Did Fok Dr 425/17 carry a military number?

[Hans]

It may be a blasphemic question, but I could not detect any military number on the few pics which where captioned to show 425/17. Was is repainted after this plane was painted red? I was not able to find any Dr I pic on which a restored military number could be seen after the plane was personilized. But maybe these repros of repros of 425/17 which are published are simply of bad quality. Any opinions?

Merry christmas,
Hans

[CWatson]

The only pictures I know that are for sure are of 425/17 are the ones after it was shot down.I have seen a few pictures of another all red triplane in A.E.Ferko's Richthofen book and Imrie's triplane book(the inverted "V"blemish plane)and it has no numbers painted over or showing through the red which looks a little worn at this time,but I believe it is Richthofen's more used 477/17 though the pictures are often miss labeled as 425/17.

CW

[Langdon]

Hans,

425/17 almost certainly would have left the factory with its normal markings and numbers but these were painted over in the field. there was an article in Cross and Cockade International some years ago written by Alex Imrie and he described a piece of fabric that is held by the IWM, it shows the datum line and werks number beneath a thin coating of red paint, it seems the other identifying numbers and weights table would have been covered over as well. I think Ferco mentions in his book that on his photos he could see the military numbers beneath the red paint but I think they must have been pretty well covered otherwise they would have been some of the first pieces to be souvenired from the wreckage.

CWatson why do you think Imrie was wrong with his identification of the "V blemished plane" as 425/17?

Merry Christmas,
Langdon

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Langdon:
Some have identified the all red Fok. DR.I in the photos taken at LeChelle on 26 March 1918 as DR.I 425/17. If that is the case, why did MvR not fly 425/17 until 20 April 1918, the first occasion that it is known to have flown Dr.I 425/17.
In the photo taken at LeChelle on 26 March 1918, Ray Rimell has attributed the "V" on the side of the cockpit and has identified the machine as DR.I 425/17. In actuallity it is DR.I 477/17. I don't know when MvR acquired DR.I 425/17, but as far as the record goes, MvR flew 477/17 from 20 March at least 11 April and scored his 77 and 78 victories while flying 477/17. He achieved his 79 and 80 victories flying DR.I 425/17.
I contend that all the photos of MvR's triplane was of Fok.DR.I 477/17.
As far as I know the only photos of DR.I 425/17, were those taken after the crash at Bertangle.
If he had had 425/17 on 26 March 1918, why did he not fly it, instead of Dr.I 127/17 on 27 March and 6 April 1918? The reason is, MvR had not acquired 425/17 yet!
Merry Christmas,
Dan-San

[CWatson]

First of all Merry Xmas to you all !

Langdon if you have "Richthofen" by Ferko it shows three pictures of the Balken Crosses.The one from the top wing does not have the proportions the same as the picture showing the complete aircraft.The black portion is much thicker on the photo showing the complete aircraft.

The shapes of the Balken Crosses from the fuselage shown in Ferko's book are different as well,different bw ratios in colored cross pictures and the picture of the "V" aircraft.The fuselage cross shown in Ospreys Fokker Dr1 Ace suffers from the same fault.

If you notice even when the aircraft carried the Iron Crosses it showed wear from use and if MvR did not fly 425/17 before March as Dan San has said,who would be flying a red 425/17 and be putting wear and tear on it before MvR recieved it?No one I think.I think it is 477/17 painted all red and I think it with 152/17 were MvR's most used tripes.

I would like Dan San to correct me wrong on this ,but is the pictures showing the"V" aircraft with the Balken Crosses touched up?I thought I have seen that picture before,as shown with the aircraft all red and the crosses with the same porportions as the picture but the white outline a little rougher.

This kind of reminds me of a thread about revising history.As a kid I always heard MvR flew a red tripe,the later in life it was part red if at all.Now that I have found a new interest on the subject it looks like he really flew a red tripe more often than thought.477/17,152/17 was later all red,and 425/17.


Thanks again and please correct me if there is some ifo out there I have missed,CWatson

[Langdon]

Originally posted by Dan_San_Abbott@Dec 24 2003, 11:46 AM
[b] Langdon:
Some have identified the all red Fok. DR.I in the photos taken at LeChelle on 26 March 1918 as DR.I 425/17. If that is the case, why did MvR not fly 425/17 until 20 April 1918, the first occasion that it is known to have flown Dr.I 425/17....

If he had had 425/17 on 26 March 1918, why did he not fly it, instead of Dr.I 127/17 on 27 March and 6 April 1918? The reason is, MvR had not acquired 425/17 yet!

Dan-San,

Thanks for your reply, I'm really not sure of the answer, I study aircraft structures instead of histories but I am interested in hearing the views of people, such as yourself who do research unit history.

One reason that 425/17 could have been with the unit longer but unused was it suffered damage to its upper wing tip, the relic held in the Royal Canadian Military Institute has a repaired rib but I am speculating here if this was a reason for it to have remained unused. I really only asked the question to hear evidence against Alex Imrie's view that the photos were of 425/17.

425/17 would have been dispatched from the factory around the 22nd January 1918 so there must be some reason why he didn't use it until a later date. There seems to be evidence that it was never painted with upper-surface streaky camouflage (A Toelle's Aero article) and may have been delivered from the factory sporting its red paint scheme. If this is the case, then the aircraft would have been built especially for MvR, where was it and who used it prior to it being extensively modified for Richthofen?

Merry Xmas,
Langdon

[Langdon]

Originally posted by CWatson@Dec 24 2003, 03:47 PM
[b]
Langdon if you have "Richthofen" by Ferko it shows three pictures of the Balken Crosses.The one from the top wing does not have the proportions the same as the picture showing the complete aircraft.The black portion is much thicker on the photo showing the complete aircraft.


If you notice even when the aircraft carried the Iron Crosses it showed wear from use and if MvR did not fly 425/17 before March as Dan San has said,who would be flying a red 425/17 and be putting wear and tear on it before MvR recieved it?No one I think.I think it is 477/17 painted all red and I think it with 152/17 were MvR's most used tripes.

Hi CWatson,

I have inspected two of the crosses from 425/17 that are held by the Australian War Memorial, they are modified standard crosses, I'm sorry but I fail to see the point you are making about thicker crosses. By the way R Rimell was incorrect when he stated that cross number 3 in the Ferco's "Richthofen" has no sign of rib tapes or stitching, they were most certainly there when I inspected this cross about a month ago.

Also your point about who would be flying an all red triplane if not Richthofen is curious, you suggest that 425/17 showed signs of wear, and you agree it was all red, so who did fly it if it was not Richthofen? It must have been delivered before 477/17 so what's its early history?

Langdon

[CWatson]

Langdon,

The crosses are modified yes,but not in the same manner in the picture of the complete inverted "V"aircraft as the pictures of the crosses recovered from MvR's wreck.If you look at the pictures of Richthofen's "V" aircraft,look at the crosses on the top wings.The black portion is wider in relation to the white border than the ones recovered from 425/17.The fuselage crosses I mentioned suffer from different black and white preportions as the ones on the "V" aircraft.As a modeler looking for details is when I noticed this.

The aircraft with the wear and tear on it is 477/17(the "V"aircraft).I do not believe the "V" aircaft is 425/17 I was putting forth the question if Dan San's dates were right it could not be 425/17 pictured because it was red and having service wear on it before MvR had any record of flying 425/17.No other pilot I believe would be sporting MvR's paint job.

What was 425/17 earlier service record?Who knows maybe it was getting customized for MvR,what happened to 477/17 after MvR's death? None of use know.


Here is what it comes down to.If those crosses cut from the wreck of 425/17 are authentic,and I believe they are ,they did not come from Richthofens "V" aircraft .If the "V" aircraft is not 425/17 what aircraft could it be? 477/17 is the best candidate.

I was wondering if there were any unpuplished pictures out there that would answer it all.There has to be,why?Besides WWI aircraft I am interested in naval matters as well.In naval circles is a question similiar as what color was Voss's cowling.The question they have is what colors were the battleship Bismarck's turrets at different times in it's career.At one point it was painted with black and white stripes with red turret tops.You know what they were not red they were dark blue/ grey.How do I know?I have seen color video footage,very clear and close up.Most people will never get to see it because for some reason the owner does not want the tape viewed by the public.As well photographed as MvR was you know there has to be many pictures unpublished that would answer all and if I had them I would have posted them along time ago.CW

[pmirl]

Merry Christmas one and all!

If you look at the photos of the remains of 425/17 where you can see the sides of the fuselage, such as this one, (sorry it is so poor in quality, but my scanner really sucks. Hopefully I'll get a new one for Christmas&#33 you will notice one thing in all of them. The crosses on the fuselage are cut out, (the holes in the sides where the crosses were are square) but the cloth in the area of where the planes number would be is still on the plane, thus one can just about say for sure that the number was painted over. Another reason for believing that it has been painted over is that by now one of the numbers would have either turned up or at least would have been mentioned as existing.

Paul

[pmirl]

As for Dan-San saying that the photos are of 477, well, as usual he is right.

Below are two photo's that are usually identified as two different planes, but are really the same plane from different angles.

The first photo usually is identified as either a silk covered prototype or as 425/17. If you look at the prop, you will see that there is a cover on it. The tail is turned to the right. Lastly, look on the ground in front of the sandbags and you will see what appears to be a ladder or a track of some sort on the ground.

Now look at the second photo. This has been identified correctly at 477/17. Look at the prop. Same angle as the first photo and has a cover on it also. The tail is pointed in the same direction, and laying on the ground is the ladder or track.

Dan-San strikes again!


Paul