|
Dan-San,
I have NOT given up on Alex Irmrie as a primary source, but I don't look at Alex Imrie as you do, What is your opinion of Peter Grosz? I don't hold Alex Imrie in as high asteem as you do. I don't think his unimpeachable. He has made statements as facts that are not correct, but on the other hand he is one of the best sources on German aircraft.
Well it was extraordinary how you mis-quoted from his book, not only did you leave out the section that your quote was addressing, the bit where Imrie states clearly that 152/17 was all red when it was given to the Zeughaus It is not known when this aircraft, apparently 152/17 and completely over-painted red, was given to the museum by Kogenluft, but the machine's national insignia display and manner of painting indicate that they were contemporary and not applied retrospectively. The piece you did include had its wording altered to give a different and misleading impression.
Maybe Alex Imrie is not unimpeachable but what we know about 152/17 has come from his research, from the years when he lived in Germany and spent time looking for relics from the Dr.I aircraft that used to be housed in their museums. You speak of fact but you put up your theories that are almost baseless as fact and that is why I started debating you on this. Not that I ever thought I could change your mind - as I know that would be improbable - but so others have proper information on which to base their own ideas.
Your suggestion that 152/17 was sent to Berlin on the day it scored its last victory is nothing more than a guess, yes we know it went to Berlin and yes we know when it last scored a victory (that is if you believe MvR's combat reports which you have indicated in the past that you do not, you still have not answered this properly) but so far no evidence has surfaced on the date when it was sent. If you look at the available evidence with an open mind you can draw a conclusion, the aircraft can be seen on an airfield at an unknown time sporting the thick ratio Balken cross that is certainly far from freshly painted, we know roughly when the rest of Jasta 11 converted their aircraft and so it is likely that 152/17 was at LeChelle when this occurred, now I put this forward as a theory based on visual evidence, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was never at LeChelle and the lack of a combat report for that aircraft only means that it was either not flown or no successes were scored on it, there are any number of reasons why a combat aircraft of that time may have been left unused for a period if indeed it was.
I have a high regard for Peter Grosz.
But I quoted Alex Irmie very extensively.
No you did not, you misquoted him extensively and his name is Imrie.
I had thought the last post would provide the information to convince you about which was the red tiplane at LeChelle. I now realize that this exchange is a waste of my time time and effort, and short of a proclamation from MvR, you will never change your mind. I'll say this it has increased my knowledge. You have not provided any data to support your position.
You have not provided a shred of factual information to support your theory. So far your theory is based on MvR's combat report dates as to what aircraft he was flying during a certain period and whilst this is correct information it doesn't preclude other aircraft from existing, this information is the same information you have discredited in the past. The only reason we know what aircraft MvR was flying during his career is from these reports, the description of his aircraft is contained in these reports, why is it that you find some of the information factual and other parts unreliable?
You refuse to discuss the various alterations that were made to 425/17s national markings, changes that could only have been made during the relevant times, changes we know Jasta 11 made before and whilst at LeChelle, it is unthinkable that 425/17 would have been painted in outdated markings after the 12th of April and why is it that you have used the 12th as a likely date? You have ignored the strong evidence of 425/17 never having received normal upper-surface camouflage and therefore the liklihood it was painted red from the factory. I view these points along with other evidence mentioned elsewhere above in a list as factual evidence along with strong circumstantial evidence and for you to suggest that no evidence has been produced to support my theory is incorrect.
I will not change form this position.
The problem Dan-San is that you rarely do. Remember the photo you sent me of the captured E.V, The one with the large 5 or S on it that you suggest has the works number 2783? I recall writing to you quite excited that I had discovered the number to be 2764 as the data plate from that aircraft (E.V 123/18 which in the photo was missing its data plate) had recently been sold on ebay, but you refused to listen you said it was definitely 2783 and so I sent the image to Dave Watts and asked him what he made of the number on the rudder and fin, purposely I did not give him further information and I was please when he replied with 2764. Recently when Taz confirmed the aircraft in the LeChelle photo as 477/17 based on its works number I asked him if he could do the same with the E.V image and guess what! He also came up with 2764 yet I'm certain this would not alter your opinion, and that's the problem.
We had the same thing recently with Achim Engels E.III rudder discussion, you would not back-down from your stated position that the rudder cross was 700mm across, you maintained that position until it became absolutely obvious that you were wrong and then you gave the excuse that you had been researching your measurements from one of your own 1/72 scale drawings which can hardly be described as source material nomatter how good they are.
I am quite certain that Alex Imrie has not used you as a source for his research.
Dave Watts,
Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original reports for 477/17, I do have them for 152/17 and 425/17 and they are described distinctly. My understanding is that 477/17 was similar in its description to 152/17.
Taz is away for a couple of weeks.
Langdon
|