WWI Digest 821 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Aurora's accuracy by Matthew Zivich 2) Re: Inpact Bleroit kit conversion - Question by "Charles/Linda Duckworth " 3) Re: Inpact Bleroit kit conversion - Question by Matthew Zivich 4) Vickers Gun by "Tom Werner Hansen" 5) Rigging by bucky@mail.ptd.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) 6) Re: Rigging by KarrArt 7) Vickers Mk.I by "Tom Werner Hansen" 8) I'm backkkk by mbittner@juno.com 9) Re: 'The good, the bad and the Ugly' by "Charles/Linda Duckworth " 10) Re: I'm backkkk by KarrArt 11) mailing weirdness by KarrArt 12) Re: Aurora's accuracy by KarrArt 13) Re: mailing weirdness - as well by "Charles/Linda Duckworth " 14) Re: Vickers Gun by Bob Pearson 15) Re: mailing weirdness - as well by KarrArt 16) Re: Aurora's accuracy by John & Allison Cyganowski 17) Re: Aurora's accuracy by John & Allison Cyganowski 18) Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures by Andrew and Rebecca Hall 19) Re: Aurora's accuracy by Joey Valenciano 20) Re: Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures by Kevin Wenker 21) Re: Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures by KarrArt 22) Re: Aurora's accuracy by Bob Pearson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 13:38:58 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Zivich To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: On Fri, 26 Dec 1997, KarrArt wrote: > In a message dated 97-12-26 18:16:20 EST, you write: > > << Who can > forget the inaccuracies in the so-called Alb. D-III; the lower > wing/fuselage juncture of the Pfalz D-III; & the forward fuselage of >> > > The Albatros was also guilty of my pet pathological hatred- the wrong number > of wing ribs.But I still love 'em! I still find it easier to correct an Aurora > than deal with resin or vac. > Robert > Affirmative on that! I just "corrected" the aforementioned wing fairing on a (Glencoe/Aurora) Pfalz D-III into a D-IIIa. There's something more gratifying, I find, in creating your own model by renovating and improving upon an existing kit. Speaking of improving kits, can anyone give me a good description of how lower wing fairings look three-dimensionally on an Alb. D-III or D-III Oeffag? More specifically, since it's so difficult to imagine how they really look in pictures or in 2-D, are they flush to the fuselage or partially so, or what? Also what are the fairings made of: plywood or aluminum? Matt Z ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:11:56 -0800 From: "Charles/Linda Duckworth " To: Subject: Re: Inpact Bleroit kit conversion - Question Message-ID: <199712272010.OAA11447@mail.primary.net> Has anyone looked at converting the old Inpact/Pyro 1/48th Bleriot model to the 'Militaire' parasol version by replacing the kit's engine with a seven cylinder Gnome rotary; modifying the wing with a center section and changing the bracing and horizonal tail. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 15:25:32 -0500 (EST) From: Matthew Zivich To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Inpact Bleroit kit conversion - Question Message-ID: No, but let us know how it comes out. On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, Charles/Linda Duckworth wrote: > Has anyone looked at converting the old Inpact/Pyro 1/48th Bleriot model to > the 'Militaire' parasol version > by replacing the kit's engine with a seven cylinder Gnome rotary; modifying > the wing with a > center section and changing the bracing and horizonal tail. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:07:37 +0100 From: "Tom Werner Hansen" To: Subject: Vickers Gun Message-ID: <199712272104.WAA10675@d1o211.telia.com> Greetings all. After living it up for a couple of days, I found it time to do some penance for all the soft living, so I decided to have a go at the Vickers gun from Tom's WWi British guns set. In 1/72 that counts as something of a masochistic exercise. I do however need some help. (Not in finding the flyaway pieces, I've got trained fleas, bought at a closing down sale at a flea circus, to take care of that.) I find that my sources do not have good pictures of the rear end to be able to use all the pieces I suspect go there. Does anybody have access to some reasonable drawings or pictures they could e-mail me (snail mail would be too slow, I've set my mind on finishing at least the guns for the Nie. that I've been pestering people about (thanks Matt and others!). Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 16:51:11 -0500 From: bucky@mail.ptd.net (Mary-Ann/Michael) To: wwi, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Rigging Message-ID: <199712272151.QAA12697@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Well, the cast came off on Christmas Eve. Can't move the elbow completely yet, but well enough to go back to rigging the Ansaldo. Thanks for the trained spider. I'm returning him in the next post! Ciriously, no real WWI modeling stuff for Christmas presents...guess that means I'll have to treat myself. I did get a "Spotwith Pup" in 1/32 scale from Gearbox Collectible. Weird color scheme///Red outside on the Roundels, opverall deep blue top colors and cream underneath. Die cast metal. Thich struts, but overall, pretty nice. Mike Muth Back to two hands typing nb: 1/48 Ansaldo & 1/72 Albatros D-III (Oef) nu: 1/48 SE5a for the Maxwell brothers idea, I think ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 17:03:26 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: Rigging Message-ID: <3ad67d39.34a57b30@aol.com> In a message dated 97-12-27 16:49:54 EST, you write: << Well, the cast came off on Christmas Eve. Can't move the elbow completely yet, but well enough to go back to rigging the Ansaldo >> Welcome back- but we all knew you were lurking around the edges! Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:30:55 +0100 From: "Tom Werner Hansen" To: " Subject: Vickers Mk.I Message-ID: <199712272219.XAA14092@d1o211.telia.com> Greetings all. After living it up for a couple of days, I found it time to do some penance for all the soft living, so I decided to have a go at the Vickers gun from Tom's WWi British guns set. In 1/72 that counts as something of a masochistic exercise. I do however need some help. (Not in finding the flyaway pieces, I've got trained fleas, bought at a closing down sale at a flea circus, to take care of that.) I find that my sources do not have good pictures of the rear end to be able to use all the pieces I suspect go there. Does anybody have access to some reasonable drawings or pictures they could e-mail me (snail mail would be too slow, I've set my mind on finishing at least the guns for the Nie. that I've been pestering people about (thanks Matt and others!). Tom If this is the second time this comes up, my apologies, the first time it bounced back, and I don't know if got to the list. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 16:39:21 -0600 From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: I'm backkkk Message-ID: <19971227.163921.10854.0.mbittner@juno.com> FWIW, I am now back from vacation. Hope I didn't miss too much. :-) Unfortunately, no models from Santa, but I might get a couple from Matta...;-) Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 17:02:23 -0800 From: "Charles/Linda Duckworth " To: Subject: Re: 'The good, the bad and the Ugly' Message-ID: <199712272302.RAA02520@mail.primary.net> While traveling over the holidays to the two grandmother's homes; was thinking about a new thread for the list - am wondering what the group would put down as candidates for fighter aircraft flying in 1916 that would rank as the top fighter in the 'good', the 'bad' and the 'ugly' categories. nl: Benny Goodman ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:09:24 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: I'm backkkk Message-ID: <1ae94945.34a598b7@aol.com> In a message dated 97-12-27 17:42:44 EST, you write: << FWIW, I am now back from vacation. Hope I didn't miss too much. :-) Unfortunately, no models from Santa, but I might get a couple from Matta...;-) Matt Bittner >> Um...Matt Bittner..Matt Bittner.........Oh yeah, I think I recognize the name. (welcome back!) Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:09:11 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: mailing weirdness Message-ID: <1178594c.34a598b6@aol.com> In a message dated 97-12-27 17:22:24 EST, you write: << If this is the second time this comes up, my apologies, the first time it bounced back, and I don't know if got to the list. Tom >> For the last several days every message I've sent to the list has seemingly made it but they've also went somewhere else and been returned- I get the returned mailer demon form a non-existant address with a umaryland.edu suffix.Anybody else? I've not initiated a completely new message- in all cases I just clicked on "reply" and sent them offf as usual. Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:18:09 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: In a message dated 97-12-27 13:42:06 EST, you write: << I just "corrected" the aforementioned wing fairing on a (Glencoe/Aurora) Pfalz D-III into a D-IIIa. There's something more gratifying, I find, in creating your own model by renovating and improving upon an existing kit. >> Yep- know what you mean.The Pfalz really isn't as bad as legend would have it.Dealing with that fairing is a satisfying activity and all the other little contour deviations are not too bad.The top wing is pretty good.The main problem is the bottem wing- again my pet hate- but the old Lindberg Jenny comes to the rescue- its wings have the correct rib spacing so you can just slice a set of Pfalz wings from the Jenny,add the half ribs from sprue or whatever your favorite half-rib material happens to be and there you have it! Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 19:07:48 -0800 From: "Charles/Linda Duckworth " To: Subject: Re: mailing weirdness - as well Message-ID: <199712280106.TAA17262@mail.primary.net> For the last several days every message I've sent to the list has seemingly made it but they've also went somewhere else and been returned- I get the returned mailer demon form a non-existant address with a umaryland.edu suffix.Anybody else? I have also been seeing this come back from umaryland.edu, Charlie ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 17:18:21 -0800 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: Vickers Gun Message-ID: <01182127904537@KAIEN.COM> Tom, I scanned the drawings from the mini-datafile that Bill Bacon sent me, so if no one else has emailed them to you yet, I would be happy to pass them on. Regards, Bob Pearson ---------- > From: "Tom Werner Hansen" > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Vickers Gun > Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 16:08:26 -0500 > > Greetings all. > > After living it up for a couple of days, I found it time to do some penance > for all the soft living, so I decided to have a go at the Vickers gun from > Tom's WWi British guns set. In 1/72 that counts as something of a > masochistic exercise. I do however need some help. (Not in finding the > flyaway pieces, I've got trained fleas, bought at a closing down sale at a > flea circus, to take care of that.) I find that my sources do not have > good pictures of the rear end to be able to use all the pieces I suspect go > there. > Does anybody have access to some reasonable drawings or pictures they could > e-mail me (snail mail would be too slow, I've set my mind on finishing at > least the guns for the Nie. that I've been pestering people about (thanks > Matt and others!). > > Tom > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 20:11:23 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: mailing weirdness - as well Message-ID: In a message dated 97-12-27 20:08:27 EST, you write: << For the last several days every message I've sent to the list has seemingly made it but they've also went somewhere else and been returned- I get the returned mailer demon form a non-existant address with a umaryland.edu suffix.Anybody else? I have also been seeing this come back from umaryland.edu, Charlie >> Thanks for letting me know it's not just me.My message quoted above bounced back as soon as I sent it(well, maybe a minute later) Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:16:15 -0500 From: John & Allison Cyganowski To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: <34A5B66F.5D42@worldnet.att.net> Matthew Zivich wrote: > > > Speaking of improving kits, can anyone give me a good description of how > lower wing fairings look three-dimensionally on an Alb. D-III or D-III > Oeffag? More specifically, since it's so difficult to imagine how they > really look in pictures or in 2-D, are they flush to the fuselage or > partially so, or what? Also what are the fairings made of: plywood or > aluminum? > > Matt Z The infamous fairings are common to all "slab sided" varients of the Albatros (D.I, D.II, D.III). The best view of them that I know of is page 16 of Windsock Datafile #1, Albatros D.III This picture shows a clear view of the fuselage with the wings removed. The fairing was an airfoil shaped, flat or boss that that provied a mounting point for the lower wings. The airfoil shape is actually larger than the wing airfoil, and blends smoothly into the fuselage along its top edge. The bottom edge protrudes from the fuselage curvature to provide the flat surface for the wing / fuselage interface. The ends of the fairings are capped with metal (I don't know what kind - Was aluminum used in WWI?) and painted that gray/green color. It looks like RLM 02 to me but I don't have much color sense. A good modeling treatment of this feature can be found on the web page in Paul Howard's gallery. He did the Glencoe D.III and it look as though he just made the endcaps. It looks convincing enough to me. I am dying to see how Eduard treats this in their ne D.III! Regards John ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:20:44 -0500 From: John & Allison Cyganowski To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: <34A5B77C.4D8F@worldnet.att.net> Sorry, but I forgt to say that the fairings have a slightly different shape on the Oeffag ships. John ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 19:40:07 -0800 From: Andrew and Rebecca Hall To: wwi Subject: Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures Message-ID: <34A71B97.52C9@phoenix.net> Dear All: This is off-topic, but given the recent discussion over the phrase on the top wing of Bruno Stachel's plane, and the use of that term in 1917-18, this might be the forum to ask. . . . In the new movie Titanic, there's a scene in which Kate Winslet's character gives "the finger" to someone. It got a big laugh from the audience, of course, but did such a gesture have (more or less) its modern meaning in 1912? --------> Andy Hall ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 09:31:23 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971228093123.006b1a4c@philonline.com.ph> >Speaking of improving kits, can anyone give me a good description of how >lower wing fairings look three-dimensionally on an Alb. D-III or D-III >Oeffag? More specifically, since it's so difficult to imagine how they >really look in pictures or in 2-D, are they flush to the fuselage or >partially so, or what? Are you talking about the area of the fuselage where the lower wings attach? I think the wings were flush with the fuselage so you don't see any spars peeking out. The fuselage wall was perpencidular in this area and remember that the D.III had flat walls. > Also what are the fairings made of: plywood or >aluminum? The front and rear ends were aluminum. ********************************************************************* 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: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 21:29:42 -0600 From: Kevin Wenker To: wwi Subject: Re: Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures Message-ID: <34A5C7A6.D265DC55@interaccess.com> >From what I've read, this gesture was used even in the Civil War. Andrew and Rebecca Hall wrote: > Dear All: > > This is off-topic, but given the recent discussion over the phrase on > the top > wing of Bruno Stachel's plane, and the use of that term in 1917-18, > this > might be the forum to ask. . . . > > In the new movie Titanic, there's a scene in which Kate Winslet's > character > gives "the finger" to someone. It got a big laugh from the audience, > of > course, but did such a gesture have (more or less) its modern meaning > in > 1912? > > --------> Andy Hall ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:52:50 EST From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: Post-Edwardian Vulgar Gestures Message-ID: In a message dated 97-12-27 22:32:59 EST, you write: << > gives "the finger" to someone. It got a big laugh from the audience, > of > course, but did such a gesture have (more or less) its modern meaning > in > 1912? > >> This most expressive gesture dates at least from Roman times with the same meaning.Can't remember the several books I've read this in! Robert ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 20:07:00 -0800 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: Aurora's accuracy Message-ID: <04070007904751@KAIEN.COM> Joey wrote . . > Are you talking about the area of the fuselage where the lower wings > attach? I think the wings were flush with the fuselage so you don't see any > spars peeking out. The fuselage wall was perpencidular in this area and > remember that the D.III had flat walls. Correct, however right in front, and directly behing the wing, the fuselage section returns to the round shape. The fairings are to blend the flat wing attachment areas to the curved fuselage section on either side of it. There is a good article on this in Windsock 9/3: 10 by Harry Woodman Regards, Bob Pearson ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 821 *********************