Hello Alex, Stephen, and All,
Well, here we go again. I believe we've hashed this over on the forum more than once before. The references to a "red triplane" encountered in September 1917 in Gould Lee's superb "No Parachute" have always bugged me, and intrigued me. As Dan says, the photo of 102/17 after its crash with Wolff on 15 September (see page 22 of Alex Imrie's wonderful "The Fokker Triplane") certainly show that the original factory finish had not been overpainted.
I yield to no one in my respect for
Arthur Gould Lee's accomplishments as a pilot and as an author. "No Parachute" is by far one of the best pilot autobios I've ever read, and I'm always going back to it. Gould Lee was both a highly successful military airman and a gifted writer.
It is my humble opinion that when he was preparing the letters he had written to his young wife in 1917, as well as excerpts from his diary, for publication in "No Parachute", he occasionally took a writer's opportunity to insert additional information in to the narrative, in order to add interest for the "buff" reader and to make the story flow more smoothly. In his intro, he himself says the letters were heavily edited, and comments about "these artless sentences" that "contain neither heroics nor fine writing". Yet the book is full of very fine writing indeed. I do NOT think this detracts from the value of the book in any way, and I certainly do not intend to cast aspersions on the character of Gould-Lee. I believe he did this in a totally innocent fashion, and did not add new facts or change facts, but merely added additional interesting info.
I believe that the references to a "red triplane" are examples of this rare 'insertion' of material. By the time he was editing the book (the late 60's) Gould Lee certainly knew that the Fokker Triplane that his 46 Squadron encountered on 3 Sept was flown by Richthofen, and that his squadron mate Lt A F Bird was shot down by the "Red Baron". It was generally accepted at that time that 102/17 WAS red, thus the references to a red triplane:
Sept 3: " The two chaps who got away, badly shot about, said that one of the Huns was flying a triplane, coloured red. It must be a captured naval Tripe,I suppose."
Sept 5: " ...Odell, who had seen a triplane coming down from behind,but taken no notice, thinking it was a Nautical, was amazed to find it firing at him...then (he) saw the black crosses. The others turned too, and a brisk little scrap followed, the Hun being joined by a D-V. The triplane, which was painted red, had a stupendous performance, and when he decided he's had enough he lifted up above everybody else like a rocket. He must have been a pretty hot pilot..."
Sept 6: "He was all-red, even to the underside, so he could have been Richthofen himself".
In a footnote, Gould Lee notes on the 6th that it could have been MvR, but later that same day he set out on convalescent leave.
As I hope I have made clear, it is not my intention to throw mud on Gould-Lee or his book, merely to try to squash the re-occurring notion that this book contains irrefutable proof that 102/17 was red. Other passages in the book contain the occasional detail which I believe must have been added later - why would a young pilot, fresh from a combat, go to the trouble of differentiating between Albatros D.V's and D.III's in a letter to his new wife (indeed, how many RFC pilots knew the difference ? Most of them simply called them all "vee-strutters") ?
As has been indicated, perhaps this could be settled with a look at 46 Squadron's actual combat reports from those days' combats. Do they still exist in the PRO or elsewhere, and if so, do ANY of the eyewitnesses mention that the "Hun Triplane" was painted red ??
As always, I'm merely in search of the truth.
Greg VanWyngarden