[StephenLawson]

Ok Flypaper, lets be fair.

Originally Posted by flypaper

When a poster Dan Abbott tells me "to stop posting" because I come aboard with new information he doesn't like your damn right I take it personally, that comment was directed at . Especially when his information on French camo is so-so at best, and hasn't gotten past the Butterfly articles because according to him everything else is just rehash.

You skipped a few words here and there because you seem upset so I'll try to work through it. Your issues with Dan should be kept out of this post. Report what you will to admin. Me, him, Aunt Swinny, whatever. But this is not the place for it. Also I did not tell you anything about posting. So leave me out of that. And lets face it Alan's studies were performed on an electron microscope so, no your not going to do much but rehash it if thats all you want to discuss. We are doing this thread a dis-service by going this direction.

Originally Posted by flypaper

The supposed information you added was 180 degrees from what Alan T's letter concerning the 2 Spad VII original fabric said. It was not painted. and the a/c was not monotone the metal panels were a different color than the fabric. Were was the new information in your post? I'm not the one knocking Alan's research it seems that you and Dan Abbott can't seem to grasp what he is saying. His letter was very clear about the finish on the Paris Spad VII.

You say that Alan Toelle's letter is accurate. I can agree. I never said CDL was not a method. What I said was there were other methods that were employed. Alan never said all Spad VII types were done just this way or that. His research reaches beyond my 180 description to encompass 360 degrees. You are seeing about 2% of his whole study. He has a study on each and every Spad airframe that it in existance. Most of us have that. Thats why we can say what we do.

Originally Posted by flypaper

Moving on to the 5 color camo he makes it very clear that the Salmson (which were finished with the same pigmented covering as the Spad XIII) "Left the factory with a wet look". It also seems according to a Over The Front series on the Salmson there was a distinct pattern paint scheme on them also.

Since the original topic of this thread is about the Nieuport 17 1428 let us refrain from delving further into other aircraft types. No more Spads, lets focus on just the Nieuport 17 type with camouflage. This was not the late war 5 colour camouflage we have referenced. We got stuck on the linen colour and veared of course. I'll take the blame for that. We can open up the late war French 5colour in another thread.

Originally Posted by flypaper

". . .You keep mentioning reference photos that prove a point I have yet to see one,in the mean time I have put up photos and color chips taken right from the Methuen book (as per Alan T's call outs in Paris), Ive also posted photos that show the "wet" look that was my point and they are certainly show the a/c as matte finishes as Dan Abbott swore up and down they were.

Again, lets be fair, your colour chips have little to do with the actual colours. You see there was a fellow initials R.G. that liked to use hobby paints to reference colours and made a living on it. Though meager he was found to be a fraud. It has left a bad taste in most older members minds. When you throw up similar colour chips it puts you at home base with one strike. The values on your screen will not be the same on others. References to hobby paints is a tough start.

The "wet look" deteriorates pretty quickly and most of us who have photo references know. Without the clear gloss the pigmented dopes are matte - flat etc. I think you will find that is where Dan San Abbott was going.

Originally Posted by flypaper

I dint think you fully read my postings. . .I have to disagree with since Alan T's research confirms that the fabric on the VII was clear coated and any "color" was a result of the clear coat and the fatty varnish used on the VII's.

Again you are using two aircraft to stereotype all. You may not mean to do this, but that is all you are really saying.

Originally Posted by flypaper

Since the research material we have is small and tied to certain aircraft the conclusions are going to based on what they say. You saying that they cant be taken as proof of the entire picture is to deny what is clearly in front of you. Your saying that since here is not a a large amount of proof we should toss out what we do have because it doesn't add up to a mountain. Lets toss out the baby with he bath water. . .

Not at all. What I am saying is broaden your research. Don't just take two airframes and have them account for 1,000.

Originally Posted by flypaper

I am looking forward to you supplying the serial # of the XIII's from Butterfly. Are you aware that the shape and placement of the "S" on the rudder before the serial number also can help identify particular builders. Flypaper

You seem to want everything handed to you? I never said I would supply you with anything. Period. I simply pointed out to everyone where it could be found. Yes, there is a whole section on stencils and the different manufacturer's variations. Project Butterfly was and is a great tool. But Alan Toelle has carried on his research beyond that of the early days. He has fine tuned it and made some great discoveries. He has shared them with people that he knows are serious about continuing their studies.

Now lets turn to the Nieuport 17 1428.