Need help on Dr.1 477/17 for MVR Aircraft Project

Otis Glenn · 11 April 2009, 02:27 PM

Hello Tim:

Thanks for the link! I have seen your rendition of F.1 103/17 on your website before now and I suspected that you didn't use blue in the uppersurfaces. Does fit the period descriptions better. Man... I'm not hearing as much opinion about 477/17 as I had hoped, but I'm learning more about 103/17 than I ever imagined since posting this thread. Go figure...

Again thanks.

Glenn

Dan_San_Abbott · 12 April 2009, 05:17 PM

Tcrean7828:
Tom, please tell me all about your new book??
Blue skies,
Dan-San

RAGIII · 12 April 2009, 06:18 PM

[QUOTE=Tim West;430231]
About Voss...I'm pretty sure the streaking over sky blue myth has been put to rest

I have a thread about my take on FI 103/17 somewhere around here....

Well, good luck with your models Glenn. Post some pics when they are done.

[/QUOTE

This is something that has been on my mind for some time. Just what separates "OPINION" from "FACT". I am asking because many members seem to feel the way you do, the blue is out, CDL/Unbleached Linen is in. Playing the devils advocate as I still feel strongly both ways

, other than interpretation of black and white photos, what " Facts" have been presented supporting the CDL. The majority of those posting in previous threads are matter of fact, this is what I believe, and therefore it is correct type of posters. I would point out that GvW in his Fokker DR1 Jastas' book opts for Blue, based on the PRO report and plethora of blue mentioned in combat reports. Greg does state" In this Authors Opinion", something I respect. S0 my question is again, What separates fact from opinion? Not just on the Voss triplane but on the myriad of controversial subjects that arrise from time to time on the forum.
I hope this doesn't heat things up too much but I had to ask!
RAGIII

Tim West · 12 April 2009, 07:08 PM

Heya Mr. Rag,

I think I have been overly clear....anytime I post my "opinion" that it is just that..my opinion.

What really got me to lean towards the feeling that blue is out, is when I was working up the my original take on 103. Depending how the lighting was and the angle that I viewed the plane...it indeed would look blue over all. Then add the later discussions of bleached vs no bleached linen...when I would render out different shots..again they looked silver blue...when actually, there was no blue at all. If 103 was blue...so was 101 and 102 but I dont recall anyone talking about those as being blue.

So fast forward a year, I was working on Dog Fights, researching Navy F4's, I ran across a photo that showed a formation for phantoms starting to turn in sync and I about dropped my latte, there was one F4 at just the right angle to the light and it looked BLUE...whilst the others remained light grey as is standard for Navy F4s.

So that and given the fact that in the heat of combat and being a new airframe on the front, one could understand where the blue overall came from. Not to mention the debates here that have valid points...granted in both camps.

So that's how I arrived at my feeling that 103 "could be" and most certainly in my mind, is finished as follows, Green, streaking in varying shades..mixed on the fly, over bleached linen, with the cowling and wheel covers painted in the field....green..not yellow and not red ...in my opinion of course.

Why other forumites might sway one way or the other is their business. And I respect Gregs views too, I just have a different "opinion".

And if I have ever stated anything as "fact" I most certainly was being cocky

And I'd hope everyone here would be able to tell the difference.

What's really important to me personally, is to do my best to try to arrive at these conclusions using my own judgement...I do not want to just copy profiles of others.. It's a lot more fun to do the research and comparisons my self and then produce...the opinions I might post here.

I thought I put forth my thoughts rather well in my color study. If people believe it or not is up to them.

All in good fun of course

alex_revell · 13 April 2009, 02:09 AM

Tim,
I'm afraid that you are fighting a brick wall asking people to say such simple things as 'in my opinion' or 'It's possible that' . I've tried for ages to get people not to make dogmatic staements about questions of doubt. To no avail, I'm afraid..

tcrean7828 · 13 April 2009, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Tcrean7828:
Tom, please tell me all about your new book??
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Mate,
Just sent you a PM with email to follow.

ttfn

tcrean7828

tom

RAGIII · 13 April 2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim West

Heya Mr. Rag,

I think I have been overly clear....anytime I post my "opinion" that it is just that..my opinion.

What really got me to lean towards the feeling that blue is out, is when I was working up the my original take on 103. Depending how the lighting was and the angle that I viewed the plane...it indeed would look blue over all. Then add the later discussions of bleached vs no bleached linen...when I would render out different shots..again they looked silver blue...when actually, there was no blue at all. If 103 was blue...so was 101 and 102 but I dont recall anyone talking about those as being blue.

So fast forward a year, I was working on Dog Fights, researching Navy F4's, I ran across a photo that showed a formation for phantoms starting to turn in sync and I about dropped my latte, there was one F4 at just the right angle to the light and it looked BLUE...whilst the others remained light grey as is standard for Navy F4s.

So that and given the fact that in the heat of combat and being a new airframe on the front, one could understand where the blue overall came from. Not to mention the debates here that have valid points...granted in both camps.

So that's how I arrived at my feeling that 103 "could be" and most certainly in my mind, is finished as follows, Green, streaking in varying shades..mixed on the fly, over bleached linen, with the cowling and wheel covers painted in the field....green..not yellow and not red ...in my opinion of course.

Why other forumites might sway one way or the other is their business. And I respect Gregs views too, I just have a different "opinion".

And if I have ever stated anything as "fact" I most certainly was being cocky

And I'd hope everyone here would be able to tell the difference.

What's really important to me personally, is to do my best to try to arrive at these conclusions using my own judgement...I do not want to just copy profiles of others.. It's a lot more fun to do the research and comparisons my self and then produce...the opinions I might post here.

I thought I put forth my thoughts rather well in my color study. If people believe it or not is up to them.

All in good fun of course

Sorry Tim, this really was not aimed at you or your opinion. I agree that you have been clear on your reasons and beliefs reference this and other controversial subjects. I have been considering the Question for some time( thouht about posting the querry in the Basement), and it just seemed like a good opportunity. By the way, getting back to the original topic, there was another thread on DR1 axle wings in the replica section which eventually led to the picture of 521/17 / 477/17 , it is worth looking at as evidence that the infamous LeChelle tripe may in fact be 521/17.
RAGIII

Otis Glenn · 13 April 2009, 12:18 PM

Hello RAGIII, & thanks for posting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAGIII

By the way, getting back to the original topic, there was another thread on DR1 axle wings in the replica section which eventually led to the picture of 521/17 / 477/17 , it is worth looking at as evidence that the infamous LeChelle tripe may in fact be 521/17

Thank you for this information. I have been trying to compare the photos of the questioned 477/17 and 521/17 and this gives me another standard to compare by. I have only found one photo of 521/17 as I looked through my books today, but I haven't finished looking through all of them yet. As far as comparing the two, Greg VanWyngarden did a comparison with what photos he had avalible. What he was looking for was the thin black seperation line on the leading edges of the wings that appear on the middle and lower wing of the disputed 477/17 photo. He said he did not see these on 521/17. Another question I can't really tell from the photo of 521/17 that I have is the paint on the top wing. The LeChelle photo shows evidence that the top wing was overpainted a solid color, but I can't tell from the photo of 521/17 that I have due to the exposure and angle.

I need to finish reading through the axle wing thread so I can get a better idea of what I need to look for in comparing the short cord and long cord axle wings. Then I will take a closer look at the various books that I have and add this into my comparisons. I am trying to use a process of elimination in determining how 477/17 will look when I am done with it. As Mr. Holmes said "Once you have eliminated all other possibilities, what remains, however unlikely, is the answer". I just hope my eyes don't cross looking at all these photos again!

I'll let you know what I see when I find the books I'm looking for. If anyone has these photos, I would love to hear your opinions. Thanks!

Glenn

Laserlloyd · 13 April 2009, 03:01 PM

Here is the link to the thread that RAGIII mentioned.
Fokker Axle Wings - Part 2

Lloyd...

Otis Glenn · 14 April 2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex_revell

Tim,
I'm afraid that you are fighting a brick wall asking people to say such simple things as 'in my opinion' or 'It's possible that' . I've tried for ages to get people not to make dogmatic staements about questions of doubt. To no avail, I'm afraid..

Thanks for this sentiment Alex:

Throughout all of my study of history, from college to today, it seems that every group of research done by professors, historians, archaeologists, etc., is based as much on opinion as actual fact. But yet they still will present opinions as unquestionable statements as how things MUST be. That is, until another expert disagrees and offers another opinion that is unquestionable. That's when the fur starts to fly.

I try to keep an open mind as much as possible when I do research and I realize that current theories are based on prevailing views of what researchers have agreed on up to that point. It may not be how things actually were, but that is how a majority think things actually were. That is why my main question on this thread was what the "prevailing view" was on 477/17. It seemed to me there may have been a shift from Imrie's 477/17 to the combat report version of 477/17 in the past couple of years due to the books that have been published recently. Without original information to form my own opinion, I have to rely on the prevailing views, the "popular conception" of 477/17 as put forward by the arguments of the researchers and historians. However, I know that I may actually never be 100% sure of the interpritation myself, and I hope that I never come off as being dogmatic. As far as historical fact in general, until we build a time machine, we will never know for certain. Speaking of that, anyone have a flux capacitor I could borrow?

Glenn

PS: hope I didn't rub anyone the wrong way with this post.