Linen color for Voss F.I?

[Taz]

Alex- Good to hear from you again. Of course Voss' F.I could have looked silvery blue in certain light conditions. We now know the upper side was finished in streaks of olive green, brown, and gray-black made up of aniline powders suspended in varnish. When applied, the finish was translucent with varying degrees of opaqueness in the darker streaks. The amount of powder in the varnish determined how dark the streaks were, and this could vary considerably. This translucent finish would have reflected quite a bit of light back, looking silvery. The resultant sheen, combined with the entire bottom of the airplane being relatively glossy light blue except the cross fields, could indeed have looked silvery blue. I never said the F.I did not look silvery blue in some lighting conditions, I said it was not silvery blue. Bucky said if McCudden said it was silvery blue, then that was the color of the aircraft, which is rubbish since we know better.

Quoting McCudden's score on 23 September provides entirely valid research insights, just as looking at Udet's and Löwenhardt's scores in early 1918 is valuable. In the two German's cases, we are able to see the rapid rise in their scores with the introduction of the Fokker D.VII, probably the best all-around fighter of WW-I. In McCudden's case, there were probably a couple of dozen Empire aces with scores equal to his on 23 September 1917. There were five in his flight alone, including himself. He, too, was beginning the rapid increase in his score helped by flying the best all-around fighter in WW-I until the introduction of the D.VII, the S.E.5a, which was just introduced that spring. McCudden's first sortie in a loaned S.E.5a, was not until 21 July 1917, so he had been flying it only two months when the Voss engagement began. On 20 July 1917, his score was five, all two seaters. He scored one victory in the loaned S.E.5a and one more victory before being assigned to 56 Sq, but 51 of his 57 victories were scored using the S.E.5a. He had been flying D.H.2 and Sopwith Pup aircraft previously, neither a good match for a twin gun Albatros, although he did get an Albatros D.V with a Pup for his 7th victory. McCudden was brought to 56 Sq as a Flight Commander and probably had 600 or so flying hours at that time, making him very experienced by WW-I standards. His score of seven victories, however, only hinted at how good he would become. Difficult to see how you can call that nonsensible, especially after you have written three books featuring and starring McCudden.

Let me help you on the QED part. In the engagement, the entrance of a red-nosed Albatros is noted. The nose color is noted to separate it from the hundreds of other Albatros scouts at the front. In September 1917, there were only two Fokker Triplanes at the front, and one of those was already gone by 23 September. There was no need to note the color of the cowl, because this was the only German Triplane 56 Sq had ever seen. McCudden notes the twin Spandaus firing and even (mistakenly most likely) noted Voss had no helmet. We have several shots of Voss before and after flying, and he used a leather (maybe black) baklava. Too cold at altitude on 23 September for no headgear.

Plus, I know I told you Alex, I was at a fly-in with two rotary powered F.I replicas, and the face was invisible at 100 yards, on the ground or in the air. That F.I replica had an olive green cowling and a white face. In any logic case, not reporting something or not noticing it does not prove it was not there, just that it was not reported or recorded. If the cowl was green, it would have just looked slightly darker than the heavy olive streaking of the forward fuselage. If yellow, not reported, not visible from most aspects, or not noticeable with the guns firing and the engine whirling. All known photos of F.I 103/17 show the face, from early in its short life until very late in its life. Until we get a late photo with the cowling face missing, logic says it was still there.

Yes, it would have been easy to mistake where the Triplane crashed. The whole area was chopped up from trenches and artillery fire. Like the baklava, it is just easy to make mistakes in the heat of battle.

Alex- I have an original signed photo of Voss sitting in F.I 103/17 and two original photos of F.I 102/17 just uncovered three years ago and previously unknown. I have German friends with original shots of F.I 103/17 who have provided me scans of original prints. I am not working from 3rd or 4th generation copies.

I think we can cut Rhys Davids some slack on the fixed engine. I am sure everybody in that fight was scared to death, including Voss. In that fight, anybody could have been killed at any time because the whole lot of them were well-trained killers. Unfortunately for Voss and fortunately for 56 Sq, their inital attack on the Triplane looked kind of disjointed (it was, after all, only one airplane) and I do not think Voss realized how good they were. He probably thought he could quickly kill one or two and disengage vertically. His mistake was a fatal one.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[jumpinjan]

Originally Posted by Taz

...This translucent finish would have reflected quite a bit of light back, looking silvery. The resultant sheen, combined with the entire bottom of the airplane being relatively glossy light blue except the cross fields, could indeed have looked silvery blue...

Taz, I agree with you, that is the most logical process. And due to the Allies first encounter with the Triplane and secondly, they had to fight one of the best German pilots (Voss) and performing manuvers the Allies have never seen before (because of the man & machine combination), I can't take McCudden's flight report too serious on his color interpretation. There were other way more important facts to report on from the encounter, than the color.
Jan

[tcrean7828]

Mates,

Thank you for a most enjoyable read about the Voss' fight in a long time.

The only question to resolve is:

to who's perspective do you bow to
- first hand eye whitness view or hard tangable photgraphic evidence!

cul

tcrean7828

tom

[Southside Bucky]

You're not a politician are you Taz?

As an exercise in obfuscation, that last post of yours is one of the best I've ever seen...

[Taz]

Bucky- Let me see, I am working with Dave Roberts, Alan Toelle, Manfred Thiemeyer, and Langdon Badger on examining real samples of Dr.I fabric. We have made great progress and think we have Dr.I and F.I fabric colors and factory finishing pretty much nailed down using a combination of Fokker factory photographs and real fabric samples. This is combined with analysis by serious historians, leaving myself out, on dozens of high resolution, but admittedly only B&W, photographs of F.I 102/17 and F.I 103/17. Compared to this, you have silvery blue in one quote from a distinguished and highly revered, by me also (he was unbelievably professional and competent), ace relatively early in his career. But I am reluctant to talk about this analysis because of the fear from someone who states:

"I have exposed the folly of making categorical statements on this forum more than once in the past."

Give me a break. If you want to play, bring something to the field. With Alex I am fighting someone who knows way more on WW-I aviaton history than I ever will and who has written some of the best prose on British units, personnel and history I have ever read.

When you have something substantive to add, I will be more than happy to fold it into the knowledge base. Does not look too promising right now.

By the way, who are you? Alex has no trouble identifying himself, because he is an acknowledged expert in his field with the credentials and published works to prove it. Even amateurs like me let you know with whom you are dealing.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[RAGIII]

Terry,
First let me address the comment you made reference making things up. What I posted reference grey fabric was a quote from HJ Nowarra. I said at the time I had no Idea where he came up with that info. It is certainly not made up to cloud the picture here and now.

I realize that you are certainly far more informed and knowledgable than myself when it comes to DR1 research. I respect your OPINIONS, and agree with a good portion of them.

I have a couple of questions and a suggestion and I hope you are willing to take the time to answer.
1.You commented that the F1s were painted(finished) exactly like hundreds of other Fokker built aircraft in the standard Fokker procedure. From the previous thread on Wet Blending of Three colors I seem to recall that it was admitted(agreed upon) that there were exceptions within the run of DR1s that quite probably included Blue in the mix, or am I confused?
2. The fact that the F1 101/17 was assembled, flown, disassembled, brought up to DR1 standards and painted differs from standard practice. These 3 machines were different than production models in many respects, were they not? By the way that was a nice photo of F1 101/17. What color were the interplane struts? They seem to match the Linen color quite well.
3. Although I am sure Alex can give a much more eloquent comment I must agree that victories scored in inferior machines have nothing to do with McCuddens observational abilities or his experience. Personally I think that was Alex's intent.


Finally I think you might help to enlighten all of us if you used a little different approach. ( I couldn't afford the Issue of Cross and Cocade?) or (Over The Front)? that included your Voss article, so here is my suggestion.
Tell us HOW you have eliminated Blue as a possibility based on your first generation photos? What process proved this to be fact? For example in looking at photos in books the struts often seem to me to be the same color as the upper wing base color under the green streaks. How have you determined that this has to be CDL? It seems to me you have been presenting this in a way that says CDL is what I expected therefore that is what I found. I am asking that you do the reverse, look at it as if you think it is blue and explain why it isn't possible. I hope this makes sense to you!

In closing I must admit that I feel strongly both ways about F1 103/17! I can see the possibilities either way. I must say that having read authors I respect such as Greg and Alex weigh in on the Blue makes me lean a tad towards Blue. Hopefully I have asked these questions in a way that doesn't offend! Respectfully,
RAGIII/AKA Rick Geisler

[Tim West]

Rag,

Interesting thought about the struts. I had wondered the same thing. But the same thing can be seen on DrI's. How were these parts finished after being painted? To me ,they almost look flat as do a lot of the metal panels on top of fuse. Perhaps the sheen of the finished linen is greater and the struts being flat , give them the appearance that they are darker than they really are. So they appear to match the cdl? Maybe. I would be interested to hear more too

[davecww1]

Hi Taz,
Glad to hear your input on this subject, and also that you have seen actual samples of the Fokker Dr.I fabric... let me ask you, exactly what color was the linen on these samples? Would looking at the back side tell you the color of the linen, or did the olive streaks soak through both sides? This would help me a lot, does it look like the ivory color of a sail, or is it a much lighter, whiter color, or even a grayish beige?
Still not going with a final color yet for the model...
Thanks,
Dave

[Taz]

Dave- Sorry for highjacking your thread and for getting chapped off at Bucky. All the fabric samples from Dr.Is, mainly from Dr.I 144/17 and 425/17, plus some others held by German collectors and museums, were light beige fabric at 50 threads per inch and calendared (rolled to compress the fibers).

Rick- More when I get back from a four day business trip. F.I 101/17 was never brought up to Dr.I standard because it was tested to destruction in early August before there were any Dr.Is. It was painted in Fokker's standard streaked camouflage and light blue prior to being delivered for destructive testing. There is no evidence of light blue overpaint, just speculation to explain why the F.Is look lighter than Dr.Is, when in fact they do not in most photos. The absence of returned light blue paint is used as a speculative reason. 588/17 (583/17 in older pubs) is used as an example of light blue overpaint because poor quality photographs did not show returned light blue paint. This is disproved by photos of 588/17 in a Jasta 14 line-up clearly showing returned light blue paint. Go through all the threads previously published on this subject until I get back and I will discuss more later. My and Aaron Weaver's article on the F.Is has numerous errors because we have learned so much in the last two years from new photographs and from fabric sample analysis.

Alex- More when I get back, if necessary.

Tim- The interplane struts were wood. The cowl and removable upper and lower aluminum panels were unpainted engine-turned aluminum. The cabane, landing gear struts, and axle were most likely olive.

Like Yogi Berra said: "You can learn a lot just by looking." Especially if someone shows you the evidence. Sometimes makes me wonder why I bother.

Taz
Terry Phillips

1016V5CO Lo Res.jpg.

[alex_revell]

.



Taz,
I think that you’ve misunderstood my point regarding M’s score on 23 September. (See Rag111's comment) I’ll stick by my contention that it is not a valid research conception. In this context the number of a person’s victories has nothing to do with his ability to see and evaluate happenings in the air. It’s the amount of time he has spent in the air which is the key factor here. Regardless of M’s victory score on the day in question he had been flying, as I said, as an observer/pilot since 1914/15 so he had plenty of experience to ascertain precisely what was happening in the air around him. Hence his position as a FltCom. RD and others might have had more victories at the time but they lacked his experience in this vital area Some people apparently had this ability more than others.
In 1918 Crowe was a Flight Commander in 56 and was a pilot of vast experience, yet he preferred to let Galley lead the patrols because Galley saw everything in the air so well. This was probably the result of him having been an observer in 22 Squadron for many months prior to becoming a pilot.
Thanks for your ‘help’ on the QED part of my post, but I’ll again stick by my argument that it is a valid logical possibility. You’ll notice that I don’t say that it proves in any way the colour and marking of the cowling, merely that it is a logical viewpoint which may or not be correct. I’ve often said, in I hope a mild rebuke, that it’s very dangerous to make unequivocal statements about these things. You say that there was no need to mention the colour of the cowl because this was the only triplane that 56 had ever seen. To take your first point: the 56 pilots did not know that it was the only triplane at the front (incidentally, neither do we). Maybery reported having seen one at the start of the Voss fight. And it was not the first time they had seen a Fokker Triplane. Sloley and Muspratt had both filed reports of seeing one earlier in the month, as had many other pilots of other squadrons in their combat reports. They had no reason to suppose that there were only two. All they knew was that there was a new type Hun scout in action. All the more reason to mention any distinctive markings or colours.
You say that M’s impression was that Voss was not wearing a helmet was probably mistaken because we have photos of Voss wearing a black balaclava helmet. We could have a thousand such photos but this does not prove that he was wearing it on 23 Sept. M may well have gained a wrong impression but the existence of photos does not prove he was wrong.
I’m not sure if you were in the air at the fly in you mention or observing from the ground, but I would ask you to remember that speeds during a fight, such as the one with Voss, were low and, more important, relative. When you are driving along a motorway (freeway?) next, take a look at cars approaching you on the other carriageway at a closing speed of, possibly, 120 mph, far in excess of aeroplanes manoeuvring around each other in the air and presenting different angles to another pilot. I have no difficulty in seeing that the Jag coming towards me is red and in the brief glimpse I have of the driver in the side window as we pass I can see if it’s a man or woman and even that he/she has a hat on or not. If an aeroplane is passing across one’s front I would think it entirely possible to see whether or not the pilot was wearing a hat or not. Combat reports are full of such observations.
My point regarding photos being of third or even fourth generation was not made about any particular photos which you may have, but of photos in general. I have seen original prints from plate glass negs in Alex Imrie’s collection which compared with the same photo from other sources could well be a different aeroplane. This is why to state categorically from a b/w photo - which may well be a third generation copy - as people do, that a particular shade of grey can be identified as a colour, even to extent of giving it a Mansel colour chart shade, is in mho complete nonsense. Something that always annoyed me in the old days was that the representational views of German aeroplanes in the old Profiles always had a dark band running diagonally across the fuselage. How many people used that on their models I wonder! I asked one of the artists about this and he explained that it was the shadow cast by the top wing - which I’d figured out, anyway - and that it was the artistically generally accepted view. I asked him how it had become to be the accepted view that the sun was always in that position and anyway, in a purely representational view why should the position of the sun even enter into the painting. As M would say. I digress!
Regards
Alex