Did Fok Dr 425/17 carry a military number?

[pmirl]

Oops....

Here's photo #2


Paul

[CWatson]

Langdon,

The pictures pmirl have scanned look like the ones from the Ferko book.In the book the pictures are are of good quality and the third picture in the series is a close up of the cockpit area and shows no dantum line either unlike the actual example you have seen.To me the pictures are of MvR's plane, not 425/17 but 477/17.

If you have any info on MvR''s tripes please share it with us his aircraft are one of the subjects I am very interested in.


Thanks again,CWatson

[Langdon]

Gentlemen,

I would like to know what photo CWatson is comparing against the relics from 425/17, the only photo I know of that is atributed to 425/17 in its finished scheme (actually it was never finished as the lower wing crosses had not yet received the white cross borders) is that shown on page 68 of Ferco's book "Richthofen" and that is the same aircraft shown above as the silk covered triplane or 477/17. I spoke with Alex Imrie this morning, I believe him to be the authority on triplane markings, his work, "The Fokker Triplane" is unsurpassed. If he says that the photos are of 425/17 then I'm inclined to believe him. He told me there is no doubt in his mind that these photos are of 425/17.

The crosses and their white borders are not accurately painted on the examples held be the AWM, if you measure one arm of the cross and compare it with another, or if you compare the border either side of an arm of the cross you will find they are not the same, these were hand painted in the field and were very roughly done. In fact they were so badly painted that Hugh Robinson, who many of you may know as a contributor to this site and the owner of a fine (nearly finished) replica of 425/17 was so surprised by the quality of the paint work that he has had to repaint his markings so they will look as bad as the originals. Hugh and I inspected the AWM's collection together recently.

The colour of the large pieces of fabric held by the AWM varies a little but it is quite a bright orange-red and not the colour often attributed to his aircraft now.

Something that may be of interest to readers is the description of how the AWM aquired the lower wing cross from 425/17, below is the AWM description for the piece.

Langdon

Description of RELAWM07570:

A rough square of aircraft fabric featuring a black German Balkenkreuz bordered by white, all on a red painted background. The black cross and its white border are unevenly painted and do not match each other. There is evidence of multiple white and black paint coats, as there is with the red paint. The reverse of the fabric is very messy, with evidence of black, red and green paint and possibly dope. The fabric has been removed from the aircraft in a rough square shape approximating the Balkenkreuz, but has cut though the lower end of one of the crosses. The approximate centreline of the Balkenkreuz coincides with a double folded sewn seam. This appears to be where the square of fabric has been repeatedly folded and is thus fragile at this point. Most of the paint is crazed or cracked.

Context:

This square of fabric was recovered from von Richthofen's crashed triplane a few minutes after the crash by Lieutenant George M Travers, MC, 49 Battalion. He related his account of events for Smith's Weekly on August 25 1934 and the narrative commences from the point where he was lying on Corbie Hill with a pair of binoculars, watching two planes approach from 2-3 miles (about 5 kilometres) away. One was Lt Wilfred May's Sopwith Camel - the other Richthofen's Fokker Triplane.

"My runner, Private Webber, was with me and I had the two planes in view, coming straight towards us, for 2 or 3 miles. They came straight along the line of the Somme to Corbie Hill. Richthofen was very close to the tail of the other plane and firing at it when he was within a few hundred yards of us.

"Just then a machine gun down below us fired three of four bursts and Richthofen's plane seemed to turn on its side, right itself again, then swerve sharply to the right and swoop gradually to the ground, landing about half a mile away.

"The first three to reach the plane were Captain Cruickshank, Staff Captain of the 11th Brigade, my runner and myself. Cruickshank took charge of things and carried a few papers and a gold watch back to Brigade headquarters. Richthofen was identified by an inscription on the watch.

"I don't suppose anyone can be 'shot at dawn' after fifteen years or more for admitting to going souvenir-hunting. I got one of the big black crosses, about 4 ft by 4 ft, painted on the red paint which was over the fabric of his plane. This cross I wrapped up and put in my valise.

"A few days after, at Villers-Bretonneux, I was severely wounded and eventually arrived at Wandsworth Hospital, England. A Sergeant from the Records Section in London came down to see me and said he had been sent by Major Treloar, OC Records. He said they had heard that I had Richthofen's cross and asked if I would let them have it for the Australian War Museum. Eventually I gave into them."

Smith's Weekly also tracked down and interviewed Edward Burrow, a fellow member of Travers' company, who corroborated Travers' account:

"I was also a witness of the affair and went over to the place where the plane was lying immediately after it had struck the ground. Richthofen was then dead.

"There was such a scramble for souvenirs that, although only minutes had elapsed from the time he struck the ground till I got there, someone had relieved him of his boots."

Attempts by Australian War Memorial staff to contact Travers in October 1934 to ascertain which wing he had cut the cross from were unsuccessful - a Memorial clerk noting "apparently useless to hope for a reply".

Quoted in AWM93 - 12/11/5350 "G.M. Travers Esq, MC, Balranald, NSW."

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Dec 25 2003, 06:49 PM
[b] In the book the pictures are are of good quality and the third picture in the series is a close up of the cockpit area and shows no dantum line either unlike the actual example you have seen.To me the pictures are of MvR's plane, not 425/17 but 477/17.

CWatson,

I forgot to reply to this statement. I did not claim to have seen this piece, it was discovered by Alex Imrie in the IWM in London, and was attributed to having come from an Albatros. He rightly suggested it was from 425/17 and as I mentioned you can now see the werks number and datum line showing through a thin covering of red paint, possibly this layer of paint was not so thin when the photos we have been discussing above, were taken, certainly the crosses look different today than they would have in 1918.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Langdon,

The picture is on page 80(pay close attention to the top wing) in Imrie's book.The same picture is on page 68 in Ferko's.The pictures on pages 63,64 in Ferko's book are all the same aircraft as Imrie said,but I think it is 477/17 not 425/17. The crosses are not the same as the crosses cut from MvR's wreck no matter who says what.The shape and proportions are not the same,look at the pictures yourself and compair.

Imrie did a lot of research and pointed out the "V" blemish,because of that is the only reason I started looking at pictures for those small details that we usually over look.That is why I noticed the crosses.

You mention the dantuim line that Imrie could see it through the red.There is no line in the pictures mentioned above.The 425/17 was shot down a few weeks after these pictures were taken,paint will not wear to translucency that quick.That means the cloth came from 425/17 not the aircraft in the picture so what other all red plane did he fly? 477/17.How big is his piece of fabric?Is it large enough were it would have the patch or damaged paint on the left side of the cockpit as shown in the picture on page 64 of Ferko's book?If so and the patch is not there what would that tell you.

Try this,say you were to build a replica(or model) of MvR"s triplane based on the picture on page 80 of Imrie's book.Now build a second replica using the various crosses from MvR's wreck in museums as your referance.The two aircraft will look similar but will not be identical,far from it,why because they are not the same.

Hope you all had a Great Christmas,CWatson

[CWatson]

Langdon,

Another thing I wanted to ask you.You said you have seen some of the crosses up close.Did it look like the red around them had been painted over white squares like the ones the Dr1s left the factory with? There has been speculation that 425/17 was painted red at the factory level,if so would it not be Fokker practice to have white squares not just a thin border around the crosses? If there were white squares than that means at some time 425/17 would have originaly looked like the aircraft used as my avitar .


CWatson

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Dec 29 2003, 05:30 AM
[b] The crosses are not the same as the crosses cut from MvR's wreck no matter who says what.The shape and proportions are not the same,look at the pictures yourself and compair.

You mention the dantuim line that Imrie could see it through the red.There is no line in the pictures mentioned above.

The 425/17 was shot down a few weeks after these pictures were taken,paint will not wear to translucency that quick.That means the cloth came from 425/17 not the aircraft in the picture so what other all red plane did he fly? 477/17.

Hello CWatson,

Sorry but I beg to differ, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to say these crosses are considerably different to those held by the AWM and others in fact I think there is more evidence that they are the same even though they look different today after 80 years of ageing with much of their touch up white paint having changed colour into a grey shade. As far as I know all Dr.I's left the factory with standard sized Iron crosses and when these were modified to the Bulkenkreuze cross, I believe they would have done so in a standard way, at least on MvR's aircraft anyway. I remember measuring the width of the Bulkenkreuze cross legs and I think from memory they were roughly 25cm wide (bottom wing), they were not even as wide as the ends of the Iron cross. As I mentioned in a previous post, these crosses were modified in quite a rough, hand painted way, any comparisons you make must be against the identical area from photo to relic, you have to know the orientation of the cross and which side of the aircraft it is from, that information in not necessarily available from Ferco's book and the photo shown on page 80 of Imrie's book is on such an angle that an accurate estimate of its measurements would be very difficult, it is certainly very similar to the relics held by the AWM. What a pity we cannot see the laminations on the propeller because if we could that would settle the matter as 425/17's were quite distinctive.

The datum line and werks number I mentioned was a small piece of fabric taken from around the carburettor air intake pipe on the starboard side of the aircraft, possibly the paint was thin in this location because of its proximity to the intake pipe. All Dr.I aircraft had the werks number in this location, how many can you read or even see in photos? I would bet it would only be a couple because this is an area that is nearly always in shade or hidden from view, that we have not seen it in the available photos is not surprising and even if this were 477/17 there is every possibility its paint job was similar.

Imrie's description of the piece (CCI Vol23 No2 1912) states, "I traced the shape of the sewn piece and what I could see of the stencilled number. There was no doubt that the incomplete figures were 2009."

There was no mention in this article about the datum line so that was my memory playing tricks on me as you would expect it to be there but from this description it sounds as though the stencilled numbers were fairly well covered with paint.

Concerning the cross fields, they were originally exactly the same as those in the pictures that are often described as "the silk covered triplane". This leads us to an interesting question, if this aircraft - whichever one it might be - was delivered from the factory painted this way how many others were delivered with the same all red paint job? It is possible that the undersides of the wings were originally blue on 425/17 as the material from the AWM has blue paint but so was 477/17 as far as I know, I feel sure 425/17 had a red rudder initially as the photos of the rudder removed from the wreckage show a dark coloured paint showing through the stone chipped white paint on the rudders lower part?

Best wishes for the New Year,
Langdon

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Dec 29 2003, 05:40 AM
[b] Langdon,

Another thing I wanted to ask you.You said you have seen some of the crosses up close.Did it look like the red around them had been painted over white squares like the ones the Dr1s left the factory with? There has been speculation that 425/17 was painted red at the factory level,if so would it not be Fokker practice to have white squares not just a thin border around the crosses? If there were white squares than that means at some time 425/17 would have originaly looked like the aircraft used as my avitar .


CWatson

It was never like your avtar.

[CWatson]

Langdon,

We can agree to disagree,but a few more things.All aircraft left the factory with standard Iron Crosses in standard positions(except the F1s and a few earliy Dr1s) I agree but I have never seen a photo with two or more Dr1s that had the same type or proportioned Balken Crosses so I disagree with you on that detail.Most of the field mods look distinctly different in detail to my eyes.I have no trouble seeing the crosses on the complete "V" aircraft's have proportionaly wider black portions compared to the pictures of the one taken from the upper wing of MvR's wreck.

I doubt 425/17 ever looked like my avitar but was wondering did the crosses you saw in person have the white squares painted over?Did it have the white squares painted over? If it had white squares not just a white outline then I would think the red was applied in the field,if there was no white squares under the red paint but just the white outline around the crosses than I would feel the plane was painted at the factory level.

I hope you have a Happy New Years also,
CWatson

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Dec 30 2003, 07:56 PM
[b] I have never seen a photo with two or more Dr1s that had the same type or proportioned Balken Crosses so I disagree with you on that detail.Most of the field mods look distinctly different in detail to my eyes.I have no trouble seeing the crosses on the complete "V" aircraft's have proportionaly wider black portions compared to the pictures of the one taken from the upper wing of MvR's wreck.

I doubt 425/17 ever looked like my avitar but was wondering did the crosses you saw in person have the white squares painted over?Did it have the white squares painted over? If it had white squares not just a white outline then I would think the red was applied in the field,if there was no white squares under the red paint but just the white outline around the crosses than I would feel the plane was painted at the factory level.

CWatson,

A diversity of opinions is a good thing and if you are correct then you have proof that this aircraft was not 425/17. The reason I asked in the first place why Dan-San has gone against earlier research by Imrie, Ferco and others was I thought there must have been conclusive proof, as I've stated earlier, markings are not my normal subject of research.

After I made the remark about standard changes to the Balken cross I had some misgivings so I then altered the statement to suggest this would at least be so on 425/17 and 477/17 as it seems they were both delivered from the factory in the same livery - red all over except under the wings and the national markings - actually I do not know anything about 477/17 except that if people are suggesting the photos we are discussing are of that aircraft then I conclude it must have initially been painted in the same way, because certainly in its early stage 425/17 looked like the photos of the red Dr.I at Lechelle.

To answer you question about the large white cross field, there is no evidence of this only the narrow Iron cross type border.

If Dan-San's only proof that these photos could not be of 425/17 because we have no knowledge that MvR flew this aircraft before the 20/4/18 then I do not believe that that is enough. Why do we know which aircraft MvR flew? Is there a log of every flight he made and the aircraft it was made in? If so then that would be conclusive but possibly we only know of the aircraft he flew in because he achieved a victory in them, I would be very interested to learn more about this? His conclusion that 425/17 was not MvR's aircraft on the 26th of March because he flew another aircraft means very little, we know he flew 425/17 on the 20th and 21st of April but that doesn't mean he would no longer fly 477/17.

It seems likely that 425/17 left the factory a personalised aircraft for Richthofen's use and possibly 477/17 did as well painted in the same fashion, it is almost a certainty that 425/17 would have arrived well before 477/17. The reasons we have no record of MvR flying this machine prior to the 20th of April could vary greatly from maintenance problems to his not achieving a victory on it, none of these things would exclude 425/17 from being the aircraft in the Lechelle photos.

The photo I will attach below shows the unfinished lower cross, it is the same in its execution as all other crosses that have survived from 425/17 in that the Balken cross is smaller than the widest part of the original cross arm, the interesting thing about this cross is that it is unfinished and therefore shows us how it was achieved. The first step is the Balken cross is added as well as the ends of its original white border are cropped with red paint to suit the intended new white border width, and it is in this state that this cross has been left. The next step would have been to finish the narrow white border which would have cropped the tips of the old Iron type cross and squared up the rest of the white border so that its edges were parallel to the Balken cross. I do not believe that 425/17 underwent two different styles of Balken cross as is suggested in Ferco's book, all the changes we can see in the photos of the original fabric were to convert the crosses from their former type to the finished style but for some reason the new white paint slowly darkened to its now grey shade over time.

Langdon