[WWI] AEG C.IV

Mark Shannon shingend at ix.netcom.com
Fri Oct 16 23:52:24 EDT 2009


I am also of the opinion that the wings are replacements without streaking.
The tailplane is obviously streaked on at least the portside horizontal
stabilizer, so I think the wing streaking would be visible.  Similarly, the
fuselage white background indicates that the Dutch would probably have
given the wings the same treatment and just added orange markings large
enough to cover the black crosses.  There is no trace of any white
background on the wings.

The light patch on the fuselage photographed similarly to the patch of bare
cloth on one of the Dr.I's - the one with the anchor personal marking.  I
think it indicates a place where the dope and varnish has flaked off.

Scantily clad girls would be nice, but this looks like a dreary day.  They
would probably be wearing wooden sabots on their feet and bulky dresses.

Mark Shannon
shingend at ix.netcom.com



> [Original Message]
> From: Diego Fernetti <dfernet0 at rosario.gov.ar>
> To: World War I Modeling Mailing List <wwi at wwi-models.org>
> Date: 10/16/2009 5:55:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [WWI] AEG C.IV
>
> > Any opinions on the photo at this link? 
> > http://ipms.freeforums.org/post2616.html#p2616
>
> It's a very nice picture. Where are the scantily clad girls? That can 
> improve it a lot.
>
> > The poster is asking , among other things, what colour the top wings 
> > should be.
> > He thinks CDL, I think not, unless they recovered the wings (not 
> > impossible, because they seem to have done that to the
> > rudder, to remove the cross, although it could be paint. Why I don't
think 
> > CDL is because Fokker built machines, from my
> > reading of the Datafile, had typical Fokker streaky camo as on the 
> > fuselage here, if early, and then got disruptive camo if
> > later production. And this is a machine from September 1917. I think
any 
> > camo pattern on the lower wing has been washed
> > out by the same glare you see on the top of the fuelage.
>
> I also think it's CDL, or painted in a solid light colour. It's a guess,
all 
> right, but as you see, there's about the same shade of grey in the
intrados 
> of the upper wing and the little bit visible of the intrados of the lower 
> wing (right by the wingtip). As there's no evidence of overpainting of
the 
> white field of the German cross, I assume that the fabric was replaced 
> completely (like the rudder and fin); or else the wings were tidily 
> repainted completely. f any surface were streaked with paint, it would at 
> least be somewhat apparent  where the lower wing extrados is less exposed
to 
> glare.
> Of course, the original photo print may show different.
> And that's only my theory. And the theory is mine.
>
> > The other unexplained bit is the light area at the bottom of the
fuselage 
> > sides behind the lower wing - either it's CDL
> > and the fuselage streaks are painted over a darker colour, or the lower 
> > fuselage has been painted a light colour. Messily.
>
> Seems like it's some sort of patch or repair. Don't forget that interned 
> aircraft many times were damaged before or after landing. Flying surface 
> damage must be fixed 100% if you want to get the thing on the air again,
but 
> fuselage surfaces needs just to be patched up and the important reapirs 
> devoted to structural damage. It was just sloppy Dutch, getting the plane 
> ready for a ride. BTW see how they didn't even bothered to erase the
white 
> field of the German marking and just slapped the orange meatball just big 
> enough to cover the cross? the wings seem to have been marked without
need 
> to cover previous markings. unless, as I've said, they were completely 
> repainted.
> IMHO
> D.
>
> > Any ideas, please?
>
> I have lots of them.
> D.
> Show me the blueprints! 




More information about the WWI mailing list