WWI Digest 33 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Unsubcribe by docc@aristotle.net (Dr. Larry J. Crabb) 2) Re: Fabric and ribs by The Flying Wrench 3) Another theory on wing ey by ENDYL@delphi.com 4) Re: Fabric and ribs by SCLexicat@aol.com 5) Re: Unsubcribe by SMHead 6) Re: Fabric and ribs by SCLexicat@aol.com 7) RE: Fabric and ribs by SDW@qld.mim.com.au 8) Re: Unsubcribe by SCLexicat@aol.com 9) Re: Another theory on wing ey by The Flying Wrench 10) Re: Unsubcribe by "Matt Bittner" 11) Re: DML Camel by denatale@nando.net (Rick DeNatale) 12) Re: Another theory on wing ey by SCLexicat@aol.com 13) DML aircraft going away... by stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu 14) Re: Another theory on wing ey by SCLexicat@aol.com 15) DML aircraft going away... by Brian Nicklas 16) Re: DML aircraft going away... by stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu 17) DML aircraft going away... by "WILSON, TIMOTHY" 18) Re: Unsubcribe by The Flying Wrench 19) Re: Another theory on wing ey by The Flying Wrench 20) Re: Another theory on wing ey by SCLexicat@aol.com 21) Re: Another theory on wing ey by hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) 22) Re[2]: Another theory on wing ey by stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:26:01 -0600 From: docc@aristotle.net (Dr. Larry J. Crabb) To: wwi Subject: Unsubcribe Message-ID: Take me off of your damn mailing list, please! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:09:05 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <199602140009.PAA04933@anchor> At 07:35 AM 2/13/96 -0500, SCLexicat@aol.com wrote: >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 The Flyin' Wrench imparts: In one of my earlier posts I covered the process for covering wings with fabric. As I posted earlier, the fabric must be sewn to the ribs to maintain its shape, position, and prevent fluttering of the fabric. On the concave underside of a wing, with a sewn covering that is properly doped, the ribs would appear as troughs. This would be due to the taughting of the fabric from the dope. As the fabric pulls tight, the fabric will try to flatten out, pulling the fabric away from the concave surface of the ribs; but because the fabric is sewn to the ribs, it is held down on the ribs giving it a troughed appearence. The opposite is true for a Convex uppersurface. As the fabric pulls tight from doping, the ribs begin to stick out due to the fabric pulling taught. This gives fabric aircraft wings their distinctive scalloped appearance from a head on view. Such scalloping is determental to the airfoil shape, so it is important to run the weave or "warp", which refers to the length-wise threads, of the fabric parallel to the span of the wing. This reduces the scalloping as opposed to running the "woof" of the fabric spanwise. Note that this is true for model airplanes as well as their full size counterparts. Also all seams should be parallel to flight for obvious reasons. The Flyin' Wrench Breaths there a man with soul so dead Who never to his wife hath said: As soon as I finish aligning these struts dear . . . ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:12:32 -0500 (EST) From: ENDYL@delphi.com To: wwi Subject: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <01I16BW9XV029FNJ43@delphi.com> Subject: Another theory on wing eyelets? As I read with great zeal the questions concerning the eyelets for water drainage I later, while in a moment of deep thought (in the can), struck upon the idea that maybe, just maybe, they were designed to allow the air pressure to stabilize within the wing, the water drainage was a nice extra. Now, if the wing fabric is sealed to the airframe, and further doped, I would suspect that each bay in the wing structure would be fairly airtight. Due to temperature changes it would seem likely that air pressure could build up within and would need to be vented, via the eyelets. Just some food for thought, as if food helps me think! Len _ Was Jimi Hendrix's Modem A Purple Hayes? QWicKeSST - The ultimate database QWK reader, and NO limits. #$678803 Special Compile: 1.032B (Beta) '[1;35;40m-=> Delphi Internet Jet SST v3.012 - (C) PBE ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:19:14 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <960213191913_221373365@mail06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 13/02/96 18:03:40, you write: >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! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:20:55 -0500 From: SMHead To: wwi Subject: Re: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <9602131821.aa00721@mail.iapc.net> >Take me off of your damn mailing list, please! Wow, what a sourpuss! But at least he said please... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:29:57 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <960213192956_221382915@mail06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 13/02/96 18:03:40, you write: >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! Oooh er... Well, folks, I'm certainly not trying to challenge anyone's deeply held faith here, this is a purely empirical observation based on the wings I've built over the last 25 years or so. If it works differently for you, then so be it :-) Simon Craven sclexicat@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 96 10:47:00 EST From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: Fabric and ribs Message-ID: <199602140107.LAA02168@mimmon.mim.com.au> Hi Simon, and all, Bill writes: >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! and Simon replies: >Oooh er... Well, folks, I'm certainly not trying to challenge anyone's >deeply held faith here, this is a purely empirical observation based on the >wings I've built over the last 25 years or so. If it works differently for >you, then so be it :-) Well, not on my part. The original thread was a discussion in which Bill held that the DML Fokker Dr.I wings are "correct" on the undersurface. I was of opposite opinion, but he (and a quick experiment with a pair of my wifes tights !!!! ) convinced me that my convictions were soundly based - on hot air. I now believe that DML got it _right_ though it may be slightly overstated. However raised ribs are plainly _wrong_ (IMHO). Out of cowardice (since everyone - judges included - expect raised ribs) I have personally compromised with no ribs at all, just tapes. Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:38:34 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <960213203827_421889425@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 14/02/96 00:30:06, you write: >>Take me off of your damn mailing list, please! > >Wow, what a sourpuss! But at least he said please... > > Crabb by name, Crabby by nature, perchance... Simon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:38:15 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <199602140438.TAA15235@anchor> At 07:11 PM 2/13/96 -0500, ENDYL@delphi.com wrote: >Subject: Another theory on wing eyelets? > >As I read with great zeal the questions concerning the eyelets for water >drainage I later, while in a moment of deep thought (in the can), struck upon >the idea that maybe, just maybe, they were designed to allow the air pressure >to stabilize within the wing, the water drainage was a nice extra. > >Now, if the wing fabric is sealed to the airframe, and further doped, I would >suspect that each bay in the wing structure would be fairly airtight. Due to >temperature changes it would seem likely that air pressure could build up >within and would need to be vented, via the eyelets. > >Just some food for thought, as if food helps me think! > >Len The Flyin' Wrench responds: Nope. Even heavily doped fabric is still porous enough to allow air pressure through. Gromments are for (1) Moisture drainage and (2) Ventilation to allow the water vapor/moisture in the wing to dissipate, that's it. This is no seceret, it is still done today on fabric wings. This leads me to another question is anyone recieving my posts? I wrote about this subject recently and apparently no one is recieving my responses. I have been having problems with my server of late. Perhaps it is just that no one believes my post. Oh Well. The Flyin' Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 06:50:04 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: docc@aristotle.net (Dr. Larry J. Crabb), wwi Subject: Re: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <199602140651.GAA02562@cso.com> On 13 Feb 96 at 17:22, Dr. Larry J. Crabb typed diligently: > Take me off of your damn mailing list, please! There is no need for the hostility! If you would read the post that came when you subscribed, then you would realise that you do *not* send this message to the list-proper. RTFM!!! Matt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:45:46 -0500 From: denatale@nando.net (Rick DeNatale) To: wwi Subject: Re: DML Camel Message-ID: >On 10 Feb 96 at 16:57, Mark K. Nelson typed diligently: > >> To (partially) dispell a nasty rumor circulated a few weeks back. . . >> >> A 2-page document entitled 'Dragon 1996 Line Up' which I pulled >> out of a box of models at work on thursday lists kit number 5910 >> Sopwith Camel with the date T.B.A. On the other hand, Jennings Heilig has just posted to rec.models.scale that DML is 'permanently out of the airplane business'. He usually has good poop on things oriental :-( Say it ain't so Joe! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:05:42 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <960214090541_221802793@emout09.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 14/02/96 01:12:00, you write: >Now, if the wing fabric is sealed to the airframe, and further doped, I would >suspect that each bay in the wing structure would be fairly airtight. Due to >temperature changes it would seem likely that air pressure could build up >within and would need to be vented, via the eyelets. > >Just some food for thought, as if food helps me think! Food helps me think of more food! Back to the eyelets, which is of course where my flying model experience yields no direct insights ' cause I've never used them. I assume you would only have them on one surface of a wing, tailplane etc (the bottom) so as to prevent efficiency losses as the in-flight pressure differential between upper and lower surfaces is reduced. Apologies if this question is so naive as to have the illustrious gentlefolk of the list gnashing their teeth in frustration. Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 08:15:44 PST From: stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu To: wwi Subject: DML aircraft going away... Message-ID: <9601148243.AA824314578@SCCCGATE.seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu> >On 10 Feb 96 at 16:57, Mark K. Nelson typed diligently: > >> To (partially) dispell a nasty rumor circulated a few weeks back. . . >> >> A 2-page document entitled 'Dragon 1996 Line Up' which I pulled >> out of a box of models at work on thursday lists kit number 5910 >> Sopwith Camel with the date T.B.A. On the other hand, Jennings Heilig has just posted to rec.models.scale that DML is 'permanently out of the airplane business'. He usually has good poop on things oriental :-( Asian. There was another poster who investigated further and said that *IS* the case. He said that airplane sales are really hurtin'. Like I posted to rms, time to scarf up all the WWI stuff before it goes away. I could care less about the Luftwaffe almost-operational stuff. I started the He219 but crashed and burned. I may have to try again; that's an interesting kit. Too bad that DML can't weather the storm. Also too bad that they don't ask the people who know what kits to produce before they start a line. (too much to ask) I wonder if they would hire me as a consultant..... ---Stephen Tontoni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:33:47 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <960214113343_321872621@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 14/02/96 04:43:42, you write: >This leads me to another question is anyone recieving my posts? I wrote >about this subject recently and apparently no one is recieving my responses. >I have been having problems with my server of late. Perhaps it is just that >no one believes my post. Oh Well. > >The Flyin' Wrench > > Reading you fives, Wrench Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 11:37:04 EST From: Brian Nicklas To: Subject: DML aircraft going away... Message-ID: <199602141635.LAA01437@pease1.sr.unh.edu> I always wondered why DML did the Luftwaffe 1946 stuff when they could have done The Great War - I like the prototypes myself, but I'm happy with a CzechMaster, Toad Resins or Fruitbat product. Limited subjects should be limited resin kits... I think DML is having too much successwith Armor. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 08:47:47 PST From: stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu To: wwi Subject: Re: DML aircraft going away... Message-ID: <9601148243.AA824316561@SCCCGATE.seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu> I always wondered why DML did the Luftwaffe 1946 stuff when they could have done The Great War - I like the prototypes myself, but I'm happy with a CzechMaster, Toad Resins or Fruitbat product. Limited subjects should be limited resin kits... I think DML is having too much successwith Armor. Well it sounds like they gambled big time and came up snake eyes. Anyway, think about this: with all the hoopla that the model mfrs make about this or that upcoming kit --yeah, right... maybe DML won't really go away. Or they will go away so late that no one will notice. Maybe Smer or someone really sharp will pick up their molds and PE stuff. My own checkbook is kinda light right now or.... Really though; I bet the more successful stuff will surface again. Think about it; maybe we will see an ex-DML Glencoe Spad XIII someday. Glencoe would include usable decals though. And the PE would probably go away if Glencoe gets the molds. I'm not real worried about this to tell you the truth. ---Stephen (what's in it for me) Tontoni ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:13:57 -0400 (EDT) From: "WILSON, TIMOTHY" To: wwi Subject: DML aircraft going away... Message-ID: <01I17BOXPNVQ94FQ7H@psulias.psu.edu> Brian Nicklas wrote at 1140 14 Feb 96: >I always wondered why DML did the Luftwaffe 1946 stuff when >they could have done The Great War - I like the prototypes >myself, but I'm happy with a CzechMaster, Toad Resins or >Fruitbat product. Limited subjects should be limited resin kits... >I think DML is having too much successwith Armor. Even some of their armor includes the 1946 Wehrmacht line. I've heard that some of their aircraft are about as much fun to assemble as a visit to the dentist. Is this true? I have some of their WWII aircraft line, but haven't been brave enough to try and build them. T. Wilson PSU-History ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:37:04 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Unsubcribe Message-ID: <199602141837.JAA08756@anchor> At 07:57 AM 2/14/96 -0500, Matt Bittner wrote: >On 13 Feb 96 at 17:22, Dr. Larry J. Crabb typed diligently: > >> Take me off of your damn mailing list, please! > >There is no need for the hostility! If you would read the post that >came when you subscribed, then you would realise that you do *not* >send this message to the list-proper. RTFM!!! > > >Matt Hey Matt, Lighten up. I've delt with doctors enough to know that they are ALWAYS CORRECT. The quicker you understand this the quicker we can assume the proper relationship with such folks - They're always correct, you seldom are. There, doesn't that feel better now? P.S. Because of this understanding medical doctors always make great pilots. Always being right means that they are often dead right about aviation matters. After all, if we can heal a human, what can't we do? The Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:40:49 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <199602141840.JAA08970@anchor> >Reading you fives, Wrench > >Simon Thanks for the response. It's good to know your efforts aren't going to a federal censorship file. Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:40:04 -0500 From: SCLexicat@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <960214154004_144222573@emout10.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 14/02/96 18:54:59, The Flying Wrench reveals an uncharacteristic twinge of spiritual insecurity: >Thanks for the response. It's good to know your efforts aren't going to a >federal censorship file. > > Simon makes a fool of himself by attempting analysis: I know what you mean, Wrench, one of the things I find un-nerving about this list (as you know I've only been a member for a few weeks) is that you don't get your own messages bounced back, whereas on the Newsgroup We Don't Mention, you see your postings as they go up. For sure this is a logical way to make best use of bandwidth, but it takes some getting used to! Reluctantly he drags himself back to the point: While I'm cluttering up the server, does anyone know of a place I can find a drawing / photo of a DH2 cockpit? I have a SMER 1/48 scale kit which may turn into something some day (hopefully a DH2, I guess). And is this kit one of the old Merit line? Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:08:49 -0700 From: hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) To: wwi Subject: Re: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: Simon posts: >Simon makes a fool of himself by attempting analysis: > >I know what you mean, Wrench, one of the things I find un-nerving about this >list (as you know I've only been a member for a few weeks) is that you don't >get your own messages bounced back, whereas on the Newsgroup We Don't >Mention, you see your postings as they go up. For sure this is a logical way >to make best use of bandwidth, but it takes some getting used to! > If you want to see your own posts then RTFM. Directions for making this setting have appeared in several posts in the last few weeks. >Reluctantly he drags himself back to the point: > >While I'm cluttering up the server, does anyone know of a place I can find a >drawing / photo of a DH2 cockpit? I have a SMER 1/48 scale kit which may >turn into something some day (hopefully a DH2, I guess). And is this kit one >of the old Merit line? The most up to date DH-2 research has appeared in issues of Cross & Cockade International in 1994 and I believe 1993. This was a dedicated effort by a couple of guys in England to find as much as they could on a remarkably poorly documented aircraft. Some cockpit details, from this research, have also appeared in World War One Aeroplanes in a similar time frame. I'll check the WW I Aero indexes this evening. The 1:48 kit you mention had its origins with Merit. Coming later this year is a Blue Max kit of the DH-2 in 1:48. Charles hartc@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 12:54:22 PST From: stonto@seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: Another theory on wing ey Message-ID: <9601148243.AA824331318@SCCCGATE.seaccc.sccd.ctc.edu> I know what you mean, Wrench, one of the things I find un-nerving about this list (as you know I've only been a member for a few weeks) is that you don't get your own messages bounced back, whereas on the Newsgroup We Don't Mention, you see your postings as they go up. For sure this is a logical way to make best use of bandwidth, but it takes some getting used to! You can send a message to the administrator (where you subscribed) and set it to ACK. This will bounce a message back to you. The opposite -- which you have -- is NOACK. Change it. ---AL: feel free to correct me at any point in here!! While I'm cluttering up the server, does anyone know of a place I can find a drawing / photo of a DH2 cockpit? I have a SMER 1/48 scale kit which may turn into something some day (hopefully a DH2, I guess). And is this kit one of the old Merit line? Did it, done it, got the T-shirt. As far as I can tell, the DH2 had no cockpit. I sort of faked mine. I will try to dig some stuff up, but I doubt very much that I have photos. And I believe it was an old merit kit. Have fun; that's an interesting one. -----Stephen Tontoni ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 33 ********************