Linen color for Voss F.I?

Tim West · 5 November 2007, 07:08 AM

Terry, my bad......I missed that Rag was talking about 101. My comments were in regard to 103.......but my long term plans do include doing the early triplanes. I do like the photo.....thanks again

Alex....Terry.....you guys are so civil

Fun and insightful thread.

davecww1 · 5 November 2007, 09:53 AM

Hi Terry,
Do you have any photos that show the top side of the landing gear wing or spreader (not sure what it is called, but the cover over the axle bar). I have seen paintings showing it streaked similar to the wings, but always thought that it was made of wood and would have a solid olive paint similar to the cowl and forward deck.
Thanks again,
Dave

Southside Bucky · 5 November 2007, 12:38 PM

Taz.

I've thought long and hard today about wether to reply to your diatribe at all. I thought the less said...But I can't help thinking that there's a slightly bigger issue here.

Attempting to undermine people, like you have me, or repress the opinion of anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you can have a very detrimental effect on a forum as a whole. That kind of treatment, and elitist behaviour can put people off posting here, or saying what they really think for fear of ridicule.

Do you really mean to suggest that unless I've written a book or an article for C&C and OTF, that I can't possibly have anything valid to say on this ever contentious hobby of ours? I've been into this subject for nearly thirty years, and consider myself pretty well read, but Believe me, I don't take issue with acknowledged experts unless I think I have a solid case to do so.

We all admire and respect the various movers and shakers of WW1 aviation research like Mr Revell, that contribute here. It's one of the things that makes this such an excellent forum. But please correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Alex just reiterating what I had stated already?...Backing up my argument, if you will?

Don't think you were being very fair when quoting me back there either. At least do me the honour of quoting the complete sentence, which if read in its entirety doesn't sound quite so conceited. But then, I suppose that was the intention eh?

At the end of the day, most of what makes this WW1 aviation thing so fascinating is the constant "enigma wrapped in a mystery" factor that can be discussed seemingly for ever...Why try to stifle it?

Kind regards.

Bucky

davecww1 · 5 November 2007, 02:13 PM

Glad to read all of your constructive information, taking both sides of the view, but back to why I started this thread...My 1/48 scale model of F.I 103/17! Well just mixed up a new batch of linen, I used about 50% white, 35% Fulcrum grey, 10% Armor Sand and about 5% radome tan. The finished color looks biege with a greyish tint to it, much lighter than my previous photo. Only problem is the weather turned cool today and since I must paint outside got an eggshell finish on my first coat. Will have to sand it smooth and spray another coat tomorrow, but the color looks good to me.
Dave

RAGIII · 5 November 2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz

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.

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

Attachment 8620.

Terry, this is the part of the wet Blending thread I was referring to where I thought you conceded that there was enough evidence that at least the possibility of "blue" existed:Scroll down to the second post.
Wet Blending of 3 Colors on Fokker Dr.1's

I have read and or been involved in most of the streaking/ DR1 / Voss DR1 threads since 2003. I have said in previous threads that with FI 102/17 I agree most good pictures show a similar tone in relation to the production DR1s. It is 103/17 that I still see as looking different/lighter. It looks close sometimes but just not the same. IMHO.
PS: I just re read the last thread on blending.I also recently acquired Gregs DR1 Jagdstaffeln book. I have to say that there seems little difference in how CDL photographs and underside blue. If not for the combat reports I could totally buy into the CDL of the F1s.

Tim,
I actually mentioned the struts on FI 103 also, just for the record!
RAGIII

RAGIII · 5 November 2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecww1

Glad to read all of your constructive information, taking both sides of the view, but back to why I started this thread...My 1/48 scale model of F.I 103/17! Well just mixed up a new batch of linen, I used about 50% white, 35% Fulcrum grey, 10% Armor Sand and about 5% radome tan. The finished color looks biege with a greyish tint to it, much lighter than my previous photo. Only problem is the weather turned cool today and since I must paint outside got an eggshell finish on my first coat. Will have to sand it smooth and spray another coat tomorrow, but the color looks good to me.
Dave

Sorry to hear of your weather related paint problem. Please post more pics when you are re-painted.
RAGIII

WarrenD · 5 November 2007, 06:51 PM

Except for the bickering, I find this thread and subject fascinating, and would love to contribute something to it. If memory serves, I seem to remember when the "wet blending" idea was brought up before on this forum, and I could have sworn that it had been laid to rest as not having occurred. Oh well, that is what I get for coming and going, and not being a regular here. (Real life just doesn't permit it for me sometimes.) Could someone please do me the favor, and direct me to the thread or magazine article where the blending of the three colors has been proven? Either a thread here at the 'drome, C&C, OTF, etc.? Thanks!

Warren

RAGIII · 6 November 2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenD

Except for the bickering, I find this thread and subject fascinating, and would love to contribute something to it. If memory serves, I seem to remember when the "wet blending" idea was brought up before on this forum, and I could have sworn that it had been laid to rest as not having occurred. Oh well, that is what I get for coming and going, and not being a regular here. (Real life just doesn't permit it for me sometimes.) Could someone please do me the favor, and direct me to the thread or magazine article where the blending of the three colors has been proven? Either a thread here at the 'drome, C&C, OTF, etc.? Thanks!

Warren

Warren,
As far as how Marlon did his triplane model not likely.. The wt blending and multi pigments are looking very probable!
Go to the link I posted two replies up. The link takes you to the 3rd or 4th page. Just go to page 1 and have fun.
RAGIII/AKA Rick Geisler
PS: or better yet try this
Wet Blending of 3 Colors on Fokker Dr.1's

Dan_San_Abbott · 8 November 2007, 06:50 PM

Taz:
These two Fokker V. machines are covered with bleached linen (white) and when doped becomes quite translucent. After doping and varishing, it takes on a yellowish-white color. The unbleached linen is its natural color and is light greyish-beige, after doping and varnishing it is a tan color. The Fokker E types were covered with unbleached linen. Fok.DR.I 144/17 and 425/17 were covered with unbleached linen fabric.
Taz, I am curious on how you all arrived at the aniline powders suspended in in varnish. Has someone done a chemical analysis of the of the water-proofing varnish coat on a piece of Fok. DR.I fabric? Or are you collectively "thinking" that was, what was done? Also you mentioned powders (plural), the DR.I wing drawing Bill of Materials, list only one aniline powder. I don't understand the plural form, powders. Are you all "thinking' there was more than one aniline powder, even though it was not listed in the B/M? From your statement, "We now know the upper side was finished in streaks of olive, brown and gray-black made up of aniline powders suspended in varnish." Are these the same color in different viscosities, or three different colors? I would like to ask the group a question, Do the Fokker wing drawings conform to standard drawing practices?
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Taz · 8 November 2007, 08:06 PM

Dave- Back to your question on the axle wing. You are right, they were solid olive to a line below the leading edge of the wing. to me it looks like two pieces of plywood meet at this line. Here is a photo of F.I 102/17 showing the color demarcation line. It is identical to Dr.I 198/17, of which good photos are available.

Bucky- Sorry for going off on you. Much too strident on my part. If I get to the UK (my daughter lives near Dartford), I will buy you a beer.

Alex- Always fun, is it not? There was only one Fokker Triplane at the front on 23 September 1917. The next one delivered to the front was to Gontermann in late October. We know where they all were. The standard lapse rate for temperature is ~2 deg C per thousand feet. At 12,000 feet that is 24 Deg C colder than on the surface. That is 43 degrees F colder than on the surface. If it was 65 degs F on the ground, it was 22 degrees at altitude. Add a bit of wind chill to that and nobody was flying around without headgear.

Taz
Terry Phillips