"Extra Triplanes Theory"...More Evidence?

[Southside Bucky]

Hi guys.

Thought I'd have a go at stirring up a bit more controversy!...

Further to the ongoing discussion "Voss Ran Out Of Bullets", in the People sub-forum. On page 13, the discussion turned briefly to the "extra triplanes theory", a subject which appeared in a chapter of Barry Diggens' book on Voss, September Evening.

Here's a link for quick reference; post numbers; 124, 130, 133 and 134:

Voss Ran out of Bullets

So, What I'd like to Know is: If accepted wisdom as far as the experts are concerned, is that there were only two Triplanes on the Western Front in September 1917...Which Triplane is this then?

[/IMG]

The caption to this photo in Alex Imrie's book The Fokker Triplane states:

"This Fokker photograph showing Ltn Werner Voss seated in a production Fokker V5 triplane, which has been fitted with improved crash pad protection around the gun butts and with a temporary headrest, confirms that Voss was at Schwerin during September 1917"


Comparing photo's I can state with a good degree of certainty that it isn't F.I 101, 102 or 103. (The dark streaks don't compare to any on the F.I's.) It has guns fitted, and looks battle ready. Why wouldn't the Germans put it to use?

So, What do we have?

The above photograph.

The British pilot sightings.

The evidence of Karl Bodenschatz and Freidrich Rudenberg.

The unreliability of Fokker, and German records.

I'd say that was enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the accepted view regarding the number of triplane's on the western front in September 1917...Wouldn't you?

Regards.

Bucky.

[Taz]

Bucky- How about a little photo archaeology on this image? First take a look at the machine gun pads. F.I 101/17 had no machine gun pads when first photgraphed at Schwerin in CDL. F.I 102/17 had two separate pads, one for each gun butt, and F.I 103/17 had a pad which stretched across both gun butts like this aircraft, as did the Dr.Is. So this aircraft had the production style gun butt pads.

Assume Voss was on leave from around 12 September until 22 September and visited the Fokker factory at Schwerin during that time period. A large number of Dr.Is were in the process of being prepared for acceptance and eventual shipping at the factory. A shortage of Oberursel Ur.IIs, which had just been qualified on Voltol synthetic oil, was causing delays in completing the early (and all later) Dr.Is. The V.4 and 3 F.Is were fitted with Le Rhones as a result of the Ur.II not being qualified in time.

On 13 September, the first two Dr.Is, 104/17 and 106/17 were accepted by Idflieg, on 15 September 107/17 was accepted, on 19 September 111/17, on 20 September 109/17, and on 22 September 115/17. Engine delays were slowing down acceptances. All of these aircraft would have had the top aluminum panel painted in solid olive, which the headrest aircraft did not. So we can probably eliminate these aircraft as possibilities of being the aircraft in the photo with the headrest. From 24 September until 29 September, six more Dr.Is were accepted and these were also most likely not the aircraft Voss flew with the headrest.

The lack of paint on the aluminum panel and the experimental headrest mark the aircraft Voss flew as some kind of factory "mule" used by the factory for testing and possibly for flying by pilots such as Voss. Two early Dr.Is were accepted much later than their contemporaries, on 30 October and 1 November, Dr.Is 108/17 and 105/17 respectively, and one of these is most likely the aircraft Voss flew. They were eventually both shipped on 14 December fitted with new wings as part of the first two shipments (the other was 12 December) after rewinging.

In general, aircraft were held at an AFP or, in this case, the factory, until sufficient numbers were available for unit operations. An exception was made for the number two living ace, Heinrich Gontermann, leader of Jasta 15, and his aircraft was shipped separately from the factory on 4 October before any Jasta 11 DR.Is were shipped. Remember the famous line-up photos of Jasta 12 with identically marked Albatros and Dr.I aircraft? Same thing for Jasta 11. Seventeen aircraft were shipped on 10 and 13 October and, except for Gontermann's 115/17, were the first to arrive at front line units on about 20 October 1917. They were grounded before they saw much, if any, combat action, as pilots first familiarized themselves with the new aircraft.

So what does Voss flying a factory mule in September at Schwerin have to do with combat sightings of "extra Triplanes"? Plus what is this about unreliability of Fokker and German records? Very exact records exist of the early Triplanes. Most serious Dr.I enthusiasts have copies. Why are there no sightings or claims between 23 September (date sound familiar?) and January 1918, when rewinged Dr.Is began to reappear in numbers?

So the photograph is not evidence of "extra Triplanes" at the front. We have good records showing the exact disposition of the early Dr.Is which matches the photographic record of early Jasta 15 and Jasta 11 Dr.I operations just before grounding. Triplane sightings ceased on 23 September and no further claims were made by British pilots until January. If there were "extra Triplanes" around, they would not all have been mysteriously removed on the same date Voss was shot down.

So the "extra Triplanes" theory is a house of cards and all evidence points to multiple Triplane sightings being made of the same two, very actively flown, Triplane prototypes. Having flown in air to air engagements, I can guarantee no two versions of the fight are identical during debrief. Only the video tapes help figure out exactly what happened, and WW-I aircraft had none. I have no doubt the pilots involved thought they saw what they reported, but overestimating enemy forces and overclaiming have occurred in all wars involving aerial combat. Remember, five claims were made against the two F.Is.

So this is a fun exercise and I hope we have others who will chime in with new evidence, but I remain convinced there were no "extra Triplanes".

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Taz

Thanks very much for the fascinating and detailed reply...Mr Rimell certainly got the right man to write that next Triplane Datafile Special!

As I've said already, my point of view on the subject is based primarily on those five pilot sightings. But just to flesh out my statement on "unreliable Fokker/German records", can I put forward the following:

The plane in the post No.1 photo is undocumented is it not? Presumably, it had a werke number, if not a military serial. Does anyone have the first clue what that number might be? Alex Imrie didn't postulate, nor Mr Leaman I believe, or anyone else whoever wrote anything on the subject.

Therefore, isn't it a reasonable deduction to say those Fokker records are something less than complete?

Thanks again for your time and trouble.

Bucky.

[Taz]

Bucky- Glad you enjoyed what would probably put the average Forumite to sleep. There are many photographs of Fokker Dr.Is on which no serial number or WN can be discerned. The photo quality may be poor, unit or personal markings may cover the numbers, or an unnumbered replacement component may be fitted. This is not a reflection on Fokker records, just a fact of life since most Dr.I photos we have came from unofficial personal photo albums, not from Fokker or official Kogenluft sources. The photo you posted was actually one of two in which Voss had his body turned slightly differently in each photo. In one the PLM is very visible, in the other less so. These photos were most likely taken by a Fokker photographer, but this is only speculation until I see a copy with a Fokker number on it, which I have not. Original prints may have been annotated on the back with the occasion, but may have just said Voss in Fokker Dr.I and a date.

Using Fokker records, our best guess is this is Dr.I 105/17, WN 1773, which was fitted with an Oberursel Ur.II, or 108/17, WN 1776, which was experimentally fitted with a large diameter, 9 cylinder, over compressed, 160 hp Goebel Goe.III. Looking further, 108/17 was tested at Adlershof with the Goe.III before being converted back to a standard Ur.II for shipping to Jasta 11 on 14 December, but we have no further information on when Adlershof testing occurred or what the results were. It is likely 108/17 was assembled by the Fokker experimental shop with a new motor mount and cowling for Adlershof, but was probably sent unarmed due to the MGs' line of fire going through or very near the bulged cowling for the Goe.III. So the aircraft in the photo is most likely 105/17 with standard Dr.I armament.

To me, this is indicative of pretty good documentation. We are admittedly missing one set of acceptance documents for the Dr.I, but it is late in Dr.I production history. You can definitely say the Fokker records are incomplete. We hope they turn up some day. Try to get me to pull the same analysis on an early 500 series serial number and I am out of luck.

The hard part for most people is ignoring the eye witness accounts of multiple Triplanes in September 1917, but much better historians than I have come to the same conclusion. In the rush of combat, misidentifications, miscounting, and misinterpretations are the rule, not the exception. I have only flown with a few individuals who could keep really good track of most things going on in an air to air engagement, and even they fouled it up occasionally. Plus, admittedly, nobody was actually shooting at them so they were afraid of fouling something up, but not of actually dying. All my actual combat sorties were at night and we were never engaged, thank God.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[SCMc]

Pardon the tangent, how old would you say that Voss was in that photo, if you did not already know?

Steve

[Southside Bucky]

Yeah, the strain was beginning to show in his eyes that's for sure Steve...I'm thinking 32, 33 maybe?

Good looking fella though!

Bucky.

[tcrean7828]

To all,

It is hard to believe that the sunken/puffy eyes are that of a 19 year old, but rough duty and living on the edge, apparently make you look older than you are.

Even Voss' brothers mentioned it on the morning of 23 Sept 1917, before he took off on his last flight.

cul

tcrean7828

tom

[Taz]

Steve- He has to look at least in his early thirties, but he led a very tough life and continuous combat flying will definitely age you. MvR looked way older than 25-26 in his photos, too, but he was responsible for the lives of 60 or so pilots and that will age you too. Only in the movies does he look like the youngster he was. Everybody grew up faster back then, especially with a war going on.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Gentlemen:
I was of the opinion that theTriplane with the rest was the machine with the square elevator and aileron balances. This photo was taken when Voss visited the Fokker Factory at some date before Fok.F.I 102/17 and F.I 103/17 were delivered on 28 August 1917. Late July or early August 1917.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Taz]

Dan-San- A lot of people thought that, but it proves not to be true. Look at the details on teh LMG 08/15 mounts. F.I 101/17 had a completely different set of mounts which I believe were slightly higher.

Taz
Terry Phillips