered in October 1916. The last DVa production order was October 1917. So, one year of four subsequent models, trying to figure out exactly what was going on. But even Albatros threw in the towel on the sesquiplane design because all subsequent fighter prototypes they built, starting with the Albatros D.IV, were two spar construction.

But, put it out of your mind that combat reports caused the wing redesign from a biplane to a sesquiplane. It's a myth. Also a myth is that the Alb DII's wings were lowered from the D.I's as a result of combat feedback. The D.I and D.II were built simultaneously--when the D.Is arrived at Jasta 2, they were accompanied by a D.II, which of course already had lowered wings. Again, can't make changes based on combat reports of pilots flying planes that hadn't been in combat yet.

From my own flying in sims already (and that is NOTHING compared to the RL situation)
I feel the better downward view a huge improvement. And it is not only a downward view!
When you fly very hard-banked turns, it is becoming a "sideward view" towards whatever
flies there, where your belly shows at.

The air combat situation - once you got into a defensive turn fight - must have been an
extreme stress. It must have been VERY important to spot an opponent's location as quick
as possible, so you could react quickly.

After the first wing failure(s), they must have guessed that the outer lower wing parts
came to warp in dives (at high speed) - cause they added an iron rod between the forward
wing spar and the V-strut.
How much that helped or not, I cannot say (maybe JFM can), but when they continued building
them all the way into 1918, then I guess that the problem could be much reduced with that,
as long as the pilot did not go into longer steep dives.
If i remember that correct, Albatros or Idflieg had released a warning note, that the pilots
should not go into steeper dives for more than 1000 meters. (Again, JFM will know more here).


They were faster than the Sopwith Pup - that plane that was the most dangerous opponent
in the time in late 1916, when the plane was designed. Aircraft design made an extremely
fast progress in those days.


Even if we only just talk about WOFF-experience and not real life: no, I do not end up like that.
I usually end up shooting down more than one opponent, I seldom ever have to run away.
I think you must only come to different tactics than you'd use in a turn fighter.

Ok, I may have exaggerated a bit on my last post, sorry. I guess I need to practice more my skills with the Albatros.

So the DIII wing was not "inspired" by the Neiuport design?
And when I mentioned "pilot reports" I didn't neccessarily mean only from Alb pilots (though I did write that) but German flyers in general and test reports of captured models.
Again, just my impression, was that the German side was quite impressed with the Nieuport design and its performance and this was the inspiration, or idea, for the DIII wing.