WWI Digest 46 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Novo Vimy's by "Joseph R. Boeke" 2) Re: Max's E.III by bciciora@pitneysoft.com (Bill Ciciora) 3) Re: Max's E.III by "Matt Bittner" 4) Re: "real" color of doped linen - how to match?? by The Flying Wrench 5) Re: Max's E.III by "Matt Bittner" 6) Re: Novo Vimy's by hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) 7) Re: Max's E.III by hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) 8) Re: Air Enthusiast Articles by djones@iex.com (Douglas R. Jones) 9) Re: "real" color of doped linen - how to match?? by djones@iex.com (Douglas R. Jones) 10) Re: Max's E.III by The Flying Wrench 11) wwi by Behnmeyer@aol.com 12) Re: Max's E.III by The Flying Wrench 13) Re: wwi by "Randy J. Ray" 14) Re: Aircraft from Berlin Air Museum by Robert Woodbury 15) Ernst's E.III by The Flying Wrench 16) Re: Ernst's E.III by Jose Valenciano 17) Re: Novo Vimy's by John Roll (John P. Roll) 18) Re: Attention: All Eduard Fokker E.III constructors by mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca (Mark K. Nelson) 19) Re: Aircraft from Berlin Air Museum by Erik Pilawskii 20) Re: Max's E.III by bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) 21) RE: Max's E.III by SDW@qld.mim.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:25:27 -0500 From: "Joseph R. Boeke" To: wwi Subject: Re: Novo Vimy's Message-ID: <9602261922.AA11547@coral.bucknell.edu> Now that my e-mail client is sending mail again, I poke my head out of my hole, look around (and not seeing my shadow today) note the following... At 03:08 PM 2/19/96 -0500, Bill Shatzer wrote: > ... I recall, the two big problems are removing that monstrous > hump of a fuel tank behind the cockpit and restoring glassed-in > bomb aimer's position in the nose. I have a Frog Vickers Vimy. Is this the same kit as the Novo Vimy? I'm not sure because while my kit doesn't have the glassed bombadier's position (or the dorsal machinegun position), the hump behing the cockpit seems to correspond to the pictured in the Profile Publications booklet on the Vimy (Profile #5 I think). Also, the bombadier's position isn't faired over (at least not the cut out where the scarf ring and lewis gun would go). > These need to be restored to accurately depict a WW1 (or post- > war Mesopotamia) RAF bomber. Okay, you have peaked my curiosity (I actually got out my kit and began examining the parts. Has there been an article on the Vimy in WWI Aero or maybe Windsock? The only references I have on the Vimy are the old Profile Publications #5 and the blurb in Apostolo's (sp?) World Military Aircraft book. Does the Harleyford Bomber book have a three view? Anywhere else I can look? Thanks, Joe +==================================+===================================+ | Joseph R. Boeke | | | Manager, Prospect Information | Towering genius disdains a beaten | | Bucknell University | path, it seeks regions hitherto | | (717) 524-3200 | unknown. | | (717) 524-3610 (fax) | -- Abraham Lincoln | | boeke@bucknell.edu | | +======================================================================+ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 96 13:40:48 EST From: bciciora@pitneysoft.com (Bill Ciciora) To: wwi Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Feb 1996 Matt wrote: >This is one of the current controversies. One individual sent a >letter to Rimmel explaining why he though *most* E.III's were doped >green at the factory. He provided some great arguments. Personally, >I would agree. His biggest pitch was to look at the photo's that >were taken with other, *documented* clear doped aircraft. They're >too dark to be clear doped. I brought up this theory to Greg >VanWyngarden, and although he was non-committal, he agreed with the >documented photos. I would really like to see some scientific evidence from some of the color experts. Right now, what we have is a lot of speculation. Has anyone ever analyzed the type of emulsion used in the photographs? Do we have a graph of the reaction of the emulsion at various wavelengths? Is there a way to measure and calibrate the degrees of darkness on the photo, and match them to the color curve? Do we know the time of day the photo was taken, the cloud conditions, etc? I'm just trying to point out the difficulty in proving WWI color schemes from the existing documentation. When someone tries to tell me I'm using the wrong shade for a WWI subject, I have a tough time believing them. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 13:51:34 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602261352.NAA06736@cso.com> On 26 Feb 96 at 14:30, Bill Ciciora typed diligantly: > I would really like to see some scientific evidence from some of the > color experts. Right now, what we have is a lot of speculation. Has > anyone ever analyzed the type of emulsion used in the photographs? > Do we have a graph of the reaction of the emulsion at various > wavelengths? Is there a way to measure and calibrate the degrees of > darkness on the photo, and match them to the color curve? Do we know > the time of day the photo was taken, the cloud conditions, etc? Yes, extreme difficulty. Since I agree with the "green theory", as well as liking the color ;-) I'll paint mine green. However, I am right, nor am I wrong. Until the original "owner" of the aircraft comes forward and tells me green is wrong, then there is my model. Green. However, I also think that there were a some natural, doped linen E.III's, as well. What happened in the field if all fabric had to be replaced? Would they worry about making it green? I doubt it. If there were patches, then probably, or if the pilot was adamant enough. Anyway, at one point, that plane that needed recovered was *probably* natural, doped linen. > I'm just trying to point out the difficulty in proving WWI color > schemes from the existing documentation. When someone tries to > tell me I'm using the wrong shade for a WWI subject, I have a tough > time believing them. All we can do is point you to evidence, as we know it. Unless the pilot of the plane you're modeling comes forward and tells you that it's entirely wrong, don't sweat it. If some judge comes up to you and tells you that, then ask for *hard evidence*. Chances are, they won't be able to prove it *without a reasonable doubt*! (Hey, it worked for OJ! :-o) Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:24:27 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: "real" color of doped linen - how to match?? Message-ID: <199602262024.LAA15408@anchor> At 09:21 AM 2/26/96 -0500, Jeff Friedrichs 26-Feb-1996 0911 wrote: >Well, that was going to be a follow on post... Yes, I am planning on >stitching and taping the Nieuport-11. If nothing else, it will help keep the >covering tight to the undercambered wing. > >However, from what I have seen, it *appears* that only the top wing of the >N.11 was stitched and taped, but not the lower wing. I don't know why they >wouldn't, but in all of my photo packs, there is no tape, which means no >stitching either. > The Flyin' Wrench supposes: It would be my guess that the very narrow chord of the lower wing is such that it might not require the fabric to be stitched to the ribs. The reason for stitching the fabric to the frame is to prevent the fabric from billowing, slapping and ripping. The low pressure area on the top of a wing will pull the fabric away form the frame and result in the above mentioned damage. I have noted that the Nieuport was especially vulnerable to shedding fabric on its top wing, so it seems the French did not have the attachment of the fabric down to science at that point. As long as the fabric does not shift drastically or pull away from the frame, stitching is really unnecessary. Another factor in this equation is speed. The speed of the aircraft has much to do with how fabric is attached. The slower the speed, the less need for close ribbed frames and close stitched fabric. If you look at the fabric flying surfaces on WWII aircraft that traveled at speeds in excess of three hundred mph, you will find that the rib spacing and stitching is generally closer on all counts. This was due to the higher speeds. Models have relatively small fabric covered flying surfaces and travel at relatively slow speeds for the size of the flying surfaces. The doped adhesion of the fabric to the frame on models generally serves as an adequate attachment method for the 'fabric' to the frame on a model. Just a thought The Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:42:51 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: wwi Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602261444.OAA07186@cso.com> > well as liking the color ;-) I'll paint mine green. However, I am > right, nor am I wrong. Until the original "owner" of the aircraft Oops! Should be "I am right, and I am wrong". Sorry! I am not omnipotent, much to my own belief! ;-) Matt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 16:16:05 -0700 From: hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) To: wwi Subject: Re: Novo Vimy's Message-ID: Joe wrote: > >I have a Frog Vickers Vimy. Is this the same kit as the Novo Vimy? I'm not >sure because while my kit doesn't have the glassed bombadier's position (or >the dorsal machinegun position), the hump behing the cockpit seems to >correspond to the pictured in the Profile Publications booklet on the Vimy >(Profile #5 I think). Also, the bombadier's position isn't faired over (at >least not the cut out where the scarf ring and lewis gun would go). > The Novo Vimy IS the Frog Vimy, Novo acquired the molds after Frog's demise, you just have the original. I don't have either the Novo or the Frog (but wish I did) so I can't comment about humps and bombadier's positions. >> These need to be restored to accurately depict a WW1 (or post- >> war Mesopotamia) RAF bomber. > >Okay, you have peaked my curiosity (I actually got out my kit and began >examining the parts. Has there been an article on the Vimy in WWI Aero or >maybe Windsock? The only references I have on the Vimy are the old Profile >Publications #5 and the blurb in Apostolo's (sp?) World Military Aircraft >book. Does the Harleyford Bomber book have a three view? Anywhere else I >can look? Check out the Windsock Datafile Special on the Vickers Vimy, published to coincide with the flight of the Vimy in 1994 from England to Australia. I believe it is still available. Charles hartc@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 16:25:32 -0700 From: hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) To: wwi Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: Bill hits one out of the park: > >I would really like to see some scientific evidence from some of the >color experts. Right now, what we have is a lot of speculation. Has >anyone ever analyzed the type of emulsion used in the photographs? >Do we have a graph of the reaction of the emulsion at various >wavelengths? Is there a way to measure and calibrate the degrees of >darkness on the photo, and match them to the color curve? Do we know >the time of day the photo was taken, the cloud conditions, etc? > >I'm just trying to point out the difficulty in proving WWI color >schemes from the existing documentation. When someone tries to >tell me I'm using the wrong shade for a WWI subject, I have a tough >time believing them. > I can't agree more. There is so much argument on this topic and there has, as far as I can see, been ZERO research on the types of film generally in use during this period and what their sensitivities were to different colors. In just a general viewing of photographs and knowledge of known colors from lozenge fabrics and the like I have come to a conclusion that on many German photos, Green Photographs DARK. Ray Rimell gets this wrong every time in thinking that it is the purples that do this. Look at a clear shot of any Fokker with lozenge fabric and look at a good decal. The green lozenges are the darkest ones in the photo. Was this due to fading of the dyes in the fabric ? Perhaps but how long did these fabrics last anyway, 6 months max ? A year ? How long would you trust flying with them ? How well would you trust them if they faded so quickly ?? We can't prove (at least I don't think one can) anything conclusive about a particular shade of red, green or blue from a B&W photo for these aircraft. We can say it was blue and NOT red, but that is the limit of it. Personally, I wish that more in this community would recognize the limitations we have and live with them instead of making potentially devisive arguments for a particular shade or tone. My US$ 0.02. Charles hartc@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:22:49 -0600 From: djones@iex.com (Douglas R. Jones) To: wwi Subject: Re: Air Enthusiast Articles Message-ID: <9602262322.AA05835@deimos.tx.iex.com> >Its the Jan-Feb 1966 issue, number 61. The SE-5 article describes the >restored machine at the Science Museum in London(?). Its painted overall >silver with black civil markings and has exhaust pipes that run past the end >of the tail. The pipes are wrapped with white insulating tape. Its not a >real colorful scheme, but it would probably show up well in flight. There >are several useful photos and a profile, but no way of telling what the >upper surface markings are, if there are any. More info should be available >somewhere, since it is an existing airframe. Great! Thanks! >Is the museum on the Internet? Good question. Something to do a search for. >Let me know if you run out of options on getting a copy. The store where I >bought mine had a good stack of them. Unfortunately, its pretty far out of >my normal orbit. Thanks, I will. Doug -------------------------------------------------- 'I am a traveler of | Douglas R. Jones both Time and Space' | IEX Corporation Led Zeppelin | (214)301-1307 | djones@iex.com -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:24:20 -0600 From: djones@iex.com (Douglas R. Jones) To: wwi Subject: Re: "real" color of doped linen - how to match?? Message-ID: <9602262324.AA05854@deimos.tx.iex.com> >Well, that was going to be a follow on post... Yes, I am planning on >stitching and taping the Nieuport-11. If nothing else, it will help keep the >covering tight to the undercambered wing. Not to mention keep the static points up! >However, from what I have seen, it *appears* that only the top wing of the >N.11 was stitched and taped, but not the lower wing. I don't know why they >wouldn't, but in all of my photo packs, there is no tape, which means no >stitching either. Hmmm. I will have to check my phpotos. That sure seems strange. I am almost positive they stitched the Rhinebeck 11. >Another question for Rhinebeck! Let us know! Doug -------------------------------------------------- 'I am a traveler of | Douglas R. Jones both Time and Space' | IEX Corporation Led Zeppelin | (214)301-1307 | djones@iex.com -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 14:30:25 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602262330.OAA21513@anchor> At 02:57 PM 2/26/96 -0500, Matt Bittner wrote: > Until the original "owner" of the aircraft >comes forward and tells me green is wrong, then there is my model. >Green. Be very careful what you ask for. You might be a candidate for the next episode of 'Tales From the Crypt'. My last subject was Uffz. Piel's D.VII - KIA June 29, 1918. I really don't wan't to imagine him coming forth at this late date, crooking a boney finger at me and in a hoarse whisper saying "Wrench come closer and let me tell you what color my aircraft really was. Brrrrrrrrrrr! Thanks, I'll just keep guessing. Actually, to my way of thinking, the photographs from that era are haunting enough without seeing the real thing. I always get an odd feeling when I look at that classic, Sanke photo of Max Immelmann with that beatific look on his face, as he stares through the camera into infinity - his no doubt. Perhaps the photo wasn't so haunting when he was alive. I guess all aviators eventually join the dead pilot's club, perhaps I'll ask about their aircraft colors then. Hey Max! Just what color was your E.III anyway? No doubt this will be strange, as I will be old enough to have been his father when I finally get around to posing this question. Then again, If it's aviator's hell, I'll probably have to listen to endless arguments by MvR about who shot him down. Brrrrrrrrr! The Wrench ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 18:45:02 -0500 From: Behnmeyer@aol.com To: wwi Subject: wwi Message-ID: <960226184501_231850271@emout08.mail.aol.com> I would like to get info of WWI modelling -- specifically -- soldiers of the different participants -- please let me know where to buy figurines. thanks!!!! Behnmeyer@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:00:02 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602270000.PAA22481@anchor> At 05:11 PM 2/26/96 -0500, Charles Hart wrote: Hmmmm Hmmm Hmm Hmm -snip - snip - snip - Hmmm Hmm - snip - >Was this due to fading of the >dyes in the fabric ? Perhaps but how long did these fabrics last anyway, 6 >months max ? A year ? How long would you trust flying with them ? How >well would you trust them if they faded so quickly ?? The Flyin' Wrench relives: Different colors fade at different rates, but as far as fabric integrity is concerned, with the aluminium pigmented undercoat, the fabric will long outlast its fading color. There are many faded fabric aircraft at your local airport that are still airworthy. Once I flew a literally rotten Stearman that had Graded 'A' Cotton covering. The fabric was over ten years old, and the aircraft was never hangered. With little effort, I could put my finger through the fabric (watch your step please). The punch test had probably come up unairworthy five years before but it still flew. Frankly I was too preoccupied with the engine to worry about the fabric. Of course I didn't perform any manuevers that could be considered remotely aerobatic. My experience with fabric leaves me quite certain that any aircraft built at the beginning of the great war still had airworthy fabric at the end of the war. This of course excludes combat damage. So fabric fading was one thing and integrity was quite another. The Wrench "When going to the trenches, I asked a man whether he had any shots at the Germans. He responded that there was an elderly gentleman with a bald head and a long beard who often showed himself over the parapet. 'Well why didn't you shoot him?' 'Shoot him' said the man; 'Why, Lor bless you sir, 'e's never done me no harm'. A case of live and let live, which is certainly not to be encouraged. But cold-blooded murder is never popular with our men." Trench Warfare 1914-1918 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:15:05 -0700 From: "Randy J. Ray" To: wwi Subject: Re: wwi Message-ID: > > I would like to get info of WWI modelling -- specifically -- soldiers of the > different participants -- please let me know where to buy figurines. > thanks!!!! > Behnmeyer@aol.com > [Cheap self-promotion opportunity!] Check out the Internet Miniaturist, at: http://byzantium.mckusick.com/~randy/figures/im.html Under my "Sources" index, I have the phone numbers and addresses of some of the more popular figurine specialists, including Red Lancers. The proprietor of RL is out of the country until March 5th, but after that time he should be able to tell you of some companies that make WWI-era figures. And then sell them to you. :-) In the interim, the only WWI figurine work I am doing are the busts from the DML 1/48 scale kits. I am still plodding along on Eddie Rickenbacker (re- painting his tunic out of dissatisfaction), and have the busts for Richtofen and Udet. Don't have the newest one that comes with the Fokker D.VIII, yet. Randy -- ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^ Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS Phone: (303)595-2869 Denver, CO rjray@uswest.com I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 08:25:35 -0500 From: Robert Woodbury To: wwi Subject: Re: Aircraft from Berlin Air Museum Message-ID: <3133064F.1183@per.dwr.csiro.au> Eli Geher wrote: > > >Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to how one might go about > >organising to get a look at any of these aircraft?? > > > >Rob > > > The old fashioned way is to write a letter to the museum and request an > appointment to do research. Its generally worked for me. The problem is > that Poland isn't close enough for a casual trip. > > The address and contacts for the museum have been published recently in both > WWI Aero and Windsock ,in connection with their Roland and Albatros/Siemens > restorations. The people involved appear to extremely enthusiastic and > would probably be overjoyed to show off their stuff to fellow enthusiasts. > > Eli Geher Well, I'm planning a trip to Europe this year, about June. Anyone be so kind as to post the address of the Museum concerned. Thanks, Rob ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 15:27:29 -0900 From: The Flying Wrench To: wwi Subject: Ernst's E.III Message-ID: <199602270027.PAA23469@anchor> The Wrench hopes to avoid another debate: Can I assume that Ernst Udet's Fokker E.III was the natural linen finish and that the red and white fuselage stripes with the maltese cross on the upper and lower fuselage are correct markings? Are the Eduard decals correct? (I'll just duck into the trenches here while I decide just whose E.III I'm going to build). The Flying Wrench "The colonel much to his disgust discovered that not a shot was being fired at the enemy as thy dodged across the gaps in their trench. They in turn were, . . . allowing our men to cross the gaps in our trench without molestation. This was too much for the colonel . . . The first sentry he came across happened to be the sniper . . . now . . . returned to duty with his company. He recieved the full blast of the colonel's indignation: 'Man alive, what are you there for? Don't you see these Huns?' To which the sentry diffidently replied: 'I ain't a sniper now, sir'." Trench Warfare 1914-1918 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:01:42 +0800 (HKT) From: Jose Valenciano To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Ernst's E.III Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, The Flying Wrench wrote: > The Wrench hopes to avoid another debate: > > Can I assume that Ernst Udet's Fokker E.III was the natural linen finish and > that the red and white fuselage stripes with the maltese cross on the upper > and lower fuselage are correct markings? > Are the Eduard decals correct? (I'll just duck into the trenches here while > I decide just whose E.III I'm going to build). Do you have the Datafile? Page 1 has a closeup of Udet and the plane's midsection. I don't know about the paint shceme. Did mine in clear dope. Another point of controversy is that many machines in his unit had their rudders painted completely black. His rudder could have been this way too. ********************************************************************* 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: Mon, 26 Feb 96 20:57:42 -0600 From: John Roll (John P. Roll) To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Novo Vimy's Message-ID: At 2:21 PM 2/26/96, Joseph R. Boeke wrote: >Okay, you have peaked my curiosity (I actually got out my kit and began >examining the parts. Has there been an article on the Vimy in WWI Aero or >maybe Windsock? The only references I have on the Vimy are the old Profile >Publications #5 and the blurb in Apostolo's (sp?) World Military Aircraft >book. Does the Harleyford Bomber book have a three view? Anywhere else I >can look? > >Thanks, > >Joe In addition to the Windsock special that someone else mentioned, I have an article from the January, 1980 issue of PAM News on the Vimy. It includes some seemingly nice notes on converting the A&B version to a standard RAF machine. If anyone would like a copy, send me a snail-mail address and I'll zip one off for you... While we're on the subject, I have two Novo Vimy's that I wouldn't mind selling. I don't like the idea of the highest bidder, so if anyone wants one, the first 2 e-mails to me (NOT the list!) can have one for $14.00 apiece (including postage in the US - add a few bucks for non-US). Since I'm doing German stuff exclusively now, (and since I have 600+ in the closet!) I guess I won't miss them too much. Happy Modeling! John Roll j-roll@maroon.t .umn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:41:01 -0700 From: mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca (Mark K. Nelson) To: wwi Subject: Re: Attention: All Eduard Fokker E.III constructors Message-ID: >Greetings fellow cultists, etc. . . >Many reviewers state that the cowl and the upper decking don't fit well >to the fuselage. They have you reshaping these parts to get the proper >fit. The same reviewers say that the photoetch cockpit is too wide for >the cavity in which it is supposed to sit. They would have you shaving >plastic from the inner fuselage walls. DON'T DO ANY OF THESE OPERATIONS! >All that actually need be done is to add a 0.5mm card spacer between the >two fuselage halves from the firewall up to and including the cockpit >area. I've found out that by doing this the cowl and upper decking fit >perfectly and that the cockpit etch slides in in a problem free manner. This reminds me of the review of the Eduard Hansa Brandenburg in Fine Scale Modeler (FSM) The reviewer stated that the etch cockpit was something like 1/16th of an inch too wide. Apparantly he must have been trying to sandwich the top of the rear bulkhead (headrest portion) between the fuselage halves. It should have been inserted through the cockpit opening and butted against the sides behind the cockpit. >You might want to replace the etch wall structures though as some >consider it too flat. If you do, don't use plastic rod as these >structures weren't made of tube but of wood. Plastic strip would be better. Etc. . . That reminds me of my Eduard MS. Type L review last year where I said it had the wrong shape exhausts (instead of intake manifolds) and should have tube framing (when is was really wood - I was thinking back on reading how the Eindecker was based on a MS design and forgot that Fokker had changed the fuselage structure to steel tube!) _____________________________________________________________________ Mark (An Employee at Kites & Other Delights in West Edmonton Mall) ------------------------ mnelson@compusmart.ab.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 20:40:31 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Pilawskii To: wwi Subject: Re: Aircraft from Berlin Air Museum Message-ID: > Rob/Bill wrote: > > > >I've come across an August 1968 issue of Flying Review International > >which has an article towards the end listing a number of vintage and > >veteran aircraft which finished up in Poland following WWII. All (most?) > >of these aircraft were displayed at the Berlin Air Museum. > > > Well, according to my 1978 edition of 'Veteran and vintage Aircraft, > the 1978 status of these aircraft was: > > > > >Albatros B.IIa, C.I -both there in 1978- C.I was 197/15 > >AEG "Euler" -there in 1978- > >Aviatik C.III -there in 1978 - C.1225/17 > >de Havilland D.H.9A -there in 1978 - Liberty engine, F.1010 > >DFW C.V -there in 1978 - C.17077/17, Aviatik built > >LVG C.II -listed as a B.II, no number > >Messerschmitt Me 209 V1 -there in 1978 - V-1, D-INJR > >Rolland D.VIb -there in 1978 - 2225/18 tail-less but > in 'fair' condition > >Rumpler Taube -there in 1978, Austrian markings > >Sopwith Camel F.1 -there in 1978, B7280, 210 Sqn RAF > > > > Others WW1-types listed for the Krakow facility in 1978 were: > > Albatros H.1 (1920's modified Siemans Schukert DIV) > Geeste Mowe (1913-vintage Taube) > Grigorovitch M.15 (1917 Russian flying boat) > Halberstadt CL.II 1545 9/17 (???) > Jeanin Taube (1914 Taube) > Farman F.4 (replica) > Antoinette (1910 edition, no other info provided) > The last time I was in Warsaw I visited *one* of the _Pan'stwowje Lotnictwo Muzeum Podjecje_ (The Trust of the National Aiviation Museum Collection) facilities [there are parts, or "branches" if you like, all over the country-- the main bits residing in Warsaw, Krakow, and Wroclaw] which was housed in the old PZL aircraft factory (which was fascinating by itself) and saw some of these machines. The Me.209 was sitting ignominiously under an old tarp, which I 'infiltrated' quite nicely(!). The Rolland was mostly knocked-down, seemingly as if in 'restoration', but looking as if it hadn't been touched in a while. One of the Curtiss Hawks was on display, looking brand new, along with what appeared to be a Dr.I *replica* (didn't look genuine, but I didn't get up close). > > Boy, I sure hope Poland runs short of foreign exchange and decides > to -deal- with the NASM to pick up a few extra dollars. -political > mode on- 'course with what's happening in Washington now, the NASM > probably has fewer dollars than Poland and the aircraft will probably > end up in Kuwait! -political mode off- > Well, I can say in general that the new E.European attitude towards these aircraft is that they represent a national treasure-- litterally. They are more than conscious of the high 6- and 7-figure sums being shelled out in the US and Britain for Historic a/c. But, they probably figure they can make more out of them by displaying them in nice museums, issuing photos, printing books, etc, than by parting with them. OTH, you never know-- I'd guess that some of this Trust collection is now in private hands.... The good side is that they *are* restoring and displaying these machines. The fairly new book (1994) _Asy Wojny 1914-1918_ has a page of color photos taken from what appears to be the Krakow Museum. It shows a Fok. Dr.I (as--what else--425/17), SPAD VII and XIII, Hariot HD-1, Camel, and a Brisfit. All of them look newly refurbished, and re-colored. Peeking behind the HD-1 there appears to be a Hannover (LVG maybe) CL-type, and in the Dr.I shot you can see the tail of what might be a Breguet or some such French machine. I think I'll write ol' Jeff Hamblin and see if he can phone them up and ask the status of the WWIs in the collection. Sure would like to se a restored Rol.D.VIb....! Erik :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "The debacle [Gallipoli] was not so much the result of Kitchener and Churchill being incompetent-- rather, that that were appalling morons...." A.T.Magnuson, M.P. .............................................................................. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 21:08:00 -0800 From: bshatzer@ednet1.osl.or.gov (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602270508.AA28349@ednet1.osl.or.gov> Charles writes: -snips- > In just a general viewing of photographs and knowledge of known colors >from lozenge fabrics and the like I have come to a conclusion that on many >German photos, Green Photographs DARK. Ray Rimell gets this wrong every >time in thinking that it is the purples that do this. Look at a clear shot >of any Fokker with lozenge fabric and look at a good decal. The green >lozenges are the darkest ones in the photo. Was this due to fading of the >dyes in the fabric ? Perhaps but how long did these fabrics last anyway, 6 >months max ? A year ? How long would you trust flying with them ? How >well would you trust them if they faded so quickly ?? > > We can't prove (at least I don't think one can) anything conclusive >about a particular shade of red, green or blue from a B&W photo for these >aircraft. We can say it was blue and NOT red, but that is the limit of it. >Personally, I wish that more in this community would recognize the >limitations we have and live with them instead of making potentially >devisive arguments for a particular shade or tone. > Just my endorsement of Charles' thoughts - really, when it comes to the -particular shades- of WW1 colors, anyone who is -too- dogmatic on this subject just, quite frankly, does not know of what he speaks. I mean, we can be pretty sure a pink Sopwith Camel is -wrong- but I doubt we can accurately and positively the exact shade of PC10 a particular aircraft is finished in. Black and white photos can -sometimes- give a pretty good indication of the general color but they are almost useless for giving -shades- of colors. Other times, they really don't even give you even the general color depending on the type of film, the lighting conditions, and the range of possible colors. The few existent color photos from the WW1 era are not much more help given the limitations of early color photography in reproducing exact colors (heck, even modern films induce errors in this regard) Existent fabric samples from WW1 aircraft are more useful but even there we have the effects of over 75 years of aging, deterioration, exposure to atmospheric chemicals, fading, etc., etc. Not to mention what the fabric sample may have been exposed to while it was still on the aircraft. (how does a particular dope react when exposed to gasoline? castor oil? grease? solvents?) And, of course, a fabric sample really only tells us something about the particular aircraft the sample was taken from - while we can probably safely assume that similar aircraft were finished in similar colors, it might be rash to assume they were finished in a similar -shade- (One need only recall the WW2 color photos of OD camouflaged B-17's lined up to realize that while all the aircraft -were- OD, the shade of OD on the various bombers was anything but uniform.) Paint formulas published by the various government offices are probably the best sources of shading, at least for those colors where researchers have attempted to reconstruct the original formula and match that with a Munsell or FS 595a number. But even here, it wouldn't pay to be overly dogmatic. Paints and dopes of the WW1 era were particularly sensitive to the method of application, the humidity, the temperature, how well the were mixed (shaken but not stirred??) and the drying time. Paint from the identical can could dry to different shades, depending on the conditions at the time of application. And, of course, aircraft manufacturers in the WW1 era had a generally lackadaisical attitude towards quality control on paints. No one was gonna toss a batch of paint if some worker dumped in 8 parts of lamp black rather than the 7 parts called for in the official specs. So long as it looked 'close', it was probably gonna end up on the aircraft. With the Central Powers, particularly, but probably with the Western Powers as well to a lesser degree, material shortages probably, from time to time, required manufacturers to mix up paints and dopes using materials or proportions other than those specified in the official specs. After all, there -was- a war on and no one is going to shut down production to await the arrival of government spec paint ingredients. (And, I won't even mention the fact that most models are displayed under fluorescent lighting which would cause a color shift -even- if the model were painted the -exact- hue of the original!) Well, I was gonna conclude by saying that's my two cents worth but I guess its more like a buck ninety-eight. My thoughts, anyway. Cheers, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org -or- aw177@Freenet.Carleton.ca - "The only duty we owe to history is to rewrite it." -Oscar Wilde- ------------------------------ Date: 27 Feb 96 15:37:00 EST From: SDW@qld.mim.com.au To: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Cc: wwi%pease1.sr.unh.edu@teksup.mim.com.au Subject: RE: Max's E.III Message-ID: <199602270600.QAA27959@mimmon.mim.com.au> Hello all, >At 05:11 PM 2/26/96 -0500, Charles Hart wrote: (apropos of loz fabric in particular, and fabric colour in general) >Was this due to fading of the >dyes in the fabric ? Perhaps but how long did these fabrics last anyway, 6 >months max ? A year ? How long would you trust flying with them ? How >well would you trust them if they faded so quickly ?? >and The Flyin' Wrench relives: >Different colors fade at different rates, but as far as fabric integrity is >concerned, with the aluminium pigmented undercoat, the fabric will long >outlast its fading color. True. Not the least bit relevant to loz fabric of course, since its actually printed (dyed) and doped with clear, non-aluminised dope. Relevant to coloured fabrics though. However, the British at least, never specified the classic sequence of shrinking dope, aluminium filled non-shrinking dope until after WW1. Prior to that the attitude was that the experiments which led to PC.10 and PC.12 as (PC== Protective Coating) were good enough for government work. Afterwards, when budgets were tighter, aircraft were rarer and the weight of extra coats of varnish were less critical, aluminium dope made an appearance. All well documented by Ian Huntley in particular. >. Of course I didn't >perform any manuevers that could be considered remotely aerobatic Sooner you than me ;-( > My >experience with fabric leaves me quite certain that any aircraft built at >the beginning of the great war still had airworthy fabric at the end of the >war. Has the passage of time made no difference to the type of dopes used? Just curious. I wonder if your reluctance to stunt an aircraft with old dodgy fabric might point to the attitude of a pilot flying a faded and rotting aircraft into combat... "Errr, excuse me Franz, this aircraft isn't all THAT airworthy, so If you don't mind, lets do this all fairly gently old man" >This of course excludes combat damage. So fabric fading was one thing >and integrity was quite another. Absolutely agreed. Fugitive colours might well dissappear a lot faster than UV might destroy fabric Regards Shane ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 46 ********************