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

[Otis Glenn]

Thanks to RAG and LaserLloyd for the info on the Axle Wing thread:

I looked over the two threads and I am still having trouble discerning the two types of axle wings from certain angles. There were also some broken photo links on some of the posts that showed comparisons, at least when I went to look at them, and that may be why I am getting confused. If you have the time, please post some comparison photos, I would really appreciate it.

As far as comparing photos of 477/17? with 521/17 the only photo I have been able to find is the following.



One of the things that I looked for on this photo is if the top wing was overpainted as the Triplane in the LeChelle photo appeared to have been. It was hard to tell from what I could see in the books I have. I know that I have seen another photo from the other side of the airplane because I was trying to find evidence of field added access panels. I remember that 521/17 had one, but it appeares that the plane in the LeChelle photo did not. This, of course, is not conclusive as the panel could have been added at a later date.

I also mentioned Greg VanWyngarden's post concerning his observations on 521/17. I have quotes here from post 269 of True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17:

There are at least two photos of Greim's Jasta 34b Dr.I in his two red band markings, and Alex Imrie believes that both of them show 521/17 (Works Number 2189). Greim's flight log still exists (though I have never seen a copy ), and this is presumably where Acer's information about the history of 521/17 comes from. According to Imrie's "The Fokker Triplane", Greim flew 521/17 during June 1918, "alternating with his Albatros D. Va and Fokker D.VII, but on 27 June during a combat with a Bristol Fighter, his triplane's engine cowling flew off and damaged the top wing leading edge and broke the port bottom interplane strut. Greim was able to land safely, but there is no indication that he flew 521/17 again. On 16 July 1918 the triplane was destroyed during a British air attack on Foucaucourt."

There is no record (to my limited knowledge) of 521/17 having been at Jasta 11, but we do know that the Triplanes received by Jasta 34b were cast-off aircraft from JG I - so it is certainly possible that 521/17 had been with Jasta 11.

The better-known photo of Greim resting his arms on the fuselage of Dr.I 521/17 is seen on page 95 of Imrie's "The Fokker Triplane" - this shows the machine from the right (starboard) side, but as has been stated, much of the nose and the two lower right wings are obscured by a blemish. This aircraft had a circular access hole panel mounted on the forward fuselage just aft of the cowling; it is mounted just above the center line of the fuselage, in the position sometimes seen on Jasta 36 DR.Is. Of course, this access panel might well have been mounted at Jasta 11, as that unit used similar circular access panels mounted just below the center thrust line (see Dr.I 147/17 of Jasta 11, captured on 24 March 1918, flown by Keseling of Jasta 10). I have a print of the Greim photo but it is currently in Ray Rimell's hands, so I cannot post it. This photo is also seen on page 25 of Rimell's "Fokker Dr.I Special" and on page 87 of Osprey's Fokker Dr I Aces of World War I.

The other (lesser-known) photo of Greim's Dr.I (a 3/4 starboard front view) can be seen on page 11 of "Windsock International", Volume 19 No. 5, Sept/Oct 2003, and came from Alex Imrie. The original is, I believe, pasted into Greim's flight log, and he labeled the photo as "Mein Dreidecker". He even colored over the two fuselage stripes, cowling and interplane struts in red ink on the original photo, to show the location of the red markings! He did this on at least one photo of his D.VII as well.

As Taz says, there is another photo published in C & C (US) Vol. 16 No. 4, 1975, page 299, which shows a general airfield view at Foucaucourt on 31 May 1918. This shows what may have been Greim's 521/17, but it is a small distant view and doesn't really reveal anything.

Comparing the two good Greim photos (which almost certainly show 521/17) to the disputed Lechelle photo of '477/17', it does not seem to me that the upper surface of the Greim Dr.I is painted a solid dark color, as seen on the Lechelle Dr.I (but, admittedly, neither photo is very clear on that aspect). The Dr.I in the Lechelle photo distinctly shows those black (?) lines painted on the leading edge of the center and bottom wings which one sees on some Dr.Is - these lines separated the upper surface camouflage from the underside blue. I have stared long at the photo of the Greim Dr.I (521/17, presumably) in the 'Windsock' issue and, honestly, I cannot see them on that Dr.I. The starboard wheel cover of the Greim Dr.I in "Windsock" was not painted a dark color (and Greim did not color it over in red ink!) but the wheel cover on the port wheel of the Lechelle Dr.I certainly seems to be painted red. Of course, wheels can be replaced (as can the upper wing) and we're talking different wheels here.

Just some observations. Get those references and check them out for yourself.

Whew!

Greg VanWyngarden

I do not have access to the second photo that Greg is talking about, nor can I find the photo I used to compare the other side, not as of yet anyway. I have so many books floating around for this project that I probably won't find it until this project is finished, as per Murphy's Law.

If anyone has any other observations on this topic, or any of the photos mentioned beside the one I posted, please let me know. Thanks!

Glenn

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Romani:
You used the term, "grey fabric," could you explain this "grey fabric., source, etc please?
blue skies,
Dan-San

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Romani:
Fabric that has not been finished is called griege goods/fabric, etc. Griege is pronuouced grey. I thought you may be talking about unfinished linen, that is why I asked. I would define the unbleached linen color as pale greyish yellow, which equals beige. After doping and varnishing the color would darken to buff, light tan color.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Otis Glenn]

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.
RAGIII

I took another close look at the axle wing thread, got out a tape measure and did a little tinkering, and I think I know what I am looking for now. I took a look at several other triplane photos that I have, and the disputed LeChelle photo does appear to have the shortened axle wing. I have added this evidence with other photographic evidence that was put forward by the post from Greg VanWyngarden and I have made the following comparisons.

LeChelle photo shows leading edge black lines on the lower two wings, 521/17 does not have these.

LeChelle Photo shows evidence of the upper wing being overpainted, 521/17 did not have an overpainted upper wing.

LeChelle Photo does not show a field added access panel, 521/17 does have on in a position above the datum line. Jasta 11 generally placed theirs below the datum line.

LeChelle photo shows the short axle wing particular to the 500/17 series.

Another item to consider, the LeChelle photo was in a contemporary photo album with the description of "Richthofen's Triplane", it was also identified in another photo album as Greim's airplane.

As I looked at the photographic evidence, I have come to the following conclusion; there are enough differences in the photos of the two aircraft to argue that the LeChelle aircraft and 521/17 are not the same aircraft. In fact, the only thing that the two have in common is the axle wing. By process of elimination on the photographic evidence alone, this answer best fits what can be seen. Could there have been changes from the time 521/17 left Jagdgeschwader 1 to the time it arrive for Greim’s use? Yes, but that would be speculation. Also the changes would have meant the replacement of the upper wing, removal of the leading edge stripes from the middle and lower wing, and the addition of the access panel. This last change is most likely the only one that would have taken place. Replacing the upper wing would suggest severe structural damage, and it is unlikely that ground crews would have taken time to remove the stripes on the leading edge.

As far as the photo albums are concerned, my experience has shown that photo albums contain many inaccuracies. I have done a lot of research of pilots of the Second World War, many of whom I have known personally, and their photo albums tended to contain a number of inaccuracies, right down to misidentifying their own aircraft. Unfortunately, this is a problem that researchers encounter all the time. Photographic interpretation and historical records often contradict people’s memories of the events, places, and equipment that they themselves were witness to. This only gets worse over time as memories fade. In the above case of the LeChelle photo appearing in two different albums with two different captions, the identifications cancel each other out when using a process of elimination. Either one is right, and the other is wrong, or maybe even both could be wrong.

Does the comparison of the photos between these two aircraft mean that the LeChelle photo is proven to be 477/17? Absolutely not! It only means that, by comparing the photos alone, 521/17 is most likely not the aircraft in the LeChelle photo.

One question I have is, do we know exactly when the short axle wing appeared on the production line? Is it just in the 500/17 series or could it have been introduced late in the 400/17 series?

Remember, what I have stated here are my observations of the photographic evidence only using a process of comparison and elimination. These statements are only my opinion.

I will now seek shelter!

[Laserlloyd]

I have avoided this as I don't want to be dragged in to a heavy debate again over this. As we don't have absolute proof on the identity of the Dr.I from the three Léchelle airfield photos we can come to some conclusions on this.

From my studies of 425/17 I have seen and heard a lot of the evidence and I'm working on my own theory based on the evidence to narrow the gap to the true color and markings of 425/17 form the time it was accepted to the time it was shot down. I will say this that with respect to others researchers I'm in the group that believe the Léchelle airfield Dr.I is 452/17.

I just wanted to mention one thing here that it always seems to get lost in the theses discussions that A.E.Ferko had mentioned that in the original glass plate he had, that he could see the markings of 425/17 in the glass plate. It is vary unfortunate that the UDT collection at this point seems not to have it along with some other photos that Dan-San had seen but now are not there. I think who ever have this original glass plate could settle this for us but until it re-surfaces again we will have to wait. I will then use this as a possibility that Ferko did see it and will have to take his word on this. There are other indicators that also clue me in the Léchelle airfield photo being 425/17 but Right now I'm not going to re-hash this until I more solid evidence.

This brings up the point that a more thrall cataloging of the UDT A.E.Ferko collection needs to be done. From the Listing available from the UDT collection department it's still hard to know which box to start looking in and from what I have heard that I would take a long time to go through them all. I wish I could go there now while I'm unemployed but Dallas is a long way from me.

Lloyd...

[Otis Glenn]

Originally Posted by Laserlloyd

I have avoided this as I don't want to be dragged in to a heavy debate again over this. As we don't have absolute proof on the identity of the Dr.I from the three Léchelle airfield photos we can come to some conclusions on this.

From my studies of 425/17 I have seen and heard a lot of the evidence and I'm working on my own theory based on the evidence to narrow the gap to the true color and markings of 425/17 form the time it was accepted to the time it was shot down. I will say this that with respect to others researchers I'm in the group that believe the Léchelle airfield Dr.I is 452/17.

I just wanted to mention one thing here that it always seems to get lost in the theses discussions that A.E.Ferko had mentioned that in the original glass plate he had, that he could see the markings of 425/17 in the glass plate.

Lloyd...

Thank you for responding Lloyd:

I happen to agree with you that the peponderance of the evidence supports the all red aircraft photographed at LeChelle as being 425/17. I remember the mention of the numbers being read by A.E. Ferko on the original negatives and since I am trying to base my decisions for 477/17 on what evidence we can directly interprit in print and in photos I have already eliminated this aircraft as far as 477/17 is concerned.

This basically leaves me with two schemes that center around the descriptions in combat reports and interpritation of the following photo:



This translates into this scheme:



As I stated in my last post, I have compared the above photo with 521/17 and was not able to eliminate this scheme from the possible interpritations of 477/17. The thing that has always bothered me about this scheme is why is is so different from the other triplanes Richthofen flew? Dr.Is 152/17, 127/17 and 161/17 were painted nearly identical to each other with red on the entire tail and extending along the rear upper decking. Why was that not done here?

The combat reports tend to agree with the painting of the other Triplanes used by Richthofen. They state that 477/17 would have looked much like this:



I am still trying to filter through the evidence and decide between these two schemes.

In any case, thanks again for posting Lloyd. I greatly appreciate it.

Glenn

[RAGIII]

I just want to comment that whatever scheme you choose, on the initial change to Balken Cross the cross arms would be wider than those depicted in the drawings. Look at any photos of other Jasta 11 or 6 triplanes and you will see what I mean.
RAGIII

PS. I think, just my opinion, that scheme 2 is more likely.

PPS. LLoyd, I was not referring to 425/17 when I mentioned the "Infamous" Lechelle photo. I was indeed referring to the tripe that appears in the post above. Taz accepted the different axle wing as being evidence that this was indeed 521/17.

[Otis Glenn]

Originally Posted by RAGIII

I just want to comment that whatever scheme you choose, on the initial change to Balken Cross the cross arms would be wider than those depicted in the drawings. Look at any photos of other Jasta 11 or 6 triplanes and you will see what I mean.

Thanks for the heads up on that. I had nearly forgotten to keep an eye on the thickness of the crosses as they were changed.

Originally Posted by RAGIII

PS. I think, just my opinion, that scheme 2 is more likely.

Actually, I had always liked this scheme myself. It wasn't until I read Alex Imrie's book and started seeing the first scheme in my last post depicted more and more often that I had to stard considering the possibility of other markings. It all hinges on the photo, which I still haven't made up my mind about. Even with that, Imrie still describes 477/17 in the section on Richthofen's Triplanes in a scheme similar to the other reserve machines.

Glenn

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Lloyd:
I went through all the photographs in the Ferko collection at UDT and I did not see any glass plate photographs on two separate visits to UDT. I haveseen the Peter Grosz Collection and there were no glass plate negative that I am aware of. Has it occured to you that this may be a "story" and not a fact. From what little I know of Ed Ferko, he was not a nice guy. For example, he left his wife dead broke. I don't know who arranged the sale of his collection with UDT, but that is what saved his wife from the poor house. From my own personal experience, he was a bit cantankerous. Just an observation.
Blue skies,
Dan-san

[Laserlloyd]

Otis Glenn:

From the photo you have posted on 477/17 still shows the 20mm blue on the side of the fuselage past the cross field. It still looks to be factory camouflage past the fuselage. I would think that if the rear section was over-painted then the blue trim on the side would be painted over. (IMHO) I will see if I can get a better close-up of this area.

Also the blue on the stabilizer does run up to the top but since we can't see the top so we don't know if it run 20mm around the top edge of the stabilizer.

Looking at the side of the fuselage at the top edge I can't see any indication of the top deck being painted. I will see if I have a better photo of this to look at. I will get back to you on this.

Just as a note that in your illustrations you have left off the work number goes in front of the Datum line. The other thing would be the work number and the name Fokker on the lower section of the rudder but Yes, since we can't see it we don't know and since it dose have the first cross change it may have been painted over.

Lloyd...