The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Dave_Watts · 12 June 2006, 11:32 PM

Hi all,

I feel there is a tug-of-war of sorts going on here that is unnecessary. I think we are a victim of our wording and not our intentions. You have to be a bit of a lawyer to phrase these posts without stepping on someone's toes or crossing their thoughts. Still it's worth muddling through to keep participation alive, so no one feel scared to jump in here.

Now back to it.

CWatson,

I apologize for the moot comment about the rudder. My incorrectly worded thought was, it was not necessary to discuss the fact that all photos of what has been called 425/17 with the "^" blemish is now being called 477/17. Yes, the rudder itself is worthy of discussion.

Langdon,

Your metaphor of getting four or five speeding tickets in one month all in the same car doesn't mean that is the only car you have been driving that month is well taken. I have to believe MvR had more than one plane at his disposal.

Playing the "devil's advocate, you mentioned the evidenced upper wing damage to 425/17. From what you have seen of the surviving wing pieces is it possible that the fabric was removed from that wing panel and recovered in white fabric from a field repair and then had the red paint and had the cross reapplied? Since you see different versions of the cross, this would mean the repair would have had to occured early in the life of the aircraft. May this also be an explaination for why this aircraft was "out of the loop" with active service as it may have had other damage that took some time to repair.

To all,

My two cents; the "^" blemish plane seen under guard does have a "new" all white rudder. Just my opinion, I believe it is the original rudder we saw in the photo at Lechelle, but now simply overpainted all white. Note how crisp and sharp the fuselage cross is in the "guard" image. There has not yet been enough time to start cracking, crazing, and flaking.

What do you guys think with regards to how, in outward appearance, do you think the paint scheme, in it's final form, would have differed from 425/17 to 477/17?

Are we talking exactly the same if going by the "guard" photo?

Here are photos courtesy Ferko/UTD of the subject under discussion.

Best,
Dave W.

12 June 2006, 11:32 PM	#59 (permalink)
Dave_Watts Forum Ace Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Indy, Home of the 500 race Posts: 623	Hi all, I feel there is a tug-of-war of sorts going on here that is unnecessary. I think we are a victim of our wording and not our intentions. You have to be a bit of a lawyer to phrase these posts without stepping on someone's toes or crossing their thoughts. Still it's worth muddling through to keep participation alive, so no one feel scared to jump in here. Now back to it. CWatson, I apologize for the moot comment about the rudder. My incorrectly worded thought was, it was not necessary to discuss the fact that all photos of what has been called 425/17 with the "^" blemish is now being called 477/17. Yes, the rudder itself is worthy of discussion. Langdon, Your metaphor of getting four or five speeding tickets in one month all in the same car doesn't mean that is the only car you have been driving that month is well taken. I have to believe MvR had more than one plane at his disposal. Playing the "devil's advocate, you mentioned the evidenced upper wing damage to 425/17. From what you have seen of the surviving wing pieces is it possible that the fabric was removed from that wing panel and recovered in white fabric from a field repair and then had the red paint and had the cross reapplied? Since you see different versions of the cross, this would mean the repair would have had to occured early in the life of the aircraft. May this also be an explaination for why this aircraft was "out of the loop" with active service as it may have had other damage that took some time to repair. To all, My two cents; the "^" blemish plane seen under guard does have a "new" all white rudder. Just my opinion, I believe it is the original rudder we saw in the photo at Lechelle, but now simply overpainted all white. Note how crisp and sharp the fuselage cross is in the "guard" image. There has not yet been enough time to start cracking, crazing, and flaking. What do you guys think with regards to how, in outward appearance, do you think the paint scheme, in it's final form, would have differed from 425/17 to 477/17? Are we talking exactly the same if going by the "guard" photo? Here are photos courtesy Ferko/UTD of the subject under discussion. Best, Dave W.