Balkenkreuze of 425/17

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by RAGIII

If the aircraft in the Wenzel lineup is indeed 477/17, and also the earlier DR1 at Lechelle is 477/17, then where are the numerous spots of flaked off red dope visible on the left fuselage in the earlier photos? Pretty convincing evidence to me that there was another all red tripe, just can't say whether it is 152/17 or 477/17.RAGIII

I do not know if the plane in the lineup next to Wenzel's is the same as the one with the flaking red paint photographed earlier, but if it was could not the paint have been touched up?

Another question for those better informed than myself. Why is the damaged area mentioned above always shown as a yellow undercoating? To me, no matter what the scar is, appears on the surface not a undercoating.





CW

[JFM]

Thanks, Dan-San. Just wanted to see what you were using.

Why do you discount the translated combat reports? I'm interested because, as you know, they never describe 477/17 as all-red. In all nine combat reports involving 477/17 it is described as having (paraphrased) red wings, red hood (cowl), red wheels and red tail. Do you think that in all nine combat reports (the last being victory #78, from 7 April) the translator confused red wings, red cowl, red wheels, and red tail with red painting, as 425/17 is described? Or do you believe the translator had an ulterior motive to misidentify 477/17? Or another reason?

(For clarity, my questions seek information and are not rhetorically combative.)

Regarding the fate of 152/17, that Nowarra's statement is just as assumptive as Imrie's.

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hi JFM:
I distrust the reports for several reasons,
1. They did not match the format of known original MvR Combat Reports in "Jagd in Flandern Himmel" or the Floyd Gibbons translations in the Red Knight of Germany.
2. These translations were made by an American by the date style he used, i.e., 3/18/18 instead of the European/German style of 18.3.18.
3. A true transltation would have followed the German Combat Report Format without changes, or omissions.
4. There is no history, the name of the translator is not known. A true translation, the name of the translator and the date of the translations would have been attached to the set. There is no attribution.
5. How did they get into the Public Records Office and when? Who contributed these English translations to PRO?
6. If these are "true" translations,where are the original MvR combat Reports
that the translations were made from? I have no knowledge of any in existance.
7. There are more questions than answers!
8. I think they are fake, however I can't prove it. It does make one think about their validity. If they were genuine, we would know all these answers.
Blue skies JFM,
Dan-San

[JFM]

Hi, Dan-San

I wonder about all that, too, and your No. 7 is on the money. Still, despite the discrepancies, the reports are correct in many regards. IMO, as a general aside, the dangerous part is when people pick and choose which parts are bogus and which parts aren't, based entirely on unsubstantiated hunches, and then promote this as fact. My crystal ball isn't that clear!

I wish I knew where the original reports are. In a box in the NA catacombs?

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hi JFM:
There is a question you asked, that I did not answer. All the others are relating to the "MvR combat Report" They have accepted them without reservation. They have assumed that the all red Fok.DR.I is 425/17. They have not answered one question that I have repeatedly aske"If the all red Dr.I is 425/17, why did MvR not fly it during the period from 26 March to 11 April 1918 when MvR was shooting British aircraft. Further he used Dr.I 127/17 as his reserve aircraft, why did he not use 425/17 when Dr.I 477/17 was down for maintenance? They have dodged these questions. The answer to these questions is, " The all red Dr.I with the V blemish was not Dr.I 425/17, it was 477/17. Blue skies Jim,
Dan-San

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hi RAGIII:
When I began to respond the this thread, I went back a reread FOKKER TRIPLANE by Alex Imrie. The reason I have done this, almost all of us, including me, have relied on what Alex Imrie has written in "FOKKER TRIPLANE." What I have read are assumptions. He was not stating this happened or that happened, he was careful in what he wrote. Some of the readers have taken what he said as a fact I am going to answer your question in regard to what Mr.Imrie said about Dr.I 152/17. page 109, second paragraph quote:
"It is not known when this aircraft, apparently 152/17 and completely over-painted red, was given to the museum by Kogenluft, the machine's national insignia display and manner of painting indicate that they were contemporary and not applied retrorespectively. Therefore, sometime after Richthofen's last victory on this machine on 18 March 1918, it was painted red and doubtless intended for further use in its all red scheme as Richthofen's regular aircraft."
Mr. Imrie has not state one fact, the statement is vague and is assumptive.
1. He said he does not know when it was painted all red.
2. He does not know it when DR.I 152/17, was given to the museum.
3. He has assumed it was painted all red for further use by MvR, he does not say it was ever used again by anyone.
Mr. Imrie is not wrong, he has said nothing that implied anything that could be constued as wrong. All he has said at some point in time Fok.DR.I 152/17 was painted all red, and that is a fact. He does not say it was used again, he has assumed it was painted all red for MvR's use. That is a fact.
What has happened it was, DR.I 152/17 painted all red, therefore it was the machine at LeChelle and that is not a fact. If what Mr. Nowarra has said is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it never got to LeChelle, It never made the move to Awoingt Airfield, It was removed from service at Avenes-le Sec Airfield.
Now we know for a fact that the all red triplane was not DR.I 425/17 because the lower wing crosses were completely finished whereas the lower cross on one of the lower wings was not completed.
Also we know for a fact the all red Triplane at leChelle, had completed fuselage crosses, because the fuselage cross on the right side of 152/17 were also not completed it was displayed at the Zeughaus Museum in Berlin, with incomplete cross of the right side, while the fuselage crosses were on the V blemish DR.I were completed.
I believe I have answered you questions RAGIII.
Blue skies,
Dan-San

[Anders Kofoed Hansen]

Hello.

Thank you all for a very interesting discussion!

I have one question about 477/17 and what I thought to be 425/17

On top of page 28 in the Osprey Fokker Dr.1 aces, there is a picture of 477/17When this picture was taken, it does not look like it is all red. But the crosses had been changed to the balken-crosses.

Then I can not understand how the all red Dr.1 from Lechelle in March, prior to the change in cross markings, could be the same DR.1.

If the photo on top of page 28 is not 477/17, could you please point out where I can find a picture of it, I really like to build a model of 477,(when it was not all red)

I am very sorry if I am mixing something up, I am a bit confused. I am absolutely not an expert like you guys.

Thank you all.

Kind regards

Anders Kofoed Hansen

[CWatson]

Originally Posted by Anders Kofoed Hansen

On top of page 28 in the Osprey Fokker Dr.1 aces, there is a picture of 477/17 When this picture was taken, it does not look like it is all red. But the crosses had been changed to the balken-crosses.

The plane on top page 28 was discussed awhile back and it was the opinon of many that this plane undergoing a cross change could not be 477/17 because the landing gear airfoil was a type used on later Dr.Is .

Then I can not understand how the all red Dr.1 from Lechelle in March, prior to the change in cross markings, could be the same DR.1.

They are not the same plane. There is a picture showing the two planes in their relative positions taken from a distance.

If the photo on top of page 28 is not 477/17, could you please point out where I can find a picture of it, I really like to build a model of 477,(when it was not all red). There are no confirmed pictures of 477/17 in the scheme you are seeking just the disputed after action reports mentioned above.

I am very sorry if I am mixing something up, I am a bit confused. I am absolutely not an expert like you guys.

Thank you all.

Kind regards

Anders Kofoed Hansen

Below is a link to a long discussion about MvR's triplanes with the pic mention above.

True color of MVR Fokker Dr1 425/17

CW

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Hello Anders:
The Fok.Dr.I at the top of page 28 of Fokker DrI Aces of World War I was misidentified It is not Dr.I 477/17. It is a different number, I am not sure , I think they came up with DrI 486/18. The one at the bottom of the page is Fok.DR.I 477/17, this was also misidentified. This machine has the V blemish on the left side under the cockpit.
Blue skies Anders,
Dan-San

[Laserlloyd]

Anders Kofoed Hansen:

I do concur that the top photo on page 28 is not 477/17. We don't know which one it is at this point but it was believed to have been 477/17. CWatson is correct about the Axel wing being of the shorter style that was used on production number 500 and up. 477/17 would have the longer cord style as seen in the photo on page 15 this shows it vary close to the ground.

I would suggest reading the thread that CWatson listed as you will see we just don't know for sure but if I have to make a logical conclusion I would say on the bottom photo on page 28 is of 425/17 IMO.

Lloyd...