The Aerodrome Forum - View Single Post

Dan_San_Abbott · 13 June 2009, 11:12 AM

Hi Dave:
That "V" mark defines all the photos thakrn at Le Chelle Airfield were that they are all of the same Fok.DR.I. However there is not one photo taken at the crash site or at Poulainville, where DR.I 425/17 taken and completely souvenired that can confirm the "V" mark was actually on Dr.I 425/17. It is the MvR Combat Report descriptions that the connections was made not by the "V" mark.
If a photo of the Fok.DR.I taken at LeChelle Airfied can be found that shows the lower wing crosses fully modified, it would confirm that it was not Fok.Dr.I 425/17, but was in act Fok.DR.I 477/17, which I have believed from day 1. It will also raise doubt about the validity of the MvR Combat Reports.
More later. Take a look at Richthofen by A.E.Ferko, page 66 top photo.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

13 June 2009, 11:12 AM	#13 (permalink)
Dan_San_Abbott Rest in Peace Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ceres, California Posts: 9,119	V mark. Hi Dave: That "V" mark defines all the photos thakrn at Le Chelle Airfield were that they are all of the same Fok.DR.I. However there is not one photo taken at the crash site or at Poulainville, where DR.I 425/17 taken and completely souvenired that can confirm the "V" mark was actually on Dr.I 425/17. It is the MvR Combat Report descriptions that the connections was made not by the "V" mark. If a photo of the Fok.DR.I taken at LeChelle Airfied can be found that shows the lower wing crosses fully modified, it would confirm that it was not Fok.Dr.I 425/17, but was in act Fok.DR.I 477/17, which I have believed from day 1. It will also raise doubt about the validity of the MvR Combat Reports. More later. Take a look at Richthofen by A.E.Ferko, page 66 top photo. Blue skies, Dan-San