True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by RED BARON RETURNS

Stephen,
Of all kits out there in 1/28 and 1/32 which one is the best and 2nd best kits.
This is the first time in 20yrs that i have built a plastic Fokker Dr.1 model and the Revell and Hobbycraft are the same exact kits.
They need the gun belts.But it's fun to do custom work also.
As for decals for the 1/28 Dr.1 it's very hard to find different markings.
JP

I think the best Dr1 kits I have built are the DML 1/48 kits. The 1/28 Hobbycraft kit is based on the Revell, the ailerons on the Hobbycraft equal designs, not so on Revell's who must have based their's on Stapenorst's 144/17.

Both Roden and Hobbycraft have 1/32 scale Dr1s, neither which I have bought or built because I have dozens of 1/48 scale kits to build first.
CWatson

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by StephenLawson

See Richthofen by A.E.Ferko. The idea that Dr.I 425/17 was painted at the factory was espoused by Mr. Ferko. His comments that he "glassed" original images (probably a jeweler's loop) and he could see the factory stencils as being overpainted. Also the idea that Dr.I 425/17 was not originally streaked but CDL also came from this same study. These images were published in the same reference and the pilot's left side is scared and chipped. This reveals only the clear doped linen underneath. Dan believes these images to be Dr.I 477/17 by the way.

Hello "Old Bone"

If you go back to the beginning of this thread Stephen you will see I have been quoting Allan Toelle's extensive study of the large piece of original fabric that is held by the RCMI in Toronto (as well as a number of other pieces), I have also seen Ferco's correspondence concerning the photos but that has nothing to do with Allan's study. He minutely inspected the fabric under a tri-nocular microscope and noted to his surprise that there was no streaky camouflage where it should normally have been. Dan-San has stated that the aircraft was not painted red at the factory so I have asked him how it could be that it was not painted in streaky upper camo but was fully stencilled, he has dodged question in his reply by moving to acceptance sheet info which is irrelevant to the discussion.

Dan-San,

As you well know, not every flight made by MvR - in fact probably more often than not - was recorded, the recorded flights are those that were successful or noteworthy. To suggest that 425/17 had not been flown until MvR's first successful use of it is difficult to believe.

Langdon

[RED BARON RETURNS]

To suggest that 425/17 had not been flown until MvR's first successful use of it is difficult to believe.
Langdon
Langdon[/quote]

Langdon,
I have learned a lot about these Fokker Dr.1 just by reading what you and Dan San have said in these threads.
The way they were painted and so fourth.
But really was the 425/17 made just for MVR ? If not there are no records of any other pilots flying it.
But what about maintenance records of 425/17.There must be something on it.
That plane will go down in history as the most talked about aircraft of all time.
JP

[Langdon]

RED BARON RETURNS,

I feel there is a good chance that 425/17 was sent from the factory specially finished for MvR. The fact that the aircraft was sent without upper-surface camouflage means something. As I see it the debate is: was the aircraft painted red on the upper surfaces or was it CDL? In either circumstance it retained its normal markings and stencils as well as under-surface camouflage (unless this had been over-painted red but that seems unlikely).

Why would you send an aircraft in CDL on its upper surfaces with all other markings standard? My answer is you wouldn't. If you were going to customise the aircraft to this extent then you may as well finish the job by applying the red paint.

If you look closely at the port side fuselage cross (photo appears earlier in the thread) - at the section outside of the cross field - then you can see that the initial red layer was applied in long vertical strokes, in much the same manner as you would expect the streaky camouflage to have been applied. I think this was factory applied paint and the poorer quality paint job around the cross area was done in the field.

I believe that maintenance information is non existent.

Langdon

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by Langdon

Hello "Old Bone"

If you go back to the beginning of this thread Stephen you will see I have been quoting Allan Toelle's extensive study of the large piece of original fabric that is held by the RCMI in Toronto (as well as a number of other pieces), I have also seen Ferko's correspondence concerning the photos but that has nothing to do with Allan's study. He minutely inspected the fabric under a tri-nocular microscope and noted to his surprise that there was no streaky camouflage where it should normally have been. Dan-San has stated that the aircraft was not painted red at the factory so I have asked him how it could be that it was not painted in streaky upper camo but was fully stencilled, he has dodged question in his reply by moving to acceptance sheet info which is irrelevant to the discussion. Langdon

Hello Langdon,
I have been following this thread pretty closely. My comments were made just to fill what I see as gaps in the conversation. You have to remember that some of your readers here don't have the same research background as we do. I greatly respect Dan, Alan and yourself. But lets face facts. The stencilling was a requirement whether camouflage was present or not. Even training aircraft that had NO camouflage had to have serials and werke numbers present. If Dr.I 425/17 was overpainted at the factory the serial and werke numbers would have still been applied. Maybe they were overpainted after assembly in the factory or in the field. There was considerable over painting done to this machine as the crosses were changed at least three times in a very short period. We are not talking about the whole airframe but all cross areas and possibly even a rudder change. The chipped area I mentioned would certainly have been overpainted in a reasonable amount of time.

[StephenLawson]

Originally Posted by Langdon

"...I feel there is a good chance that 425/17 was sent from the factory specially finished for MvR...In either circumstance it retained its normal markings and stencils as well as under-surface camouflage (unless this had been over-painted red but that seems unlikely)...Langdon

The problem is that all images we have of MvR's red Dr.I aircraft showing the undersurfaces have them in the same dark colour as the upper surfaces.

[RED BARON RETURNS]

Point well taken.
JP

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by StephenLawson

Hello Langdon,
I have been following this thread pretty closely. My comments were made just to fill what I see as gaps in the conversation. You have to remember that some of your readers here don't have the same research background as we do. I greatly respect Dan, Alan and yourself. But lets face facts. The stencilling was a requirement whether camouflage was present or not. Even training aircraft that had NO camouflage had to have serials and werke numbers present. If Dr.I 425/17 was overpainted at the factory the serial and werke numbers would have still been applied. Maybe they were overpainted after assembly in the factory or in the field. There was considerable over painting done to this machine as the crosses were changed at least three times in a very short period. We are not talking about the whole airframe but all cross areas and possibly even a rudder change. The chipped area I mentioned would certainly have been overpainted in a reasonable amount of time.

Stephen, thanks for the clarification, point taken.

I agree with you (on all points is seems) that the aircraft would have to leave the factory with its required stencilling . I doubt if that could be over-painted prior to leaving the factory though and still comply with the requirement but it does lead us back to considering if the aircraft was delivered in CDL on the upper surfaces or red and either way with stencils, and either way it seems to be a special delivery that ended up with a special pilot, my feeling is this was not coincidental.

[Langdon]

Originally Posted by StephenLawson

The problem is that all images we have of MvR's red Dr.I aircraft showing the undersurfaces have them in the same dark colour as the upper surfaces.

That is correct but all images - if they are of 425/17 - show the aircraft after its first (at least) modification. As you know the Fokker Dr.Is were all sent from the factory with outdated national markings, my theory is that when these were changed to the narrow bordered variety the under surface was over-painted as well as any stencilling. A recollection of mine from MvRs book was a section where he described part of his reasons for painting his aircraft all red, this reason was so that the troops on the ground could recognise him and thus he could cheer them up a bit. I think this is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the statement. He certainly didn't want to be invisible from the ground.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Langdon:
Sorry if dodged your question. There is a very large piece from the left side of the fuselage that Alan inspected, on it under the red was Fok.DR.I 425/17. And the style of the lettering is diffenately Fokker Flugzeugwerke. I have his report on this piece and I don't know if this is the piece that he idenified as not having any streaked camouflage. On my piece of fabric only had clear dope, 2 coats and one coat of very dark red. I have difficulty a production aircraft would go through Army in house inspection and final inspection and test flown in natural doped fabric. without any notation on the acceptance documents explaning it will go to MvR. It arrives at the Front in February 1918, while he is flying DR.I 114/17, DR.I 152/17, DR.I 127/17 and Dr.I 477/17. An yet there is no mention of this machines in his combat reports, his letters to Mama. From that I can only conclude that he did not fly this machine until 19 April 1918 or maybe a day or so before that, however that is supposition. There is no evidence anywhere, any statements from his pilots about this machine until his combat report of 19 April 1918. You cannot prove he has ever flown it before 19 April !918 and neither can I or anyone else. My personal opinion is the fuselage was recovered. Most likely at the Army Flugpark 2. Why is there no record of anyone not flying 425/17 until MvR scores a victory on 19 April 1918, It had to be somewhere for some reason, my opinion is maybe in transit it was damaged in shipment and sat at AFP2 four 3 months. Maybe it was painted red at AFP 2 for MvR??? He had alot of Horse Power! Maybe........?
Blue skies,
Dan-San