WWI Digest 447 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 2) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 3) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 4) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Sandy Adam 5) WWI aircraft stability-- "Ghost Story" by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 6) New Releases by Sandy Adam 7) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Tom Eisenhour 8) Lozenge application techniques by Joseph Gentile 9) Re: Lozenge application techniques by hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) 10) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Eli Geher" 11) Re: Using scalpels for modelling by "Gerald P. McOsker" 12) Monday, 26 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 13) Re: New Releases by Graham Nash 14) Tuesday, 27 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 15) Re: Lozenge application techniques by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 16) Re: Lozenge application techniques by Joseph Gentile 17) Re: Nieuport request by knut.erik.hagen@login.eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) 18) Re: Nieuport request by alfb@sn.no (Alf Bakken) 19) Looking for Bob by Carlos Valdes 20) Re: Nieuport request by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 21) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 22) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by "Rob " 23) Re: Looking for Bob by Alberto Rada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:44:49 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: RE: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702270649.BAA20632@cliff.cris.com> > I don't know whether this is the same incident (and doubt it), but there > is a famous occasion in which an RE-8 of 3AFC was involved in a dogfight > in which at least one German aircraft was shot down - and credited to > it. The aircraft then left the scene flying West on a straight and level > path. Other aircraft involved tried to get their attention without luck, > then assumed that they had a problem and let them go. > > The RE-8 was eventually found, landed and virtually undamaged, but both > pilot and observer were dead with headwounds, killed instantly. > > This is not an apocryphal account, but a well documented and frequently > quoted one. I'll pull out the date, names of crew and the full story if > anyone else cares. Like the BE, the RE8 was designed for "inherent stability." Though I still think this must have been a fluke. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:46:55 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702270651.BAA21260@cliff.cris.com> > Just a question due to my lack of knowledge, could you really trim > these planes in flight ? > > saludos > > ALBERTO Generally, no. They were trimmed on the ground. While there were exceptions (the Brisfit, apparently), in-flight adjustable trim did not become common till the mid to late thirties. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:51:28 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702270751.AA21190@ednet1.orednet.org> Sandy wrote: >Rubbish! >Sorry Bill but you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into this. -snips- Well, I really don't have anything significant to add to what Jack, Rob, Bradley, and Eric wrote, except to say I'm sorry I got your dander up. I wasn't intending to be provocative - I had thought my claims were, more or less, common knowledge among the consigliere. Apparently not. But, I do stand by my original statement while, at the same time, thanking you for your contribution to the discussion. I hope some have found it interesting or enlightening. [and I'm still trying to check out the reference to in-flight trimming for the Bristol fighter. That's nothing I've ever seen reference to before but I am continually surprised when dealing with WW1 aviation. That's one of the things that makes this particular line of investigation fun! :-) ] Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:11:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: Well it sure looks like I stirred up a hornet's nest here! I'll reply to Eric as he has the most points covered and some of the easiest arguments to dispatch! (touche) On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Erik Pilawskii wrote: > "accrediation" proceedure involved in each country. The point made > by Bill about aircraft with dead crews flying off back to their > own lines making up a statistically insignificant is utterly valid. > I mean, the very idea of significant numbers of WWI machines flying > back to friendly territory, so that they might be conveniently noted > and accounted for, is preposterous. Indeed, in all the many years I But you miss the point, the original argument was that the Luftstreitskraefte single seaters almost always rose to battle beheind their own lines or over the Front. With the prevailing wind, an allied pilot had to be able to fly his plane west to escape trouble. Any plane with a dead crew would tend to be blown to the east of its combat position as it came down - BUT SIGNIFICANTLY a plane with a severely wounded pilot would also have to be more likely to do so. He could maybe keep it straight and level but he would also have to consciously navigate it back against the wind. The original ref to dead men's flights was to show that without a co-ordinated conscious effort by the pilot, the germans would land in home territory and the allies would land in enemy territory to a significant extent. > *three* such occurances, ever. Two did involve WWI aircraft, yes, > but this is hardly a statistically useful number. Your three examples bear out my point. > First of all, there were NO means, at all, for trimming these > aircraft in flight to maintain either course or attitude. A very few So the picture in front of me just now of a Sopwith Strutter with large tailplane trimming wheels is a figment of my imagination? > For the remainder of WWI aircraft, they were 'hands on' flyers at > ALL TIMES. Even the briefest lapse in _attention_ in a *well behaved* We must agree to differ on this - I have quote Lothar von R and MCCudden, whom you refuse to believe. I do. > > > The SE5 is one of the most stable machines ever built. > > If you ever made flying scale planes, you will know that whatever you do > > to an SE5 model it will fly straight and true - just like the real thing. > > > *Heh heh heh*... I can't help but laugh at that. "One of the most stable > machines ever built"!? Surely, you must be jesting.... No I am supported by many indisputable sources but again you probably refuse to believe them. The SE was one of the most successful fighters because of its speed, ruggedness and its provision of a stable gun-platform. > > In Summary > > There were a number of unstable aircraft which were rejected for service > > because they just flew badly. (eg MvR's Halbersatdt) > > For the time, the Halb.D.II was regarded as well-behaved and > maneuverable, something of course which must be taken in context (i.e., > 'behaved' by the standards of the day). I have not heard it damned as > "unstable", thought I might just be difficient here. If you have a refernce which identifies MvR's mount as aDII you have the advantage of me. My sources state a Halberstadt but I make no assumptions as to which type. > > > There were a number of unstable aircraft which were pressed into service > > for want of anything better.(eg McCudden's Morane Parasol) > > The vast majority of WWI service types would fit this category. In Why? The old adage - if it looks right it'll fly right is more true of early aircraft than computerised jets. To me the great majority of in-line two seaters that were used in quantity look right. I would expect an Albatros C-type or an LVG etc, after continuous used and fine tuning by airfield crew to fly fairly well. Obviously there would be a great number of individual examples that would not concur but enough that would. > > Even though modern aircraft are designed specfically-- from the ground > up, and with the aid of 70 more years of aviation science and big wind > tunnels and the like-- to fly 'hands-off', most aircraft can achieve this > only in a perfunctory and temporary fashion. How a WWI era, improperly Well, when I first flew a Chipmunk, the instructor told me I was gripping the joystick too tightly and making the plane shake all over the sky. When he demonstrated he omitted to give the standard RAF handover of "You have control, student" and two or three minutes later told me I was doing much better. I DID NOT HAVE MY HANDS ON THE CONTROLS! I later had a flight in a Tiger Moth which did the same thing. Now I understand that the flying characteristics of an SE and a Moth are sufficiently similar to accept all the reports of the SE's stability. > > > > There are too many reports of pilots emptying guns into opponents, > > witnessing the crew slumped in their seats, but the plane cointinuing on > > I'm afarid I would have to ask, "from whom?" Where are these alleged > reports, and who issued them? I am unaware of any such large body of I'm sorry but this reply is going on too long, maybe another day I can list the numerous refrences for you edification FINALE Could I draw all the anti-stability league's attention to perhaps the most important point. A large number of the top aces did not want aerobatic aircraft - they wanted fast machines which could climb quickly and provide good gun platforms. Richthofen stated and wrote that the effective use of the plane was to get as close as possible undetected and make sure of hitting the vitals. He advocated fast stable machines - and was directly responsible for the acceptance of many, many German types from about 1917 to the end of the war. VM Yates has his hero Cunliffe, say something regarding "all the top hun-getters flying SE's in prefernce to Camels for these same reasons. Oh well its 10am UK -time, guess I'll have to wait for the 'states to wake up and then my mailbox will probably fill up again. Isn't this a stimulating list? Best regards Sandy. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:20:36 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: WWI aircraft stability-- "Ghost Story" Message-ID: <3315B454.3642@host.dmsc.net> By the way, the tale of the British plane with dead pilot & observer being shot at by Boelcke's squadron, brought to you courtesy of my probably-defective memory, was a tale I first encountered on this List. It was around Halloween and the Gent who posted it did so under the heading of "Ghost Story", I believe. May have been (I could be completely wrong here) Peter Kilduff. If I have pegged you wrongly, Peter, my apologies-- but if it was you, or you know the tale, could you give us the lowdown, please? Bradley ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 12:43:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: wwi group Subject: New Releases Message-ID: I received Maintrack's 1997 New Release List yesterday and know it will probably be of interest to many. Lots of things you will aleady all know for which I apologise but some were new to me so maybe others too. Glencoe, Jenny and DH4 included. Blue Max (48) -Camel @ 21.99GBP, Halb DII & Roland CII @ 24.99GBP. Pegasus (72) - Alb DIII (German) @ 10.99GBP, Breguet 14 and Hansa Brandenburg W29 @ 13.99, Alb W4 Seaplane @ 11.99. Eduard (48) - Alb DIII, Pfalz DIII & Hanriot included. No dates are confirmed but if they've got prices for Chris Gannon's new releases things look pretty definite. BTW I see in Scale Av Modeller that Waldo are supposed to be doing 48th resin kits of 5F1 Dolphin & Brisfit & 29.95GBP each this year. Now I don't know whether to get Bob's Sierra Walfisch or wait for either the Blue Max or the rumoured Eduard one. Whichever I get will probably sit in the loft unmade until the millenium anyway! Hope its of interest. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:57:28 -0800 From: Tom Eisenhour To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <3315AEE8.1255@swbell.net> Without jumping into this fistfight, I'd just like to offer a comment by a pilot of a replica Thomas-Morse S-4C. He said that flying it was like "trying to balance on an inverted cone." I think that image gives some appreciation of the difficulty of flying WW I scouts! Tom Eisenhour eisen@swbell.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:45:03 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Gentile To: wwi Subject: Lozenge application techniques Message-ID: <199702271445.IAA06892@Walden.MO.NET> I've run into a little snag whilst laying on the lozenge for my Hannover and I hoped that I could solicit some help from the group. I am having problems applying the lozenge decals to the separate/detached control surface items (i.e) ailerons. I have tried applying a cut "rectangular" sheet over the part and trimming when dry. That didn't work. I also tried cutting a piece from a photocopied template that was in the rough shape of the part I wanted to cover. No luck here either. So, before I waste a lot of this schtuff what other options do I have? Thanking you all in advance for your consistent help, Joe Gentile ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:21:31 -0700 From: hartc@spot.Colorado.EDU (Charles Hart) To: wwi Subject: Re: Lozenge application techniques Message-ID: >I've run into a little snag whilst laying on the lozenge for my Hannover and >I hoped that I could solicit some help from the group. I am having problems >applying the lozenge decals to the separate/detached control surface items >(i.e) ailerons. > >I have tried applying a cut "rectangular" sheet over the part and trimming >when dry. That didn't work. I also tried cutting a piece from a >photocopied template that was in the rough shape of the part I wanted to >cover. No luck here either. So, before I waste a lot of this schtuff what >other options do I have? > >Thanking you all in advance for your consistent help, Are you applying this decal to bare plastic, or is it painted ? Your problems sound like the former. The decal needs a surface with some "tooth" to it, i.e. some very fine irregularity to the surface to which the glue of the decal can grip. Charles hartc@spot.colorado.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:39:29 -0600 From: "Eli Geher" To: Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702271740.LAA28819@sh1.ro.com> In following this thread, it might be helpful to understand that there are differences in the types of aircraft stability. Static stability is the ability of an aircraft to maintain attitude in a fixed configuration with the controls fixed. Dynamic stability is the response of an aircraft to transient control inputs. Dynamic stability can range from convergent to divergent, depending on whether a control input results in a new, fixed attitude or requires additional control input to regain stable flight. In these terms, all succesful WWI aircraft had acceptable static stability in order to go into service, but dynamic stability was generally negative. As has been pointed out, rigging of the individual ship was a vital factor and 3 axis trim didn't exist. Longitudinal trim by tailplane incidence adjustment was as close as it got and few types had it. Also lacking were trim tabs, centering springs and mass balance for the control surfaces, all later developments. Another adverse factor was the flexible structure of the flying surfaces which caused unpredictable movement under high loading (aeroelasticity). Those rare documented cases of planes settling down intact with dead aircrew can only be explained by staticly stable airframes with the pilots body locking the stick in place. They certainly weren't the norm. Negative stability doesn't necessarily make a plane unflyable. Within limits, its a useful feature for maneuverability. Its only when the case called divergence that makes a plane uncontrollable. In this case, an initial input will require a counter input which will go too far in the opposite direction, which will then require another counter input which only makes the situation worse. Divergent dynamic stability is the main reason experimental test pilots can't buy life insurance. The original 1903 Wright Flyer had negative stability in all axes by design. This was why it only flew for one day. Later designs gradually extended the tail moment arms to attain longitudinal and lateral stability, although lateral stability was never fully achieved on wing warpers until Curtiss invented the aileron. Contemporary designs such as the F-16 and F-117 designs utilize intentional divergent stability to cut down weight and drag. They are only flyable by human pilots because computers add additional control input to maintain stability. The ultimate aerodynamic control element in such configurations is called a parachute, which has inherent static stability and neutral to positive dynamic stability. Unfortunately, WWI pilots had only limited use of the parachute. Eli Geher **************************************************************** CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision. Ambrose Bierce - The Devil's Dictionary ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:03:15 -0500 From: "Gerald P. McOsker" To: wwi Subject: Re: Using scalpels for modelling Message-ID: <3315CC62.31D8@wsii.com> Greetings all- In November of 1995 I was at the UK IPMS Nats and purchased a #4 scalpel handle and blade. I had noticed that our Britannic friends were using this in their modelling. When I got back to the States I ordered a #3 handle and blades from Micro Mark. I had always used the good ol Xacto with a #11 blade as my primary cutter. I was surprised to find how much more control I had with the flat profile scalpel handle and now use nothing else [except where I need a chisel pont or a saw point] On the other hand I found it impossible to find a source of blades for the #4 handle [which is significantly bulkier- good for cutting vacs out of the master sheet] I wrote to the manufacturer [Swann Morton] in England and they, in turn put me in touch with Romanoff International Supply Corp., 9 DeForest St., Amityville NY 11701 [1-800-221-7448] They take Visa. I had to order blades by the 100 but the cost [of the smaller #11 type blades] went down to 17.5 cents apiece which is a far cry from the 40-50 cents when buying in small quantities. They also order the #4 blades from England that I wanted. US types mught find it profitable to contact them. BTW- if anyone dœs buy from them- I purchased plastic blade extractors as a safety measure- they only come in boxes of 100 and can be reused- I will provide them free to anyone who sends me a SASE. Cheese ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:35:37 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Monday, 26 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just Message-ID: <33160C39.43AE@host.dmsc.net> 938. Fair day. Report came in last night that Germans have retreated to their fourth line positions along this front, known as the Hinderburg line, passing North and South just West of St Quentin and we were to go out this afternoon to verify it but couldn't leave the ground on account of the thick mud all over our aviation field. Was sorry not to have gotten out to-day as I wanted very much to get over the lines. Letters from Miss Mooney, Mrs Harper and a Postal from Paul Rockwell. Wrote to Bertha Wittlenger and Miss Edna Taylor. from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet **************************************************** Monday, Feb. 26, 1917 Report brought in last night that all along the British front as far south as the Somme River, the Germans had fallen back to their fourth line trenches without notice and we were among those designated to fly over their lines today to determine if they have done the same thing along this South Somme Sector. This afternoon three of us tried to get off the ground and couldn't do so at all on account of the mud. Bigelow turned his machine up on its nose and pretty well smashed. Parsons and myself didn't smash up but couldn't get out of the clutch of the mud. from the Flight Log of E.C.C. Genet, N-124 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:54:26 -0800 From: Graham Nash To: wwi Subject: Re: New Releases Message-ID: <199702271848.AA01891@egate.citicorp.com> Sandy Adam wrote: > > BTW I see in Scale Av Modeller that Waldo are supposed to be doing 48th > resin kits of 5F1 Dolphin & Brisfit & 29.95GBP each this year. > Actually, Hannant's in the UK has the Dolphin already, plus a couple of Eduard'd 1/72 Fokker D.VIII at GBP7.50. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:44:45 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Tuesday, 27 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just Message-ID: <33160E5D.1EB1@host.dmsc.net> Fair but clouded up by this afternoon. Parsons and I went out at 11:15 on low patrol along our lines. Parsons was obliged to return at 12 on account of motor trouble but I stayed out until 1 o'clock. Very cloudy and I got shelled quite heavily over Roye. Went into St Just this afternoon to get a hair cut. Some of the others came in and we had drinks in one of the cafes. Felling rather tired and discouraged today. Wish I would hear from my beloved sweetheart. from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ************************************************* Tuesday, Feb. 27, 1917 Parsons and myself left at 11:15 on a low patrol flight along our lines. We flew around Roye and Tilloly. Parsons had to return at 12 o'clock on account of motor trouble but stayed myself until 1 o'clock and had exciting time fooling Boche artillery over Roye by keeping just within the dense clouds at 1800 meters coming down every few seconds to take a look at their territory and dodging up again into the mist to get out of their sights. Motors running excellently and made 1350 rpm in a straight line of flight. Was mighty pleased with it. We were able to leave the ground today on part of the field and I made a dandy landing. Time: 2 hours Height 2000 meters from the Flight Log of E.C.C. Genet, N-124 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 08:52:24 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Lozenge application techniques Message-ID: <199702271652.AA28642@ednet1.orednet.org> Charles writes: >Joseph Gentile writes: >>I've run into a little snag whilst laying on the lozenge for my Hannover and >>I hoped that I could solicit some help from the group. I am having problems >>applying the lozenge decals to the separate/detached control surface items >>(i.e) ailerons. >> >>I have tried applying a cut "rectangular" sheet over the part and trimming >>when dry. That didn't work. I also tried cutting a piece from a >>photocopied template that was in the rough shape of the part I wanted to >>cover. No luck here either. So, before I waste a lot of this schtuff what >>other options do I have? >> >>Thanking you all in advance for your consistent help, > > > Are you applying this decal to bare plastic, or is it painted ? Your >problems sound like the former. The decal needs a surface with some >"tooth" to it, i.e. some very fine irregularity to the surface to which the >glue of the decal can grip. Sound advice - as an additional "trick", pick a paint color which matches one of the lozenge decal colors. That way, small gaps which may occur in applying the decal are less noticiable. In so far as cutting the decal to fit, try this trick. 1) Put a piece of "magic tape" over the aileron and push it down well so that it conforms to any curves, etc. 2) Use a soft lead pencil to do a "rubbing" of the aileron on the tape. 3) Remove the tape and stick it on a thin (.05) styrene sheet. 4) Cut the styrene around the aileron outline with scissors, creating a template in styrene. 5) Turn the template over, lay it on the BACK side of the decal sheet and trace around the template with a soft pencil. 6) Using scissors, cut out the decal on the traced lines. Note the importance of flipping the template over before tracing the lines on the back of the decal - failure to flip will give ya' the mirror image of what ya' really want But, this technique will give you a piece of decal that exactly matches the aileron. (Well, it may be just a tad over-sized because of the thickness of the pencil line when you traced around the template on the back of the decal. A quick trial fit BEFORE placing the decal in water will revel any problems in this regard and you can trim just a smidge more if necessary.) Hope this is useful. Cheers and all, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:21:42 -0600 (CST) From: Joseph Gentile To: wwi Subject: Re: Lozenge application techniques Message-ID: <199702272121.PAA15268@Walden.MO.NET> > Are you applying this decal to bare plastic, or is it painted ? Your >problems sound like the former. The decal needs a surface with some >"tooth" to it, i.e. some very fine irregularity to the surface to which the >glue of the decal can grip. > Unpainted resin...This makes sense. The resin control surfaces are the only parts that I did not paint and the only parts that I am having trouble with in regards to the lozenge. Thank you, JG >Charles > >hartc@spot.colorado.edu > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 22:38:41 +0100 (MET) From: knut.erik.hagen@login.eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) To: wwi Subject: Re: Nieuport request Message-ID: <199702272138.WAA18054@login.eunet.no> Matt, I have made negatives from an album originally belonging to the Chief of the Naval Flying School in Norway. While learning to fly in Germany 1913, he gathered information on aircraft that could be used by the Naval Air Arm. There is a picture of what has been identified as a Nieuport Hydro. It shows the plane on the water, with the front toward us and the Stbd. wing a bit closer to the camera than the other. Good quality picture. Are you interested in a print of this picture? BRgds Knut Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >I'm looking for any and all information on the Nieuport >Seaplane. The Winter 1996 issue of OtF has a small >article on the first sqadron of the French Naval Aviation, >and there are some great photo's there. However, I want >more, in hopes of enhancing some research. >I am going to wait for the French tome, and hope that it >includes something on this plane in that. It appears to >me to be a Nieuport IV two-seater with floats. However, >there also appears to be subtle differences. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:33:09 +0100 (MET) From: alfb@sn.no (Alf Bakken) To: wwi Subject: Re: Nieuport request Message-ID: <199702272233.XAA01078@mail2.sn.no> >I'm looking for any and all information on the Nieuport >Seaplane. The Winter 1996 issue of OtF has a small >article on the first sqadron of the French Naval Aviation, >and there are some great photo's there. However, I want >more, in hopes of enhancing some research. > >I am going to wait for the French tome, and hope that it >includes something on this plane in that. It appears to >me to be a Nieuport IV two-seater with floats. However, >there also appears to be subtle differences. > I can recommend the book "Royal Navy Shipboard Aircraft developments 1912-1931" by Dick Cronin and published by Air-Britain. The book has chapters on the operation of these aircraft in the eastern Mediterranean. There are also several interesting photos and one line-drawing (side-view only). If you are interested, just e-mail me and I'll try to help with further info. Alf Alf Bakken Smalgangen 21, 0188 OSLO. Norway. Tlf. 22 17 00 07. E-mail: alfb@sn.no ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:02:46 -0500 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Looking for Bob Message-ID: <33161296.6B73@conted.gatech.edu> Gents, Has anyone been in contact with Bob Mills lately? I tried to place a book order with him more than a week ago but haven't gotten a response. TIA Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:57:23 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Nieuport request Message-ID: <199702280057.AA13169@ednet1.orednet.org> Someone wrote (sorry, I dumped the original message): >>I'm looking for any and all information on the Nieuport >>Seaplane. The Winter 1996 issue of OtF has a small >>article on the first sqadron of the French Naval Aviation, >>and there are some great photo's there. However, I want >>more, in hopes of enhancing some research. >> >>I am going to wait for the French tome, and hope that it >>includes something on this plane in that. It appears to >>me to be a Nieuport IV two-seater with floats. However, >>there also appears to be subtle differences. There are a couple short articles in "Before the Aircraft Carrier" by R D Layman on the operations of these floatplanes off "Foudre" and "Campinas" in the Mediterranean plus a couple photos of a Nieuport VI being operated from "Campinas." As an interesting aside, Layman indicates the Nieuports had originally been ordered for Turkey but were taken over by the French Navy with the outbreak of the war. Cheers, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:01:59 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702280106.UAA09901@newman.concentric.net> Tom writes: > Without jumping into this fistfight, I'd just like to offer a comment by > a pilot of a replica Thomas-Morse S-4C. He said that flying it was like > "trying to balance on an inverted cone." Grampa Ferris hated the T-Ms with a passion even after 60 years. It was the only type on which he ever expressed an opinion--positive or negative (and in this case, "obscenity" is closer to the truth than "opinion"). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:33:47 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: <199702280138.UAA00655@newman.concentric.net> Re the following and an earlier post on trim wheels in Strutters: > [and I'm still trying to check out the reference to in-flight > trimming for the Bristol fighter. That's nothing I've ever > seen reference to before but I am continually surprised when > dealing with WW1 aviation. That's one of the things that makes > this particular line of investigation fun! :-) ] Are we sure these wheels and/or levers were tail trimmers? I vaguely remember seeing something of the sort in the "correct" position for a WW2 fighter and finding out it was for something else entirely (adjusting the seat height or something). Afraid I can't be more specific. Also, if they are tail trimmers, are we sure they are original and not something added to make a post-Great War sporster or training Brisfit less hair-raising for a later, milk-fed generation unused to the vagaries of real airplanes? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 21:55:19 -0400 (AST) From: Alberto Rada To: wwi Subject: Re: Looking for Bob Message-ID: <199702280155.VAA26935@fw.true.net> At 06:14 PM 27-02-97 -0500, you wrote: >Gents, > Has anyone been in contact with Bob Mills lately? I tried to place a >book order with him more than a week ago but haven't gotten a response. >TIA > Carlos > Me too , I also tried to place a book order, but no response, so if anybody gets in touch, let him know that we are eagerly looking for him SALUDOS ALBERTO ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 447 *********************