An all red Fokker Triplane as early as September 1917?

[Olham 164]

In "No Parachute!" I read yesterday, that No. 46 Sqdn, RFC, encountered the Fokker Triplane on September 6th, 1917.

This was one of the two prototypes, delivered to Manfred von Richthofen and Werner Voss.

What I found most interesting, was the colour description of Lee. As he had written the letter on the same day, I don't

think his memory distorted what he had witnessed. And he describes an all-red Triplane.

 

Another patrol, B flight, had set out half an hour after us, and had fortunately come into

our area just in time to see the Huns come down on us. They rushed up and joined in,

and the Albatri, thinking no doubt that it was all a trap, began to pull clear. It was then

that I had a brief contact with the triplane, which stood out not only because it was a tripe

but because of it's performance. It was an asthonishing sight to watch it soaring up over

the other Huns in a steep effortless climb. It's very like a Sopwith Triplane, rotary-engined,

but the middle and top wings are longer than the bottom, and when it approaches, the

wing-tips seem on the slope.

I can't think why the Huns didn't resume their attack, they were nine to our ten, but they

could have bested us, especially having the triplane. Instead, the two formations spent

several minutes confronting each other, about 300 yards apart, in loose groups, with

everybody circling, climbing and generally sparting for advantage but not taking it.

There were individual dashes forward, with bursts of fire, then quick withdrawals, for

nobody on either side seemed inclined to do an Albert Ball solo charge into the middle

of the enemy.

Then the triplane, becoming bored, started a little war on his own. He climbed up well

above his pack and dived alone at whichever Pup happened to be handy, fired a burst,

then zoomed up and away back to the others. I happened to be one of the handy Pups

at a moment when I was in a steep turn after firing fifty rounds at a Hun dappled like a

snake.

I heard the rattle of guns, saw tracer flash by my right shoulder, jerked the machine into

a split-ass turn towards him, but he zoomed as I fired, half-rolled and slid back to his

own team. Afterwards I found, he'd put twelve rounds in a neat group through my right

upper wing, a foot from the center section strut. I sincerely hope my brief burst holed

him too.

He was all red, even to the underside, so he could have been Richthofen himself. If so,

I could be lucky writing this letter.

 

Now, even if the pilot was not Richthofen (who had to set out on a delayed convalescent leave, after his head

wound still caused some worries), the Fokker Triplane was his; as the one from Werner Voss had the original

Fokker-green on light blue streak painting.

I had never read anywhere before, that von Richthofen's first prototype had been overall red.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Olham

[DukeIronHand 8]

I think most historians feel that Lee's description of the Triplane being "all red" was added after the fact.

[Olham 164]

...which would make the letters appear like having been changed more than I thought.

[DukeIronHand 8]

...which would make the letters appear like having been changed more than I thought.

 

Not to disparage the author (or any author/WW1 pilot) but I think a little "sexing" up of things for publication may be inevitable based on recalled memories, inadvertent hindsight or, more probably in this case, suggestions from the book publisher to guarantee sales to make more money.

 

This is not to take away from the book, which is great, or Lee himself (S! to him) but the "all red" Fokker Triplane is, to my knowledge, an error.

I do not believe MvR had any red on any Triplane for some time after this. Also this particular Triplane was shot down mid-month in a fight with Naval 10 killing Kurt Wolff if memory serves. MvR was on medical leave. This is all by memory and I can dig my books out to confirm.

 

I believe member JFM (MvR historian) can confirm this unless I am, in fact, all wet but this has been researched pretty extensively.

 

 

Edit: Grammar...need more coffee.

Edited May 12, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Creaghorn 10]

this text is literally a textbook example for proving two things:

 

1. no debris flying off when getting hit. just neat and small holes. he also didn't know if he hit the triplane because of no visuals.

2. not the slightest decrease of control after he got hit. he didn't even notice it until he landed. so canvas and wood didn't have a negative effect on manouverbility

 

 

[Pips 5]

I raised this very issue on 'The Aerodrome' some time back. It generated, to say the least, a very spirited discussion!

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/40483-how-many-red-fokker-triplanes.html

Edited May 12, 2011 by Pips

[Olham 164]

this text is literally a textbook example for proving two things:

 

1. no debris flying off when getting hit. just neat and small holes. he also didn't know if he hit the triplane because of no visuals.

2. not the slightest decrease of control after he got hit. he didn't even notice it until he landed. so canvas and wood didn't have a negative effect on manouverbility

Yes, this book (and surely others too) contain a lot of detail about facts we could not know otherwise.

He wrote also, a little after my quoted passage, that the Germas had introduced three good fighter

during his home front time, and there I read, that the Pfalz was regarded as "a good fighter".

 

As for effect after hits: I wished the devs could make it possible, that only very small "hit boxes" would cause severe damage

on ailerons or rudder. One British ace (Mannock?) had once described, that he landed an S.E.5, where the rudder was almost split

and only held on to the craft by a single metal strip or something (I wished I had the quote right now).

He only noticed it from looking back - the craft seemed to fly quite well with the damage.

 

From all my readings, I recollect that wings could folf or tear off completely after a severe impact of rounds in critical structures.

I can only remember one passage (by Udet), where he had a problem with a stuck rudder. He then had to perform clever

manoeuvers to get the craft home, and that worked.

[Olham 164]

Ah, you started one of those notorious debates there, Pips.

 

Some of the guys there defend every bit of knowledge they believe to have with their teeth and claws.

I hate such attitudes with "historians" - everyone who wasn't there himself, should remain a bit more

open for "corrections" on their oppinions. (Especially when it is about WW1 colours, which we now

must guess from B/W photographs).

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Oh, careful Olham. You are wandering into the pasture of sacred cows.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Exactly what I thought, Lou! I will definitely not ask this question over at The Aerodrome!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well, you could ask the question over at the Aerodrome. Just be sure you have a fresh bag of popcorn and a comfy chair when you do.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

Well, you could ask the question over at the Aerodrome. Just be sure you have a fresh bag of popcorn and a comfy chair when you do.

 

Often such conversations contain the greatest of drama when people become mightily angry over completely insignificant things.

[Olham 164]

Worst drama I witnessed there was the two world wars being continued between that guy from England

who later got banned, and a German, who got also banned, but had sneaked back in under a different name.

After that, I didn't take part in discussions anymore.

 

And I learnt, who very great our OFF Forum really is!

[tranquillo 10]

I raised this very issue on 'The Aerodrome' some time back. It generated, to say the least, a very spirited discussion!

 

http://www.theaerodr...-triplanes.html

 

The problem is that historians believe they have all the facts.

[Olham 164]

...and that they are not prepared to change them, when someone else comes up with new evidence.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

DM? Do I hear people talking about a DM?

[DukeIronHand 8]

1. no debris flying off when getting hit. just neat and small holes. he also didn't know if he hit the triplane because of no visuals.

2. not the slightest decrease of control after he got hit. he didn't even notice it until he landed. so canvas and wood didn't have a negative effect on manouverbility

 

I don't think anyone here, understanding .30 caliber round impacts and the construction of a typical WW1 A/C, really thought fragments, dust, pieces, whatever would be visible from the attacking A/C in almost all cases.

 

In regards to #2 unless a control surface was shredded, spar, or wire, was hit I would not expect much loss in control. Holes in the fuselage fabric? Nah...

Large sections of fabric, certainly from the wing area, would effect lift of course.

 

Hence why I use your "Reduced Effects" effects.xml file!

 

And the HPW Damage Mod!

Edited May 12, 2011 by DukeIronHand

[Hasse Wind 46]

 

Hence why I use your "Reduced Effects" effects.xml file!

 

And the HPW Damage Mod!

 

Amen to that.

[themightysrc 5]

It may well be that one of the test DR1s was red - to some degree. It would also be not unreasonable if a fair number of Jasta 11's pilots test flew it to acclimatise and evaluate the new planes.

 

My 2d.

[+Polovski 441]

Most people expect to see some effects, we had this discussion many times. P1 had little effects and was generally realistic - hard to down a craft hard to see any hits, few bits flying off - but people were vocal and wanted more things to see, more bits flying off, easier to kill etc. So P2 we added that. Then people said we see too many effects we want less. So we went in the middle for P3 lol. We even had polls - you can see where this is going ;).

 

There are options as above for P3, or try dialling back the effects slider. P4 may be different again.

[Lewie 7]

.

 

Oh, careful Olham. You are wandering into the pasture of sacred cows.

 

.

 

Yes you will be Abbot San-itized.

[Olham 164]

For the "eyecandy customer" the effects are fine as they are.

And us "full DiD nitpickers" have modded files from Creaghorn and others.

Ah, the choice - the world is so much greater with OFF plus the forum!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Ah, the choice - the world is so much greater with OFF plus the forum!

 

Amen to that!

[DukeIronHand 8]

Most people expect to see some effects, we had this discussion many times. P1 had little effects and was generally realistic - hard to down a craft hard to see any hits, few bits flying off - but people were vocal and wanted more things to see, more bits flying off, easier to kill etc. So P2 we added that. Then people said we see too many effects we want less. So we went in the middle for P3 lol. We even had polls - you can see where this is going ;).

 

There are options as above for P3, or try dialling back the effects slider. P4 may be different again.

 

Yes indeed Polovski - the developers of any game have a hard time pleasing anyone and everyone no doubt about it.

 

That's what makes user mods the cats pajamas so to speak. Dialing your sim into your idea of realistic. Its a beautiful thing.

[JFM 18]

I certainly don't think I have all the facts. Hence, my study never ceases.

 

Neither Richthofen's F.I 102/17 nor Voss's F.I 103/17 was red. Look at the ten zillion photos of each. Voss's certainly not because Jasta 10 didn't use red. MvR's no, because (again) of the ten zillion photographs that show it not red, even up to a couple days before Wolff died in it; i.e., after 6 September. In the crash photo of 102/17 none of the visible surfaces is red, including major areas of the plane that would have been painted red in accordance with J11/MvR's markings had it been painted red, such as the upper wings and tail.

 

+1 what DukeIronHand wrote. The only all-red Dr.I--including the underside--that MvR flew was 425/17 and that wasn't even built in September 1917. Well, 152/17 eventually became all red but after MvR last scored with it which, again, was well after September 1917.