WWI Digest 401 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Hannover info by Joseph Gentile 2) Re: My Own Introduction by THENRYS@aol.com 3) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Sandy Adam 4) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Mark Shannon 5) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Rob 6) Re: Philosophical Question by Rob 7) Re: Hannover info by mbittner@juno.com 8) Re: gotha by gspring@ix.netcom.com 9) Re: My Own Introduction by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 10) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 11) Re: Monday, 15 January 1917, Paris, Plessis by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 12) RE: My Own Introduction by bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 13) Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II by DavidL1217@aol.com 14) Re: Erik Pilawsky's models by Rob 15) Re: Airwaves by mbittner@juno.com 16) Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II by barrett@iplink.net (barrett) 17) Re: Hannover info by "S.M.Sundberg" 18) Re: Philosophical Question by "Bill Ciciora" 19) Filling slots by "Valenciano . Jose" 20) Re: Philosophical Question by "Valenciano . Jose" 21) Re: Martin Handyside Monoplane Questions by "Valenciano . Jose" 22) Re: Fokker D.III by DavidL1217@aol.com 23) RE: My Own Introduction by Shane Weier 24) RE: Philosophical Question by Shane Weier 25) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by cv3@conted.swann.gatech.edu (Carlos Valdes) 26) Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II by DavidL1217@aol.com 27) Glencoe news by eswaim@aristotle.net (Edward Swaim) 28) Re: Martin Handyside Monoplane Questions by "S.M. Head" 29) Re[2]: Philosophical Question by "Shelley Goodwin" 30) Re[2]: My Own Introduction by "Shelley Goodwin" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:53:57 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Gentile To: wwi Subject: Re: Hannover info Message-ID: <199701161653.KAA20921@Walden.MO.NET> At 08:25 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >Just received a Hannover C.III from Koster Aero Enterprises. (Neat kit, >prompt service). I have discovered that the datafile for this plane is >out of print. Any suggestions on other references? > >Steve Sundberg > I had the same dilema in gathering references. I called Bill Koster and sent him a couple of bucks for postage and copying and he sent me copies of photos, drawings, a lot of the material he used. It is proving invaluable in assembling the kit. If you provide me with a snail mail address I'll forward you copies of what was given to me. HTH, Joe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:22:00 -0500 (EST) From: THENRYS@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <970116120047_2056579175@emout19.mail.aol.com> Thanks to all that responded. To answer the many questions : 1 ) Yes I can be a little long-winded at times, although these matters can rarely be covered, discussed, or orated to a with successful rhetorical conclusion by a simple yes or no. (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH). ;) 2) Yes, I do build both 1/48 and 1/72. My favorite scale would be 1/48, but occasionally I like to build 1/72 as relaxation from 1/48. My 1/72 projects tend to be quicker and less painful than those in He-Man scale, so I use them as decompression sessions, so to speak. (Although I'm dying to build the Pegasus Albatross D.III in sworl camoflauge.) 3) Yes my wife is wonderful (she also bought me the aforementioned Firefly for last Christmas AND went to RAF Hendon on HER birthday), and No swapping will occur. 4) I agree with the general consensus that the Fokker D.VI is the best option. I will probably begin construction within the next two weeks and will keep y'all (Sorry for the Southern infusion) posted. Again, thanks for all the input, and I look forward to working with all of you. Todd Henry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:24:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Carlos Valdes wrote: > Allied flyers were of course brave and worthy foes on the whole, very kind of you I am sure > Soapbox mode off. Carlos, I'm afraid I have to kick that soapbox out from under your feet! Make sure you have your parachute (Luftstreitkrafte issue - not used by gentlemen, you know). You put great store in your quotes but I could be awfully boring and list similar quotes including figures proving the opposite. One of the few things there CAN be NO doubt about is that various authors have interpreted what facts are available in many contradictory ways and I see it totally pointless in indulging in a urinating contest. Superiority moved from one side to the other and back many times throughout the war due to innovation, new aircraft, local concentration of forces, etc, etc and resulted in heavy losses, at the time, either way. The statement that massive overclaiming was endemic on the allied side is not I am afraid beyond doubt as this is far too simplistic a view of a situation involving so many variables as to be outwith a simple black-and-white one-liner. There are two points which have to be made that affect this fundamentally: 1. By-and-large RFC daytime policy was offensive whereas the Luft. was defensive. If you sit, as I am doing right now, with a Michelin large scale map in front of you and place each engagement as it occurs in any of the autobiographies, you will find that the great majority occur either over/near the contemporary lines or over German territory. Of course there were many exceptions to this and especially the high flying Rumplers which McCudden for one tuned his plane to catch, but time after time you will read of PlugStreet Wood, Courtrai, Tournai, Douai etc. 2. The prevalent eastward-blowing wind which meant encounters which started either over the lines or east of them would drift further east as they progressed and the vanquished of either side would tend to land in German territory. You will find that most accounts of trips to souvenir British victories involves going "up" to the lines because that was as near as they fell. Now if the Germans are going to have all the evidence lying on the ground to count the victories and losses, I would expect German High Command to lay down some pretty stringent rules about what is credited - ie if its there, its yours. If the RFC took the same attitude they would have allowed only a tiny proportion of justifiable victories and ended up with a totally demoralised Corps. Of course they had to rely on sightings of events taking place well over the other side of the lines and could never know for certain in many cases. The boot was reversed exactly in 1940 when the Lufwaffe had to fly the offensive sorties over the UK and lost pilots and aircraft at a rate two or three times the RAF and overclaimed in a similarly dramatic manner. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:00:47 -0600 From: Mark Shannon To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <32DE6CCF.6E34@ix.netcom.com> Just to add a complication to this whole debate, in WWII the German Luftwaffe did not count as a loss any aircraft that the pilot survived and returned immediately to his unit from. Given that the situation at the time was that they could turn out new aircraft faster than they could make schnitzel, I'm wondering how much the philosophy pertained in the first world unpleasantness. Perhaps someone, such as Peter, could give a view on exactly what counted as a 'Lost' aircraft on each side. I know that he recounts two instances in _Richtoffen: Beyond the Legend of the Red Baron_ where MvR was credited with victories in cases where it appears the aircraft made it back to its unit, and one or two where the allied crew came down on their side of the lines with a damaged, but salvageable aircraft. Overclaiming was a fact of life in air combat. From the 'Official' press releases that gave reports of ours-vs.-theirs shot down today to the amazing sinkings of ships that obviously refloated, were not in the area, or never even existed, it is a paradox that pilots are in the worst possible position to know what happened to what they attacked. -- This has been Mark and/or Mary Shannon at Shingend@ix.netcom.com Remember that every cliche started out as a stroke of genius. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:11:06 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <9701161107.aa10178@scosysv.speechsys.com> Hmmm. Maybe the 200% figure is a better gauge of the inflation of MY claims. I must, of course, bow to Herr Bill's (smile!) obviously superior scholarship. I merely meant to remind us of our model-contest- induced over readiness to take official records at face value. What I was trying to show was how conflicting claims can move up different branches of a chain of command without being resolved fully, especially in the fog of war and under the pressure of the propaganda apparatus. Apparently German intelligence was good enough and leisured enough to fully cross check and catalog most everything accurately. Yet Bill's 10-20% is still a high figure from an intelligence standpoint. And experience as a computer database administrator has shown me the kind of error I describe happens often enough even now, with nobody shooting at the data entry people. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:29:57 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <9701161126.aa10351@scosysv.speechsys.com> Edward writes: >What is a modeler trying to acheive? I've thought about this for awhile. I only enter contests to make up the numbers for my local IPMS chapter. I hate them in principle and I think the judging standards are usually ridiculous and arbitrary in direct proportion to the organizers' attempts to be objective. I ignore the standards and don't do much research for a model. Yet I have won prizes for everything I have entered. What gives, I ask? I bought my Dad a ship modelling book at a used book store some years ago. It had the best modelling philosophy I have seen yet in its opening chapter. The author argued that the point of modeling was to give a clear, acurate IMPRESSION of the object modelled, not a 1-to-1 replica of it. The replica, he wrote, looks wrong because the profusion of ill-considered detail detracts from the viewer's grasp of the whole. Modeling is thus as much about the details you choose to suppress as it is about those you include. Even good photographers know this (as when they deliberately overexpose a cluttered background to focus on a meaningful part of the scene). For instance, when I started scratch-building my first 1/48-scale engine (an Austro-Daimler 210-hp), I asked myself WHAT STRUCK ME FIRST about the photos I had to hand, not what I could catalog though hours of methodical study. I made no effort to reproduce bolt heads on the cam box or the plug wires, but hand wound each and every one of the exposed valvesprings. Viewers seem to be struck by the same things as me. I got a prize for that engine and no one noticed the plug wires or bolts. Everyone remarked on the springs. Impression is an emotional thing as well as a sensory experience. So I think a model conveys a mood and moment (time, weather, season, etc.). There is thus no correct "color" for an airplane. There is, rather, a correct effect on the audience it addresses. An airplane that saw its main service in the Austrian Alps might thus have all its colors slightly blue shifted and its weathering minimal to reflect the atmospherics of harsh, clear mountain light. A London omnibus full of carousing troops on leave might be yellow-shifted and generally fuzzier to reflect fog and gaslight. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:07:53 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Hannover info Message-ID: <19970116.170918.4390.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:25:30 -0500 "S.M.Sundberg" writes: > Just received a Hannover C.III from Koster Aero Enterprises. > (Neat kit, prompt service). I have discovered that the datafile > for this plane is out of print. Any suggestions on other > references? I'm hoping that the 'C.III' is a typo. If you're looking for Cl.III information, here's what I show: Datafile #23 (which you already knew about ;-)) Windsock Vol 9 No 5 did a review of the Koster kit WW1 Aero #125 I also show the following for the Cl.IIIa: Over the Front, Vol 1 No 1 and Vol 6 No 4 Windsock Vol 7 No 2 and Vol 11 No 3 did a review of the Eduard kit WW1 Aero #125 and 130 Sorry, but that's about all I have. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 16:12:47 -0800 From: gspring@ix.netcom.com To: wwi Subject: Re: gotha Message-ID: <1997116181123541@ix.netcom.com> On 01/16/97 04:15:19 Franco wrote: (snip) >Another question: can you translate the word "stossfahrgestell"? >I think that is something related to the central mounted undercarriage, but >I'm not sure. 'Fahrgestell' means undercarriage. One meaning of 'stoss' is shock (as in 'Stossdampfer' = shock absorber. It must mean a shock-absorbing undercarriage. Help! Mick! My kingdom for an umlaut! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:26:06 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <199701170026.TAA05448@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 11:36 AM 1/15/97 -0500, THENRYS@aol.com wrote: t, 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. Welcome. The Eduard kits are great, but I think I would only tackle them if you are fairly experienced...lots of photo-etched stuff, etc. that I still have lots of trouble with. I've got the Tripe, but haven't builty it yet. I did rig an Aurora tripe a years ago and it wasn't very complicated. My vote goes to the tripe;-}} Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:26:09 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <199701170026.TAA05453@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 11:39 AM 1/15/97 -0500, Rob wrote: > >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. Promise? I"ll give it a try on some old model I don't care about first(this is being done with much trepidation 8-[ ! Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:26:09 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Monday, 15 January 1917, Paris, Plessis Message-ID: <199701170026.TAA05457@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 08:37 AM 1/15/97 -0500, Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson wrote: Feeling lonely as usual for darling beloved Gerty! Will I ever >hear from her? You have two chances: slim and fat Mike Muth Note: whiIe I keep making wise-ass comments to ECC Genet, I enjoy ready his diary a lot. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:26:10 -0500 From: bucky@mail.prolog.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <199701170026.TAA05460@pease1.sr.unh.edu> At 05:03 PM 1/15/97 -0500, Shane Weier wrote: >G > >>my wife has been pushing me to do more WWI >>modelling. > >Mine is pushing me to mow the grass. Want to swap? Weather report from Pennsylvania: 15 below zero Celcius tonight. Freezing rain all last night. OK Shane, I mow you damn lawn! Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:28:48 -0500 (EST) From: DavidL1217@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II Message-ID: <970116192847_408023896@emout05.mail.aol.com> The limited run British kit maker, Skybirds 86 has just released a multimedia DII, DIII and DV. These are resin kits with etched Brass, White metal and rubber tyres and includes decals. Not cheap, US$35 each. Currently, the DIII is temporarily out of stock, will be back soon. There kits are very accurate and I have been told that the cabane assembly (etched) is tough as it is accompanied by the engine, radiator and machine gun. I hope to have one entered in the IPMS Region 5 convention in May. Skybirds sell only by direct mail: Sky Birds 86 Orchard House Chetnole, Sherborne Dorset DT9 6PE Great Britain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 17:29:10 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Erik Pilawsky's models Message-ID: <9701161725.aa13250@scosysv.speechsys.com> Mike wrote: > Promise? I"ll give it a try on some old model I don't care about > first(this is being done with much trepidation ) There is no such thing as a sure thing, Mike. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:34:34 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Airwaves Message-ID: <19970116.183558.9062.2.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 16 Jan 1997 04:34:09 -0500 barrett@iplink.net (barrett) writes: > I'm interested in a couple of 1/72 subjects from Airwaves of > England (Pfalz D-XII and LVG VI). Problem is, I know nothing > about this company's product. Are they Vac? Injection modled? > Any good? Easy to build? Any help would be appreciated. I did not know Airwaves made WW1 kits. Anybody want to elaborate? Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:53:53 -0500 From: barrett@iplink.net (barrett) To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II Message-ID: >Milam Models lists the Merlin Halberstadt D-II (only injection one I know of) >in their latest catalog (Nov 1996). The price: $25 Seeing as I'm just sort of starting out here, how does one get in contact with Milam Models? An address would be great. Thanks, Kevin. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:37:22 -0500 From: "S.M.Sundberg" To: wwi Subject: Re: Hannover info Message-ID: <32DEC9C2.19D1@netins.net> mbittner@juno.com wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 20:25:30 -0500 "S.M.Sundberg" > writes: > > > Just received a Hannover C.III from Koster Aero Enterprises. etc.etc. > I'm hoping that the 'C.III' is a typo. So do I. > > Datafile #23 (which you already knew about ;-)) > Windsock Vol 9 No 5 did a review of the Koster kit > WW1 Aero #125 > > I also show the following for the Cl.IIIa: > > Over the Front, Vol 1 No 1 and Vol 6 No 4 > Windsock Vol 7 No 2 and Vol 11 No 3 did a review of the Eduard > kit > WW1 Aero #125 and 130 > > Sorry, but that's about all I have. > > Matt > mbittner@juno.com Thanks for the info. Time to go hunting. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 19:40:51 -0600 From: "Bill Ciciora" To: Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: Edward wrote: > This has puzzled me for a while, too. What is a modeler trying to acheive? > I've decided that it has a lot to do with who is going to see his planes. > For some, it will be a judge with a magnifying glass. For folks like me, it > is different. I put them on a shelf at home and at work where the usual > response is "is that a SPAD?" I think one reason there are a lot of lurkers on the list is that detail fanatics intimidate many of the more casual modellers with their skill, and discussion of details that many of us just don't want to be bothered with, or haven't the time to include in our models. I'd love to build models as well as some of the very talented list members here, but I'd also like to complete more than one model per year. As it is, the best I can do is about four per year. This is without superdetailing the interior, researching and reproducing markings for a particular aircraft, etc. It's just too tough to let other things slide for me to pursue the perfect model. I'm really glad to find a few kindred spirits on the list who are willing to go public and admit they build just for fun, not IPMS judges. The hobby gives me just as much enjoyment as the most intense superdetailer. I just take it to the degree that suits me and my time budget. Bill C. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:59:36 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Filling slots Message-ID: Hi, Mike On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Mike wrote: > >This is harder to describe than it is to do. > Promise? I"ll give it a try on some old model I don't care about > first(this is being done with much trepidation 8-[ ! > Mike I use the same procedure but apply superglue instead of liquid cement. It dries faster and sometimes, liquid cement takes awhile to stabilize. ********************************************************************* 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: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:02:03 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Bill Ciciora wrote: > I'm really glad to find a few kindred spirits on the list who are willing > to go public and admit they build just for fun, not IPMS judges. How 'bout.... Building just for the fun of being perfect? ;-) ********************************************************************* 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: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:37:45 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Martin Handyside Monoplane Questions Message-ID: Hi Scott, Get any replies on this one? I've got the kit too. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:46:49 -0500 (EST) From: DavidL1217@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Fokker D.III Message-ID: <970116212300_1992508562@emout08.mail.aol.com> Oswald Boelcke flew a DIII, very briefy. He was damn glad to trade it in on an Albatros. The failure of the early Fokker D types probably did alot to help cement Albatros' reputation as 'fighter supplier of choice.' ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:48:00 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <01BC0474.ACDFD940@pc087b.mim.com.au> Mike replies, >>Mine is pushing me to mow the grass. Want to swap? >Weather report from Pennsylvania: 15 below zero Celcius tonight. Freezing >rain all last night. OK Shane, I mow you damn lawn! Weather report from Brisbane, Australia, capital of "The Sunshine State" Maximum 27C == 81F, Minimum 18C == 64F, perfect blue skies, and an afternoon sea breeze. I rode the CityCat up river to work at 6.30am, sitting on the foredeck in the sun and thinking..... "I might just mow my own damn grass" Sorry Mike ;-) Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 13:02:17 +1100 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <01BC0476.AB5D4600@pc087b.mim.com.au> Bill says: >I think one reason there are a lot of lurkers on the list is that detail >fanatics intimidate many of the more casual modellers with their skill, I *HOPE* I would never intimidate anyone by talking about the finer details of our models, and am just as happy to talk about easier ways to get a good brush finish as I would be to discuss the number of turns on the turnbuckles in the flying wires. Remember too, that *talking about* and *doing* ain't necessarily the same thing. I confess to talking a good model, but my skills mean that much of what I'd like to do gets lost in the translation between idea and object (I mean, I got 10 thumbs) >I'm really glad to find a few kindred spirits on the list who are willing >to go public and admit they build just for fun, not IPMS judges. My definition of a good modeller is "A good modeller is one who builds models, and whatever motivates him/her, enjoys it" So if your objective is to build as many models as you can fit into the day, thats cool, and if it's to win a medal at a Nationals, thats cool too. Or any variation in between. >The hobby >gives me just as much enjoyment as the most intense superdetailer. I just >take it to the degree that suits me and my time budget. Despite a vast range of motivations I suspect that the members of this list would consider that just dandy, I certainly do, so more power to your Xacto mate. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 22:07:33 EST From: cv3@conted.swann.gatech.edu (Carlos Valdes) To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701170307.XAA17129@conted.swann.gatech.edu> Sandy, While it's obvious that we disagree, I find it curious that your last post seems to support my point. All of us interested in the Western Front air war are familiar with the advantages the Germans gained by being on the defensive and having the prevailing winds blow in their favor; these are precisely two of the reasons why their claims were more accurate than those of their foes. Your point about how pilot morale would have been affected had claims not been accepted also explains why the total scores of the agressive RFC/RAF were so inflated. And if your numbers for Luftwaffe claims during the BoB are right, once again we see the problem involved in getting accurate victory totals. Of course, when the RAF went on the offensive with sweeps and Rodeos and Circuses over France in 1941-42 against the two solitary units--JGs 2 and 26--left to defend the area, the same old story resulted: heavy British losses and excessive Fighter Command claims. As for my use of quotes, I learned throughout college and graduate school that the way to support a rational argument was through the use of authoritative sources, not simply stating the equivalent of "I'm right just because I think I am"; I'm sorry if you consier this widely accepted approach a urinating contest. Since we are dealing with history I think it apropriate to use the results of historical research to discuss the situation, something I believe most members of this list would appreciate. Of course, historians too have their axes to grind, but numbers can only be twisted so much, and any serious student of WWI air action who has kept up with the latest research would agree that the numers clearly point to the conclusion that Allied claims, in partcular those of the RFC/RAF, were widely inflated. If you have access to contemporary, authoritative research that proves otherwise, I would be very interested in viewing it. The determination of aerial victories is a difficult task at any time, but especially so during the dawn of air fighting. Nobody has claimed that the Germans had a perfect system, but it was certainly better than that of the Allies. And if the data contained in Undewr the Guns of the Red Baron is correct, I'll take MvR's 92.5% claims accuracy any time. Carlos P.S. I'd like to suggest that, in order to free up some bandwidth for the list, we continue this discussion via personal e-mail. Feel free to contact me any time. Happy modeling. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:31:34 -0500 (EST) From: DavidL1217@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II Message-ID: <970116193027_879248988@emout08.mail.aol.com> The Merlin 'DII' is inaccurate. Has DV upper wing and a fuselage that's 1/8" (1:1) to thick. Really primative kit not worth $25. when you can get an accurate one from Sky Birds. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:41:12 -0600 From: eswaim@aristotle.net (Edward Swaim) To: wwi Subject: Glencoe news Message-ID: <199701170441.WAA04334@aristotle.net> Having written to Glencoe Models twice months ago, I finally got a response to my inquiry about the "American Aces" SPAD XIII and the DH-4. What arrived was a large envelope containing a nice color brochure, 2 color fliers, and 2 information sheets. The "1997 First Quarter Releases" info sheet (dated 2 Jan. '97) says of the Jenny and American SPAD: "We will try to get one or both of these out this quarter. We will keep you informed as we get a box printing date." A flier saying "welcome to the 1996 Natioal Model and Hobby Show" in the category "new releases for this fall and 1997," says that WWI releases will include: Pfalz DIIIa Winter 1997 SPAD XIII (American) Winter 1997 Jenny Winter 1997 DH-4 Spring 1997 The 2 slick fliers advertise a model of the White House and a UFO. The catalog has color pictures of the box art for the WWI planes that are out and line drawings for the yet-to-be-released ones. (This jives with the flyer's "box printing date" reason for delays.) Glencoe's address: PO Box 846 176 Stiles Rd. Boylston, MA 01505 508-869-6877.v 508-869-2462.f Edward Swaim Little Rock, Arkansas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:34:18 -0500 From: "S.M. Head" To: wwi Subject: Re: Martin Handyside Monoplane Questions Message-ID: <9701170003.aa00053@mail.iapc.net> >Hi Scott, > >Get any replies on this one? I've got the kit too. Nope, not yet. I'm going to go with a deep red for the fuselage color, and simply build the kit from the box. I think I'll just replace parts that seem out of scale, and use a flat tapered control horn rather than the kit's "rods". It's a neat looking craft, almost an Antoinette, and so far looks like a nice build for it's age. I've sanded the rib/fadric detail off the wings and tail, and plan to use the "slightly darker than linen" method to paint the ribs back on. What a masking nightmare though! The ribs are so close and so many! Cheers! Scott ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott M. Head (smh@iapc.net) | IPMS/USA #32841 | "I love cats... IPMS Houston Scale Model Forum | they taste just like chicken!" http://web-hou.iapc.net/~smh | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 22:50:37 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <9700168534.AA853485389@mx.Ricochet.net> Here, here! Well put, Ed. Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 1/15/97 9:24 PM >I suggest that if you are a good modeller... This has puzzled me for a while, too. What is a modeler trying to acheive? I've decided that it has a lot to do with who is going to see his planes. For some, it will be a judge with a magnifying glass. For folks like me, it is different. I put them on a shelf at home and at work where the usual response is "is that a SPAD?" (no matter what plane it is) or "now, what war did these fly in?" I could not now name anyone else in this entire state who has an assembled WWI model in his possession. Therefore, I'm my own audience. So far, my audience has demanded only a decent representation of these exciting airplanes, not a absolute accuracy. Edward Swaim Little Rock, Arkansas ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 22:31:24 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <9700168534.AA853485370@mx.Ricochet.net> Microphiles, Due to a wild hair, I find myself at wit's end in the middle of a 1/72 Airfix Spad. I don't know how you do it. Maybe ya build nicer kits that aren't so jacked up and funky. Maybe y'all's just slicker builders (or have better tools) 'n me but I think If you boys persist in these recklessly miniature projects, your eyesight and sanity may be forfeit. Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 1/15/97 4:42 PM On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:30:35 -0500 Erik Pilawskii writes: > 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...) Thanks, Erik. I'm so glad there is someone else on this list with the good nature to build in the Master's Scale. ;-) > 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"....! ROTFL!!! > 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. The important thing to remember was this was done on a 1/72nd scale model!!! Not one of those Braille Scale jobs. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 401 *********************