Any streaking under the...

CWatson · 5 March 2004, 01:40 PM

Was there any streaking under the red of 425/17? I have heard yes and no and was wondering if those who say no had only seen samples from the white and CDL cross fields that had been painted over.

Thanks,CWatson

Dan_San_Abbott · 6 March 2004, 01:41 PM

CWatson:
I don't believe that Fok.DR.I 425/17 was finished special for MvR. There are some who believe it was painted specially for MvR at the Fokker Factory. I don't believe it for a minute. Had it been special, the Fokker accepance sheet would have made some remark about it on the acceptance sheets. Another reason, Fok.DR.I 425/17 was accepted on
8 January 1918. The acceptance sheet lists the following information,
DR.I 425 a check mark, W.N. 2009, engine no. 2478 and the military acceptance pilot name Weidner.
If this had been painted red where was it from 8 January to 20 April 1918? There is no evidence that MvR ever flew this machine before 20 April 1918 when MvR achieved his 79th victory.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Langdon · 6 March 2004, 04:24 PM

Dan-San

Is there any evidence, as opposed to lack of evidence, to suggest that MvR had not flown 425/17 prior to the 20/4/18?

Do you believe that any of MvR's triplanes were prepared solely for his use by the Fokker works and if so does the acceptance sheets mention this? I have copies of the acceptance sheets but I haven't noticed a column for remarks of this nature. I have just checked the acceptance sheet for Göring's all white Fokker D.VII F5125/18 and there is no mention of this aircraft being specially prepared.

The only fabric I have inspected from 425/17 are two of the wing crosses and both of these only show what would be part of the cross field, I believe it is quite possible that the aircraft did originally have streaky camouflage as the fabric held by the Australian War Memorial has traces of olive green paint on its reverse side (more than one sample) but this is far from conclusive, other researchers who have inspected fuselage fabric from this aircraft say that there were no traces of streaky camouflage on any samples.

Langdon

CWatson · 6 March 2004, 05:34 PM

Dan-San and Langdon,

Glad both of you replied.I was thinking the aircraft photo attached below maybe 425/17 before it was painted red.This picture is labeled often 477/17 but as I said I have a hunch it "maybe" 425/17.This aircraft is part of Jasta 11? I assume so because the flight line behinded it is Jasta 11.

It has been mentioned on this forum that that the lower wing crosses from 425/17's wreck were not identical as you can see in this aircraft has to different lower wing crosses.The lower wing cross on the left side of the aircraft has "teeth" sticking out of all eight corners of the four cross bar bases.

I have not seen this hybred type cross like this on any other Dr1,and this one is always identified as one of MVR's,has these strange lower wing crosses,and is a Jasta 11 plane,plus it can not be 477/17 because it was painted all red while it still had the early "Iron" crosses and this aircraft is in mostly factory finish with the strait "Balken" crosses.

Wish there was a clearer print of this picture,if there were maybe we could make out the serial/work? number between the cabane struts.

Hope to hear what you gentlemen think.CWatson

CWatson · 6 March 2004, 05:41 PM

Here is the picture that langdon posted on a earlier thread of 425/17's lower wing cross.Look at the "teeth" sticking out of the base of the cross bars.The aircraft above has the same feature on it's lower left wing cross.

CWatson

Dan_San_Abbott · 6 March 2004, 06:20 PM

Langdon:
I have seen no evidence that it was delivered to the Luftstreitkräfte painted all red. I have seen no evidence that it was painted in the Fokker streaked camouflage. If this machine had been painted all red at the factory, there would been a remark on the acceptance sheet stating this was for delivery to Ritt.MvR and that is why it deviated from the standard accepted finish. Idflieg had very specific instructions on covering, doping and camouflage. All manufacturers were expected to adhere to. On the size, location of the military identification specified by Idflieg, Fokker never did, he did it his way.
The fabric sample from DR.425/17 that I had (sold it) came from the lower wing cross field. The red paint was poorly mixed, and applied by brush. The thickness of the dark red paint was .004" and a single coat of dope under the red paint.
Answer these questions:
1. If Fok.DR.I 425/17 was prepared and painted red at the Fokker Werke and accepted by the Air Force on 8 January 1918, why then did MvR fly Fok.Dr.I 114/17, 152/17, 477/17 (Which was all red also) 127/17 from 8 January to 20 April 1918?
2. If perhaps, Dr.I 425/17 was his reserve plane, why did he fly 127/17?
What we know is, he did not score any victories on DR.I 425/17 until 20 April 1918.
3. If he flew DR.I 425/17 before 20 April 1918, there is no record of it.
4. What has been identified in photographs as Fok.DR.I 425/17, is in reality Fok.DR.I 477/17.
5. I have seen Peter Grosz and Ed Ferko Fok.DR.I photographs and have closely studied them, and I could not identifyany of these photos prior to 20 April 1918 as Fok.DR.I 425/17. All the photographs of the all red Fok.DR.I at Awoingt Lechelle and Cappy Airfields are of Fok.DR.I 477/17. The photos of DR.I 425/17 appear after MvR was shot down. This then leads to the conclusion that MvR had just acquired it and had only for such a short time, that there were no known photographs taken of MvR with Fok.DR.I 425/17. There is no other logic to explain this fok.DR.I 425/17. If someone has FACTS ( not opinions, surmises, guesses, etc. ) to the contrary, I would most like to hear what they have.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Langdon · 6 March 2004, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_San_Abbott@Mar 7 2004, 12:50 PM
[b] If someone has FACTS ( not opinions, surmises, guesses, etc. ) to the contrary, I would most like to hear what they have.

Hello Dan-San,

This is the second time that I know of that you have laid down this challenge but in doing so it does not make your argument any stronger, you simply cannot say with absolute certainty, except perhaps in your own mind, that the photos you believe are of 477/17 are of that machine. The point is nobody, including yourself, has facts otherwise this discussion would not be happening.

You mention above that if an aircraft was personalised for a pilot then the acceptance sheet would state that, I have challenged you to provide one acceptance sheet that gives this information, as I mentioned previously the acceptance sheet for Göring's D.VII 5125/18 certainly does not mention that the aircraft had been personalised for his use by Fokker but it is commonly believed that its all white scheme was factory finished. I have copies of all existing acceptance sheets; as you well know these sheets only provide the following information, acceptance date, military Number, fabrication number, Motor number (and not even a description of type) and test pilot. The check mark you mentioned previously was added by a researcher, most probably Peter Grosz.

To answer your other questions:

1. I do not see any evidence in the fact that MvR flew 4 other aircraft between these dates that precludes him from flying a fifth. One reason we have not heard about him flying this machine before (if he did) is that he was not successful on it and never had an incident in it. There are other possibilities but no "FACTS".

2. Possibly for the same reason he didn't fly any of the others that day. You want facts but you speculate and call for speculation?

3. Yes but is this extraordinary?

4. Speculation.

5. I don't understand the point you are making here. Are you saying that those photos could not have been taken prior to the 20/4/18?

Langdon

Langdon · 6 March 2004, 08:12 PM

CWatson,

If this is 425/17 in the photo you have provided above then it had its prop replaced prior to the 21/4/18, there is a sawn through piece of this prop in the AWM and the second, third and forth laminations are all mahogany, in the photo above, this is not the case. This does not preclude the aircraft in the photo from being 425/17 but it does make it seem less likely.

Langdon

CWatson · 6 March 2004, 09:09 PM

Langdon,

Do you know if here is a online photo of the prop piece or any other MvR's crash artifacts?

What do you think about the underwing crosses?

CWatson

Langdon · 6 March 2004, 09:20 PM

CWatson,

No I do not know of a web site containing photos of MvR relics, I had thought of starting one but I have not had the time, I do have photos of many of the relics from 425/17.

Concerning the wing cross, I do not see enough evidence from the picture to suggest any conclusion, 425/17's paint work was unfinished when it was shot down, this aircraft is nowhere near that stage of completion. It seems from other converted crosses that it was not unusual to convert crosses in this manner leaving the tips of the iron cross protruding from the new cross, at least until the cross field was completed.

Below is a photo of a section from his Axial propeller.

Langdon