WWI Digest 155 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re[2]: Rigging (was Re: NEW MAILING LIST MEMBER) by stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu 2) Re: re German flaming nins by Robert Johnson 3) Re: Scale question by "Brian Bushe" 4) WWI in the Air disappearing??? by michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) 5) Re: WWI in the Air disappearing??? by michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) 6) FYI: Great War Society Web Site (fwd) by Erik Pilawskii 7) RE: Scale question by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 8) RE: Rib Tapes on Ailerons by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 9) RE: Information Wanted by shingend@ix.netcom.com (Mark Shannon) 10) RE: Information Wanted by mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca (Mark K. Nelson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 07:26:36 PST From: stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: Rigging (was Re: NEW MAILING LIST MEMBER) Message-ID: <9605108344.AA834416884@SCCCGATE.seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu> Late but . . I use normal sewing monofilament nylon thread, that comes in different thickness, I found it in that wonderful hunting place that is my wife's sewing box, you can fix it in place with very little cyanocrylate and then I paint it with Model Master Chrome Silver, once it dries, I pass through it a pair of tweezers, and it gets the appearance of threaded steel cable, I think . . . On the advice of someone in this group, I went down to a fly fishing store and bought some tippet line (monofilament). It comes in different sizes and is quite affordable. I also found lead wire which I am sure will come in handy for engine stuff, and brake lines for (gasp) WWII aircraft. --Stephen Tontoni tontoni@halcyon.com stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 08:57:22 +0000 From: Robert Johnson To: wwi Subject: Re: re German flaming nins Message-ID: <9606100850.aa24823@scosysv.speechsys.com> I did a little research n the questin f "Flaming Onions" and came up with a photo reference. My source was (I think), Alex Imrie's Pictorial History of the German Army Air Service, 1914-1918 (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1973) p. 103. I got the book via Inter-Library Loan and only have a poor xerox now, totally useless for further reproduction. However, I have prepared a sketch made from this photo. If anyone besides Geln wants it, they should e-mail me direct (robj@speechsys.com) and I will send it as a UUEncoded GIF file (readable by Pegasus mail and a various free, downloadable viewers). The designation of the "flaming onion" gun was "3.7-cm Maschinen flak." The gun was a license-built Vickers pom-pom, essentially a heavy-weight Maxim machine gun produced as a 1.5-pdr (37-mm) and 2-pdr (40-mm). Guns of this kind served as AA guns on WW1 RN destroyers and Italian and Russian navy vessels. They were used by the Boers in the Boer war for attacking field artillery. Powered, four- and 8-gun mounts were the standard RN AA gun of WW2. Pictures of the gun itself should thus be available in your public library, perhaps in an encyclopedia of weapons, a book on artillery, or a naval history. The guns were called "flaming onions" because tracer was used for sighting. Effective slant range was about 9000 ft for aimed fire. Rate of firewas about 300 rounds per minute (hence the name "pom-pom" which mimicked the slow firing). In Allied service, these guns were not very reliable. The fabric ammunition belts were seriously overtaxed by the the big cartridges and frequently jammed, usually after only a few shots. So the effective rate of fire was far lower. Perhaps this is why the Germans used them only in a static, balloon-defence role where relatively clean conditions and expert maintenance could be assured. Germany used the guns as anti-torpedo boat weapons on 1880s- and 1890s-vintage naval vessels. They were obsolete for this purpose by 1914. So they were mounted on what appear to be obsolete, box-trail field-artillery carriages. The conical, naval pedestal mount appears to be set on a short platform just ahead of the axle, which rides on top of the box-section carriage. The wheels are steel-tired, wooden artillery wheels with rather a Napoleonic appearance. To model the 3.7-cm, I suggest you track down pictures of the Vickers pom-pom and 1880s-brand field artillery (my little local public library has more than enough material). Then mate the gun with a likely looking German carriage. The research material is probably not going to be handed to you in datafile format, so you'll have to be creative. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:23:31 +0000 From: "Brian Bushe" To: wwi Subject: Re: Scale question Message-ID: <199606101625.RAA24949@hades.itl.net> re: Re: Scale question > > Jim MacKenzie writes: > > > >> Quarter scale would be 1/25th the size of the real thing. > > > >I beg to differ. In 1/25 scale, 1"=25". In 1/4 scale, 1"=4". It > >needn't be inches either, since it is a ratio (hence, dimensionless). > >Thus a1/48-scale kit is the same measured in centimeters, inches, or > >furlongs. You are right about "quarter scale" being short for "quarter-inch > >scale". > > This discussion is reminding me of the scene in "Spinal Tap" where bass > player Nigel, whilst conferring with a set designer, sketches out a replica > of Stonehenge on a cocktail napkin and mistakenly writes 18" instead of 18' > as it's heighth. The set designer takes him literally, therefore when the > Stonehenge "model" descends from the rafters during the song of the same > name, it is only 1 1/2 feet tall, and not very awe-inspiring. In fact, the > dwarves that are supposed to dance around it end up kicking it over, much to > the chagrin of the band. This scene alone is worth renting the movie. > > Sorry, no WWI content here, but since we kind of beat the Holy Grail thing > to death, thought it might be time for a new extraneous thread. > > Mark > > On the relevance scale it was about 1/72 relevant (is that eight scale?) "Our second drummer choked on vomit" "Yeah, the police report said it was his own vomit, but they weren't really sure....because, you know, you can't really fingerprint vomit...." Now, that had no relevance ..... sorry Brian Brian Bushe syclone@itl.net Syclone Systems (44) 1628 789 470 Maidenhead Fax 789 513 Berkshire England ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:35:18 GMT From: michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) To: wwi Subject: WWI in the Air disappearing??? Message-ID: <31bc5c78.1801705@relay.ping.be> I just received today (10 june) the WWI in the Air of today. I didn't receive anything between 1st june and today. The last post was for 31 may. Regards ---===========================================================--- Michel Lefort - Braine-l'Alleud, Belgium http://www.ping.be/~ping1076 A bus station is a place where the bus starts. A train station is a place where the train starts. Why do they insist on putting a workstation on my desk? I wonder... ---===========================================================--- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 18:55:47 GMT From: michel.lefort@ping.be (Michel LEFORT) To: wwi Subject: Re: WWI in the Air disappearing??? Message-ID: <31bc6f88.6684247@relay.ping.be> On Mon, 10 Jun 1996 13:34:06 -0400, you wrote: >I just received today (10 june) the WWI in the Air of today. I didn't >receive anything between 1st june and today. The last post was for 31 >may. >Regards > Oops, sorry. Wrong mailing list. I apologize for any inconvenience. Regards. ---===========================================================--- Michel Lefort - Braine-l'Alleud, Belgium http://www.ping.be/~ping1076 A bus station is a place where the bus starts. A train station is a place where the train starts. Why do they insist on putting a workstation on my desk? I wonder... ---===========================================================--- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 12:04:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Erik Pilawskii To: ww1 mailer Subject: FYI: Great War Society Web Site (fwd) Message-ID: Of interest: ---- SUBMITTED BY: Sal Compagno Subject: FYI: Great War Society Web Site Please let me announce that the new Great War Society Web Site is ready for viewing. It is outstanding and can be found at this url: http://www.mcs.net/~mikei/tgws/ ******************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 96 08:06:00 EDT From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: Scale question Message-ID: <199606102233.IAA16025@mimmon.mim.com.au> >Also, what is the equivalent for 1/72nd? TIA! >Matt Easy. That'd be -5.0 dioptres Shane (actually -5.5 in the right eye, Weier) ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jun 96 08:06:00 EDT From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: Rib Tapes on Ailerons Message-ID: <199606102233.IAA16023@mimmon.mim.com.au> Mark, (much useful research snipped) >This is all based on a reference with out-of-date info, often suspect in >attributions, but the pictures seem to show that either is possible. (snip) >(Wouldn't YOU love to see a case where one aileron was >and one wasn't taped?) >Keep looking, we can all learn. (You scared the living daylights out of me, >after nearly going crazy putting the blasted things on MY D VII !) You and I both mate. I couldn't believe I'd never noticed it, and had a sinking feeling that all my old models were wrong. Incidentally, I can now report that this "to tape or not to tape" business also applies to a great number of other aircraft - Albatrii in particular. Thanks to you and the estimable Bill, I can rest easy (and in this case I have decided to save energy and leave them OFF ) Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:25:25 -0700 From: shingend@ix.netcom.com (Mark Shannon) To: wwi Subject: RE: Information Wanted Message-ID: <199606110025.RAA21371@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> I feel stupid asking, but it was raised a week ago. One of the referrences mentioned there was an article coming out (In 'Cross and Cockade' if I remember right) about correcting the Eduard Sopwith Pup kit, especially fixing the turtleback. I have the kit in my backlog queue, and have not been able to FIND any obvious errors in the turtleback against my references. Could someone tell me just what IS wrong? (I'm trying to get these magazines, but I think I'm using the slow boat.) Thanks, Mark Shannon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 21:36:15 -0600 From: mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca (Mark K. Nelson) To: wwi Subject: RE: Information Wanted Message-ID: Actually, it was Windsock magazine. The problem is that the "turtleback" stays curved right back to the tailplane. In actual fact the stringers (on the turtleback) curved up at the back so that the outside stringers are level with the center stringers where they meet the tailplane. This curving starts at the last bulkhead before the tailplane. another way of explaining it is that this is the section of the turtleback from the cockpit back to the the all-but last bulkhead before the tailplane: ______ / \ whereas this is the shape right at the tailplane: ______ | | The pitures in the magazine explain it much better, but close study of photos should do the trick too. >I feel stupid asking, but it was raised a week ago. > >One of the referrences mentioned there was an article coming out (In >'Cross and Cockade' if I remember right) about correcting the Eduard >Sopwith Pup kit, especially fixing the turtleback. I have the kit in >my backlog queue, and have not been able to FIND any obvious errors in >the turtleback against my references. Could someone tell me just what >IS wrong? (I'm trying to get these magazines, but I think I'm using >the slow boat.) > >Thanks, >Mark Shannon _____________________________________________________________________ Mark (An Employee at Kites & Other Delights in West Edmonton Mall) ------------------------ mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 155 *********************