WWI Digest 402 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re[4]: Insignia Magazine by "Shelley Goodwin" 2) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 3) Re: Blue Water Navy WWI U Boat model by NPWE28A@prodigy.com ( KENNETH L HAGERUP) 4) Re: Philosophical Question by "Pedro Soares" 5) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Sandy Adam 6) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by "Brian Bushe" 7) RE: My Own Introduction by Joseph Gentile 8) Re: Sopwith Pup. (Was Erick pilawky's models) by Bob Norgren 9) Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II by aew (Allan Wright) 10) Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II by aew (Allan Wright) 11) Wednesday, 17 January 1917, Paris by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 12) Re: Philosophical Question by Rob 13) Re: Blue Water Navy WWI U Boat model by THENRYS@aol.com 14) Re: Philosophical Question by THENRYS@aol.com 15) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 16) Re: Philosophical Question by iceman@ro.com (Eli Geher) 17) Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. by Carlos Valdes 18) Visiting London by knut.erik.hagen@login.eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) 19) Re: Philosophical Question by Erik Pilawskii 20) Re: My Own Introduction by GRBroman@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 22:47:35 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re[4]: Insignia Magazine Message-ID: <9700168534.AA853485380@mx.Ricochet.net> Shane, Can't wait to see the article. Let me know postage costs. Interesting topic; I asked Richard some time last year about Russian Civil War stuff and I remember him replying that Blue Rider had no material on it or plans to cover it. They have covered it before, albeit briefly; I found an "Early Soviets" decal sheet they did from ten years ago... Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: Re[2]: Insignia Magazine Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 1/15/97 6:10 PM Riordan I said: >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. You said: >That would be smashing. Please do. Okay. Richard is still doing a splendid job. I hope the WW1 and immediate post war stuff hes churning out keeps coming since it's quite interesting. The article you're interested in is "Russian Civil War Aircraft" It includes a list of known types used by 16 different air arms, four photographs (three new to me) and 16 markings profiles. 3 Snipes 2 Camels 3 Strutters 3 Fokker D.V.II 1 Morane Saulnier L 1 SE5a 1 SPAD VII 1 Nie 17C 1 gotha Gl.VII A couple are known to me (Sapozhnikovs Snipe with Ace of Spades), but most are not. Incidentally, there is also an article on Bulgarian naval aviation (Friedrichshafen FF.33L) in 1916-19, another on polish Aircraft markings 1917-24, one on the Polish Lithuanian campaign 0f 1920-21 and part 4 of an erormous article on Albatros D.III (Oef) markings. All have a similar proportion of text, photos and profiles to the Russian one. I still haven't paid my 1997 subs, but I *will* Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:19:25 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701170719.AA18054@ednet1.orednet.org> In our last episode, Mark was saying: -snips- >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. The general German policy seems to have been that aircraft "forced down" on the allied side of the lines were not usually awarded a confirmed victory. The exception seems to have been when the downed aircraft was within range of German artillery, in which case, the canoneers naturally proceeded to pound the bloody bejeezus out of the downed aircraft and, provided high command was satisfied the gunners had, indeed, destroyed the aircraft, an official victory was awarded. Now checking the MvR victories, the "forced done on the allied side of the lines victories" seem to be mostly real victories. Number 14, Dec 20, 1916. FE2b - brought down inside British lines but destroyed by German trench gunners. Number 30, Mar 24, 1917 SPAD VII - brought down inside British lines but apparently just barely as the pilot Lt. R.P.Baker was taken POW Number 37, Apr 7, 1917 Nieu 17 - brought down inside British lines but the pilot 2/Lt G.O.Smart was KIA Number 42, Apr 13, 1917 FE2b - brought down inside British lines but wrecked and not salvaged per British records. Crew (Sgt. J..A. Cunliffe and 2AM W.J.Batten) both WIA. Number 46, Apr 22, 1917 FE2b - brought down inside British lines but this 'un is problematic as at least four aircraft were brought down this day and any one of 'em could have been the MvR claim - some were destroyed and some only crash landed on the British side and may have been later recovered. Mark this 'un as a "maybe" >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. While I agree with the general thrust of your statement, be careful about transferring the experiences of WW2 and later conflicts to our "canvas and wires" war. With top speeds in the 200 km/hr range, open cockpits with 360 degree visibility, and typical ranges of engagement of 100 meters or less, WW1 pilots had perhaps the _best_ possible position of any pilots in any conflict to actually see what happened to the aircraft they attacked. Still, pilots' reports, even in WW1 should be taken with a (rather large) grain of salt. Which, brings me back to my belief in the basic accuracy of the German system and the basic inaccuracy of the British one. For while the Germans would _never_ award a confirmed victory only on the testimony of the pilot involved, the British routinely did so. To wit, Billy Bishop who, so far as I can determine, obtained nearly _half_ his official victories _solely_ on his reports alone. (OK, "never" is probably too strong a word - but it didn't happen often under the German system and it happened frequently under the British one.) Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - ............................................................................. - This space for rent - ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 97 From: NPWE28A@prodigy.com ( KENNETH L HAGERUP) To: wwi Subject: Re: Blue Water Navy WWI U Boat model Message-ID: <199701170322.WAA08874@mime2.prodigy.com> -- [ From: Kenneth Hagerup * EMC.Ver #2.5.1 ] -- Jesse wrote, > Has anyone seen this kit? I have and the following a few quick first impressions: The kit comprises a resin hull and guns, brass rod for the shafts and periscopes, cast metal struts, and a sheet of P/E brass for the planes, rudder, railings, props, antenna and radio aerial. The quality of the resin casting looks good with no apparent air bubbles. There is a very slight twist to the hull when looking along the longitudinal axis. I'm not sure if this is caused by the master or my kit was removed from the mold before it had completely cured. U-35 was not a large boat (212 feet), and in 1/350 scale it makes for a petite model. It will make a good companion for a Dresden or Emden. Further details as construction proceeds... Ken -- Kenneth Hagerup 11419 South 43rd Avenue Omaha, NE 68123-1073 USA npwe28a@prodigy.com hagerupk@j5.stratcom.af.mil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:42:35 -0000 From: "Pedro Soares" To: Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <199701171048.KAA00467@wallana> Pedro Soares pedro.soares@anaep.pt ---------- > From: Bill Ciciora > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Philosophical Question > Date: sexta-feira, 17 de janeiro de 1997 1:44 > > 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. We could also put it the other way around: the reason I joined this list, for instance is exactly the opposite: I know I'll never be able to build a kit to such extra-terrestrial standards as some of the work that you can see in the WW1 Modeling Pages, but I can always learn from far better skilled modelers than I, (I've got some very interesting answers to my first query on this list that I think will benefit not only me but also all the other subscribers that might have the same type of doubt) and in the end that's what really counts for me. Modeling is fun and learning. If after you've finished your kit you feel you've done your best and are pleased with the fact that you did achieve something it realy doesn't matter if you missed the backward pointed control horn or the very proeminent valve rocker or whatever. You just have to ajust your standarts to one step above what you are now able to do. That way you'll always be going up the ladder. just my 2 centavos on this question Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:18:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Carlos Valdes wrote: > 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, Carlos, I am grateful to you for explaining the rules of the pi**ing contest and inviting me to partake by quoting pages of references to back up my point. As a challenge it appeals and the shelves are groaning with suitable tomes but I'm afraid I don't really have the time. Rather than you quoting me one author's view and me quoting you another's in return, (neither of whom were probably around at the time and are pretty subjective anyway), allow me to just give you one reference from someone whom you would have to agree was fairly involved. Lt Gen Sir David Henderson, C-in-C RFC, review and assessment of aerial situation Western Front submitted to Chief of Imperial General Staff, April 1917: "With regard to the losses inflicted on the Germans, the announcements which are made in the official communiques do not show their full extent, so much of the fighting takes place on the German side of the lines that very often there is no information whatever about the actions of our aeroplanes which are reported missing, but it is known that frequently in these unseen fights losses are inflicted on the Germans. The German casualties which are reported in our official communiques are only those which are seen and vouched for by our Flying Corps in the course of their work, but from time to time fights have been witnessed from the ground in which both German and British aeroplanes fell in German territory. But, considering even the accounts of fighting in the air, the losses on each side are not disproportionate, considering the different employment that is made of the air forces, that is to say that the German aeroplanes are merely employed in trying to bring down our aeroplanes whereas ours are mainly employed in doing work required by the Army." Now I think we both agree that the Germans had a lot going for them and verification was easier and therefor stricter but we obviously disagree about which way we should regard the less easily verified claims of the British. With a few notorious exceptions like Arch Whitehouse, I would tend to expect that the unavoidable over-claims would balance out with damaged EA which subsequently crashed on landing, the likes of which would automatically be credited for similar German kills. You may be unaware of the ethos of Edwardian England but exaggeration and self-promotion were genuinely frowned upon and I have no doubt, on the whole, the young men of the RFC would be as accurate as they could about any claims made. A different world which the Great War shattered and led directly towards our present cynical age. Sandy PS, you may be astonished to learn that I make as many models of RFC aircraft as I can, and think PC10 the ultimate colour scheme. My most successful competition German model, which I have mentioned in this list before, was a rod and sprue creation of Richthofen's crashed Tripe so you may get an inkling where my sympathies lie. Why don't you don your Pickelhaub, I'll get my grandad's old tin helmet and I'll set my SE's and Camels on your Fokkers and see who wins. Oh but I suppose in the interests of historical accuracy the RFC would have to win yet again! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:24:03 +0000 From: "Brian Bushe" To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701171234.MAA20482@itl.net> r > While I agree with the general thrust of your statement, be careful about > transferring the experiences of WW2 and later conflicts to our "canvas and > wires" war. With top speeds in the 200 km/hr range, open cockpits with > 360 degree visibility, and typical ranges of engagement of 100 meters > or less, WW1 pilots had perhaps the _best_ possible position of any > pilots in any conflict to actually see what happened to the aircraft > they attacked. Still, pilots' reports, even in WW1 should be taken > with a (rather large) grain of salt. > Bloody Hell, all I wanted was confirmation of the 'accepted' top scorers, and instead I started wwiii! :-) As a foot note to the above, and also topical due to his death last month, I remember reading a short biography of Gwilim Lewis in the book 'Wings of the RAF'. It appears Gwilim was a good friend of Mannock and recalled Mannock chastising another pilot for 'following down' a kill to confirm it. Mannock argued that this was dangerous as it made you vulnerable to many things, especially ground fire and gives the enemy a free height advantage. Ironically both Mannock and the other pilot were both killed 'following down' within the next few weeks. In the light of the current discussion this indicates that a: the pilots were NOT in the best position to see what happened to their kills (hanging around generally got you killed) and b: the RFC pilots were concerned with getting confirmation (to the point of going against their better judgement). Also I think the argument in general is fairly moot. Mannock, MvR, Udet, McCudden, Malan, Nowotny, Tuck, Rudel and Hartmann all flew under vastly differing circumstances. Nobody knows for certain what these pilots did (not even they themselves probably) or how many kills they actually got. even confirmed kills (how do we know Hawkers control cable didn't snap, and would'nt have snapped even if he hadn't been dogfighting at the time?). > Which, brings me back to my belief in the basic accuracy of the German > system and the basic inaccuracy of the British one. For while the > Germans would _never_ award a confirmed victory only on the testimony > of the pilot involved, the British routinely did so. To wit, > Billy Bishop who, so far as I can determine, obtained nearly _half_ > his official victories _solely_ on his reports alone. > Maybe the Germans knew their pilots weren't to be trusted :-) I sorry, but even if Bishop only killed half of those he was credited with he was still one of the greatest fighter pilots of the war. sorry I'm on my soapbox (it was left here by someone!). I just think that people are now pedantically trying to prove negatives just to make a point. I'm a good researcher (when I get off my ass) and given a good library I could find enough evidence to prove black is white, and give references. That would allow me to gain official entry to the colour police! Chill out dudes! Brian Brian Bushe syclone@itl.net Syclone Systems Denmark Street (44) 1628 789 470 Maidenhead Fax 789 513 Berkshire England ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:03:56 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Gentile To: wwi Subject: RE: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <199701171403.IAA08705@Walden.MO.NET> At 09:53 PM 1/16/97 -0500, you wrote: >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 > Well then throw a shrimp or two on the barbee for us on the other side of the world and while you're at it open a large can of that great Aussie beer for doing such a good job with the weed eater.... Joe Gentile St. Louis, MO USA TEMP: 6 degrees with a wind chill of -25 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:03:45 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Re: Sopwith Pup. (Was Erick pilawky's models) Message-ID: <32DF4071.15A2@ne.infi.net> Pedro Soares wrote: how do make the struts and how do I > held them in place. Matt Bitner suggested I should use contrail strut > material... Basswood or bamboo strips make stronger struts than Contrail, which I've always regarded as rather flimsy and difficult to use, especially for 1/48. An old bamboo window shade has enough strut material for an army of modelers. Basswood is plentiful in most hobby shops...just don't use balsa. Pine can be used in a pinch, it's stronger than basswood. The beauty of wood is that it is strong and straight, easy to shape, cement (with superglue) and can be stained. I don't know why plastic modelers ignore it. Bob Sierra Scale Models ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:32:21 -0500 (EST) From: aew (Allan Wright) To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II Message-ID: <199701171532.KAA08076@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > >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. Milam Models 1-630-983-1407 He's a used kit dealer - sort of a garage business. I've been happy with everything he's sent me. -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | You fell victim to one of the 'classic' blunders! University of New Hampshire+--------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:32:58 -0500 (EST) From: aew (Allan Wright) To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for a Halberstadt D.II Message-ID: <199701171532.KAA08095@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > 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 Er, what SCALE? -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | You fell victim to one of the 'classic' blunders! University of New Hampshire+--------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:14:02 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Wednesday, 17 January 1917, Paris Message-ID: <32DFDD8A.4C37@host.dmsc.net> Snowed all day. Got up late this morning and did some errand downtown. Went into see Mr Hedin at his office (The Brooklyn Eagle) and he took me and a friend to the monthly luncheon of the Associated American, British and French Press given at the Cafe de Paris. It so happened that I was the only one there with a uniform--all the rest being journalists--so I was one of those called on to make a speech. The Chairman introduced me as the great-great-great grandson of Citizen Genet and an American volunteer aviateur. I felt a trifle nervous (it being my first real speech in public) but I made good--at least Hedin and the rest said I did so I feel satisfied. I didn't say much--only that I was mighty glad to be over here doing my bit, for being there with them today and a few other remarks and sat down amid acclamations from all. The luncheon was excellent in every way. It should be anyway at the Cafe de Paris--it's the swellest and most expensive restaurant in Paris. Dined at the Roosevelt with Mrs Parker this evening. Dressed up in my new blue serge suit and went around to call on Helen Harper. Spent all the evening there and have had a good time. This has been a good day. Leave tomorrow morning for the front to get that machine. ************************ from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:35:01 +0000 From: Rob To: wwi Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <9701170931.aa19581@scosysv.speechsys.com> Bill wrote: > 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. Intimidate? Over a wire? Never. They have to get within arm's reach of me to make me nervous (even then, they have to be bigger and or louder and more opinionated than I am--neither of which happens very often). I suggest that those of us who are not detail fanatics subvert the IPMS system by turning the tables. One favorite approach is to ask a virulent IPMS judge what color an early 1960s F-104A was. I then refer them to a widely published Kodachrome of a brilliant metallic blue USAF plane--not an airshow special either. It was just a bare-metal plane-vanilla 104 photographed high over the desert in a cloudless winter sky. Once, at a contest I was helping with, one of these retentives pointed out that another of my off-topic airplanes did not sit level on its landing gear. I simply rubbed some pencil lead on the offending gear strut and penciled in a note about the blown hydraulic seal on that side. It won a second place prize! Tee hee. I suggest that WW1ophiles in this situation break a rigging wire and say that the plane is out of true after a heavy landing! "Flaws" become instant super-detailing! By the way, I think the top aces thread was one of the more interesting we have had of late. Rob, robj@speechsys.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:47:07 -0500 (EST) From: THENRYS@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Blue Water Navy WWI U Boat model Message-ID: <970117114707_1476777246@emout05.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-17 03:34:07 EST, you write: << The kit comprises a resin hull and guns, brass rod for the shafts and periscopes, cast metal struts, and a sheet of P/E brass for the planes, rudder, railings, props, antenna and radio aerial. The quality of the resin casting looks good with no apparent air bubbles. There is a very slight twist to the hull when looking along the longitudinal axis. I'm not sure if this is caused by the master or my kit was removed from the mold before it had completely cured. U-35 was not a large boat (212 feet), and in 1/350 scale it makes for a petite model. It will make a good companion for a Dresden or Emden. >> Ken : I've built a number of Mike Bishop's submarines, all to good to outstanding results. IMHO, they are the best multimedia subs on the market. I have however, had a couple of examples with warped hulls, as most of my purchases have come from his store in Chaleston, where they were casted as I waited. I found that hot water, folled by straightening, followed by dousing with ice water cured the problem. I plan on getting my hands on one of these next time I'm in town. Enjoy ! Todd Henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:52:06 -0500 (EST) From: THENRYS@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <970117114711_72363807@emout13.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-16 20:49:25 EST, bciciora@pitneysoft.com (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. 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 : I really think this is always one of the most interesting points of discussion among modelers. As an example, I offer you this. I went to the IPMS US Nationals this past July with a good friend of mine. This friend is a good bit older than me, and he was one of those folks that really inspired me and got me interested in the hobby as I was growing up. I entered four kits (sorry no WWI :( ) and he entered none. As we walked through the display room, my friend became very discouraged, feeling that his work was not up to the excellent standard of the models displayed in the room. We differed on this point, as I felt that his work deserved to be there just as much as mine, although neither of us stood much of a chance against such great work. The net result of the weekend was that my friend saw the time in a discouraging light, taking the quality of the work as a negative against his own. I, on the other hand, saw the excellence that was there as a challenge; to upgrade my skills to the level of excellence that I saw. Not solely to compete, but I saw the quality of the work as something I wished to aspire to. Both of us will still build to satisfy ourselves, and both of us will still enjoy competing, but I thought it interesting in the two different reactions we took from the weekend. A lot of what I build (an example being the resin 1/48 AMX Italian jet I entered) is so obscure and such a pain in the keister to build, that lacking super-human skills, I probably stand little chance of actually winning with such an entrant. But that's the point, I didn't build it to compete, I built it to have one in my collection, and part of my reason for entering it is for others to see (i.e. something different). If a judge likes it enough to recognize it, fine. If not, I've still got something I like to put in the display cabinet. The bottom line is that everyone has their own motivation for building, and if building out of the box is what makes them happy, or superdetailing, or building an old Frog kit, hey that's great. Well as someone pointed out, I can run a little on the long side, so I'll shut up now. My two cents worth. Todd Henry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:52:28 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <199701171652.AA01160@ednet1.orednet.org> Brian recently wrote: >sorry I'm on my soapbox (it was left here by someone!). I just think >that people are now pedantically trying to prove negatives just to >make a point. I'm a good researcher (when I get off my ass) and >given a good library I could find enough evidence to prove black is >white, and give references. That would allow me to gain official >entry to the colour police! > >Chill out dudes! Whoa, Brian, put away that soapbox. For myself, at least, I have continued this discussion because I found the exchange of views interesting, not because of any pendantic desire to make a point. Indeed, were I not interested, I wouldn't have done the reading in the first place to even have formed my opinions on the subject. And, I am quite willing to have that opinion changed or demonstrated to be erroneous - witness my recent rather red-faced confession of error on the question of how did a Fokker triplane dispose of spent cartridges. But, as someone (I hope not I!) has apparently given offense, I suggest we declare today as Virtual November 11, 1918, and end this thread. I promise I will "lay off" Billy Bishop for at least a month. :-) Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - ............................................................................. - This space for rent - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:31:28 -0600 From: iceman@ro.com (Eli Geher) To: wwi Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: <199701171831.MAA32041@sh1.ro.com> Todd Henry wrote: >The bottom line is that everyone has their own motivation for building, and >if building out of the box is what makes them happy, or superdetailing, or >building an old Frog kit, hey that's great. > I second this one. All of us want to get it right on our models, within the limits of our time, skill and resources. Thats the nature of this hobby. Nobody is required to enter contests as a condition of membership in the brotherhood (personhood?). If you do enter them, you will be up against competitors who REALLY want to win! There is no perfect or meaningful judging system which rewards sincerity, so you may go home empty handed. The color police, or judges as we prefer to be called, do our best to be fair and impartial. Obviously, we don't satisfy everybody. Thats the way life is. Personally, its been a long time since I entered a model anywhere that I thought had a chance at dominating its class, but I still enter because I'm vain enough to think that others might enjoy seeing my work. Sometimes I win something and sometimes not. They're still good models even if they don't win. The others stay on the shelf at home. And, by the way, its been years since I can recall paint color being a factor disqualifying a good model. The "color police" are every bit as aware as the folks on this list of the vagaries of paints. Eli Geher Badge No. 2164 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:29:37 -0400 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Re: Embarassing Top Aces question. Message-ID: <2.2.16.19970117131419.3f3739c6@conted.swann.gatech.edu> Sandy, Thanks for the interesting quote. Contemporary accounts can be quite illuminating as to the general mindset of the time, of course, but are at a disadvantage when it comes to the Big Picture due to the absence of records, reports, and so on from the other side. It is here where responsible scholarship steps in, the more up-to-date the better, especially concerning our area of disagreement. And it is is here also where, as I as well as others have tried to point out before, the available numbers seem to lead to an inescapable conclusion. Now I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to other topics. (Perhaps the only way to settle this would be to meet in cyberspace in some head-to-head game of Red Baron, and may the best joystick win!) And by the way, you might be interested to know that I am hoping to acquire an SE5a print signed by the the late G. Lewis as well as repros of a DFC and MC for my small collection--I am well aware that the glorious and colorful Luftstreitkrafte faced brave and worthy foes. (And after having had the chance late last year to sit in a repro Camel and Albatros--as well as some other types--I can say that I have the utmost respect for anyone who tried to fly and fight in one of those things.) Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 19:46:50 +0100 (MET) From: knut.erik.hagen@login.eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) To: wwi Subject: Visiting London Message-ID: <199701171846.TAA18479@login.eunet.no> Gentlemen, Here are my prefered places to go in London as a modeller. 1. Hannants/ RAF Museum It is approx 30min by tube from Central London, there are two branches on the Northern Line, take the one with Edgware as destination and alight at Colindale. Just turn to the right when you leave the station and you are in Hannants shop. Pick up their latest catalogue before you go for a 10 min walk to the RAF Museum. Be prepared to spend some time in the Museum, you can use your camera with flash. With British weather outside you should load it with 400ASA film or higher. You find almost everything inside if you are interested in RFC/RAF aircraft and to some extent even their adversaries. There is a nice cafeteria where you can study the Hannants catalogue and the one from the RAF Museums own gift shop. When rested (and hopefully not yet divorced), return to Hannants. Most modellers do then have to return to their hotell unless they have a car parked outside to store the catch in. Note that Hannants usually restock on Thursdays, so on Thursday evening you usualy catch the latest releases and hot items. Hannants is closed on Sundays 2. The Imperial War Museum. Closer to Central London and well signed, just look for a building with a pair of 15 inch guns outside. Lots of stuff on WW1, but I would not recommend it for small children unless you are carefull with where you take them. The trenches are very realistic and the are some exhibits likely to upset kids. WW1 aircraft I saw there include Sopwith Camel and BE2c. 3. The Science Museum A surprising number of aircraft are housed in South Kensington south of Hyde Park. The aircraft section was a bit dark and dusty when I was there, but include a number of the weird and wonderful like: Cody`s biplane, Fokker E.III, Avro 504K, Roe Triplane, SE5A and Vickers Vimy Add to this many prototypes built in the heyday of British aviation. A lot of interesting things to try out for children of all ages. 4. If you still have money left to spend after Hannants, check out Comet Miniatures at 46-48 Lavender Hill. The first floor is dominated by UFOs and ETs, but ask the owner (he looks a bit like the exhibits) for permission to visit the basement dungeons. There he stocks an impressive lot of old kits, you might get some hints on where to start digging, but you can find a lot of resins and vacuforms at reasonable prices. He knows WW1 models, when I enquired about a Merlin BE2e kit, he said it was in stock, but would not recommend anyone to buy it!! It is within walking distance of tube/train, but I do not know the current opening hrs. 5. There are numerous bookstores, most of them around Charings Cross, the ones that deal in books for modellers tend to close at 1700. This is based on what I have found on my trips to the London area, others might want to fill in on museums in London and other towns. Beste hilsener fra Knut Erik ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:08:35 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Pilawskii To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Philosophical Question Message-ID: On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Bill Ciciora wrote: > Edward wrote: > > This has puzzled me for a while, too. What is a modeler trying to > > acheive? > > 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, Well, I think I can sympathize to a point here; although admittedly, I now feel rather different. When I first joined this list the discussion of modeling technique was WAY over my head. I looked at the work of Steve, and our other worthy Bretheren, and was, frankly, depressed. How on earth could I ever hope to make something like that? I felt rather a dunce.... However, that was then. Now, by listening and learning, I've become much, *much*, better. Even to the point where I'll take pictures of *some* of my work and have them displayed. I still am not at all satisfied with showing all of my models-- some I finish just to a level that suits myself, and others I do try to build for the purpose of having others look at them. Perhaps, for the very best (The Roland, maybe), I might even take it to a competition. None of that, though, is the goal. The only goal is that I delight in building representations of aircraft! Even as I adore the machines themselves; it's a tangible way to experience them, if you will. So, whatever level of accomplishment attends any project, that's fine so long as I think it is. And, unless I really 'blow the door by', I will think it is.... > 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. > I agree entirely; but, I don't consider the two to be mutually exclusive. I do both happily, and it nevers bugs me a mite! Cheers, Erik :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "If you're not living Life on the edge, you're taking up too much room!" .............................................................................. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:52:55 -0500 (EST) From: GRBroman@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: My Own Introduction Message-ID: <970117175253_1657926046@emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-01-16 21:52:55 EST, you write: >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" Weather report from Port Byron, Il -15 F, winds gusting to 30 mph, wind chill to -40, have to shovel 2 feet of snow to find the grass. However, just got a large selection of kits to play with, mostly Contrail between the wars types, but some neat resin types, DH 6, DH 9 and a few WW I injection molded. Soemthing to do during the cold spell. :) GGGGlen ( sorry, it's so cold my keyboard is chattering) ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 402 *********************