Albatros D.II***FINISHED***

[PeterB]

As my D.I is going together reasonably well so far I thought I may as well start the D.II in parallel.

 

 

I won't bother showing the sprues as they are identical to those of the D.I boxing. After a short production run of D.I, Albatros responded to complaints from the pilots about poor upwards/forward visibility by lowering the upper wing and moving it slightly forward. They did this by replacing the original triangular cabane strut arrangement with splayed out "N" struts and brought the wing closer to the top of the fuselage. Early versions as the one on the box art retained the Windhoff radiators on the fuselage, but I will be building the later version with the aerofoil section Teeves und Braun radiator mounted on the top of the upper wing on the centreline. The kit provides two variations of this radiator, the other presumably for the Austrian Oeffag built version, which Roden released as an alternative boxing.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Other than the lack of Windhoff fuselage mounted radiators, the D.II fuselage is the same as the D.I I am building so I have painted and assembled it together with the seat, control column and rudder bar., and painted the engine and other bits that will go on shortly.

 

 

The fit is a little better than the D.I but will still need a little work. One of the faults with this kit is that the "shelves" which the engine goes on are too wide and force the upper fuselage apart unless reduced in width.

 

Pete

[JOCKNEY]

Looks great Pete

That engine looks lovely and detailed I hope we can still see it when the fuselage is buttoned up 

Cheers Pat 

[PeterB]

That went together quite well. I have also glued the upper wing sections together.

 

 

You can see the Teeves und Braun radiator buried in the top wing, and the plumbing on the engine is slightly different as well. The header tank or whatever it was is not fitted above the cylinders as it is on the D.I kit.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

Roden provide no less than 9 colour schemes/markings but only 3 are for the late production version I am building and I rather fancy this one-

 

 

When the Albatros fighters entered service in 1916 the standard camo was red-brown and dark green upper with light blue unders, though many Albatri had unpainted fuselages in either varnished plywood or in some cases the wood was stained a dark red-brown first. The metal panels around the engine were variously described as "light grey" or "light greenish grey". However, with one exception Roden show all of them in the early 3 tone upper camo of both light and dark green as well as the red-brown. Whilst my sources confirm some did indeed have that scheme I have my doubts about the late production D.II having it but I suppose it is possible. Incidentally, orders were issued in April 1917 to replace the red-brown with a shade of purple/lilac to avoid confusion with French planes, but the production of the D.II had finished long before that came into force. I will do a little more research but the emulsion of the B&W film used back then can make it difficult to be certain of the exact colours used as you can see from this photo of one of the other planes Roden provide decs for.

 

 

Again this supposedly had a 3 colour scheme on the uppers, and also on the fuselage, but looks like a 2 colour one to me, though I could be wrong.

 

More shortly.

 

Pete

Edited October 28 by PeterB

[PeterB]

I started off painting the model as per the instructions-

 

 

Now, Roden may be right and indeed I used a similar scheme on a Rumpler C type a year or so ago where it seemed fine, but for some reason it just does not look right to me on an Albatros D type, so I have re-painted it in the more common scheme shown in some of my sources.

 

 

 

Documents reproduced in a Windsock Datafile describe the red/brown as "Venetian Red" though I have also seen it called "rust". The dark green is described as "mid Bronze Green and the lighter green as "Brunswick Green mixed with white". I am not very good at wood finishes but I guess somebody who is could do a much better job on the plywood fuselage! 

 

Next up I will paint the undersides light blue

 

Pete

 

 

Edited October 29 by PeterB

[PeterB]

A bit of touching up to do but the basic painting is nearly finished.

 

 

I will add the exhaust to the engine later and then see if I can get the top wing on.

 

Pete

[PeterB]

I managed to get the top wing on and have rigged it.

 

 

As seems usual with these Roden biplanes, one of the interplane struts broke when I was getting it off the sprue, but I managed to glue it back together, and as with the D.I the locating holes for the struts don't quite line up, probably as a result of my having to file down the 3 part upper wing to get a good joint - if I do another I will know what to look out for! Other than that it was fairly straightforward but I forgot to put in the return pipe for the wing mounted radiator whilst mounting the wing and it is now impossible to add - my bad!  The water feed pipe and exhaust are on as well. I will leave that to set solid before trying to add the fuselage decs, which could be a bit tricky. After that I will try and add the undercarriage and it will be close to finished.

 

Pete

 

[PeterB]

The undercarriage went on without any major problems and I painted and rigged it - correctly this time I think as I as I suspect I got it wrong on the D.I. The last few biplanes I have built had wires between both the front and rear undercarriage legs, but the kit instructions only show one set, apparently between the front legs, so that is what I did on the D.I. However, looking at the Windsock drawing it seems that it probably was only the rear legs that had the cross bracing so I went with that.

 

 

One of the fuselage "chevrons" broke but I managed to repair it - the main problem was that although the various layers of varnish and/or MS Decal Film strengthen the decs, they also thicken them which makes them less willing to bend and conform with curved surfaces. In this case, in spite of being "floated" on thinned varnish the top and bottom arms of the fuselage crosses did not want to stick down but a little Micro Sol and more varnish under the edges seems to have sorted that out. As with the D.I the engineering of the spinner/prop/back plate leaves a lot to be desired and needed a bit of filing to make the prop sit further forwards. Even so there is still a bit of filler needed it seems.

 

So, my next job is to try and persuade the prop logos and wing crosses to go on without breaking up, and glue the prop on and the actual building will be finished.

 

Pete

Edited November 2 by PeterB

[PeterB]

The decs worked fine so now it is waiting for a coat of varnish to finish it.

 

 

It is supposed to represent a plane flown by Lt. Herbert Knappe of Fl.Abt.21 in late 1916/early 1917, though the only photo of it I have found mentions "black and white chevrons" so perhaps they should have a black border, though it is not obvious on the pic.

 

 

None of the Roden kits I have include windscreens though I gather they were to some extent "optional" as some pilots had them fitted and others did not it seems. 

 

Pete

Edited November 3 by PeterB

[Milan Mynar]

Nice looking model.

[PeterB]

Varnish on and ready for some gallery shots when we get the weather.

 

 

I posed it alongside the D.I for comparison. Other than the change from the side fuselage mounted Windhoff radiators to the Teeves und Braun one in the upper wing on late production D.II the only other difference was the way the upper wing was mounted. Pilots had it seems two main complaints about the D.I - the cabane struts interfering with sighting the guns and the high mounted upper wing blanking off the view forwards and upwards. By using outward splayed N shaped cabane struts Albatros just about solved both of these, though the change in radiators resulted in complaints about the plumbing getting in the way as well as the risk of getting a face full of boiling water if the radiator was punctured during combat. On very late production D.II and all but the very early D.III the radiator was offset to the starboard side which more or less solved that problem.

 

Of course the view depended to some extent on the height of the pilot I suspect. Von Richtofen for example complained that the low mounted wing on the Pfalz D.III/IIIa was right in front of his eyes so I guess it was always going to be a compromise, and getting a better upwards view might well come at the expense of a poorer downwards view for a taller pilot. None of my sources specify exactly how much lower the top wing of the D.II actually was but looking at the scale drawings in the Windsock books I would say between 12 and 15 inches. Incidentally it seems that the upper wing stagger was adjustable so the wing could be moved slightly forward or backwards relative to the lower wing - I think I have seen the amount of travel mentioned somewhere but cannot find it now. Whether this was to improve the view or more likely to adjust the Centre of Gravity and therefore flying characteristics I have no idea.

 

Pete

[JOCKNEY]

Congratulations Pete

Another cracker 

Cheers Pat