WWI Digest 1040 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 2) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by KarrArt 3) Re: Warspite by Geoff Smith 4) SAM & SAMI-June 1998 Issues by Graham Nash 5) Possible Find-German Fighter Units June 1917-1918 by Graham Nash 6) Re: watercolour pencils (was seams) by mbittner@juno.com 7) Re: Latest FSM by mbittner@juno.com 8) Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. by Joey Valenciano 9) Re: Woodman 3 by Joey Valenciano 10) RE: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 11) Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon by "Eli Geher" 12) Airplane drawings. by "Eli Geher" 13) Re: Latest FSM by "Sandy Adam" 14) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by "Sandy Adam" 15) Re: Big Mo! by "Sandy Adam" 16) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by "Sandy Adam" 17) dots- was Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. by KarrArt@aol.com 18) Re: Airplane drawings. by KarrArt@aol.com 19) Re: dots- was Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. by Joey Valenciano 20) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by Joey Valenciano 21) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by Matthew Zivich 22) Accuracy (was Aurora/K&B Brisfit) by Shane Weier 23) Aurora/K & B Brisfit etc by r_niles@juno.com (Russell W Niles) 24) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by r_niles@juno.com (Russell W Niles) 25) Pegasus Halberstadt Cl.II by Shane Weier 26) Re: Aurora/K & B Brisfit etc by mgoodwin@ricochet.net 27) Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit by mgoodwin@ricochet.net 28) Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:20:41 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon Message-ID: <199805270620.XAA07339@ednet1.orednet.org> James D. Gray writes: >Said Mr. Shatzer; > "Well, USS Oregon was hardly wantonly destroyed..." > > I must, respectfully, disagree. Perhaps the word "wanton" is misapplied, >but I cannot agree that it was the right course of action. I will grant that >some of my arguments are purely emotional in nature, but I do not grant that >they are unimportant for that reason. > It might be said that from a purely economic point of view that the >preservation and restoration of the relic was too difficult and too expensive, >indeed, from a practical point of view the preservation and restoration of ALL >relics of this sort from our country's past is entirely illogical. The >expensive restorations of the USS Constitution in the twenties and HMS Warrior >(restored from little more than a bare hull) more recently were, from a >practical point of view, pointless. Well, not to unduly prolong this off-topic discussion, but I must wonder about just what the historical value of a ship "restored from little more than a bare hull" is. I mean, the hull, perhaps, is original but everything else is the nautical equivelent of Disneyland - a fascinating recreation perhaps but certainly not something of actual historical value. It would seem a fibreglass reproduction of HMS Warrior would have every bit as much historical value as this "restoration" if it was as extensive as you indicate. The same comments might be directed towards USS Constitution. As I understand it, perhaps the keel and some of the structural bulkheads are orginal and everything else is a modern (or relatively modern) reproduction. The historical value of this sort of "preservation" is, I submit, just about nil and is about as historically useful and authentic as "Main Street" at Disneyland. If you find interest and value in historical reproductions, I'll not begrudge you that but that is _not_ historical preservation - it is historical re-creation. >Neither contributes anything substantive >to the Nation or the National Defense at all. Likewise, National Battlefields >and Parks serve no practical purpose, and logically there is no reason why the >Gettysburg Battlefield can't be made into a theme park or shopping mall. And these sorts of "re-creations" in the guise of "preservation" are the nautical equivelant of theme parks. They may appear "historical" but they are not. They are the equivlent of the infamous "George Washington's axe" which, while it has received three new heads and four new handles, remains the selfsame axe used by George Washington hisself. An interesting artifact, perhaps, but _not_ an item of _any_ historical interest or significance. >I do >not mean to imply that you would be in favour of the desecration of these >National icons. I just want to make the point that considerations of National >Pride and a love for historical artifacts and places will not allow me to >believe that practical considerations of this sort should take precedence over >preservation. Preservation is wonderful. But once there is little or nothing original left to preserve, I can't agree that reconstruction and re-creation is of any particular historical value. -snips- > I do not want to cause offense, Mr. Shatzer, I know your point of view is >both sincere and valid, but I cannot share it. No offense taken, of course. My goodness, if I became offended every time someone mantained an opinion contrary to mine, I'd be in constant high dudgeon - a most uncomfortable place to reside. Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 02:59:04 EDT From: KarrArt To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <79140bc8.356bb9b9@aol.com> In a message dated 98-05-27 01:51:32 EDT, you write: << Whew! So are these Archive Series books pretty easy to find? Cost much? I do, however, love Datafiles. And those can be found. E. >> I got mine from Zenith Books a couple of years ago and I think they're still pretty easy to find. New, they ran about $12-$15 US and each contained about 25-30 drawings. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 04:58:11 -0400 From: Geoff Smith To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Warspite Message-ID: <199805270458_MC2-3E47-8BD1@compuserve.com> >> imagine having the warspite or queen elizabeth or valiant moored in t= he > thames, or the lion or tiger. or orion or thunderer. or iron duke. o= r a = > dido-class cruiser or tribal-class destroyer ("the navy's here!"). = sigh...< Dear All, Have to stick my oar in here, so to speak. It's a bit vague in my memory but not long ago there was a WWI cruiser(?) still in service as a store (= ?) ship. I think in Belfast. Anyone know more? Regards, Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:40:09 +0100 From: Graham Nash To: World War 1 Modelling List Subject: SAM & SAMI-June 1998 Issues Message-ID: <199805270940.AA01525@egate2.citicorp.com> After a long wilderness period, the lastest issue of SAM comes bouncing back with a feature on the SE5/SE5a, 10 pages text and pics, + 6 pages of colour profiles (34 in total). Warpaint profile of the Bristol F.2b (72nd 3-view plan, 2* colour profiles). Reviews Blue Max 1:48 Camel OOB as Checkerboard Camel. Toko Pfalz D.XII. Latest(!) releases Eastern Express 1:72nd Morane-Saulnier 'I' Dakoplast 1:72nd Sikorsky S-16 By contrast, this month's SAMI has only the Aeroclub F.2B, Dakoplast S-16, Toko Snipe and Flashback MS-I in its Previews section, plus Blue Rider 48 scale decals for RFC/RAF Canada Jennies and Siamese Spads. TTFN ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:14:27 +0100 From: Graham Nash To: World War 1 Modelling List Subject: Possible Find-German Fighter Units June 1917-1918 Message-ID: <199805271014.AA02877@egate2.citicorp.com> Would the list member who wanted the attached book please contact me off-list, as I MAY have located a source for a copy-I have already managed to find one for myself. Regards ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 05:17:47 -0500 From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: watercolour pencils (was seams) Message-ID: <19980527.055936.14406.2.mbittner@juno.com> On Tue, 26 May 1998 22:45:37 -0400 Shane Weier writes: >Matt asks, in reply to my blathering: Thanks, Shane! I will have to hunt some down and get them a try. Matt Bittner _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 05:14:09 -0500 From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Latest FSM Message-ID: <19980527.055936.14406.1.mbittner@juno.com> On Tue, 26 May 1998 21:54:17 -0400 Ernest Thomas writes: >mbittner@juno.com wrote: >> >> On Tue, 26 May 1998 21:00:09 -0400 Ernest Thomas > >> writes: >> >> >Hey! Whats going on here? How come all you guys got the new FSM and >I >> >don't? I'm all paid up. What's the deal? >> >> What scale do you build in? ;-) >> >>Matt Bittner > > >I build the only scale that matters. ONE FORTY F---ING EIGHTH!!!;-) Ah-HA! Now you see why some of us received our issue before others...;-) Matt Bittner _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 19:37:59 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980527193759.00b3a9d8@philonline.com.ph> At 04:00 PM 5/23/98 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-05-23 14:32:15 EDT, you write: > ><< used a fabric overprinted with dots to give an overall grey colour>> > >I've run across mere mentions of this- but always just that- mere >mentions.Anybody out there know anything else? >Robert K. The Harleyford "Camo and Markings" book mentions Zeps covered in this type of fabric. ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 19:39:04 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Re: Woodman 3 Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980527193904.00bde0ac@philonline.com.ph> Hi Tom, did you post part 2 of this series? I didn't get a copy..... ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:20:21 -0500 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <01BD8959.0EF3DF40.panz-meador@vsti.com> E: check rec.models.scale, and do a "find in page" on "books"; i could swear (@#$!%&*!!) that i saw at least one, and possibly two, of these archive series volumes for sale. phillip -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Thomas [SMTP:ethomas6@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 12:53 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit KarrArt wrote: > Unfortunately, for the most part, the details are completly fictional- but- > good news- the joy stick featured in the Pfalz D III set is correct! Whew! So are these Archive Series books pretty easy to find? Cost much? I do, however, love Datafiles. And those can be found. E. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 10:52:03 -0500 From: "Eli Geher" To: Subject: Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon Message-ID: <199805271631.LAA02480@sh1.ro.com> Bill Shatzer wrote: > The same comments might be directed towards USS Constitution. As > I understand it, perhaps the keel and some of the structural > bulkheads are orginal and everything else is a modern (or relatively > modern) reproduction. The historical value of this sort of > "preservation" is, I submit, just about nil and is about as > historically useful and authentic as "Main Street" at Disneyland. > I'd take some issue with this specific statement. The Constitution has been maintained and overhauled rather then restored. There is still a large quantity of the original material and replacements have generally been based on original specimens. I realize that this is not always the case, but good restorers are very meticulous about how they go about their business. The work at the National Air and Space Musem is extensively researched and reproduction parts are matched as carefully as possible to prototype information. The New England Air Museum is just wrapping up a 10 year effort on a Sikorsky flying boat that was done at Sikorsky 's plant and mainly by retired Sikorsky workers with access to original documentation. I believe most of the skin was replaced due to corrosion and the configuration was backdated to the original configuration in which the plane entered service. On the other hand, I would put no credence in work done here in town at the Alabama Space and Rocket Center. Their standards just aren't that high. Eli Geher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 11:23:01 -0500 From: "Eli Geher" To: Subject: Airplane drawings. Message-ID: <199805271631.LAA02489@sh1.ro.com> The ongoing discussion on authenticity of aircraft drawings raises an important issue on accuracy. Who do you trust? The first thing they teach in drafting classes is that the dimensions need to be right. Not the drawing but the numbers. The industrial credo is "NEVER SCALE A PRINT!!". Linework is as likely as not to be more art then science. Engineering changes are often documenting by changing a number rather then redrawing the original. We, as modelers, violate this principle all the time. Often, we have no option, but I always wince when I read the statement that the pieces match the drawing perfectly. I just finished building the (off topic) Lockheed 14, which matches every error on Wylam's Hudson drawing and adds a few more for good measure. Fortunately, I had enough photos to correct the majority of them. While Wylam was a primary source for most of us during the early years of plastics, he was working to publishing deadlines and ground out a lot of drawings for which he had insufficient data. Unfortunately, there are many drawings out there for which the draftsman could only make a best guess. My own efforts (unpublished) along this line have the same problem. Even with access to factory documentation, there will always be gaps, since fabrication technique had as much to do with the finished product as design on WWI era aircraft. I've collected aircraft drawings for over 40 years, but when I build a model, I try to look at all available references, rather then rely on drawings alone. Eli Geher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:17:41 -0700 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: Latest FSM Message-ID: <199805271650.RAA29891@beryl.sol.co.uk> > What scale do you build in? ;-) > You're right Matt thanks - it had slipped under the carpet and got lost under a moth's wing. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:28:51 -0700 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <199805271650.RAA29894@beryl.sol.co.uk> > As a note of consolation, and despite what other folks have written, I DO > believe the kit is worth hacking around with. On the other hand the new Aeroclub Brisfit is the bee's knees! - and it matches against the Datafile Special plans perfectly(- should do too, since John used them to make the patterns.) The Aurora F2B (don't think K&B every released it) has very strange section wings - needs lots of work to even look normal - new kit wings are works of art. I suggest 35USD is much better spent for it than 20USD for Aurora - unless you're nostalgic for old kits. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:14:48 -0700 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: Big Mo! Message-ID: <199805271650.RAA29888@beryl.sol.co.uk> > Unless, of course, the Mighty > MO breaks loose from its tugs in the middle of the Pacific. Boy, wouldn't > that make for some great ghost ship stories! Its the bit when the big cake breaks loose and bumps into Steven Seagal and the music starts and, and....... Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:38:10 -0700 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <199805271650.RAA29897@beryl.sol.co.uk> > A decent starting place and, as there aren't a plethora > of 1/48 scale Brisfit kits around (nor any likelihood > of a new kit showing up any time soon), it may be the > "only game in town". Sorry to pick you up on this Bill but this is actually totally wrong! I mentioned the new Aeroclub model already which is probably their best kit I have seen so far. Not only this but the reason for Aeroclub finally bringing it to market was that Blue Max had announced their 1/48 F2B and John Adams said he was not prepared to let Chris Gannon get there first. However CG has also now completed his Brisfit and it will be in the shops very soon. So we shall actually be spoilt for good 1/48 Biffs now. For the record the Aeroclub model contains both large and small fins and tailplanes for Mk.I and Mk.IV. The BM contains alternative noses for RR or Sunbeam Arab engines. The former costs 23.75GBP, the latter 24.99GBP. I've got the first and will get the BM as soon as it comes out for its Arab nose version. Hopefully the old Aurora kits will lose their cult status and drop back to a few pounds each. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:16:40 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: dots- was Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. Message-ID: In a message dated 98-05-27 07:42:37 EDT, you write: << < used a fabric overprinted with dots to give an overall grey colour>> > >I've run across mere mentions of this- but always just that- mere >mentions.Anybody out there know anything else? >Robert K. The Harleyford "Camo and Markings" book mentions Zeps covered in this type of fabric. >> Yeah- that's one of the few places I've seen this mentioned. I'm probably not crazy enough to ever try and model this, but since it is a mystery to me, these printed dots pique my interest! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 13:16:42 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Airplane drawings. Message-ID: <6710c1e9.356c4a7b@aol.com> In a message dated 98-05-27 12:33:35 EDT, you write: << The first thing they teach in drafting classes is that the dimensions need to be right. Not the drawing but the numbers. The industrial credo is "NEVER SCALE A PRINT!!". Linework is as likely as not to be more art then science. Engineering changes are often documenting by changing a number rather then redrawing the original..... Fortunately, I had enough photos to correct the majority of them......... Even with access to factory documentation, there will always be gaps, since fabrication technique had as much to do with the finished product as design on WWI era aircraft. I've collected aircraft drawings for over 40 years, but when I build a model, I try to look at all available references, rather then rely on drawings alone. Eli Geher>> Absolutely. WW I Aero sometimes prints dimensioned drawings- and these are a great start, but even with these, photos, photos, and more photos are still needed.Details especially are better seen in photos than drawings, and WW I aircraft are loaded with little doo-hickeys that stick out here and there. For smaller models, 1/48 and below, laying parts on a drawing might be sufficient, and it is a quick method for checking the general accuracy of a kit. When I built my 1/32 Gotha ( more on this later today) I used the Datafile drawings and a set from Harry Woodman- both sources usually thought of as being accurate. But there are differences, and staring at heaps of photos helped resolve some of these. Now let's consider how one individual machine differed from its nieghbor on the production line! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:48:14 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Re: dots- was Re: Woodman articles on German national markings. Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980528024814.006f8e3c@philonline.com.ph> ><< < used a fabric overprinted with dots to give an overall grey colour>> > > >I'm probably not >crazy enough to ever try and model this, but since it is a mystery to me, >these printed dots pique my interest! >Robert K. Lay some mesh P-etch onto the surface and spray the black over that to create the dots. ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 02:54:18 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980528025418.006f8e3c@philonline.com.ph> >On the other hand the new Aeroclub Brisfit is the bee's knees! - and it >matches against the Datafile Special plans perfectly(- should do too, since >John used them to make the patterns.) > >I suggest 35USD is much better spent for it than 20USD for Aurora - Is the Aeroclub Brisfit available NOW? Where can one be bought in the UK? US? ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@pusit.admu.edu.ph sitarist Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 15:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew Zivich To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: I used this book also for renovating my old Aurora a few years ago. I did not do too much by way of changing the body, etc. though I did stagger the wings top over bottom according to the Scale Drawings. Most of my renovating concerned rigging, horns, etc., since the original model had little in the way of fine detail. (BTW, the guns were a caricature of the real thing.) Matt Z. On Wed, 27 May 1998, Ernest Thomas wrote: > KarrArt wrote: > > > > > If you mean the Scale Drawings book with the infamous Wylam drawings- that's > > the set that the kit was originally based on. The are things in those drawings > > completely fabricated, and the outline itself is pretty bad, especially the > > Glad you brought that up. Until I got on this list, That book was my > bible. Then I hear all these negative comments about these drawings. > So I've been wondering exactly what was wrong with the drawings. > The cockpit arangment on the jenny is as right as rain. So if it's the > out lines that are so wrong, then this book can still serve as my main > reference. Because I don't do too much along the lines changing > outlines. Most of my research involves details. > thanks for clearing that up. > E. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 07:47:16 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: wwi Subject: Accuracy (was Aurora/K&B Brisfit) Message-ID: <199805272202.IAA28262@mimmon.mim.com.au> Hi all, Sandy says: >On the other hand the new Aeroclub Brisfit is the bee's knees! - and it >matches against the Datafile Special plans perfectly(- should do too, since >John used them to make the patterns.) Not all that long after Eli had said: >The ongoing discussion on authenticity of aircraft drawings raises an >important issue on accuracy. Who do you trust? and > Linework is as likely as not to be more art then science. Not to criticise Aeroclub, or Ian Stair, but if the Aeroclub Biff is a slavish copy of the drawings in the Windsock Biff Special, the happy modeller will have a few modifications to make. Not that I have any particular gripe about the outlines (I had better not, they match my scratchbuild comfortably well), but the accuracy of the detail on the drawings is suspect. For example, the two big cooling scoops on either side of the nose are drawn way too small on Stairs plans. I had wondered whether this was because there was variation in manufacture, but reference to many photos suggest Stair has it wrong. Same problem with the access holes over the magnetos. These *do* vary somewhat but the holes marked on the Stair drawings match no photos that I have for position or size. There are other minor blemishes. And all of these are really minor, though making those scoops undersize truly beggars up the impression of a Biff. However, the mere fact that they exist suggest that we should be no more and no less suspicious of the outlines than we would be of any other drawings. Many years ago I had a drafting tutor who endlessly repeated the mantra "Good draftsmanship is not a substitute for accuracy" Just because Stairs plans are the latest, and look the coolest, does NOT mean they are perfect. One last thing (and moot, in this case). Why the hell do modellers immediately drop the parts of a kit straight on to whatever drawings they have at hand? Who was it that decreed that the draftsman (maybe working alone, at home, from photos and a couple of key dimensions) is more accurate than the model companies draftsman/mould cutters etc. (who *might* have worked with factory drawings, had access to the real thing for measurements and so on) The drawings *might* be right, but it taint necessarily so ! Shane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:37:03 EDT From: r_niles@juno.com (Russell W Niles) To: wwi Subject: Aurora/K & B Brisfit etc Message-ID: <19980527.153737.10063.4.r_niles@juno.com> Greetings all. At the risk of starting something new...... Has there ever been a definitive listing of the Aurora / K&B molds(I know that they are the same) that actually made it to Monogram? I know the story about the infamous train wreck, and I know that some of the molds have since found their way to Glencoe, but there are other molds beside the SE5A, the Camel, the DIII (DV), and the Pfalz just to name a few that we have seen. What really happened to them? Does Monogram have them stored in some mysterious cave under Chicago? Or what? Also, don't forgt that IPMS Nationals is coming up in about 4 weeks. Hope to see some of you all there. Russ Niles IPMS 4450 r_niles@juno.com Too close for missles....switching to guns. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:37:03 EDT From: r_niles@juno.com (Russell W Niles) To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <19980527.153737.10063.3.r_niles@juno.com> Big snip Ernest wrote: > >Glad you brought that up. Until I got on this list, That book was my >bible. Then I hear all these negative comments about these drawings. >So I've been wondering exactly what was wrong with the drawings. >The cockpit arangment on the jenny is as right as rain. So if it's the >out lines that are so wrong, then this book can still serve as my main >reference. Because I don't do too much along the lines changing >outlines. Most of my research involves details. >thanks for clearing that up. >E. > Could I get a copy of the Jenny pages, and especially the cockpit info? I just picked up another Lindberg Jenny, to go along with the other two I have. The only thing I'm missing to be able to start on one of them is interior info. Thanks for the help. Russ Niles IPMS 4450 r_niles@juno.com Too close for missles....switching to guns. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 08:53:28 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi'" Subject: Pegasus Halberstadt Cl.II Message-ID: <199805272310.JAA28975@mimmon.mim.com.au> Gday all, Those of you who are paying attention will have seen the above model listed in my "nb" line a day or so back. I intend to complete it using the kit decals which, for those of you lacking the kit, are for an aircraft with a red nose, ending in red flames aft of the lower wing trailing edge. The aircraft also has a red disk with a white "5" on each fuselage side. I *don't* have any other reference for the aircraft other than the kit box. Can anyone direct me to a photo somewhere which shows this particular aircraft? Or better, scan one and email it to me? Aside from gaining some confidence that this marking applies to a *real* plane, I'm interested to know whether the loz fabric has coloured or loz tapes, and the most *probable* orientation of the 5 colour fabric. TIA Shane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 15:52:54 -0700 From: mgoodwin@ricochet.net To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora/K & B Brisfit etc Message-ID: <356C9946.6EA6@ricochet.net> Russell W Niles wrote: > > Also, don't forgt that IPMS Nationals is coming up in about 4 weeks. What's the date for this? I live in the Bay Area and should know, but I don't. > Hope to see some of you all there. I'll be there with my life savings. Thanks, Riordan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:08:37 -0700 From: mgoodwin@ricochet.net To: wwi Subject: Re: Aurora/K&B Brisfit Message-ID: <356C9CF5.6818@ricochet.net> Thanks to Sandy, et al, for the panel discussion on the various species of living and extinct Brisfits. > 35USD This is a mail-order price? >is much better spent for it than 20USD for Aurora - > unless you're nostalgic for old kits. Not necessarily. Just an unrepentant tightwad. But, since I've already pierced the power-tool price barrier/guideline (kits should not cost as much as power-tools, with the exception of hand-drills, electric toothbrushes and a few other devices which can go fo under $20.00) already for the Eduard Hannoveraner, I'll have to give the Aeroclub kit serious consideration. I've really got plenty of old kit projects as it is; Don't know how long it'll take me to dress up the Gotha and the old Breguet. They still need decals too... Cheers, Riordan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:24:30 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Off Topic; USS Oregon Message-ID: <199805272324.QAA09716@ednet1.orednet.org> Eli Geher writes: >Bill Shatzer wrote: > >> The same comments might be directed towards USS Constitution. As >> I understand it, perhaps the keel and some of the structural >> bulkheads are orginal and everything else is a modern (or relatively >> modern) reproduction. The historical value of this sort of >> "preservation" is, I submit, just about nil and is about as >> historically useful and authentic as "Main Street" at Disneyland. >I'd take some issue with this specific statement. The Constitution has >been maintained and overhauled rather then restored. There is still a >large quantity of the original material and replacements have generally >been based on original specimens. I don't think this is accurate. Remember that Constitution was rebuilt four times since its original commissioning - 1833, 1871, 1925, and 1995 plus a partial rebuilding in 1905. While no doubt the most recent rebuilding was up to stuff historically along the lines of what the NASM does with its aircraft, I have much less confidence than do you in the earlier rebuildings, especially those during the 19th century. Still, you might check out the document at: http://www.history.navy.mil/constitution/restore.htm for some of the things replaced and rebuilt during the ship's most recent overhaul. Particularly note the installation of the knees, strakes, and diagonal riders with components made of laminated wood due to the unavailability of modern timbers of the required size. The official USS Constitution webpage notes that the ship is "considered the original ship because she retains her original keel" - which leads me to believe that darn little _except_ the keel remains of the vessel which took HMS Java and Guerriere. Wood and metal fittings just don't survive 200 plus years of exposure to salt water and sea weather and typical19th century rebuilding techniques involved replacement of the hull sheathing, decks, masts - in short, just about everything save the sound portions of the inner hull "skeleton". No doubt that was the procedure followed for the 1833 and 1871 rebuildings at the least. The decks are _not_ the boards trod by Isaac Hull and Stephan Decateur and the hull sheathing is _not_ the oak boards which deflected British iron shot and led to the "Old Ironsides" nickname. Those are long ago gone. And, climbing down off my soapbox, I apologize most profusely for the off-topic discussion and promise most earnestly to say no more on this subject. Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1040 **********************