True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Langdon;
I had previously answered your question regarding the date when Fok.DR.I 152/17 was shipped to the Zeughaus, see post #106. Ihave further reseached this date and Paul Leamon has the date as 18 March 1918. (Fokker Dr.I Triplane, page 136. InPaul's caption has Dr.I 152/17 going to Schwerin instead of the Zeughaus. I have seen this date before, so far I have not found the source, when I do, I will post it.
From Paul's date or the 20 March that I stated, Fok.DR.I 152/17 was SHIPPED FROM AVENES-LE-SEC. It did not go to the forward landing field at Awoing.
Fok.DR.I 486/17. See Dave Watts photo post #118 . The upper wing of Fok.DR.I can be seen to the right of the observer. The upper wing is in streaked camouflage, a light streak is visible to the left of the right hand white crossfield. The Iron crosses and the white crossfields have not been brought up to standard on the date (Alex Imrie caption) of 26 March 1918.
The upper wing is not painted red as claimed by Alex Imrie.
Langdon,
1. At LeChelle Airfield, MvR's "regular" machine was Fok.Dr.I 477/17.
2. While at Lechelle, MvR used Fok.DR,I 127/17 as his "reserve" machine.
3. There is no proof of MvR having flown Fok.Dr.I 425/17 at LeChelle, or that it was ever at LeChelle Airfield, however, it was at Cappy Airfield.
According to "THE FOKKER TRIPLANE", page
79, Quoting in part: "Contempory war coorespondences have stated that Richthofen's reserve aircraft had red wings, and that from the beginning of the March Offensive his regular machine was over-painted completely red. It is known from Richthofen's combat report descriptions that 425/17 was painted red on 20 April. This machine was not new, having been accepted on 8 January 1918, and had prior to the offensive which started on 21 March, presumably been initially marked in the same manner as his other triplanes. These aircraft were 127/17, 152/17 and 477/17 and they all had the top surface of the upper wing, tail unit, engine cowling, and undercarriage wheels painted red."
1. Dr.I 152/17 did not participate in the March Offensive, it had been shipped out on 18 March 1918, therefore it was never at LeChelle airfield.
2. That leaves Dr.I 127/17, his reserve machine painted as above.
3. The "regular" machine was Dr.I 477/17 and was painted all red as stated by the "contempory war coorespondeces", and is the machine in front of the fourth Besoneau Hangar at LeChelle Airfield.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Langdon;
This machine was not new, having been accepted on 8 January 1918, and had prior to the offensive which started on 21 March, presumably been initially marked in the same manner as his other triplanes. These aircraft were 127/17, 152/17 and 477/17 and they all had the top surface of the upper wing, tail unit, engine cowling, and undercarriage wheels painted red."
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan, How can this info on 425/17 be integrated with the known "FActs" of the Extant fabric samples.
1.They contain NO streaked Olive Brown under the RED!
2.All crosses have undergone ALL changes per orders.

This statement indicates that 425/17 was indeed MvR's prior to the Dates you give? " Prior to the March Offensive". This puts 425/17 as MvRs before the move to Lechelle doesn't it? Or am I reading it wrong?
Thanks for clarification,
RAGIII

[Langdon]

Dan-San,

After his 65th victory on 20 March 1918, Fok.DR.I 152/17 was dissassembled at Avenes-le-Sec and shipped to the Zeughaus in Berlin. It was painted all red at the Zeughaus.


According to his combat report it was the 66th victory on the 18th!

I'm not interested in a date you have seen in a book, if you are certain of this I want to see the source material otherwise you are guessing.

Can you provide the official document please that confirms that it was disassembled and transported on this date?

Also please show me the evidence that proves that the aircraft was painted red in the museum. I'm surprised that their staff were such poor tradesmen. Also it's interesting that after they painted the aircraft they took it to an airfield to photograph it yet they didn't bother repairing the torn rudder fabric.

Have you given up quoting Imrie and moved to Leaman? Strange as some months ago you were attacking him for misquoting and then accusing him of lying to cover his tracks. As far as I can tell Paul's book is a collection of all the information he has collected on the Dr.I. I believe much of his description of photos comes from the work of others, if you look through all the works that have been done on the Dr.I then I'm sure you will find a convenient quote (maybe you had a hand in his work on 425/17 and 477/17? Wouldn't that be funny if you were quoting from your own work).

The best work I believe has been done by Alex Imrie. He was the one who discovered the identity of the aircraft in the photo we now know to be 152/17. That aircraft was obviously painted all red in the field, the problem with that is it does not fit your theory. I understand you are a bit sore with Alex Imrie over his purposely putting Kirchstein’s white and black striped Dr.I on the cover of his book as you had published some drawn out analysis about the stripes on Udet’s Dr.I (same air-plane) being light blue and red when in fact this was another fantasy of yours.

Fok.DR.I 486/17. See Dave Watts photo post #118 . The upper wing of Fok.DR.I can be seen to the right of the observer. The upper wing is in streaked camouflage, a light streak is visible to the left of the right hand white crossfield. The Iron crosses and the white crossfields have not been brought up to standard on the date (Alex Imrie caption) of 26 March 1918.

That is fine for 486/17 but the photo confirmed by its works number as 477/17 has its top wing painted a solid dark colour, take a look Dan its hard to miss.

Dr.I 152/17 did not participate in the March Offensive, it had been shipped out on 18 March 1918, therefore it was never at LeChelle airfield.


You've changed dates from the 20th (see above)! Must have been a busy day, on this day MvR shoots down his 66th victory, a Sopwith Camel in this aircraft at 11.15, so you suggest he gets back to base they dismantle the aircraft and ship it out that afternoon? I want to see the source material because I think you are basing your theory on someones quote that 152/17 was sent to Berlin sometime after this date (because it obviously wasn't before) when the fact is its markings prove that the date was actually weeks later.

Dan-San, in your opinion where and when was 425/17 painted all red with narrow bordered Iron crosses?

The "regular" machine was Dr.I 477/17 and was painted all red as stated by the "contempory war coorespondeces", and is the machine in front of the fourth Besoneau Hangar at LeChelle Airfield.

I'm sure MvR had a better idea of how his plane was painted than you do (by the way are you going to post your translations of his comabt reports?). The contemporary war correspondence probably were looking at 425/17 or 152/17.

Harri Huopainen,

As far as I know there is no phisical evidence to show that it did have its weights table stencilling but I think its safe to assume that it would have. I believe this was an official requirement. The fabric with the datum line was from the starboard side I think.

Langdon

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Langdon:
I have NOT given up on Alex Irmrie as a primary source, but I don't look at Alex Imrie as you do, What is your opinion of Peter Grosz? I don't hold Alex Imrie in as high asteem as you do. I don't think his unimpeachable. He has made statements as facts that are not correct, but on the other hand he is one of the best sources on German aircraft. i also have made mistakes, when realized, I corrected them.
I quote Paul Leaman to establish a date of when Fok.Dr.I 152/17 was shipped.
But I quoted Alex Irmie very extensively.
I had thought the last post would provide the information to convince you about which was the red tiplane at LeChelle. I now realize that this exchange is a waste of my time time and effort, and short of a proclamation from MvR, you will never change your mind. I'll say this it has increased my knowledge. You have not provided any data to support your position.
My position is:
1. Fok.DR.I 152/17 was last used by MvR on 18 March 1918 and was shipped to the Zeughaus on or about 18 March 1918.
2. Fok.Dr.I 477/17 was acquired on or about 20 March 1918 at Awoingt Airfield and it was painted completely red. From about 20 March 1918 to 11 April 1918, Dr.I 477/17 was his regular aircraft.
3. Fok.Dr.I 127/17 was MvR's reserve machine and was flown when DR.I 477/17 was down for maintance. It had the upper surface of the upper wing , engine hood, empennage, all struts and wheel covers painted red.
4. Following the move to Cappy Airfied MvR acquired Fok.DR.425/15 and it was painted red somethime during the period from 12 April to 20 April 1918.
5. Following the move to Cappy Airfield, there is no further record of either Fok.DR.I 127/17 and Fok.DR.I 477/17.
6. All of the about is supported by the data from souuces previously listed.
7. I will not change form this position.
As I previously stated, when I find the date source for Dr.I 152/17, I'll post it.
I would not be surprised, both Imrie and Leaman have taken information on the Fokker Triplane from my articles, the difference is, both did not credit the source.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Dave_Watts]

Hi all,

Boy, I brought up this thread and smoke started rising out of my monitor! This one's really heating up.

I'm not the one with the answers to settle this, but if someone on the Aerodrome has a copy of MvR's combat reports where he mentions the paint scheme on 477/17 I think that would go far to bring things to a head. I'm sure this is what Langdon was alluding to when he said MvR knew how his plane was painted better than Dan does. If the report is vague, than we have an answer, it it's exacting, than we may have an answer.

If someone has the reports in question, please post it in its original German format and then the English translation as they have it and if they think otherwise the version they believe it to be.

This report is a firsthand observation and that would carry great weight.

Thanks anyone for assistance!

If no one has this information, can anyone solicit it from one who does?

We also need from Taz the blowup of the 486/17 or 477/17 underside top wing showing the werk number.

These two things would go far to resolve things. MvR is high profile and there are two sides forming up and digging in and we need to resolve this before "talks" cease. The players we have are; Ferko, Imrie, Van Wyngarden, and Langdon vs. Abbott, and I'm not sure where Leaman and Grosz fall in this discussion. I apologize for any other experts I've left out.

Best,
Dave W.

[Langdon]

Dan-San,

I have NOT given up on Alex Irmrie as a primary source, but I don't look at Alex Imrie as you do, What is your opinion of Peter Grosz? I don't hold Alex Imrie in as high asteem as you do. I don't think his unimpeachable. He has made statements as facts that are not correct, but on the other hand he is one of the best sources on German aircraft.

Well it was extraordinary how you mis-quoted from his book, not only did you leave out the section that your quote was addressing, the bit where Imrie states clearly that 152/17 was all red when it was given to the Zeughaus It is not known when this aircraft, apparently 152/17 and completely over-painted red, was given to the museum by Kogenluft, but the machine's national insignia display and manner of painting indicate that they were contemporary and not applied retrospectively. The piece you did include had its wording altered to give a different and misleading impression.

Maybe Alex Imrie is not unimpeachable but what we know about 152/17 has come from his research, from the years when he lived in Germany and spent time looking for relics from the Dr.I aircraft that used to be housed in their museums. You speak of fact but you put up your theories that are almost baseless as fact and that is why I started debating you on this. Not that I ever thought I could change your mind - as I know that would be improbable - but so others have proper information on which to base their own ideas.

Your suggestion that 152/17 was sent to Berlin on the day it scored its last victory is nothing more than a guess, yes we know it went to Berlin and yes we know when it last scored a victory (that is if you believe MvR's combat reports which you have indicated in the past that you do not, you still have not answered this properly) but so far no evidence has surfaced on the date when it was sent. If you look at the available evidence with an open mind you can draw a conclusion, the aircraft can be seen on an airfield at an unknown time sporting the thick ratio Balken cross that is certainly far from freshly painted, we know roughly when the rest of Jasta 11 converted their aircraft and so it is likely that 152/17 was at LeChelle when this occurred, now I put this forward as a theory based on visual evidence, you have no evidence to support your claim that it was never at LeChelle and the lack of a combat report for that aircraft only means that it was either not flown or no successes were scored on it, there are any number of reasons why a combat aircraft of that time may have been left unused for a period if indeed it was.

I have a high regard for Peter Grosz.

But I quoted Alex Irmie very extensively.

No you did not, you misquoted him extensively and his name is Imrie.

I had thought the last post would provide the information to convince you about which was the red tiplane at LeChelle. I now realize that this exchange is a waste of my time time and effort, and short of a proclamation from MvR, you will never change your mind. I'll say this it has increased my knowledge. You have not provided any data to support your position.


You have not provided a shred of factual information to support your theory. So far your theory is based on MvR's combat report dates as to what aircraft he was flying during a certain period and whilst this is correct information it doesn't preclude other aircraft from existing, this information is the same information you have discredited in the past. The only reason we know what aircraft MvR was flying during his career is from these reports, the description of his aircraft is contained in these reports, why is it that you find some of the information factual and other parts unreliable?

You refuse to discuss the various alterations that were made to 425/17s national markings, changes that could only have been made during the relevant times, changes we know Jasta 11 made before and whilst at LeChelle, it is unthinkable that 425/17 would have been painted in outdated markings after the 12th of April and why is it that you have used the 12th as a likely date? You have ignored the strong evidence of 425/17 never having received normal upper-surface camouflage and therefore the liklihood it was painted red from the factory. I view these points along with other evidence mentioned elsewhere above in a list as factual evidence along with strong circumstantial evidence and for you to suggest that no evidence has been produced to support my theory is incorrect.

I will not change form this position.


The problem Dan-San is that you rarely do. Remember the photo you sent me of the captured E.V, The one with the large 5 or S on it that you suggest has the works number 2783? I recall writing to you quite excited that I had discovered the number to be 2764 as the data plate from that aircraft (E.V 123/18 which in the photo was missing its data plate) had recently been sold on ebay, but you refused to listen you said it was definitely 2783 and so I sent the image to Dave Watts and asked him what he made of the number on the rudder and fin, purposely I did not give him further information and I was please when he replied with 2764. Recently when Taz confirmed the aircraft in the LeChelle photo as 477/17 based on its works number I asked him if he could do the same with the E.V image and guess what! He also came up with 2764 yet I'm certain this would not alter your opinion, and that's the problem.
We had the same thing recently with Achim Engels E.III rudder discussion, you would not back-down from your stated position that the rudder cross was 700mm across, you maintained that position until it became absolutely obvious that you were wrong and then you gave the excuse that you had been researching your measurements from one of your own 1/72 scale drawings which can hardly be described as source material nomatter how good they are.

I am quite certain that Alex Imrie has not used you as a source for his research.

Dave Watts,

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original reports for 477/17, I do have them for 152/17 and 425/17 and they are described distinctly. My understanding is that 477/17 was similar in its description to 152/17.

Taz is away for a couple of weeks.

Langdon

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by Langdon

Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the original reports for 477/17, I do have them for 152/17 and 425/17 and they are described distinctly. My understanding is that 477/17 was similar in its description to 152/17.

Langdon,

Do you have these translated in english? Could you post the aircraft discription text? If not does the discription for 152/17 stay the same in all reports? I was wondering if the red was added in stages like cowl first, later upper wing ect..

Do you know if similar reports for 127/17 exist? The reason I ask is there are several pictures of 127/17 with a couple distinctly different color schemes and was wondering if the different schemes are reflected in these reports.

Thanks,
CWatson

[RAGIII]

DSA and Langdon,

Having just re-read the Imrie comments in his Triplane book, I would have to say that both of you have left out pertinent statements. Two sections should be looked at.
1. MvRs triplanes from which most of the previous quotes come.
2. Museum Pieces, in which section Imrie continues to make cmments reference 152/17.

What I have gleaned from re-reading these sections is that Imrie believes that 152/17 was up until, and afer the 18th of March MvRs regular mount(Not a backup). He states roughly that it is not known when 152/17 was shipped to the museum but that He believes it was repainted All red with intent for further use as MvRs Regular Mount. He points out that the crosses were repainted to the latest style before shipping out.

As for 127/17,477/17, and for that matter 425/17 he lists them as backups due to the paint schemes as suggested by the War Correspondent.( Apparently 425/17 up until April 20th) He also says he doesn't believe any aircraft were specifically painted for MvR at the Factory.He also indicates that no reports mention 477/17 being overall red.

He makes it very clear that only those aircraft in which MvR scored victories are recorded in the Combat reports, and that MvR probably flew others.

He does state that 425/17 was painted Red on April 20th, but in his caption (photo 94) states that the all Red machine at Lechelle is 425/17 in late March? This seems to be a contradiction unless his stetement reference the April 20th date was meant to indicate that at this time 425/17 was Red and not that it was painted all Red on this date?

IMHO this debate can not be settled unless outside sources are able to confirm the serial number on the negative Ed Ferko claimed to read proving the "V" aircraft was 425/17, or again other researchers can cinfirm Alex imrie and Tazs reading of the werke number on the disputed 477/17.

What we do know is that one of MvRs all Red Triplanes is pictured, and re-appears in later photos with changed markings(crosses). We also know that 425/17 fabric samples show NO Evidence of streaking beneath the Red(Despite what Alex Imrie says reference no special paint jobs). Finally we know that 425/17 underwent ALL cross changes virtually proving it had been painted Red for MvR well before April 20th.

My belief based on the evidence at hand leans towards the all Red machine being 425/17, but that is opinion and without further evidence can not be proved.

RAGIII

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by CWatson

Langdon,

Do you have these translated in english? Could you post the aircraft discription text? If not does the discription for 152/17 stay the same in all reports? I was wondering if the red was added in stages like cowl first, later upper wing ect..

Do you know if similar reports for 127/17 exist? The reason I ask is there are several pictures of 127/17 with a couple distinctly different color schemes and was wondering if the different schemes are reflected in these reports.

Thanks,
CWatson

Unfortunately I cannot place the translated copies presently, a couple of months ago I moved from the property I had been living at for the past twenty years and much of my material is packed into a single room in storage. I do have a couple of the uninterpreted ones but they are for 152 and 425/17 so I cannot say if those for 152/17 show a progression in the colour scheme. It's an interesting question though. I'm surprised that all of the combat reports aren't included in one of the many books on MvR.

Langdon

[Langdon]

RAGIII,

Having just re-read the Imrie comments in his Triplane book, I would have to say that both of you have left out pertinent statements. Two sections should be looked at.
1. MvRs triplanes from which most of the previous quotes come.
2. Museum Pieces, in which section Imrie continues to make cmments reference 152/17.

The problem with quoting is it takes such a long time to type out, my reply to Dan-San yesterday took me about 1.5 hours and I really only included the quote the other day to show up Dan-San's mis-quote. All of my quoting from Alex Imrie's book comes from the Museum pieces section as well as the two photos captions on page 106 and not from the MvRs triplanes as you have mentioned.

What I have gleaned from re-reading these sections is that Imrie believes that 152/17 was up until, and afer the 18th of March MvRs regular mount(Not a backup). He states roughly that it is not known when 152/17 was shipped to the museum but that He believes it was repainted All red with intent for further use as MvRs Regular Mount. He points out that the crosses were repainted to the latest style before shipping out.

I think this is the part that both Dan-San and I quoted from on page 109.

I read yesterday in Paul Leaman's book that 152/17 was sent to Schwerin on the 18 March (same day he achieved his 66 victory in this aircraft) to have its wings modified so this is another scenario to consider.

... He also says he doesn't believe any aircraft were specifically painted for MvR at the Factory.He also indicates that no reports mention 477/17 being overall red.

Actually I did kick myself for not adding in yesterdays post that I do not totally agree with Imrie; my present view is that 425/17 was a specially prepared aircraft, if not then it's very difficult to explain the lack of upper-surface camouflage and yet there are still the normal stencils and large cross fields, if the latter did not exist then we could suggest that the fabric was changed or that the paint was somehow stripped but the facts do point toward the aircraft being painted red at the factory. Having said that though, to be fair to Imrie, Allan Toelle had not conducted his study of the fabric at the time the book was written so with this added research to consider it is possible Alex might chance his opinion, anyway that's up to him to consider.

He makes it very clear that only those aircraft in which MvR scored victories are recorded in the Combat reports, and that MvR probably flew others.

This is the very point I have been trying to get Dan-San to consider, Imrie states "He doubtless flew other Fokker triplanes without scoring victories on them, and since in those cases combat reports (if submitted) are not available, the identities of such aircraft remain unknown." I would add to that, that he flew the aircraft he's known to be associated with far more than has been recorded, for the same reason.

He does state that 425/17 was painted Red on April 20th, but in his caption (photo 94) states that the all Red machine at Lechelle is 425/17 in late March? This seems to be a contradiction unless his stetement reference the April 20th date was meant to indicate that at this time 425/17 was Red and not that it was painted all Red on this date?

Cripes you gave me a conniption with that one!!!

I think you will find this is poorly worded and has a double meaning as you have already considered, what he is saying is that in the combat reports of the 20th of April, MvR states the aircraft was painted all red, this does not mean the paint was applied that day, on that day it was out scoring two victories. Possibly this has Dan-San confused as well as he has stated in the past that it was painted on this day.

IMHO this debate can not be settled unless outside sources are able to confirm the serial number on the negative Ed Ferko claimed to read proving the "V" aircraft was 425/17, or again other researchers can cinfirm Alex imrie and Tazs reading of the werke number on the disputed 477/17.

I agree with you there will be some doubt, the reason I started debating Dan-San was his refusal to stop pushing his opinion as conclusive fact. If you look at all the arguments - and I'm sure you have - then there is definitely far more evidence for 425/17 than against, if you consider Dan-San's proposal then you really have to get 152/17 out of the picture and pretend that 425/17 has not been delivered, even though it was built before 477/17.

What we do know is that one of MvRs all Red Triplanes is pictured, and re-appears in later photos with changed markings(crosses). We also know that 425/17 fabric samples show NO Evidence of streaking beneath the Red(Despite what Alex Imrie says reference no special paint jobs). Finally we know that 425/17 underwent ALL cross changes virtually proving it had been painted Red for MvR well before April 20th.

Correct those are the facts.

My belief based on the evidence at hand leans towards the all Red machine being 425/17, but that is opinion and without further evidence can not be proved.

Possibly, but we should wait and see the enlargement of the 477/17 photo that Taz has promised as well as hopefully finding a copy of the untranslated 477/17 combat report, either of these could be conclusive.

Langdon