WWI Digest 32 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Pause, Pause, Pause by aew (Allan Wright) 2) Re: PC10 by aew (Allan Wright) 3) Re: American Fokker DVII by "Isaacs, Cary" 4) Re: Siemens-Schukert D-I by "Matt Bittner" 5) Re: PC10 by "Matt Bittner" 6) Re: Stick/aileron question by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) 7) Over the Front and observations by "Matt Bittner" 8) Re: Stick/aileron question by bciciora@pitneysoft.com (Bill Ciciora) 9) Clear-Doped Linen Wings? by Charles Stephanian 10) Re: Siemens-Schukert D-I by cv3@conted.swann.gatech.edu (Carlos Valdes) 11) RE: PC10 by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 12) Re: Fabric and ribs by The Flying Wrench 13) Re: Stick/aileron question by The Flying Wrench 14) Hobbycraft Nie.17 by The Flying Wrench 15) Re: Stick/aileron question by The Flying Wrench 16) Re: Stick/aileron question by mindseye@mail.coretech.com (Phil Kirchmeier) 17) Albatros D.Va Airfoil by Paul Butler 18) Re: Fabric and ribs by SCLexicat@aol.com 19) Re: Fabric and ribs by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:02:16 -0500 (EST) From: aew (Allan Wright) To: wwi Subject: Pause, Pause, Pause Message-ID: <199602122102.QAA11166@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Hi Modelers, Sorry for the pause in service today. It seems that my automated script that archives the messages in the list to thee WWW page ran amoc this weekend. I've terminated the process with extreme predudice, and now things seem to be catching up. Sorry for the problems. -Allan =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | I'm not left handed either! - The Man in Black University of New Hampshire+--------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling Mosaic Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:08:02 -0500 (EST) From: aew (Allan Wright) To: wwi Subject: Re: PC10 Message-ID: <199602122108.QAA11291@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > Anyone have any favorite color matches for PC10? I prefer enamels and have > been using Testors Model Master SAC Bomber Tan. The new poly-S line polyscales has several WWI colors in the line. They have a PC-10, Fokker Dk-Green, German Mauve, Clear-Dope Linen just to name the WWI specific ones. They also have most other common WWI colors mapped to other colors in the line. And they airbrush wonderfully. -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | I'm not left handed either! - The Man in Black University of New Hampshire+--------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling Mosaic Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 16:33:55 EST From: "Isaacs, Cary" To: wwi Subject: Re: American Fokker DVII Message-ID: <9601128241.AA824171712@internet.organo.com> I've recently begun work on a Fokker DVII model (Balsa and Tissue)and getting ready to cover. Do you know of what resources are available for paint schemes? I've read that after the war America had insisted on having the plane. The company moved most of the planes to Holland, but the U.S. got 24 planes. Is this true? If it is true, what were the American paint schemes or where can I find out. An unusual German scheme would be of interest also. Thanks, Cary ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:32:15 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Siemens-Schukert D-I Message-ID: <199602121533.PAA02072@cso.com> On 12 Feb 96 at 16:01, Allan Wright typed diligently: > Does anyone have any idea when the first of the Siemens-Schukert D-I > (Nieuport 17 clones) aircraft made it to combat units? Al, I'll check tonight, and bring in the Windsock issue tomorrow. Not sure if it goes into that much detail, but I'll check. I'll let you know tomorrow, unless someone else beats me to it! Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:30:58 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: PC10 Message-ID: <199602121532.PAA02063@cso.com> On 12 Feb 96 at 16:08, Allan Wright typed diligently: > The new poly-S line polyscales has several WWI colors in the line. > They have a PC-10, Fokker Dk-Green, German Mauve, Clear-Dope Linen > just to name the WWI specific ones. They also have most other > common WWI colors mapped to other colors in the line. Great news! One of the local shops is starting to trickle them in, and I have yet to see the WW1 "specifics". > And they airbrush wonderfully. I would definitely agree. Used the Signal Yellow on my Sparrowhawk, and it went on worlds better than old Polly S - and I liked Polly S! However, I still have yet to determine if I like Polly Scale better than Niche. FWIW, if no body else has heard, AeroMaster is bring out a "Polly Scale" line of their own in March. These will be toned colors, just like their enamels. However, it appears that most colors right now are geared towards that other war, but I'm sure they still can be used for the "correct purpose"! Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:40:39 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Stick/aileron question Message-ID: <199602122140.AA14465@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Matthew Bittner wrote: > >I working again on my Nie.11 conversion, I had to pop the ailerons >off. Could someone help my memory: if the stick is to the right, >which way should the ailerons be? Port up/down? Starboard up/down? > Stick to the right; starboard airleron up, port down, and vice-versa, of course. But, slightly different subject: Did 'they' use locks or similar devices during WW1 to lock the control surfaces in place on parked aircraft? I know such devices were common in WW2, either external locking devices clamped on the control surfaces or built-in locking devices in the airplane itself to keep the surfaces aligned and to keep 'em from flopping around in the wind, but was something similar in use in WW1? Or, I guess to continue the thought, would a parked aircraft with one aileron up and one down be incorrect or at least unusual? I'm at work (shhh - don't tell the boss!) and away from my picture books but a quick mental review doesn't recall any photos of a/c with obviously displaced ailerons. Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "Cave ab homine unius libri!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:44:31 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: WW1 Modelers Subject: Over the Front and observations Message-ID: <199602121546.PAA02225@cso.com> For those not member of the League, the latest Over the Front came late last week. For modelers, the most interest would lie in the Jast 47w article, the reprint of a '33 article of a "Chat with Lothar Richtofen", and some great shots of the flying machines at Aerodrome '92. My only problem with this issue is the fact that the *president*, James Streckfuss, manages to misspell Albatros (Albatross) through out his editorial. I realise he's getting older, but *someone* in a WW1 aviation oriented club should have caught that. Sorry, but it's an albatross around my neck...Harharhar... I noticed in the latest FSM two 1/48th standing German pilots by Jaguar. When I saw them, I thought I had seen their "real counterparts". Sure enough, if you look in the Nov '95 issue of Airpower - the WW1 issue - on page 45, photo 6, is the same exact pose, minus cigarette (probably for PC reasons...) of Lt. Hans Pippart being helped out of his flying suit by one of his crewmen. IMHO, I don't think the Jaguar pilot looks like Pippart, but I'm sure you could make it that way. Matt -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad, meba@cso.com PowerBuilder developer; Omaha, Nebraska Disclaimer: opinions expressed by me are my responsibility only. "You cannot make anything foolproof, because the fools are so ingenious." - Christian Walters -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 16:18:43 EST From: bciciora@pitneysoft.com (Bill Ciciora) To: wwi Subject: Re: Stick/aileron question Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Matt typed: > I working again on my Nie.11 conversion, I had to pop the ailerons > off. Could someone help my memory: if the stick is to the right, > which way should the ailerons be? Port up/down? Starboard up/down? If the stick is right, you're making a right turn, forcing the right wing down. Therefore the aileron on the starboard side is up, the port side is down. Bill Ciciora bciciora@pitneysoft.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:21:59 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Stephanian To: wwi Subject: Clear-Doped Linen Wings? Message-ID: I'm interested in any suggestions for painting wings with the new Polly-S paint Clear-Dope Linen. In the past when using a linen color on wings, I've felt that they looked 'flat'. How do others paint them to highlight rib detail and give them some shading? Thanks! Charles Stephanian csteph@itsa.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 17:39:16 EST From: cv3@conted.swann.gatech.edu (Carlos Valdes) To: wwi Subject: Re: Siemens-Schukert D-I Message-ID: <199602122239.SAA09493@conted.swann.gatech.edu> Al, According to Gray and Thetford's "German Aircraft of the First World War," an initial order for 150 machines was placed on November 25, 1916. Production was slow, a further order was cancelled, and in the end only 95 were built. I would guess that they first entered service in the second quarter of 1917. To quote the above-mentioned work: Many of the S.S.W. D.Is were used by the flying schools, although small numbers appeared on the Western Front with Jastas 1-5 and 7, 9, 11 and 14. HTH. Carlos ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 96 09:18:00 EST From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: PC10 Message-ID: <199602122337.JAA07503@mimmon.mim.com.au> Hello all, And now to enter the lions den and risk a savaging: Ken asks: >Anyone have any favorite color matches for PC10? I prefer enamels and have >been using Testors Model Master SAC Bomber Tan. I've been using H-52 Gunze Olive Drab (I), which is (I think) supposed to be the OD colour used on between war aircraft like the P-26. However, it matches the greener end of the PC.10 spectrum quite nicely. This makes some sense, since the colour was developed from the WW1 PC.10 If you subscribe to the "PC.10 is brown" school, I guess you need to look elsewhere. regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:18:17 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <199602130018.PAA22297@anchor> At 03:56 PM 2/12/96 -0500, SDW@qld.mim.com.au wrote: - SNIP - >A few weeks back someone (Joey??) posted about representing the eyelets >found along the trailing edge undersurfaces of fabric covered wings. They >are inserted there to allow condensation to drain, rather than sloshing >about inside rotting the fabric and structure of the wing. The >description noted that the eyelets were inserted at the outboard side of >the rib on aircraft with dihedral (that being the low point of the area >between the ribs) and........ > >In the _CENTRE_ of the fabric on wings lacking dihedral. > >I have done a little research and found an article by Ian D Huntley which >confirms this interpretation. Now why would the eyelet be in the centre >of the inter-rib space if this was the top of the curve - as shown on >most kits? The condensate would gather along the ribs to both sides, and >the eyelet would be useless. The Flyin' Wrench Informs: Here is the way gromments are installed: First a quote from the Third Edition of Aircraft Maintenance First edition 1940 - Third edition 1958, "Gromments are used to provide drainage and ventalation to covered surfaces. They are usually doped to the under surface of the fabric at its lowest point. such as the trailing edges of wings , control surfaces, etc (they're speaking of celluloid type here). The earlier type (earlier than 1940) gromments were made of brass fastened into a small pinked edge fabric patch. This patch was doped to the surface at the same time the second coat of clear dope was applied. It was then finished the same as the rest of the surface and the hole punched through the fabric when the job was completed." The common way grommets are installed today is one grommet on each side of each rib on ALL trailing edges. This is to assure that any and all moisture will be able to escape and to assure proper ventalation in the event one of the grommets is plugged. So this method is a form of redundancy. I can't help but believe that this would have been known during the great war. You must realize how determental moisture is to wood and metal surfaces. Once wood starts to exhibit dry rot, the entire structure is usually suspect and therfore normally condemned. Due to the prevelance and rapidity of this type of damage in environments such as France I cannot believe that a single grommet would have been installed simply as a cost efficient measure. They must have known about the possibility of plugging and the overall value of thorough ventilation. So that is the way it is normally done. Note: that in all the museum replicas and restorations I have looked at, both allied and German, exhibit no grommets whatsoever, including the Smithsonian restorations. I find it hard to believe that this is an oversite on the restorer's part. You will find the gromments common place on flying replicas as no one in their right mind with that kind of time and money invested would ommit such minor components in the name of accuracy. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 15:18:21 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stick/aileron question Message-ID: <199602130018.PAA22301@anchor> At 04:42 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Bill Shatzer wrote: >Matthew Bittner wrote: >>I working again on my Nie.11 conversion, I had to pop the ailerons >>off. Could someone help my memory: if the stick is to the right, >>which way should the ailerons be? Port up/down? Starboard up/down? >Stick to the right; starboard airleron up, port down, and vice-versa, >of course. It helps to visualize a bit to prevent confusion. Stick right to go right - Stick left to go left. What happens when this is done? Stick right pushes right aileron up, which allows the relative wind on the up aileron to push the right wing wing down. Stick right also pushes left aileron down allowing the relative wind to push left wing up. Result? right wing down, left wing up - aircraft turns right. If you can remeber this then reverse the process to turn left. Visualize what the relative wind does to the exposed flying surface and you will find it easy to see what moves where. Note this is a simplified explanation of an aerodynamic process. As with any natural physical process, there is much more involved in the process than a single, simple principal. >But, slightly different subject: Did 'they' use locks or similar >devices during WW1 to lock the control surfaces in place on parked >aircraft? I know such devices were common in WW2, either external >locking devices clamped on the control surfaces or built-in locking >devices in the airplane itself to keep the surfaces aligned and to >keep 'em from flopping around in the wind, but was something similar >in use in WW1? I have seen several versions of WWI control locks. The slickest was employed by the Germans. It was a locking bar attached to the control column. There was a thumb lever on the split, locking, portion that slid up and down the joy stick. A half turn or so of this lever allowed the stick to be locked in position. This was for up and down elevator lock and I suspect it was used inflight as much as on the ground sort of a poor man's auto pilot so the pilot could free his hands to clear jams etc. I have seen no provision for locking the ailerons on German aircraft. I suspect this was usually accomplished by wrapping the seat belt restraint around the stick and locking the belt in place. This is a common method used today to lock some aircraft controls in place. One problem with this method is the stress put on the cables from locking the stick in place. To allay this cable stretch problem, external gust locks are used to lock the flying surfaces in place. However, I have never seen external locks applied to WWI aircraft. Usually the aircraft was parked in a hanger or tent in windy conditions to prevent damage. I have never even seen a photo of a WWI aircraft tied down, so I assume control locks were considered to be of little importance. I have seen a wooden, internal, gust locks on a Sopwith Camel, locking the stick to the fuselage walls and to the instrument panel, but the photo was taken after WWI, so it might have been a later addition to the aircraft. The photo's I have studied give the appearence that the controls were usually left free. This would make sense so as to maintain the aircraft in a state of rediness for a 'scramble". Unlocking a control stick can be a time consuming process when an enemy aircraft is strafing you, and there is always the chance that a takeoff would be attempted with the gust lock in place. An occurence that still is all to common >Or, I guess to continue the thought, would a parked aircraft with >one aileron up and one down be incorrect or at least unusual? I'm >at work (shhh - don't tell the boss!) and away from my picture books >but a quick mental review doesn't recall any photos of a/c with >obviously displaced ailerons. I have always found that having all the control surfaces in thier streamlined position to be unusual for an actively used aircraft. Invariably a free stick is pulled full forward by the drooping elevator of an aircraft at rest. Usually when climbing out of a tight cockpit it was (and is) not unusual to knock the stick to one side or the other as the pilot exited the aircraft. Rudders are often left in the neutral position when an aircraft is taxied into position, as the aircraft is usually straightened out for takeoff before shutting it down. However, on WWI aircraft that had no steering other than the rudder and ground handlers, this was not always the case. Still, such tight quarters would usually necessitate a neutral rudder bar to prevent the fouling of the boots when exiting the aircraft. So on the whole I would say deflected ailerons, neutral or deflected rudder and a drooping elevator would be a common setting for a WWI aircraft resting on the ground. It also gives a more dynamic look to the aircraft, as if the pilot just walked away from the aircraft. This as opposed to the museum-like setting of having all the control surfaces locked in their neutral positions. Also it was common for the pilots to throw the shoulder harnesses (on aircraft so equipped) outside, onto the fuselage to prevent fouling and also enhance rapid location of these straps during a scramble. It is always a problem of what to do with the lap belts, as leaving them on the seat means you have to clear them before sitting in the cockpit. Wether the clearing of these belts is done before leaving or upon before entering the aircraft, it usually results in a fouled belt as the buckle(s) usually catch on something in the cockpit. I find most photos show the lap belts resting on the seat. The Flyin' Wrench "The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket." James Fenimore Cooper - 1838 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:37:09 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Subject: Hobbycraft Nie.17 Message-ID: <199602130237.RAA27175@anchor> The Wrench modifies his plastic: All this cone head talk got me to thinking about how to replicate this on my Hobby Craft Nie.17. I arrived at this solution: I drilled a hole, the same size as the one in the center of the prop boss, through the center of the prop boss, crankshaft and firewall shaft stub. I cemented a piece of stainless steel wire into the drilled hole in the firewall shaft stub. Then I slipped the engine/prop assembly over the wire. The prop is glued to the prop shaft and the entire prop/engine unit rotates freely on the fixed, wire shaft, just like it does the actual aircraft. Now all I have to do is find the proper cone and affix this to the portion of the wire shaft that protrudes through the prop boss. Viola'- a scale, stationary, cone de penetration. I used Evergreen .040 square stock to replicate the fuselage frame and glued fine wire in an "X" between the longerons and verticals to replicate the frame tensioning cables. The molded, embossed outlines of these on the inside of the fuselage made a nice pattern to copy and I didn't even have to remove the outlines as they were covered over by the additions.. I also plan on replacing the plastic intake pipes with a single piece of aluminum tubing, French cut to replicate the real thing. It appeares the slant of the cut on the pipe faces into the wind, which makes sense as this would force the propeller's slipstream into the intake pipe, kind of like a faux supercharger. Now I need a couple of pointers. (1) Is the Nie.17 datafile still being published? (2) Did the Nie. 17 have an instrument panel? (3) Can anyone recommend a cone that follows the original's contours? I have seen several different patterns for this cone. It seems that the actual cone was quite large and fairly short in length relative to its diameter. Any comments? (4) Any suggestions on a common source for some fine wire on the order of DML's rigging wire for their 1/48 kits? I am almost out of the stock I obtained from a source that is not available to me in Alaska. I was thinking the music store might be a good bet. The Flyin' Wrench Things have come to a hell of a pass when a man can't wallop his own jackass. Anon - 1900 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:49:51 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Stick/aileron question Message-ID: <199602130249.RAA27624@anchor> I'm not sure if this post got through so I'll repost for all. >>I working again on my Nie.11 conversion, I had to pop the ailerons >>off. Could someone help my memory: if the stick is to the right, >>which way should the ailerons be? Port up/down? Starboard up/down? >Stick to the right; starboard airleron up, port down, and vice-versa, >of course. It helps to visualize a bit to prevent confusion. Stick right to go right - Stick left to go left. What happens when this is done? Stick right pushes right aileron up, which allows the relative wind on the up aileron to push the right wing wing down. Stick right also pushes left aileron down allowing the relative wind to push left wing up. Result? right wing down, left wing up - aircraft turns right. If you can remeber this then reverse the process to turn left. Visualize what the relative wind does to the exposed flying surface and you will find it easy to see what moves where. Note this is a simplified explanation of an aerodynamic process. As with any natural physical process, there is much more involved in the process than a single, simple principal. >But, slightly different subject: Did 'they' use locks or similar >devices during WW1 to lock the control surfaces in place on parked >aircraft? I know such devices were common in WW2, either external >locking devices clamped on the control surfaces or built-in locking >devices in the airplane itself to keep the surfaces aligned and to >keep 'em from flopping around in the wind, but was something similar >in use in WW1? I have seen several versions of WWI control locks. The slickest was employed by the Germans. It was a locking bar attached to the control column. There was a thumb lever on the split, locking, portion that slid up and down the joy stick. A half turn or so of this lever allowed the stick to be locked in position. This was for up and down elevator lock and I suspect it was used inflight as much as on the ground sort of a poor man's auto pilot so the pilot could free his hands to clear jams etc. I have seen no provision for locking the ailerons on German aircraft. I suspect this was usually accomplished by wrapping the seat belt restraint around the stick and locking the belt in place. This is a common method used today to lock some aircraft controls in place. One problem with this method is the stress put on the cables from locking the stick in place. To allay this cable stretch problem, external gust locks are used to lock the flying surfaces in place. However, I have never seen external locks applied to WWI aircraft. Usually the aircraft was parked in a hanger or tent in windy conditions to prevent damage. I have never even seen a photo of a WWI aircraft tied down, so I assume control locks were considered to be of little importance. I have seen a wooden, internal, gust locks on a Sopwith Camel, locking the stick to the fuselage walls and to the instrument panel, but the photo was taken after WWI, so it might have been a later addition to the aircraft. The photo's I have studied give the appearence that the controls were usually left free. This would make sense so as to maintain the aircraft in a state of rediness for a 'scramble". Unlocking a control stick can be a time consuming process when an enemy aircraft is strafing you, and there is always the chance that a takeoff would be attempted with the gust lock in place. An occurence that still is all to common >Or, I guess to continue the thought, would a parked aircraft with >one aileron up and one down be incorrect or at least unusual? I'm >at work (shhh - don't tell the boss!) and away from my picture books >but a quick mental review doesn't recall any photos of a/c with >obviously displaced ailerons. I have always found that having all the control surfaces in thier streamlined position to be unusual for an actively used aircraft. Invariably a free stick is pulled full forward by the drooping elevator of an aircraft at rest. Usually when climbing out of a tight cockpit it was (and is) not unusual to knock the stick to one side or the other as the pilot exited the aircraft. Rudders are often left in the neutral position when an aircraft is taxied into position, as the aircraft is usually straightened out for takeoff before shutting it down. However, on WWI aircraft that had no steering other than the rudder and ground handlers, this was not always the case. Still, such tight quarters would usually necessitate a neutral rudder bar to prevent the fouling of the boots when exiting the aircraft. So on the whole I would say deflected ailerons, neutral or deflected rudder and a drooping elevator would be a common setting for a WWI aircraft resting on the ground. It also gives a more dynamic look to the aircraft, as if the pilot just walked away from the aircraft. This as opposed to the museum-like setting of having all the control surfaces locked in their neutral positions. Also it was common for the pilots to throw the shoulder harnesses (on aircraft so equipped) outside, onto the fuselage to prevent fouling and also enhance rapid location of these straps during a scramble. It is always a problem of what to do with the lap belts, as leaving them on the seat means you have to clear them before sitting in the cockpit. Wether the clearing of these belts is done before leaving or upon before entering the aircraft, it usually results in a fouled belt as the buckle(s) usually catch on something in the cockpit. I find most photos show the lap belts resting on the seat. The Flyin' Wrench "The man who can right himself by a vote will seldom resort to a musket." James Fenimore Cooper - 1838 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:44:24 +0000 From: mindseye@mail.coretech.com (Phil Kirchmeier) To: wwi Subject: Re: Stick/aileron question Message-ID: <1387953832-10981126@mail.coretech.com> > Bill Shatzer wrote: >But, slightly different subject: Did 'they' use locks or similar >devices during WW1 to lock the control surfaces in place on parked >aircraft? I know such devices were common in WW2, either external >locking devices clamped on the control surfaces or built-in locking >devices in the airplane itself to keep the surfaces aligned and to >keep 'em from flopping around in the wind, but was something similar >in use in WW1? I remember seeing a period photo of a cockpit and there were two leather straps (one to each side). One end slung around the stick and the other end attached to the tubing, holding it in the center position. I don't know if this is true for all aircraft from that period (or for that matter a staged photo). Sorry I don't recall which aircraft either, although I do recall it was a German stick. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Phil Kirchmeier MindsEye Illustration mindseye@mail.cortech.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 21:16:35 +1100 (EST) From: Paul Butler To: wwi Subject: Albatros D.Va Airfoil Message-ID: <199602131016.VAA29780@werple.net.au> Hello to All This is just a bit of info that may interest some and to get it onto the archive that Allan keeps. By carefully drawing the wing sections published in various places such as the NASM book on the Albatros D.Va and WW1 Aero using Autocad, it seems that the airfoil used by this aircraft for BOTH wings was Gottingen 173 which is file goe173.dat in the UIUC Airfoil Coordinate Database. This airfoil is a very good fit allowing for the poor information available from the sources mentioned. Regards to all Paul Butler ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:36:27 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <960213073627_421327621@emout10.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 12/02/96 21:10:48, you write: >It occurs to me to ask the flying scale fraternity: > >On the undersurface of the wing, particularly with a significantly >concave surface, which way does the fabric covering of your models curve >between the ribs? If you don't mind, put a straightedge over one and let >us know whether it differs much from leading edge to trailing edge. Or >simplest of all, do the undersurface ribs appear as bumps or troughs. I've missed the previous debate on this subject, but there's no doubt about the answer. If you build an open structure wing with concave undersurface, cover it with a flexible material such as tissue & dope, nylon & dope, heatshrink fabric, heatshrink film or whatever, between the ribs the covering will be *less" concave than the rib contour. So the ribs look "sucked in" rather than "sticking out". On a convex surface, such as the topside of most wings, the opposite is true. Try it and see! Simon Craven, sclexicat@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:55:30 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <199602131755.AA29704@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Simon Craven wrote: > >I've missed the previous debate on this subject, but there's no doubt about >the answer. If you build an open structure wing with concave undersurface, >cover it with a flexible material such as tissue & dope, nylon & dope, >heatshrink fabric, heatshrink film or whatever, between the ribs the covering >will be *less" concave than the rib contour. So the ribs look "sucked in" >rather than "sticking out". On a convex surface, such as the topside of most >wings, the opposite is true. Try it and see! > Er, careful Simon. That's what I was trying to say (although less clearly and elegantly than you did) and I was met with a general chorus of hisses and boos! Ain't no way I'm re-entering -this- debate! :-) Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "Cave ab homine unius libri!" ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 32 ********************