Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Let us not forget the Armstrong-Whitworth F.K.10, which would have been interesting to see how it fared in a brawl.Interesting to see that the Albatros Dr I triplane experiment (putting a third wing between the original D V biplane) showed there was "no advantage gained with this layout (triplane)".
View attachment 594729
Albatros Dr.I - Wikipedia
Those changes are more than simply adding a new wing - the chord is shorter, but the wings look approximately the same length, and there doesn't seem to be any stagger. It looks like it suffered from poor execution.Interesting to see that the Albatros Dr I triplane experiment (putting a third wing between the original D V biplane) showed there was "no advantage gained with this layout (triplane)".
View attachment 594729
Albatros Dr.I - Wikipedia
The technology was prone to losing things. How could they maintain the quality on the bracing wires and keep the forces on them below what they can stand? If one thing fails it transfers loads to other parts and the whole thing falls apart. 140 MPH isn't fast in aeroplane terms, it would be fast for me in a car of wood and dope held together with wire.Many models were prone to loosing a wing in a dive (Albatross, Nieuport, DR I for examples) so a dive had to be carefully reckoned with.
MvR was known to have used at least one form of 'Boom and Zoom' to overcome his DR-1s speed disadvantage. He is said to have taken advantage of the the Tripes climb ability to gain an altitude advantage that he would trade off for speed in his attack dive. He would fly past his intended target and then apply rudder to yaw towards the plane he was attacking which would run into his zone of fire. The article I read went on to say this was a tactic he used against 2 seaters. Werner Voss is said to have used boom and zoom with the Pfalz D-III. While I do not know how accurate that description was, it does sound logical for a airplane like the D-3 since while it was relatively slow and not as maneuverable, it was sturdy and capable of diving at speeds that would have damaged other aircraft of that period.In WWII, speed turned out to be more important than maneuverability (can I write agility instead?). Faster fighters could use boom-and-zoom tactics on nimbler but slower opponents, who had no way of catching up.
Were things different in WWI? I mean, biplanes were a necessity I understand due to technological constraints making monoplanes' performance unacceptable, but I wonder about the triplanes. After all, these were inherently slower than biplanes I believe, but since these were developed and fielded, I suspect they had other advantages that were at least in theory an acceptable trade-off.
The information I read was that Voss responded to pilots of the Luftstreitkrafte complaints about the Pfalz DIII being not as nimble or fast as the Alb. D series. Apparently he told them that when properly used the Pfalz was an excellent machine and that he liked it.The DR.1 was highly acrobatic, which compensated for it's slightly slower speed, although it could out dive most contemporary adversaries.
Voss was best known for his combat in an Albatros D.III, although he also flew a DR.I (103/17) with Jasta 10.
Just thought I might add, I've read that at the very end of the war the Germans were starting to include B&Z in their aviation doctrine.I think the drift away from furballing into BnZ started happening in the last half of 1917. The SE5a and Pfalz DIII introduced it. The triplanes, on both sides, of course made good use of their maneuverability. Camels, too. But in the end, D.VIIs, SE5as, and Spads showed that a sturdy airframe that could survive a dive, and bounce in and out, could handle bidness.
The decision hadn't been reached by the end of the war -- the two philosophies of air-fighting still had a ways to go. The technology was so new that no one really knew how to use it. It'd take another war, and significant technical advances in both engines and armament, for that to be learned.
I personally think there's a reason why tripes were abandoned, that being that equally-powered biplanes were more able to pick and choose their point of engagement. Biplanes could extend and come back for another pass if they chose, or split for home otherwise.