WWI Digest 436 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) test, don't read by "Valenciano . Jose" 2) Vacforms and wing Ribs by Ray Boorman 3) Re[2]: 1/48 Liberty Engine? by "Shelley Goodwin" 4) Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves by "Shelley Goodwin" 5) Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 6) Re: Vac-Form Kits. by hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) 7) Genet diary by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 8) Re: Rib replication by Sandy Adam 9) Re: Genet diary by Pedro Soares 10) Re: 1/48 Liberty Engine? by Bob Norgren 11) Kids and Models? by Bob Norgren 12) Nie.28 revisited by mbittner@juno.com 13) Re: Scale by Bob Norgren 14) Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves by mbittner@juno.com 15) Re: Scale by Bob Norgren 16) Vacform Wing Techniques by Bob Norgren 17) Re: Kids and Models? by "Randy J. Ray" 18) Re: Kids and Models? by Joseph Gentile 19) Re: Kids and Models? by aero@baynet.net (Jim Lyzun) 20) Re: Kids and Models? by THENRYS@aol.com 21) Re: Scale by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:45:53 +0800 (GMT+0800) From: "Valenciano . Jose" To: wwi Subject: test, don't read Message-ID: ********************************************************************* 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: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:53:44 -0800 From: Ray Boorman To: "'Multiple recipients of list'" Subject: Vacforms and wing Ribs Message-ID: <01BC1C3A.E43216A0@lynx1035.lynx.bc.ca> For quite a while I have wanted to try building a vacuform model, = especially an aircraft of the WW1 period. The few finished Vacs I have = seen always looked as if they would represent a WW1 aircraft much better = than a injected plastic model. As in the thin fragile wings and the more = lifelike thickness' of the parts. However the only attempt I ever made = ended up with wings that resembled swizzle sticks more than something = aerodynamic. So once Bob Norgren subscribed to this list I thought I = would ask him what his advice was on a good starter model. Basically = his recommendation was one of the two Rolands the DII or the CII. = Anyway I ordered the DII Haifisch. Which I have since received and = looks like it will build up into a really splendid model. If who hasn't = seen one of Bobs Models you should really order one just to see a nice = vacuform..=20 Anyway while I was waiting for the Roland to arrive I thought I would = dig into my stack of models to see if I had anything to practice on. The = search yielded a Formaplane Halberstadt CIIa. I am not sure how accurate = this model is, but I wanted something I could risk and the Halberstadt = I recall cost me $3.=20 I started by cutting the fuselage and wings out and then started to = sand the wings with 240 wet and dry taped to a piece of glass. However = this time instead of merrily sanding to far, I checked as the plastic = got down to the leading and trailing edges. My wing eventually looked = like this from the underside. _______________________ /-----------------------------------------\ <-- = Leading edge // \\ // \\ // \\ --------------------------------------------------- Trailing edge At this point I finally realized something. If I sanded further to get = rid of the line on the underside of the wing that is just behind the = leading edge and follows the wing tips, I would destroy the shape of the = aerofoil, and end up with something flat that looked like a = swizzle-stick. So what I did was to use thin plastic card and fair the = underside of the wing in. Since the wing is so thin anyway it ads = virtually nothing to the thickness of the wing. Whereas if I try to = blend the line in I'll probably thin the leading edge too much, or make = it have a uneven thickness. Anyway I thought I would post this since I = had seen a few post's in the past where people were asking how to get = round this same problem. I know a lot of other modelers don't skin the = lower wing but how on earth do you get rid of the line and maintain the = leading edge shape.=20 Back to the Halberstadt; Once I decided to skin the underside of the = wing then it was time to add ribs. I used a pen and ruler and drew the = ribs on the inside of the skin which on thin plastic sheet gives nice = thin raised lines on the outside. I know some say that the undersides of = fabric covered wings should have engraved rib detail to indicate the = fabric pulling down between the ribs. However when I used to build RC = aircraft this wasn't the case. The fabric is stretched and doped and = therefore the fabric shrinks a small amount and the rib shows through as = a line. Anyway that's as far as I have got so far. If you go slowly and = think things through Vacuforms don't seem to be harder than injected = plastic models. Also with all the resin and photo etch around, the old = excuse of having to scratch build interiors etc. really doesn't stand = up anymore. =20 For other benefits just take a look at the list of vacuforms that have = been produced. There are an awful lot of Aircraft that would otherwise = not get produced. My halberstadt may end up not being the best model I will build but I am = learning something which is just as important as turning out a = masterpiece. Plus I might get good enough to do the Roland the justice = it deserves. nb Halberstadt CII: 1/72 Sopwith 1 and 1/2 Strutter: 1/72 (Will this ever get finished) Heinkel He 51B: 1/48 (Wrong period but hey its a biplane) np Eagles hell freezes over and my 5 year old son with a harmonica = (anyone got ear plugs:) ) nr First King of Shannara (Terry Brooks) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 97 22:10:35 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re[2]: 1/48 Liberty Engine? Message-ID: <9701168561.AA856160887@mx.Ricochet.net> FWIW, A friend at work described an Engines & Things Pratt & Whitney radial he bought as "a blob of resin". That's as much as I've heard; it could've been a bad 'shot' or bad luck that a retailer decided to sell him junk. Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: 1/48 Liberty Engine? Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 2/16/97 8:46 PM Riordan wrote: > I've heard that Engines & Things (don't know if they make one either) is best avoided. After checking the Rollmodels page, I found that indeed they can get the Engines & Things Liberty V-12, although it's not one they normally stock. What's the problem with this piece? It has to be better than what's in the Aurora kit. Bill C. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 97 22:26:56 PST From: "Shelley Goodwin" To: wwi Subject: Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves Message-ID: <9701168561.AA856160897@mx.Ricochet.net> Matt, Is this one outta print? I've seen one for about $8.00 at a local shop. I just beefed a 5 color camo on an Airfix Spad. Went OK up until the light gray undersurfaces-didn't think to mask uppersurfaces & got overspray from holding parts while I sprayed 'em. Boy did I feel stupid (and pissed). Almost threw it all in the trash, but decided to hang on to it and perhaps start over once the feelings of imbecility subside. It may take awhile... Riordan ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28 Author: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu at Internet Date: 2/16/97 8:50 PM Since I'm in the process of painting the Revell Nieuport 28, I thought I would share my "experiences" with the model. Overall, the model is accurate. There are only a couple areas of inaccuracy, easily corrected. First of all, be sure to remove *all* of the bogus "fabric weave". Not only does it not belong, it looks rather "stupid". Wings, upper: This is one area that has some inaccuracies, depending on what drawings you go with. Since I decided to go with the Datafile drawings, I decided to perform one of the corrections. The top wing is about .5 mm short on both tips, plus is about .5mm to narrow. Since this was so miniscule, I decided not to correct it. However, the cockpit cutout is way to "deep", so I decided to add sheet plastic to build it up. Again, I used the Datafile's drawings as reference. Wings, lower: The lower wing is practically spot on. It suffers the same length problem as the upper; again, so miniscule as not to correct. I did decide to cut out and reposition the ailerons (which are in the lower wing, BTW). I used some flat brass cut to length and width which came from one of the photoetch sheets I own for the hinges. I cut out "slots" in the wing to mount the hinges in, and glue them in with superglue. Once in - and secured - I round off the outer edge (the edge of the hinge that goes "into" the aileron). Initially, after I cut out the ailerons, I removed too much plastic and had to build up the area with sheet. In not thinking properly, I scratched new ailerons before adding this new sheet to the wing. After having problems with the second scratched aileron, I thought I would see if the original ailerons would work with the "packed out" wings. They do, so I spent all that time scratching ailerons for nothing. ;-) Fuselage, cockpit: Since I had the Airwaves photoetch set, I decided to use this for cockpit parts. Not a good decision, since the "tub" that forms the sides and "floor" of the cockpit was too wide. I cut the "floor" from the sides, mounted those sides in, and added a new "floor" out of plastic rod (it's not really a floor, but cross pieces between the cockpit sides). I did use the rudder pedals, and the foot rest under the rudder bar from the Airwaves set. I also used the seat, but as it comes on the Airwaves sheet, it's much too big, as it would stick out of the cockpit. So, after cutting down, I did use it with the Airwaves seat belts. I painted the fuselage cockpit sides a medium gray, along with the plastic rod floor, and control column. The Airwaves sides were painted "brown" to replicate wood, as well as the rudder bar "floor". Fuselage, general: As was mentioned earlier, be sure to remove all "fabric weave", which includes between the ribs of the fuselage. Sand down the ribs, as well as the cockpit coaming, as they're a bit "too much". I ended up sanding off the molded in "venturi tube", and plan on scratching a new one and adding later. The lower part of the fuselage where the landing struts meet the forward part of the fuselage is all wrong. Revell has it as a round piece, where they would have you enter a mounting pin on the landing gear struts. This area should be concave, and your best bet is to study the Datafile for the correct shape. Also, believe it or not, the Glencoe kit has this correct, so you could also use this *as reference* . Tail surface, horizontal: All I did to this was to remove the "fabric weave" (to you see a theme, here? ;-)), and using liquid cement only, position the flying surfaces down. Once you add the horizontal tail to the fuselage, there is a stabilizor connecting bar missing. Basically, this just runs between each "half" of the stabilizor, and sits on top of the fuselage. See the Datafile for further details. Tail surface, vertical: This area requires some modification. Not to the shape, as the shape is basically correct, but to a few things Revell left off. First of all, the "fin" part of the tail is supposed to extend down to the fuselage, at the aft end of the horizontal surface (after the stabilzor connecting bar). Also, the fin is supposed to extend down to the horizontal just in front of this point. Basically, Revell's "cut out" in the vertical surface is too much. I just ended up adding sheet styrene to the kit part until it looked correct. I also separated the rudder - not only because I wanted to reposition it, but it also helped with the "fin" reshape. You will also need to add control horns to both side of the "rudder" part. Struts: All struts - except the landing gear (more on this later) are scratched out of Contrail strut stock. I just followed the Datafile for the correct lengths (except the center struts, as I plan to make these after I get the top wing on the interplane struts). Landing struts and surrounding area: I'm using the kit landing struts, as there is nothing wrong with these, especially after you remove the mounting pins from the forward part of the struts. You will need to find replacement wheels, though, since the kit supplied ones are too small. I'm using Atlee replacement wheels. The axel/cross bars will need to be replaced, as Revell provides a snap in affair that is supposed to turn. I ended up making a brass rod axel, and trapped this in two pieces of plastic, to create the airfoil shape of the cover. Other details: The cowl is completely wrong. You could correct the kit part, as there is a lot of plastic on it which allows you to cut and shape at will. Or, you could take the easy way out - which I did - and purchase the Rosemont replacement cowl. I using the kit engine, since there is nothing wrong with it. However, you will need to find another propeller, since it's completely wrong. I'm using one I found in the parts box that's extremely close, and will only need its tips reshaped. I'm using one gun from an extra Airfix SPAD kit, and one Aeroclub I have left over. Finishing: I found the following Polly Scale colors close to the chips I have from Jim Kiger (?) and Replicraft. Underside "yellow": 505312 Ger. RLM 69 Lt. Tan (~33695) Beige: 505320 Ger. RLM 79 Sand Yellow (~30215) Dark Green: 505038 Fr. Fok. Dark Green (34096) Light Green: 505310 Ger. RLM 68 Lt. Olive Green (~34258) Dark Brown: (This is an old Polly S color) 500845 Brown 3B3 FS30051 I plan on finishing this as Zenos Miller's aircraft, as depicted on the cover of the latest OtF (Vol 11 No 3). The 27th Aero's eagle and checkerboard will come from SuperScale, and I haven't figured out yet whose roundels I'm going to use. Can anybody compare SuperScale's, Blue Rider's and Americal's? Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:02:24 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves Message-ID: <199702170702.AA08903@ednet1.orednet.org> Riordan diligently typed: >Is this one outta print? I've seen one for about $8.00 at a local shop. >I just beefed a 5 color camo on an Airfix Spad. Went OK up until the light gray >undersurfaces-didn't think to mask uppersurfaces & got overspray from holding >parts while I sprayed 'em. Boy did I feel stupid (and pissed). Almost threw it >all in the trash, but decided to hang on to it and perhaps start over once the >feelings of imbecility subside. It may take awhile... The usually recommended sequence is to paint the undersurfaces first, then to mask the undersurfaces and only then commence work on the uppersurfaces. But never toss a model in the trash over painting errors. Those kinds of errors are almost always fixable with a minimum of pain - if nothing else, you can just start repainting again from scratch. If you are working with an airbrush, when you are all done, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to detect just how many coats of paint you have under there. Now, the exception is if you screw up something you can't reach - like the cockpit interior. [did I tell ya' about the Fokker D.VII I airbrushed, forgetting to stuff Kleenex tissue into the cockpit opening? I opted for the "fat pilot" approach on that 'un!] :-) Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:52:32 -0700 From: hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) To: wwi Subject: Re: Vac-Form Kits. Message-ID: Vincent wrote: >I just picked up a few vac-form kits and I'm wondering if anyone has had any >experience or knows how accurate they are. > >Blue Rider Fiat/Savoia-Pomilio F5B >Blue Rider Bleriot X1-2 Artillerie >Blue Rider Nieuport Nightjar >Phoenix Caudron G.IV >Xtravac Albatros JII >Xtravac Albatros CIX >Xtravac Albatros CXV > >I believe the supplier still has some of these (I picked the lot up for >AUS$100). I think that you did pretty well with these. They are reasonably scarce kits, even when they were in production. How many more does the supplier have ? Charles hartc@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 08:28:25 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Genet diary Message-ID: <33088729.3374@host.dmsc.net> Gents, Did y'all receive the entry for Wednesday, 14 February? I posted it twice but it didn't show up here either time. Bradley ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:09:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Rib replication Message-ID: On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 mbittner@juno.com wrote: > > 1. You still need to apply - to a lesser degree - the > "Pilawskii-method", i.e. using a bead of CA, blend in the nylon > > 2. Make sure you use "heavy" and "wet" coats of clear gloss. > Not too heavy, and not too light. > > 3. My best recommendation is to experiment first. In other Wow! is this fun? what a lot of work! I can't comment about 1/72 but in a REAL MAN'S SCALE this would be dealt with in a few minutes by the same method that Ray talks about elsewhere. - ie - put thin card over plan, (you will see lines through), score upper surface ribs with empty ball pen, cut out and stick on sanded down core. Under surface ribs are represented by strips of transfer film. In 1/72 you probably would not use a core, but slightly thicker upper and lower skins. Probably takes less than 10 minutes for a pair of ailerons. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:15:16 +0000 From: Pedro Soares To: wwi Subject: Re: Genet diary Message-ID: <330867F4.2EEA@anaep.pt> Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson wrote: > > Gents, > > Did y'all receive the entry for Wednesday, 14 February? I posted it > twice but it didn't show up here either time. > > Bradley I didn't ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:40:22 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Re: 1/48 Liberty Engine? Message-ID: <33083596.18ED@ne.infi.net> Bill Ciciora wrote: > > Does Tom's Modelworks or any of the other aftermarket vendors make a 1/48 > Liberty engine? I've been trying to see how much work it would be to fix > the engines in the Aurora DH-10 kit (considerable), and the right price > might sway me to go aftermarket. Roll Models? Sopwith Hobbies? I feel a > mild case of Advanced Modeller Syndrome coming on. > > Bill C. Aeroclub has a new 1/48 (and 1/72, as well) white metal Liberty engine kit available. Contact them directly or I can obtain them for you. Bob Siera Scale Models ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:55:02 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Kids and Models? Message-ID: <33083906.4EF1@ne.infi.net> ...young kids are not going to have the resources to buy many WWI > kits and become interested. Young kids don't have the interest in aviation and crafting models that we had back in the pre-computer days of the fifties and sixties. Have you gone to a model show lately? Most of the modelers are middle-aged, pot-bellied men who smell of cheeseburgers and onions. One of the problems is that individual craftsmanship is no longer appreciated or taught in schools. The teaching of creative art in the grade schools has been abandoned due to "budget restraints." What little is left is merely going thru the motions and not at all creative. Kids are expected now to "play" with their computers. To me, most computer kid's stuff is a boring waste of time (and at $40 a pop)...I can't see how kids are expected to sit still long enough for this crap to load, let alone play. But with parents all working, computers and tv are the babysitters. I well remember my father helping me build models, do homework, play baseball...does this happen anymore? I feel like the exception in that I work at home and have time to play tennis with my daughter (in fact, my family is probably sick of seeing me all the time...!) Bob Sierra ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:02:16 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Nie.28 revisited Message-ID: <19970217.050415.13502.2.mbittner@juno.com> I left a couple of things out of my Revell Nieuport 28 build-up. Tailplane, horizontal: There is a piece of wood (?) on the real thing that "blends" the horizontal tail piece with the fuselage. This is a separate part on the real thing, and basically "sits" on top of the horizontal tail piece. I scratched this out of .010" plastic sheet, sanding it to the correct shape after it was glued onto the model. Finishing: There is a fifth upper color I left out: black. I'm using Aeromaster's Warbirds Acrylic - which is just Polly Scale re-labeled. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:59:03 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Re: Scale Message-ID: <330839F7.7789@ne.infi.net> Sandy Adam wrote: > > IMHO the reasons for the present popularity of 1/48 goes back to the > origins of our hobby when Frog Penguin in the 40s & 50s Weren't the Admiraly ship models built in the 17th/18th centuries made in 1/48? If you think about it, 1/4 inch to the foot makes for easy measuring with any standard ruler. I've never seen a standard ruler divided into sixths for 1/72. Who came up with this scale? Bob Sierra Scale Models ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:02:16 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: 1/72nd Revell Nieuport 28/Rookie moves Message-ID: <19970217.050415.13502.1.mbittner@juno.com> On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:41:49 -0500 "Shelley Goodwin" writes: > Is this one outta print? I've seen one for about $8.00 at a > local shop. I just beefed a 5 color camo on an Airfix Spad. > Went OK up until the light gray undersurfaces-didn't think to > mask uppersurfaces & got overspray from holding parts while I > sprayed 'em. Boy did I feel stupid (and pissed). Almost threw it > all in the trash, but decided to hang on to it and perhaps start > over once the feelings of imbecility subside. It may take > awhile... I don't know to what you're referring to when you ask if it's "outta print". The model? I don't think so as I've seen them around in numerous places. The Datafile? Probably, since it's close to two years old. The paint chips? I don't think so, since I'm almost positive you can still get them through WW1 Aero. Never give up on a model just because of a painting error. These are the easiest "mistakes" to fix. Good luck, and keep you chin up. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:18:51 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Re: Scale Message-ID: <3300478B.3F20@ne.infi.net> Shane Weier wrote: > > Matt carefully places his ass (US) in the griddle: > >I do not like this trend. What I would like to see is younger > >blood getting initially into 1/72nd, as well as some of the > >"older" folks go back to this scale. When I was a kid in the '50s, my friends and I got into 1/72 because of the incredible breadth of subjects. I remember well the Airfix instruction sheet that showed the Spitfire arranged next to the four-engine bomber, illustrating that you could have a collection of many different types all in the same scale. This seemed important to a "serious" modeler in the days of Revell box scales and the large clunky 1/48th Aurora kits. Another great thing about Airfix and Frog was the show-off factor, exotic foreign kits available in the US. And the wild WWII subjects that were only seen in Flying Review and other imported magazines. American companies were concentrating on post-war jets such as the B-36, Cougars and such. The other attractive prospect was the fact that Airfix and Frog kits could be had for literally pennies (nineteen cents for an Airfix/Craftmaster Tiger Moth in Woolworths). I built probably hundreds of (bad) models in those days before discovering Scale Modeler Magazine in the grocery store back in the late 50's/early 60's. Here were plastic modelers, not only painting the kits, but using airbrushes and filling seams and detailing cockpits. So then I started super dealing the kits. Eventually, since 1/72 kits were so poorly detailed, especially in the cockpit department, for me building models became a chore. The pattern was always the same; enthusiasm, digging out reference material, scratchbuilding a cockpit, boredom, starting the whole thing again. I had dozens of started kits that had partially completed cockpits. So in the seventies I turned to Tamiya armor kits that, at least, were complete. But I wa restless for "something different." Getting into scratchbuilding changed things for me. In the days before the invention of enlarging/reducing copy machines, the only way to reduce the Wylam 1/48 scale drawings that appeared mainly in flying model magazines such as Model Airplane News was to laboriously do it by hand, drawing scale squares and so on. Later, I gave up on this and just used the 1/48 drawings as the amount of detail couldn't be put into a 1/72 model anyway. Then I rediscovered the Aurora 1/48th kits and found that I had the beginnings of a collection, albeit small, after all. Now, I concentrate on 1/48 because the overall quality of kits is much better than 1/72. Most have reasonable cockpit detail, and what they don't have is relatively easy to put in. I got rid of most of my 1/72 collection in the last few years, keeping only the larger 3- and 4-engine stuff and all my helicopters, but even this is for nostalgic reasons. As I get older, I don't see wasting a lot of time on 1/72 kits when there are more accurate, better detailed and easier to build kits in 1/48. The ton of newly released kits from Tamiya, Hasegawa, Eduard, Accurate Miniatures is simply amazing. Oh, I occasionally buy a 1/72 kit, mainly helicopters, but even the new ones are no match for the latest Tamiya 1/48. I still produce the occasional 1/72 WWI kit because the market still is ther for the WWI kit. Bob Sierra Scale Models ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:29:32 +0000 From: Bob Norgren To: wwi Subject: Vacform Wing Techniques Message-ID: <3308411C.5BF2@ne.infi.net> Ray Boorman wrote: So once Bob Norgren subscribed to this list I thought I = > would ask him what his advice was on a good starter model. Basically = > his recommendation was one of the two Rolands the DII or the CII. = > Anyway I ordered the DII Haifisch. Which I have since received and = > looks like it will build up into a really splendid model. If who hasn't = > seen one of Bobs Models you should really order one just to see a nice = > vacuform..=20 Thanks for those kind comments...it is reward for all those lonely hours of work! As for the preparing wacform wings, this is the most difficult of precedures on building a vacform, but here are some tips that make it easy (once you know the tricks, it's easy as pie!): 1. I recommend that you NOT sand any vacform part on a sheet of sandpaper taped or glued to a board. Unfortunately this technique is part of the "mythology" of vacform building (along with all manner of "marking the uncut sheet with felt tips," "spraying with primer," and other crazy things! )and is the one most likely to turn off modelers to vacforms because of the poor results achieved. The reason is that when you press the piece, whether a wing or fuselage half, down on the sheet with you fingertips, you exert uneven pressure and the result is a mishaped or unevenly sanded piece, with the result that you sand some more and more, making it worse. It is much, much better to buy some thick basswood sheet and cut small planks (oh, 2 x 4 inch) from it and superglue (gel) the sandpaper to it to give you some thick sanding block sin a variety of grits. Hold the fuselage half in one hand and carefully, very slowly, sand the mating surface. (As an experienced builder, I rarely do much sanding any more on fuselage halves as I trim the tiny scraps with a sharp knife.) 2. As for wings, I recommend you get a knife with long, curved blade... a pocketknife, suitably sharpened to razor sharpness will do, and SCRAPE the insides of the wing's leading and trailing edges to follow the curvature of the outside surface. If you simply sand the wing on a flat surface you will end up with flat ledges at the leading and trailing edges...this is no good if you have to plank the underside with thin sheet or use the vacformed undersides. If you do use the latter you have to scrape the inside surfaces in the same manner to ensure a thin trailing edge. The most common problem I see with builtup vacforms is that the builder simply did not take off enough material between the wing halves and the wing is too thick. Several years ago, I built up one of my Aviatik Berg D.Is in 1/48 in four days for a show. The wings on the Berg are super thin, but this did not take hours and hours of sanding as some may think...just scraping. In fact, I used both halves of the wing surfaces and they came out looking quite scale thinness. It just takes practice. Bob Sierra Scale Models ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:08:59 -0700 From: "Randy J. Ray" To: wwi Subject: Re: Kids and Models? Message-ID: > ... I well remember my father helping > me build models, do homework, play baseball...does this happen anymore? > I feel like > the exception in that I work at home and have time to play tennis with my > daughter (in > fact, my family is probably sick of seeing me all the time...!) Can't speak for anyone else, but I have spent time with my SO's son (from a previous relationship) working on models (*despite* his insistence on muscle cars, no matter how many aircraft I would entice him with). It didn't take with him, but not so much due to TV as due to attention deficit disorder, he just couldn't stay focused. 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: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:20:23 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Gentile To: wwi Subject: Re: Kids and Models? Message-ID: <199702171820.MAA15047@Walden.MO.NET> Interesting thread... >Young kids don't have the interest in aviation and crafting models that we had back in the pre-computer days of the fifties and sixties. I'm a product of the seventies but my oldest Son who is 8 going on 21 is very interested in this hobby. He inherited a Glencoe Pfalz D.III and is diligently working on it. We have a home PC but I'd have to say that it get's equal time in relation to the TV, SEGA, drawing, reading and in my oldest's case modelling. However, All this takes a back seat to sports. >One of the problems is that individual craftsmanship is no longer appreciated or taught in schools. The teaching of creative art in the grade schools has been abandoned due to "budget restraints." What little is left is merely going thru the motions and not at all creative. Remember that at the grade school years we are our children's greatest influence. Therefore, we are the most effective teachers, coaches, mentor's etc...Do we as adults really think it is the school systems responsibility to teach our children to read? I hope not. The same holds true for the arts in which I will include modelling miniatures. If we want our hobby to thrive or in the case of WWI subjects survive then we have to assume responsibility for the direction that it is headed. I guess this means that I should attend my IPMS chapter meetings and bring a model or two in hopes that I may be an inspiration to someone. For that matter after the hockey season I'll have to hook up with the St. Louis Jasta for the monthly symposium. Off the soap box, Joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:56:22 -0500 From: aero@baynet.net (Jim Lyzun) To: wwi Subject: Re: Kids and Models? Message-ID: <199702172056.PAA30894@focus.baynet.net> >Remember that at the grade school years we are our children's greatest >influence. Therefore, we are the most effective teachers, coaches, mentor's >etc...Do we as adults really think it is the school systems responsibility >to teach our children to read? I hope not. The same holds true for the >arts in which I will include modelling miniatures. If we want our hobby to >thrive or in the case of WWI subjects survive then we have to assume >responsibility for the direction that it is headed. As a teacher, I am constantly reminding the parents of my students of this undeniable fact. >I guess this means that I should attend my IPMS chapter meetings and bring a >model or two in hopes that I may be an inspiration to someone. For that >matter after the hockey season I'll have to hook up with the St. Louis Jasta >for the monthly symposium. Joe As a modeller, I agree with Joe on this as well. Jim Lyzun ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:56:33 -0500 (EST) From: THENRYS@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Kids and Models? Message-ID: <970217165632_-872014804@emout06.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 97-02-17 11:08:57 EST, you write: << Young kids don't have the interest in aviation and crafting models that we had back in the pre-computer days of the fifties and sixties. Have you gone to a model show lately? Most of the modelers are middle-aged, pot-bellied men who smell of cheeseburgers and onions. >> Interesting thread. As probably one of the younger members of the list (I say this because whatever modelling organization or function I participate in, I'm usually the youngest at 26), it is even more noticeable to me than most. It is an aging hobby, with VERY few participants in my age range. Even my wife often remarks on the paucity of young modellers in the hobby. Given this as a fact, the question of why is somewhat troubling. I can look around at contemporaries of mine growing up who did build models as children, but never got out of the toy phase with them. For me, my interest in history and in aircraft, along with a great enjoyment in working with my hands allowed me to move models from playing with toys to a hobby. There's no question that the huge array of competing options for spare time (TV, music, computers, Nintendo, et.al) are part of the reason, as well as an overall decrease in available spare time. I myself have had other distractions, from playing music to computers, but I've always come back to modelling. I liken the situation to that of the game of Baseball, a wonderful game with declining interest and attendance, largely because it is a game that requires patience and understanding of the rules and situations. It is a game which takes time to learn and appreciate (something I have had the pleasure of watching happen to people who have come to America from other countries where Baseball is even more foreign to them than soccer or football is to us), and quite simply most young people aren't willing to take the time. Modelling suffers from much the same dilemna. The personal pride and enjoyment that I get from finishing a model is immense and fuels my desire to improve on the next project, but it does take time - time that comes at the expense of other activities. I don't know about the education factor, though. I was never very receptive to what little art education I received growing up, and am very 'right-brain' oriented (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering, engineer by trade), although I do enjoy good literature, mainly historical, and music, mainly traditional jazz and blues. Many of my contemporaries, however, have interests and/or hobbies in the arts, whether in painting or acting or music, but the blending of that into model building just doesn't interest them. Basically, I am not very optimistic for modelling's future (nor am I for that of baseball), and I use this as an excuse for my acquisition of kits that I have no hope of building in my lifetime. I fear that the fantastic years that the model companies are having now are not to last much longer as the market gets older and lacks infusion of fresh customers. Oh well, I guess I had to justify my reputation of being long-winded, anyway, Todd Henry nb : Classic Airframes Defiant (It's WWI doctrine, at least) Sierra Scale Models 1/72 H.B. W.18 nr : The Rommel Papers, Liddell-Hart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:47:52 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Scale Message-ID: <199702172347.AA08838@ednet1.orednet.org> Bob wrote >Sandy Adam wrote: >> >> IMHO the reasons for the present popularity of 1/48 goes back to the >> origins of our hobby when Frog Penguin in the 40s & 50s > >Weren't the Admiraly ship models built in the 17th/18th centuries made in >1/48? If you think about it, 1/4 inch to the foot makes for easy measuring >with any standard ruler. I've never seen a standard ruler divided into >sixths for 1/72. Who came up with this scale? Dunno who came up with 1/72nd or why but as Sandy correctly noted, it was the FIRST plastic kit scale of all, dating back to the original Penguins which were first introduced in 1936. Interestingly, the Penguin line included not only aircraft but also a series of ground vehicles (anti-aircraft gun, search light, ambulance, Fordson tractor, etc.) so 1/72 scale can be considered not only the granddaddy of plastic aircraft scales but also the original plastic military vehicle scale. 1/72 was also used for the black rubber military ID models which were produced during World War 2. I think the attraction of 1/72 is not its weird calculation of 6 feet to the inch but rather in the fact that it is the one scale which allowed reasonably sized models of just about all military aircraft and equipment used at the time it was introduced. A 1/48th PBY Catalina or Short Singapore is a rather LARGE model and probably beyond the capacity of the mold making and injection machinery of the 1930's. In a smaller scale like 1/96th or 1/100th, overly small models of the smaller prototypes like the Fordson tractor or the Cierva autogyro result - plus, again, the mold making and injection machinery of the time would have probably required that the fine parts like struts and landing gear would have had to have been either grossly overscale or unduly fragile. All in all, 1/72nd was probably nothing more than a reasonable compromise. I, too, morn the apparent passage of the 1/72nd scale aircraft kit although I doubt it will ever die out entirely. After all, how many of those 1/48th C-130's could Testors have sold? While I saw the kit in the stores, I NEVER actually saw one built up - 1/72nd is a much satisfactory scale for the medium-big aircraft such as this. But the economics of kit manufacturing are such that I think fewer and fewer 1/72nd kits are going to be produced. First, of course, it is not that much cheaper to design and cut the molds for a 1/72nd kit than it is for a 1/48th one - yet it is much easier to sell a $20 1/48th kit than it is to sell a 1/72nd one. Secondly, of course, your average model builder is a constantly aging population - as the strength of the bifocals increases, the attractiveness of 1/48th scale increases geometrically and the attraction of 1/72nd kits with their now near microscopic "fiddley bits" decreases in the same ratio. (As I am constantly reminded!) I think 1/48th is clearly the wave of the future in WW1 models - if, indeed, WW1 models have a future. And, of course, 1/48th has an old and honor history with WW1 kits as well - if you ignore the single pre-WW2 Penguin kit of the Avro 504K, the first WW1 plastic kits ever produced were 1/48th (the Hawk SPAD 13 and Nieuport 17 from pre-1956) Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 436 *********************