WWI Digest 386 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: This List by Mick Fauchon 2) Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) by Mick Fauchon 3) Re: Administrivia by Mick Fauchon 4) Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) by Mick Fauchon 5) Re: datum line by Mick Fauchon 6) Re: Re[7]: This List - Air or Armor? by Mick Fauchon 7) Aircraft "Profiles" offered by Peter Kilduff 8) Current projects by "Tomas E. Tirado K" 9) Albatros C.XV by alfb@sn.no (Alf Bakken) 10) Friday, 5 January 1917, Plessis by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 11) RE: Re[2]: Nieuport articles by Shane Weier 12) Re: datum line by gspring@ix.netcom.com 13) RE: datum line by Shane Weier 14) Re: Albatros C.XV by Bob Norgren 15) Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) by gspring@ix.netcom.com 16) Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) by mbittner@juno.com 17) "Loren M. Levson, R.N." : frieze hinges by mbittner@juno.com 18) Ah'm Back! by "Valenciano . Jose" 19) Fee Questions by "Valenciano . Jose" 20) Got the drawing Dietmar by "Valenciano . Jose" 21) Rigging stuff... by "Valenciano . Jose" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:21:20 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: This List Message-ID: Bill, > Would you sign here for your citation, sir? The approved color for > the T-Rex undersurfaces (in the 65,000,000 BCE scheme) is FS 34107. Plus a dash of white for scale effect.......depending on the scale [no pun intended], of course 80) Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:43:05 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) Message-ID: Bill, > >You are correct, sir! In Imrie's book there is a photo on page 85 showing > >the gun arrangement on Alfred Greven's triplane. Beneath the ammunition > >feed chute on the left hand weapon (in this photo) there is a tray with a > >curved forward edge. Beneath the right hand gun's belt chute and spring > >cover is the trailing edge of a similar tray cut in a 90 degree arc. These > >are the spent cartridge ejection 'gutters'. I presume that the forward > >edges of these are shaped to cause the forward-traveling cases to rebound > >outward and to the rear, (hopefully) tossing them clear of the fuselage. I hate to disagree [with Greg] on this one, but I don't see that from the photo at all: in fact I think what we're looking at would be the live ammo-bin, or the top lip of the same. If you look at the pjoto closely, you'll see what I meant: the shells *must* eject underneath the rear end of the barrels, which has to be underneath the rear lip of the panel, clearly seen in the photo, on which the barrel rests, therefor all the action takes place below the level of the decking. How do you get the shell to travel upwards into a deflector from that level? They're pushed downwards. > > > Well, I'm gonna go out on limb on this 'un and opine that this is > _not_ the way it worked, at least on most Dr.I's. As I understand the > operation of the Spandau MG, it couldn't work this way because the > spent cartridges were ejected from the _bottom_ of the MG and would > thus be ejected from the gun _below_ the top of the fuselage coaming. > There just doesn't seem to be enough space for the spent cartridges > to be handled the way you suggest. Which is exactly what I've been saying. Congratulations, Bill, ol' buddy, you get the cigar......or at least one of them 80) > Now, after squinting at a half a hundred photos, Likewise. And the instances where the deflectors don't appear..... and they should be quite apparent, far outweigh the instances where they do. To me they just seem totally impractical. I'm gonna guess that > the spent cartridge cases were ejected from a hole in the fuselage > just under and just forward of the trailing edge of the middle wing. > If you look at where the middle wing attaches to the fuselage, there is > a rounded plate under the wing which looks something like: > > ______________________________________________________ > \ ====== / > \ ====== / > \________________________________________________/ > > AFT ---> > > And, on both sides where I've marked ===== , there seems to be an > opening - in exactly the right place to dump spent cartridges being > ejected down and forward from the MGs. This shows up most clearly > in the photo of the stripped-down triplane on page 26 of the Datafile > Special on the triplane but also shows up in photo #25 on page 12, > #27 on page 15, #29 on page 16, and #64 on page 28 of the Datafile. > > So, pending further evidence, that's my best guess. I see what you mean, but I'll have to remain unconvinced. Why are there two of them? [and don't say: because there are two guns! 80P~]. Is that panel the same under both wings. I still dunnooooo 80( Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 21:48:18 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Administrivia Message-ID: > Just a test. > > We've had trouble on campus todat with mail Hate to tell you this, Al, but that ain't all you've had trouble with. Sorry 80( Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 22:01:22 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) Message-ID: Greg, > The Maxim (Spandau) gun ejects its cartridges from a circular orifice in the > front of the receiver housing about 1 inch below the barrel. The cartridge > travels forward parallel to the barrel for several inches until gravity > causes it to drop. Under gravity: the shells just push each other out, so there's no force behind them. Sorry, I'm gonna have to dig in on this one. How do you get them to then travel *upwards* fom underneath the rim of the decking? BTW, you going for the other cigar? 80) > cartridge to rebound to the rear and off to one side or the other. > They were 'handed' for right or left side mounting. As the cartridge is only > .473" in diameter at the rim very little clearance was needed. On page 92 0f Which means the have to travel against gravity a distance of close to two inches. ?? I remain sceptical. Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 22:04:35 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: datum line Message-ID: Mike, > A new year and the first of my inane questions.....I keep reading > references to a "datum line" that appears on many German airplanes. I can > see it on the fuselages....my question is: What is it? there never appears > to by any "data" on it. That's "datum", as in "fixed point of reference". It just looks like a long, narrow dark line. Ok, let > me know how stupid I am not to know this. I believe it fixes the thrust-line for the engine. But I may also be stupid 80) Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 22:10:42 +1100 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Re[7]: This List - Air or Armor? Message-ID: > > It just so happens that I have *most* of a set of the Airfix early Germans I > bought as a lad, and I think I'm only missing the Maxim...I seem to remember a > stretcher, casualties, a few flamethrowers THe flame-throwers were in the Revell set, I think. and bangalore (sp?) torpedoes. I've > also got a set of Airfix Brit Army from the same period, and they're not near as > good. What color/# do you like for uniform field gray? I've always been happy with Humbrol's Field grey, with a spot of other light greys to give it a bit of variation. > When was the picklehaub 'phased out'? 1916, though it continued to be worn and produced in various forms of delining quality until the end of the war. Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 9:29:21 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Kilduff To: wwi Subject: Aircraft "Profiles" offered Message-ID: <970105092921.20290966@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> FYI, a message on the WW II History List includes the offer of "Profiles," forwarded below in case anyone wants to follow up: >Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 05:51:19 -0400 >From: QUACK >Subject: This & That >To: WWII-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > > << snip, snip >> > > > Another: I have approximately 250 "PROFILE" booklets...the ones printed in >England back in the sixties. I'd like to dispose of them and I'm asking a hefty >price. Can anyone point me in the proper direction? I'm also a member of the >AAHS (American Aviation Historical Society)...maybe in their monthly >newsletter. > > Ron Musco > United Technologies > Hamilton Standard > Windsor Locks, Connecticut ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 13:59:07 -0300 From: "Tomas E. Tirado K" To: wwi Subject: Current projects Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970105165907.00697bec@adinet.com.uy> Finishing 1/72 E-1B Tracer with the Falcon triple conversion kit and the Hobbycraft Tracker. Nice project, lot of putty and sanding but very nice finish 'ovni'shape machine, a lot of decal job too!! Still rigging 1/72 Revell Spad, painted according Blue Rider decal sheet BR222 Easter Egg Spad, colorful! Working in 1/72 Eduard Sopwith baby.... Working in Hasegawa 1/72 RF-4C (69370) 38th TRS, 26th TRW, Desert Storm/Incirlik base-Turkey Working in 1/700 Matchbox USS Indianapolis with a lot of 'replace'and 'add' job Working in 1/700 PitRoad USS San Diego, nice kit Finishing 1/700 full scratch Dresden WWI German cruiser. Saludos a todos -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Tomas E. Tirado Kruger ** tomasetk@adinet.com.uy ** Engineer., 45, 5 childs 1/700 Ship modeler, also 1/72 WWI, WWII Luftwaffe, USN USAF WWII to present. IPMS-Uruguay active member in Montevideo city Phone/Fax Nr. (598)38 58403 "ToTal-hobbies" owner, only one year in business, but growing everyday -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:40:13 +0100 (MET) From: alfb@sn.no (Alf Bakken) To: wwi Subject: Albatros C.XV Message-ID: <199701051740.SAA03290@mail1.sn.no> Hello from a lurker in Norway I have a problem that the list-members might be able to help me with. I have just received 5 kits (1/72) of Albatros two-seaters. Among them the Xtravac C.XV. The kit looks to very nice, but when I compared the wings to the drawing in Scale Models of May 1980 they turned out to be way too short (almost 0.5 inch). Then I calculated the wingspan from the data-table provided in the article and found that the wings of the kit match these values exactly. So my question is, what is correct? The table say 11,8m while the drawing shows a wingspan of 12,63m. That is quite a difference. TIA Alf Alf Bakken Smalgangen 21, 0188 OSLO. Norway. Tlf. 22 17 00 07. E-mail: alfb@pop.sn.no ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 16:50:23 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Friday, 5 January 1917, Plessis Message-ID: <32D04C4F.5CAD@host.dmsc.net> Fine day, not very much wind. Had motor trouble on my first two flights this morning but had one dandy flight with a 110 hp "Baby" and two more good trips this afternoon. I have nearly five hours flying time here now. Received nice Christmas greetings from Betty Wright. Wrote to Helen Harper. Parsons and Bigelow not back from Paris today as I expected they would be. Hope this good weather holds now for several days so we can finish up our required time and thus become "disponible." We'd have more chance of getting sent to the front then. ************************** from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:43:12 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Re[2]: Nieuport articles Message-ID: <01BBFBA5.45D6C7E0@pc087b.mim.com.au> Ray, Matt and other Nieuportophiles, I just had to butt in here and add my response to this thread >One of the reasons I was interested in the Scale Models articles was to see >if there were any sections on how to improve the Testor's 1/48 Nieuport 17. >I compared the model to the Datafile and came up with a page of items that >need to be changed. This was in addition to the moulded markings and of >course adding cockpit details. However not sure if I am up to the task of >the improvments. I can see it now I will get just past the point of no >return and then realise that I don't have the requisite skills. At that >point my son gets another model to paint. Of course the model only cost me >$3 dollars at an IPMS show so I won't have wasted much either way. I emailed this off line to another list member in discussion of a purchase I made of several of these kits at a ludicrously low price. It may be of some assistance if you ignore the coversational tone _______________________________________________ BUILDING A NIE 17 using Testors (Hawk Mould) 1:48 kit Full interior. Well, there is none, so I need a seat, stick and some structure at least. I have Nie 17 Datafile and Nieuport Fighters specials and there are some good pics in some of the Windsock mags. (Toms Modelworks French interior set has many usefull details appropriate to this aircraft) Lower wingtips. For some reason they are heavily raked. Easy way out would be to just square them off per the drawings, but then the wings get about 1/2" too short in span, which an observant judge would twig to I suspect. Trouble is that lengthening the wings and disguising the joins is a tough prospect. Ailerons. They don't have as great an inverse taper as the photos and drawings depict. It isn't too obvious, but new ones shouldn't be difficult. The slots for the aileron cranks will be harder, any sensible suggestion of how to cut them perfectly symetrical, insert the crank, pivot AND wing spar etc. etc gratefully accepted. Forward Fuselage. Should be asymetrical in cross section and it's clearly visible. I'll probably add a veneer of plasticard or a blob of milliput to the port half and recontour it. The access panels, both sides, will need redoing too. Cockpit position appears to be a little far aft. I may ignore this since it's not obvious. The alternative is to make a vertical cut fore and aft of the cockpit, a horizontal one starting at the cowl lacing and remove the cockpit coaming. Cut 2mm from the front of the removed pieces and relocate forward. Fill the resultant gap at the rear then move (or is it extend, I don't recall) the headrest fairing to match. Exhaust channel. Kit hasn't got one so the underside of the fuselage needs cutting away and boxing in, then puttying to make the shape. Cowling and Engine. It might be possible to drill out the engine, thin the cowling, cut the slots and add the stiffening strips (is that what they are?) from strip. However I'll probably turn it down a bit on my handy dandy (dangerous) drill and use it to plug mold a few shots out of 20 thou. Then I can mess up a few attempts at making nice even slots. The engine can be an Aeroclub 110hp le Rhone since I'm not such a maniac as to scratchbuild one when there is a reasonable alternative. Tail skid fairing. Its a flat fin in the kit but should be shaped more like half of a football. I'll carve it from plastic stock. Engraved markings. They have to go of course. Not too hard but if I want to build a aluminium finish I may opt to skin the wings in card with embossed ribs and avoid the difficulty of completely erasing all sign of the old markings under a coat of silver. Gun(s). From Aeroclub, too lazy again. I like the idea of an aircraft with both Vickers and Lewis mounts, since it will make it LOOK more complex without adding all that much work. Tail surfaces. The rudder/fin looks a bit thick, and would be easy to replace. Small effort, big effect, so I will probably do it. Is the tailplane shape OK ? It differs from the plans but should be easy to sand down to match. Undercarriage. New wheels, maybe. (I don't remember if the wheels are okay) The wing struts are usable with a little detailing effort but the undercarriage will take more work. Rigging. Rigging, and control horns and so on. Painful but necessary for every WW1 a/c. Colour scheme. I'd like to build an aircraft with interesting and colourful markings, but they mostly seem to be on aluminium doped aircraft which means the surface modifications need to be shit hot standard. I might cop out and build a nice green RFC aircraft, which will avoid that trap. _______________________________________________ Quite a long list which makes my enthusiasm for the kit seem unreasonable. But my kits are cleanly moulded, fairly good representations of the prototype (especially considering the age of the mould), provide a neat basis for an accurate model, and even if I'd paid the $5 list price damned cheap. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 13:27:50 -0800 From: gspring@ix.netcom.com To: wwi Subject: Re: datum line Message-ID: <199715152639141@ix.netcom.com> On 01/05/97 06:07:37 Mick wrote (in reply to Mike): > > > > Mike, > > > >> A new year and the first of my inane questions.....I keep reading >> references to a "datum line" that appears on many German airplanes. I can >> see it on the fuselages....my question is: What is it? there never appears >> to by any "data" on it. > > That's "datum", as in "fixed point of reference". > > It just looks like a long, narrow dark line. Ok, let >> me know how stupid I am not to know this. > > I believe it fixes the thrust-line for the engine. This is correct but I can't cite references. The rigging of the angles of attack and incidence of the wings must be in relation to the thrust line. Cheers! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:21:05 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: datum line Message-ID: <01BBFBAA.90D65BC0@pc087b.mim.com.au> Hi all, >> I believe it fixes the thrust-line for the engine. >This is correct but I can't cite references. The rigging of the angles of >attack and incidence of the wings must be in relation to the thrust line. Well, IMHO, yes and no. AoA and Incidence would certainly need to be fixed in relation to the thrust line BUT.... If the datum line IS actually the thrust line *why* have I got drawings which show BOTH. (Current example is off topic, but late marque Spitfires have a thrust line which diverges from the datum line because the prop points slightly downwards compared to the thrust line of Merlin engined Spits. But the datum line stays the same because it is used to align the frames in manufacture. This diffeence is marked on some drawings. Don't ask me to explain why, I'm NOT an aeronautical engineer.) Incidentally, this is one of my pet peeves. Ever wonder about quoted lengths of aircraft? Do your references tell you what the reference plane is for the measurement? I bet they don't, yet figures are bandied about which are measured with respect to datum line, thrust line, centre line (NO they don't have to coincide, and the lengths may well be different since they aren't always parallel either) or even ground line !! My dictionary says Eli is precisely right about the use of the datum line, and a quick call to a friend with a vintage aircraft (Auster) tells me that it needn't be a biplane to have a rigging datum and require adjustment from time to time. Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 17:51:39 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Re: Albatros C.XV Message-ID: <32CFEA2B.1F3A@ne.infi.net> Alf Bakken wrote: > > Hello from a lurker in Norway > > I have a problem that the list-members might be able to help me with. > I have just received 5 kits (1/72) of Albatros two-seaters. Among > them the Xtravac C.XV. The kit looks to very nice, but when I compared > the wings to the drawing in Scale Models of May 1980 they turned out to be > way too short (almost 0.5 inch). Then I calculated the wingspan from the > data-table provided in the article and found that the wings of the kit match > these values exactly. So my question is, what is correct? The table say > 11,8m while the drawing shows a wingspan of 12,63m. That is quite a difference. Take the advice of one who makes a living relying on drawings: printed drawings vary from their stated scales. Rarely are drawings printed in magazines or books to EXACTLY 1/72 or 1/48 scale, despite what is printed on the drawing. The Datafiles come the closest, but many of them are off by slight amounts. It is always best to check with a scale rule and enlarge or reduce on a good copier. But copiers have their faults as they tend to enlarge or reduce more in one direction than in the other giving you a distortion. Nothing is simple if you are a perfectionist. But what is true scale length anyway...(here we go again) Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:53:00 -0800 From: gspring@ix.netcom.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) Message-ID: <19971516514916334@ix.netcom.com> On 01/05/97 06:04:19 Mick wrote: > > Greg, > >> The Maxim (Spandau) gun ejects its cartridges from a circular orifice in the >> front of the receiver housing about 1 inch below the barrel. The cartridge >> travels forward parallel to the barrel for several inches until gravity >> causes it to drop. > > Under gravity: the shells just push each other out, so there's no >force behind them. Sorry, I'm gonna have to dig in on this one. How do you >get them to then travel *upwards* fom underneath the rim of the decking? > BTW, you going for the other cigar? 80) >> cartridge to rebound to the rear and off to one side or the other. >> They were 'handed' for right or left side mounting. As the cartridge is only >> .473" in diameter at the rim very little clearance was needed. On page 92 0f > > Which means the have to travel against gravity a distance of >close to two inches. ?? > Not at all. First, examine the scale drawings of the two types of Spandaus on page 126 of Harry Woodman's 'Early Aircraft Armament'. Note that on the LMG 08 (as used on Dr Is) the lower receiver has been cut back to a point just forward of the rear edge of the cartridge feed slot. It has also been cut upwards to a point even with the bottom edge of the fusee spring housing on the left side of the receiver. The metal panel on the Dr Is upper deck (forward of the control cable openings)follows the contour of the middle wing upper surface. The guns must be mounted high enough so that the cooling jackets clear this panel. As you move aft the panel slopes downward slightly. Also the panels outboard of the receivers arc down to meet the longerons at the upper corners of the fuselage. Now examine the following photos in Imrie's Triplane book: #26, #110, #139. In these photos the bottom of the fusee cover (and thus the bottom of the forward receiver) clears the top decking of the fuselage by quite sufficient space to allow the installation of the ejector trays. The cartridges didn't have to travel upward at all to clear the top of the fuselage. Examine photo #132 of Goering's field-made shell deflectors. If the shells aren't coming out along the top of the fuselage why did he install those deflectors? A similar deflector appears in photo #16 in the Datafile Special. Also in the Datafile see photos #61 and 62. You can see the lips of identical ejector trays for the right hand gun protruding behind the feed chute. I hope I have explained this clearly. I had to draw a picture for Eisenhour and then show him my Revell 1/28 Dr I (complete with tiny ejector trays installed). Unfortunately I can't do that in this forum. Thank you for your indulgence. I should like a Cohiba Churchill please. Cheers! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:23:46 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fokker Dr.I machine guns (was: This List) Message-ID: <19970105.172528.14734.3.mbittner@juno.com> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:56:42 -0500 gspring@ix.netcom.com writes: > Now examine the following photos in Imrie's Triplane book: #26, > #110, #139. In these photos the bottom of the fusee cover (and > thus the bottom of the forward receiver) clears the top decking > of the fuselage by quite sufficient space to allow the > installation of the ejector trays. The cartridges didn't have > to travel upward at all to clear the top of the fuselage. > Examine photo #132 of Goering's field-made shell deflectors. If > the shells aren't coming out along the top of the fuselage why > did he install those deflectors? A similar deflector appears in > photo #16 in the Datafile Special. Also in the Datafile see > photos #61 and 62. You can see the lips of identical ejector > trays for the right hand gun protruding behind the feed chute. > I hope I have explained this clearly. I had to draw a picture > for Eisenhour and then show him my Revell 1/28 Dr I (complete > with tiny ejector trays installed). Unfortunately I can't do > that in this forum. Thank you for your indulgence. I should > like a Cohiba Churchill please. Actually, you could, Greg. Why not take a close up photo of your wonderful model, send it to Al to post it on the web page? I know it will do a lot to help all these explanations to this modeler! Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:23:45 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: "Loren M. Levson, R.N." : frieze hinges Message-ID: <19970105.172528.14734.0.mbittner@juno.com> Got this from the addressee, out of the blue. I thought that maybe someone else could help. Please, if you do help, email the person direct. She is not subscribed to our list, and I'm sure the topic is a bit much for some. Thanks, all!! Matt mbittner@juno.com --------- Begin forwarded message ---------- From: "Loren M. Levson, R.N." To: "'jwallace@dca.com'" Cc: "'mbittner@juno.com'" Subject: frieze hinges for biplane Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:54:15 -0600 Message-ID: <01BBFAE0.71516A80@hd62-202.compuserve.com> My husband is building a 1/4 scale biplane and needs info on frieze = hinges. He normally builds extremely detailed WWII aircraft, with panel = lines, rivets, etc., and is an extremely experienced builder. However, = this is a project for a person who is familiar with my husband's 1/4 = scale models and wanted a copy of a plane this man flies. I've been = asked to do the "leg work" to try to obtain a diagram of exactly how the = hinges operate and are designed, etc., that we can download. This is an = important project for my husband as he is a former member of the BAMA = Flyers Airshow Team who is now paraplegic and unable to get to the shows = or to the field to fly. So if you have, or know anyone who might have, = what he needs, please respond. This project has really given him a lift = as he has been rather "down" about not being able to fly. In fact, he = sold his 1/4 Spitfire because it was so big and heavy there was no way = to manage it. It was such a beautiful plane the buyer was a hobby shop = owner who has used it to attract business. Thanks so much for trying to = help. I've found through the years that aeromodelers really help each = other out. --------- End forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 08:05:14 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: Ah'm Back! Message-ID: Hi All, A Happy and prolific New Year to all. May I start a thread here? What models have we finished & worked on this year? Finished: DML Fokker Dr.I Eduard Eindekker Eduard SSW D.III Worked on: Sierra AEG G.IV Sierra H.B. 29 Sierra Roland C.II How about you? ********************************************************************* 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, 6 Jan 1997 08:14:19 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: Fee Questions Message-ID: Hi everyall, I'm starting off on the Aeroclub Fe2b. Questions: 1. Does anyone have any colors/markings for aircraft with four bladed props and tricycle landing gear that I can choose from? One with some historical info would be nice. 2. I've seen just one pic of a plane with an anti-balloon boom sticking out in front. I know that it doesn't have the tricycle landing gear but it could build into an interesting model too. Have any info on this one? I don't know where all of the extra rigging goes. 3. To anyone with the Fe2b Datafile, may I have copies of interior photos and 3view drawings? I need to know the correct shape of the 4 bladed prop (I think the Aeroclub prop could be improved), and where the rudder cables exit from the nacelle. Thank you! ********************************************************************* 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, 6 Jan 1997 08:38:59 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: Got the drawing Dietmar Message-ID: Thanks for the assymetrical Gotha drawing, Dietmar. Is it in 1/72 scale? Does anyone know the wingspan of this bird so I can get the drawing up to the right size? Thanks ********************************************************************* 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, 6 Jan 1997 09:20:14 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: Rigging stuff... Message-ID: Thanks to Hiro Ozaki for that tip on double wire rigging. I used it on my Eduard SSW D.III. Although this plane doesn't have double wires, the little eyelets I made proved to be good anchor points for the rigging. You'll read more about it on the last edition of the Eduard SSW Constructor's Saga. Another rigging question: Were turnbuckles present on every rigging line on a plane? What do you guys use to simulate turnbuckles? ********************************************************************* 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." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 386 *********************