Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Halberstadt CL.II Peroformance


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

#41 Trooper117

Trooper117
  • Posts: 3410

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:49

Yep, according to my ref the 'a' model had the BMW!
  • 0

#42 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:53

the a model had the Argus As.III or As.IIIa, the Cl.IIa was ordered in April 1918 just when Mercedes switched production to the D.IIIaü (all of which were earmarked for the D.VII) so it seems very likely that, similar to the Hannover CL.III(a), the Mercedes was exchanged for the Argus. Also there were no BMW engines in April/May 1918 afaik, and if Idlieg did not deem the Cl class aircraft worthy enough to receive the D.IIIaü, why would they receive the even better BMW engine?


Especially for low-level operations the Argus As.III with 180PS at 1400RPM would be superior to the D.IIIaü due to the lower compression, not to mention the As.IIIa with 220PS at 1450RPM. The D.IIIaü was leaned down ans basically throttled if you will, and only gave full power at aproximately 2300m, unless Benzol additives were used with the altitude throttle.
  • 0

#43 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 01 December 2011 - 15:58

Attached File  Cl 2.png   182.46KB   413 downloads
  • 0

#44 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 December 2011 - 16:06

Fine Imp. But does anything of this mean that we can expect at least one Cl.II variant that is not ridiculously slow, like the Albatrosses, Pfalz D.IIIa, and DFW?
  • 0

#45 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 01 December 2011 - 16:49

The Cl.II was far from reknown to be a fast plane to begin with, and all German inline engines from about 1916 onwards did not give full power at sea level due to lean mixture in order to increase their ceiling.
The DFW is actually quite fast at altitude for an early 1917 plane. The R.E.8 on the other hand has a mixture optimised for low level but then goes poop* above it.

The Albatros and Pfalz have been discussed to death.


*technical term
  • 0

#46 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 01 December 2011 - 18:03

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

I have to stress that I am not sure if the data on page 208 (from Textbook of applied aeronautic engineering) actually is from a Halberstadt CL.II. It could also be an article comparing the performance of an Halberstadt CL.II (data on page 209) to perhaps some other aircraft (maybe Halberstadt CL.IV?). Also it is strange that page 208 depicts a Rumpler aeroplane.

Generally the articles in "Textbook of applied aeronautic engineering" sometimes somewhat hard to interpret, since the book looks like a loose collection of shortened newspaper articles/technical reports.
  • 0

#47 navair2

navair2
  • Posts: 1467
  • LocationIllinois, USA

Posted 02 December 2011 - 01:20

According to J99_Dirk's table on page 3 of this thread, the Halberstadt CL.II that was captured and tested in Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI had a 180 hp Mercedes D.IIIau engine. Look at the serial number of the aircraft and the asterisks on his table below the main specs.
  • 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


#48 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 02 December 2011 - 12:54

That information is totally bogus though. It must be based on the airpump extrapolation as well as the aüv engine only entered service in the last few weeks, months after Cl.II production ceased, see here:
http://www.theaerodr...iii-series.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/aircr … eries.html

The D.IIIaü is unfortunately missing but it must've entered production around April or May 1918 iirc. This is because Daimler did not differentiate between D.IIIa and D.IIIaü in official documents. It was simply called "D.IIIa, overcompressed"

Same thread:

Daimler monthly production of the Mercedes D.IIIa/D.IIIaü for 1918.

January 428 (D.IIIa)
February 328 (D.IIIa)
March 283 (D.IIIa)
April 370 (min.200-D.IIIa/max.170-D.IIIaü)
May 405 (min.110-D.IIIa/max.295-D.IIIaü)
June 413 (min.22-D.IIIa/max.391-D.IIIaü)
July 498 (1-D.IIIa/497-D.IIIaü)
August 495 (D.IIIaü)
September 480 (D.IIIaü)
October 229 (D.IIIaü)
November 100 (D.IIIaü)
December 15 (D.IIIaü)

Only 10 D.VII were accepted with D.IIIaü engine in May, and they were prioritised, so it is very unlikely that any of them went into the Cl.II - at least not in the factory.
  • 0

#49 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 02 December 2011 - 13:13

The DFW is actually quite fast at altitude for an early 1917 plane.

I was reading an account of 1 1/2 Strutters not being able to catch DFW's and a pair of DFWs driving down one and shooting another of a pair of (1 RNAS- iirc) Sopwith Triplanes by fighting them with their front guns. This would have been early summer 1917.

It makes sense that the Re8 was optimised for low level they rarely if ever operated above 5000 feet.
  • 0

#50 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 03 December 2011 - 19:59

Those DFW's might have a Benz D.IVa installed - the overcompressed 230HP version of the original Benz D.IV.
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#51 quick447

quick447
  • Posts: 2

Posted 04 December 2011 - 04:10

Some historical 'skins' :D
http://www.wwiaviati...stadt-clii.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.wwiaviati...om/gallery-halb … -clii.html
  • 0

#52 Wolf_Schultz

Wolf_Schultz
  • Posts: 209

Posted 04 December 2011 - 08:14

The DFW is actually quite fast at altitude for an early 1917 plane.

I was reading an account of 1 1/2 Strutters not being able to catch DFW's and a pair of DFWs driving down one and shooting another of a pair of (1 RNAS- iirc) Sopwith Triplanes by fighting them with their front guns. This would have been early summer 1917.

It makes sense that the Re8 was optimised for low level they rarely if ever operated above 5000 feet.


Which is why the DFW was often used as a Schusta (protection) airplane for other 2-seaters during that period.

Anyway, like the R.E.8, the Halberstadt CLII was not meant for higher altitude, it was a ground pounder. The reason for differences in climb times could also be due to the wildly varied loadouts, perhaps even the difference between having two guns mounted instead of one (hypothetical reason of course). I also heard that the Halberstadt was armored, can anyone confirm that?

If 777 Studios wants this to be a counterpart to the Bristol as was hinted in the email then they probably should have gone with the Hannover instead of the Halberstadt. The Halberstadt was an excellent ground attack plane, not really a fighter (at least at altitude anyway). Glad to have it regardless though.

Also, I'd say those skins are semi-historical at best. For example the one on the far top right should be red and yellow not green and yellow. Plus there is one done in Jasta 15 colors, which might be a squadron hack machine but not useful. There are more discrepancies.
  • 0

#53 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 04 December 2011 - 13:54

The Cl.II was designed as an escort fighter and the Schustas and even the Schlastas provided escort services on a daily basis, for artillery spotting but also photo recon.
  • 0

#54 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 04 December 2011 - 16:45

The Cl.II was designed as an escort fighter and the Schustas and even the Schlastas provided escort services on a daily basis, for artillery spotting but also photo recon.

unfortunately people believe in those dogmas which they pledged earlier. 8-) and when they open up new facts simply do not believe this! :(
  • 0

#55 Wolf_Schultz

Wolf_Schultz
  • Posts: 209

Posted 04 December 2011 - 18:31

The Cl.II was designed as an escort fighter and the Schustas and even the Schlastas provided escort services on a daily basis, for artillery spotting but also photo recon.


1. Escort duty with Schustas essentially stopped by early 1918 (before the Spring Offensives).

2. By the time the Schustas were receiving the Halberstadt, many were experimenting with ground attack work to the point where it was becoming a defacto primary job.

3. Schusta and Schlasta units were often mixed in their equipment (as were all German units) so that a Schusta unit might have DFW's, LVG's, Rumplers, Halberstadts, and Hannovers in a single unit…and these units only typically had 6 planes in a Schusta or Schlasta. Interestingly, we have records of Allied pilots shooting down Schusta planes during the period of the Battle of Cambrai to the Spring Offensive, yet I haven't seen a single one say it was a Halberstadt. The other types were mentioned, including numerous times of the Hannover flying alongside a recon plane like a Rumpler, but no Halberstadt. It is possible that the plane isn't being identified properly and being called a LVG instead, but it is interesting nonetheless.

4. Yes, the CL class was meant to be a lighter two-seater capable of fighting, but that doesn't mean it was used as such in combat, and the Halberstadt is a good case of that. As I said, perhaps a different loadout made the plane's performance drop. If, for example, the groundcrews placed armor in the plane since the crews were flying numerous ground attack missions than it would obviously hurt the performance of the plane, making whatever fighting capabilities of the original airframe moot…and that isn't a modification that can be put in or taken out mission to mission.
  • 0

#56 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 04 December 2011 - 18:35

While for the majority of aircraft, the primary job was ground attack, escort duties remained a regular duty as well. Maybe less so in sectors, where ground operations were conducted, on the other hand, contact patrols and reconnaissance was all the more important. However if you check page 78 of Schlachtflieger! you will find a gunner describing an escort sortie as late as June 23 1918, and they are climbing to 4800m.

Afaik Cl.IIs and CL.IVs were also send out to chase away enemy corps machines like the R.E.8, which qualifies as a fighter sortie imo.
  • 0

#57 dirk

dirk
  • Posts: 63

Posted 04 December 2011 - 19:36

Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWI gives:
Speed at 10,000 ft, 1,385 rev/min. 97 mph
Climb to 5,000 ft 9 min 25 sec (440 ft/min)
Climb to 10,000 ft 24 min 30 sec (240 ft/min)
Climb to 14,000 ft 51 min 55 sec (80 ft/min)
Service ceiling 13,500 ft
Estimated absolute ceiling 16,000 ft
Greatest height reached in trial 14,800 ft

Data refer to a machine brought down on June 9 1918
  • 0

#58 J5_Rumey

J5_Rumey
  • Posts: 1180

Posted 04 December 2011 - 20:15

This is not directly about engine performance, but if you have windsock datafile 027 on page 9 you will see a wire guard on the top wing that would prevent the gunner from firing into the airscrew. This wouldn't be a bad addition I think, it doesn't have to do with engine performance but a lot with aircraft performance. As gunner couldn't fire into airscrew while firing over the top the wing with this installed.
  • 0

#59 DidNotFinish

DidNotFinish
  • Posts: 4454

Posted 04 December 2011 - 22:17

Just to be clear, this will be the Mercedes DIII engined version correct?
  • 0

#60 =FB=VikS

=FB=VikS
  • Developer
  • Posts: 1246

Posted 04 December 2011 - 22:33

Just to be clear, this will be the Mercedes DIII engined version correct?

D.IIIa
  • 0

#61 =FB=Chapay

=FB=Chapay
  • Posts: 637

Posted 04 December 2011 - 22:43

Just to be clear, this will be the Mercedes DIII engined version correct?



:S!:
  • 0

#62 J.j.

J.j.
  • Posts: 1959

Posted 05 December 2011 - 16:26

Datas from various websites seem to agree on that the Halberstadt CL II most used bombload was about 50kg tops.

So that is only 4 bombs of 12,5kg, or 8 Stielhandgranate bundle (each one weights 5.740 kg)

Even if Schlachtas pilots seemed to have flied their planes "overload" when supporting Stormtroops, I doubt they would have passed the 100kg mark, the double of the most common military charge used!

Moreover, it is said in the Windsock datafile about this plane that there was only room for 3 amno drums for the Parabellum machine gun, due to the "very cramped" rear cockpit. That is only 750 rounds for the defensive machine gun, not 1250.
  • 0

#63 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 05 December 2011 - 20:46

But wouldn't the aircraft take off with a drum already in place, for 1000 rounds total?
  • 0

#64 Frankyboy

Frankyboy
  • Posts: 806

Posted 05 December 2011 - 20:53

it is said, 1 drum at the gun, 2 drums as spare.
  • 0

#65 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 05 December 2011 - 22:38

Datas from various websites seem to agree on that the Halberstadt CL II most used bombload was about 50kg tops.

So that is only 4 bombs of 12,5kg, or 8 Stielhandgranate bundle (each one weights 5.740 kg)

Even if Schlachtas pilots seemed to have flied their planes "overload" when supporting Stormtroops, I doubt they would have passed the 100kg mark, the double of the most common military charge used!

Moreover, it is said in the Windsock datafile about this plane that there was only room for 3 amno drums for the Parabellum machine gun, due to the "very cramped" rear cockpit. That is only 750 rounds for the defensive machine gun, not 1250.

My sources say they never had bomb rack under the wings. If they had bombs at all they were hand delivered.
  • 0

#66 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 05 December 2011 - 22:49

I believe Luke posted a picture of one with a bomb rack didn't he?

EDIT: Found it

Image
  • 0

#67 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 05 December 2011 - 23:05

"underwing bomb rack(?)" Like they weren't sure about it and they are asking.
  • 0

#68 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 05 December 2011 - 23:18

Yep. Grey area.
  • 0

#69 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 05 December 2011 - 23:24

It's definitely the same rack that was used on other planes for PuW 12,5kg bombs.
  • 0

#70 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 05 December 2011 - 23:59

It's definitely the same rack that was used on other planes for PuW 12,5kg bombs.

Windsock 27 has about 75 pictures of Haberstadts in we find one Questionable picture where they may have a bomb rack. Let see if we can find one where they are actually carrying bombs.
  • 0

#71 JG1_Pragr_J4

JG1_Pragr_J4
  • Posts: 57

Posted 06 December 2011 - 07:32

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.

the 51 min to 14 000ft is based on test of the CL.II downed by R.E.8 plane. Althought this plane was in flyable conditions, it was far from what could be claimed good enough for gain some precise data. E.g. service ceilling was measured about 3000ft lower than the officially used 16500ft.
  • 0

#72 Armincles

Armincles
  • Posts: 514

Posted 06 December 2011 - 12:36

I feel that for German Aircraft,German figures should be used from German sources and specs!
Just like Allied planes performance figures are not based on German sourced specs!
:S!:
  • 0

#73 Frankyboy

Frankyboy
  • Posts: 806

Posted 06 December 2011 - 14:06

i guess the proplem is to find them……….
Getting reliable and comparable (!) sources for a WW2 sim is already not that easy. About WW1, i am guessing it is a nightmare.
  • 0

#74 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 06 December 2011 - 14:36

I believe Luke posted a picture of one with a bomb rack didn't he?

EDIT: Found it

Image

There is even better picture of Halberstadt Cl.II with bomb rack in Schlahtflieger page 100. I believe Imp posted it awhile ago. Also same book has anecdotes of them using bombs and they specifically mention 12,5kg PuW bombs "In every Halberstadt were two or three 12 ½ kilo bombs and in addition as many hand granades and as much machine gun ammunition as would fit" (page 54). Also some data about number of rounds, hand grenades and bombs used IE: 25.4. Dickebush - Reninghelst 66000 mg rounds, 35 mortar grenades and 500kg of bombs + hand grenades.

So, IMO there is enought of evidence that Halberstadts used bombs. Now 150kg on otherhand sound too much. ~150kg would much better fit as total max military load (MGs, ammo, grenades and possible bombs) and 50kg as max possible bomb load.

Also some anecdotes indicate that forward mg had 1000 rounds of ammunition "I have some shooting to do. 100, 150, 250 rounds. The ammunition belt is depleted. Weidner has 1000 rounds in his machine gun. Again and again he tips the aircraft forward and fires everything he's got" (page 32)
  • 0

#75 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:14

The Halberstadt Cl II did not have either internal or external bomb racks. It carried anti-personnel bomblets (finned grenades) in external racks on the sides of the fuselage. They also carried the potato masher wood handled hand grenade. Total weight of grenades, etc was 50 kg, (110 lbs.)
Blue skies.
Dan-San Abbott
http://www.theaerodr...i-bombload.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/2001/ … bload.html
  • 0

#76 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:23

The Halberstadt Cl II did not have either internal or external bomb racks. It carried anti-personnel bomblets (finned grenades) in external racks on the sides of the fuselage. They also carried the potato masher wood handled hand grenade. Total weight of grenades, etc was 50 kg, (110 lbs.)
Blue skies.
Dan-San Abbott
http://www.theaerodr...i-bombload.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/2001/ … bload.html


Old information, which he did correct in Schlachtflieger ;)
  • 0

#77 242Sqn_Wolf

242Sqn_Wolf
  • Posts: 2881

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:33

The Halberstadt Cl II did not have either internal or external bomb racks. It carried anti-personnel bomblets (finned grenades) in external racks on the sides of the fuselage. They also carried the potato masher wood handled hand grenade. Total weight of grenades, etc was 50 kg, (110 lbs.)
Blue skies.
Dan-San Abbott
http://www.theaerodr...i-bombload.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theaerodr...com/forum/2001/ … bload.html


Old information, which he did correct in Schlachtflieger ;)

Yet you got a book with over 200 photo and no bombs underneath that is curious. Don't forget the book was co-written, I bet Dan-San Abbott was saying no bombs then too.
  • 0

#78 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:41

Yet you got a book with over 200 photo and no bombs underneath that is curious.

Not really, as most photos are from parked planes. They would not "store" bombs with them in any case (and not all planes had racks. It was fitted if needed in planes that usually attacked behind the lines. "Trench trafers" didnt usually have bombs). Also we do have clear photos of bomb rack and plentifull of anecdotes that they used them. So what is the problem?

Don't forget the book was co-written, I bet Dan-San Abbott was saying no bombs then too.

When he had seen photos of bomb racks, anecdotes and list of ordenance used (bombs), hardly :)
  • 0

#79 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:46

There's no need to blindly stare at numbers, theoretical performance and top speed or wishing it'll be faster than Entente scouts, which it likely never was and never will be, no matter what engine you stick in it.

If the CL.II behaves somewhat like a D.Va with an added rear gunner (which is still pure guesswork at this point) and even if that rear gunner has only got a single gun, it will rule and decimate all Entente fighters attempting to turnfight with it; provided you have an experienced rear gunner.

Yes, the Camel, Pup and Nieuport 17 too. I'd be inclined to say: especially those fragile rotaries whose performance degrades tremendously after taking damage.

The real question is: how will it fare against a Bristol flown under similar conditions?
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#80 Frankyboy

Frankyboy
  • Posts: 806

Posted 06 December 2011 - 15:51

as i said already in other topics, the max bombloads for a wartime F2B and a RE8 are 'surprisingly' high in game, the CL not differs here. But i also think that 150kg are much too optimistic. 100kg are enough, and 777 should not forgett to ad the 50kg loadouts (1x50kg or 4x12,5kg) as options. If missiondesigners want to restrict them !
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users