WWI Digest 399 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) 2 Seater Competitions by Graham Nash 2) Philosophical Question by Sandy Adam 3) Greatest Aces-A new methodology by Graham Nash 4) Erik Pilawsky's models by "Pedro Soares" 5) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by mbittner@juno.com 6) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by barrett@iplink.net (barrett) 7) Re: Philosophical Question by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 8) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 9) 'bronzing' busts by "Brian Bushe" 10) Monday, 15 January 1917, Paris, Plessis by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 11) Re: Greatest Aces-A new methodology by Sandy Adam 12) Re: Greatest Aces-A new methodology by Graham Nash 13) My Own Introduction by THENRYS@aol.com 14) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by Rob 15) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Rob 16) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by Erik Pilawskii 17) Re: Philosophical Question by "Randy J. Ray" 18) RE: My Own Introduction by Shane Weier 19) Re[2]: Insignia Magazine by "Shelley Goodwin" 20) Re: Fokker D.III by "Shelley Goodwin" 21) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by "Valenciano . Jose" 22) Re: My Own Introduction by "Valenciano . Jose" 23) RE: My Own Introduction by Erik Pilawskii 24) Re: My Own Introduction by mbittner@juno.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:47:53 -0800 From: Graham Nash To: wwi Subject: 2 Seater Competitions Message-ID: <199701150948.AA05314@egate.citicorp.com> I have read over the years that there were one/some two-seater competitions, presumably in a similar vein to the Fighter Competitons. Does anyone have details, dates, entrants, winners etc of said competitons? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:54:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: wwi group Subject: Philosophical Question Message-ID: I suggest that if you are a good modeller, you will have a painstaking eye for getting things precisely correct to the ultimate degree. You will not be content with things you know are wrong or indeed with a compromise which does not incorporate all the known evidence exactly and only makes assumptions on unresearchable areas. If applying these methods to human relationships, such individuals are usually almighty nitpicking pains in the ass! Should we publicise how good our best models are and perhaps admit things about our personalities that are best unsaid, or should we hide the latest ultra-perfect jewel in the cupboard and be everybody's good guy. I personally just throw the bits together any old how - well, as long as the interior structure scales out correctly - and the dimensions are within a midgie's widgey - and the colour scheme is verifiable - and the handle on the fuel pump is the right scale thickness - and... Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:03:59 -0800 From: Graham Nash To: wwi Subject: Greatest Aces-A new methodology Message-ID: <199701151004.AA05681@egate.citicorp.com> I've been following the thread on this, and wonder if we should try and find a new way of defining the contribution of an 'Ace' versus his peers. My suggestion is to evaluate the loss in cost terms to the enemy. The net effect of this would be to make anyone who brought down a Zeppelin a clear winner... Other thoughts to take into consideration would be: 1) Length of time the opponenent had been in service * pay rate 2) If the opponent became a POW this becomes a cost to the victors side and is taken off the value thus far. 3) Add back the value of the opponents victories (a bit like a game of conkers) As a worked but wholley fictional example MvR's victory over Hawker would work somthing like: Cost of Airco D.H.2 (1916 price) GBP 1,000 Cost of Hawkers' pay to date GBP 500 Cost of Hawkers' 12 victories GBP12,000 Less POW costs GBP 0 Less value of reused Monosoupape GBP 0 Total Value of Victory GBP13,500 (Though for Hawker, what price would you put on the development of 'Fug' boots, DH2 gun mountings etc.) Oh, I work for a bank by the way...:^) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:22:17 -0000 From: "Pedro Soares" To: Subject: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <199701151128.LAA00501@wallana> Hi you all, and especially you Erik Blast it, man. Is that the way you think you'll be attracting new subscribers, like this humble portuguese, to this list??? After seeing your work I'm already considering quitting, and I've been only on the list for 3 or 4 days now. Boy does that wood work look beautifull. Very nice work Erik. Congratulations. BTW let me just introduce myself to the others: I've never built a WW1 aircraft in all my life but after taking a look at the World War 1 modeling pages I decided to subscribe the mailing list wich I find very informative and positively spirited, and I'm seriously contemplating building my first WW1 model. I would appreciate opinions of you experts on the following kits for a first project: Academy's Camel or SPAD XIII Revell's Camel or SPAD XIIIC Airfix DH4 Airfix Sopwith Pup I would also benefit from some help regarding construction details like how do you deal with the problem of those horrible canals that at one time were used by kit manufacturers to hold the strut assemblies (cf. Airfix Pup or Revell Spad), but I guess we can go into that in more detail at a later stage Thanks in advance pedro pedro.soares@anaep.pt ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:44:44 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <19970115.044650.14734.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:31:33 -0500 "Pedro Soares" writes: > BTW let me just introduce myself to the others: I've never built > a WW1 aircraft in all my life but after taking a look at the > World War 1 modeling pages I decided to subscribe the mailing > list wich I find very informative and positively spirited, and > I'm seriously contemplating building my first WW1 model. I would > appreciate opinions of you experts on the following kits for a > first project: > > Academy's Camel or SPAD XIII > Revell's Camel or SPAD XIIIC > Airfix DH4 > Airfix Sopwith Pup Welcome Pedro!! Good to see you on the list. FWIW, I'm going to try to get the I-3 next month. More on that, later. Your best bet - for a first WW1 according to your list - is to work on the Airfix Sopwith Pup. This is the most accurate - and least problematic - kit on your list. There are things to correct; however, as a first kit, they really don't need to be done. > I would also benefit from some help regarding construction > details like how do you deal with the problem of those horrible > canals that at one time were used by kit manufacturers to hold > the strut assemblies (cf. Airfix Pup or Revell Spad), but I > guess we can go into that in more detail at a later stage Three words: "Fill 'em in!!!" Seriously. Then replace the struts with Contrail, or some other suitable alternative. Just my 2 worth. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 08:19:57 -0500 From: barrett@iplink.net (barrett) To: wwi Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: I would appreciate opinions of you experts on the following kits >for a first project: > >Academy's Camel or SPAD XIII >Revell's Camel or SPAD XIIIC >Airfix DH4 >Airfix Sopwith Pup > For your first WWI model, try the Airfix Pup: it falls together and makes a nice little model. Kevin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:20:41 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <199701151220.HAA29139@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 04:58 AM 1/15/97 -0500, Sandy Adam wrote: > >I personally just throw the bits together any old how - well, as long as >the interior structure scales out correctly - and the dimensions are >within a midgie's widgey - and the colour scheme is verifiable - and the >handle on the fuel pump is the right scale thickness - Good God, you left out if the fuel pump handle is pointing in the right direction!!!! Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:20:43 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <199701151220.HAA29149@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 05:31 AM 1/15/97 -0500, Pedro Soares wrote: > >I would also benefit from some help regarding construction details like how >do you deal with the problem of those horrible canals that at one time were >used by kit manufacturers to hold the strut assemblies (cf. Airfix Pup or >Revell Spad), but I guess we can go into that in more detail at a later >stage Since it will be your first biplane, I would suggest the Airfix kit. It goes together easily and the painting schemes are pretty basic(P.C. 10 on top of wings and for fuselage and cleae doped linen underneath. The Canadian Air History museum is doing one in this scheme but adding a horizontal white line that runs the length of the fuselage, if you want to spice up a color scheme!) The macine gun looks akward and you might want to replace it with a good one . Thecanals are another problem...I still haven't solved that one ...mostly due to my inability to fill and sand correctly! I would think that you could use the struts in the kit and just fill the canals with putty. Good luck and welcome to the list. Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:15:47 +0000 From: "Brian Bushe" To: wwi Subject: 'bronzing' busts Message-ID: <199701151225.MAA28969@itl.net> Hi guys, I remember a while ago Verlinden published a method for 'bronzing' his resin busts. I was thinking of doing the same to a dragon bust. Does anyone know the procedure, or can suggest one? Brian Brian Bushe syclone@itl.net Syclone Systems Denmark Street (44) 1628 789 470 Maidenhead Fax 789 513 Berkshire England ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:27:24 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Monday, 15 January 1917, Paris, Plessis Message-ID: <32DD137C.3A27@host.dmsc.net> 896. Fair to-day. Up fairly early and took the 9:56 train from Paris. Flew a good deal this afternoon altho low clouds kept me at only 250 metres altitude. Rather enjoyed the flying more than usual to-day. Am to go out to the front with four French flyers to-morrow to Cachy, in the Somme, (the same place where our Escadrille is located) to pilot back to here a discarded machine. Wish I was going out for good instead but that right to come soon now. No news yet tho about us three being sent out to join our escadrille. Received a letter of New Year Greetings from Miss Miller. Feeling lonely as usual for darling beloved Gerty! Will I ever hear from her? ***************************** from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:52:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Greatest Aces-A new methodology Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Graham Nash wrote: > I've been following the thread on this, and wonder if we should try and > find a new way of defining the contribution of an 'Ace' versus his > peers. > My suggestion is to evaluate the loss in cost terms to the enemy. > The net effect of this would be to make anyone who brought down a > Zeppelin a clear winner... Brilliant Graham, best suggestion this year. It probably means the highest scoring allied Ace would now be some incompetent Zepp commander guilty of writing off his own 'ship(s). PS any chance of you helping me with my tax returns? Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:08:23 -0800 From: Graham Nash To: wwi Subject: Re: Greatest Aces-A new methodology Message-ID: <199701151509.AA16556@egate.citicorp.com> Sandy Adam wrote: > PS any chance of you helping me with my tax returns? > Sandy Sorry Andy, for that you need an accountant. All I can do is lend you the money to pay the tax, or interest you in a real nice tax evasion...err tax reduction scheme...;) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:31:29 -0500 (EST) From: THENRYS@aol.com To: wwi Subject: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <970115113113_1510015383@emout14.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-15 06:55:50 EST, Pedro Soares wrote : << BTW let me just introduce myself to the others: I've never built a WW1 aircraft in all my life but after taking a look at the World War 1 modeling pages I decided to subscribe the mailing list wich I find very informative and positively spirited, and I'm seriously contemplating building my first WW1 model. I would appreciate opinions of you experts on the following kits for a first project: >> I have also been reading the mailing list for the past 10 days and have found the discussion to be extremely informative, and I now feel the need for my own introduction. My name is Todd Henry, and I am primarily a WWII aircraft builder, in both 1/48 and 1/72 scales. I generally tend towards the stranger, less built subjects (examples on my bench right now include a 1/48 scale Boulton Paul Defiant - Hey it's WWI a/c design doctrine! - and a 1/48 vacuform Fairey Firefly) and my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI modelling. (I think she really got the appreciation from seeing the great collection at RAF Hendon when we were in England in 1995) Not having built a WWI model in several years, I thought that tapping the minds of the folks in this group would definitely be a good move. So, to that end, I have two kits that are possibilities for my first WWI project in many years. One is the Eduard Triplane, which my wife got me for Christmas :), and the other is the Eduard Fokker D.VI. From a kit quality and a/c significance standpoint, I would rather build the Tripe, but I would be very interested in hearing comments, suggestions, etc. regarding the Fokker. Part of me says to build the biplane before the triplane to better get a handle on rigging. I also would love to do a lozenge bird. Any comments will be welcomed. Also, I'm not very familiar with the D.VI, although I understand it spent more of its time in training squadrons and was not a much used combat kite. Any information on its usage would also be appreciated. Finally, to Jose Valenciano, I enjoyed your constructors review of the D.III. I have printed a hard copy and placed it by my bench for future reference. Again, I look forward to learning from you, and hopefully, I can add some to the discussion. Todd Henry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:35:34 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <9701150932.aa00624@scosysv.speechsys.com> Mike wrote: >Thecanals are another problem...I still > haven't solved that one ...mostly due to my inability to fill and sand > correctly! I would think that you could use the struts in the kit and just > fill the canals with putty. I find putty very hard to deal with for all but the tiniest blemishes (excessive shrinkage, pin holes, cracks are all problems). I think that the best filler is always styrene. Use a slightly oversized strip and bevel the edges (this helps provide a snug fit). Cement it in with liquid cement--apply enough to the edges of the insert so that the feathered edges get all squishy when you press it in (but watch those finger prints!). Then restore the contour as necessary. Build up any ribs with narrower pieces of plastic strip and smooth the edges with sandpaper a Swiss (diemaker's) files. Or make the plastic strip plug stick up above the wing surface and fair it in with the same tools. This is harder to describe than it is to do. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 09:55:55 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <9701150952.aa00716@scosysv.speechsys.com> Herr Wilhelm (Bill) writes: >[1] Checking out the MvR official victories (only because they seem to be the > best researched and the best documented) it would appear that the > Germans, at least, did NOT overstate enemy losses by a factor of > anything close to two or three times. > >[2] Going by the appendix in Above the Lines by Franks, et al, it appears > that there is absolutely no dispute about 59 of MvR's 80 victories. > By no dispute, the authors mean that the aircraft (by number) and the > pilot or crew (by name and rank) can be absolutely identified.... > >[3] Which would indicate that under the WW1 German system, the overstatement > of claimed victories was not by a factor of 2 or 3 to one but rather > in the range of fifteen to twenty percent at the highest. I don't hink that the conclusions (1&3) follow from the premise (2). Even if we assume that Richtofen's 10-20% error is typical, German claims might still be vastly overstated. Pilots (and air gunners) don't generally claim airplanes that were not present at the time of the claim. It's even probable that they don't claim aircraft that were not actually destroyed (yes, damaged aircraft get claimed as destroyed when they in fact survive, but damaged aircraft that crash out of sight of the victor, in a landing accident or over the sea, also go unclaimed--the two may well cancel each other out). The common source of kill inflation is, rather, multiple claims for the same airplane. That is, Richtofen (hypothetically) claims an RE8 that we can confirmlost. But the obscure pilot Ludwig X also claims an RE8 that he shot up and subsequently saw go down. Flak gunners and infantry machineguns also put in their claims. The INDIVIDUAL scores are then "accurate" in so far as each has a claim to contributing to the demise of a real RE8. But, as a measure of enemy losses, the claims, IN THE AGGREGATE, still overstate the case by %400. My two sous worth. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:12:31 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Pilawskii To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Pedro Soares wrote: > Hi you all, and especially you Erik > Greetings, thank you! > Blast it, man. Is that the way you think you'll be attracting new > subscribers, like this humble portuguese, to this list??? After seeing > your work I'm already considering quitting, and I've been only on the list > for 3 or 4 days now. > My word!... Well, I don't know what to say. Surely, you've seen the work of genuine Masters like Steve Hustad (on the same site)? Now, *his* work is intimidating!... > Boy does that wood work look beautifull. Very nice work Erik. > Congratulations. > Thanks a million-- that's very kind of you! > BTW let me just introduce myself to the others: I've never built a WW1 > aircraft in all my life but after taking a look at the World War 1 modeling > pages I decided to subscribe the mailing list wich I find very informative > and positively spirited, and I'm seriously contemplating building my first > WW1 model. I would appreciate opinions of you experts on the following kits > for a first project: First of all, welcome to the Group! It is, indeed, a fine bunch, and you'll learn more here on how to model and enumerate Ace's scores than anywhere else on the planet . Now, not being and 'expert', I can still say that the clear winner is: > Airfix Sopwith Pup > A fine kit, and perfect for a first-time effort. And cheap! If you want a little more color, might I suggest the Airfix Roland C.II? I have duly noted that, as well, you are correctly building in the Master Scale! Bravo! > I would also benefit from some help regarding construction details like how > do you deal with the problem of those horrible canals that at one time were > used by kit manufacturers to hold the strut assemblies (cf. Airfix Pup or > Revell Spad), but I guess we can go into that in more detail at a later > stage > Putty for those channels! Putty putty putty.... Cheers, Erik :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "If you're not living Life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!" .............................................................................. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:17:12 -0700 From: "Randy J. Ray" To: wwi Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: > I suggest that if you are a good modeller, you will have a painstaking eye > for getting things precisely correct to the ultimate degree. You will not > be content with things you know are wrong or indeed with a compromise > which does not incorporate all the known evidence exactly and only makes > assumptions on unresearchable areas. > > If applying these methods to human relationships, such individuals are > usually almighty nitpicking pains in the ass! Oh, I'm quite the anal-retentive in real life, unfortunately. It does interfere with personal relationships, I admit, but it also helps me to be very good at my job as a software engineer and technical author. I may not be the most fun guy in the room, but my code, manuals and documents are clear and very readable. Sometimes, though, I'd trade it all for more interpersonal skills. Randy -- =============================================================================== Randy J. Ray -- U S WEST Technologies IAD/CSS/DPDS Phone: (303)595-2869 Denver, CO rjray@uswest.com "It's not denial. I'm just very selective about the reality I accept." --Calvin =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:57:12 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <01BC0382.E23E5960@pc087b.mim.com.au> GDay Todd, Welcome to THE list. Having seen your fairly frequent posts to rec.models.scale I have to warn the list that you're a bit of a windbag ;-) In fact you should fit in just fine with this talkative bunch. >My name is Todd Henry, and I am primarily a WWII aircraft >builder, Forgiven. Even if it sounds a bit like an intro at AA > in both 1/48 Understandable >and 1/72 scales. Very difficult to countenance. >my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI >modelling. Mine is pushing me to mow the grass. Want to swap? Okay, time to be serious. >I have two kits that are possibilities for my first WWI project in >many years. One is the Eduard Triplane, which my wife got me for Christmas >:), and the other is the Eduard Fokker D.VI. From a kit quality and a/c >significance standpoint, I would rather build the Tripe, but I would be very >interested in hearing comments, suggestions, etc. regarding the Fokker. Part >of me says to build the biplane before the triplane to better get a handle on >rigging. I also would love to do a lozenge bird. Any comments will be >welcomed. Well you cut right to the heart of it with your comments. The Tripe IS definitely far better moulded, and should go together more easily than the D.VI However, I suggest that since you build vacforms and other short run kits the difficulties inherent in the D.VI kit are familiar ones, while the Tripehound presents some special rigging problems even the WW1 veterand blanche at. In particular, there is the difficulty of double flying wires which go *through* the centre plane and need to be kept in a straight line. Reflection will tell you that this will not be easy. >Also, I'm not very familiar with the D.VI, although I understand it spent >more of its time in training squadrons and was not a much used combat kite. Well, I'm not competent to answer this bit in detail without going home and reading some references. However, it was mostly used in training and home defence duties as you surmise. >Again, I look forward to learning from you, and hopefully, I can add some to >the discussion. *Everyone* here adds to the discussion, even if only by asking the questions the rest of us forgot. Stay a while, it's fun in here. Regards Shane (Brisbane, Australia) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 17:05:58 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: Insignia Magazine Message-ID: <9700158533.AA853366139@mx.Ricochet.net> Shane, That would be smashing. Please do. Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Insignia Magazine Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 1/13/97 7:36 PM Riordan, I have Insignia #4, but don't remember enough of the article to tell you what's in it. If you like I'll bring it in and post tomorrow. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 17:58:03 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re: Fokker D.III Message-ID: <9700158533.AA853366161@mx.Ricochet.net> "...The capabilities of the D.I and D.II were by consensus indifferent, and, in an attempt to provide a single-seat fighter of higher performance and heavier firepower, Martin Kreuzer adapted the M 18 (Fokker D.I) to take the 160 hp 14-cylinder two-row rotary Oberursel U III engine and an armament of two synchronised LMG 08/15 machine guns. The new fighter was assigned the Fokker designation M 19 and when ordered by the Idflieg became the D.III. A total of 210 were delivered to the Fliegertruppen, late production examples supplanting wing warping with ailerons for lateral control, and 10 aileron-equipped D-IIIs (including the prototype) were supplied to the Netherlands where they arrived in October of 1917. The D.III reached the front in August 1916, but primarily as a result of the unreliabiliy of its U III engine was rapidly relegated to home-defense duty. One experamental example was fitted with a Siemens-Halske Sh II engine enclosed by a full cowling, the propeller being fitted with a large spinner. Max. speed 99mph (160 km/h). Range 137 mls (220 km). Empty, 948 lb (430 kg). Loaded, 1,565 (710 kg). Span 29' 8 1/4" (9,05 m). Length 20' 7 9/10" (6,30 m). Height 8' 4 3/4" (2,55 m). Wing area, 215.28 sq ft (20,00 sq m)..." (Disclaimer: this is a strictly educational/research transmission and no infingement of copyright is intended) HTH The Librarian ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Fokker D.III Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 1/13/97 8:15 PM Hi all, I'm looking for drawings and info on the Fokker D.III Could someone give a brief service history on this one? Udet flew one of these. Dan San Abbott called it the "Tin Observer". Why? To all who reply, many 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: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 06:58:22 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Pedro Soares wrote: > BTW let me just introduce myself to the others: I've never built a WW1 > aircraft in all my life (SNIP It's about time to start, man. Pedro, welcome to the list. ********************************************************************* 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." ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* 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." ********************************************************************* ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist tel. (632) 921-26-75 Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 07:12:59 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 THENRYS@aol.com wrote: > I have also been reading the mailing list for the past 10 days (snip) 10 days? What took you so long to say something? Afraid to get your feet wet eh? Welcome Todd! > I am primarily a WWII aircraft builder, Don't worry, we'll correct that. > in both 1/48 and 1/72 scales. 1/72 too? What's wrong with you!? > (on my bench right now include a 1/48 scale Boulton Paul Defiant Nice plane. > - Hey it's WWI a/c design doctrine! That's why I think there's no harm in giving it my "thumbs up". > my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI modelling. See, she knows better. > I have two kits that are possibilities for my first WWI project in many > years. One is the Eduard Triplane and the other is the Eduard Fokker > D.VI. Haven't built any of these but I'd go for the Fokker D.VI first. Many alignment pitfalls and rigging difficulties with the Tripehound. > Finally, to Jose Valenciano, I enjoyed your constructors review of the D.III. > I have printed a hard copy and placed it by my bench for future reference. Thanks, do you have the first few chapters too? I could send them to you if you want. ********************************************************************* 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: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 15:25:26 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Pilawskii To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: My Own Introduction Message-ID: Welcome, Todd! >...and my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI >modelling. (I think she really got the appreciation from seeing the great >collection at RAF Hendon when we were in England in 1995) >Not having built a WWI model in several years, I thought that tapping the >minds of the folks in this group would definitely be a good move. So, >to that end, I have two kits that are possibilities for my first WWI >project in many years. One is the Eduard Triplane, which my wife got me >for Christmas :) ... I say, who is this superb woman?!? Well!... > Welcome to THE list. Having seen your fairly frequent posts to > rec.models.scale I have to warn the list that you're a bit of a windbag ;-) > In fact you should fit in just fine with this talkative bunch. > Oh, a worn-out cliche would fit nicely here... oh.... But, I, of course, will issue no such phrase...(none needed!). >;^) > > in both 1/48 > Understandable > > >and 1/72 scales. > Very difficult to countenance. > Cheeky Shane! Well, obviously as a devotee of the more geriatric scales we can then assume that a bout of 'reversal' has befallen your synaptic pathways, and in fact that the opposite reaction was intended: "> in both 1/48" "Very difficult to countenance." "and 1/72 scales." "Clearly Superior." ...Just to clear that up... (hee hee hee hee...) > >my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI > >modelling. > Mine is pushing me to mow the grass. Want to swap? > Dear me... now we 'degenerated' down to Wife Swapping. What next? Will Dear Gertie reappear on Shane's lawn? Will Allan delete the mail list in favor of a 900-number Long-Gistance Carrier service? Stay tuned to "As the Rigging Turns"....! > Well you cut right to the heart of it with your comments. The Tripe IS > definitely far better moulded, and should go together more easily than the > D.VI However, I suggest that since you build vacforms and other short run > kits the difficulties inherent in the D.VI kit are familiar ones, while the > Tripehound presents some special rigging problems even the WW1 veterand > blanche at. In particular, there is the difficulty of double flying wires > which go *through* the centre plane and need to be kept in a straight line. > Reflection will tell you that this will not be easy. > True enough, but I got through the 'rigging thru the wing' situation with a warm needle. I heated a syringe needle to the point of being "warm"; i.e. not hot enough to *melt* the plastic, just to make it easier to punch trough it. This was then passed through the wing at the proper location *after* having attached the wings to the model. The angle is not so important in this case, but it helps to get it as close as possible. While making the hole, I 'wiggled' the needle to provide a 'bevelled' opening, like an hourglass. I rigged with two strands of thin thread. The larger openings were filled top and bottom with gel CA after the rigging wires were dry, and their respective angle set. This, of course, is why I bevelled the hole through the wing-- to accomodate whatever angle was required. The gel CA fills the hole top/bottom, and then can be painted over to give a flat surface. Cheers, Erik :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "If you're not living Life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!" .............................................................................. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 19:25:25 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <19970115.182657.13566.2.mbittner@juno.com> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:35:29 -0500 THENRYS@aol.com writes: > I have also been reading the mailing list for the past 10 days > and have found the discussion to be extremely informative, and I > now feel the need for my own introduction. My name is Todd > Henry, and I am primarily a WWII aircraft builder, in both 1/48 > and 1/72 scales. I generally tend towards the stranger, less > built subjects (examples on my bench right now include a 1/48 > scale Boulton Paul Defiant - Hey it's WWI a/c design doctrine! - > and a 1/48 vacuform Fairey Firefly) and my wife has been pushing > me to do more WWI modelling. (I think she really got the > appreciation from seeing the great collection at RAF Hendon when > we were in England in 1995) Welcome!! Whatever you do, don't mention that Me-10somethingorother. Blech. ;-) > Not having built a WWI model in several years, I thought that > tapping the minds of the folks in this group would definitely be > a good move. So, to that end, I have two kits that are > possibilities for my first WWI project in many years. One is > the Eduard Triplane, which my wife got me for Christmas :), and > the other is the Eduard Fokker D.VI. From a kit quality and a/c > significance standpoint, I would rather build the Tripe, but I > would be very interested in hearing comments, suggestions, etc. > regarding the Fokker. Part of me says to build the biplane > before the triplane to better get a handle on rigging. I also > would love to do a lozenge bird. Any comments will be > welcomed. Put those two away. Remember the post on which 1/72nd to build? Well, go out and get yourself an Airfix Pup. You'll be glad you did; plus, it's in the right scale. > Also, I'm not very familiar with the D.VI, although I understand > it spent more of its time in training squadrons and was not a > much used combat kite. Any information on its usage would also > be appreciated. Here's what I have on this type: FineScale Modeler, Apr 1996 did a review of the Eduard kit. Windsock; Best of No.1; Vol 2 No 2 WW1 Warplanes, Vol.1 (another Albatross publication, e.g. Windsock) Sorry, but that's all I have. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 399 *********************