Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About JFM

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Naples, FL

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. Just like they didn't model the hand-operated air pump for engine start, or the water pump greaser, the handle of which had to be turned a half-turn every ten minutes the engine was running.
  2. Hi, Unreasonable. I am sorry you find my reply obnoxious; that was/is not my intent and please accept my apology. I'm just direct and secure in my convictions. I have studied the subject which we've discussed using the same material the doctors have used, which is the ONLY material there is on it. As a researcher I entered the arena without an agenda to push, but rather a want to find what was true, because there are so many different version in various books. Ignoring them and going to the only sources of the material, the historical "evidence" the doctors presented as "proof" of their assertions is based on incorrect understandings of history. I agree, we cannot fully understand what happened so far removed, but when after accessing the same and only material I have realized their errors, I should keep quiet? No. I'm not being obnoxious, just honest. And I'm trying to guide everyone away from the notion of a Geocentric solar system, so to speak. While your disinterest in the book is unfortunate for the truth, but it doesn't change that truth. As the saying goes, the truth is still true, even if no one believes. If you are interested, instead it'd be my pleasure to PM you some documents/information. If after reading them you think I should pound sand, so be it. EDIT: I forgot to add I agree with Unreasonable regarding the Jasta 11 red. There is provenance for inexact hues being used by various Staffeln, as told by the pilots to German researcher Bruno Schmaeling.
  3. I am well familiar with that article, and have corresponded with Dr. Allmers. Indeed, medically/biologically it is correct, but its application to Richthofen is historically INcorrect. That's the problem with many of these "unfit to fly" assertions by various doctors: They are based on flawed history. "Flawed" meaning they don't fully understand what actually happened. It's not their faults, however; they are regurgitating regurgitated myths. Want to know why/how? PM me or start a new thread. Or, read: https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Victories-Manfred-Richthofen-Comprehensive/dp/1935881434/ref=pd_sim_14_1/138-8015559-8024919?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1935881434&pd_rd_r=9cd70c15-6d9e-11e9-9381-ffdfe42e5ee6&pd_rd_w=QOXds&pd_rd_wg=hrvBu&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=9G5FHJEXDJF7MMH5NW97&psc=1&refRID=9G5FHJEXDJF7MMH5NW97
  4. OT: Respectfully, Richthofen's performance did not gradually decline as any affect of his head wound in July 1917. In March and April 1918, he was at the top of his game, in the best form since Bloody April. The popularly thrice-told tales of MvR being remorse and aloof and still-injured when he died are myths. All evidence--ALL--indicates he had healed/recovered from his wound. His totals were down after Bloody April because he was gone all of May and most of June on leave, then hospitalized in July; fought sporadically in August as he recovered; had recuperative leave in September and October 1917; and then the pace of all air fighting slackened with the worsening weather into winter. He was gone on Christmas leave, then all of January 1918 he was in Russia. He returned to the front in February 1918 but the records indicate the weather was so bad there was little flying/fighting and no ground campaigns to support or oppose. When things improved in March, Richthofen was back at it. He shot down 11 planes in March and 6 in April, despite frequent bad weather in the latter--and 9 of these victories were Sopwith Camels. Anyway, as I said, OT. Perhaps we can discuss in a new thread.
  5. Excerpts from The Fokker Triplane, by Alex Imrie, 1992, page 81: RICHTHOFEN'S TRIPLANES Red was not an easily available color and was not held in stores by units in the field, unlike black and white and certain camouflage colors which were required for finishing aircraft after repair or during national insignia changes. Its shortage was such that Richthofen often dispatched his Werkmeister, Josef Holzapfel, to search out sources of red (and other) paint in the rear areas. This was done using a two-seat aircraft, and on all such non-operations flights the aircraft’s occupants had to carry a document of flight authorization, signed by a superior officer, stating the destination and purpose of the flight… Since the red color came from a variety of sources (captured Allied red dope was doubtless also used), the exact color and shade obviously varied to quite a degree. Because the triplane used a linseed oil protective varnish finish, ordinary oil paint, suitably thinned, could be used without causing any interaction with the cellulose dope… The choice of red stemmed from the use of reddish brown as a camouflage color on wings and tails in later 1916 and early 1917, but extending this color to the varnished plywood fuselages of Albatros fighters at the time showed that, far from being a good camouflage color on this component, it actually made the aircraft more easily visible at long ranges. This property was turned to good effect in the adoption of markings to enable individual pilots to be identified; it was more effective than the use of personal symbol and was especially favored by formation leaders… I know the OT regarded triplanes, but here's an RFC report on a captured Jasta 11 machine (Georg Simon's Albatros D.III 2015/16), brought down 4 June 1917. On the copy of the report were Methuen color codes (I do not know who added them), which I referenced in my Methuen Handbook of Colour and applied (digitally) to the document. Mind you, the original description and resulting color matches are estimates at best. But there is no doubt, at least regarding Jasta 11's Albatrosses, that the red was described as "bright."
  6. I'll add to this that Brown dived on Richthofen from Richthofen's 8 o'clock(ish) high. To quote an MvR book, "...the mortal bullet passed upwards through Richthofen from his right to left [JFM edit: there was only a very rudimentary postmortem wound-path examination, but its classic entrance and exit wound appearances identified the direction of travel], and No. 209 Squadron's Capt Brown attacked Richthofen downwards from his left to right."
  7. Interesting discussion. I haven't a concrete explanation for increased flamers. It seems even MvR was surprised by it, or had no explanation, as this quote in Gibbons' book suggests: "'Queer,' he [Richthofen] began slowly, 'but the last ten I shot down all burned.'" "Queer" meaning odd, strange, unusual. BTW, his "last ten"--i.e., nos. 66-75 at the time of the quote--had not burned, but nos. 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75 burned. Not ten, but the majority, 70%. And if you look at the ten before that, 56-65, Nos. 58, 59 (mid-air explosion), and 63 burned, which is 30%. Nos. 56-65 were downed between 25 June 1917 and 13 March 1918, or roughly nine months, for much of which MvR was absent the front lines. Nos. 66-75 were downed between 18 March and 2 April 1918, just over two weeks. So, three flamers over nine months, then seven flamers in a couple weeks. A bit OT, so read further at your own peril, but just want to (briefly) address MvR's wounding of 6 July 1917. Gibbons, Franks/Giblin/McCrery and others give credit to Woodbridge in FE2d A6512 (and for some reason usually not Cunnell, who was flying that airplane and also shooting at MvR) for shooting down MvR, but my research has shown that it was not and could not have been either. Neither was it "friendly fire" from the rear, as Ferko speculates in his book Richthofen. It could have been friendly fire, certainly, just not from behind. Who shot him then? The simple answer is we'll never know. But the evidence indicates the bullet arrived from neither directly ahead (i.e., from FE2d A6512, which MvR approached head-on) nor directly behind.
  8. You can have this nice picture of one. 😀
  9. ZachariasX, yes, May knew he was being chased. He didn't notice MvR until he realized he was being fired on. Wrote May, in 1950: "After I leveled off, I looked around but nobody was following me... This wasn't to last long, and the first thing I knew I was being fired on from the rear... all I could do was try to dodge my attacker."
  10. Also, May was flying a weaving course compared to MvR, and it was reported MvR "cut the corners" on river bends as May followed the river. This allowed him to close distance. As far as Brown, he boom-and-zoomed MvR once and then disappeared. It is speculative that MvR even saw him. If he did, he must have concluded Brown was no threat because he did not disengage from his pursuit.
  11. Richthofen WAS shooting at May, several witnesses on the ground attested to this. But one gun was inop and the other would only fire a couple rounds at a time and needed manual re-cocking, so his rate of fire was severely limited. Wreckage examination revealed that this gun became inop, too, and its speculated that when it did is when he broke off his pursuit and turned for home, only to be KIA moments later.
  12. Hello. Yes, as Tuesday noted from another thread, MvR did nothing unusual on 21 April 1918. He'd been low over enemy lines numerous times, starting back when he was a two-seater pilot, bombing/strafing Russian troops in 1916. He wrote about one attack he conducted from "the lowest possible altitude." Ernst Udet wrote about Richthofen leading him and others on a very low-altitude (about thirty feet) strafing run after an aerial clash in March 1918, shooting at British troops. And, after cross-checking RAF reports, German reports, pilot anecdotes, and maps from April 1918, I discovered the entire MvR/May chase occurred behind the lines. I.e., Richthofen didn't chase May over the lines, nor--respectfully--was he drawn over them. He and May were already over the lines when the chase began. 21 April 1918 was just another day at the office, so to speak. Only that day, instead of return ground fire only hitting a strut or a wing or the fuselage, a bullet hit him.
  13. Agreed. The TBD's fate at Midway was in part due to the poor torpedoes at the time, and the requirements for launching them. There are varying figures on this, but according to VT-8 survivor George Gay, their TBDs had to be at 80 feet altitude and throttled back to 80 knots when dropping them. 80 knots is Cessna 152 speed. Low and slow, flying predictable flight paths, with no fighter cover... Still, look at the VT-8 TBF Avengers flying off Midway. A faster, more robust airplane, but they too were slaughtered, also in part due to the drop speed/altitude requirements of the same Mark 13 torpedo the TBDs were dropping. The days of the 800 foot/300 knot drops with the Mark 13 improvements were still far off. So, a lack of fighter cover and being hamstrung by required torpedo drop parameters weren't the fault of the TBD. Hell, if VT-8 had flown unescorted F-18 Hornets at 80 knots and 80 feet to drop torpedoes, Zeros were going to shoot them down.
  14. What Trooper said. Meanwhile, the announced steps toward the PTO are awesome, more than excited and content.
  15. SO looking forward to the PTO, but with the P-38, P-47, Tempest and especially Flying Circus, more than happy. Pre-ordered. Thank you.
  • Create New...