>> >Don't forget (how could you?) the fuselage was left "natural"...
>> >
>>
>> Yet another suspect generalization.
>
>Which is why I stuck it in quotes. I wasn't going to go into all the
>various "natural" colorizations, especially those brought about by
>different varnishes and/or stains.
>
>However, it also looks like the list has taken over on this point.
>Which is one of the best things on this list. Bring up a
>"generalization", and others will join the fray. This is what I
>consider great "mind thinkers", for lack of a better term.
>
>And I too will have to agree with the person who said (Mark?) this is
>a great list to be on.
I certainly didn't mean this to come across as a Nit Picker deluxe type
response...
What does frost me lately is that I am starting to see quite a few
unsubstantiated comments. And some members quoting from decidedly
antiquated sources.
Just because you have a ONE book that says it doesnt necessarily make
it so. Especially when the source is more than about 20 years old or
so before WW1 aero documentation stopped being a casual hobby and
became more research and proof oriented.
Again this isnt directed at any one person. All I am saying is think and do
some research before you post. Perpetuating myths and inaccuracies is
the bane of our collective interest here..........
Silver Hill Historic Aviation Ltd. | Research - Documentation
4051 Ivy Lane | Photography - Paints
Easton, Pa. 18045 | Antique Instrumentation