True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

Gregvan · 10 July 2006, 01:04 PM

Hi Taz,

Beats me - the thin black line could be tape or paint. In the caption to photo #109 on page 74 of his book (for Dr.I 504/17), Alex Imrie states: "Note the thin dark-coloured spanwise stripes on wing leading-edges as a dividing line between the top surface camouflage and the light-blue under surface colours, a feature not seen on early production triplanes."

I just was pointing out that these leading edge 'stripes' are very apparent on the Lechelle photo, but not to apparent on the one available front 3/4 view of Greim's 521/17. At least, not to me.

Greg

Lyle · 10 July 2006, 01:18 PM

Post deleted

Lyle · 10 July 2006, 01:22 PM

Post deleted

acer · 10 July 2006, 02:14 PM

Greg,Taz-

the upper surface of Fok.Dr.I 521/17 at Jasta 11 was not painted red. Alex Imrie misinterpretated the image in question twice in his book (#95).

acer

Taz · 10 July 2006, 02:45 PM

Acer, Greg- If the dark line was indeed just a line or a leading edge tape, then we could all be wrong (except Acer and possibly Dan-San) about the top wing being painted red. All we are seeing is the demarcation line/tape and the camouflage paint is out of line of sight on top of the wing. The leading edge of the white cross panels would also not be visible with a black demarcation line/tape if they were on this aircraft. Which would make Dan-San's theory the long distance shot is indeed the same aircraft much more plausible. The top wing on this aircraft does look like aleading edge tape instead of a painted line, and the seam I thought I saw is of the tape.
Acer- It seems the black leading edge lines are only on some late production Dr.Is, sort of like the olive stripe on the bottom of some late production Dr.I rudders. How did you identify this aircraft as 521/17? Is there some marking or characteristic we missed that you identified and can you shed any more light on the leading edge demarcation line? Note no stacking pads on the top wing with tape and stacking pads on the other two wings with only a thin line. Stacking pad substitute?

"Flexibility is the key to airpower."

I still believe the red aircraft is 425/17, by the way.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Langdon · 10 July 2006, 10:14 PM

Taz,

The thin dark line is a paint line to cover the demarcation between the upper and lower surface schemes. There is no seam at this point as one piece of fabric is used to cover the wing (chord-wise) and the join is made along the trailing edge, at least this is the way it was done on the V.4.

As far as ACER goes, I think some evidence is warranted before I take any notice of his observations, if he has the proof as you expect he might then it will be an easy matter for him, and we still have the caption from the original album stating it was Richthofen's aircraft which must carry more weight than an unsubstantiated comment from a person hiding behind a pseudonym.

Langdon

RAGIII · 10 July 2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

Acer, Greg- If the dark line was indeed just a line or a leading edge tape, then we could all be wrong (except Acer and possibly Dan-San) about the top wing being painted red. All we are seeing is the demarcation line/tape and the camouflage paint is out of line of sight on top of the wing. The leading edge of the white cross panels would also not be visible with a black demarcation line/tape if they were on this aircraft. Which would make Dan-San's theory the long distance shot is indeed the same aircraft much more plausible. The top wing on this aircraft does look like aleading edge tape instead of a painted line, and the seam I thought I saw is of the tape.
Acer- It seems the black leading edge lines are only on some late production Dr.Is, sort of like the olive stripe on the bottom of some late production Dr.I rudders. How did you identify this aircraft as 521/17? Is there some marking or characteristic we missed that you identified and can you shed any more light on the leading edge demarcation line? Note no stacking pads on the top wing with tape and stacking pads on the other two wings with only a thin line. Stacking pad substitute?

"Flexibility is the key to airpower."

I still believe the red aircraft is 425/17, by the way.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Taz, Greg, DSA, and all,
Am I the only one who has questions on these postings by Acer? Taz has Acer sent a private message or something verifying his (or Her) Identity? If not I guess what I am saying is I think a lot is being read into these posts with very little backup! JMHO! I looked at the LARGE enhanced photo Taz sent me and I would swear the third digit is a 0. I still believe the leading edge in the enlarged photo represents a SOLID painting! Again just my humble opinion. If in fact verification has been received as to the collection and knowledge of Acer, I appoligize for my doubts and rudeness. I will finish with this, those with a background of research, historical knowledge etc. on this forum usually put forth their names and reputations,ie DSA, GvW, Alex Revell, etc. I just want to be sure who the source of all of this NEW INFO is and know I can trust it as a reputable source! So far all that has been stated is that this photo is 521/17 from interviews and private photos with the pilot who flew the machine, and that Alex Imrie is wrong reference the color. NO supportive evidence of any kind! All I ask is what anyone else on this Forum seeks, SOLID EVIDENCE!! (or at least some evidence)

RAGIII

RAGIII · 10 July 2006, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langdon

Taz,

As far as ACER goes, I think some evidence is warranted before I take any notice of his observations, if he has the proof as you expect he might then it will be an easy matter for him, and we still have the caption from the original album stating it was Richthofen's aircraft which must carry more weight than an unsubstantiated comment from a person hiding behind a pseudonym.

Langdon

Langdon,
Sorry, I obviously took longer than you to add my post! I am glad I am not the ONLY one to question the validity of Acers statements.
RAGIII

Langdon · 10 July 2006, 11:09 PM

RAGIII,

If he has the evidence then it will be easy to back-up his statements but somehow I have a feeling (I hope I'm wrong) this is not going to happen.

Langdon

Taz,

Could you read the Flugel No. that is along side the works number?

RAGIII · 10 July 2006, 11:25 PM

One other question for Acer!
Imries book, Leamanns book, Ferkos book, GvWs books etc. have been published for quite some time. Why no rebuttal until now? Also this has been discussed ( many would say Ad Nauseum) many times on this forum. Why Now? Why this thread?
RAGIII
PS: We have pressed Dan for Facts for quite some time on this thread. Dan San Abott is a well known and well respected historian.We are asking no less from Acer!