Linen color for Voss F.I?

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Dave.

The bottom line on all this is; your guess is as good as anyones...

The thing that gets me though, is the suggestion that McCudden's "silvery blue" report is not to be trusted because he was some kinda greenhorn...A ridiculous notion when you think about it. He was in a fight to the death, and would have been tracking FI.103/17 INTENTLY. His life depended on it.

In lieu of the fact that there's not a lot else to go on, I'd go with McCudden's colour assessment, 'cause he was actually there.

[Taz]

Bucky- Rhys Davids originally thought the Triplane had a fixed engine and he was there, too. Silvery blue does not conflict with an F.I or Dr.I from the bottom. This was not a static observation on McCudden's part. He was in a combat with an opponent who put several holes in his aircraft and who was above him most of the time.

Blind faith in eye-witness reports in the face of overwhelming photographic evidence to the contrary means your opinion will not be valued too highly on some subjects. Looks pretty much like standard Dr.I paint, does it not? This is one of three photos taken front, side, and rear of F.I 103/17 late in its career and just before the 56 Sq engagement. Photo courtesy of Reinhard Kastner.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Voss F.I 103-17 No 1 Lo Res.jpg

[Southside Bucky]

Blind faith is exactly what it isn't Taz...I'll say it again: He was there.

To say that Voss was above him most of the time, and therefore McCudden couldn't have got a decent look at him is total conjecture, is it not?

Ninety years is a long time to argue a case against an eye witness, IMHO.

I agree, tonewise, that black and white photo looks like all the other FI.103 photo's. And yet, to me anyway,...somehow different from production Triplanes.

B/W photo's eh? What a bummer.

[Taz]

Bucky- There was more than one eye-witness. Bowman stated "At that altitude he had a much better rate of climb, or rather zoom, than we had and frequently he was the highest machine of seven and could have turned east and got away had he wished to, but he was not the type and always came down into us again." so McCudden had a very good view of the light blue bottom of the Triplane during the fight.

McCudden erroneously reported Voss down on the German side of the lines from a steep dive and going to pieces while Bowman correctly noted him going down on the British side of the lines in a fairly shallow descent. Since the rudder and compass survived and we know the crash site was Plum Farm, Bowman, who had more kills than McCudden at this time with 16 total and 8 destroyed, was correct.

Things get kind of confusing when fighting someone more than capable of killing you outright and who is doing things with an airplane you have never seen before. You would have to say 56 Sq was very lucky (and very skillful) not to lose anyone that day.

Your "not a lot else to go on" is a very uninformed statement considering this is one off the most photographed aircraft of WW-I. More research, less generalities. If you need help with references, just yell. I will be glad to help you if you are seriously interested.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[Southside Bucky]

Likewise Taz, I find your "combat report" argument extremely tenuous to say the least.

Wether Voss was above or below is beside the point as far as I'm concerned. You seem to be assuming that McCudden only saw FI.103's' underside, when Voss was obviously zooming and diving all over the place. McCudden would've kept a VERY alert eye on him, and at some point during a quite lengthy engagement seen FI.103's topside, which he interpreted as being "silvery blue"

He deserves more respect than you seem to warrant him..

I based my "not a lot else to go on" statement on the assumption that there was nothing other than (open to interpretation) black and white photos. What else do you have then Taz?

[Taz]

Bucky- Do not think it would make much difference what I have, apparently. So stick to silvery blue as if we have learned nothing in 90 years and no new photos of the F.Is have turned up. Why yes, I do believe they are B&W. What a surprize.

McCudden turned into probably the most professional, arguably best fighter pilot and most respected fighter leader in the RFC and RAF. On 23 September 1917, he was one of many "up and comers", flying with other pilots in the same engagement who had equal or better scores: Hoidge 23, Rhys Davids 20, Bowman 16, Mayberry 13, McCudden 13. That is not lack of respect, but hard facts.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[FOKKERJ]

Originally Posted by Southside Bucky

Likewise Taz, I find your "combat report" argument extremely tenuous to say the least.

Wether Voss was above or below is beside the point as far as I'm concerned. You seem to be assuming that McCudden only saw FI.103's' underside, when Voss was obviously zooming and diving all over the place. McCudden would've kept a VERY alert eye on him, and at some point during a quite lengthy engagement seen FI.103's topside, which he interpreted as being "silvery blue"

He deserves more respect than you seem to warrant him..

I based my "not a lot else to go on" statement on the assumption that there was nothing other than (open to interpretation) black and white photos. What else do you have then Taz?

Hi Southside Bucky,

With no disrespect for Major McCudden, He must have been a "MAN OF STEEL" in the heat of battle, I'm just a little surprised that he didn't jocky the joystick between his knees while he did a watercolor of Voss's Triplane!
Wouldn't that be handy?

Regards, FOKKERJ

[Southside Bucky]

Originally Posted by Taz

McCudden turned into probably the most professional, arguably best fighter pilot and most respected fighter leader in the RFC and RAF. On 23 September 1917, he was one of many "up and comers", flying with other pilots in the same engagement who had equal or better scores: Hoidge 23, Rhys Davids 20, Bowman 16, Mayberry 13, McCudden 13. That is not lack of respect, but hard facts.

Taz
Terry Phillips

Hard facts?...There you go again. What has McCudden's score got to do with his eyesight and colour interpretation?

Here are a few hard facts: By late september '17 he had been flying over the western front for well over a year, had spent time as an observer (good eyesight needed for that), and was now a member of the best squadron the RFC had...He was no "up and comer" as you call him. In terms of hours flown he was a hardened veteran.

Categorical statements when interpreting black and white photographs, even by experts like yourself, are the bane of WW1 research IMO, when use of the words; 'probably' or 'possibly' would be much more appropriate and sensible.

I don't consider myself an expert by any stretch, and I don't wanna come across as arrogant or argumentative, but I have exposed the folly of making categorical statements on this forum more than once in the past. I'll give you the links if you want.

[alex_revell]

To quote McCudden's score on 23 September is completely and utterly nonsensible. He had been flying (first as an observer) since 1914/1915 so his 'air eye' for want of a better term was extremely well developed. On top of this he was renowned for being extremely observant and accurate in his observations. Charles (the EO of 56 Sqdn) made a particular mention of this aspect of McCudden to me, and gave me an example of how M had astonished Marson with this ability, especially with M's grasp of geographical features. (Taz. Before you jump on me with M's being a little out on the location of the Voss crash, remember that the two villages were very close to each other, the area was completely devastated, and Bowman was a lot lower than M at the time. And everyone is allowed just one mistake, surely?)
I was always puzzled by M's ref to the silvery-blue colour of the Voss triplane, particularly the 'silvery'. I'm certainly no expert on the colour schemes of aeroplanes, but in the past, when the large Revell models of the Camel and Fokker Triplane (1/32 scale?) came out I modelled both. I did the triplane as Voss, using a light and dark grey paint, with the streaking as shown in the photos, or near enough, with light blue undersides. I fitted a motor to turn the prop and I took it up on our roof and strung it up to take some pictures, I remember how different it looked under the blue sky, which reflected off its surfaces to a certain extent, and I'm sure that the light blue showing through would have given it a blue tinge whether or not it was viewed from above or below. Could not the 'silvery' tinge have been something in the composition of the paint, which would perhaps show up under certain lighting conditions?
In most cases I would take the evidence of people who were there before anything in a B/W photo. Photos can have too many variables - time of day, type of day, exposure, position of the sun in relation to the aeroplane etc.etc., to say nothing of possibly it being a third or fourth generation print with each copier shading the print to his own preference. As for RD incorrectly thinking the triplane had a stationary motor. Shame on him! This boy was fighting for his life, plus the fact that the rotary engine was almost completely cowled. Don't be so hard on him for an understandable mistake.
It's the same in the endless arguments about the colour of the Voss cowling. What people forget is that not one, repeat not one, of the pilots concerned in the last fight with Voss make any mention of the colour of the cowling or of any face on it. I've made this point before, but I believe that it's a logical one. If the cowl were dark the white face marking would have been very evident, and remarked upon. If yellow, the face marking would perhaps be less so, but the colour would have been noted. A large number of combat reports - which I suspect, by their statements, that many
so-called 'experts' have not even read - are full of mentions of colours. That no-one made any mention of the cowl means - to me at least - that there was nothing distinctive about it. As my old geometry master used to say at the end of each theorem, QED!. (why do we have to learn these stupid things, sir. Because they teach you to THINK logically Revell, you horrid little boy)
I have had M's diary in my possession and seen the handwritten MS of Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps. There are no crossings out, no moving a phrase to another place in the paragraph, no corrections, all the French villages and people's names correctly spelt. This from a boy - which we seem to forget these people were - who left school at 14. McCudden was a more remarkable person than many people give him credit for.

[Tim West]

Most of 56's pilots were pretty skilled by the time they met Voss. I dont think that its relevant though. While all the pilots may been tracking Voss, I doubt they were really concerned about the color of Voss' s plane. Voss attacked at will and was above them most of the time so Terry maybe correct in that for the most part they only saw blue.

And like the thought about there not being any mention the "yellow or green" cowl and the face on it, the is no mention of green in "silvery blue". More than 50% of 103's upper surface had green streaks. So I am thinking that the reports are of a more general color description. Yeh, silvery blue does fit. And in the heat of combat, watching a plane, above you, flying in ways you have never seen before and at the same time being sure not to hit one of your squadies, accounts for the lack of real detail in the report....especially the lack of the face. Who would have really seen it well enough to recall it in the report? That said.....if cowl was yellow...it definitely would have been mentioned.

What I really think is that the weather and the time of day really make up for the silvery blue. Most any plane at that time of day and conditions would appear more blue grey than they might normally. I have seen a photo of marine F4's at twilight and they looked silvery blue yet they are green and tan.

Imho, 103 was a standard finish less the blue return and maybe a wee bit less streaking than was later seen. I read a statement here that some how 102 and 103 looked different...I dont think so. I can find dozens of photos that show DrI's that look just like the FI's. And in most of those photos, the blue returns are much brighter than the green streaked linen. If the plane was underpainted in blue, then the areas that did not get streaked would appear much brighter and the green...and blue would contrast much more in the photos......again....imho