Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Knarley-Bob

Dr 1

Recommended Posts

Was the Dr 1 that hard to fly? Richthofen must have really been a lot better than he's gotten credit for!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Knarley-Bob said:

Was the Dr 1 that hard to fly? Richthofen must have really been a lot better than he's gotten credit for!!

Most of his victories was made him flying Albatross. Werner Voss was great Dr.1 fighter BTW.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Most of his victories was made him flying Albatross. Werner Voss was great Dr.1 fighter BTW.

The albatross IS a whole lot easier to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furballs are for fools !!!

 

Hunting and good shooting is far more conducive to life.

 

I think, but I'm probably wrong, it fly's differently to the Camel, for example, because it has no camber on any of it's wings.  I'm not sure that is played out in reality, but in the game it's the only reason I can think that it swings differently to the Camel, unless it's to do with the lack of a rudder fin ?

Edited by HagarTheHorrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

He was using the Dr.I for superior speed and climb, not turn radius.

 

 

.......so thats why they put the speed gauge out on the strut....... so he couldn't seen the numbers properly 😀.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, to avoid prop wash. He had very good eyesight by all accounts (duh!).

Historical German pilots all believed that Dr.I was faster and climbed better than 180hp Albatros. And of course they could fly them side by side and compare. I suppose rotary engines retaining power better at altitude might have been a huge factor unrepresented in game (the 80hp Pup was also considered faster than Albatros, but only on some altitudes (3000m+ ?).

Edited by J2_Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

No, to avoid prop wash. He had very good eyesight by all accounts (duh!).

Historical German pilots all believed that Dr.I was faster and climbed better than 180hp Albatros. And of course they could fly them side by side and compare. I suppose rotary engines retaining power better at altitude might have been a huge factor unrepresented in game (the 80hp Pup was also considered faster than Albatros, but only on some altitudes (3000m+ ?).

 

It was, as I’m sure you know, tongue in cheek.

 

As to speed, there are a whole herd of horses, with carts attached, that could charge through a statement like that.  It interests me that, having pioneered single aircraft type units, the Germans then flew mixed formations of DR1’s and Albatross, Why ?  My supposition is that the Albatross were used to jump the opposition and pin them in place so that the DR1’s could get into the mix and do their stuff.  If the DR1 had truly been as conducive to German tactics (Hun in the sun) as the Alb then the Alb would have vanished and the DR1 would have remained in it’s stead.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I suppose rotary engines retaining power better at altitude might have been a huge factor unrepresented in game (the 80hp Pup was also considered faster than Albatros, but only on some altitudes (3000m+ ?).

 

Another forum myth. What you are in fact doing is comparing very light aircraft with a very heavy aircraft. As soon as you cruise under partial power (what altitude does to you), induced drag will increase faster on the heavy aircraft, imposing a larger speed penalty on the heavy aircraft. Besides, there is no technical reason for your assumption anyway as the Clerget and the Hisso had corresponding compression.

 

This is why you give higher altitude aircraft larger wings and not a rotary engine. This is why the Dr.I or the Pup compare favorably high up. It is also why a Spitfire can be a great aircraft with a 1000 hp engine, whereas the Fw190 needs 1600 hp, else you better leave it in the hangar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

It was, as I’m sure you know, tongue in cheek.

 

As to speed, there are a whole herd of horses, with carts attached, that could charge through a statement like that.  It interests me that, having pioneered single aircraft type units, the Germans then flew mixed formations of DR1’s and Albatross, Why ?  My supposition is that the Albatross were used to jump the opposition and pin them in place so that the DR1’s could get into the mix and do their stuff.  If the DR1 had truly been as conducive to German tactics (Hun in the sun) as the Alb then the Alb would have vanished and the DR1 would have remained in it’s stead.

 

So was I.

 

The mixed Albatros and Dr.I formations were purposefully used only by JG I (which also had Jasta equipped fully with Pfalzes (10?) as dedicated top cover unit - MvR was big on combining arms). Other Jagdgeschwederen were fully equipped with Dr.Is.

 

On broader note, Germans never really tried to have Jastas equipped with one type, and were routinely mixing plane types in same flight. Pilots flew what was available.

 

The reason Dr.I has not replaced Albatros was 1) it was considered to difficult to control for average Jagdflieger and reserved for JGs (answers OP question) 2) lack of castor oil meant Germans could not switch whole service to rotary-powered type and 3) by the time wing problems were eliminated and Dr.I went into service with JGs II and III, D.VII was already being ordered. Still, whenever a Dr.I Jasta was upgraded to D.VIIs, their worn triplanes were passed to Albatros Staffeln, which welcomed them as an upgrade. That's how J5 got their triplanes in May 1918, by taking JG I planes when JG I was upgraded to D.VIIs. In July J5 was reequipped with D.VIIs themselves and sent Dr.Is further down the food chain. Dr.Is were finally ended by hot summer of 1918, ersatz oil was not good enough to prevent overheats.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr1s were also only available in limited numbers. Only 320 were ordered and 171 were operational on may 1, 1918. On the same day, front line units had a total of 174 D.IIIs. 433 Pfalz D.IIIa, 131 Dv and 986 Dva in service.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Richthofen must have really been a lot better than he's gotten credit for!!


Oh, he's gotten plenty credit....ha! 

My understanding is that MvR was a prolific Hunter and Tactician - he liked to go for 'lame ducks', I.E obsolete aircraft, and generally didn't want to get into a dogfight if he didn't have to. His actual dogfighting skills were probably very good as well - but I think there were better dogfighters on both sides. 

The Dr.I itself isn't an easy plane to fly, owing to a powerful rotary inside a very light airframe - but once you master its quirks it dogfights like no other. Only a Camel matches it in a "Kurven Kampf".

If you want to talk Prolific Dogfighters, especially in the Dr.I, Voss is your man. His last fight was legendary. 
 

 

12 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 (the 80hp Pup was also considered faster than Albatros, but only on some altitudes (3000m+ ?).


IIRC Arthur Gould Lee of No. 46 Squadron RFC mentioned in one of his fantastic memoirs that the Pup had the advantage on a D.III above 15,000 feet, but that the D.Va was just too fast to contend with if they decided to abandon the fight. The Pup could catch neither in a dive. 

 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Was the Dr 1 that hard to fly? Richthofen must have really been a lot better than he's gotten credit for!!

Yeah, it is a handful!  I don’t care what people say about MvRs flying ability. To use the plane as he did, he must have been good. It is very difficult to control a DR1 precisely enough to shoot another plane down. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I heard it that MvR wasn't an amazing pilot.  Rather a good hunter and a crack shot.

 

Paraphrasing Mr. Gould Lee again, he mentioned being bounced by the Bad Baron on one occasion, just after the first Fokker F.1s arrived...he assumed the Triplane creeping up on him was a Sopwith! MvR must not have had his morning coffee that day ;) 
 

1 minute ago, Chill31 said:

Yeah, it is a handful!  I don’t care what people say about MvRs flying ability. To use the plane as he did, he must have been good. It is very difficult to control a DR1 precisely enough to shoot another plane down. 


And MvR apparently loved to fly it! Certainly a hell of a pilot...

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect he DR1, maybe all late Fokker’s, were challenging to fly in cloudy weather.  Camels etc seem to have cambered wings, they self level, to a point, The uncambered Fokker's would happily fly at any angle which I would have thought made flying in clouds doubly challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Yeah, it is a handful!  I don’t care what people say about MvRs flying ability. To use the plane as he did, he must have been good. It is very difficult to control a DR1 precisely enough to shoot another plane down. 

 

 

 

Literally the only reply in this thread that's relevant, since it comes from an actual Dr.1 pilot.

 

Thank you for the video! I hadn't see your plane with the Le Rhone yet, how awesome!! Great flying. Please be safe - we appreciate so much what you are doing and hope to see you keep doing it for many, many years to come.

 

Salute!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MvR was to good a tactician to put himself in situation where he had to rely on his flying skills to get the job done. Yet there are accounts of him being attacked from above and turning the table. He knew how to fly, just like chess player knows how to hit people with chessboard.

Double so for his mentor, Boelcke. The man invented air combat tactics, and always emphasised teamwork and securing every advantage before fight. Yet, back when flying Eindecker at Verdun, he was jumped by none other than Guynemer flying a Newport, and despite inferior plane and initial disadvantage sent him diving for home wounded. Having a skill and choosing to use it in risky way are different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that they are a breeze to fly against tho. They come out of the sun, way up yonder, dive right by, and plow into "no-man's land" 😁 Got 4 that way the other day, 2 more this afternoon. Good way not to waste any bullets. Besides, the AI flies WORSE than I do!!!😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, US93_Larner said:


My understanding is that MvR was a prolific Hunter and Tactician - he liked to go for 'lame ducks', I.E obsolete aircraft, and generally didn't want to get into a dogfight if he didn't have to.
 

 

The planes he shot down were representative of the RFC in his sector at the time.  For instance, out of his ~80 kills (depending on which ones are counted) 20 were in a Dr1 from Sep 1917 onwards and are mostly Camels (9), SE5as (3) along with other, mostly up-to-date types .

 

In his early days he did shoot down a lot of hopeless BE types: but that was simply because they were what he encountered when the RFC was just sending over whatever they had.

 

I agree that he probably thought more like a Hunter than a Duelist: but I do not see any evidence that he particularly sought out obsolete targets.

 

  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I agree that he probably thought more like a Hunter than a Duelist: but I do not see any evidence that he particularly sought out obsolete targets.


Probably an accurate assessment - much like the WW2 German aces on the Ostfront, I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems more the predator type, only the final consumption differed )))
Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with shooting down recons anyway. They're the real killers, the primary targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine real word scenario, RFC sending  hords of  Fe2b pushers escorted by Spowith  1 1/2 strutters to do coorps jobs  and you are hunting it in your Albatros D2 - that was Bloody April of 1917! 

The RFC was sending so many aircrafts with similar weak configurations that Jerry's can't keep up shooting it down and they eventually did splendid  jobs taking the pictures and knocking off enemy artillery batteries,  bombing supplies or railroads junctions. Tremendous dedication!

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Imagine real word scenario, RFC sending  hords of  Fe2b pushers escorted by Spowith  1 1/2 strutters to do coorps jobs  and you are hunting it in your Albatros D2 - that was Bloody April of 1917! 

The RFC was sending so many aircrafts with similar weak configurations that Jerry's can't keep up shooting it down and they eventually did splendid  jobs taking the pictures and knocking off enemy artillery batteries,  bombing supplies or railroads junctions. Tremendous dedication!

 

This is all true. It's interesting that MvR's early kills were primarily recon/arty spotting aircraft and his later kills were primarily fighter aircraft. That says to me he couldn't get near enough to the recon/spotters because of the abundance of entente fighters due to a huge ramp-up in production. Which of course won them the air war. A truly fascinating conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that any "real feel" Bloody April scenario should have players as Germans and RNAS, plus hordes of RFC AI as an contested objective :) 

And no, these two-seaters MvR killed early on were largely considered fighters or fighter-bombers (they had guns, so...). In Fall 1916 British were filling the skies with unescorted B.E.2 and F.E.2.b bombers (only ocasionally  No.70 Strutters or No.24 D.H.2s). In first half of 1917 they added Nieuports (already obsolete) and RNAS scouts, but B.E.2 was still considered good enough plane to send behind the lines on offensive patrol.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richthofen said 2-seaters were a more difficult target than the fighters...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

Richthofen said 2-seaters were a more difficult target than the fighters...

Well, when you got a gunner back there, it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

but B.E.2 was still considered good enough plane to send behind the lines on offensive patrol.


If you had asked their pilots and observers, I rather wonder if they would have agreed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 7:48 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:


If you had asked their pilots and observers, I rather wonder if they would have agreed.

 

If the question is about them being good enough for sending them, then you‘d have to ask Trenchard. (We know his answer.) Whether the aircraft is good enough to be flown through a whole mission in hostile territory and return is an entirely different question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2020 at 5:37 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

I always thought that any "real feel" Bloody April scenario should have players as Germans and RNAS, plus hordes of RFC AI as an contested objective :) 
 

This is how the first Bloody April was played. Just scouts and AI 2-seaters (because they could not be player-controlled at that time)

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...