425/17

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by 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.



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.

I do not know what you are getting at here? I am looking at the controversial 477/17 pic and I see that the lower wing is being converted to the WIDE Style cross, painted black from the widest point of the Iron Cross. The fuselage cross looks to be the same way. The white field has not been overpainted at all! As you say, this aircraft can not be 425/17 as the crosses were not thinly outlined in a red overpainted white field. May not be 477/17 either, possibly 486/17 and not MvRs at all. The all Red bird at LeChelle is the only one "photographed" that seems to meet all of the criteria for 425/17. Iron crosses thinly outlined in Red, later changed to thicker style straight sided crosses, then finally to the thinner version, with the lower wing crosses not completed when shot down. There are pictures showing this inverted V aircraft in all three marking styles! Look at Ferkos Book on MvR! In fact it appears that the lower wing skipped the 2nd step in cross changes and went from Iron cross to thinner straight sided cross? Not uncommon for the lower wing surfaces. Again I have to say that the fact remains that 425/17 was overpainted Red before the call for straight sided crosses! Whether the LeChelle bird is 425/17 will never be proven one way or the other. The only FACT we can take from this thread is that as stated 425/17 was all RED way before the dates it appears in reports!!
RAGIII

PS: The FACT that the aircraft in the lineup show they are not being modified to the straight style cross also says that the aircraft in question 477/17 or 486/17 is NOT being modified to the later thinner style, but rather to the intermediate thicker style straight sided cross!

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by RAGIII

I do not know what you are getting at here? I am looking at the controversial 477/17 pic and I see that the lower wing is being converted to the WIDE Style cross, painted black from the widest point of the Iron Cross. The fuselage cross looks to be the same way. The white field has not been overpainted at all! As you say, this aircraft can not be 425/17 as the crosses were not thinly outlined in a red overpainted white field. May not be 477/17 either, possibly 486/17 and not MvRs at all. The all Red bird at LeChelle is the only one "photographed" that seems to meet all of the criteria for 425/17. Iron crosses thinly outlined in Red, later changed to thicker style straight sided crosses, then finally to the thinner version, with the lower wing crosses not completed when shot down. There are pictures showing this inverted V aircraft in all three marking styles! Look at Ferkos Book on MvR! In fact it appears that the lower wing skipped the 2nd step in cross changes and went from Iron cross to thinner straight sided cross? Not uncommon for the lower wing surfaces. Again I have to say that the fact remains that 425/17 was overpainted Red before the call for straight sided crosses! Whether the LeChelle bird is 425/17 will never be proven one way or the other. The only FACT we can take from this thread is that as stated 425/17 was all RED way before the dates it appears in reports!!
RAGIII

We are talking about two aircraft photographed at the same time the iron crossed red plane and the other plane identified as 477/17 by Langdon.The lower wings look like they had began to be convert in the earlier style but the fuselage and rudder cross are painted in the thinner late style cross on the plane identified as 477/17. The fuselage cross field and rudder appear to be freshly painted and are the thin style, heck it appears the paint can is still setting there.It may be overpainted in white but it is still overpainted. If they had not the plane would still have iron crosses Fokker did not deliver them with strait crosses. Now if they are applying late style crosses to these plane and the first plane is still red with iron crosses there is no reason they would apply the thick cross no longer used to the red plane it would simply get the current thin style being applied to the other plane. That makes two styles of crosses on the V plane, 425/17's wreck had at least three style crosses applied. It no longer fits your criteria. You say otherwise all you want the plane in the photo called 477/17 does not have the early style balken cross with the thick black cross arms the black part of the cross is the thin style.

I do not doubt that 425/17 may have been painted red early in it's career I just do not think the V plane is it. You state that the V plane has been photographed with the intermediate style thick cross, where have you seen this elusive photo? I know of four pictures of the V plane ,one picture with strait crosses and three taken at Lachelle, one right front and one left rear and one showing the left side near the cockpit.

Now in Imrie's book picture number 98 and 99 show aircraft from the same angle and the have [B]thick[B]crosses and one of them maybe Richthofen's 152/17 or maybe even 425/17. I am not sure that the plane in this pic is all red there appears to be vertical lines (streaking)on the forward fuselage but that is what thick crosses look like from that angle.Compair the thick BLACK portion of these crosses ,they match the black wearing through the cross from 425/17s wreck the are noticably thicker than the crosses on the plane that does have the freshly painted cross field mentioned above.

How is that for facts!!? These reports you mention are they real or translations of real reports? I thought Dan San had mention they were written in a format not used by the Germans and that is true what FACTS are to be taken from them?

Another fact in a earlier discussion with Langdon he told me that there is a piece of fabric floating around from 425/17 that has the dantum line. If so and it is the area from around the cockpit it could be compaired to the cockpit photo of the red plane at Lachelle that has all the damage and blisters in the finish.

The only fact we agree on is 425/17 had the cross fields over painted red while it still carried iron crosses. How about another thought, if 425/17 was painted with red cross field early on who said it was all red it could have looked just like 152/17 early in it's career. Any other facts I missed?

As far as the aircraft in the lineup still carrying the iron crosses while the one is being painted with the thinner cross did all aircraft modified carry the intermediate type? I do not know.

Which version did you model your DML kit after I had to build I few to hope I got one right?

CWatson

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by CWatson

We are talking about two aircraft photographed at the same time the iron crossed red plane and the other plane identified as 477/17 by Langdon.The lower wings look like they had began to be convert in the earlier style but the fuselage and rudder cross are painted in the thinner late style cross on the plane identified as 477/17. The fuselage cross field and rudder appear to be freshly painted and are the thin style, heck it appears the paint can is still setting there.It may be overpainted in white but it is still overpainted. If they had not the plane would still have iron crosses Fokker did not deliver them with strait crosses. Now if they are applying late style crosses to these plane and the first plane is still red with iron crosses there is no reason they would apply the thick cross no longer used to the red plane it would simply get the current thin style being applied to the other plane. That makes two styles of crosses on the V plane, 425/17's wreck had at least three style crosses applied. It no longer fits your criteria. You say otherwise all you want the plane in the photo called 477/17 does not have the early style balken cross with the thick black cross arms the black part of the cross is the thin style.

I do not doubt that 425/17 may have been painted red early in it's career I just do not think the V plane is it. You state that the V plane has been photographed with the intermediate style thick cross, where have you seen this elusive photo? I know of four pictures of the V plane ,one picture with strait crosses and three taken at Lachelle, one right front and one left rear and one showing the left side near the cockpit.

Now in Imrie's book picture number 98 and 99 show aircraft from the same angle and the have [B]thick[B]crosses and one of them maybe Richthofen's 152/17 or maybe even 425/17. I am not sure that the plane in this pic is all red there appears to be vertical lines (streaking)on the forward fuselage but that is what thick crosses look like from that angle.Compair the thick BLACK portion of these crosses ,they match the black wearing through the cross from 425/17s wreck the are noticably thicker than the crosses on the plane that does have the freshly painted cross field mentioned above.

How is that for facts!!? These reports you mention are they real or translations of real reports? I thought Dan San had mention they were written in a format not used by the Germans and that is true what FACTS are to be taken from them?

Another fact in a earlier discussion with Langdon he told me that there is a piece of fabric floating around from 425/17 that has the dantum line. If so and it is the area from around the cockpit it could be compaired to the cockpit photo of the red plane at Lachelle that has all the damage and blisters in the finish.

The only fact we agree on is 425/17 had the cross fields over painted red while it still carried iron crosses. How about another thought, if 425/17 was painted with red cross field early on who said it was all red it could have looked just like 152/17 early in it's career. Any other facts I missed?

As far as the aircraft in the lineup still carrying the iron crosses while the one is being painted with the thinner cross did all aircraft modified carry the intermediate type? I do not know.

Which version did you model your DML kit after I had to build I few to hope I got one right?

CWatson

Again I am looking at the photos as I type. No other aircraft are being converted to the straight sided crosses! Only 477/486/17! To me it is obvious that the crosses are again starting at the widest point of the maltese (Iron) cross. Yes I believe all of the aircraft in Jasta 11 went through the thicker style first. please remember that with the intro of the DVII this thicker style still appeared! And the only fact I believe you missed was the Lower wing cross posted by langdon showing the Red outlined Iron cross on the extant fabric of 425/17! Pretty much eliminates any 152/17 like paint job, all RED from the time of painting that cross. JMHO of course,
RAGIII
PS, The only DML kit I have finished was 152/17. I have painted a 425/17, or 477/17, or whatever and have not finished it to this day
RAGIII

[RAGIII]

One last question/comment, and I will leave this discussion until the next time it pops up ( Note, this is totally subjective and based on no FACT)
An order comes from IDFLIEG to change the cross style from Iron to straight sided cross. What aircraft gets priority? 486/17 flown by an anonymous pilot, or 477/17 the favorite mount of the Geschwader commander at this time? Remember DSA has shown records that MvR flew 477/17 almost exclusively at LeChelle. No other aircraft show evidence of converting to straight sided crosses! My money is on the Barons bird being the first to be changed! Again just a random, subjective and probably controversial, and totally unprovable thought
RAGIII

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by RAGIII

One last question/comment, and I will leave this discussion until the next time it pops up ( Note, this is totally subjective and based on no FACT)
An order comes from IDFLIEG to change the cross style from Iron to straight sided cross. What aircraft gets priority? 486/17 flown by an anonymous pilot, or 477/17 the favorite mount of the Geschwader commander at this time? Remember DSA has shown records that MvR flew 477/17 almost exclusively at LeChelle. No other aircraft show evidence of converting to straight sided crosses! My money is on the Barons bird being the first to be changed! Again just a random, subjective and probably controversial, and totally unprovable thought
RAGIII

That is a good observasion Rick. We will have to ask Dan San what records exist. I thought the only records were the combat reports but I thought he questioned the format they were written in. Dan San could you please chime in when you read this. What records of the aircraft MvR flew do exist, and are they original or translations?

Thanks in advance,
CWatson

[Troy Raines]

CWatson, Sorry I have no way to post photos at this time. They are of various crosses off 425/17 after the fact and I believe both lowers are present but will have to check. I wonder about using the lower wing crosses off 425/17 in research on its final cross configuration. Paint does flake off, especially when applied under field conditions. These crosses were in a crash, cut off, rolled, unrolled, stored, handled, whatever for years. Can we expect that the final finish/cross outline has stayed the same all these years and no paint has flaked off? Just a thought. The evidence presented by Ferko and Imrie in their books is proof enough for me that the "V" bird is 425/17 and the other machine is 477/17. If you can read the s/n or werke number as they say they could..... Well, they had access to better prints than me so I gotta believe.
T-roy

[CWatson]

Troy one should never stop looking for new evidence, recently after all these years Dan San has posted proof Voss had more than one heart and swastika adorned Albatros DIII. Things pop up when you least expect is so you never know.

As far as the crosses, paint does flake off and the thing is not going to repaint itself so yes the outline of the cross or the one underneath should be visible, it maybe miss parts but the parts remaining will be how it was shaped.

If you cannot post a picture of the other lower cross, if you remember the source let me know.

About the plane that maybe 477/17 Imrie wrote he was "almost certain" not that it was for sure.

CWatson

[Troy Raines]

CWatson, truer words have never been spoken Sir, I agree. the discovery of new evidence is what makes this place such fun! In fact, I had not heard of the "new" Voss D.III!

It seems that the idea of 425/17 having lower wing crosses that had not been fully converted to the latin style started with the trophy'ed crosses. I was suggesting they had been fully converted and that maybe wear & tear over the years had flaked off paint and made them look incomplete? I have never seen them in person myself and would welcome the imput of someone who has. I'm never too old to learn. Never paid much attention to the von R artifacts but I will from now on, this is FUN!

I believe the source was an article in Windsock magazine a couple of years ago. I will certainly let you know when I find it.

Yeah, you're right. Didn't Imrie say that one digit of the werke number was unreadable so based on the possibilities he was "almost certain" the s/n was 477/17 or XXX/17?

T-roy

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by CWatson

That is a good observasion Rick. We will have to ask Dan San what records exist. I thought the only records were the combat reports but I thought he questioned the format they were written in. Dan San could you please chime in when you read this. What records of the aircraft MvR flew do exist, and are they original or translations?

Thanks in advance,
CWatson

I believe DSA posted the comments on this thread somewhere about page 1 or 2 relative to the aircraft used during certain missions which resulted in victories? The records dan has a problem with are relative to the colors stated for 477/17 in some combat reports. I do NOT believe Dan would use the reports to verify FACTS, and then say they were fakes if he was taliking about the same reports!!!
RAGIII

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by RAGIII

I believe DSA posted the comments on this thread somewhere about page 1 or 2 relative to the aircraft used during certain missions which resulted in victories? The records dan has a problem with are relative to the colors stated for 477/17 in some combat reports. I do NOT believe Dan would use the reports to verify FACTS, and then say they were fakes if he was taliking about the same reports!!!
RAGIII

Yep combat reports. I read what he wrote in this thread about them and what he has said about them in other threads, that is why I said "I hoped he would chime in and clear it up". If the documents he feels are without issue are combat reports that state the number and color and other documents he may feel are suspect are combat report that state similier type info, what makes one more reliable than others. Are they only the ones pertaining to 425/17 and 477/17 in question if so why? How about the ones with 152/17? Did they come from another source? Are the report originals, copies of them ?Are they translation? Is only the color discription the only part of the reports suspect? If so why?Sounds like valid questions to me, how about you?

Dan San ,thanks in advance I know you will clear it up .

CWatson