Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Halberstadt CL.II Peroformance


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

#1 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 29 November 2011 - 12:39

If you have anything interesting on CL.II performance - please post it here.

PS: the only "partly detailed" performance test we have is from Flight Magazine dated 10 October 1918, but somehow its climb speed is slow by this test, as it noted as 51 min to 14000 feet (4270m) but other source states about 38 (???) min to 5000 meters.
  • 0

#2 Riemann73

Riemann73
  • Posts: 883

Posted 29 November 2011 - 14:04

Unfortunately I have no data … but thank you ! :P
  • 0

#3 baron111

baron111
  • Posts: 5

Posted 29 November 2011 - 14:36

Performance
Maximum speed: 165 km/h (90 kn, 103 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
Service ceiling: 5,090 m[8] (16,600 ft)
Wing loading: 41.2 kg/m² (8.4 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.11 kW/kg (0.06 hp/lb)
Endurance: 3 hr
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 39.5 min

Wiki Data
  • 0

#4 O_Taipan

O_Taipan
  • Posts: 2291

Posted 29 November 2011 - 14:58

Capacity of petrol tanks: 34 gallons
Capacity of oil tanks: 4 gallons
Military load on test: 545 lbs
Total load on test: 2,532 lbs

Speed at 10,000 ft: 97 mph @ 1385 rpm

Climb to 5,000ft 9:23 (IAS of 69)
Climb to 10,000ft 24:30 (IAS of 64)
Climb to 14,000ft 51:55 (IAS of 58) still 51 minutes :0o:

Service ceiling: 13,500 feet (height at which climb is 100 feet per minute)
Estimated ceiling: 16,000 feet
Greatest height: 14,800 feet in 64 minutes, 40 seconds. 50 feet per minute rate of climb at this height.

There are also various notes on handling, performance etc. I'll see if I can send you the pages.

Source: Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I
  • 0

#5 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 29 November 2011 - 15:07

Wiki Data for German is:
5.000 m /51 Min 55 Sek
  • 0

#6 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 29 November 2011 - 15:53

Performance
Maximum speed: 165 km/h (90 kn, 103 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
Service ceiling: 5,090 m[8] (16,600 ft)
Wing loading: 41.2 kg/m² (8.4 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.11 kW/kg (0.06 hp/lb)
Endurance: 3 hr
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 39.5 min

Wiki Data
What is the primary source for those figures ?
  • 0

#7 SYN_Vander

SYN_Vander
  • Tester
  • Posts: 4710

Posted 29 November 2011 - 15:56

Performance
Maximum speed: 165 km/h (90 kn, 103 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
Service ceiling: 5,090 m[8] (16,600 ft)
Wing loading: 41.2 kg/m² (8.4 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.11 kW/kg (0.06 hp/lb)
Endurance: 3 hr
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 39.5 min

Wiki Data
What is the primary source for those figures ?

Just check Wikipedia: Gray, Peter and Thetford, Owen. German Aircraft of the First World War. London: Putnam, 1962.
  • 0

#8 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:01

Just check Wikipedia: Gray, Peter and Thetford, Owen. German Aircraft of the First World War. London: Putnam, 1962.
I don't think this is the primary source, because I doubt a Halberstadt CLII could still fly in 1962 !

Edit : as usual, to understand the differences we need to understand how were those figures measured.

"Jane's" and "Flight Magazine" figures are likely to originate from the same report or at least aircraft
  • 0

#9 Raine

Raine
  • Posts: 232

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:17

They've restored one at the Polish Aviation Museum at Krakow. See http://mlp.h2.pl/zbi...z.php?ido=8&w=a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://mlp.h2.pl/zbi...z.php?ido=8&w=a. Unfortunately, there are no significant performance stats on their website.

George
  • 0

#10 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:33

1) я лишь хочу напомнить что были версии CL II and CLIIa. они имели разные двигатели, поэтому у вас разница в данных и двоечтении. а те кто писал цифры, на остальное не смотрели.

2)Green, William and Swanborough, Gordon. "The Complete Book of Fighters". New York: Smithmark, 1994. ISBN 0-8317-3939-8.

3)Munson, Kenneth - "Bombers, Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft 1914-1919" ISBN 0 7537 0918 X

4) поговорите с Гарри Фуллером http://1000aircraftp...FullerGaryR.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://1000aircraftp...s.com/Contribut … rGaryR.htm у него самолет в коллекции.
  • 0

#11 J99Hasso

J99Hasso
  • Posts: 434

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:48

flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25593.htm

Some different Engine Mercedes, Argus and BMW
Image
please look:
de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/technik/8340/Flugzeug
The Halb CL-II have 120 and 160Ps Mercedes/ Argus and the Halb CL-IIa a BMW with 185 Ps.
(flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25592.htm
www.luftfahrtarchiv.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:halberstadt-cl-ii&catid=34:germ-planes&Itemid=55
Some pic from Argus As III in Halb CL-II
Image
www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/33256-argus-ii-halberstadt-d-ii-3.html
  • 0

#12 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 29 November 2011 - 16:51

1) я лишь хочу напомнить что были версии CL II and CLIIa. они имели разные двигатели, поэтому у вас разница в данных и двоечтении. а те кто писал цифры, на остальное не смотрели.
That is a possible explanation
  • 0

#13 baron111

baron111
  • Posts: 5

Posted 29 November 2011 - 17:18

Salute Wiki En!

http://en.wikipedia....lberstadt_CL.II" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia....lberstadt_CL.II

Salute J99°Baron111
  • 0

#14 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 29 November 2011 - 17:26

flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25593.htm

Some different Engine Mercedes, Argus and BMW
Image
please look:
de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/technik/8340/Flugzeug
The Halb CL-II have 120 and 160Ps Mercedes/ Argus and the Halb CL-IIa a BMW with 185 Ps.
(flyingmachines.ru/Site2/Crafts/Craft25592.htm
www.luftfahrtarchiv.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:halberstadt-cl-ii&catid=34:germ-planes&Itemid=55
Some pic from Argus As III in Halb CL-II
Image
www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/33256-argus-ii-halberstadt-d-ii-3.html

Hasso your last link is about the Halberstadt D.II and the Argus As.II
  • 0

#15 J99_Dirk

J99_Dirk
  • Posts: 18

Posted 29 November 2011 - 17:35

100 "late" CL.IIa (Ser.-No. 2800-2899/17) used Argus As.IIIa engines!

I got a book and collect the data and send it here when ready…
  • 0

#16 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 29 November 2011 - 17:41

100 "late" CL.IIa (Ser.-No. 2800-2899/17) used Argus As.IIIa engines!

I got a book and collect the data and send it here when ready…

Cool :) Usually the added letter indicated the engine designer, a for Argus, b for Benz, f for Friz, so the Argus As.IIIa for the Cl.IIa seems far more likely than the BMW imo, and I only ever saw that one Russian website mentioned BMW engines. Plus the Hannover Cl.III had already been switched from Mercedes to Argus, because all Mercedes D.IIIa(ü) were needed for fighters, i.e. Fokker D.VII. Same reason the Roland D.VI ended up with Benz engines.

Argus As.IIIa data from Schlachtflieger!:

148mm bore
165mm stroke
220 PS @ 1450 RPM
dry weight 325kg
4.75:1 compression

for comparison, Mercedes D.IIIa
140mm bore
160mm stroke
~170PS PS @ 1450 RPM
weight ?
4.64:1 compression
  • 0

#17 Dughor

Dughor
  • Posts: 85

Posted 29 November 2011 - 17:52

Source Windsock No. 27 Halberstadt CL.II

Attached Files


  • 0

#18 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 29 November 2011 - 18:01

Halberstadt CL.II Peroformance for climbing compared with Halberstadt CL.IV

Halberstadt CL.II:
Powerplant: Mercedes D.III in-line 6 cylinder, 160 hp (120 kW)
Wing Span: 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m)
Length: 23 ft 11 in (7.3 m)
Height: 9 ft (2.75 m)
Maximum Speed: 103 mph (165 kph)
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 39.5 min
Endurance: 3

Halberstadt CL.IV:
Powerplant: 1× Mercedes D.III 6-cylinder in-line engine, 160 hp (120 kW)
Wingspan: 35 ft 2.75 in (10.74 m)
Length: 21 ft 5.5 in (6.54 m)
Height: 8 ft 9 in (2.67 m)
Empty Weight: 1,605 lb (728 kg)
Loaded Weight: 2,354 lb (1,068 kg)
Maximum Speed: 104 mph (168 km/h)
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 4.5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 32 min
Endurance: 3.25 hours

compared with Halberstadt CL.IV the climbing data to 5,000m of 39,5min for Halberstadt CL.II could be right.

data from book: Jagdflugzeuge Der Welt Enzyklopädie (William Green and Gordon Swanborough)
ISBN 3-7276-7126-2
  • 0

#19 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:03

August 17th
I'm not feeling very well to-day. I fought Huns all night in my sleep and after two hours of real fighting to-day, I feel all washed out. Yesterday produced the worst scrap that I have yet had the honour to indulge in.
It lasted about twenty minutes and the participants were nine little Fokkers and myself. I say participants because each Hun fired at me at least once and I fired at each one of them several times, collectively and individually. We went down on a two-seater and I stuck with him and fought him on down after the others pulled up. It was one of these new Hannoveranners and he licked me properly. They just haven't got any blind spot at all and the pilot was using his front gun on me I most of the time. On my way back I spotted a flock of Fokkers about three thousand feet above me. I didn't know what was going on, but it looked to me as if the
thing to do was to suck those Fokkers down on me and then there would be plenty of our machines up above to come down on them and get some easy picking. I knew I was a good way over but I thought sure there would be a squadron of Dolphins about in addition to the S.E.'s, so I climbed for all I was worth and waited for the Huns to see me and come down. Archie put up a burst as a signal and I didn't have long to wait. I turned towards the lines and two of them came down. I put my nose down and waited for them to catch up. As
soon as one of them opened fire I pulled up in a long zoom and turned. One Hun overshot and I found myself level with the other one. He half rolled and I did a skid turn and opened up on him. He wasn't much of a pilot because I got about a hundred and fifty rounds into him. He went into a dive. But that first lad was all that could be expected. He got a burst in my right wing on his first crack and now he was stalling up under me and the first thing I knew about it was when I saw his tracer going by. I half rolled and sprayed a few rounds at him and went on down out of it too. I was getting worried about where the rest of the boys were and couldn't
see any signs of an S.E. Three Huns came down on me from above and played their new game. They try to fight in threes. They have some prearranged method of attack by which one sits on your tail while the other two take time about shooting from angles. They were all three firing and all I could do was to stay in a tight bank and pray. I thought I was gone. One of them pulled up and then came straight down to finish me off. I turned towards him and forced him to pull up to keep from overshooting. As soon as I saw his nose go by, I put mine down for I saw it was time to think more about rescuing the decoy than holding any bag for the rest of them. One Hun was on my tail in a flash and we were both doing about two hundred and fifty. I turned around to see what he was doing and as soon as his tracer showed up close, I pulled straight up. He tried to pull up but overshot and went on by, about fifty feet from me. I was close enough to see his goggles and note all the details of his plane, which was black and white checked with a white nose. I waved to him and I think he waved back, though I'm not sure. I tried to turn my guns on him but he went up like an elevator and tried to turn back to get on my tail. I put my nose down again and we more or less repeated. The rest of his crew didn't seem to be in a fighting mood and only picked at me from a distance so I got away. I had to come back on the
carpet and I shot up some infantry on the ground but it was too hot for me and I zigzagged on home. I felt fine then but before I got back I was shivering so I could hardly land. And I haven't been feeling right since. My heart seems to be trying to stunt all the time.
War Planes Pg74 unknown author
  • 0

#20 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:31

War Planes Pg74 unknown author

Wolf that book is fiction (although written by a participant in the air-war) the author was Elliott White-Springs but it is widely considered to be very unreliable as a source for history.
  • 0

#21 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:50

Also that quote does not mention the Halberstadt anyhwere.

Anyway, corrected and added to the Argus As.IIIa data above.
  • 0

#22 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 November 2011 - 19:59

Both T-C and Wolf are being very sloppy with facts here.

The book is entitled "War Birds," not "War Planes" as Wolf claims.

Although the sub-title is "Diary of an Unknown Aviator," it is, in fact, the diary of John MacGavock Grider.

Elliott White Springs, who was a squadron-mate (85 Squadron) of Grider's is credited as the book's editor.

What is curious is that Springs added two months to the diary.

Grider was KIA on 18 June 1918, yet the excerpt Wolf quotes is dated 17 August 1918. Clearly, he did not write that. Springs –as he does throughout the book – is written about in the third person yet the narrator remains "I" even after Grider's death.

How much of it is fiction is debatable. All of the names and dates and places and events and statistics are accurate, even those that took place after Grider's death.

It appears that, by adding the final months, Springs was completing the story of the 210 volunteers (including himself and Grider) who joined the RFC together in 1917. There is no indication he fabricated anything.

As a rule, I stay away from quoting novels but this is not (exactly) a novel. Still, I wouldn't use it as a source because it certainly includes at least some fiction.

Yet T-C repeatedly defends Yeats' "Winged Victory," which is definitely a novel as being accurate (even going so far as to borrow the name of the fictional main character) as a reliable source of historical info.

Go figure. :mrgreen:
  • 0

#23 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 29 November 2011 - 20:21

Yet T-C repeatedly defends Yeats' "Winged Victory," which is definitely a novel as being accurate (even going so far as to borrow the name of the fictional main character) as a reliable source of historical info.

Go figure. :mrgreen:

Because every single event (to the date) in Winged Victory and every single serial number (to each flight) can be linked to 46 Squadron and Yeates' logbook - it is almost certain that he wrote it from his and the squadron's logbooks. The only thing fictionalised are the names and the character of Williamson who is based on Yeates' friend Henry Williamson -www.henrywilliamson.co.uk .

You should read this:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0954688104" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co...Winged-Victor-B … 0954688104

Here you are even more wrong:

it is, in fact, the diary of John MacGavock Grider. What is curious is that Springs added two months to the diary.

In War Birds - even the 'diary' bit is a fictionalised account written long after the event and loosely based on letters yet the whole book claims to be non-fiction:

When the war ended, Springs returned to the United States where he barnstormed while writing "Warbirds: The Diary of an Unknown Aviator." His book was largely based upon a collection of letters written by his friend, John McGavock Grider, who was killed in action while serving with 85 Squadron. "Warbirds" was a bestseller and Springs continued writing books based on his experiences during World War I.

Since you always like to use the aerodrome forum to prove a point maybe you should read this:

http://www.theaerodr...wn-aviator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/peopl … iator.html

Or just read the Over the Front article about it - a few pages can be linked to historical fact - nothing more.

Maybe you're equally guilty playing loose with your facts? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
  • 0

#24 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 November 2011 - 20:36

Yet T-C repeatedly defends Yeats' "Winged Victory," which is definitely a novel as being accurate (even going so far as to borrow the name of the fictional main character) as a reliable source of historical info.

Go figure. :mrgreen:

Because every single event (to the date) in Winged Victory and every single serial number (to each flight) can be linked to 46 Squadron and Yeates' logbook. The only thing fictionalised are the names and the character of Williamson who is based on Yeates' friend Henry Williamson -www.henrywilliamson.co.uk .

You should read this:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0954688104" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co...Winged-Victor-B … 0954688104

Here you are even more wrong:

it is, in fact, the diary of John MacGavock Grider. What is curious is that Springs added two months to the diary.

In War Birds - even the 'diary' bit is a fictionalised account written long after the event and loosely based on letters yet the whole book claims to be non-fiction:

When the war ended, Springs returned to the United States where he barnstormed while writing "Warbirds: The Diary of an Unknown Aviator." His book was largely based upon a collection of letters written by his friend, John McGavock Grider, who was killed in action while serving with 85 Squadron. "Warbirds" was a bestseller and Springs continued writing books based on his experiences during World War I.

Since you always like to use the aerodrome forum to prove a point maybe you should read this:

http://www.theaerodr...wn-aviator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/peopl … iator.html

Maybe you're equally guilty playing loose with your facts? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

T-C,

I don't know what you are quoting here (citation?) saying this was based on letters. The forward to the 1988 edition of the book, written by James J. Hudson and published by Texas A&M University as part of its Military History Series (not military fiction), mentions only Grider's diary, not any letters.

War Birds originally was published in 1926, only eight years after the end of the war. Cecil Lewis didn't publish "Sagittarius Rising" until 1936 and it is widely quoted (and a great read). Yeats' "Winged Victory" was published in 1934. So what?

Springs later published eight novels but they were clearly novels and labeled as such. "War Birds" is not.
  • 0

#25 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 29 November 2011 - 20:38

I don't know what you are quoting here (citation?) saying this was based on letters.

Apologies - it was from your favourite source: http://www.theaerodr...usa/springs.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...usa/springs.php :mrgreen:

Springs later published eight novels but they were clearly novels and labeled as such. "War Birds" is not.

Yet the fact is he didn't take credit for it and tried to cash in on it and the fascination with all things flying post war by presenting it as a 'diary'. Which it most certainly was not.

Read the Over the Front Article for more info (The "Unknown Writer" Behind the "Unknown Aviator:" The Story of War Birds by Lt. Col. Steven A. Ruffin, USAF). It's been researched for you! :)

http://www.overthefr...1996-Issues.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.overthefr...com/Over-the-Fr … Issues.php
  • 0

#26 HotTom

HotTom
  • Posts: 8177

Posted 29 November 2011 - 20:46

Well, if you read the Aerodrome Forum post you put in your post above, the only debate is how much was Grider and how much was Springs.

There is general agreement in that thread that the book itself is factual.

Again, there is no mention of letters. That appears only in that Aerodrome short bio of Springs and no source is mentioned.

Springs wasn't trying to "cash in" on his wartime experiences. Most of the proceeds went to Grider's family. Springs, who was very wealthy, didn't need the money.

And the OTF link you provided is merely an index of an issue. It doesn't contain the article, which I really would like to read.

None of this has anything to do with Halberstadts. Apologies for the hijack. :mrgreen:

:S!:

HT
  • 0

#27 SC/JG_Oesau

SC/JG_Oesau
  • Posts: 2024

Posted 29 November 2011 - 20:54

Performance
Maximum speed: 165 km/h (90 kn, 103 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
Service ceiling: 5,090 m[8] (16,600 ft)
Wing loading: 41.2 kg/m² (8.4 lb/ft²)
Power/mass: 0.11 kW/kg (0.06 hp/lb)
Endurance: 3 hr
Climb to 1,000 m (3,280 ft): 5 min
Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 39.5 min

Wiki Data

Figures from the German Aircraft of WWI - ceiling is listed in the book as being 16,700ft (yeah yeah, 100ft difference).

The wingloading and power/mass are caluclated from the editor of the wiki as the figures are no listed in the book (though it doesn't take much to work it out yourself).
  • 0

#28 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 29 November 2011 - 21:04

Thanks for getting it back on topic. HT I've PM'd you to continue our discussion.
  • 0

#29 Gunsmith86

Gunsmith86
  • Posts: 842

Posted 29 November 2011 - 22:00

Info form the book MILITARY AIRCRAFT, Origins to 1918
AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THEIR IMPACT

In addition to the fighters that they introduced in 1917, the Germans
also began placing a new class of ground attack aircraft into
service during the course of the year. Even though they were first intended
for escort service, these heavily armed aircraft were soon
concentrated in Schlachtstaffeln (Battle Flight) units that provided
air support to German ground forces. The first of this type was the
Halberstadt CL.II biplane. Designed by Karl Thies, the CL.II was
relatively small for a two-seat aircraft, with a wingspan of 35 ft 4 in.,
a length of 23 ft 11.4 in., and a loaded weight of 2,493 lbs. Powered
by a 160 hp Mercedes D.III inline engine, it could reach a maximum
speed of 103 mph and could reach its service ceiling of 5,000
m (16,404 ft) in 39 minutes 30 seconds
. The CL.II’s woodenframed
fuselage was covered with thin plywood that was then
wrapped with fabric, making it a fairly sturdy aircraft. Steel tubing
was used with the ailerons, undercarriage, elevators, and wing
struts. One of its most unique features was the use of a single cockpit
in which the pilot and observer sat back to back, which improved
communication and allowed for maximum use of its armament for
ground strafing. In addition to the pilot’s one to two forward-firing
synchronized Spandaus and the observer’s rear-firing, ring-mounted
Parabellum, the CL.II came equipped with up to five 22-lb bombs
and several antipersonnel grenades. In its ground support role, the
CL.II would dive down and fly approximately 100 ft above the
trenches, strafing enemy positions in advance of German ground
forces. A combination of speed at low altitude and heavy firepower
made it a difficult target for opposing ground troops. It was first
used in this fashion during the successful German counterattack at
Cambrai in November 1917. An improved version, the CL.IV, which
was 2.5 ft shorter in length and approximately 100 lbs lighter, was
introduced in time for the German spring offensive in 1918. The
CL.IV also included improved forward visibility by lowering the top
wing closer to the fuselage. Approximately 900 CL.IIs and 700
CL.IVs (including 250 of the latter produced by L.F.G. Roland)
were produced by war’s end.
  • 0

#30 J99_Dirk

J99_Dirk
  • Posts: 18

Posted 29 November 2011 - 23:15

What I collected from Schiffer publications and Windsock No 27:

..............................Merkur/Schiffer..............................Windsock.Datafile.27 Name...............Unit.......Text.........................................Text Manufacturer..................Halberstädter.Flugzeugwerke.GmbH.............Halberstädter.Flugzeugwerke.GmbH Plane.type....................2-.Seater....................................2-.Seater Crew..........................2............................................2 Wingspan.Upper.....mm.........10.770.......................................10.770 Wingspan.Lower.....mm.........10.650.......................................10.650 Length.overall.....mm.........7.300........................................7.300 Height.............mm.........2.750........................................2.750 Total.wing.area....sqm.....................................................27.5 Wing.Chord.Upper...mm.........1.600........................................1.600 Wing.Chord.Lower...mm.........1.300........................................1.300 Gap.at.Fuselage....mm.........1.290........................................1.300 Stagger.at.Fuselagemm.........670 Elevator.Span......mm.........2.706 Thrust.AGL.........mm.........1.660 Empty.Weight.......kg.........773..........................................773 Usefull.Load.......kg.........360..........................................360 Total.Weight.......kg.........1.133........................................1.133 Maximum.Speed......kph........165..........................................165 Service.Ceiling....mm.........5.500 Endurance..........hours Engine.Amount......pcs........1............................................1 Engine.Power/Type..hp/-.......170hp.Mercedes.D.IIIa.* Engine.Power/Type..hp/-.......180hp.Mercedes.D.IIIaü.** Engine.Power/Type..hp/-.......200hp.Mercedes.D.IIIaüv.*** Engine.Power/Type..hp/-.......180hp.Argus.As.III.**** Climbing.to.1.000m.min,.sec...5.min,.00.sec................................3.min,.30.sec Climbing.to.3.000m.min,.sec...24.min,.30.sec Climbing.to.5.000m.min,.sec...-............................................38.min,.0.sec Prop.dia...........mm......................................................2.760 Armament......................1-2x.7,9mm.MG's.08/15.fixed.front.500.bullets1-2x.7,9mm.MG's.08/15.fixed.front.500.bullets.each ..............................1x.7,9mm.Parabellum.movable.rear.500.bullets.1x.7,9mm.Parabellum.movable.rear.500.bullets ..............................5x.10kg.Bombs................................5x.10kg.Bombs Machines.Built.....pcs........779..........................................779 Fielded............Date.......Sep.17.......................................Sep.17 Field.Strength.....31.08.1917.15...........................................15 ...................31.12.1917.170..........................................170 ...................30.04.1918.342..........................................342 ...................30.06.1918.311..........................................311 ...................31.08.1918.175..........................................175 Remarks.......................*Numbers.:.2825-2924/17.=.for.the.first.100.Machines ..............................**Numbers.:.5675-5574/17,.6300-6399/17,. 14200-14399,.15300-15399/17,.700-799/18 ..............................***Numbers.:.1161-1260/18 ..............................****Numbers.:.2800-2999/18
Sorry for the format, seems the code function here is not working as it should be…
It is loosing the formatted text.
I got these in Excel, converted to formatted txt file, in the J99 forum the code works and shows it properly…
  • 0

#31 navair2

navair2
  • Posts: 1467
  • LocationIllinois, USA

Posted 30 November 2011 - 02:32

This is a fair bit of information, so I will summarize when possible without taking from the technical aspects of the article. Pictures are taken using a Canon Powershot S5 IS digital SLR.

I'm unable to scan these pages due to them being oversized ( the book is fairly large ).

Jane's Fighting Aircraft of World War I, published by Military Press in 1990 ( Originally published by Jane's Publishing Company, 1919 ).

ISBN 0-517-03376-3

Starting on page 160 under "H", Halberstadt, ( dates appear to follow format dd/mm/yy ) "This machine is a two-seater. It was brought down at Villers-Bocage, by LTs. Armstrong and Mort on an RE.8 on 9/6/18. The machine is marked " Type H.S. C.L.2," and bears the military number C.L.2, 15,342 / 17. The date of construction 14/4/18, is stamped on various parts. On the side of the fuselage is the following inscription-

Leergewicht ( weight unladen ), 796 k.g.
Nochstbelastung ( useful weight ), 370 k.g.
Einschl Vollen Tank ( Including full tanks )."

The remainder of the pertinent information I have included in photographs. Keep in mind this is from a captured, flyable aircraft and by this article appears to have been flight-tested for its data.

* Edit *

Thanks to Eclectic Razor for the full-page shots!

Attached Files


  • 0

Case: Corsair 650D Motherboard: AsRock Z77 Extreme4 PSU: Antec TruePower New 750 Blue CPU: Intel i5-2500K ( Socket 1155 )

CPU Cooler: ZalMan CNPS9500A LED GPU: EVGA GTX 580 MEM: 8 GB G.Skill PC12800 DDR3 1600
Soundcard: Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Monitor: Samsung 2343 BWX 23"@ 2048 x 1152 OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


#32 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 30 November 2011 - 16:39

J99_Dirk

Many Thanks!
  • 0

#33 J99Hasso

J99Hasso
  • Posts: 434

Posted 30 November 2011 - 19:15

WW1 Era Wooden Propellers:
http://www.woodenpropeller.com/Photo_Gallery.html

www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1918/1918%20-%201403.html
Mercedes Engine:
www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1919/1919%20-%200233.html
  • 0

#34 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 01 December 2011 - 04:14

A description of the Halberstadt Cl.II can also be found in Henry Woodhouse, Textbook of applied aeronautic engineering, 1920, pages 192-193: 'The Halberstadt Fighter'

Attached File  textbookofapplie00woodrich_0206.jpg   812.07KB   391 downloads
Attached File  textbookofapplie00woodrich_0207.jpg   611.31KB   391 downloads

This is basically a shortened variant of the technical report also found in the Flight Magazine, October 10, 1918.

Furthermore this source features another article seemingly on the Halberstadt Cl.II on pages 208-209: 'Halberstadt - 160 Mercedes'

Attached File  textbookofapplie00woodrich_0222.jpg   895.26KB   391 downloads
Attached File  textbookofapplie00woodrich_0223.jpg   581.64KB   391 downloads

I do however not understand the data listed on page 208. This seems a comparison of 2 different trials, and the numbers are quite different from the ones stated on pages 192-193 and also on page 209. Climb times to 16,000ft would be 32.75 min and 26.2 min ..
  • 0

#35 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 December 2011 - 11:45

Sweet. According to volatile void's document, the Halberstadt Cl.II will be the fastest CP aircraft in RoF.

Hint: Almost all of the others are too slow.
  • 0

#36 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 01 December 2011 - 13:11

Sweet. According to volatile void's document, the Halberstadt Cl.II will be the fastest CP aircraft in RoF.

Hint: Almost all of the others are too slow.

judging by RPM`s - seems that this one had D.IIIau engine, and climb speed fits to prev numbers of 32 min to 16kft.

Maybe 51 min to 14kft had D.III installed? As it seems too slow for D.IIIa (German Aircraft of World War I by Gray & Thetford shows 39 min to 5000 meters - seems like it is for D.IIIa?)


PS: also speed relates good with this hypothesis as this shows 174 kmh at 5000m, and the one for 39 min climb - is 165kmh at the same alt.
  • 0

#37 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 December 2011 - 14:06

The D.IIIau engine? Yes please, and for the D.VII, too. :)

So which engine can we expect for our Cl.II? Maybe two versions like the Spad VII? The Cl.II is a great opportunity for you guys to finally introduce the D.IIIau engine into RoF. :)
  • 0

#38 Greywing2

Greywing2
  • Posts: 433

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:36

I wish.
  • 0

#39 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:39

Yes, we need two versions like the Вristol Fighter!
  • 0

#40 WW1EAF_Paf

WW1EAF_Paf
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1458

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:47

Or Cl.IIas with BMW engine?
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users