JFM

First, if I must use labels then I'm a Yank and a Yankee. Second, I only speak English and chew gum. Third, no words are going to hurt me, especially on any forum. This quote is interesting: "However, if you call me a "yankee" then those are fighting words". Not the quote itself but what it illustrates, which in my experience has been and continues to be a strong US southern position to uphold a north/south division. Not to the point of taking up arms, mostly, but no question there is a want to seperate culturally. And that's fine with me--what do I care how people in South Carolina etc want to live? More power to them. But it is interesting to me that this cultural divide is lacking in the north. Examples. I've lived in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Ohio. In between I also lived in Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, and currently Florida. My first venture south was moving to SC when I was ten (1976, I'm 44). After I had been introduced to the class the first question asked of me by a new classmate was, exact quote, "Hey, boy, you a Yankee?" This from a ten year old; i.e., the Yankee/Rebel divide had already been instilled by his parents. I was confused; I thought he was asking if I liked the New York Yankees. Everywhere I've lived in the south I've been asked if I'm a Yankee--as if they can't tell by the way I talk quickly and through my nose. Everywhere I've lived in the south people bring up the Civil War and slavery and often I've endured vitriol about many aspects of each, usually starting with "You Yankees (fill in the blank with some Southern-regarded bad thing done by a northerner during the Civil War)." "You Yankees," as if I were alive in the 1860s. That's like me asking my friend Takashi "How can you look in the mirror after what you sonsabitches did to Pearl Harbor? You almost killed my grandfather and uncle!" Even if he had been alive and actually attacked Pearl Harbor, I wouldn't say that or feel that way--I'd ask him battle questions. Once during a conversation I told someone that my family had owned slaves, and I thought he was going to have a stroke. I didn't even get a chance to say that we don't currently own slaves and the relatives who owned slaves hundreds of years ago lived in North Carolina, a state content to steal the claim of the Wright Brothers but not one to consider themselves "Yankee." Two years ago a woman I had just met at a Christmas party went into a tyrade about General Sherman--this was out-of-the-blue; I guess she heard me speak and lumped me in with the actions of men who lived 150 years ago. Why associate me with any of these things? A few years ago nobody in Germany ever gave me a tyrade about General Patton. Why even go there at a Christmas party? IMO in many southerners it's deeply rooted culturally from a very early age. I'm not saying all that is wrong and shouldn't be the way it is if that's how they want to live but, contrastingly, nobody cares about that up north. Well, I can't say nobody because I don't know everybody but in my life, nobody has cared about that. If I or any of my family or friends met someone with a southern accent, which has been a zillion times, we wouldn't dream of asking them "Hey, boy, you a Rebel?" Not because it might be offensive, but nobody gives a crap about that or thinks that way or projects the events of 150 years ago onto their current lives. If I heard a friend ask someone "you a Confederate?" I'd break out in guffaws over how drunk he must be and then good naturedly make fun of him for saying that. Never happened, though. Again, I'm not eschewing anyone's right to say these things or feel that way. I just find it interesting that I've heard "if you call me a 'Yankee' then those are fighting words" a million times, but I've never heard "if you call me a 'Rebel' then those are fighting words." Ever. Why the difference, because the south lost? Because people today don't just make mountains out of molehills, they search for molehills to turn into mountains? I don't know. Here in Naples, I'm "below the south." I've gotten less "you Yankee?" here than in OKC or Dallas or Houston or Charleston. Maybe because there are not many southern accents here; everybody seems to be from somewhere else. Mostly northern Snowbirds or Spanish immigrants. Anyway, perhaps some southerners can chime in.

Holy smokes, that Pitts takeoff was the most incredible I've ever seen. Awesome.

Hi, OvS, Great post! Sorry for my delay getting back over here. Interesting take that Udet wasn't as aggressive as MvR. You are right, there's no question MvR was deadly serious and quite aggressive. He's often cast as "cowardly" and had pilots "protect him" as he racked up victories, but that's bunk. There are many RFC combat reports that describe MvR's aggressiveness; McCudden, for instance. Plus, it's gleaned in MvR's combat reports, such as when he continually attacks disabled (engine damage) airplanes while gliding. Not very sporting but there's no question of victory with a flamer or in-flight breakup. I'm not an expert on Guynemer but after fighting Udet didn't his combat report reveal he disengaged because he also had a jammed weapon, and the "let Udet go" is romantic fantasy? I believe so but I could be wrong; bringing it up here in case you or someone else is more learned about this (and I'll double check this, too) and can chime in. But had it been MvR attacking (assuming no gun jam) and (somehow) knowing the other guy had jammed weapons? I agree with you, that guy was likely a goner unless he could evade. As it should be in war, IMO, although I concede that's easy to type and I've never been in combat myself. Still, if Guynemer actually did let Udet go, look how many more men died as a result of that. (I know that has nothing to do with your point, with which I agree, I'm just saying.) Olham, I loved your MvR/Udet scenario!

Hello, all, From what I've seen Udet has always been universally regarded as an excellent pilot. Are there those who think otherwise? If so, I'm surprised. As far as skill shooting down two-seaters vs single-seaters, if it was so easy to shoot down two-seaters then why didn't everybody have 80 victories? Especially an excellent pilot who's first victory was 6 months before MvR's first and who's last victory was 6 months after MvR's death? I understand nobody is putting MvR down by comparing his victory list to Udet's, which is good because then they'd also be putting down Allmenröder, Boelcke, Immelmann, LvRichthofen, Schaefer, Voss, Wolff, Ball, Hawker, Lufbery, McCudden, McElroy, etc., all of whom had more two-seater victories than single-seater victories. In my view it was much more dangerous to attack a two-seater--as Udet learned when he was shot down by one (as was possibly MvR, although I can't determine who fired the bullet that wounded him but an FE2d is [iMO] the most likely)--since the preferred attack methodology employed an unseen stern closure, which is more difficult to pull off with an observer/gunner. If you close unseen behind a single-seat scout via Dicta Boelcke and kill the pilot before he sees you coming, how is this more skillful than shooting down a two-seater who never sees you coming? Later in the war when Udet's score took off (spring/summer 1918) he had to contend with far more RFC single-seater scouts swarming over the lines than Richthofen did when he was alive, although Udet did have consistent single-seater victories throughout his career, including the early period. Still, in the five weeks before MvR's death, MvR downed 17 airplanes, of which 12 were single-seat scouts (9 Sopwith Camels, 1 Sopwith Dolphin, 2 SE5as; the others were 1 Biff, 2 RE8s, 2 Big Acks). His last 5 victories were Camels, and I speculate that if it weren't for jammed guns #81 would have been a Camel, too. OVS, I think you are spot-on with your Fonck/MvR comparison. It's no coincidence each was at the top of their respective air force victory lists. Fancy-flying/aerobatics are defensive maneuvers, not offensive.

Here's my take:

Which opens the can of worms whether Voss's F.I triplane was painted light blue at all (save for the undersurfaces)! Not to mention the raging debate over cowl color!

Same with one of his Alb D.Vs, purported to be D.2059/17; it was overpainted and thus the serial number cannot be seen in the museum photos. However, that machine did have the same diamond-shaped external stiffeners near the horizontal elevators that was common with second production batch D.Vs near the D.2000 range, as can be seen on the in-field photos of D.2059/17 at Marckebeke. Not absolute proof, but more of a walk/quacks-like-a-duck sort of thing.

Hello, all, I've searched for quite some time but have not found/or overlooked the answer to the following: How can I make my airplane shadow appear smooth? Specifically, the machine's shadow seen on the ground before takeoff and after landing. Currently, and as always, it appears very, very jagged while the machine itself is quite smooth via anti-aliasing. I imagine it's just a configuration tweak somewhere so I've come here to find it. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Good Lord, I didn't realize it'd amount to all that! I thought I'd just be told to move a slider to a certain position or something. Thank you for that most interesting explanation. I appreciate your time.

You can find a full translation of this in Peter Kilduff's Richthofen, Beyond the Legend of The Red Baron, 1993.

The RNAS initially relied on French machines to make up for the shortcomings of British manufacturers. The cockade on the rudder sounds as if that photo shows a Nieuport 10. Yes, cockades were also painted on the undersurfaces of the upper wings (this was standard with Nieuport scouts), as well as the undersurfaces of the lower wings.

Roy Brown is the Canadian pilot with No. 209 Squadron who was credited with the kill. I believe the evidence is clear that although Brown's attack was spirited, it was ineffective. Ground fire killed Richthofen, but as to naming the exact man who pulled the trigger? I'm not willing to go that far. Popkin gets a lot of credit for that, but so many guys fired at him I believe it could have been anyone.

Hi, guys, Sorry it's been a bit since I've been here to reply. I don't believe the Roucourt aerodrome was west of the trees early in its operation. Jasta 11 used it before Jasta 12, and they used the east side. There is also a photo of a Dr.I landing or taking off from Roucourt and it is on the east side. Fields had to be cleared of debris, holes filled in, etc., (often by prisoners) to make them viable for airplane use; why prepare a second field for J12 air ops west of the trees when just across them to the east--literally a one minute walk--there was an already prepared field that had been used by the Luftstreitkrafte's cream of the crop, Jasta 11? Clearly the photographed trees in the Jasta 11 and 12 photos are much thicker than those along the lane west of the main trees that run north from the chateau. Aerial photos reveal these north/south trees are not naturally occuring (same for those on the lane, obviously); someone planted them, as opposed to their having been part of a forest. Thus, the trunks can align at various angles and give the impression the copse is thin because you can see between/through the aligned trunks. But look left in those previously posted J12 photos; very thick. Thick enough to camouflage hangars, etc., from roaming British bombers, which was a reason for Jasta 11 relocating to Roucourt in the first place. Look at this aerial photo: Undated, but unquestionably between 1908 and 1917. Be advised that the perspective makes the trees appear wider and less elongated N/S as they were/are. Note how the trees are all aligned in rows north/south and east/west? Now, look at the line of trees along the lane west of the chateau. See how anemic and thin in comparison? They wouldn't camouflage--or even fit--any sort of hangar, and the closer to the chateau (or, "left" in a photograph if indeed they were in those Staffeln photographs above) they become thinner with large gaps in spacing. Now, say this photo was taken in 1910. Would these trees grow at a rate to become as thick and lush as is seen in the various Staffeln photos from 1917? I'm not a tree expert but I say no, and 90 years later they are still just a thin row. BTW, through the center of the tallest trees that extend north from the chateau there is a lane running straight through the middle. When you walk it you are overcanopied by foliage but you could drive a car through there. (This also "thins" the amount of trunks in there and allows one to see straight through the copse from ground level.) When you visit there, Olham, you can walk this lane and then cut through the trees to the right to reach the airfield. (Beware of an old barbed wire fence in there when you do, and for some reason there were a zillion Daddy Longleg spiders in the brush; I had to spend a few minutes getting those things off me, as they were everywhere.) I must confess, when I walked from the chateau and down that lane, with the only sound being my footsteps and the wind roaring through the leaves, I couldn't help but ponder in whose footsteps I strode. Interesting about Schobinger saying he went left. "Left" is relevant to the direction faced, so left of what? I don't have that J12 book yet (they wouldn't ship to the US when I tried ordering it so I've been searching for it elsewhere) so if you have time, Olham, could you please quote what he says about getting to the field? Seems to me the pilots would just walk straight down that canopied lane to reach the planes, although they certainly could have cut east behind the chateau and then back north along the lane that ran the east perimeter of the trees (along which, at the north end, that famous J11 photo was taken with MvR and his D.III). We're getting hammered by a serious lightning storm so I'm outta here.

Hello, Forgive me, Olham, you've done a great job but just for the sake of accuracy, you have the airfield juuusst slightly misplaced. I realize you said the book indicates the field was "left" of the trees, but many Jasta 11 and Jasta 12 photographs show it was right of the trees. This images shows the famous Jasta 11 lineup from April 1917, taken approximately by the x (Albs for orientation and not to scale). The famous Jasta 12 lineups from that summer were in approximately the same location, except photographed from the opposite side of the airfield. The buildings visible in the trees were the hangars built by Jasta 11. When I visited there in 2004 I could see areas in the trees where obviously buildings had once stood. If the airfield were situated to the left of the trees, the visible buildings would have been built on top of a road, and from a WW1 aerial view I have of the field there were trees where you have edited them out. Those trees were just a row on either side of the street and petered out before reaching the chateau, and in the Jasta 12 shots the further one looks left the more thick and lush the trees. Here's the Jasta 11 lineup: Here's what it looked like when I was there in 2004: The building and smokestack are gone today. This was part of a coal mine ("Fosse Roucourt") that was destroyed in 1918, along with the chateau, when the Germans retreated. The mine (which was mostly ventilation shafts for nearby mines) was rebuilt but has since been torn down, although the shafts remain (they are still visible via Google earth and the mines' lat/long matches them exactly). The mine was located where the buildings can be seen in the center middle distance. Here's a shot of Jasta 12 Schobinger's penultimate victory, taken after the RE8 was brought back to Roucourt: Note the building and smokestack in the background. Same as in the Jasta 11 lineup photo. Also, note this photo of Manfred von Richthofen: Now, note the buildings in the background shot of Hochstetter's machine: Slightly different angle, but same building, with new building to its left where the pile of lumber is visible in the Richthofen shot. What the hey, a few more shots: Jasta 12 at Roucourt. Note buildings in trees, and how the trees are more than just a single row straddling a road: Jasta 11 at Roucourt, 1917, taken close to the "x" in the photo above: I took this photo from approx. the same location in 2004. The church in background matches the church ("e") in the above photo: As OVS said, Boistrancourt is largely unchanged, at least the area. The sugar factory is there but the smokestack is gone, as are all the hangars and Berr's stands. Some shots: Near the corner of the chateau wall, looking toward where Hangar 1 used to be. Sugar factory in background, sans smokestack: Boistrancourt, July 1917: Boistrancourt 2004. Wooden fence and hedge are gone today, as is the observation tower. Smaller trees are gone today as well and corn grows there: Debates over Roucourt, for those interested in further reading (these are about the airfield itself, not necessarily Jasta 12): http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-ww...a-brayelle.html This one starts out discussing Albs but morphs into airfield locations: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/camoufla...-2016-16-a.html http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/other-ww...a-brayelle.html

Voss strafed at least victories #19, 24, and 33 as they sat on the ground.

Hi, Olham, Yes, Lothar's account is a bit exaggerated; "my triplane had turned into a biplane," and all that. Still, he endured structural damage and lost much of the fabric of his upper wing--some contend due to return fire during the combat. He nursed the triplane to earth with limited controllability--he wrote he could not turn because the "rudder no longer functioned" but said nothing of his ailerons--but at low altitude encountered a high-tension wire, attempted to maneuver, lost control of the triplane and crashed. Received facial (obviously) and leg injuries.

Yes, Duce, that's what it is. The D.IIIs were slab-sided along the lower wings so the fairings eased the transition from the straight portion of the fuselage to the rounded portions and reduced interference drag. The D.V and D.Va did not have the slab sides and thus utilized stubby wing roots instead, and the fairings were not needed.

Hello, The "mottling" is not paint but wrinkles in the wood that alter light and shadow. On the nose, as the curve rounds down toward the ground there is less reflected light so it appears darker in the photograph. Both these machines are shown in standard factory appearance.

Based on your stated interests, you can't go wrong here: http://www.yosemite.com/

I didn't give a rat's ass about the editing; I enjoy the picture, not the frame! Great stuff, WF2!

Yep, rabu, you certainly draw a lot of flak over there!

I apologize, Pol; I thought you were taking the piss. I hope you don't think I was minimizing what you wrote because that was not my intent. Of course, all those tail-wagging-the-dog "ifs" are possible, although none would align the path of MvR's bullet wound with Brown's guns because MvR would had to have been flying inverted. And, yes, Olham, many "don't want" MvR being shot down by another airplane. I'm not motivated that way and for years believed Brown shot him down. Nobody in the air was invincible, and anybody could shoot down anyone else, provided he was in-range and unseen--as was Brown! However, since 1979 I've believed the totality of events reveals he did not fire the fatal bullet. 'tis fun to discuss and debate, though.

Manfred was hit from below, because the shot came from the ground. Brown's diving attack was spirited but ineffective; it neither shot MvR down nor drove him off May. Brown dived from MvR's rear port-quarter, opposite side of the entrance wound. As one Richthofen book succinctly summarized, "...the mortal bullet passed upwards through Richthofen from his right to left, and No. 209 Squadron’s Capt Brown attacked Richthofen downwards from his left to right."

Yep, Brown's diving attack from MvR's port side produced another magic bullet!