True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

Dave_Watts · 11 June 2006, 03:09 AM

Hi all,

Dan-San....

You state;

"He flew it at Awoingt and scored his 20th victory with Dr.I 477/17 and took it with him to LeChelle Airfield."

Certainly you aren't saying MvR flew 477/17 and scored his 20th victory with it. He scored his 20th victory on February 14th, 1917; a BE2d over Loos. That's a year before 477/17 was accepted!

From my data 477/17 was accepted in either February or March of 1918 (the missing acceptances). When do you place him in this plane? It must be late March to give him enough time to have received the plane from the factory.

I'd like to know the timeline we're talking about here.

Next you shot out the following statement;

"The problem is you can't get MvR in the cockpit of Dr.I 425/17 until 19 April 1918. No fiction here, all facts."

No offence intended, simply an observation, your choice for words is the thing I have a problem with as I have pointed out in the past. I would much prefer you to state;

"At this point in time, we have no evidence of MvR having flown 425/17 before 19 April 1918, but logistically it is feasible."

Your statement has an aire of absolute finality. That is not the case, it is feasible that MvR could have flown 425/17 before April 19th, 1918.

Please address the following;

1. The 20th victory date.

2. The timeline of the acceptance of 477/17 to MvR having first flown it.

Thanks Dan, I hope I'm not appearing to be argumentative or an antagonist as I very much enjoy and appreciate your researched and educated input.

Best,
Dave W.

CWatson · 11 June 2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langdon

Nobody mentioned the rudder remains on 425/17's wreck appears to have never been painted red, why? I do not think they would take the time to put a new rudder on it to change the color. 152/17's was red at one time and it was over painted white at a later date, see the pictures of it post war the white has worn off and showing the red undercoat.

Take a look at other Jasta 11 aircraft, when they changed the cross fields to the narrow type they also similarly changed the rudder cross.

You are misreading what I have stated. This has nothing to do with the rudder cross,it has to do with the color of the rudder itself. The pictures taken of 425/17's wreck taken from the rear has rudder covering still stuck to the frame of said rudder. The material is white inside and out. The torn edges of this material is white also, it was never painted red. If it was never painted red it could not be the "V" plane unless the rudder was swapped out and I do not believe that would be done simply for a color change. If 425/17 never had a red rudder it could have never looked exactly like the "V" plane with Iron Crosses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langdon

Another thing I would like to know is if the red paint used on 425/17's original red coat matches the red in the cross fields. Why? The photos showing (which are very clear) the inverted "V" plane has a even color on the fuselage and cross fields as if all the red was applied at the same time the Iron Crosses were reduced to just a outline, I do not believe spare red paint would have came with the plane.

With what did Jasta 11 paint their other aircraft? All cowlings and wheels were painted with the same colour. We know that 425/17 underwent three cross changes, two of those required red to be applied and you cannot notice that in the photos. The red was the same shade because it was made from the same ingredient vermillion. If you cannot believe they had spare red then you have to look at the bigger picture. My theory above is that the whole aircraft did recieve a coat of paint when the narrow cross fields were applied (see above) and the stencils and undersurface were over-painted.

To me the remains of 425/17 looks like the plane was red with white crossfields. Then the crossfields were reduced ,then they were altered to strait crosses.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, you thought they had no paint.

No contradiction, again you are misreading what I wrote or I did not make it clear enough, I did miss a comma. I meant to say there would not be red of the same mixture and shade. That is why I asked if the fuselage's paint was the same as the crossfield's. If the plane was painted at the factory red and delivered with white cross field I do not believe Fokker would have sent a batch of the same red color and shade paint with the plane to overpaint the crossfields and blue under surfaces.I am try to see if the different shades of red on the remains are from different shades of red used or simply the undercoat of paint, blue undersurface or white crossfields bleeding through over time.I have painted many cars and the chances of getting a exact match of paint from different batches is rare and with the primative conditions at the airfield of the period even less likely. You mention you feel it was red then overpainted red again when the crossfield were covered, was there evidence of a second coat of the same or different shade of red?

You also mention most of the planes in the Jasta were painted the same shade of red, that is very unlikely in those conditions. If the paint was thinned or mixed in bucket for each plane and painted them at different times chances anything was exact is slim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langdon

The "V" plane no matter how it came from the factory looks like the red was evenly applied across the fuselage and the crossfield at the same time then at a later date altered to strait crosses.

I agree.

Langdon

Thanks again,
CWatson

Dan_San_Abbott · 11 June 2006, 04:11 PM

Gentlemen:
1. MvR scored his 67th victory on 20 March 1918, flying Fok.DR.I 477/17 while at Awoingt the forward landing field. This is the first record of MvR flying DR.I 477/17. Sorry guys, I just got out of the hospital that day.
2. Fok.DR.I 477/17 was accepted in most likely early February 1918. Fok.Dr.I
461, 462 an 463 were accepted at the end of January 1918. Fokker Flugzeugwerke Acceptance sheets for February and March are missing.
3. Fok.DR.I 425/17 was accepted on 8 January 1918. My estimate from acceptance to delivery at the Armee Flugpark would be 10 to 14 days.
4. The color of the various accepted fabric samples, all are dark red, not the bright red seen on the lower wing or fuselage cross fields. I am in complete agreement that when Dr.I 477/17 and Dr.I 425 were overpainted, it was a uniform dark red as I had previously stated, a mix of vermillion and carbon-black. All current photos of the crossfield the red is bright. The upper wing Cross-field at the Imperial War Museum in 1972 was dark red and matched the color of my piece of fabric.
Other samples are held in the Australian Collection matched my Fabric sample.
All were dark red.
5. All the photos attributed to Fok.DR.I 425/17 are in actuality Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of of the all red Fokker DR.I taken at LeChelle with the triangular defect in the finsh below the cockpit on the left side are of
Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of the all red DR.I in the aircraft line-up at the LeChelle Airfield are of Fok.DR.I 477/17.
The only all red DR.I that MvR flew in operations at LeChelle Airfield was Fok.DR.I 477/17.
6. The rudder was repainted white on Dr.I 477/17 and Dr.I 425/17. It is a possibility the rudder was changed.
7. Langdon, you said there is a photo of DR.I 477/17 in a streaked finish. Where might I find that photo? If you are referring to Alex imrie's book, "The Fokker Triplane", page 65, photo 95, I don't agree with Alex and neither does Paul Leaman, Paul has identified that machine as Fok.Dr.I 486/17, (see page 155 of "Fokker Dr.I Triplane" I also refer you Gentlemen to Osprey/ AIRWAR 17, "GERMAN FIGHTER UNITS JUNE 1917-1918, by Alex Imrie, pages 12 & 13. The photo on the bottom of the page. This photo was taken the same day as the in "The Fokker Triplane", page 65. The upper wing of the all red machine in front of the fourth Bessaneau Hangar, and to the right of the observer is the upper wing of the DR.I that Imrie has claimed to be 477/17 with the "The upper surface of the top wing is overpainted Red". The panarama photo distinctly shows the uper surface to be olive brown streaked wit white cross fields and Iron Crosses. Not consistant. It is not DR.I
477/17, it is DR.I 486/17.
I have seen all the DR.I photos in the Peter Grosz and the A.E.Ferko collections, and I have not seen a photo of Dr.I 477/17 in streaked camouflage. Prior to the discovery of the blemish below the cockpit, a Ray Rimell discovery and has attributed to Fok.DR.I 425/17. He then observed all the photos previsely attributed to Dr.I 477/17 were declared to DR.I 425/17.
As far as I know, all the photos taken at LeChelle are of Dr.I 477/17, and the only established photos of Dr.I 425/17 are those taken at Bertangles Aerodrome after 21 April 1918.
Now I am going to ask you a question, "If, the all red Fok.DR.I with Iron Crosses in front of the Bessaneau Hangar at LeChelle on 26 March 1918 is Fok.DR.I 425/17 and also photographed in the aircraft lineups prior to the move to Cappy on 12 April 1918, why did MvR not fly it on operations?
8. MvR scored victories flying DR.I 477/17 on 20 March,#67, 27 March to 5 April, #69 to 75 victories. Last flew 477/17 on 11 April 1918. At no time during this period did he make a claim accredited to Dr.I 425/17.
I want you to think about it rationally.
It is possible that he flew it the first time between 12 and 19 April 1918. My opinion is that during Dr.I 425/17 was overpainted red and he flew it operationally for the first time on 19 April 1918 and scored a double victory.
Dave, I am not all together sure that all of the readers here think you were writing a probable scenario??
I think I have answered all the questions.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

RAGIII · 11 June 2006, 09:56 PM

[I think I have answered all the questions.
Blue skies,
Dan-San[/QUOTE]

Dan, One question never answered to my satisfaction is the "Fact" that the crosses went through ALL of the changes, reduced only with RED! NO reason to go from stage to stage in markings changes if not painted Red until April. The cross would have been reduced originally with green on the fuselage as other Jasta 11 Aircraft. This is a sticky point for me to think that the 477/17 all red bird is actually 425/17. I really wish I could view the originals in the Ferko collection! anyone want to pay my Airfare

RAGIII

Dave_Watts · 12 June 2006, 02:47 AM

Hi all,

Dan-San, I don't think our Aerodrome readers are going to miss my "disclaimers". I prefaced my scenario with;

"I like to use my imagination when looking at these subjects and I got to thinking about 425/17. If we go with the premise that MvR's 425/17 was painted red at the factory, with the known facts, we can speculate on a interesting scenario."

Then at the end of the scenario I immediately closed with;

"How do you like that one guys?

How would you further adapt this to fit to a logical/plausable reality?

Dan-San...remember this is a scenario, not what happened. I've blended facts with fiction, or at best, plausible fiction. The timeline is plausible, the facts I've stated are known, it's a nice story."

If I "tricked" anyone, I apologize, this was the farthest thing from my intention.

Now, back to the thread.

CWatson,

Your question of the white rudder on the later photographed upside down "V" blemish aircraft is moot as it is undoubtedly the same aircraft at Lechelle and the "under gaurd" photos. A replaced rudder is the most logical answer as to why an all white rudder. I mentioned that Fred Murrin, who flies a Dr.I replica powered by a 110 Le Rhone said he could see where the rudder would need to be replaced if one flew a lot.

Now addressing the 425/17 vs. 477/17 question, I believe it has been put forth there are no photographs (yet known) of 425/17 before the shots taken of its wreckage on April 22nd. Is that correct?

Just talking out loud. I don't understand why MvR didn't fly 425/17 before 477/17. 425/17 was accepted on January 8th, and 477/17 was accepted sometime in February or March. As Dan-San pointed out, MvR flew 477/17 on March 20th so we surmise that it must have been accepted in early February. That's a month later than 425/17. So why did he get 425/17 a month later than 477/17? At this point in time, no one knows.

I was chatting with Langdon and he asked if the photos taken of MvR in his big fur coat with

LvR sitting on the tire of a Dr.I and beside this plane could possibly be 425/17. Can anyone shed some light on this idea?

What do you think...more likely 152/17 with the blue undersides on the wings.

The wheels are NOT painted red.

Any guesses or timelines of LvR together with MvR after returning from his head injury and I'm guessing before LvR's crash.

Best,
Dave W.

CWatson · 12 June 2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_Watts

Hi all

CWatson,

Your question of the white rudder on the later photographed upside down "V" blemish aircraft is mute as it is undoubtedly the same aircraft at Lechelle and the "under gaurd" photos. A replaced rudder is the most logical answer as to why an all white rudder. I mentioned that Fred Murrin, who flies a Dr.I replica powered by a 110 Le Rhone said he could see where the rudder would need to be replaced if one flew a lot.

Dave W.
I respectfuly disagree,the subject of the rudder is not moot but important in identifing this plane as 477/17 and not 425/17. I agree pictures of the red ironed cross and strait crossed V planes with guards around it are one in the same plane. It shows this plane which I believe to be 477/17 had a red rudder at one time that was later overpainted white when the strait crosses were applied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_Watts

Now addressing the 425/17 vs. 477/17 question, I believe it has been put forth there are no photographs (yet known) of 425/17 before the shots taken of its wreckage on April 22nd. Is that correct?

The rudder I have mentions adds weight to this theory see Paul Leaman's Fokker Dr1 Triplane page 210 for photo. The wreck of 425/17 shows the rudder on this plane had not been painted red at anytime. If it had not been red it could not be the "V" plane in the photos, neither the ironed or strait crossed versions.

It keeps getting mentioned how little this plane was used right? So why would it need a rudder change?

Langdon · 12 June 2006, 07:21 PM

CWatson,

You are misreading what I have stated. This has nothing to do with the rudder cross,it has to do with the color of the rudder itself. The pictures taken of 425/17's wreck taken from the rear has rudder covering still stuck to the frame of said rudder. The material is white inside and out. The torn edges of this material is white also, it was never painted red. If it was never painted red it could not be the "V" plane unless the rudder was swapped out and I do not believe that would be done simply for a color change. If 425/17 never had a red rudder it could have never looked exactly like the "V" plane with Iron Crosses.

You have not considered my previous answer to your question. The rudder in the photo you mention must have been either re-covered or change due to some damage, it certainly would not have had this done to it purely to change its colour. 425/17 for a time had its national markings changed to the narrow bordered type, it would be highly unusual for this to be done to all other crosses with the exception of the rudder. At that time other Dr.Is, including the one in the LeChelle photos as well as 152/17 had narrow bordered rudder crosses so it is highly unlikely in my opinion that 425/17 would have been different.

No contradiction, again you are misreading what I wrote or I did not make it clear enough, I did miss a comma. I meant to say there would not be red of the same mixture and shade. That is why I asked if the fuselage's paint was the same as the crossfield's. If the plane was painted at the factory red and delivered with white cross field I do not believe Fokker would have sent a batch of the same red color and shade paint with the plane to overpaint the crossfields and blue under surfaces.I am try to see if the different shades of red on the remains are from different shades of red used or simply the undercoat of paint, blue undersurface or white crossfields bleeding through over time.I have painted many cars and the chances of getting a exact match of paint from different batches is rare and with the primative conditions at the airfield of the period even less likely. You mention you feel it was red then overpainted red again when the crossfield were covered, was there evidence of a second coat of the same or different shade of red?

The paint on any of these aircraft would have looked different depending on where it was applied, if over the cross field you would expect it to be lighter than over the under-surface blue, if original streaky camouflage was present then it would have looked darker still, it doesn't matter which aircraft we are speaking of they would all display (to a greater or lesser extent, 425/17 would be less as its red was over CDL on its upper surfaces). I do not think you can assume the red in the photo was as perfect all over just because it looks this way in the photo. The V blemish for instance is probably a brush mark.
Who's to say that Fokker supplied the paint? It is quite possible that Jasta 11 supplied the paint to Fokker, these are questions that cannot be answered. The chemical composition is most likely the same for each application, with the possible exception of soot contamination.

You also mention most of the planes in the Jasta were painted the same shade of red, that is very unlikely in those conditions. If the paint was thinned or mixed in bucket for each plane and painted them at different times chances anything was exact is slim.

I believe it is highly likely they were the same. The paint was made by mixing mercuric sulfide and an extender to clear varnish, if they had a recipe they were following, which is likely, then it would look the same.

Langdon · 12 June 2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CWatson

Dave W.

... It keeps getting mentioned how little this plane was used right? So why would it need a rudder change?

It does not keep getting mentioned, and for a number of reasons. I helped Fred Murrin rebuild his rudder a couple of years ago when it was damaged in a towing accident, these aircraft are delicate and therefore easily damaged. It would be easier to replace a rudder than repair its outline tube so this is a possible scenario. Also we know that 425/17 had suffered damage to its upper wing as we can still see that repair if we look at the wing tip relic in the RCMI so we know it suffered some damage.

Dan-San's view that the LeChelle aircraft is 477/17 is based on the premise that 425/17 was not reserved for MvR at the time the photos were taken as he was not recorded as having flown it. This is not a conclusive or even a strong argument.

We have no idea how often 425/17 was flown. We only know when victories were scored on it or when it was shot down.

What we do know is it was painted all red - albeit with the possibly unlikely exception of its rudder. We know that it received no upper surface camouflage and that only red paint, national markings and stencils can be found on these surfaces and from this we can only deduct that from the time it was completed it was reserved for the personal use of MvR.

We know that 425/17 was accepted approximately one month prior to 477/17 (see Dave's data above) and so this aircraft almost certainly travelled where MvR went. What we do not know is how often he flew 425/17 - and if rarely prior to the 19th of April why that was.

Now to state my opinions clearly, I believe the LeChelle photos could easily be of 425/17, having said that I concede that they could also have been of 477/17 as we have no idea how that aircraft was painted other than it is likely to have had a good covering of red, either way both aircraft were in existence and at least both were reserved for MvR at that time. I believe the evidence for it being 425/17 is stronger than for the other aircraft

Ed Ferco mentioned that he could read 425/17 on the aircraft in one of the photos when it was viewed in the negative.

Alex Imrie told me in a telephone conversation some time ago that he was certain of his conclusions as to the identity of the aircraft (42517 and 477/17). Whilst he didn't express this in his book he was quite certain when he spoke with me.

Dan-Sans assertions that 425/17 was not an MvR aircraft until the 19th of April is based, as I mentioned above, on the fact that he had not recorded a victory on this aircraft prior to that date. Imagine a guy has a number of cars, say four, one day he moves and in doing so he is picked up by a speed camera; how many cars does he own? Dan-San will tell you that the fact is he only owns one as there was no mention of the others.

I do not like the way Dan-San says "All the photos attributed to Fok.DR.I 425/17 are in actuality Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of of the all red Fokker DR.I taken at LeChelle with the triangular defect in the finsh below the cockpit on the left side are of
Fok.DR.I 477/17. All the photos of the all red DR.I in the aircraft line-up at the LeChelle Airfield are of Fok.DR.I 477/17.
The only all red DR.I that MvR flew in operations at LeChelle Airfield was Fok.DR.I 477/17." as this statement is totally devoid of proof and therefore should only be put forward as theory rather than fact.

Dan-San is not objective in his consideration of this matter, he asked me in another similar thread to provide proof that 425/17 had been painted at some time with narrow borders around its Iron Crosses. If he didn't already know this, then his study of the aircraft was less than complete. When I provided the proof in the way of photos of the original fabric he never acknowledged it. That evidence shifted the possible date of MvRs association with the aircraft back, weeks prior to the 19th of April that he had been proposing yet he still wouldn't consider this. Recently through Allan Toelle's research we find that there is very strong evidence that the aircraft was personalised from the very beginning of its life for MvR, this is evidence that Dan-San pointed me to when he discussed Allan's work on the fabric, evidence that he must have had access to but he still didn't consider it when he stated that 425/17 had nothing to do with MvR until the 12th of April at the earliest. I believe it is not objective to disregard evidence that is contrary a preconceived position.

Dave_Watts · 12 June 2006, 11:32 PM

Hi all,

I feel there is a tug-of-war of sorts going on here that is unnecessary. I think we are a victim of our wording and not our intentions. You have to be a bit of a lawyer to phrase these posts without stepping on someone's toes or crossing their thoughts. Still it's worth muddling through to keep participation alive, so no one feel scared to jump in here.

Now back to it.

CWatson,

I apologize for the moot comment about the rudder. My incorrectly worded thought was, it was not necessary to discuss the fact that all photos of what has been called 425/17 with the "^" blemish is now being called 477/17. Yes, the rudder itself is worthy of discussion.

Langdon,

Your metaphor of getting four or five speeding tickets in one month all in the same car doesn't mean that is the only car you have been driving that month is well taken. I have to believe MvR had more than one plane at his disposal.

Playing the "devil's advocate, you mentioned the evidenced upper wing damage to 425/17. From what you have seen of the surviving wing pieces is it possible that the fabric was removed from that wing panel and recovered in white fabric from a field repair and then had the red paint and had the cross reapplied? Since you see different versions of the cross, this would mean the repair would have had to occured early in the life of the aircraft. May this also be an explaination for why this aircraft was "out of the loop" with active service as it may have had other damage that took some time to repair.

To all,

My two cents; the "^" blemish plane seen under guard does have a "new" all white rudder. Just my opinion, I believe it is the original rudder we saw in the photo at Lechelle, but now simply overpainted all white. Note how crisp and sharp the fuselage cross is in the "guard" image. There has not yet been enough time to start cracking, crazing, and flaking.

What do you guys think with regards to how, in outward appearance, do you think the paint scheme, in it's final form, would have differed from 425/17 to 477/17?

Are we talking exactly the same if going by the "guard" photo?

Here are photos courtesy Ferko/UTD of the subject under discussion.

Best,
Dave W.

Dave_Watts · 13 June 2006, 12:44 AM

Hi all,

Here are some more images of MvR by the Dr.I, albeit they really don't shed much light on the identity of the aircraft in question. I guess it could be any aircraft and most likely is not MvR's. The thing that drew me to thinking it may be MvR's is the "look" of the all red nose. If one were to specualte this was an MvR aircraft, it would not be 152/17 as I thought as the wheels should be red.

Of interest, in his book, Ferko stated he thought these were photos taken shortly before MvR's death. Could this be 425/17 or 477/17 or what did Lothar's Dr.I look like?

Intake is barely visible in the first image. See that white angular shape above his right shoulder the top of the fuselage? It is the light shining in on the plane and the dark area is the shadow of the middle wing cutout on the fuselage. Is this showing a "light" colored or natural streaky colored rear fuselage?

The last image is a duplicate, but a better print. You can see the valve pushrods are at the back of the cylinders.

Again photos courtesy Ferko/UTD.

Here is an image via Leaman, via Carisella of what they claim to be a photo of 425/17. Does it fit with the above posted images? The cabane struts appear to be painted red in the MvR shots, but not on the aircraft here.

Best,
Dave W.