Linen color for Voss F.I?

[RAGIII]

Dave, Looks quite good so far! I like the Color,
RAGIII

[Southside Bucky]

Hi Dave.

You probably know already, but this is a "just in case" 'cause I'd hate to think of you having to do a repaint:

That engraved "seam line" on the fuselage cross field should not be there. To be totally accurate it'll have to be filled and sanded.

Sorry if that's the proverbial egg sucking scenario.

It's coming along nicely though!

[davecww1]

Thanks bucky. The seam line will have to stay, but with 3 coats of Future clear to seal the linen from the olive streaks, it will be pretty much filled in. I think it looks correct as this is a rib line or something that is quite noticable in the photos. Raised or recessed, it still is in the right place and will look correct under another coat of clear flat.
Dave

[alex_revell]

Taz,
Rudenberg was a pilot in Jasta 10 and took off with Voss on his last flight. His papers/diary came to light a couple or more years ago in Israel. I believe they were published in OTF or C&C. In the chapter 'Where were the German Triplanes' in Diggins' September Evening you will find Rudenberg quoted. It's too long for me to type out but basically Rudenberg states in his diary: 'Only three test models of the Fokker Triplane were flown on our front, one by Richthofen, the other by Voss and the third by a pilot whose name I forget.' Diggins comments that: 'Bodenschatz clearly identified this pilot as Oskar von Boenigk, who in absentia of Rittmeister Kurt-Betram von Doring was acting commander of Jasta 4 during September. Bodenschatz would not have offered this unsolicited information to Whetton unless he knew the truth of the matter.'
I think that it's important to remember that at the time Whetton was in correspondence with Bodenschatz there was no controversy re the number of triplanes at the Front, so nobody had a axe to grind.
You say that M's Flight had not fought triplanes before the 23 Sept. On September 6 Mac took out Johnston and Coote and two members of A Flight, Jeffs and Sloley. The SEs engaged a formation of EA over Houthulst Forest at 6.30am. Included in the enemy formation was one of the new Pfalz D.IIIs (described by the British pilots as a new tpe Fokker biplane) and two triplanes. Both M and Sloley mention two triplanes - M stating the number and Sloley reported that the EA formation had 'at least one triplane ('I thought I saw two')'. Jeffs also mentions mentions triplanes in the plural. Have a look at page 148 of HITEB, if you have it.
McCudden's report on this action carries a: 'Description of New-Type EA Triplane. This machine has stagger single struts, middle plane larger than top, and bottom plane shorter than the middle plane, and chord of the planes decreases from top to bottom planes. The wings are staggered outwards from the machine. 'Halberstadt' type rudder with no fin. No dihedral. Stationary motor.' Apart from the stationary motor (which we've already discussed) I think that's a pretty good description of a Fokker Triplane. Sloley's description of the triplane echoes M's, which suggest that they both compared notes afterwards, but with the Sloley's addition: 'The fuselage was of large square section and the rudder large, partly balanced and without fin, and was coloured yellow and brown.'
On October 2, B and C Flights of 56 Sqdn were in action about 4.30pm. During the action Muspratt was attacked by three EA ,one of which was a triplane. Rhys Davids came to Muspratt's aid and the enemy scouts broke off the action. RD reported having seen two triplanes in the enemy formation. 'saw two Fokker Triplanes, with no dihedral, large extensions, Nieuport tail Fokker rudder and and Martinsyde shaped wings, engine probably rotary. Climb appeared good'. The 'Martinsyde shaped wings' got me thinking at first, but then I had a look at the Martinsyde G.100. I think I can see where RD was coming from on that.
So, against the Fokker factory reports we have these reports from 56 Sqdn pilots, plus many pilots from other sqdns; Rudenberg's papers, plus Bodenschatz's comments to Whetton. I don't think one can just discount the reports of the British pilots, they couldn't have all been wrong. Muspratt alone was a very experienced pilot who had flown a large number of different types of aeroplanes. You say that 'biplane' was scatched out and 'triplane' inserted in a report. I don't remember this has having been the case in the 56 Sqdn combat reports, all of which mention a 'hostile triplane'. To sum up. I'm asking for a little open mindedness here in looking at the evidence. Opinions, yes, fine, but not dogmatic statements of 'facts' and using only selective evidence to back up those 'facts'.
Paul's book. I don't 'dismiss it out of hand', but I would not take a book with so many errors as gospel. Paul is a good friend and I'm only sorry that he did not take more care when compiling the book and checked some of the 'facts' he had arrived at in earlier research and modified them in the light of latter knowledge.

[Taz]

Alex- My mistake they had not fought a Triplane before, but I still maintain sightings after 23 September were mistaken identity. There were some squirrels in the Triplanes' descriptions, but close enough for combat observation of a really tiny (23.5'x19.5') airplane. Oscar von Boenigk may indeed have flown either MvR's aircraft or Voss' aircraft while they were on leave, and that is probably your third Triplane. Both aircraft were without a primary pilot for around a week each. It is also possible Hans von Adam and Wilhelm Reinhard flew the F.Is during their free period, also. In nearly every engagement in which the two F.Is flew, and there is no evidence they ever flew together, multiple Triplanes were reported when there was only one per engagement. In the summer of 1917, most patrols were still Jasta strength, not JG strength. The reports of Pfalz D.IIIs and a Triplane was Jasta 10, of Albatros aircraft and a Triplane was Jasta 11. Jasta 4 was not even scheduled to get Dr.Is, although admittedly neither was Jasta 10, who had brand-new Pfalz aircraft. Jasta 6 and Jasta 11 were, as was Jasta 15, where the first production Dr.I went in mid October.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[alex_revell]

Taz,
With all due respect, could I ask you to read your last post again, objectively.
'Boenigk may indeed have flown either MvR's aircraft or Voss' aircraft while they were on leave, and that is probably your third Triplane'. 'Probably'. Supposition.
'It is also possible Hans von Adam and Wilhelm Reinhard flew the F.Is during their free period, also.' Possible'. A probability only.
'In nearly every engagement in which the two F.Is flew, and there is no evidence they ever flew together, multiple Triplanes were reported when there was only one per engagement. 'In nearly every engagement'. Suppostion, we do not know how many flights the triplanes made. 'Only one per engagement'. You state this as a fact, yet again, it is supposition.
I'm sorry, but in effect you are using suppositions, probabilities and presentation of 'facts' which are not, to argue your case, and to try to discredit other evidence, which you ignore: Rudenberg, Bodenschatz and the numerous sightings by experienced pilots who we are asked to believe were all mistaken. You do them less than justice.
Regarding the last, the sightings. I've dug out Norman Macmillan's 'Into The Blue'. I'm lucky enough to have the 1929 edition and I've quoted from that because the 1968 edition has many additions, which he had learnt in the ensuing period, and which may have been influenced or contaminated by later knowledge.
In his forward to the ' 29 edition he states: 'Some of the material in this book was written at the time, or shortly after the time of the incidents portrayed. Some of these writings were published at that time.'
In the chapter entitled 'Camel Scraps' he says. 'Next day, (this was the 11th Sept, AR) in misty weather, with a patrol of seven, I saw a concentration of enemy planes some twenty-one strong flying below us east of Langemarck. There were three of the new Fokker Triplanes, while the remainder were Albatros scouts. They greatly outnumbered our strength. I could not determine whether they had observed us or not, but in any case I decided to attack. I dived on one of the triplanes, closed right in and as my burst went home I saw him falling down below his own formation. I knew that the Hun formation was so strong it would be but to court disaster to follow him down. As I pulled forward from among the Huns for breathing space to review the situation I saw that one of my formation who had followed me closely had done just the thing I knew was wrong. Engrossed on the shooting of an Albatros he had passed right through the Hun level. Instantly a Fokker pounced on his tail. A burst of bullets caused the Camel pilot to look round and swerve away from the Albatros he followed. I saw the triplane close in upon the Camel's tail and I dived instantly upon it. As I dived I fired a short burst, before my sights were centred, because I knew that most Huns answered to the warning of bullets flying near. This fellow, however, was of a different breed. He looked round at me and, as I saw his begoggled face above his shoulder, he swerved slightly to one side, then followed on the Camel's tail.'
Macmillan followed the triplane down but was forced to pull out to avoid a collison with an RE8 which passed between his Camel and the triplane. After this near collison the triplane and the Camel had both disappeared. In 1968 Macmillan wrote. 'Several decades past before I saw photographs in which I recognised beyond all doubt the face of the pilot of the triplane I had followed down east of Langemarck. One photograph showed him standing before his triplane in rough working uniform, looking to his left. In the other he was seated in his cockpit wearing flying cap and raised goggles, and again his head was turned to the left. There were the facial outlines I remembered, the same turning of the head, the same eyes. He was Werner Voss the leader of Jasta 10 in Richthofen;s circus. McMaking was his 47th victim'.
Macmillan's date and area of the combat are both correct in the 1929 edition.
Although I have said that I was merely playing devil's advocate, I'm beginning to believe in the three or four triplanes side of the discussion!

[Southside Bucky]

Originally Posted by alex_revell

Although I have said that I was merely playing devil's advocate, I'm beginning to believe in the three or four triplanes side of the discussion!

I'm with you there Alex, and have been since reading Barry Diggens' September Evening. He devoted an entire chapter to the subject, in which he cogently analyzes both sides of the argument.

It was briefly discussed here in a very long thread back in April of this year. If anyone's interested, the relevant post numbers are: 124, 130, 132, 133 and 134.

Here's the link:

Voss Ran out of Bullets

[Hans]

Gentlemen, I can't follow this thread anymore. What are you trying to imply? F.104/17, F.105/17 ?

H.

[Taz]

Alex, Bucky- Over-reporting, overclaiming, and making yourself sound braver than you were was rampant in WW-I, and in all wars for that matter. Attacking one Triplane and six or seven Pfalz or Albatros aircraft does not sound nearly as good as attacking three Triplanes and eighteen Albatros or Pfalz aircraft. Except for numbers of aircraft, the story sounds about right and the author describes Voss' 47th kill and his inability to do anything about it. Over-reporting is especially prevalent in books written a decade or more after the war was over, when authors' views of their own wartime exploits were written through rose colored glasses, and they needed an excuse of why one of their own was lost while they helplessly watched.

Fact is, no claims for Triplanes were made between 23 September 1917 and January 1918. With the penchant for overclaiming, if there were any Triplanes around, someone would have claimed one or more in that time period. Did they just evaporate in smoke during the time period from 23 September until early November 1917, when they were grounded? We know where they went after that, but why no claims for over a month when five claims were made during the time the two F.Is were active?

Enough hearsay, though, what were those mysterious extra Triplanes? Were they extra F.Is or were they early Dr.Is? When I say we know every early Triplane by Militärnummer and Werknummer I am not exaggerating. Alex Imrie and Peter Grosz have documented the delivery dates and locations of all the early Triplanes. You can read Alex's book and I have all of Peter's Triplane files, which confirm his findings. There were no extra Triplanes during the time in question.

MvR went on leave on 6 September 1917 and undoubtedly allowed von Boenigk to fly his F.I the day before he left, apparently with instructions not to tear it up or lose it before Wolff returned from recuperating from his wounding. That could explain the report of a Triplane hanging around the fringes of a formation and firing at long range, if it was even a Triplane.

By the way, the Jasta 4, 6, 10 and 11 war diaries confirm no aircraft were lost and no pilots were wounded on 11 September 1917 when McMaking was shot down while MacMillan watched. MacMillan was overclaiming we know for a fact, and was duly credited with victories over two Fokker Triplanes on that day. The only credible part of his story is the loss of McMaking and near collision with an R.E.8. Using his "eyewitness report" as evidence for extra Triplanes does not pass a sanity check. How can you claim two Triplanes if there was only one? Better make it three Triplanes so we have one left to shoot down McMaking.

The extra Triplanes theory is fantasy based on exaggerated reporting and mistaken identity. Too many facts poke holes in the eyewitness reports.

Taz
Terry Phillips

[alex_revell]

Really. So now all those pilots who saw triplanes were cowards as well as not being able to add. Again we have 'undoubtedly' and 'apparently' instead of 'perhaps' or 'probably'. I think I've done now.