WWI Digest 1122 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by "Paul Bourke" 2) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by "David R.L. Laws" 3) Re: Flashback W.29 progress report by "David R.L. Laws" 4) RE: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 5) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> 6) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by Dave Watts 7) ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile by "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> 8) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by KarrArt@aol.com 9) RE: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 10) Re: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile by TPTPUMPER@aol.com 11) RE: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by Shane Weier 12) Re: Toko comments and query (longish)... by Mick Fauchon 13) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by KarrArt@aol.com 14) Re: Vickers Vimy by Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton 15) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait by KarrArt@aol.com 16) Re: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions by KarrArt@aol.com 17) Early Mercedes deliveries to Fokker by Dave Watts 18) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait PLUS PG Books by Bob Pearson 19) Re: Early Mercedes deliveries to Fokker by Bob Pearson 20) Sierra Scale models email? by Joey Valenciano 21) Fokker myth? by Dave Watts 22) Re: Sierra Scale models email? by "Paul Bourke" 23) Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait PLUS PG Books by "Paul Bourke" 24) Re: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:42:28 +1000 From: "Paul Bourke" To: Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <199807220340.NAA00255@magna.com.au> Folks, I guess you could say I'm a junior member of the list ... so blast me if you like ..... To preface my comments: Since joining the list, the bulk of posts have been on topic. I've enjoyed the friendly atmosphere! There are few other places like this on the net (that I've found anyway) See Jeffs comments as an example. I relate the list to a room full of people who love to WW1 but also aren't afraid to goof off a little or share their thoughts on common interests .... I admit that sometimes things get a little out of hand but - hey - they are things some of us are passionate about. While the list has to have a charter I don't see that harm in a little off topic banter. Too many rules and regulations ruin it! ---------- > > 1. I will not start, nor continue an off topic thread. If I want to > partake, I'll go off line and spare everyone else my comments. This is a good idea - some of the threads go on for a while and have nothing to do with the era or anything close to it. Directed e-mail is sensible here. (I'm a muso too and have enjoyed the threads but understand that others may not). > > 2. I *like* the humour that lightens many of the listmembers > posts, but I'll never respond on list except in the context of > an on topic post - perhaps as a humourous aside in a review, or > comment on a review. I don't think this should be curtailed! This takes the sterility out of e-mail posts and is one of the things that list has that others seem to lack. > > 3. No "me too" posts. If I really want a xerox copy of an > article offered by someone I'll go off list and ask direct. > No more "me too" welcomes to new members either. > One or two members can respond on list, but if I wasn't > first ,I'll go off list. This is getting a bit pedantic .... > > 4 No one line answers with 50 lines of quoted text either. > Some of you guys have limited mailbox space. I really enjoy some of the information posted from others in this manner! Since my "library" is very limited, it gives me insight into what to go after. Let the guys with limited mailbox space let us know when they have problems and then lets make a rule! No one seems to be complaining about it at present .... (well, except for you Shane) > > 5 No drifting topics. If I change the subject in a post I'll > change the subject line too. For example > "Murderous Prussian Bastard (WAS Richtofens Sock Colours)" Good idea! > > 6. I won't talk about 60's bands on account of back then I was > sniffing glue for kicks and now I sniff it by accident. > Either way I forgot all about.........errr. As muso, I enjoy the "discussions" but agree this should be kept to a minimum or offlist. > > 7 I won't discuss Golden Age biplanes on list at all. Two years > ago we voted on making that era part of the list charter and > turned it down. Despite my liking Harts and Furies and fat > little Boeings with yaller wings, I'll take that off list after > the "feeler" message, just like we decided. Fair enough .... but again I don't see the harm in this. These old birds are often closely related to the WW1 aircraft that is on list. Everything is not always black and white. Maybe I'm biased here as I mainly model from the Wright Flyer to the end of WW1 aircraft. > > 8 I'll do my best to keep my sense of perspective. There will > always be off topic posts, and some should always be welcome > ("I'M A DAD !!" etc) > so I won't get all bitter when I see a brief exchange with some > list relevance. After all, this is meant to be fun for all of > us, and my being a tight arse can ruin others fun as much as > endless drivel would ruin mine. > > 9 Because I'm Australian, I don't have a constitutional guarantee > of free speech. Because I don't much like being thought a > member of the "Me First" generation I don't assume what > rights I do have outweight what responsibility I have for > others. So I'll never, ever, post anything I want to simply > on the basis that "I have a right to say whatever I want" I > *do* like you guys and want to be a good citizen, so even if I feel like > ripping a few arms off, I suppose you'll get a polite response. > I'm an Australian too - and a firm believer in free speech. I say be sensible and if you have to swear to make a point then @%^#%ing make if like this. Pretty much anything else goes. Well, that's my say ..... Paul. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:56:21 +0000 From: "David R.L. Laws" To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <35B5EF86.66B5@webtime.com.au> SHANE WROTE ... ( TOTAL SNIP ) ..... HEAR HEAR ! DAVID ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:59:57 +0000 From: "David R.L. Laws" To: wwi Subject: Re: Flashback W.29 progress report Message-ID: <35B5F05E.117D@webtime.com.au> YES PLEASE ! DAVID ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:14:11 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: RE: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions Message-ID: <199807220414.VAA24228@ednet1.orednet.org> Rob writes: >> Disintegrating-link belts? Not on the Vickers, SFAIK. The >> Vickers used fabric belts until discontinued by the British Army >> in the 1960's I think. Indeed, I understand that there are _still_ >> reserve units in the Indian Army equipped with Vickers MGs with >> fabric belts. -snips- >Ground guns, maybe. They may have retained fabric belts for various >reasons, perhaps just because they worked. Faric never worked well in >the air. So, I quote from Woodman who is quoting the >"'Supplement to Training Manual,' Royal Flying Corps, Part II, No. 1 >(General Staff, War Office, July 1916). >Articulated disintegrating link belt for Vickers guns (Copy of the >German pattern): I stand disabused then - you'll not catch me arguing often with Woodman. Still, what then was that elaborate two drum system on the SPAD VII (for instance) for if not for the front drum to hold the loaded ammo belt and the rear one to take up the expended belt? I had thought the MG on the SPAD was the standard Vickers MG (although the guns on the French SPADs where re-chambered for the French 7.7mm round). Oh well, ya' learn something all the time! :-) Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:15:32 -0600 From: "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980721221532.0070d218@mail> At 11:43 PM 21/07/98 -0400, you wrote: >Folks, > >I guess you could say I'm a junior member of the list ... so blast me if >you like ..... [snip] >Too many rules and regulations >ruin it! It's amazing how different people can see the same things so differently. My view is that the problems Shane adumbrates are not only real, but so really, really bad that I've thought about unsubscribing in the last few days. I don't have to time to sift through legions of off-topic and "me-too" posts and I don't have the mailbox space to store them. I thought that the list charter was clear. So here is a resounding seconding or thirding or whatever of Shane's sane motions. >---------- >> >> 1. I will not start, nor continue an off topic thread. If I want to >> partake, I'll go off line and spare everyone else my comments. [snip] >I'm an Australian too - and a firm believer in free speech. I say be >sensible and if you have to >swear to make a point then @%^#%ing make if like this. Pretty much anything >else goes. --------- Dane ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:22:57 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <199807220423.XAA18385@sam.on-net.net> Me too! Oops!, I just broke rule number 3., please don't take away my glue, and send a high energy wave pulse down my computer line. (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.) Best to all! Dave W. At 07:55 PM 7/21/98 -0400, you wrote: >Hi guys, > >I have just returned from a week away to >find a full third of the hundreds of messages were, to be diplomatic, >of little interest to me, and of no relevance to the list charter. > >Since Bill and Matt, both old hands, have both made comment I'd >like to add a few words from a four year denizen. > >Please feel free to delete this without reading, or flame me off list >but... > >The list, while still of good spirit, has been infected for a year now >with >an awful lot of off topic detritus > >I realise that I've been a bad boy in this regard myself, so, despite >the fact I've missed it by more than half a year, I'm making some >New Year resolutions: > >1. I will not start, nor continue an off topic thread. If I want to > > partake, I'll go off line and spare everyone else my comments. > >2. I *like* the humour that lightens many of the listmembers > posts, but I'll never respond on list except in the context of >an on > topic post - perhaps as a humourous aside in a review, or > comment on a review. > >3. No "me too" posts. If I really want a xerox copy of an > article offered by someone I'll go off list and ask direct. > No more "me too" welcomes to new members either. > One or two members can respond on list, but if I wasn't > first ,I'll go off list. > >4 No one line answers with 50 lines of quoted text either. > Some of you guys have limited mailbox space. > >5 No drifting topics. If I change the subject in a post I'll > change the subject line too. For example > "Murderous Prussian Bastard (WAS Richtofens Sock Colours)" > >6. I won't talk about 60's bands on account of back then I was > sniffing glue for kicks and now I sniff it by accident. > Either way I forgot all about.........errr. > >7 I won't discuss Golden Age biplanes on list at all. Two years > ago we voted on making that era part of the list charter and > turned it down. Despite my liking Harts and Furies and fat > little Boeings with yaller wings, I'll take that off list after >the > "feeler" message, just like we decided > >8 I'll do my best to keep my sense of perspective. There will > always be off topic posts, and some should always be welcome > ("I'M A DAD !!" etc) > so I won't get all bitter when I see a brief exchange with some > list relevance. After all, this is meant to be fun for all of >us, > and my being a tight arse can ruin others fun as much as > endless drivel would ruin mine. > >9 Because I'm Australian, I don't have a constitutional guarantee > of free speech. Because I don't much like being thought a > member of the "Me First" generation I don't assume what > rights I do have outweight what responsibility I have for > others. So I'll never, ever, post anything I want to simply > on the basis that "I have a right to say whatever I want" I >*do* like you > guys and want to be a good citizen, so even if I feel like >ripping > a few arms off, I suppose you'll get a polite response. > >Okay guys. I'm off to take my Valium. Feel free to use or abuse my >resolutions. >Or to take care of this place that feels like one of the best parts of >my home > >Shane > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:21:55 -0600 From: "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> To: wwi Subject: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980721222155.0070d218@mail> A few months back I saw an ad for the reprint of the SE-5a datafile. Does anyone know if this is still available, and, if so, what a reliable North American source would be? The last time I bought a Datafile it was from Roll Models, but their service was slow, and, oh, I don't know, I just don't trust a company that will not update their Web page. Anyway, I don't want to miss this one, or the Camel or RE-8 ones I see are also scheduled for reprint. ------ Dane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:23:47 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: As one who participated in last weekend's off-topic orgy, I hereby apologize, and mainly agree with Shane, especially about changing the subject headings when the topic shifts. I DO believe, though, that a hearty "me too" when it's to welcome new members is not only in order, but highly desirable- I don't mind going through these "me too"s at all. 'Tis only the polite thing to do. Otherwise, to limit them to only one or two postings is like inviting someone to a large party but only allowing them to meet a couple of people. Robert K. nl- nothing, on-topic or off. nb- don't ask ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:41:28 -0500 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile Message-ID: <01BDB501.15DF6A80.panz-meador@vsti.com> dane: i'd suggest you try sopwith hobbies, sopwithusa@aol.com or (305) 665-5730 (1600-2100 M-F EDT USA). while it't not shown in my catalog copy, i suspect it's due to the datedness of the catalog (feb '98). i highly recommend these folks. HTH, phillip -----Original Message----- From: D. Anderson [SMTP:2814823733@home.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:28 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile A few months back I saw an ad for the reprint of the SE-5a datafile. Does anyone know if this is still available, and, if so, what a reliable North American source would be? The last time I bought a Datafile it was from Roll Models, but their service was slow, and, oh, I don't know, I just don't trust a company that will not update their Web page. Anyway, I don't want to miss this one, or the Camel or RE-8 ones I see are also scheduled for reprint. ------ Dane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:46:43 EDT From: TPTPUMPER@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: ON-TOPIC: SE-5a Datafile Message-ID: Hi Dane! Though I haven't checked their website of late, I, to, experienced slow service on a Datafile order from Roll Models. I understand they cannot stock every item all the time, and things do sell out, etc., but they were very slow to notify me of any problems. In fairness, that was about a year ago, so I don't know their current level of service. On to the point: I have had very good service with Wise Owl Worldwide, in California. The several orders I placed with them arrived at my home (then in FL) within a week or so. Sorry, I don't have their contact info in front of me. If no one else supplies it, email me off-List and I will dig it out for you. Have Fun!! IRA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:55:25 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: wwi Subject: RE: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <199807220511.PAA25394@mimmon.mim.com.au> Robert, >I DO believe, though, that a hearty "me too" when it's >to welcome new members is not only in order, but highly desirable- I don't >mind going through these "me too"s at all. 'Tis only the polite thing to do. >Otherwise, to limit them to only one or two postings is like inviting someone >to a large party but only allowing them to meet a couple of people. No you have me wrong. If I was introduced at a party and ONE person welcomed me publicly, I'd then feel better if the other 100 said "Hello" personally, and not yelled it across the room, which is the correct analogy. FWIW my welcomes are still there, but I walk up and shake their hand *off list* instead of yelling at them on list in front of y'all. Paul said: (in reply to me) >> 4 No one line answers with 50 lines of quoted text either. >> Some of you guys have limited mailbox space. >I really enjoy some of the information posted from others in this manner! ...but he misunderstands me. I think it's absolutely wonderful to have people quiting great chunks of text from references or off list sources and wouldn't change a thing. What I think should NOT happen, is someone quote every word of someone elses long post and adding two lines of extra information. Trim it until we can follow the thread. Incidentally, some of us trim it entirely which makes it damn hard to follow. As ever, moderation. and Dave Watts said: >Oops!, I just broke rule number 3., please don't take away my glue, and >send a high energy wave pulse down my computer line. (Sorry, I just >couldn't resist that.) though if he did I missed it ! I suspect he's funning me so I might as well point out that I really, really, really hate the idea anyone thinks I'm trying to be a net cop. I've had 4 years of great times on this list broken only by being excommunicated by my boss twice on account of the excessive traffic. As an old fogey well attuned to the traditions of the list I'd like to have another 4 as good. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 15:06:29 +1000 (EST) From: Mick Fauchon To: wwi Cc: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Toko comments and query (longish)... Message-ID: Matt, > BTW, the Hawkeye Dr.I is out, and if you don't mind the price, it > is *the* definitive 1/72nd Dr.I. > > Oh yea, Mick? :-P``` Cute! 80) Actually, the Pfalz DXII is one of *my* favourite aircraft: pity someone doesn't do a difinitive version [apart from the outlandishly expensive BM] in 1/48. I still have a soft spot [mainly in the head 80)] for parts of the Smer Dr.I, with all its faults. Cheers, Mick. -- -- Mick Fauchon | Internet: ulmjf@dewey.newcastle.edu.au Reference Section, Auchmuty Library | Ph (intl+61+49) 215861 University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA | Fax (intl+61+49) 215833 MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM M M M Tasmanian Devil: "#@%!&^*%%...!#@!&**%^@@#$#-+*+*&##@...!!" M M M M Yosemite Sam : "Cut out that Army talk!..Yer in the Navy now!" M M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:46:00 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <40699603.35b57c99@aol.com> In a message dated 98-07-22 00:56:55 EDT, you write: << I really, really, really hate the idea anyone thinks I'm trying to be a net cop. >> I DO feel abit queasy when things veer off too far( even if I've been a perpetrator). Our Beloved Mr.Pearson made a valient attempt with his posting about what ever it was- Bishop or Barker? Some one muts do an analysis about when these events happen- always seems to be during a slow period leading up to a weekend. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:44:40 -0700 From: Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton To: wwi Subject: Re: Vickers Vimy Message-ID: <35B68778.10A9@connectorsystems.co.nz> Alberto Rada wrote: > > Hi > > Has any one seen the TC Vickers Vimy ? any report on it ? Tom Cleaver has seen them - he says they look to be good value, and just a bit daunting when you open the box. Aidrian I've learnt by my mistakes and can repeat them perfectly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:45:59 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait Message-ID: <7e0ea4f6.35b57c98@aol.com> In a message dated 98-07-22 00:56:55 EDT, you write: << No you have me wrong. If I was introduced at a party and ONE person welcomed me publicly, I'd then feel better if the other 100 said "Hello" personally, and not yelled it across the room, which is the correct analogy. >> Well, a personal "howdy" is a fine thing, but I think of the scenes in old movies where the new kid is introduced by David Niven to the assembled drunken old hands in the squadron and rude things are said before the new kid has to go off and die on his first patrol the next morning! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:45:56 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions Message-ID: <6addd97c.35b57c96@aol.com> In a message dated 98-07-22 00:15:25 EDT, you write: << Still, what then was that elaborate two drum system on the SPAD VII (for instance) for if not for the front drum to hold the loaded ammo belt and the rear one to take up the expended belt? >> AND the Nieuport 17 also had a drum arrangement, but then again, these were fairly early designs. Just operating form memory here, but wasn't one of the holes or chutes in the side of the Camel for links exiting? Too lazy to check right now. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:28:45 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: Subject: Early Mercedes deliveries to Fokker Message-ID: <199807220630.BAA20677@sam.on-net.net> Some Fokker fodder for thought. Any speculations as to what motor may belong to what aircraft. It's a bit of a little challenge game. You can take the early Fokker "V", (Versuchs) aircraft projects by date, and try to match them up to the delivery dates of the motors. Any theories are welcomed. The following, are the earliest delivery dates, (of D.III and D.IIIa motors to Fokker), I could find in the Mercedes archives; Type Ship date Motor Nr. Kommision Nr. D.III 02-May-17 31818 30627 D.III 15-May-17 32544 30749 D.III 19-Jun-17 32538 30989 D.IIIa 26-Sep-17 34119 32105 D.IIIa 26-Sep-17 34249 32106 The following information is off the "V", (experimental), aircraft list from the Fokker archive in Schilpol. These aircraft utilized Mercedes/Daimler D.III/D.IIIa motors. Aircraft Known date information V.2 Built early 1917 V.3 Built early 1917 V.6 Built September 1917 V.8 Built September 1917 V.10 Built Oktober 1917 V11 I Ordered September 1917, at Adlershof D trials, fighter competition January 15, 1918 V.11 II ? V.18 Ordered Dezember 1917, at Adlershof D trials, January 17, 1918 V.20 At Adlershof D trials in January, 1918 One of my questions is, do any Fokkerphils feel there are more or less aircraft that would possibly be included in the list of possible bases for the early Mercedes power plant deliveries. Any possible corrections needed to this list? I feel certain that Fokker had other resources to motors. When looking at photos of the V.11 I, under construction, the motor is clearly a D.III, but the entire overhead rocker assembly has been replaced with a D.IIIa series assembly. I believe this was a rebuilt D.III with higher compression pistons etc. that would have come from Achen, or some other rebuild center. There is a factory photo of a V.2 completely assembled, and in the foreground is clearly another V.2 airframe with a D.III motor in it. You can see a cropped copy of this on page 12, of Imrie's "The Fokker Triplane". So there may have been more than one V.2, although it may have never seen completion. I would speculate that there was also a good chance that Fokker reused some of the motors from one experimental project to another later project, (presuming it was still a good performing model of Mercedes). I seem to recall a photo of a fire test performed on a Fokker V.1 fuselage with a fuel cell in the fairing between the wheels in the landing gear, and they were using a Fokker D.VII to provide the simulated air stream over the V.1, (while being burned), and the fuselage did not have a motor mounted to it. Although this is no proof the motor had been removed way beforehand and used on another aircraft. The above motor numbers, etc. are fact, but my conclusions are by no means fact, just like all the rest of us, I'm just trying to make logical sense of it all. Any input on this is much appreciated. I need to ask, is this subject material off list or not? It's not about modelling. I am not a big modeler, but I am into the facts and history, and I try to present information hitherto unknown/un circulated, not in print or open to interpretation. I will be the first to admit, I am a bit stuck on Fokkers. So is this off topic? I can cool it on this stuff. Best Wishes to All, Dave W. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:47:39 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait PLUS PG Books Message-ID: <06473914930250@KAIEN.COM> Robert wrote . . . > > I DO feel abit queasy when things veer off too far( even if I've been a > perpetrator). Our Beloved Mr.Pearson made a valient attempt with his posting > about what ever it was- Bishop or Barker? Some one muts do an analysis about > when these events happen- always seems to be during a slow period leading up > to a weekend. > Robert K. --------------------------- "You like me, you really like me !" Sorry, I tried not to do it but it just slipped out :-) However with that out of the way, Shane is 'write' yet again. I especially agree about the long 50 line copy with everything previously said and a 'yes' at the end. I am on three WW1 lists (as are many others here) and the amount of stuff repeated over and over again is annoying (and yes I know, I do it occasionally as well - but I do try to cut extraneous noise first) Okay to make this a new message . . . .. I got the new 42 page WW1 catalog from PAUL GAUDETTE BOOKS today and they have many titles I have been searching for for some time including the Brad King RNAS book I mentioned before and; RNAS: Documents Relating to the Naval Air Service by Roskill (sorry but I snapped both up already). They can be reached at PGBooks@aol.com. One more thing. Did anyone on the avisoc list get a post about Whitehouse/Recommended books from me about 1/2 hour before this one? it came back as out of memory somewhere and I am wondering if it is the list server and if I should retry later. regards, Bob Pearson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:53:17 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: Early Mercedes deliveries to Fokker Message-ID: <06531738530252@KAIEN.COM> > From: Dave Watts > I need to ask, is this subject material off list or not? It's not about > modelling. I am not a big modeler, but I am into the facts and history, > and I try to present information hitherto unknown/un circulated, not in > print or open to interpretation. I will be the first to admit, I am a bit > stuck on Fokkers. So is this off topic? I can cool it on this stuff. > Best Wishes to All, > Dave W. Dave, I find it most informative, but if others are against it I would recommend joining the WW1 aviation history list. Sorry but I'm not totally sure how this is done, but perhaps someone else kept the post I sent to the list about it a few weeks ago. Regards, Bob Pearson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:54:46 +0800 From: Joey Valenciano To: wwi Subject: Sierra Scale models email? Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19980722135446.00b4a09c@philonline.com.ph> Anyone know the current email of Sierra's Bob Norgen? I had two but they don't seem to work anymore. I hope he's still operating. ********************************************************************* Joey Valenciano WW1 modeller, teacher, jazz musician, joeyval@philonline.com. sitarist Metro-Manila, Philippines "The more you know, the more you don't know." ********************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 02:19:02 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: Subject: Fokker myth? Message-ID: <199807220720.CAA21295@sam.on-net.net> One myth/fact, that I believe has not been put to sleep, is the one involving the Fokker D.VII and Fokker's reluctance to give his army ordered contracted licensee builders a set of formal drawings. I believe the story goes, that he simply sent them aircraft number 230/18, and they had to generate their own set of drawings from this. Later the aircraft shows up in photographs covered in fabric, (in Albatros fashion, with Albatros style lettering). This proof of covering by Albatros alone would support the "story", but is not proof positive that Fokker did not supply working drawings. Recently a buddy of mine unearthed 21 Fokker factory drawings in the Vienna archives. They were most likely there from the Fokker venture with M.A.G. in Matyasfold near Budapest. I had not heard of these existing drawings before, and wondered if anyone else had. Yes, I am having him send me over copies as soon as possible. I believe the earliest drawing is dated January 20th, 1918, and the latest 29th of September, 1918. They include a drawing dated 24-August-18, of the separate "oel" tank, from the pressurized fuel tank, (for safety reasons). The baffles in the fuel tank would sometimes separate, allowing fuel under pressure into the oil tank/compartment. The lighter fuel would bleed through the breather, which vented/exited on the right side behind the exhaust. It would ignite sending a flame down the aircraft, and a brown stripe down the pilots undies. Any other theories/facts on the "arrogant" Fokker, not supplying drawings to Albatros? Best To All Dave W. PS:I'll await a consensus about my postings before leaving to other regions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:25:40 +1000 From: "Paul Bourke" To: Subject: Re: Sierra Scale models email? Message-ID: <199807220723.RAA10417@magna.com.au> Joey, > Anyone know the current email of Sierra's Bob Norgen? > I had two but they don't seem to work anymore. > I used smodels@ekx.infi.net on June 8 and got a response. > I hope he's still operating. I believe Bob is on holidays at present - due back in August from memory. I purchased my last couple of Sierra kits through Barry Stettler at Rosemont Hobbies. His service and communication is good. Generally very helpful. http://www.swiftsite.com/rosemonthobby/ww1.htm HTH, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 17:42:34 +1000 From: "Paul Bourke" To: Subject: Re: Rant, resolutions, flamebait PLUS PG Books Message-ID: <199807220740.RAA17409@magna.com.au> Bob, > One more thing. Did anyone on the avisoc list get a post about > Whitehouse/Recommended books from me about 1/2 hour before this one? it came > back as out of memory somewhere and I am wondering if it is the list server > and if I should retry later. I only got it once - from the avisoc list ... Paul ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:41:30 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: Warning: Long Post Re: Some technical questions Message-ID: <199807220741.AAA23358@ednet1.orednet.org> Robert K. writes: >In a message dated 98-07-22 00:15:25 EDT, you write: > Still, what then was that elaborate two drum system on the > SPAD VII (for instance) for if not for the front drum to > hold the loaded ammo belt and the rear one to take up > the expended belt? >AND the Nieuport 17 also had a drum arrangement, but then again, these were >fairly early designs. Just operating form memory here, but wasn't one of the >holes or chutes in the side of the Camel for links exiting? Too lazy to check >right now. Well, on my diagrams, it is labeled as a "cartridge ejection chute". I have no idea how a Vickers with a disintegrating belt would have worked (having believed, until recently, that a Vickers with a disintegrating belt didn't exist!). However, based upon my experiences many years ago with the (disintegrating belt equipped) M-60 MG, if the Vickers was at all similar, collecting the links to eject them through any sort of chute won't work. The M-60 just kinda chucked the links up into the air as it stripped the cartridges out of the belt. In an aircraft, they would have been chucked into the slipstream and scattered merrily hither and yon and would certainly have never made it to any sort of "chute". But, maybe the Vickers behaved differently? Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1122 **********************