>If this is the article I'm thinking of (Jul 1983), this is indeed a
>little dated. Sure, some of the old stuff is spot on, but there are
>others that - due to new evidence - are grossly wrong. An example:
>the Siemens Schuckert D.III/D.IV. Until <can't remember person's
>name> here in the U.S. really started researching, all drawings upto
>that point were wrong. This would be my guess for the E.III.
>However, as if to refute myself, there are some new drawings that are
>also suspect. So, if you go against the Scale Models' plans, the
>wing is off. If you go with the Datafile (which, it appears, Eduard
>did), the wings are spot on. So, brain, et.al is right, but so is
>Randy... Makes you think, doesn't it?
good, saves me a bit of work! which set is 'right'? the answer again
could be both. is it impossible that they were based on different
prototypes that did have different spans? i like it when you can
defend your model on some ambiguous point!
maybe i should finish that model after all.
brian
-- _______________________________________________________ Harrier Storage Solutions Ltd Ivanhoe Road (44) 1734 328 282 Finchampstead Fax 731 130 Berkshire http://www.harrier.com RG40 4QQ brian.bushe@harrier.com United Kingdom _______________________________________________________