The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Langdon · 29 June 2006, 10:10 PM

Langdon I am still waiting for answers to my previous questions. The reason is you don't have any supportng information/documents.

As I have mentioned previously, I have provided a list earlier in this thread. The only evidence against 425/17 being at LeChelle is that fact that it did not score a victory there which is hardly supportive of any conclusion.

425/17 was almost certainly prepared from the factory for MvR's use, you have mentioned that the Jasta 11 aircraft were modified to the thick armed Balken cross on the 27th of March, if MvR was not already in possession of 425/17 then it would not have been painted in outdated crosses after this date. Ferko identified 425/17 from the military number on the fuselage that he could see in the negatives he produced from the original photos. It is quite obvious that 425/17 is not just another aircraft waiting in a flugpark as it has already been highly personalised for MvR. It can be seen outside of hanger 4 at LeChelle with its engine and propeller protected as they are when in transit or storage

1. You are hanging your hat on photo Alex Imrie has stated it was Dr.I 477/17 and that the upper wing is painted red.

That is part of the evidence.

2. The rear view of this machine in the panorama photo clearly shows the upper wing is in a streaked camouflage and the cross fields are white with Iron Crosses. It is not painted red!

That photo is taken on a different day and is a different aircraft. Note how 425/17 is still sporting its old narrow bordered cross's, 477/17 having been the first aircraft converted, it seems all other aircraft are converted at this stage which provides extra evidence that the all-red triplane is not in use at that time, this is the second day (almost certainly some days apart) where it is not lined up with the operational aircraft.

3. If you take the time to study the photograph of this machine you can readily determine the leading edge of the stabilizer, fuselage cross fields are not red. So much for accuracy. That is not Dr.I 477/17 period!

So you are now using the translated combat reports to support your position! Very hard to tell given the reflection but it is obvious the top wing has been painted in a dark colour, certainly the cross field is not painted red but that is not mentioned in the combat report (it also proves that 425/17 was one of MvR's aircraft at an earlier date even though it recorded no victories), it mentions red upper surfaces and tail, I must say I expected it to be the same as 152/17 but until we have copies of the untranslated combat reports we cannot confirm if the description was exactly the same rather than similar.

4. I did not get the impression that Taz was absolutely sure of the werk nummer.

That's strange he gave a fairly clear impression, maybe you only see what you want to see!

I just made a 2400 dpi scan (500MB) of a first copy print of photo #95 from Alex Imrie's Triplane book. The WN I read from the scan and using my thread counting loupe on the 4.5"x6.5" print is 2103, which equates to Dr.I 477/17, as Alex stated in his book. My print says the original is in Ed Ferko's UTD collection. It would be easy to misread the WN as 2112 without careful examination. The photo Dan-San references from Alex' German Fighter Units June 1917-1918 is also contained in two parts in Greg VanWyngarden's von Richthofen's Flying Circus photos 48 and 49. Photo #95 in Triplanes shows a line-up of Jasta 11 Dr.Is in the background (Steinhauser's Dr.I is easlily identifiable on the left) with no aircraft except 477/17 having had their fuselage or rudder crosses converted to Balkenkreuz standard. The photo Dan-San refers to was obviously taken at a different time and from a different camera location. It shows a line-up of Jasta 6 Dr.Is on the right and a more random placement of Dr.Is, some from Jasta 11, on the left. All the Dr.Is in this photo have had their fuselage and rudder crosses converted to Balkenkreuz standard. This conversion takes time. In the background of the aircraft on the left (photo #49 in Greg's book) a Triplane top wing only is visible which has been overpainted (red presumably) and could be 477/17, 425/17, 127/17 or 152/17. Nothing conclusive can be determined from that photo, which I have in two parts also, but have not yet scanned.

Taz is very clear in this statement, he is also clear about the aircraft you now pin your hopes on as showing evidence that 477/17 does not have a red upper wing is not the same aircraft, you are alone in your opinions.

5. The machine in the photograph does not fit the description of Dr.I 477/17 in the questionable MvR combat reports.

It does fit the description and you are the only person questioning these reports. We know the original reports give an accurate description of the aircrafts paint work by the two copies I have posted elsewhere above. There is no reason to believe the translations are not reasonable renditions of the originals, we know that the translated documents are also accompanied by originals.

6. I was identified by Paul Leamon as DR.I 486/17.

You were!!!

29 June 2006, 10:10 PM	#187 (permalink)
Langdon Forum Ace Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 753	Langdon I am still waiting for answers to my previous questions. The reason is you don't have any supportng information/documents. As I have mentioned previously, I have provided a list earlier in this thread. The only evidence against 425/17 being at LeChelle is that fact that it did not score a victory there which is hardly supportive of any conclusion. 425/17 was almost certainly prepared from the factory for MvR's use, you have mentioned that the Jasta 11 aircraft were modified to the thick armed Balken cross on the 27th of March, if MvR was not already in possession of 425/17 then it would not have been painted in outdated crosses after this date. Ferko identified 425/17 from the military number on the fuselage that he could see in the negatives he produced from the original photos. It is quite obvious that 425/17 is not just another aircraft waiting in a flugpark as it has already been highly personalised for MvR. It can be seen outside of hanger 4 at LeChelle with its engine and propeller protected as they are when in transit or storage 1. You are hanging your hat on photo Alex Imrie has stated it was Dr.I 477/17 and that the upper wing is painted red. That is part of the evidence. 2. The rear view of this machine in the panorama photo clearly shows the upper wing is in a streaked camouflage and the cross fields are white with Iron Crosses. It is not painted red! That photo is taken on a different day and is a different aircraft. Note how 425/17 is still sporting its old narrow bordered cross's, 477/17 having been the first aircraft converted, it seems all other aircraft are converted at this stage which provides extra evidence that the all-red triplane is not in use at that time, this is the second day (almost certainly some days apart) where it is not lined up with the operational aircraft. 3. If you take the time to study the photograph of this machine you can readily determine the leading edge of the stabilizer, fuselage cross fields are not red. So much for accuracy. That is not Dr.I 477/17 period! So you are now using the translated combat reports to support your position! Very hard to tell given the reflection but it is obvious the top wing has been painted in a dark colour, certainly the cross field is not painted red but that is not mentioned in the combat report (it also proves that 425/17 was one of MvR's aircraft at an earlier date even though it recorded no victories), it mentions red upper surfaces and tail, I must say I expected it to be the same as 152/17 but until we have copies of the untranslated combat reports we cannot confirm if the description was exactly the same rather than similar. 4. I did not get the impression that Taz was absolutely sure of the werk nummer. That's strange he gave a fairly clear impression, maybe you only see what you want to see! I just made a 2400 dpi scan (500MB) of a first copy print of photo #95 from Alex Imrie's Triplane book. The WN I read from the scan and using my thread counting loupe on the 4.5"x6.5" print is 2103, which equates to Dr.I 477/17, as Alex stated in his book. My print says the original is in Ed Ferko's UTD collection. It would be easy to misread the WN as 2112 without careful examination. The photo Dan-San references from Alex' German Fighter Units June 1917-1918 is also contained in two parts in Greg VanWyngarden's von Richthofen's Flying Circus photos 48 and 49. Photo #95 in Triplanes shows a line-up of Jasta 11 Dr.Is in the background (Steinhauser's Dr.I is easlily identifiable on the left) with no aircraft except 477/17 having had their fuselage or rudder crosses converted to Balkenkreuz standard. The photo Dan-San refers to was obviously taken at a different time and from a different camera location. It shows a line-up of Jasta 6 Dr.Is on the right and a more random placement of Dr.Is, some from Jasta 11, on the left. All the Dr.Is in this photo have had their fuselage and rudder crosses converted to Balkenkreuz standard. This conversion takes time. In the background of the aircraft on the left (photo #49 in Greg's book) a Triplane top wing only is visible which has been overpainted (red presumably) and could be 477/17, 425/17, 127/17 or 152/17. Nothing conclusive can be determined from that photo, which I have in two parts also, but have not yet scanned. Taz is very clear in this statement, he is also clear about the aircraft you now pin your hopes on as showing evidence that 477/17 does not have a red upper wing is not the same aircraft, you are alone in your opinions. 5. The machine in the photograph does not fit the description of Dr.I 477/17 in the questionable MvR combat reports. It does fit the description and you are the only person questioning these reports. We know the original reports give an accurate description of the aircrafts paint work by the two copies I have posted elsewhere above. There is no reason to believe the translations are not reasonable renditions of the originals, we know that the translated documents are also accompanied by originals. 6. I was identified by Paul Leamon as DR.I 486/17. You were!!! Last edited by Langdon; 30 June 2006 at 12:18 AM.