Why not the Albatross?

von Poop · 22-03-2007, 10:49 PM

Reading a little book about the Mosquito and the author referred in passing to the De Havilland Albatross as something like 'the most beautiful aircraft ever made'. looked it up and I might just agree:

Was anything wrong with it for it not to have been produced in greater numbers than 7 (?) or did it just not fit the need or manufacturing capability criteria for 1936? Maybe suffered from the same dismissiveness of wooden planes the Mosquito seems to have had to initially overcome?
I ask as I can only find pleasant things said about it on the internet and my aviation bookshelf is sorely lacking.
Cheers,
Adam.

Owen · 23-03-2007, 12:54 AM

Sorry Adam, for a minute I thought I was on GWF and you were on about the other Albatros.
Never even seen the one above before ever.

spidge · 23-03-2007, 01:34 AM

And as an Airliner in 1938.

FSimCafe.com - FS2004 De Havilland DH.91 Albatross

adrian roberts · 23-03-2007, 02:31 AM

Adam
I agree that the De Havilland Albatross was probably the most beautiful aeroplane ever, and as a flying machine it worked very well. As a commercial propostion however, it encapsulated the many of the reasons why the British commercial aviation industry eventually collapsed.

Obviously the most immediate reason that only seven were built was the outbreak of war. But fact is that it was not all that much faster than an all-metal DC3, its carrying capacity was less, and crucially it cost far more to build and operate. Wood was just not the way to go in the late thirties; the only reason the Mosquito got made of wood was concerns about shortages of aluminium.

The prototype Alabatross broke in half during a not-particularly hard landing, with Geoffrey De Havilland Jr at the controls. This aircraft had to be considerably beefed-up on repair, as did the others, leading to greater weight and so reduced efficiency. All seven were used by the RAF or Imperial Airways/BOAC after the outbreak of war; at least three were lost in fires or crash-landings. Then, in 1943, one lost its flaps on approach. It was found that the wood around the mountings had rotted away. All were retired and scrapped after that.

Sadly, one has to conclude that it would have faired little better as an airliner. But at least it gave DH experience in working in plywood, which gave them confidence in building the Mosquito.

And I'm a little surprised that they called it the Albatross when the name would have been associated with the WW1 fighter...not a brilliant marketing move. At least, after WW2, SS cars renamed their company "Jaguar"...

Adrian

von Poop · 23-03-2007, 11:09 AM

Cheers Adrian.
Stunning looking but a bit shallow then?
Isn't that always the way.

Gotthard Heinrici · 23-03-2007, 11:32 AM

Stunning looking alright but I still think the FW200 was a nicer aircraft. Beautiful design.

Kitty · 23-03-2007, 08:49 PM

never heard of her. shame really, but at least her little sister made up for it.

adrian roberts · 24-03-2007, 04:13 AM

Just realised I made a boo-boo in my post above - I meant to say the Albatross cost more to build and operate than the DC3, not less. But I expect you all realised this. I've edited it now.

22-03-2007, 10:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
von Poop I Like Tanks Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perfidious Albion. Posts: 8,471	Why not the Albatross? Reading a little book about the Mosquito and the author referred in passing to the De Havilland Albatross as something like 'the most beautiful aircraft ever made'. looked it up and I might just agree: Was anything wrong with it for it not to have been produced in greater numbers than 7 (?) or did it just not fit the need or manufacturing capability criteria for 1936? Maybe suffered from the same dismissiveness of wooden planes the Mosquito seems to have had to initially overcome? I ask as I can only find pleasant things said about it on the internet and my aviation bookshelf is sorely lacking. Cheers, Adam. __________________ It's only the Internet.

23-03-2007, 01:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
spidge Legendary Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 8,044	And as an Airliner in 1938. FSimCafe.com - FS2004 De Havilland DH.91 Albatross __________________ Spidge, ------------------------------------------------------- My Avatar is the memorial to the 22 Commonwealth Coastwatchers at the Temakin Cemetery on Betio (Tarawa Atoll) who were beheaded by the Japanese on 15th October 1942. http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat...mem_beito.html "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." (Winston Churchill made this prophetic pronouncement in a House of Commons speech in 1938, just after Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler. Chamberlain returned from Germany with the signed agreement in hand, proclaiming that "peace in our time" had been achieved. Churchill attacked Chamberlain's "politics of appeasement" in this and many other speeches.) What did the Australians do in ww2 and other conflicts? Check out this site: http://www.diggerhistory.info/00-pag...ster-index.htm

23-03-2007, 02:31 AM	#4 (permalink)
adrian roberts Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: NW Kent, England Posts: 758	Adam I agree that the De Havilland Albatross was probably the most beautiful aeroplane ever, and as a flying machine it worked very well. As a commercial propostion however, it encapsulated the many of the reasons why the British commercial aviation industry eventually collapsed. Obviously the most immediate reason that only seven were built was the outbreak of war. But fact is that it was not all that much faster than an all-metal DC3, its carrying capacity was less, and crucially it cost far more to build and operate. Wood was just not the way to go in the late thirties; the only reason the Mosquito got made of wood was concerns about shortages of aluminium. The prototype Alabatross broke in half during a not-particularly hard landing, with Geoffrey De Havilland Jr at the controls. This aircraft had to be considerably beefed-up on repair, as did the others, leading to greater weight and so reduced efficiency. All seven were used by the RAF or Imperial Airways/BOAC after the outbreak of war; at least three were lost in fires or crash-landings. Then, in 1943, one lost its flaps on approach. It was found that the wood around the mountings had rotted away. All were retired and scrapped after that. Sadly, one has to conclude that it would have faired little better as an airliner. But at least it gave DH experience in working in plywood, which gave them confidence in building the Mosquito. And I'm a little surprised that they called it the Albatross when the name would have been associated with the WW1 fighter...not a brilliant marketing move. At least, after WW2, SS cars renamed their company "Jaguar"... Adrian __________________ for heathen heart that puts its trust in reeking tube and iron shard all valiant dust that builds on dust and guarding, calls not thee to guard thy mercy on thy people, Lord (Kipling) Last edited by adrian roberts; 24-03-2007 at 04:13 AM.

23-03-2007, 11:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
von Poop I Like Tanks Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perfidious Albion. Posts: 8,471	Cheers Adrian. Stunning looking but a bit shallow then? Isn't that always the way. __________________ It's only the Internet.

23-03-2007, 11:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
Gotthard Heinrici Pog mo thon Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,928	Stunning looking alright but I still think the FW200 was a nicer aircraft. Beautiful design. __________________ *"The Eastern front is like a house of cards. If the front is broken through at one point all the rest will collapse."* - General Heinz Guderian

23-03-2007, 12:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
Owen Top Moose Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Under the stairs Posts: 9,462	Sorry Adam, for a minute I thought I was on GWF and you were on about the other Albatros. Never even seen the one above before ever.

23-03-2007, 08:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
Kitty Legendary Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,121	never heard of her. shame really, but at least her little sister made up for it.

24-03-2007, 04:13 AM	#8 (permalink)
adrian roberts Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: NW Kent, England Posts: 758	Just realised I made a boo-boo in my post above - I meant to say the Albatross cost more to build and operate than the DC3, not less. But I expect you all realised this. I've edited it now. __________________ for heathen heart that puts its trust in reeking tube and iron shard all valiant dust that builds on dust and guarding, calls not thee to guard thy mercy on thy people, Lord (Kipling)

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode