Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CWatson
Dave W.
... It keeps getting mentioned how little this plane was used right? So why would it need a rudder change?
|
It does not keep getting mentioned, and for a number of reasons. I helped Fred Murrin rebuild his rudder a couple of years ago when it was damaged in a towing accident, these aircraft are delicate and therefore easily damaged. It would be easier to replace a rudder than repair its outline tube so this is a possible scenario. Also we know that 425/17 had suffered damage to its upper wing as we can still see that repair if we look at the wing tip relic in the RCMI so we know it suffered some damage.
Dan-San's view that the LeChelle aircraft is 477/17 is based on the premise that 425/17 was not reserved for MvR at the time the photos were taken as he was not recorded as having flown it. This is not a conclusive or even a strong argument.
We have no idea how often 425/17 was flown. We only know when victories were scored on it or when it was shot down.
What we do know is it was painted all red - albeit with the possibly unlikely exception of its rudder. We know that it received no upper surface camouflage and that only red paint, national markings and stencils can be found on these surfaces and from this we can only deduct that from the time it was completed it was reserved for the personal use of MvR.
We know that 425/17 was accepted approximately one month prior to 477/17 (see Dave's data above) and so this aircraft almost certainly travelled where MvR went. What we do not know is how often he flew 425/17 - and if rarely prior to the 19th of April why that was.
Now to state my opinions clearly, I believe the LeChelle photos could easily be of 425/17, having said that I concede that they could also have been of 477/17 as we have no idea how that aircraft was painted other than it is likely to have had a good covering of red, either way both aircraft were in existence and at least both were reserved for MvR at that time. I believe the evidence for it being 425/17 is stronger than for the other aircraft
Ed Ferco mentioned that he could read 425/17 on the aircraft in one of the photos when it was viewed in the negative.
Alex Imrie told me in a telephone conversation some time ago that he was certain of his conclusions as to the identity of the aircraft (42517 and 477/17). Whilst he didn't express this in his book he was quite certain when he spoke with me.
Dan-Sans assertions that 425/17 was not an MvR aircraft until the 19th of April is based, as I mentioned above, on the fact that he had not recorded a victory on this aircraft prior to that date. Imagine a guy has a number of cars, say four, one day he moves and in doing so he is picked up by a speed camera; how many cars does he own? Dan-San will tell you that the fact is he only owns one as there was no mention of the others.
I do not like the way Dan-San says "
All the photos attributed to Fok.DR.I 425/17 are in actuality Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of of the all red Fokker DR.I taken at LeChelle with the triangular defect in the finsh below the cockpit on the left side are of
Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of the all red DR.I in the aircraft line-up at the LeChelle Airfield are of Fok.DR.I 477/17.
The only all red DR.I that MvR flew in operations at LeChelle Airfield was Fok.DR.I 477/17." as this statement is totally devoid of proof and therefore should only be put forward as theory rather than fact.
Dan-San is not objective in his consideration of this matter, he asked me in another similar thread to provide proof that 425/17 had been painted at some time with narrow borders around its Iron Crosses. If he didn't already know this, then his study of the aircraft was less than complete. When I provided the proof in the way of photos of the original fabric he never acknowledged it. That evidence shifted the possible date of MvRs association with the aircraft back, weeks prior to the 19th of April that he had been proposing yet he still wouldn't consider this. Recently through Allan Toelle's research we find that there is very strong evidence that the aircraft was personalised from the very beginning of its life for MvR, this is evidence that Dan-San pointed me to when he discussed Allan's work on the fabric, evidence that he must have had access to but he still didn't consider it when he stated that 425/17 had nothing to do with MvR until the 12th of April at the earliest. I believe it is not objective to disregard evidence that is contrary a preconceived position.