True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

Dan_San_Abbott · 20 July 2006, 12:58 PM

RAGSIII:
Your stand on Fok.DR.I 425/17 can not be substantiated or supported by any of the known facts.
I would like to ask you a few questions, that hopefully you will answer. Please state your information source.

1. What is the first record of DR.I 425/17? Also what date?
2. Where was Jage.Nr1 located when DR.I 425/17 was first recorded in service, and what was that date?
3. What information, (document, record, whatever) exists after Fok.DR.I 425/17 was accepted at Fokker Flugzeugwerke? Also what was that date?
4. Prior to 20 April 1918, is there any record that MvR flew DR.I 425/17?

I would appreciate a truthful honest answers, no emotions, or what you would like it to be.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

RAGIII · 20 July 2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

RAGSIII:
Your stand on Fok.DR.I 425/17 can not be substantiated or supported by any of the known facts.
I would like to ask you a few questions, that hopefully you will answer. Please state your information source.

1. What is the first record of DR.I 425/17? Also what date?
2. Where was Jage.Nr1 located when DR.I 425/17 was first recorded in service, and what was that date?
3. What information, (document, record, whatever) exists after Fok.DR.I 425/17 was accepted at Fokker Flugzeugwerke? Also what was that date?
4. Prior to 20 April 1918, is there any record that MvR flew DR.I 425/17?

I would appreciate a truthful honest answers, no emotions, or what you would like it to be.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan,
I don't usually post with emotion! My last post was a "failure" as I had hoped it would elicit some responses as to how absurd my position was relating to not believing and trying to reason out aircraft identification based on published information. What I am trying to say is that we all read and base our "Opinions" on what research has preceded us! I have no emotion about 477/17or486/17, or 521/17.I can only observe the pictures and info by far more learned researchers than myself,and form an opinion. No POINT is MOOT until the hard evidence is published truly revealing that the picture in question is 2189 ! I do not see the 4th rib light and dark areas you describe. I am not sure of how to trust an anonymous poster respected tho he be

You have introduced some radical changes in camo schemes for Albatros fighters and Fokker EVs. Yes you have produced some hard evidence for both, but to the average person on this forum, some "Faith" in your research and conclusions is necessary! When it comes to acers "interpretation" it requires a leap of faith I can't make.The fact that I don't agree with your interpretation of available information on 425/17 isn't emotional, It is just my opinion based on what I can read and see for myself. I wish I had the time and money to be a serious researcher! I would love to have access to the Ferko and other collections at UTD! I am sure you are ready to pounce on any "Facts" I present but I will try based on what I have read( A lot is already in this thread posted earlier by myself and others).
Answer to # 1... See your Question #4. No one disputes that 425/17 isn't mentioned in "Combat reports" before April 20th. It has been argued by myself and other far more knowledgable researchers including I believe Imrie, that this does not mean 425/17 was not flown earlier, just that NO Victories were scored requiring its inclusion in the reports.
Answer to # 2... I would have to say Cappy. Again if no victories scored, then no record. This has been argued on this thread a dozen times and we both know it can not be proved one way or the other.
Answer to # 3... According to Imrie 425/17 was accepted on IIRC, January 8th. No records known after that date. Dan, this is where I have to say that you seem to always ignore the true facts that we know about 425/17 from the fabric samples that are extant in museums. This is not emotional, just cold hard evidence. The crosses were reduced according to the March 15th? orders requiring the change to straight sided crosses. There is NO evidence of any Fokker Olive streaking, or reduction of the crosses with olive. This is FACT! Proven by the research of Allen Toulle ( Please forgive my spelling) Stated many times in this thread and many other threads, and to the best of my knowledge NEVER Truthfully addressed by you? NO emotion, please explain why if 425/17 was NOT already finished in Red for MvR then why the changes in Red and not Olive? Does this prove the all red DR1 at Lechelle is 425/17, NO, but coupled with the Combat reports reference 477/17 it does "seem" to fit the requirements more than an all red 477/17.
Question #4... I believe this is the same answer as question #1

Dan, no disrespect but look at your own "FACTS" Are they not suppositions based on combat reports, victories scored while flying 477/17, and then combined with the contemporary correspondents description of MvRs regular aircraft being all RED? Do you have any "secret Photos" in your collection as acer does that show the werke number, or the military number? These would be facts! All else, including my opinion, Imries opinion, GvWs opinion,Tazs opinion, Langdons opinion, etc. are just that,OPINIONS based on what research we have access to! Imrie states that he believes DR1 152/17 was painted All RED for continued use by MvR as his regular mount. He includes 477/17 as one of MvRs backups in spite of the number of victories scored. Considering that a good portion of your beliefs were based on Imries writings, why discount this one particular opinion? I know before I post this you will view my ramblings as "Emotional" They are not! I am merely stating that there are really very few "FACTS" available when one asks for HARD EVIDENCE. This would require being able to see a werke number etc. As I have previously stated MY OPINION is that based on the extant fabric samples the all red bird at Lechelle fits the description! Quite honestly I would not be emotional if evidence, true HARD evidence were posted today proving me wrong! What we know for sure is that we have a photo of an all RED DR1, flown by MvR, and that is pretty cool in my opinion! I hope you now understand my unemotional opinion,
RAGIII

PS: I forgot that Ferko "Claimed" to have read the 425/17 number from the negative. Seems as valid a statement as you are accepting from acer reference 521 versus 486, or 477/17 ?

Langdon · 21 July 2006, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Langdon:
I did not make an exact claim of the date of acceptance of either Fok.DR.I 477/17 and Fok.DR.I 521/17. In my statement of acceptance dates, I said,"on or about." That Langdon is far from precise!
Inasmuch as the photograph has been identified by Acer, who some think is a reliable accurate source of information, the discussion of the how the wing was painted is moot. As is most of your posts, you make inaccurate statement(s) without a basis of fact. A close examination of the leading of the cropped leading edge photo, counting from the near wing tip the dark leading edge stops at the fourth rib, and resumes at the nineth rib. And it is the same on the other end. Your guessing that the upper wing was painted for the Commander is not correct either, however this is moot! This is another of those cases.
It appears to me that you are not well informed about wartime production in Germany.
Blue skies,

Dan-San

Dan-San,

On or about a specified date seems fairly exact to me, frankly you could be out by weeks but you don't mention that.

I find it unusual that you are now finding a painted leading edge after arguing for so long that there was no paint. Now you are finding different shades, colours or that it isn't continuous, possibly you could apply your black and white colour chart and come up with a candy strip?

Where I have made statements of fact I have provided a reference where it is speculation I make that quite clear, this is entirely different to your approach where you provide sweeping statements presented as fact when in reality they are speculation devoid of fact, the only thing that supports you position is that 477/17 is mentioned in combat reports which you believe are bogus, I really wonder how you would feel about the combat reports if they supported your position.

The moot point about a commanders aircraft having painted upper wings was made by yourself elsewhere recently when discussing 103/17 but I thought it a reasonable one at the time to apply here (there really don't seem to be many solid painted upper wings in the LeChelle line-up, at least not until after the cross changes).

I have mentioned above that I'm not knowledgeable concerning wartime aircraft production, it is not a subject that really interests me but I believe the figures of Imrie's that I provided are correct and the acceptance data I copied from the Fokker Heritage Trust seem to confirm his data.

RAGIII,

It is a waste of time providing answers to Dan-San, he will ignore them.

Langdon

Dan_San_Abbott · 21 July 2006, 10:48 AM

RAGIII:
I have not ignored anyones questions, and have responded I believe to everyone who has posed a question to me, including yourself.
I find it interesting that after answering my four questions, you still suppose that Fok.DR.I 425/17 painted all red and was and was there at Lechelle at the disposal of MvR, and from the record he never flew it in combat. He Flew his reserve DR.I 127/17 in combat, but for some unknown reason, he never flew DR.I 425/17 until 20 April 1918. Reason and logic, tell me, he did not have DR.I 425/17 until after he moved to Lechelle Airfield on 12 April 1917.
I want to asked you another question?
1."What is the origin of the all red triplane photographed at Lechelle Airfield on 26 March 1918, being identified as DR.I 425/17?" This is important to this discussion.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan_San_Abbott · 21 July 2006, 11:48 AM

Langdon:
The term "on or about" is non-specific, it means two or three days either way!
At the beginning of this discussion on another thread, I was unaware of the MvR combat reports and my documentation was from sources I have previously listed on the thread. My conclusions are listed on Post #222 on page 23, and in almost all of the listing are from statements made by Alex Imrie from his book, "The Fokker Triplane".
None of these conlusion were dependent on the MvR combat reports.
Had these reports stated that DR.I 477/17 was painted all red we would not be having this discussion! Would we??
My doubts about the MvR combat reports would not have been any different. My doubts were in the translations of the narratives when compared with those translations made by Floyd Gibbons's in his "The Red Knight of Germany". The translator of the MvR combat reports did not follow the format of the German combat report form and finally the only one you list, the style of the date of the reports.
After I had e-mailed the PRO and received a reply that the did know the origins of these reports, increased my doubt about their authenticity of the reports. With your report from the PRO that providing the origins of the combat reports certainly give credibilty to the MvR combat reports. It will interesting to see if the reports you get are the same as Peter Kilduff''s or the same as the one I have.
I do not have a recollection about the painting of the upper wing on F.I 103/17? For your information F.I 103/17 was never at Lechelle. It did not exist after 23 September 1917.
I believe Alan Toelle is only referring to the fuselage, not the wings. The wings were made at Perzina and would have been delivered to Fokker Flugzeugwerke, covered and painted in the sreaked camouflage.
In regard to answers, I have answered everyone of you questions and answers right or wrong, I have not ignored any of your posts, directed to me. So let's try to be a little more accurate in your statements about me.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

RAGIII · 21 July 2006, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

RAGIII:
I have not ignored anyones questions, and have responded I believe to everyone who has posed a question to me, including yourself.
I find it interesting that after answering my four questions, you still suppose that Fok.DR.I 425/17 painted all red and was and was there at Lechelle at the disposal of MvR, and from the record he never flew it in combat. He Flew his reserve DR.I 127/17 in combat, but for some unknown reason, he never flew DR.I 425/17 until 20 April 1918. Reason and logic, tell me, he did not have DR.I 425/17 until after he moved to Lechelle Airfield on 12 April 1917.
I want to asked you another question?
1."What is the origin of the all red triplane photographed at Lechelle Airfield on 26 March 1918, being identified as DR.I 425/17?" This is important to this discussion.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan,
Quite honestly I do not believe that this discussion has any chance of moving forward. It has stalled into a repetition of points and counterpoints already discussed numerous times in this thread, let alone previous threads, on the Drome. Yes you do respond to questions, but again you have side stepped the one question I feel is important. This is relative to the cross changes being done using red, black and white, not olive,black and white. Fabric samples in museums show that the aircraft carried Iron cross markings reduced to the 5cm? outline using red not olive. If after acceptance, the aircraft was being held in reserve for Jasta 11 at an AFP and merely updated to meet the latest directive, OLIVE not RED would have been used to perform the changes. ( Upper Surfaces of wings and Fuselage), and BLUE on the (lower wing undersurface). The large white cross fields were reduced with red, This is fact! The outlined Iron cross was changed to straight sided crosses with red, black, and white, this is FACT! As the method of reducing the cross field and changeover to straight sided crosses on the disputed 477,486, or 521 picture show, there is NO LOGICAL explanation for first outlining the Iron cross with the 5cm. white border using red, then changing to the straight sided cross if this aircraft were not painted for MvR before April 12th. As in the picture of the disputed 477/17, they would simply have painted the straight cross with black, then outlined the straight cross with red. Does this prove 425/17 was at Lechelle, I have stated time and again NO! Does it prove that 425/17 was prepared for MvR previous to March 15th,( or very soon afterwards) Yes! You seem to disagree that there is ANY possibility that this aircraft was pre-painted in RED for MvR but all of the evidence points to the fact that it was. You have NEVER given an answer to this question, Why are the first cross changes done in RED on all of the crosses?? As to why the aircraft doesn't appear in combat reports prior to April 20th, Already answered many times. All I can say is that, Ferko, Imrie, Kilduff, GvW, seem to accept the all red bird as being 425/17. I am in far greater company in my beliefs than I am worthy of

I think if you just take a fresh look at the evidence, at least you should agree that 425/17 was painted all red long before April 12th, or 20th.
I also think any of us left in this thread can agree to disagree reference the photo at Lechelle as there is no real finite proof either way.

As for your final question I believe I already answered this in my PS from my last post. Ferko claims to have seen the serial? number 425/17 on the negative of the all red bird with the "V" glitch at Lechelle. I also asked a question, Isn't this just as VALID as acers statement he can read 2189 on the disputed 477, 486, 521 photo?

RAGIII

RAGIII · 22 July 2006, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acer

RAGIII-

Oberleutnant Robert Greim (not "von" during wartime) did not search in an archive for a photograph of his newly acquired aircraft from Jasta 11, together with two other ones. He just took a photograph along with for his album.

When the last two photographs of this aircraft were taken, Greim was in hospital. But the aircraft was in a much more handicaped situation than his owner.

acer

sorry acer, I did not realize that unlike other ex JG1 Triplanes which went to AFPs and were then distributed, that Jasta 34b pilots picked up their aircraft directly from JG1/ Jasta 11. I figured the picture was picked up Post war by

von Greim not on his visit to Jasta 11 to acquire this bird. I am obviously wrong in my assumption that since these were official Army photos they would have been used for publicity or whatever and archived. I had no idea that they were retained by the individual Jasta. I guess that the photo was duly captioned by Jasta 11 as 521/17 so that there was no identification needed by Robert Greim at the time he collected the aircraft and photos.This has made things really convenient for us all of these years later,
RAGIII

Langdon · 22 July 2006, 01:57 AM

Dan-San,

Had these reports stated that DR.I 477/17 was painted all red we would not be having this discussion! Would we??

It would certainly add credence to your position.

My doubts about the MvR combat reports would not have been any different. My doubts were in the translations of the narratives when compared with those translations made by Floyd Gibbons's in his "The Red Knight of Germany". The translator of the MvR combat reports did not follow the format of the German combat report form and finally the only one you list, the style of the date of the reports.

This is a question that you haven't answered, do the translations vary in any way that that contradicts the essence of the information provided?

After I had e-mailed the PRO and received a reply that the did know the origins of these reports, increased my doubt about their authenticity of the reports. With your report from the PRO that providing the origins of the combat reports certainly give credibilty to the MvR combat reports. It will interesting to see if the reports you get are the same as Peter Kilduff''s or the same as the one I have.

Fair enough.

I do not have a recollection about the painting of the upper wing on F.I 103/17? For your information F.I 103/17 was never at Lechelle. It did not exist after 23 September 1917.

This is an extraordinary statement, no-one ever suggested F.I 103/17 was at LeChelle, RAGIII stated some time ago that now it seemed the question as to which aircraft the all red one was at LeChelle was answered we could move on to what colour Voss's cowl was painted, your answer was "Dave Watts;
You forgot to mention the yellow upper wing, all the Jasta führern painted their upper wings the Jasta Color.
Blue Skies,
Dan" which then became the "moot point" I made regarding the over-painted upper wing on the aircraft that has been identified as 477, 486 & 521/17 (see your post #216).

I believe Alan Toelle is only referring to the fuselage, not the wings. The wings were made at Perzina and would have been delivered to Fokker Flugzeugwerke, covered and painted in the sreaked camouflage.

No Alan Toelle was quite clear that none of the fabric that has been studied all over the world has upper-surface streaky camouflage present under the red. It is an interesting point though. I seem to recall that Bill Cole made a study of the wing tip relic from 425/17 at the RCMI an concluded that the small fragments of fabric that were still attached had traces of the under-surface colour but he did not mention any upper-surface camouflage. Certainly there must be many surviving pieces of wing fabric that were not taken from the cross fields, unless one can be found that has streaky camouflage then it seems that the upper-surfaces were most likely not camouflaged.

In regard to answers, I have answered everyone of you questions and answers right or wrong, I have not ignored any of your posts, directed to me. So let's try to be a little more accurate in your statements about me.

They were not questions that you tend to ignore, they are the answers to the questions you ask for, see post 194 for example, after that post Taz stated his belief and you asked him to provide answers, as did RAGIII to the same question, all of them provided similar points to my own yet you keep asking the same question. The case has been made by yourself and others, as RAGIII has stated above, this discussion is going nowhere so lets leave it for all to make up the own mind with the evidence provided, anyway I'm out of here for a couple of weeks away.

Langdon

Dan_San_Abbott · 22 July 2006, 05:19 PM

Langdon:
you know you are right, I am am not going to change my mind and you are not going to change your mind. This is probably true for several others, lets follow your suggestion and end this thread here.
Have a good trip,
Dan-San

RED BARON RETURNS · 23 July 2006, 12:09 AM

You know guys this thread is really amazing all sorts of different options.
I think with all the things that have been said in this tread really should be written in a book.
There are so many great things being said here and with that being said
why not do it.
After all the truth is out there..............
Someone,somewhere has the missing pieces.

Good job guys i learned alot on this thread.
JP