Who flew this DR1 in red and white with bird?

farcwarts · 25 October 2009, 08:23 AM

There is a very common large wood and canvas table size model of a DR1 in red with a white rear half and a white bird painted on the side of the plane where the cross should be (but there is no cross on the side of this one). The plane I am referring to can be viewed for sale on many sites such as amazon (

Amazon.com: Fokker Triplane - Red Baron: Toys & Games

). Does this plane have a historically accurate paint scheme and if so, who flew it? I have this model and it is very nice for a preassembled model. I was thinking of repainting it to match the color scheme of Richthofen but will leave it as is if the scheme represents an actual aircraft that was flown. Any help would be much appreciated.

Chock · 25 October 2009, 08:44 AM

That would be the mount of August Raben of Jasta 18 , as far as I am aware.

Al

Raineranton · 25 October 2009, 08:45 AM

Hello farcwards,

look at this (old) thread:

Fokker Dr.1 Von Raben

Regards

Rainer

farcwarts · 25 October 2009, 10:47 AM

Outstanding information and within an hour the question is solved. This is an incredible website for information. Thanks so much. From the photos it is clear to me that the model does not accurately depict Raben's aircraft. Close in concept but off in many regards. Looks like this winter I will be repainting mine to match 425/17. Are there any known photos of 425/17 that clearly confirms that the wording "Fokker DR 1 425/17" still remained on the side of the fuselage after the aircraft was painted over?

Chock · 25 October 2009, 11:59 AM

Now there's a question that will get some differing opinions LOL

As you probably know, Richthofen had quite a few Triplanes, and more than one of them went through several different paint jobs, for example 477, which partially retained its Fokker streaking for a while, apparently then got more red paint slapped onto it at a later date.

Quite telling however, is that 425/17, in which Richthofen met his end, is known to have been somewhat crudely painted in at least some places, since the (known to be genuine) pieces of fabric from it with the Balkan Crosses on, are very crudely amended from the earlier national insignia (one of these pieces of fabric is in the Canadian Military Institute in Toronto, another was sold in an auction in London a few years ago). So if the national markings were not treated with careful respect when painting, it seems difficult to imagine that the serial numbers would have been treated any differently, after all, one hardly needs to retain a serial number on a bright red Triplane to distinguish it from others in the squadron. One has to be a bit careful with that sort of analysis though, as paint fades with time, and we are talking about some paint that is approaching being 100 years old, having had a lot of exposure to UV light.

The confusion is not helped by the fact that photos of what is often claimed to be one of MVR's Triplanes, and thus used for the basis of some analysis, was an aircraft which for a long time resided in a museum in Berlin, until it was destroyed by Allied bombs in WW2. It was in fact not an original at all, but one of two replicas made for a movie in the early 1930s. Also unhelpful, is the fact that there are probably enough fake pieces of fabric claiming to be from Richthofen's 425/17 doing the rounds, you could cover an entire Geschwader of Triplanes with them, so even the colour is doubt, let alone which bits were painted.

It is quite likely that if you paint an aeroplane with red paint, then the darkest markings it originally carried will still show though, unless you are prepared to slap tons of paint on; not a good idea with aeroplanes, since it adds a lot of weight. So I suspect the serial numbers on 425/17 would have been discernible at the time, if not very clearly. Others might disagree with that though, but based on pictures of MVR's Albatros, we can see the crosses show through the red paint pretty well, especially when you take into account that the film used at the time was not great at distinguishing between red and black.

Given that some of the painting on 425/17 was fairly crude, you should weigh up whether that is a good choice for a paint job on your model, since some people might be inclined to think you've just done a bad job of painting it instead of that being what it really looked like!

Al

TFF · 26 October 2009, 06:48 AM

There are pictures of 152/17 hanging from the ceiling in Berlin and on the ground at an airfield with the same paint peeling, so I believe 152 was bombed out, but also they had the replica from the movie, which is the plane you see in the Nazi auditorium picture which is not the same plane and it is clearly a replica.

Laserlloyd · 26 October 2009, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farcwarts

Outstanding information and within an hour the question is solved. This is an incredible website for information. Thanks so much. From the photos it is clear to me that the model does not accurately depict Raben's aircraft. Close in concept but off in many regards. Looks like this winter I will be repainting mine to match 425/17. Are there any known photos of 425/17 that clearly confirms that the wording "Fokker DR 1 425/17" still remained on the side of the fuselage after the aircraft was painted over?

Hi Farcwart,

You can go to my site to look at photos of Raben's two planes and in the Profile section I have illustrators show off there profiles too.

In regards to 425/17, Yes it did have the "Fokker Dr.I 452/17 on the sides of the fuselage. This is evident in the cross held a the RCMI that shows the "17" marking. There is another piece of fabric held at the IWM that has the work number that was by the carburetor inlet in the side of the fuselage.

Both of these show that the markings were painted then the red was applied over the markings. It is my belief that 425/17 had ALL it's markings at the time it was accepted in accordance to the Idflieg's BLV requirements.

Lloyd...

Laserlloyd · 26 October 2009, 09:24 AM

TFF,

152/17 was sent to the Berlin war museum and as far as me know that were it remanded until the allies bomb it in 1944.

The two movies that you might be talking about are "D III 88" and Pour le Merite" in think in 1938 that showed 528/17 and the DLS triplane.

The DLS was mostly a Dr.I as it was build by Anthony Fokker from some of the remaining pieces that he had when he escaped Germany in 1919. Yes, the cowling in incorrect but is still is a Fokker part. This plane was on loan to the DLS museum for a Richthofen display in the late 1930's. This plan was also placed on the grounds of the 1938 Richthofen memorial hosted by Goering.

528/17 was the DVL triplane. This plane was a Real Dr.I that had a Goebel Goe II 100hp engine still in it. This plane was one of the Dr.I's that were sent to one of the Jastaschule's. This would not have been fitted with any gun's as it was only a training school planes but still was a Dr.I. It was overhauled to flying condition for the movie at which time it had to be given a Civil register of D-EFOK. The machine gun's on this plane were of a late model style as it had the incorrect loading mechanism. One of the last things done was the enginge was then switched to the Clerget 120hp. I'm don't know about the 120hp Clerget but I have them at 160hp.

Since 528/17 (DVL/D-EFOK) was a real Dr.I it was not a replica. I'm not sure how you would refer to the DLS triplane as it was made up of leftover parts and then what ever to Finnish the plane as in the cowling. So is it a replica if it had original parts or would it be called restored?

Lloyd...

Blackclaw · 26 October 2009, 09:56 AM

I have a few pics taken at the 2007 Dayton fly in of a DRI replica in this paint scheme. I don't have access to a server to post them to right now, but I'd be happy to email them to anyone interested in seing them.

Laserlloyd · 26 October 2009, 10:25 AM

That was Terry Presley's Triplane. We where told that he had sold his triplan and that's why it wasn't there this year.

Here is a photo of his plane.

Lloyd...