An all red Fokker Triplane as early as September 1917?

[Olham 164]

Thanks for the details, JFM. I knew them from your book, and I did not think they could be wrong.

I was rather wondering, if there might have been a third triplane, no one had mentioned elsewhere.

But I bet, there is enough detailed knowledge about that time and war zone to exclude this.

 

Alex Revell, who knew Arthur Gould Lee, said (over at The Aerodrome), that Lee was definitely not

the type of person, who would have allowed the editor to do such changes to his book.

So it would rather be a change made by the author - for whatever reason.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Olham

[Slartibartfast 153]

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.

He Mentioned P4... did you read that...

 

Sorry having one of those moments again...

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I did notice he mentioned P4 Slarti.

 

Also, it is wise to always keep an open mind about such things as this early red triplane sighting. We only know what we know now, based on information and provable facts we have today. It could all change tomorrow. Our understanding of history should never be cast in stone, but rather written in pencil.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

There are so many things we don't know well about WW1, so what Lou posted is absolutely correct. It's so easy to think that one knows everything about a subject when he or she spends years studying it. It would be interesting to know how well preserved the archives of the Fokker company are and do they have any documentation about such early Dreideckers and the paints used on them. And then there are (or were) all the documents of the various Staffeln and the HQ's, many of which have been lost during the chaotic decades following WW1. It's always possible that a writer remember things wrong, either knowingly or accidentally, but if he was known to be a trustworthy fellow, then maybe there is no reason to doubt his words.

[Olham 164]

Slightly OT, but here is a great dokumentation of a work by Russel Smith, "Wolff's Requiem".

He shows step by step, how such a drawing is composed.

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/art/32326-wolffs-requiem-evolution-image.html

[tranquillo 10]

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.

I didn't mean to offend, JFM. I should have made it clear I was reffering in particular to those involved in that aerodrome thread who are certainly not willing to accept that there may be something they don't know about.

[JFM 18]

Hey, I'm not offended! It's all good. And, believe me, I've had my share of battles with people you've described who, despite my IRREFUTABLE Mount Everest pile of evidence proving something to the nth degree, simply will not believe it. At least in public; I had one very well known researcher you all have heard of (who shall remain nameless) write me privately and admit he was wrong after we debated a subject for years.

 

I agree with you guys that history should be written in pencil (and much of my research has rewritten many things that for decades had been written in pen) but when photographs of a crashed machine do not show any red, how much more proof does one need? Personal accounts are great but they aren't always reliable (Der Rote Kampfflieger) and they aren't always true (Billy Bishop).

 

The Fokker documents I've been privy to see show F.I 101/17 was dispatched 21 August 1917. There is a photo of this machine in flight that many mistakenly believe was MvR's plane. However, it had a unfinished, engine-turned metal cowling and the camo streak patterns do not match those of 102/17. This machine was used for flight tests and static load tests at the Fokker factory in Schwerin. F.I 102/17 was dispatched 21 August and sent to JG1, where it was flown by MvR for about a week before Kurt Wolff assumed ownership and he flew it less than two weeks before he was KiA. No red appears anywhere on this machine in any photos. F.I 103/17 was dispatched 21 August 1917 and sent to JG1 where it was flown by Werner Voss. There are 360 degree views of this airplane, none of which show red, which was not a color used by Jasta 10, anyway. The next triplane on the Fokker list is Dr.I 104/17, dispatched 10 October 1917.

 

Now, some contend there were more pre-production triplanes at the front. The records I've seen don't support this, but I've not researched it personally to the nth degree so I don't rule it out. However, I can and DO say with absolute 100% certainty that on 6 September 1917 F.I 102/17 was NOT "all-red," no matter what Lee wrote. Yet, because of that, the tail-wagging-the-dog begins: "there must have been another triplane besides 102/17 and 103/17 that was all-red." Okay, who flew planes painted all or mostly red in late-summer 1917? MvR. Who else in Jasta 11--who used red on their wheel covers, struts, and noses--was going to paint their plane all or mostly red, just like the commander of JG1's plane? Nobody. MvR used red for leader recognition; how does one recognize the leader when there are a bunch of all-red planes flying around? It makes no sense for somebody other than MvR to be flying around a third pre-production painted all-red. "Well, MvR had a second triplane then that was all-red." Okay, fine, but there are no records of one, no photo of one.

 

As I always say to people: Don't tell me why I am wrong; prove to me why you are right.

[Olham 164]

Don't worry, Tranquillo - JFM is a good guy and easy to get along with.

I don't think he got you wrong there.

[Olham 164]

Hihihi - I remember our dispute about the aerodrome photo at Roucourt, JFM.

You told me later, that you had the same dispute about the photo location even with the great Dan San

over at The Aerodrome. And the old master of so many pics and knowledge got proven wrong by you.

Shows even he is only human.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Olham

[Hasse Wind 46]

 

As I always say to people: Don't tell me why I am wrong; prove to me why you are right.

 

 

That nicely sums up the whole idea behind scientific research. People can talk and debate all they want, but having actual proof of something is what decides the way of things in the end. Or at least it should.

[Guest British_eh]

Hi there,

 

Thanks JFM and all who participate. I am but a novice at the Dr.I controversies, but I do contend, that it was the premier aircraft at the Front from early 1918 to mid 1918. While the Sop Camel had a 10 fold production greater than the Dr. I, it was the epitome of defensive fighters of it's time. Of course this is want Germany required at the time. There has been debate at the Aerodrome, and other sites, but it is noteworthy that the pundits all chose the Dr.I rather than the Sopwith Triplane, in a fight to the death. Of course production issues, then time, was the killer of this design, but then isn't that the case with so many things?

 

Thanks to all the knowledgeable people who contribute to this outstanding forum.

 

Cheers,

 

British_eh

[Olham 164]

It was good that the Dr.1 was delayed for so long. Saved a lot of lives in a war Germany wouldn't have won anyway.

[Dej 17]

Not to pour any fuel upon the fire (not that there's any flaming here), but it's interesting that Lee repeats the story of the red triplane of 6th September 1917 in 'Open Cockpit', published a year later than 'No Parachute'.

 

Interesting because it's part of a much longer passage - written in hindsight this time I feel - reflecting on Jasta 11, JG1, and MvR's prowess as a pilot and his influence on the RFC. In the passage Lee speaks much of Jasta 11's signature red markings and it is my conjecture that his memory simply played him false. He knew J11 had red markings, he 'knew' that MvR was at the time flying a Triplane, therefore he perceived the Triplane he fought on 6th September - amidst eight D.V's possibly from J11 - as 'red'. Now, whether it were possible for Lee to have encountered a Triplane at all on that date is another question, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that bit, i.e. I believe he did fight a Triplane.

 

On British_eh's note, it would be interesting also, to have OFF pilots give their experience of a Tripe vs. Tripehound combat. As far as I know it never actually happened and I've not created the situation more than a few times in QC (I tend to avoid anachronism), but on every occasion I could down a Dr.1 with the Sopwith.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Dej

[Olham 164]

I also believe him, that he met a Triplane. There were two F.I delivered at that time. I wonder, if he later met a red one?

(Haven't read that far yet). Then it would be understandable, that he got it mixed up.

 

About a competition between the Sopwith Triplane and the Fokker Triplane:

Arthur Gould Lee tells in his book, that the RNAS boys felt inferiour with their Tripes against the Albatros D.V

(and so they wanted and got the Camel).

Now, the Albatros D.V should definitely be inferiour to the Fokker Dr.1, except for it's top speed.

But Lee also described, when the "red" Triplane left the fighting scene, two Albatros D.V tried desperately

to followit's climb, hanging on their props.

 

The Fokker Dr.1 with it's new Göppingen airfoil was a revolutionary new design with a very good lift ratio.

It might not even have needed three wings, I read repeatedly (only because everyone was so impressed

by the Sopwith Triplane, they had to build a "Dreidecker").

 

A very good pilot could possibly take on the fight in a Sopwith against the Fokker, and even win the fight.

But if the Fokker pilot was Werner Voss, who knew how to get the best out of the Fokker, I doubt he would.

 

We must not forget, that the Sopwith Triplane was a much earlier design - it was introduced as early as

November 1916! The first two Fokker F.I prototypes came much later, in September 1917 (not to mention

the delay of the full introduction of that type).

So, honestly, I wouldn't find it fair to compare the two craft, as in that war a half year was a very long time.

 

Still though, it might be an interesting theoretical idea to do this:

- give a Werner Voss the time to get really good with the Sopwith Triplane

- give a Raymond Collishaw the same to get familiar with the Fokker Dr.1

- and then let both aces fight it out - both ways, on both planes each

But that's something we can only dream of.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Olham

[Dej 17]

Dream of, or play it out in QC, taking whichever side you want against an ace on the other..

 

As I say, Olham. I've only essayed the match in QC. Well aware that they wouldn't have met in real life and I confess I didn't really enjoy the anachronism of the confrontation.

 

But, like Hellshade (I think) I've tried the Tripe against every contemporary and later opposing aircraft, simply because I love the kite... and she holds her own... as far as OFF FMs go anyway. As for the Dr.1... a few rounds in the wings early on and she is far, far less manoeverable. Whether that's the FM or the AI I can't say, nor would I claim that the real aircraft would perform so, but it works in OFF.

[Olham 164]

Well, in OFF I shot down 5 - in words: five - S.E.5a with a Fokker Dr.1 and still had ammo left.

You can achieve many a thing in OFF, cause we don't fly against real human aces.

I too love the Sopwith Triplane, Dej, as it is in OFF. It is a greater joy to fly than the Dr.1, which

is a twitchy, instable kite that needs permanent stick control.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

The few rounds in the wings causing a loss of maneuverablitiy is mainly a DM problem I believe, Dej. Without letting the cat out of the bag, I may have something in the works that will improve this a little--I hope!

[Lewie 7]

Snip..

 

On British_eh's note, it would be interesting also, to have OFF pilots give their experience of a Tripe vs. Tripehound combat. As far as I know it never actually happened and I've not created the situation more than a few times in QC (I tend to avoid anachronism), but on every occasion I could down a Dr.1 with the Sopwith.

 

 

It maybe apples to oranges in this case, but I've got a couple of hours flying time behind the stick of of the Richthofen's Skies DRI. And it's a handful, but it's much like the Camel in the same game, it's got that 'nervous as a long tailed cat in room full of rockers', twitchy turning ability, that the RS Tripe didn't have. The Tripe in this game is pretty mild and well behaved, it's odd that it feels a lot like the Camel in OFF also.

 

One British plane I would have liked to have seen compared to the DRI in realspace would have been the BR2 powered Austin Osprey triplane. But since it never made the jump from experimental to squadron issue we'll never know.

[Olham 164]

The Triplane with it's good speed AND turn ability is my favourite British kite, even before the S.E.5a.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Olham