425/17

[Langdon]

Dan-San,

Which piece of fabric? Not the one above, that's from the lower wing.

Langdon

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Gentlemen:
When this piece fabric from Fok.DR.I 425/17 came out of the closet and sold at auction, Alan Toelle did a study, that was published in I think Windsock. Alan's photographs show the serial number is readible through the red paint. Also Alan from his study of the fabric was able to prove that the upper longeron slopes downward 30mm at the tailplane notch.
Paul in his examination of a piece of fabric at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, London could read the w.n.2009 through the red paint. I have a copy of Paul's study.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan, The original reason for Langdon posting the fabric containing the cross was to show that the Cross had been changed to the thin white border using Red to over paint the white field thus showing 425/17 had to be painted Red prior to orders calling for the straight sided crosses. This puts the date of personalizing for MvR way before the April 20th date it first appears in reports.I can't speak for others but it does satisfy me! As to whether 425/17 was field painted or painted at the factory it sounds like the fabric you mention would certainly prove that point, field painted Red. JMHO,
RAGIII

[Langdon]

This is the fabric that Dan-San was refering to, note the serial number! It is possible that Ed Ferco may well have been correct when he stated he could see 425/17 in the negative of the photo that has been recently attributed to 477/17 as the /17 is highly visible in the photo below.

Langdon

[Taz]

Langdon- Ed Ferko did say he had been able to read 425/17 on the photo of the red painted aircraft with straight crosses shown being guarded. It also showed the same "V" fault in the fabric/finish below the cockpit that is visible on one of the LeChelle (sp?) photos. That is what caused the conclusion the LeChelle photos were 425/17 and not 477/17. The modifed crosses would seem to bolster that theory.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Photographic proof is always helpful.

[Langdon]

Taz,

That was my recollection as well only I thought the photo that Freco could read the military number on was the one shown in his "Richthofen" book, bottom photo page 63. It shows the aircraft from the port side rear.

Also Alex Imrie has a photo of a Dr.I in his excellent book which shows the aircraft he identified as 477/17. He identified it from the werks number stencilled on its top wing. From memory that aircraft had the top of its wings (top one at least) painted red as well as other areas including the cowling but it was far from all red. You could clearly see the hand painted demarcation between the red and the undersurface colour on the wing.

If he was correct, and he's certainly thorough, then that aircraft could never have been painted the way the LeChelle photos were as the crosses had already been converted without those areas on the fuselage having been painted red.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by Langdon

Taz,



Also Alex Imrie has a photo of a Dr.I in his excellent book which shows the aircraft he identified as 477/17. He identified it from the werks number stencilled on its top wing. From memory that aircraft had the top of its wings (top one at least) painted red as well as other areas including the cowling but it was far from all red. You could clearly see the hand painted demarcation between the red and the undersurface colour on the wing.



Langdon

Did anybody notice in the picture of the plane that is supposed to be 477/17 in the quote above has mismatched lower wing crosses just like the ones cut from the 425/17 wreck?

CW

[Troy Raines]

The crosses on 477/17 are indeed different or mismatched in that they are different style crosses, one is latin(straight) and complete, the other is maltese(curved) and untouched. The crosses on 425/17 had both been converted from the curved style to the straight style but had not been totally completed at the tips. Subtle differences but different. MHO of course.
T-roy

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by CWatson

Did anybody notice in the picture of the plane that is supposed to be 477/17 in the quote above has mismatched lower wing crosses just like the ones cut from the 425/17 wreck?

CW

What's the point CWatson, as I mentioned it cannot possibly be the same plane as the fuselage cross has been modified to the Balken kruze without the original cross ever having been painted with the narrow border surrounded by red.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by Langdon

What's the point CWatson, as I mentioned it cannot possibly be the same plane as the fuselage cross has been modified to the Balken kruze without the original cross ever having been painted with the narrow border surrounded by red.

Langdon

How do you know? Can you see through the white paint on the fuselage? The rudder and fuselage cross field look very clean or more like freshly painted, looks like a paint can with a brush in it setting right under the cross field. This plane could have been painted like 152/17, red to the front of cross field and then repainted starting with the crosses and their fields. I understand on the cut crosses from 425/17's wreck the field were painted red without ever have been green ect, but going by the pictures with the flaking white paint I can not tell how it was layered if it was painted red and then the cross modified later to balkiin cross with just squaring off with red then white and black applied, I just can not tell from the pics. If it was in my hands I would be able to tell how the paint was layered.

Just trying a new angle hoping that maybe someone will notice something that was missed, jar their memory,or maybe get better qaulity photos in someone's private stashes that will prove or disprove something posted. Remember it was said (by you) that the wreckage of 425/17 did not have white cross fields overpainted yet after I mentioned it the pictures in your own collecting of the wreck's peices showed them clearly and you posted them.

Speaking of cross fields two of the four know pictures of the red triplane in question, the inverted V plane, are very clear and the one that is taken from the right front, a very clear shot, does not show such a thinly painted cross field, the whole fuselage looks pretty even. The pictures of this plane are so clear they show paint wearing of the trailing edges and finish damage on the right and left side of the fuselage and top of the middle wing ,if the cross field were so thinly painted as the ones from the wreck it would show as would the fuselage numbers and dantum line.

If someone had a clear early copy of the (often mislabeled as silk covered) right front shot showing the data panel on the cowling we would not have this discussion ever again. Someone must have one in their archive.

CWatson

[CWatson]

A more important note on why I do NOT believe the inverted V aircraft is 425/17. Three of the pictures of this aircraft were taken at Lechelle on the same day as the plane with the mismatched lower crosses right? As you pointed out the fuselage crosses on the plane you think is 477/17 are painted in the correct thin fuselage balken cross right? The thin style came after the thick version was incorrectly applied, at the same time the red inverted V plane has iron crosses still correct? By this time the painters are applying the correct portioned thin crosses yes? Why does the wreck of 425/17 show clearly that the plane at one time it wore first the iron cross, second the thick balkin cross then on the fuselage the thin style crosses were added. As these photos show the red plane with iron crosses is still in this configuration till the painters are appling the correct thin crosses. Why would the repaint the plane in a style of cross no longer used? I do not think the did,so if this plane went through two style crosses and the wreck had three style fuselage crosses they could not be the same plane.

Originally Posted by Troy Raines

The crosses on 477/17 are indeed different or mismatched in that they are different style crosses, one is latin(straight) and complete, the other is maltese(curved) and untouched. The crosses on 425/17 had both been converted from the curved style to the straight style but had not been totally completed at the tips. Subtle differences but different. MHO of course.
T-roy

Do you have pictures of both lower crosses? If so could you please post them I have seen a picture of one side but not sure about the other. I had heard they were different, one iron and one iron in the process of being modified to balkin style but do not remember were I heard it.