Re: Next topic for discussion...

Bill Shatzer (
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 23:18:01 -0700

>I'm not sure about this because in the few pictures I've seen of the AH
>EIII's, there don't appear to have any of the factory markings or stencils,
>except for the AH Flik number. This would make sense if they were painted
>after they got into AH hands. But I'm no expert on Austro-Hungarian stuff.
> Anybody know what that new, expensive(!) book on AH a/c has to say? Did
>Fokker ever license production out like the very few DVII's made at MAG and

There is at least one photo of an Einedecker which shows both the
German serial E.I 64/15 *and* the AH serial 03.51. "Austro-Hungarian
Army Aircraft of World War One" indicates that 65/15 03.52 was
similarly marked.
>BTW, what about the datafile's assertion that the Turkish EIII were painted a
>brown color? Would this have made effective camoflague in the Middle Eastern

Don't have any other references to confirm or deny that but brown
would seem a reasonable camouflage color for that region. However,
remember that most early WW1 aircraft painting was done primarily to
protect the fabric from deterioration caused by sunlight and only
secondarily as a camouflage. (note the 'anti-camouflage' silver
paint used on early Nieuports and, even later, by Pfalz). So, if
they were, in fact, brown, the color may have been selected for its
availability or its sunlight resistant properties rather than as
a camouflage paint.

Cheers, Bill