Halberstadt D.II***FINISHED***

[PeterB]

Hi Adrian,

 

I guess it is or was part of our heritage same as with the railways (which is why we have a difficult system compared with a lot of countries who started later or had to start from scratch after they were heavily bombed in WWII). In the "Industrial Revolution" housing, shops etc sprung up around factories to house and supply the workforce, and when the railways arrived they had to thread their way in around existing buildings - hence the number of relatively tight curves and restricted loading gauge compared with say France and Germany. Of course redevelopment has meant a lot of the factories have now gone which in some ways is for the best as the situation you describe was far from perfect  - like having a firework factory in a built up area which I seem to remember caused problems in China a while back.🔥 The following year I spent time at GKN in Smethwick where I learned a fair bit about nuts and bolts and various other forms of "fastenings" and the only hazards were the local beer and trying to understand the accent when asking for directions😄.

 

As to the paint, it probably depends to some extent on who made them - Windsock mentions pale blue and pale grey for Albatros struts but also mentions a colour they call "Feld Grau" or Field Grey which I suspect is a greenish grey as shown on the Turkish Halberstadt on the cover of the book I posted earlier. One of the problems with German WWI planes is that several different companies would often build a design under contract and all may have had different ideas about colours - some Albatri were made by OAW for example - Ostdeutsche Albatros-Werke (East German Albatros Works), in what I believe is now Poland and others by Oeffag (Oesterreichische Flugzeugfabrik AG) in Austria. They also would at times make small detail changes, eg the rounded nose and no spinner on some Albatros D.III made by the latter company, whilst other companies sometimes used their own distinctive style of tail on licence built planes.

 

As ever, paint schemes can be a complicated subject - all part of the joy of modelling, but then I forgot - I am not supposed to be enjoying myself!😆

 

Pete

Edited May 9, 2023 by PeterB

[Ray S]

11 hours ago, AdrianMF said:

Nice going Peter! You'd be hard pressed to gather all that info from the Harleyford WWI books with their left-hand side only three views and  grainy black and white thumbnail pictures.

 

FWIW, for struts and metal panels there seemed to be a prevalent light grey-green colour, which wasn't a million miles away from RLM02. Wingnut Wings call out grey green for struts on the C.II, although their Humbrol match is Hu90 (sky!)

 

Regards,

Adrian

 

I noticed that Wingnut Wings also suggested Interior Grey-Green for the Gotha GIV nacelles and suggested Humbrol 90 then too, so they are (were) consistent. I have seen one online build with what looked like Sky nacelles and it looked odd.

 

This Halberstadt is coming along well Pete, and again very interesting background, especially on the colour issues of WWI.

 

Ray

[PeterB]

It seems Halberstadt did not often paint the serial on their D.II/III and when they did it was in black, so the white serials are a fairly sure sign of Hannover production.

I think Pegasus got them a bit on the big side!. The white fuselage datum line is apparently something to do with aligning the rigging. There were several styles of national marking. Many were on white squares although some had the corners of the square cropped on the rudder. Others used white outlined crosses whilst this will have a mix of both. In theory the underwing cross could just be plain black if on a light surface but this one has white squares.

 

I don't know about you but when I am trying to compare aircraft performance I tend to look at speed, armament. range/duration and climb/ceiling. All of these are important but to a WWI fighter pilot another critical factor was the view from the cockpit – first to spot an enemy aircraft then to keep an eye on it when either closing to engage or trying to evade. It was possible to look back over the shoulder to “check six” though in some cases the headrest got in the way, as in the case of the Albatros D.V before it was removed, but the view forward was critical when trying to line up a target and keep it in their sights and there were two principal potential problems. Firstly the cabane struts and any plumbing – in the Halberstadt D.II and D.III there were 6 struts rather than the more common 4 and also the pipes leading from the front of the cylinder block to the wing mounted radiator and then back down to the rear of the block – incidentally I may have been wrong about the reason the wing mounted radiator was offset to the right as I have now read it was to move the plumbing to improve the view rather than to avoid scalding the pilot. The other and perhaps more critical problem was the position of the upper wing and here opinions varied. The “stagger” in theory helped as it moved the top wing forward in relation to the lower one and in this as with many other fighters there was a “cut-out” at the rear to improve upwards vision, but pilots such as Manfred Von Richthofen complained that in the Halberstadt D.II/III “the top wing is too close to the eyes and exactly at eye level, and a touch higher is more suitable for dogfighting”. However, in the Albatros D.I the wing was high and he did not like that, and preferred the D.II where it was lowered and the cabane struts splayed outwards.

 

In theory a wing virtually on the top of the fuselage as in the Sopwith Dolphin gave a much superior view upwards, but then it also reduced the view downwards which was rather important – so much so that Albatros adopted a sesquiplane layout on their D.III and D.V with the lower wing having a much reduced chord as in many Nieuport types, but then as we know this seems to have weakened the integrity of the wing to the point where it was prone to collapse – clearly wing size and position was quite a tricky balancing act. Some designs attempted to improve the view both up and down by either leaving fabric off the wing parts nearest the fuselage or at times covering them in a transparent material – perhaps Cellon. This was already in use for fuselage windows in some larger bodied recce planes and bombers and I have read somewhere that experiments were made with something similar to replace all the fabric on some B or C types, and even I think an “R” plane, perhaps one of the Siemen-Schuckert types but that was to make them “invisible” rather than to improve the view – apparently it failed as they were too shiny in sunlight and also the material stretched and lost its shape! For the same reason the specification for early B and maybe C types said that the fabric covering should be as translucent as possible so that they would be less visible in their pale blue finish.

 

Halberstadt did try and improve the view and armament with mixed results. The D.IV was the result of the first Idfleig contract for a plane with two forward firing machine guns issued in March 1916, and to take the extra weight it had a 150hp Benz engine and the struts were modified slightly but it was not accepted for production. However it seems to have influenced the design of the later very successful CL.II. The D.V reverted to the Argus engine of 120hp (though Turkish ones had a Mercedes) and a single mg though it was mounted on the port side instead of the starboard, and the cabane struts were now splayed outwards to improve vision. The cut-out at the rear of the upper wing was also increased in size. This was accepted and the pilots though it was pretty good, but by that time it was being outclassed by faster machines. Including the D.V only just over 200 Halberstadt D types were built, with the peak front line inventory being 104 by the end of December 1916 - by the end of 1917 there were only 10. Many ended up as trainers, but they did also participate in trials with wing mounted rockets and with two way radio communication for what would later be called Ground Controlled Interception.

 

I suppose I should apologise for the length of my "lectures" - although I have always been fascinated by WWI planes, I had never really researched them in any detail until I started this GB and I thought one or two of you might just find some of the info I discovered interesting ,. Anyway I am done now and will just stick to the construction details for the rest of the build.

 

Cheers

 

Pete

 

 

[DaddyO]

There are some pictures of an early Fokker (EIII perhaps) with the celon covered surfaces and very odd it looked too.

I can certainly vouch for the reflective quality of clear covering since I used to use clear mylar on the tail surfaces of a lot of my free flight models. When the DT timer went the tail popped up to 45 degrees and the models would spiral down out of the lift; even on a dull day the flash caused by the tail catching the sunlight was a great boon to the timekeepers and was often visible to the naked eye at quite long distances. 😃 

(Typically I can't find an example picture now, but I'll have a root round )

 

Lovin' the build so far Pete. 👍

(The Pegasus Halberstadt is one I've had my eye on for a while in case one turns up at a reasonable price)

 

Cheers

Paul

[PeterB]

47 minutes ago, DaddyO said:

There are some pictures of an early Fokker (EIII perhaps) with the celon covered surfaces and very odd it looked too.

I can certainly vouch for the reflective quality of clear covering since I used to use clear mylar on the tail surfaces of a lot of my free flight models. When the DT timer went the tail popped up to 45 degrees and the models would spiral down out of the lift; even on a dull day the flash caused by the tail catching the sunlight was a great boon to the timekeepers and was often visible to the naked eye at quite long distances. 😃 

(Typically I can't find an example picture now, but I'll have a root round )

 

Lovin' the build so far Pete. 👍

(The Pegasus Halberstadt is one I've had my eye on for a while in case one turns up at a reasonable price)

 

Cheers

Paul

Thanks Paul,

 

The "transparent" R plane I was thinking of was apparently the Linke-Hofmann R.I 8/15 which had normal fabric covered wings and nose but the entirety of the very deep rear fuselage from the wing trailing edge back, and the complete biplane tail unit was covered in Cellon.

 

It seems it flew a few times, but it was found that the Cellon stretched and shrunk according to the temperature causing trim problems, and quite quickly yellowed.

 

So far the Pegasus kit has not been too bad but like most short run offerings it needs quite a bit of work.

 

Pete

Edited May 9, 2023 by PeterB

[PeterB]

I have just about got as far as I can before starting the tricky bit - putting on the top wing.

The decs worked well enough using slightly warm de-ionised water - the white squares could have maybe been a bit denser as they are slightly translucent, but the printing is nice and sharp. Just a little touching up to do and then I will make a start. I would have preferred not to have put the wing decs on now but I am unsure just how well it would stand up to the handling if I left them until later. If I can manage this one, then I think I am about as ready as I can be to have a go at the FB.5 though I really am not looking forward to it! I have, however, yet another cunning plan- it might even work!😄

 

Pete

Edited May 11, 2023 by PeterB

[PeterB]

OK, after several deep breaths I made a start. The minimum number of supports needed for stability is 3 if they are correctly spaced - think old fashioned wooden milking stool or if you prefer a tripod! Technically I have two on the centreline in the form of the cabane struts so I tacked the upper wing to them aligning it up on my Mk I jig, and then added the two outer front struts. Access was not great and I will have to make a few alterations to the jig for the FB.5 but it worked well enough. I was going to go the "whole hog" as it were and use Meccano to hold the fuselage and lower wing in place, but decided masking tape was easier and more practical - it allowed me to turn the whole thing upside down to get at the underside of the upper wing when needed.

The locations marked on the wings by Pegasus clearly are not quite lined up properly and as a result the outer struts are not quite vertical, but a lot better that it appears above due to camera perspective I guess - anybody thinking of making this kit should perhaps do what I did with the Rumpler and elongate the locating holes slightly cord-wise  to give a little "wriggle room". I found that the top wing was a little low at the back so I then inserted the inner rear struts to raise it a little, which lifted it slightly off the rear cabane struts which must have been too short (or maybe the front ones were a bit long). It is now drying. A combination of the stagger and the fact that the rear struts were a long way forward compared with the Rumpler made them a real pain to get in. In terms of geometry this is not going to be perfect but then I never really thought it would be unless I got very lucky. As my late father-in-law used to say "A blind man would be glad to see it" though I guess that may now be considered "politically incorrect", for which I apologise! As with the Rumpler I have used the next size up in struts but it is still very insecure, though hopefully that may improve with the other 4 main struts, the front cabane struts and the pipe(s) to the radiator and the rigging in - I may have made the right decision about the wing decs. As it is, supporting it to get the undercarriage on could be problematic but I will cross that particular bridge when I get to it. - it might be best done before rigging the outer bays so I can insert some sort of support.

 

So far - so good.

 

Pete

Edited May 12, 2023 by PeterB

[Ray S]

This is looking very good Pete, and another very interesting history section a little earlier. I like the colour scheme, especially with that unusual 'bar' along the upper wing surface.

 

Ray

[PeterB]

A bit more progress. Both the front and rear inner struts are now on and the "X" shaped rigging installed whilst I can still get at it fairly easily - the structure is starting to firm up nicely now,

I have also added the final pair of front cabane struts but still have to add the water pipes to and from the radiator, which have to be mounted in such a way that I can get the rigging wires in as well. I have also prepared the locations for the undercarriage legs and fettled the struts for the tail skid.

They are made from two "V's" of thin brass rod as the support for the rudder will be.

 

I continue to improve my skills in terms of wings/struts but now I am having to plan how to sequence the build so that I can get the undercarriage and tail on without damaging the wings/rigging - something I will definitely have to master before I return to the FB.5 - that ruddy tail boom is certainly an uncomfortable complication!

 

Next I will add the final pair of struts and rig them, before leaving it to set properly. After that I will probably rig the inner bay whilst adding the radiator pipes, which could be fun.

 

Pete

[AdrianMF]

Coming along really well! 
 

Regards,

Adrian

[81-er]

It's looking really good, Pete

 

James

[PeterB]

Well. that was fun - I have eventually managed to get both the radiator pipes on around the rigging wire.

 

I used 15 Amp fuse wire as it was easier to bend and it worked pretty well in the end. I realise that the struts etc are not exact scale but as you can see it is pretty cluttered under there - the pilot's view must have been quite restricted! I will now finish off the rigging and do a bit of touching up before attempting the undercarriage.

 

Pete

[Ray S]

Excellent Pete, very nice work on the piping,

 

Ray

[PeterB]

I have finished rigging the wings.

 

On my Rumpler getting in to rig the rear struts was more difficult than doing the front ones, and this was if anything worse.

 

Next up, the undercarriage. Pegasus provide white metal wheels and legs and a length of wide strut to make the spreader bar/axle.

 

At the bottom of the pic you can see how I have carved the strut so it should locate in the legs and hold the wheels and I have bent the bottoms of the legs at an angle so they ought to line up better. In theory this should be fairly easy but I can remember the problems I had with old Airfix kits such as the Bristol Fighter and Camel when it was tricky getting the legs symmetrical and the axle horizontal  and perpendicular to the fuselage all at the same time so I will so we will see.

 

More tomorrow I expect.

 

Pete

[81-er]

That really is cluttered under that top wing, Pete, well done for getting it all in

 

James

[PeterB]

Yes, it is made even worse by the need to position the two front starboard cabane struts nearer the centreline than those on the port side to allow a clear field of fire for the gun. It would have been better if the gun was further in and the struts splayed out a bit more, but then the cylinder head and plumbing would have been in the way. On their D.V the gun switched sides and the struts were splayed out towards the top and mounted a little further out as well, which must have been quite an improvement in terms of view. It also seems to have had a Rhino Horn exhaust which was mounted below the horizontal rather than the more normal vertical position so that probably helped as well. However when that model arrived at the front starting in October 1916 the Albatros was in service and was a lot faster and had 2 guns so only about 50 were made.

 

Pete

 

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by PeterB

[AdrianMF]

Crazy amounts of pipework, struttery and rigging! I'm surprised they could see anything at all. 
 

Nicely done.

 

Regards,

Adrian

[Old Man]

Coming along very nicely.

 

I expect visibility was part of the advantage sesquiplanes like the Nieuport enjoyed.

 

Stagger was mostly an attempt to increase lifting power. In a biplane the airstream over the lower wing (low pressure) and the airstream beneath the upper wing (high pressure) interfere with one another's efficiency, with flow over the lower suffering the most. In consequence the upper wing will produce more than half the lifting power of the wing structure. Stagger reduces this interference. A sesquiplane more or less writes off the lifting power of a lower wing, to the increase of the upper wing's efficiency, and can be regarded as a sort of 'parasol' monoplane with better bracing.

[PeterB]

It was a bit of a fiddle and I times I could have done with 3 hands but I finally got the undercarriage on and it looks reasonably “square”.

 

I will paint it, rig it and add the wheels and then start on the tail. Like a lot of early planes it had no fixed tail surfaces so had what is now called an “all flying tail”. Perched on the extreme end of the fuselage it looked rather frail, but was made out of steel tube braised together – I don't think proper welding really came into general use until slightly later in the war. This is what you get from Pegasus.

 

The front “spar” of the elevators formed a pivot bar which was attached to the horizontal knife edge at the end of the fuselage, but the plastic in the kit is soft I have already managed to break it. I have repaired it with a short length of wire to brace it – not prototypical but not too obvious either once painted. The rudder had a pivot tube about 1/3 of the way from the front, but the kit just has a small stub at the bottom, so I have added a couple of lengths of wire at the top and the bottom.

 

I have also cut a notch in the rear of the fuselage into which the lower wire will go, sandwiching the elevator bar so they can both be glued in place a bit more firmly, and will then attach braces to the top end as in the real thing. It is still going to be fragile so I will put the cross decs on first.. I hope this works as there will still be very little actual contact area for glue to work on.

 

This type of tail meant that the rudder and elevators were very sensitive to movement of the stick – perhaps too sensitive in some cases as they were soon phased out in favour of more conventional controls with fixed surfaces and did not reappear until the jet age in the form of the powered slab type tails.

 

Pete

 

[PeterB]

Today has been one of those rare good days when everything I try seems to have just about worked and even my hands were not shaking too badly - the Force seems to have been with me so I took full advantage - tomorrow will no doubt be back to normal - two steps forwards and one step backwards or maybe even the other way round!

The undercarriage has come out pretty well so I decided to have a go at the tail.

Not quite perfect as I suspect the rudder is leaning forwards just a little but as it was a real old juggle to get the tail on I will live with that. A bit of careful touching up to do and then I will see if I can get the tail skid on, which will just leave the propeller. It is not obvious in the above pic but there is a slight gap between the rudder and the top of the fuselage as there should be - in fact the only part of the fin in direct contact with the fuselage is the thin wire "pivot" at the bottom. The kit is pretty accurate and other than my choice of slightly wider struts it looks pretty much like the real thing I believe. Not the easiest of kits to build but I would certainly recommend it to anybody wanting a Halberstadt in 1/72. It probably could be built using the strut material provided in the kit but apparently all the struts were streamlined metal so my use of brass rod in some cases is not entirely cheating . On the real machine there were 6 control cables coming out of the rear fuselage, 4 attached to brackets on the strut between the elevators and 2 to the rudder - I will not push my luck by trying to add them in this scale!

 

Anyway - the end is nigh!

 

Pete

[81-er]

That's looking good Pete  I don't envy you for having to tackle the tricky job of fixing that complicated tail, but you've done a great job of it

 

James

[PeterB]

Tail skid on with metal shoe painted at the rear and rubber bungee cord at the front, and prop also fitted so just a finishing coat of varnish to go.

I guess I am as ready as I ever will be for the FB.5 now.

 

Pete

[DaddyO]

Yep it's a good un Pete 

 

(Right just popping off to scour evilbay to see if they have any Halberstadts listed . . . .)

 

Paul

[PeterB]

3 hours ago, DaddyO said:

Yep it's a good un Pete 

 

(Right just popping off to scour evilbay to see if they have any Halberstadts listed . . . .)

 

Paul

Thanks Paul.

 

Plenty of CL.II and CL.IV on there and King Kits but no D.II/III AFAIK - best of luck.

 

Incidentally I would have had considerably more difficulty building this  without Grosz's book and I now have a spare copy, so if you do find a kit you may wish to PM me to discuss it!😄

 

Pete

Edited May 16, 2023 by PeterB

[Ray S]

That is a good result Pete. You had a few challenges but overcame them well. Good luck with the FB.5

 

Ray