WWI Digest 20 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Winsock reprints by Michel.Lefort@ping.be (Michel Lefort) 2) Re: Winsock reprints by "Matt Bittner" 3) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) 4) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by Jose Valenciano 5) RE: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 6) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by bfelton@ibm.net 7) Re: Methuen Handbook electronic copy by mindseye@mail.coretech.com (Phil Kirchmeier) 8) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by The Flying Wrench 9) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by Jose Valenciano 10) Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum by The Flying Wrench 11) Re: Blue Max Kits? by SCLexicat@aol.com 12) Re[2]: Methuen Handbook electronic copy by "STEVE HUSTAD" 13) re: latest FSM by stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 19:45:09 GMT From: Michel.Lefort@ping.be (Michel Lefort) To: wwi Subject: Winsock reprints Message-ID: <3111174b.30591290@relay.ping.be> I have received the new Windsock today (Vol 12, No.1). There is a new bunch of Datafiles reeditions announced : 5 Fokker Dr.I 6 Sopwith 2F1 Camel 7 Pfalz D.III 8 Spad 7 plus a revised edition of Datafile 32 on the Spad 13. Very good news. 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: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 14:14:43 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Winsock reprints Message-ID: <199602011504.PAA27128@cso.com> On 1 Feb 96 at 14:44, Michel Lefort typed diligently: > I have received the new Windsock today (Vol 12, No.1). There is a new > bunch of Datafiles reeditions announced : > 5 Fokker Dr.I Great news! Now I'll have a complete set. Hahahahahahahaha... Not to rub it in, of course... Who, me? Matt ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 20:49:29 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: <199602020449.AA05975@ednet1.osl.or.gov> The Flyin' Wrench writes: > >At 12:53 AM 2/1/96 -0500, Bill Shatzer wrote: -snips- >>Well, the Albatros Publications "Aces and Airplanes" special on Guynemer >>has some info on, and photos of, Nieuport 1550. > >Is this Data file or pub still available? Alas, I fear it is long outa print. Ray Rimel issued the first three books in this series, Guynemer, Voss, and McCudden back in '87 and promised 'further titles under preparation'. They must not have been 'big sellers' 'cause the 'further titles' never appeared. -snips >> >>Perhaps the style of the N.3 insignia is correct for 1331 which might >>explain the two-colored stork included as an option. In any case, >>the remainder of the decals and instructions look pretty close to the >>photos although the tonal values on the photos are such that its tough >>to verify the suggested demarcation between the two wing top >>camouflage colors. > >Any FSN color comments as to the color tones for the brown and green And >was the fuselage the classic French silver/grey of which we so often post? > The book gives the Methuen references as 30E3, 29E5, and 26E2/3 on the green and 6E3 and 3D2/3 on the brown. Take your pick, I guess. The fuselage, horizontal tailplane, etc. are the typical french aluminum/silver/gray (whatever you decide to call it!) on the fabric portions - the metal portions appear to be natural metal. The fabric portions appear well 'dirtied up' (another technical term, Alan!) with lots of streaking and staining, mostly in the vertical direction. -snips- > >It is odd to supply drawings of nonexistant kit compnents, but at least they >show it. Spinners are not hard to cobble up. After all that is what Georges, >Billy, Albert and the others did for spinners. I guess Nobby craft feels >this scrounging lends to the realism factor, while costing them nothing. > Well, as Charles previously pointed out, it is a cone de penetration, not a spinner, but like you, I'm a little mystified just exactly -how- that was supposed to work. I've never seen a schematic drawing showing how it was supposed to be cobbled together or just -how- it could remain stationary in front of the prop and rotating engine. Enlightenment, anyone? >I have a book titled: "Aces and Aircraft of WWI". ( My kingdom for true type >fonts) This volume has several photos of messer. Guynemer in front of a >Nieuport with the spinner but I can't tell what version the Nie. it is. It >has the upper wing cutouts of the (I can't find the reference but I believe >it was a Nie.16), a round cowling with exhaust cutouts - speaking of which I >guess these will have to cut out of the kit's cowling - and the standard >single Vickers mounted on top of the cowling, in front of the pilot. I >cannot see a Lewis mounted on the upper wing. There is another photo of a >Nie.11 with the "Le VIEUX CHARLES" painted just under the cockpit coaming in >large letters. Of course the color plate is his SPAD VII. What else? > The Nie. 11 had the 'VIEUX CHARLES' on the starboard side only. >This brings up another question. What was the story on the colors of his >Spa.VII? I have heard many different stories of how this odd brown and >yellow color scheme came about. Natural linen and the wrong color yellow on >the cowl. The front was simply in the shadow and therefore looked brown etc. >The plate in this book shows a clear, brown to yellow demarcation line about >10 inches or so behind the cockpit just behind the last exhaust bracket with >an odd three scallops issuing from the edge of the brown and pointing >backward. Each scallop begins at one longeron and ends at the one below it. >It appears that the artist was perhaps trying to show the shadow of the >wing's scalloped edge, but the light source would have to be very strong and >at an odd angle to achieve such deep scalloping. Hoo boy. A whole different post and a whole different research project! 'Cause I kinda like this stuff, I'll probably do it and post it, but not tonight. -snips- >>1550 had a weird, or at least non-standard windscreen - the box art >>on the kit suggests, but doesn't quite capture the shape of the >>windscreen - in the photos it appears taller and more vertical than >>in the box art. In any case, the kit windscreen won't do for 1550 > >It appears from the box art that the kit windshield is close to what is on >the box minus the sides. Perhaps two pieces of Evergreen stock cut to shape >and bent slightly will fill in the gaps. >As far as highth, The windscreen is pretty neat as is. I kind o' hate to >scrap it, I'm sure Georges would not object to a field mod. In fact, I'm >sure he would be somewhat amazed to find a good German building a >representation of his aircraft some 79 years later. > Probably Georges wouldn't mind a wit - but, while it's tough to tell for sure, I don't think the windscreen was just the standard windscreen with two side extensions. -snips- >Another problem I seem to have is the roundels supplied with the kit have an >odd off shade of what appears to to be blue/green/grey. I always thought of >the French markings as having a more vivid blue. Again I box art portrays >this on the rudder. Is this the case? Or did Messr. Guynemer exhibit an >early example of "subdued" markings on his aircraft of the type that are now >common place on many military vehicles around the world? > I think the grayish blue for the roundels and rudder markings is pretty close to the correct shade for French roundels of this era. Americal uses a very similar shade for its French insignias and Americal is usually pretty decent on its color research and matching. I'm pretty sure the brighter, intense blue which usually shows up in French insignia decals is wrong, or at least atypical -snips- -snips- > >3. There is a little 'doohickey' mounted in the center of the upper >wing on 1550. While this is not explained in the text any place, the >text does mention that Guynemer did have a bracket for a camera mounted >in that location on at least some of his SPAD's. Thus my surmise would >be that the 'doohickey' on 1550 is a camera bracket as well. > >Did messer Guynemer have a Brownie as well as a Vickey? > He did indeed - there is a series of photos in the book allegedly taken by Guynemer during aerial combat including a photo of his 51st victory. Not as dramatic and well-focused as the (in)famous Cockburn-Lange photos but interesting none the less. Note for Alan: A 'DOOHICKEY' (pronounced dyu-hee-KAY') is a French aeronautical term loosely referring to any fiddley-bit of unknown or doubtful function. Not to be confused with 'GIZMO' (geez-MOH') which a fiddely bit whose function is known but whose name has been forgotten. A 'THINGAMABOB' (theeng-oh- mah-BOH') is any gizmo -or- doohickey associated with the engine or cooling system. We'll try and use non-technical terms from here on in! Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "You can crush a man with journalism." William Randolph Hearst ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:18:36 +0800 (HKT) From: Jose Valenciano To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Bill Shatzer wrote: > Well, as Charles previously pointed out, it is a cone de penetration, > not a spinner, but like you, I'm a little mystified just exactly -how- > that was supposed to work. I've never seen a schematic drawing showing > how it was supposed to be cobbled together or just -how- it could remain > stationary in front of the prop and rotating engine. Enlightenment, > anyone? It could have been mounted through a hollow shaft right? ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist tel. (632) 921-26-75 Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 02 Feb 96 15:16:00 EST From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: <199602020532.PAA01243@mimmon.mim.com.au> hi all, >Well, as Charles previously pointed out, it is a cone de penetration, >not a spinner, but like you, I'm a little mystified just exactly -how- >that was supposed to work. I've never seen a schematic drawing showing >how it was supposed to be cobbled together or just -how- it could remain >stationary in front of the prop and rotating engine. Enlightenment, >anyone? Bearing in mind that I'm an electrical engineer and therefore have the mechanical aptitude of an onion could I suggest this? The shaft about which a rotary engine actually rotates is stationary yes? It's attached to the engine support structure and is in fact hollow, since the fuel air mixture has to go through it to the whirling motor. If I were to build this in miniature I'd glue prop to engine (bolt on the real thing), slip a piece of brass tube through the hole and glue it to the aircraft. Cut to length and glue the cone on the other end of the shaft. Spin prop and watch the engine go around and the cone stay still. I suspect the answer might be along those lines, but bigger and a bit more sophisticated than my solution Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 01 Feb 96 21:20:07 +0000 From: bfelton@ibm.net To: wwi Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: <9602020521.AA0025@localhost> > > > > > > On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Bill Shatzer wrote: > > > Well, as Charles previously pointed out, it is a cone de penetration, > > not a spinner, but like you, I'm a little mystified just exactly -how- > > that was supposed to work. I've never seen a schematic drawing showing > > how it was supposed to be cobbled together or just -how- it could remain > > stationary in front of the prop and rotating engine. Enlightenment, > > anyone? > > It could have been mounted through a hollow shaft right? Well, in effect it was -- it was mounted on the stationary crankcase of the rotary engine, thus permitting it to remain stationary while the propellar and cylinders whirled. regards, Bill F. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 01:23:16 +0000 From: mindseye@mail.coretech.com (Phil Kirchmeier) To: wwi Subject: Re: Methuen Handbook electronic copy Message-ID: <1388898300-1553449@mail.coretech.com> >Anthony: >Strange you should ask. I've been considering purchasing one because >some of the Service Bureaus in my area are starting to use them. I highly recommend the zip. I illustrate using both platforms, and I find the zip drive invaluable to both the mac and pc. >In the meantime I believe a friend of mine had mentioned that she was >going to buy a zip drive. If so, she may allow me to do the transfer >that way. I'll ask, she's out of town for about another week, when she >returns. That would be great. email me and I'll forward a disk to you. Is your friend using a powerpc mac? That way I could send either format-disk to you. Ya know....what (just for the hell of it) would be possability of stuffing the files and emailing them to me? think you can compress it to a managable size using jpegs? TIA Phil ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Phil Kirchmeier MindsEye Illustration mindseye@mail.cortech.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 22:55:45 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: <199602020755.WAA09306@anchor> At 12:23 AM 2/2/96 -0500, bfelton@ibm.net wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Bill Shatzer wrote: >> >> > Well, as Charles previously pointed out, it is a cone de penetration, >> > not a spinner, but like you, I'm a little mystified just exactly -how- >> > that was supposed to work. I've never seen a schematic drawing showing >> > how it was supposed to be cobbled together or just -how- it could remain >> > stationary in front of the prop and rotating engine. Enlightenment, >> > anyone? >> >> It could have been mounted through a hollow shaft right? > >Well, in effect it was -- it was mounted on the stationary crankcase of >the rotary engine, thus permitting it to remain stationary while the >propellar and cylinders whirled. > >regards, >Bill F. The Flyin' Wrench Pontificates: Now just a minute here: I think we're running off the deep end here a bit. True, the cone-de-silence could have been mounted on a claptraddle grid gigamaried around the outer edge of the prop - but I doubt it. Now anyone with a bit of background on the rotary will quickly see that the hollow portion of the crankshaft so often spoken of, was the intake tube of at the rear of the engine. The prop hub was solid and rigidly mounted on a large flange that comprised the front of the crankcase of the rotary. There was no stationary portion of the engine at the pointy part with the whirly-ma-thing up front. Even if this was the case I can't imagine going to the effort to actually mount a cone-de-creame on a stationary widget up front. Take a look at any rotary drawing and you will quickly see the error of this highly imaginative thought process. ( Beekman's "Warplanes and Airbattles of World War I" has one on page 58 - Note the gearing behind the hub that ran the valve mechanism) And just one more little item By de By. The forces exerted by a propeller on the crank shaft would necessitate a rather beefy hollow shaft to prevent cracking. I personally witnessed this with a PZL engine we were trying to mount on the Ag-Cat. The Poles had not put a beefy shaft in their engine, a Radial copy of the Franklin, like the P&W 985 and 1340 it was supposed to replace. The prop shaft on these engines are hollow to enable oil to flow to the prop dome. In this case the oil went to a Pezwociwitz constant speed prop. The pilot flying this contraption returned one day saying something wasn't quite right. Since this was a test program for importation license of this engine into the US, the engine was finally disassembled when nothing could be found amiss from an external inspection. Dye penetrant inspection revealed the prop shaft was cracked three quarters of the way around just behind the inner crankcase seal. About five more minutes and our fair haired boy would have been piloting a very heavy glider with a radically altered CG. What's the point? Nothing I just wanted to tell this story about hollow crankshafts. Actually from an engineering standpoint, why take the chance of a hollow shaft for the propeller when there is no need to engineer one? There was no need for a hollow shaft on these engines, other then perhaps weight. When one takes into account the forces acting on a prop shaft from the flight loads imposed by combat maneuvers, why put that unnecessary engineering effort into a component that would be far safer as a solid unit? And so they didn't. The prop shaft, hub and attached components were solid on all the Gnome, LeRhones and tailbones that I have been acquainted with. These engines used the solid, tapered, shaft with a keyway and threaded shaft end to mount the hub assembly. A large hub nut was screwed on the threaded end of the prop shaft to retain the hub and a retaining or lock plate was employed over the assembly to lock the hub nut and the propeller nuts in place. Now if you said the cone-de-head was mounted on a sky hook - you might just have something there. "The Flyin' Wrench" "Never speak to me of the rear! To quit the front would be an act of desertion!" Georges Guynemer - 1918 Note: Three weeks after saying this he was dead. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:29:28 +0800 (HKT) From: Jose Valenciano To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, The Flying Wrench wrote: > The Flyin' Wrench Pontificates: > > Now just a minute here: I think we're running off the deep end here a bit. > True, the cone-de-silence could have been mounted on a claptraddle grid > gigamaried around > the outer edge of the prop - but I doubt it. > > Now anyone with a bit of background on the rotary will quickly see that the > hollow portion of the crankshaft so often spoken of, was the intake tube of at > the rear of the engine. The prop hub was solid and rigidly mounted on a large > flange that comprised the front of the crankcase of the rotary. There was no > stationary portion of the engine at the pointy part with the whirly-ma-thing up > front. Even if this was the case I can't imagine going to the effort to actually > mount a cone-de-creame on a stationary widget up front. Take a look at any > rotary drawing and you will quickly see the error of this highly imaginative > thought process. > ( Beekman's "Warplanes and Airbattles of World War I" has one on page 58 - > Note the gearing behind the hub that ran the valve mechanism) So are we realistically looking at this cone-de-mobambajinka as something that rotated with the propeller? I have to know if the thing should twirl too when I turn on the electric fan. Flying Wrench, I know that you don't really condonee the employment of any kinetic activity on your miniatures. But thanks for the info. ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist tel. (632) 921-26-75 Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 23:52:04 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Guynemer's Nieuport - addendum Message-ID: <199602020852.XAA11436@anchor> At 03:21 AM 2/2/96 -0500, Jose Valenciano wrote: > > > >On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, The Flying Wrench wrote: > >> The Flyin' Wrench Pontificates: >> >> Now just a minute here: I think we're running off the deep end here a bit. >> True, the cone-de-silence could have been mounted on a claptraddle grid >> gigamaried around >> the outer edge of the prop - but I doubt it. >> >> Now anyone with a bit of background on the rotary will quickly see that the >> hollow portion of the crankshaft so often spoken of, was the intake tube of at >> the rear of the engine. The prop hub was solid and rigidly mounted on a large >> flange that comprised the front of the crankcase of the rotary. There was no >> stationary portion of the engine at the pointy part with the whirly-ma-thing up >> front. Even if this was the case I can't imagine going to the effort to actually >> mount a cone-de-creame on a stationary widget up front. Take a look at any >> rotary drawing and you will quickly see the error of this highly imaginative >> thought process. >> ( Beekman's "Warplanes and Airbattles of World War I" has one on page 58 - >> Note the gearing behind the hub that ran the valve mechanism) > >So are we realistically looking at this cone-de-mobambajinka as something >that rotated with the propeller? I have to know if the thing should twirl >too when I turn on the electric fan. > >Flying Wrench, I know that you don't really condonee the employment of >any kinetic activity on your miniatures. But thanks for the info. The Flyin' Wrench imparts: Call me Wrench - no one else does Of course I condone such activity. It just that certain congressmen don't - at least on the net Turn on the fan and don't forget to glue that piece of Kleenex to the pilot's head. Really looks rad when you turn the fan on high. But remeber to be careful about what hits the fan when your wife catches you doing this. Why some of my best activity is kinetic. In fact when I'm kinetic I'm frenetic about it. "The Flyin' Wrench" And you thought Mr. Hart was the only funny guy on this forum. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 04:45:50 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Blue Max Kits? Message-ID: <960202044550_212247610@emout07.mail.aol.com> Just picked up the Fab 96 issue of Scale Aiation Modeller (the one that can't spell) and they have a very positive review of the Blue Max Spad VII.C.I The reviewer is relative ly new to WWI modelling (like me) so neither of us can say too much about ultimate accuracy apart from the point that to him and me it looks like a Spad. However, from teh very clear photos it seems like a crisp and well detailed kit. Good looking interior. The review mentions no major fit problems and says he intends to buy more from the range. Incidentally, Scale Aviation Modeller is looking much more professional these days. It;s now in its 2nd year and seems to have reached maturity. I enjoyed this issue. Simon Craven sclexicat@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: 02 Feb 1996 09:10:09 GMT From: "STEVE HUSTAD" To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: Methuen Handbook electronic copy Message-ID: To the list; What in the world does the below correspondence have to do with modeling (this forum's purpose), or the Methuen Handbook of colour (the supposed subject line)? Geeez! Steve H. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Strange you should ask. I've been considering purchasing one because >some of the Service Bureaus in my area are starting to use them. I highly recommend the zip. I illustrate using both platforms, and I find the zip drive invaluable to both the mac and pc. >In the meantime I believe a friend of mine had mentioned that she was >going to buy a zip drive. If so, she may allow me to do the transfer >that way. I'll ask, she's out of town for about another week, when she >returns. That would be great. email me and I'll forward a disk to you. Is your friend using a powerpc mac? That way I could send either format-disk to you. Ya know....what (just for the hell of it) would be possability of stuffing the files and emailing them to me? think you can compress it to a managable size using jpegs? TIA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 09:02:18 PST From: stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu To: wwi Subject: re: latest FSM Message-ID: <9601028232.AA823280657@SCCCGATE.seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu> I just got the latest Fine Scale Modeler, and yeah it seems pretty light. Kind of a teaser. The newsgroup rec.models.scale and this listserv were not mentioned which is sad; this is where the questions are answered. (hmmmm; sounds like we all ought to write letters to that effect) In addition to that, this is a very interactive and ACTIVE modelling community. A lot more ideas get tossed around here and in rec.models.scale than at our IPMS meetings. They decided to use a picture of mine that is on Daniel Koehne's Rec.Models.Scale homepage and that is a thrill. I wish that they had used another; either the Cant seaplane (much better photo) or the DH2. Call it a start; lets hope that this is not the end of it. Maybe eventually they will have URL reviews like they have kit reviews! -----Stephen Tontoni ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 20 ********************