Did Fok Dr 425/17 carry a military number?

[pmirl]

Langdon,


Do you have any more color photos? Every time I have seen one of these crosses in a book, it is always in black and white. Nice to see what they look like in color. Thanks!


Paul

[Langdon]

Originally posted by pmirl@Dec 31 2003, 01:45 PM
[b] Langdon,


Do you have any more color photos? Every time I have seen one of these crosses in a book, it is always in black and white. Nice to see what they look like in color. Thanks!


Paul

Paul,

Here's one from the top wing, it is another from the AWM.

Often this aircraft is portrayed these days as being a very dried blood colour whereas if you wish to describe it in blood terms it is more like freshly congealed blood in colour.

Langdon

[pmirl]

Thanks Langdon!

Paul

[Langdon]

CWatson,

I was just searching my files for more photos and it appears I was wrong in stating that the crosses did not at one stage have large cross fields, I think I got this impression because I only inspected the bottom wing cross closely and often their large fields were not painted white but left unpainted, anyway I have just discovered this photo of the port side fuselage cross in my photo collection and it certainly looks to have had a large white painted cross field. It seems your avtar may well have been correct.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Langdon,

Nice pictures,must have been exciting to hold something with such history in one's hand.Your picture of the upper wing cross is even clearer than the ones I have seen and even convinces me more they are not from the "V" aircraft.

One thing I hope we can agree on,if the plane had no white fields except for the cross outline it must have come from the factory that color?Why else would a Fokker not have white fields from the factory unless it had painted there in red?

Thanks for a interesting discussion,maybe next time we will tackle Voss's Cowling color CWatson

[Cliff]

Langdon
On the port side cross pic you posted, is that the '17' of the fuselage number in the lower left corner?
Is it on top or under the faded red?

Cliff

[Langdon]

Hello Cliff,

It has been many years since I purchased this copy of the photo from the Ferco collection in Dallas TX that I had forgotten about the 17, thanks for pointing it out and well spotted!
Originally I entered this discussion to ask why people had changed their minds over which aircraft was depicted in the photos mentioned above and I had forgotten I even had these pictures since I hadn't studied them for years. Had I known I was going to discuss this topic in detail I would have studied up on the subject prior to commenting.

I remember when I copied this one there was a letter Ferco had written (or an article I cannot remember which) and in it he stated that on one of the photos showing what he believed to be 425/17, he could read the military numbers stencilled on the side if he viewed the photo as a negative (the shot taken from port side rear). I must say with this new evidence of large cross fields I have become a little sceptical of the photos showing 425/17, as you would think that the cross field area would show some signs of being lighter in colour than the surrounding areas in the old photos as it does now on the relics but then again those photos could show this aircraft after it was converted to the iron cross with small cross fields configuration and there is no doubt that it was converted this way, prior to it changing to the Balken type.

To answer your question, and the question that started this thread, it does seem that the 17 is painted over the red colour in this photo.

I think this cross is part of the RCMI collection in Toronto.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Langdon,

So what does this mean?To me it means the "V" aircraft is most likely 477/17,what do you think?

If 425/17 at one time had white fields when the aircraft carried Iron Crosses,and showed no signs of streaking so it most likely came from the factory looking like my avitar?How many people believe that?Many don't ,I however do now thanks to you pointing out the painted over white fields.

What I find intersting about this is what someone called history revisionism.Between the World Wars and up till the early seventies when a artist depicted MvR's planes,some all red with white outlined crosses,and the second version,red with the iron crosses with white fields and white tail,like tha standard Dr1 paint job but with red replacing the streaked finish.they appear to have had it right,and it appears so to me.Maybe there is more clear pictures of these historical craft some of them were privy to.If so hopefully one do they will work there way to the public.

I want to thank you again for such a interesting debate and sharing with us your pictures and thoughts on the matter.Most of all for having a open mind on a matter that most people aready have views on and are unwilling to look at information not brought to their attention before or seen from a different perspective into account.After all we are ony looking for what was true,yes?

Maybe one day do a color profile book on what you think his aircraft looked like with the info you have seen.

Thanks,
CWatson

[CWatson]

Langdon,

About the "17" seen in Ferko's negative it could have been there but from
477/ 17. If these numbers were placed by Fokker in the same area on most of the Dr1s would they all not have the "17" placed in the same spot?

425/17
477/17

What do you think?

Thanks again,CWatson

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Jan 2 2004, 02:55 PM
[b] So what does this mean?To me it means the "V" aircraft is most likely 477/17,what do you think?

About the "17" seen in Ferko's negative it could have been there but from
477/ 17. If these numbers were placed by Fokker in the same area on most of the Dr1s would they all not have the "17" placed in the same spot?

425/17
477/17

What do you think?

CWatson,

I'm not sure we will ever know which aircraft is depicted in the photos, the large white cross fields could be another bit of evidence against those photos being of 425/17 but I suppose the next question is what did 477/17 look like when it left the Fokker works, could it have started out the same as 425/17 and if the answer to that is yes, then we would have to assume that its original cross borders would show through just as clearly on 477/17 as they do on 425/17?

Incidentally the starboard fuselage cross shown in Ferco's book also shows evidence of the large white cross field.

There are photos on pages 24 & 25 of Ferco's book "Richthofen" they show MvR in front of a dark coloured triplane, possibly it's a red one with blue undersides, there are other photos in this series that show the data plate quite clearly, I wonder if anyone has ever been able to read the numbers on it, could this aircraft be either 425/17 or 477/17 prior to being painted all red? It is possible that the "V" aircraft photos show this aircraft shortly after it was repainted in the field. If you look closely at the photo I attached previously you can see some traces of the undersurface blue camouflage at the point where the fabric wraps around the lower longeron.
Possibly the rudder was originally all white with the Iron cross on it, at least one of these crosses still exist it would be nice to hear from someone who has had access to it.

You could well be right about the length of different numerals, the best bet would be to study a number 1 against the space taken up by another number like 7 for instance.

You mentioned proviously that you would like to discuss 103/17 sometime, I have studied this aircraft very closely as at one stage I wanted to build a replica of it, I have come up with some observations that I think could be very helpful to those people who wish to paint this aircraft or model it, I will be away for about a week but I look forward to that discussion, hopefully we will get a wider participation from the forum.

Langdon