RE: More 1/48 Stuff in brief - MS-L
Bill Shatzer (bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov)
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 23:56:11 -0700
>
>
>Hello Mark,
>
>I have at last had time to sit down with the most recent Eduard releases
>and have a good look at the bits. I did it with your internet review at
>hand, a first for me.
>
>In general I agree with the thrust of your remarks, but wonder about one
>thing. You mention that the fuselage is made of metal tubing, and I can't
>disagree, but the photo in the Datafile (#16) seems to me to reasonably
>clearly show square section framing. If this is so, the brass is probably
>as good as any alternative.
>
>BTW, I'd be interested to hear (and see) any other evidence that confirms
>the tube was round _before_ I build the ruddy thing :-0
Round or square, you can be pretty sure it wasn't brass! Brass is:
a) too heavy, and
b) not strong enough, and
c) not used for any other WW1 (or pre-WW1) aircraft I am aware of.
Brass is for radiators; aluminum or steel is for structural members.
I don't have datefile #16 but square just doesn't make sense. Round
(i.e. tubes) combines maximum strength with minimum weight. This
is basic mechanical engineering. Unless there is some reason why
they couldn't produce 'tubing' in sufficient quantity or quality,
'square' wouldn't make sense at all.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov - aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca -