WWI Digest 448 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) by Shane Weier 2) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by Shane Weier 3) Re: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 4) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 5) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by Shane Weier 6) Re: New Releases by lothar@ncw.net (mark) 7) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 8) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by Shane Weier 9) RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) by Shane Weier 10) RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) by "Gerald P. MCOSKER" 11) Wednesday, 28 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just by "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" 12) RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident by "Rob " 13) Eduard Pfalz by Carlos Valdes 14) Re: Nieuport request by mbittner@juno.com 15) Re: Nieuport request by mbittner@juno.com 16) Re: Eduard Pfalz by Alberto Rada 17) Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability by Sandy Adam 18) RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) by gspring@ix.netcom.com 19) Re: Lozenge application techniques by gspring@ix.netcom.com 20) Re: New Releases by mbittner@juno.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:56:09 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) Message-ID: Rob, >>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. Oh yes, I'm sure. There are two cables which pass alongside the observers cockpit to the tail unit and operate a mechanism which raises and lowers the leading edge of the tailplane around the hinge point at the elevator line.. And there's a seat adjustment lever as well. Both are visible in the RAF museums Biff, which has one side of the fabric removed >>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? There's a visible slot for the vertical movement of the leading edge spar of the tail on many period photos of Biffs. Part of the mechanism protrudes from the fuselage top inside the longerons above this point. For further description, I'll need to go look at my file I'm afraid Regards Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:17:48 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'Peter Kilduff'" Cc: "'wwi'" Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: Peter, I've just ahd a quick look and will take the liberty of copying this back to the list >>>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 largely 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. > >>. . . and, yes, I'd be interested in learning details about this incident. >>if it's in Cutlack's book _The Australian Flying Corps_, just refer me to >>the page number and I'll take it from there. It *is* in Cutlack, pages 203-205 of my paperback edition For those not in the know, Cutlack is Volume VIII of the Official History of Australia in WW1, and deals exclusively with the activity of the AFC For those who don't have it, I'll briefly summarise what it has to say. Lt. J.L.Sandy and Sgt H.F.Hughes were conducting an Observation patrol over Armentieres in RE.8 A3816 on Dec 17 1917 When attacked by six Albatros D.Va scouts. A furious dogfight ensued in which Alb D.Va D.5390/17 was damaged by the Australians and forced to land. Pilot and aircraft were captured. The battle continued while first one then another 3AFC RE.8 came to Sandys aid. After the conclusion of the 10 minute battle the Germans withdrew. One of the Re.8 crews then observed A3816 to be circling it's station in a flat left hand turn, and assuming it had returned to it's task, left the scene. When Sandy and Hughes did not return by nightfall a search was started, and they were subsequently found, dead in their aircraft near the Bruay-St Pol Rd, 50 miles from their last known location. The aircraft had crashed (this contradicts what I said earlier, though I'm sure that I read that the aircraft was not damaged seriously) after running out of fuel, at about 3pm. The throttle was wide open and the observers stick had not been shipped. A post mortem conducted on Sandys and Hughes revealed that both had probably been killed by one bullet, which went through Hughes lungs and lodged in Sandys head. killing him instantly. Because of their long one sided battle against odds, recommendations for the award of the Military Cross and Distinguished Conduct Medal respectively had been prepared before they were found dead. Of course, they were never awarded. This incident is also mentioned in The Sky Their Battlefield, Henshaw (only about 3 lines though) Men and Machines of the Australian Flying Corps 1914-1919, Schaedel WW1 Survivors, R.L.Rimmell Why in Rimmell? Because the Albatros now resides in the aircraft hall of the Australian War Memorial, Canberra Hope this helps, or is of interest >Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 20:43:18 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) Message-ID: <199702280443.AA10990@ednet1.orednet.org> Shane Weier wrote: >>>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. >Oh yes, I'm sure. There are two cables which pass alongside the >observers cockpit to the tail unit and operate a mechanism which raises >and lowers the leading edge of the tailplane around the hinge point at >the elevator line.. >And there's a seat adjustment lever as well. Both are visible in the >RAF museums Biff, which has one side of the fabric removed >>>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? >There's a visible slot for the vertical movement of the leading edge >spar of the tail on many period photos of Biffs. Part of the mechanism >protrudes from the fuselage top inside the longerons above this point. >For further description, I'll need to go look at my file I'm afraid Thanks for pointing this out. After squinting a bit at my photos of the RAF Museums F.2B, I can see the little doohickey protruding above the fuselage and can trace the control wires for this doohickey as well. And, the little doohickey appears on the photos of the Shuttleworth Trust's F.2B as well - so it does appear that these two aircraft have an in-flight trimmable horizontal tail surface. BUT (and there is always a but, isn't there) looking at the photos of the WW1 F.2b's, I can't find the doohickey - not on any photos! And, looking further, I can find the doohickey on some, but not all of the post-war F.2B photos. And, checking further, I find that the Shuttleworth Trust's F.2B had, at various times been rebuilt to Mk II and MK III configuration while the RAF Museum's Bristol fighter was supposedly assembled from _six_ different airframes, origin unspecified but it does seem somewhat more likely than not that any surviving airframes would have been of the post-war Mks II, III, or IV varieties rather than pristine WWI F.2B's So I advancing the possibility that, perhaps, the in-flight trimmable tail plane was a post-war innovation, introduced with the Mk II or perhaps Mk III modifications/production? (Apparently all the Mk II's were modifications of existing F.2B airframes while the Mk. III's were a combination of new production and modification of existing airframes.) Just a thought, for what it is worth. 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 21:00:32 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: <199702280500.AA18669@ednet1.orednet.org> Shane writes: >It *is* in Cutlack, pages 203-205 of my paperback edition >For those who don't have it, I'll briefly summarise what it has to say. > >Lt. J.L.Sandy and Sgt H.F.Hughes were conducting an Observation patrol >over Armentieres in RE.8 A3816 on Dec 17 1917 When attacked by six >Albatros D.Va scouts. A furious dogfight ensued in which Alb D.Va >D.5390/17 was damaged by the Australians and forced to land. Pilot and >aircraft were captured. -story snipped_ An interesting story, no doubt, but it certainly fails as a demostration that an RE.8 could fly 50 miles with two dead crew members at the controls. It would seem equally, if not more, likely that Sandy and Hughes _did_ survive the initial dogfight and, after the Germans broke off the fight, returned to their original mission as their squadron mates surmised. Their fatal wounds could easily have been suffered in a later, unobserved engagement with German fighters (or even a lucky bullet from a ground gunner) some distance from the first engagement at a location much closer to the actual crash site. And, I wouldn't place too much credence in the single "magic bullet" theory - forensic pathology was pretty much an unknown science in 1917 and, to the extent it was not, darn few army doctors had either the training or the inclination to practice it. Remember all the confusion about MvR's wounds and he certainly received a more thorough post-mortem than did two relatively obscure RFC aviators. 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: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 14:32:45 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: Bill, >>It would seem equally, if not more, likely that Sandy and Hughes _did_ >>survive the initial dogfight and, after the Germans broke off the >>fight, returned to their original mission as their squadron mates >surmised. Well, yes, but I summarised the account and omitted to say is that the first crew to come to their aid had tried to get there attention for some time and failed before deciding that Sandy had gone back to what he was doing and going on their own way. AND that Hughes radio transmissions had stopped at that time and never recommenced. >Their fatal wounds could easily have been suffered in a later, unobserved >engagement with German fighters (or even a lucky bullet from a >ground gunner) some distance from the first engagement at a location >much closer to the actual crash site. Cool, but why did they fly around until they ran out of fuel completely before this mythical engagement? And in a direction far removed from their aerodrome. Sandy was an experienced pilot and well familiar with his sector, so I'd judge him unlikely to go that far wrong on a fine day. >And, I wouldn't place too much credence in the single "magic bullet" >theory - forensic pathology was pretty much an unknown science in >1917 and, to the extent it was not, darn few army doctors had either the >training or the inclination to practice it Hell, I don't disagree with that either. But .... however dopey and untutored the doctor was I bet he could accurately determine that a bullet through the brain would have stopped Sandy actually *flying* the plane. So unless he got it at 3pm the plane got there by itself. BEFORE I get caught up in the great bullshit session about whether or not WW1 aircraft had autopilots or whatever it is... please note that my original response was just to a question by Brad regarding whether anyone had heard a story of an aircraft flying itself. I have. It's recorded in the official history whether true or not (and on balance I happen to think that's the way it happened) and I have now passed the information on to Peter K., who asked for it, and to the list, who might be interested. Regards Shane (who now retires from the fray to allow those who care to argue on) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:46:36 -0800 (PST) From: lothar@ncw.net (mark) To: wwi Subject: Re: New Releases Message-ID: <199702280746.XAA28567@concord.televar.com> On 02/27, Sandy advised us: >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. A Halb. DII from BLUE MAX??? YEEEEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!! Sounds like someone over there's been listening! :-) Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 23:51:51 -0800 From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: <199702280751.AA23475@ednet1.orednet.org> Shane wrote, in our last episode: > >Bill, >>>It would seem equally, if not more, likely that Sandy and Hughes _did_ >>>survive the initial dogfight and, after the Germans broke off the >>>fight, returned to their original mission as their squadron mates >>surmised. > >Well, yes, but I summarised the account and omitted to say is that the >first crew to come to their aid had tried to get there attention for >some time and failed before deciding that Sandy had gone back to what he >was doing and going on their own way. AND that Hughes radio >transmissions had stopped at that time and never recommenced. What? Why would they be trying to get their attention? And how? Firing Very pistols? Waving of arms? Shouting "halloo, there"? Except for the Very pistol alternative, the other possibilities don't seem particularly promising. And, the lack of radio communication seems particularly unpersuasive. Unless they were on an artillery spotting mission, they would not have been in frequent (or even any) radio contact with the ground, and, in any case, WW1 radios were notoriously unreliable. The lack of radio contract would, I suspect, be more the norm than the exception. >>Their fatal wounds could easily have been suffered in a later, unobserved >>engagement with German fighters (or even a lucky bullet from a >>ground gunner) some distance from the first engagement at a location >>much closer to the actual crash site. > >Cool, but why did they fly around until they ran out of fuel completely >before this mythical engagement? And in a direction far removed from >their aerodrome. Sandy was an experienced pilot and well familiar with >his sector, so I'd judge him unlikely to go that far wrong on a fine >day. Did they run out of fuel? Was the wreckage discovered with empty tanks? Were those tanks intact after the crash so we can be certain they were empty at the time of impact rather than being ruptured by the crash and the gasoline subsequently leaking out? How do we know Sandy was an "experienced pilot" who was unlikely to get lost? Granting, for the sake of discussion that the crash site was "far removed" from their aerodrome, was it "far removed" from their assigned mission flight plan? And, heck, Billy Bishop apparently got well and truly lost from his assigned flight plan on more than one occasion - why could not an aviator of less stature suffer the same fate? >>And, I wouldn't place too much credence in the single "magic bullet" >>theory - forensic pathology was pretty much an unknown science in >>1917 and, to the extent it was not, darn few army doctors had either the >>training or the inclination to practice it > >Hell, I don't disagree with that either. But .... > >however dopey and untutored the doctor was I bet he could accurately >determine that a bullet through the brain would have stopped Sandy >actually *flying* the plane. So unless he got it at 3pm the plane got >there by itself. No, Sandy could have received the "bullet through the brain" at any time _before_ the wreckage was actually discovered. Or, at least at any time before the aircraft would have theoretically have exhausted its fuel supply, if that was prior to the time the wreckage was discovered. >BEFORE I get caught up in the great bullshit session about whether or >not WW1 aircraft had autopilots or whatever it is... please note that >my original response was just to a question by Brad regarding whether >anyone had heard a story of an aircraft flying itself. Fair enough, although on the information provided, I am not yet willing to concede that this is, indeed, an example of an "aircraft flying itself." To me, it appears that it could, in fact, be an example of the PILOT flying the aircraft until the time he was killed or incapaciated, at which time the aircraft CRASHED! >I have. > >It's recorded in the official history whether true or not (and on >balance I happen to think that's the way it happened) and I have now >passed the information on to Peter K., who asked for it, and to the >list, who might be interested. I don't doubt the TRUTH of the account - I only question the conclusions drawn. And I recognize that they are not _your_ conclusions but the conclusions of others. But, they should be questioned, none the less. >Shane >(who now retires from the fray to allow those who care to argue on) As do I. Cheers to all, -- - Bill Shatzer bshatzer@orednet.org - "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:30:13 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: Bill, >>>Cool, but why did they fly around until they ran out of fuel completely >>before this mythical engagement? > >>Did they run out of fuel? Was the wreckage discovered with empty >>tanks? Were those tanks intact after the crash so we can be certain >>they were empty at the time of impact rather than being ruptured >by the crash and the gasoline subsequently leaking out? The report in the history says that the aircraft ran out of fuel. Not that the tanks were burst, or leaked, or punctured by a wee leprechaun determined to prove his point. Whether the accounts on which the history is based are correct I leave to your imagination, but having a tiny suspicion that those who wrote the account 80 years ago would be more acquainted with the affair than any surmise I might make, I'll leave it at that. And out of disinterest, drop the thread. Regards, Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:18:31 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) Message-ID: Hello again bill, Hell, we hardly speak for months and here we are sending mail all day. >You wrote: > >>>Are we sure these wheels and/or levers were tail trimmers? I wrote: >>Oh yes, I'm sure. There are two cables which pass alongside the But we can't leave it at that so: >>Thanks for pointing this out. After squinting a bit at my photos >>of the RAF Museums F.2B, I can see the little doohickey protruding >>above the fuselage and can trace the control wires for this doohickey >>as well. And, the little doohickey appears on the photos of >>the Shuttleworth Trust's F.2B as well - so it does appear that >>these two aircraft have an in-flight trimmable horizontal tail >>surface. > >>BUT (and there is always a but, isn't there) looking at the photos >>of the WW1 F.2b's, I can't find the doohickey - not on any photos! >>And, looking further, I can find the doohickey on some, but not >>all of the post-war F.2B photos. So lets stop pissing about and draw weapons that everyone on the list can see. To eliminate any suspicion that I'm confused about what control wires go where, or do what, I'll start with a quick description of the control runs on an F.2B. Elevator cables: All outside the fuselage, from a control horn outside either side of the pilots cockpit , crossing vertically to control horns above and below the elevators. Rudder cables: Exit the fuselage sides about half way up and 5 feet in front of the tailplane leading edge (LE), and going above the tailplane to horns either side of and midway up the rudder. Those of you with Datafile #4 Bristol Fighter, open to the centre page and those with Squadron Signal, #1137 Bristol Fighter in Action open to page 12. There are control wires exiting the fuselage at both edges of the top and bottom, just inside the longeron at about the LE of the vertical fin. These four wires run back to actuating levers attached to the longeron immediately above and below each tailplane LE. Shown independantly on the drawings in each book The photo on top right page 48 of the SS, show these levers to be simple right angles, pivoted about the angle, with the invisible arm trailing towards the rear, and connected to the tailplane LE by what appears to be a crude universal coupling. Thus, pull the top ones forward and the LE goes UP. Pull the bottom pair, it goes DOWN. These are connected to what looks like a dirty big old fashioned car handbrake lever on the starboard side of the fuel tank. This lever is NOT connected to the seat in any way ! So we have a cockpit control for tailplane incidence, a *crude* form of trim. I don't *know* that it's intended for use in flight, but if it's *not* why put it in the cockpit where the pilot might stuff about with it? Me, I'd use it to account for fat versus thin observers. >>And, checking further, I find that the Shuttleworth Trust's F.2B >>had, at various times been rebuilt to Mk II and MK III configuration >while the RAF Museum's Bristol fighter was supposedly assembled Yeah, yeah, you mean they aren't accurate models of a real one eh? >>So I advancing the possibility that, perhaps, the in-flight trimmable >>tail plane was a post-war innovation, introduced with the Mk II >>or perhaps Mk III modifications/production? (Apparently all the >>Mk II's were modifications of existing F.2B airframes while the >>Mk. III's were a combination of new production and modification >>of existing airframes.) Okay, so we take Datafile #4 and look at page 1. There is A3303, the first prototype F.2A. Clear as day, we see the upper port control cable as described above and drawn by Ian Stair and Joe Sewell Also visible on A-3346 on page 3, sometime in 1917, C-4823 on page 6 in November 17, F.4337 on page 7 in 1919, a captured machine in German markings on page 7, certainly earlier than Novmber 18 and so on. Or we have some early post war examples in US service on page 16. They have the same old levers etc, but the cutout for the LE spar is enlarged and highly obvious. Lest we leave out those without Datafile #4, the cables are visible on an F.2A on page 8 of the SqSig, the hole for the LE movement on C9837 pictured on page 11, the hole AND the universal couplings inside on F.2B B-1134 on page 13 in 1917, again on B.1206 on page 15, levers cable exits and holes on F-4844 and the underside levers on a flipped machine both on page 18. Plenty more too, but many require a touch of faith and we aren't allowed that, so these will suffice. Most of these examples are not post war aircraft (particularly the prototype), so I think we can dispell that possibility before it gains any credibility. >>Just a thought, for what it is worth. Mine as well. And a point on the whole subject of WW1 aircraft stability and controls as discussed on this list. We seem to have an argument which has reached the point where the sharpest eyesight will not see what will not advance its cause. I frankly don't give a damn if all the WW1 casualties were blown ass backwards into the Bermuda triangle to vanish without trace if it leads to specious arguments from fixed positions. Give a little guys or shut up. As will I. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:38:26 -0500 From: "Gerald P. MCOSKER" To: wwi Subject: RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) Message-ID: Shane sayeth- I frankly don't give a damn if all the WW1 casualties were >blown ass backwards into the Bermuda triangle to vanish without trace if >it leads to specious arguments from fixed positions. Give a little guys >or shut up. My but these colonials are touchy- Carry on lads- Gerry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 12:46:22 -0800 From: "Marian Hollinger, Bradley Omanson" To: wwi Subject: Wednesday, 28 February 1917, Raoenel near St Just Message-ID: <3317441E.57BA@host.dmsc.net> Very muggy day. Worked nearly all day long in fixing and decorating three shells of the famous French "soxiante-quinze" calibre which I intend to give to Major Parker. Put some pretty aerial designs on each one. They make very attractive souveniers and quite useful as well as ornamental because they can be easily be used as vases for flowers. A British Cunard liner was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat yesterday and 2 more American lives were lost. The U.S. doesn't seem to be taking the slightest action tho. The "Rochester" and "Orleans" have arrived at Bordeau safely after passing thru the blockade zone of the Boche submarine. They encountered no submarines but that certainly doesn't prove that the damned Boches are not laying in wait for the other Amercan vessels which they will torpedo without any warning. They'll let a few pass unmolested and then sink some unsuspecting ship a little later. from the War Diary of E.C.C. Genet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 11:28:05 +0000 From: "Rob " To: wwi Subject: RE: No. 3 Squadron, AFC incident Message-ID: <199702281832.NAA00036@cliff.cris.com> Re: > The report in the history says that the aircraft ran out of fuel. Not > that the tanks were burst, or leaked, or punctured by a wee leprechaun > determined to prove his point. Whether the accounts on which the history > is based are correct I leave to your imagination, but having a tiny > suspicion that those who wrote the account 80 years ago would be more > acquainted with the affair than any surmise I might make, I'll leave it > at that. I actually think it is an interesting thread. For what it is worth, WW1 was fertile ground for mythology. I used to work for a literary/scholarly journal. We published an article that traced a whole raft of generally believed, remarkably consistent accounts of feral soldiers haunting no-man's land. They were supposed to be the maddened remnants of wiped out units from both sides, reduced by horror to the level of cave-men. They were supposed to prey on the wounded of both sides, sneak into dugouts to steal food, and generally run around acting nuts. Whole battalions of gaunt, starving, savages were imagined. It's been a few years, but I seem to remember that the author traced all of these widely held "true sightings" to a single, fictional short story that appeared in a magazine or some such, suggestion, and the spectre of mutiny in the ranks during 1917 and 1918. Now, the plane flying itself has a powerful emotional appeal that goes well beyond the fact that it probably can happen at least occasionally. I was trained in medieval literature, and the faithful horse carrying its dead master home from the field of battle is almost archetypal. It has great appeal to the newspapers. Here in the US, I can remember several widely publicized instances of airplanes flying long distances with incapacitated pilots or no pilots (after ejections), even though there is nothing all that unusual in this in the age of autopilots. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:06:47 -0500 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi Subject: Eduard Pfalz Message-ID: <331756F7.1A7B@conted.gatech.edu> Guys, According to a post on RMS, the Eduard Pfalz D.III is indeed out and in modelers' hands. Finally! I hope the Albatros D.III does not take as long. Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:12:11 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Nieuport request Message-ID: <19970228.171449.13414.3.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:45:59 -0500 knut.erik.hagen@login.eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) writes: > 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? Yes, I am interested. Thanks!!! Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:12:11 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Nieuport request Message-ID: <19970228.171449.13414.1.mbittner@juno.com> On Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:05:50 -0500 Fportier@aol.com writes: > Yes, you'd probably be better off with a complete scratchbuild. > For one thing, the wingspan on the Russian kit is much too > short. The fuselage could be worse (too narrow but that is easy > to remedy), note that the floatplane version had two cockpit > openings instead of only one and prominent fairings or decking. > The floats are* very* odd, wide and flat with a long, > three-stepped keel and "winglets" in front. The tail float could > easily be converted from a small WWII-type drop tank. The best > photos are in the *Deauville 1913* book (wonderfully crisp and > detailed). The military version was very similar, apart from the > cockpit layout, once again. Two different types of engines and > propellers were used in the wartime version. The plans in the > Imperial Russian aviation book are of a rather different > version, as concerns the wing planform in particular. The > Nieuport IV wing had a slightly sweptback leading edge and the > military version had gaps at the leading edge wing roots to > improve visibility (width: two ribs). The article in *Avions* > states that at least one N.IV was armed with a machine gun > (hotchkiss?) as a makeshift fighter. Unsurprisingly, it was not > a successful adaptation and the guns were never fired in anger, > so you can just about forget about that fantasy of a Nieuport > fighting it out with "Wolfschen": French roundel carried under > the wings only, striped rudder and numeral on fuselage "Nxx". My > model is N 15. Building it was a challenge, but not my worst > modelling experience. Ilya Muromets was bad enough, probably > worst of all was the Meikraft Caproni because the PE parts were > terrible. Some of my scratchbuilt models were if anything > simpler to build. I only make 1/72 models (sorry folks!) > because of the sheer variety of available types. I reckon I must > have 250+ WW1 built-up models and more in store, the result of > some 30 years' modelling, let us say 20 years' serious > modelling. I consider myself as a collector more than a super > detailer, really. Photos of some of my models have appeared in > the Windsock gallery (Gosh! I'm sounding smug. I just want to > show what my modelling interests are). I like the thought of > having as many different types as possible. It's also nice to > have a line up of Spads. Wow. Thanks for all the words on the Nie.IV. I'll definitely only use the Russian kit as an "idea". I'm good you're only doing 1/72nd. I have a Meikraft Caproni; however, I will probably never build it, just because of the items you mentioned. If you find anymore on the Nie.IV, please let me know. Thanks! Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:20:50 -0400 (AST) From: Alberto Rada To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Pfalz Message-ID: <199702282320.TAA26975@fw.true.net> At 05:20 PM 28-02-97 -0500, you wrote: >Guys, > According to a post on RMS, the Eduard Pfalz D.III is indeed out and in >modelers' hands. Finally! I hope the Albatros D.III does not take as >long. > Carlos > Incredible news , wow SALUDOS' ALBERTO ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 23:52:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: WW1 Aircraft Stability Message-ID: On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Rob wrote: > Re the following and an earlier post on trim wheels in Strutters: > Are we sure these wheels and/or levers were tail trimmers? I vaguely Yes, check the Datafile. Contemporary pics as well as Hendon example. Haven't got it in front of me now but there are two large wheels - one to operate the air-brakes, the other to adjust tailplane incidence. Sandy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:33:18 -0600 (CST) From: gspring@ix.netcom.com To: wwi Subject: RE: Bristol Fighter controls (was aircraft stability) Message-ID: <199722819305966334@ix.netcom.com> On 02/28/97 08:38:07 Gerald wrote: >Shane sayeth- > I frankly don't give a damn if all the WW1 casualties were >>blown ass backwards into the Bermuda triangle to vanish without trace if >>it leads to specious arguments from fixed positions. Give a little guys >>or shut up. > >My but these colonials are touchy- Carry on lads- It's all that heat and humidity and lack of beer. Please, someone give Shane a 'Darwin stubbie'. Cheers! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0600 (CST) From: gspring@ix.netcom.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Lozenge application techniques Message-ID: <1997228201142619169@ix.netcom.com> On 02/27/97 09:40:42 Joe wrote: > >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? I like to use a gloss undercoat of light grey. Allow it to dry thoroughly and use a solvent (rubbing alcohol and distilled water mixed 50/50) to make the overlapping decal snug down around the edges. This may not work with an acrylic undercoat. Again, allow to dry overnight. Then trim your decal with 400 grit sandpaper by stroking (from the decal side only!) across the edge of the wing or aileron. Touch up any gaps with colors mixed to match. Try to get a sealant coat on as soon as possible and avoid handling the wing by the edges as this could cause the decal to flake away. HTH! Cheers! Greg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:25:57 EST From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: New Releases Message-ID: <19970228.202841.13438.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Fri, 28 Feb 1997 02:50:05 -0500 lothar@ncw.net (mark) writes: >A Halb. DII from BLUE MAX??? >YEEEEEEEEEHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!!!!!!! > >Sounds like someone over there's been listening! :-) Hey, if that was the case, then we would also have one from Pegasus in 1/72nd!!! Just as needed as the Blue Max - sorry, but I'm stingy about price, and those Skybirds 86 Halb's seem wayyy to pricy for me. Matt mbittner@juno.com ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 448 *********************