Re: QUERY: von Raben's Dr.1 (...

Bill Shatzer (
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 22:57:52 -0700

>>As far as von Richtofen's Dr.I, there are a number of paint schemes
>What most people miss is that Richtofen's 102/17 and Voss's 103/17
>werent PRODUCTION planes at all and not even F1 or Dr-1 triplanes.
>They were remodeled V4 preproduction prototypes!

Hmmm! I've got at least three references which state 101/17,
102/17 and 103/17 *were* F.1's and, indeed, were *all* the F.1's
According to my sources the three Fokker V.5 protypes c/n 1697,
1729, and 1730 were accepted by the German Air Force and given the
standard designation "F.1". So, Fokker V.5 = Fokker F.1

And, while I suppose it's fair to say that the V.5/F.1's were
just a modified Fokker V.4, there are at least as many differences
between the V.5/F.1's and the V.4 as there are between the V.5/F.1's
and the Dr.I.

>There were BIG differences. If you ever see anyone use a standard Dr-1
>kit and mark them as Voss or MVR astound them with these gems.
>1: The V4 planes had NO wingtip skids.
>2: The cowlings were different than the production run, with the lower
>part of the cowling going behind the engine. Thus the cylyinders poked
>out of an elliptically shaped "slot" rather than the production horseshoe
>shaped cowl.
>3: ( the biggie) the STAB was very different, with the angled leading edges
>of both sides of the stab being arced rather than straight. Few photos
>showing this detail were ever taken. It is quite distinctive!

Yep, this is all quite correct. There was a publication out of the
former former Soviet block (Czechoslovakia or Poland) about 8 years
ago which had an accurate 3-view drawing of the F.1 curved horizontal
tailplane - which, of course, I decided to purchase later only to
discover that it had been sold :-( So, if anybody knows a source
of accurate drawings showing the correct shape of the F.1 tailplane,
please post.

Cheers, Bill