WWI Digest 1159 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by KarrArt@aol.com 2) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by Ernest Thomas 3) Re: FS:Meikraft Kits by mbittner@juno.com 4) Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? by mgoodwin@ricochet.net 5) RE: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? by "Chris Banyai-Riepl" 6) RE: FW: zeppelin staaken by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 7) RE: FW: zeppelin staaken by Jeff Wilson 8) AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by "cameron rile" 9) Re: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? by mgoodwin@ricochet.net 10) Re: Eduard Nieuport 17 - A conversion and a reversion by "David R.L. Laws" 11) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by "David R.L. Laws" 12) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by "David R.L. Laws" 13) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 14) Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by Bob Pearson 15) Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by "cameron rile" 16) Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by Bob Pearson 17) zeppelin staaken and other assorted brainwaves by "Gerald P. McOsker" 18) Re: Rambling on challenge WAS( Flashback W.29 progess by "Paul Schwartzkopf" 19) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by "Paul Schwartzkopf" 20) RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by Shane Weier 21) RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by Shane Weier 22) RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 23) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by "Rob." 24) RE: zeppelin staaken and other assorted brainwaves by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 25) Re: FW: zeppelin staaken by "Eli Geher" 26) Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by "cameron rile" 27) linwood wasRe: FW: zeppelin staaken by KarrArt@aol.com 28) RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? by Shane Weier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:33:55 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <63a495c6.35d0d4e4@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-11 18:08:14 EDT, you write: << But can you imagine a vacform of an aircraft which has a wingspan in 1/48 of almost 3 feet (90cm) ! Shane >> Uh, yes I can! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:56:57 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <35D0D1BA.45BF@bellsouth.net> Shane Weier wrote: > > Ernest, > > >What scale and how much? > > The Contrail Staaken is in 1/72 > > But can you imagine a vacform of an aircraft which has a wingspan in > 1/48 of almost 3 feet (90cm) ! > > Shane yes I can. and I want one... E. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:57:27 -0500 From: mbittner@juno.com To: wwi Subject: Re: FS:Meikraft Kits Message-ID: <19980811.190638.-142931.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:22:29 -0400 TPTPUMPER@aol.com writes: >Well, it IS off-topic. . . (like that ever stopped you before. ;^) ) > But >other than that, I must say--YOU'RE NO FUN ANYMORE! :-P``` 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: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:14:16 -0700 From: mgoodwin@ricochet.net To: wwi Subject: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? Message-ID: <35D0DE35.BB2@ricochet.net> In an attempt to liven up my heresies, I picked up the Airfix kit of this little 'copter. FWIW, Not bad for $4.50. The 105P is the anti-tank HOT missile-armed version. Anyone with 3-V drawings showing periscopic sight and outriggers w/ 6 missiles? Suggested titles? TIA, Riordan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:35:04 -0700 From: "Chris Banyai-Riepl" To: Subject: RE: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? Message-ID: <000401bdc589$0c761aa0$994ffbce@chrisban> I don't have anything in the way of plans for this thing, but there is only one way to finish it, and that's in Swedish markings, with the thing painted up in the same splinter camouflage seen on Viggens. Even the rotors are camouflaged that way. And in 1/72, it would be REALLY fun to do! Somewhere I have a picture or two of that, if you want. Chris Aviation What-Not http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn/current > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > mgoodwin@ricochet.net > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:29 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? > > > In an attempt to liven up my heresies, I picked up the Airfix kit of > this little 'copter. FWIW, Not bad for $4.50. The 105P is the anti-tank > HOT missile-armed version. Anyone with 3-V drawings showing periscopic > sight and outriggers w/ 6 missiles? Suggested titles? > > TIA, > > Riordan > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:45:10 -0500 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <01BDC568.F09E0380.panz-meador@vsti.com> E666: it's 1:72 and don't know yet. i've asked him to price one shot, and i've heard from one other list member interested in this bird. the more takers the less cost per shot. at any rate, i'll keep you informed as to what i hear back from mr. gaunt. phillip -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Thomas [SMTP:ethomas6@bellsouth.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 4:55 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador wrote: > > i received this answer from mr. neil gaunt of Aircraft in Miniature, Ltd., > the firm which is current re-issueing several of the old contrail big > vacuforms. is there anyone else interested in getting the vac-form (only) > parts for the z-s R.VI? What scale and how much? E. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:00:04 +1100 From: Jeff Wilson To: wwi Subject: RE: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: Phillip, I'd be interested in a couple if the price isn't stratospheric. One to screw up and the other to do right a few years from now. Best regards, Jeff Jeffrey Spencer Wilson Photography Unit RSBS Australian National University Acton Canberra ACT 0200 Australia Phone (02) 6249 3635 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:49:46 -0300 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi Subject: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808112002232@cameron.prontomail.com> hi all, This question has been bugging me for a while , when the british passed an order for colonial nations to have their own air force why was it only the australians who took advantage of it? Why didnt the Canadians , who dominated the RFC and RNAS have a Canadian Flying Corp? and why no New Zealand Flying Corp or Indian Flying Corp? The AFC had been around in one form or another since 1913 , it even got planes in 1914. Was there anything similar in Canada? cam Visit my homepage at http://www.prontomail.com/Prontomail/users/cameron ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:16:41 -0700 From: mgoodwin@ricochet.net To: wwi Subject: Re: Off-topic: MBB BO 105P PAH-1 helicopter drawings? Message-ID: <35D10919.2792@ricochet.net> Chris Banyai-Riepl wrote: Swedish markings, with the thing painted > up in the same splinter camouflage seen on Viggens. Even the rotors are > camouflaged that way. And in 1/72, it would be REALLY fun to do! Somewhere > I have a picture or two of that, if you want. Sure, send a scan or two if it's not too much trouble. Thanks, Riordan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:44:41 +0000 From: "David R.L. Laws" To: wwi Subject: Re: Eduard Nieuport 17 - A conversion and a reversion Message-ID: <35D19C49.64CD@webtime.com.au> Shane Weier wrote: but when Amex send me a billet doux I shall probably have > another reversion - to poverty ;-) > Ah, the high price of covertousness ( Damn you, I covert too and at least youv'e got an Amex card ! ) Kind Regards DAVID ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:07:23 +0000 From: "David R.L. Laws" To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <35D1A19B.E9D@webtime.com.au> KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-08-11 18:08:14 EDT, you write: > > << > But can you imagine a vacform of an aircraft which has a wingspan in > 1/48 of almost 3 feet (90cm) ! > > Shane > >> > > Uh, yes I can! > Robert K. There's a recent article in one of the free flight mags about various wing structural forms ( in balsa ) , including geodetic and others which even make a THREE FOOTER wing span look reasonably possible - If only the chord in 1/48 was a little thicker - ( Please no Junkers suggestions ) Few ideas there for the real masochists PS In the American magazines the timber '" BASSWOOD " is continually mentioned - Ids this another name for balsa, is it a hardwood or soft wood - alot of the American Scale ship builders seem to favour it too REGARDS DAVID ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:17:12 +0000 From: "David R.L. Laws" To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <35D1A3E8.3A97@webtime.com.au> By the Harry Phillip you are an evil man putting us in the way of temptation !! Any indication of a ball-park figure for each pull on a volume/ limited run basis ? REGARDS DAVID ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:46:37 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <199808120446.VAA23863@ednet1.orednet.org> DAVID writes: >PS In the American magazines the timber '" BASSWOOD " is continually >mentioned - Ids this another name for balsa, is it a hardwood or soft >wood - alot of the American Scale ship builders seem to favour it too No, basswood is not the same as balsa. I don't know if it is technically a hardwood or a softwood but it is a quite fine grained, light-colored wood. While it isn't like oak or anything, it is fairly dense, resists splintering well, and cuts cleanly and sharply. Best of all, because it is used a lot by the model railroad and model ship folks, it comes in a multitude of useful, pre-cut and pre-planed dimensions. Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:44:06 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <05440613239604@KAIEN.COM> Cam, I don't think it was the British passing an order that brought about the AFC, in fact, if anything they woiuld have fought to stop it. The feeling among the British was that the colonies were part of the empire and they should be able to be broken up and used were they, the British, saw fit. This was one thing that annoyed them about the Australian and Canadian divisions refusal to be broken up and spread out among the BEF. It would more likely be a strong nationalistic streak that brought these formations into being A Canadian Flying Corps actually went overseas with the first contingent of the CEF - with a Burgess Dunne tailless aircraft which IIRC never left its packing case. This was one more whium of the mercurial Canadian Minister of Defence Sam Hughes. The Canadian Gov't decided they didn't want a National Air force, but Hughes thought otherwise and sent hem along with the troops. Obviously nothing more was heard of them Later a small Canadian wing of two squadrons was being prepared for service in France. No.1 Sqn CAF flew the Sopwith Dolphin, while No.2 flew the DH9. They were disbanded shortly after the end of the war. A good history of Canadian service in the air is the official history edited by Wise CANADIAN AIRMEN IN THE FIRST WORLD WAR Regards, Bob Pearson ---------- > From: "cameron rile" > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:04:24 -0400 > > hi all, > > This question has been bugging me for a while , when the british passed an order for colonial nations to have their own air force why was it only the australians who took advantage of it? Why didnt the Canadians , who dominated the RFC and RNAS have a Canadian Flying Corp? and why no New Zealand Flying Corp or Indian Flying Corp? > > The AFC had been around in one form or another since 1913 , it even got planes in 1914. Was there anything similar in Canada? > > cam > > > Visit my homepage at http://www.prontomail.com/Prontomail/users/cameron > ______________________________________________________________ > Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:13:55 -0300 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi Subject: Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808112320052@cameron.prontomail.com> thanx Bob, i got that call for "dominions" to have their own air forces from "Australians in the Air" , it has a strange mix of australian propaganda in it. This is from it, "British war council was sufficiently impresed with the fact that Australia had formed her own embryonic air force, to suggest that the dominions should form complete squadrons instead of sending pilots to the RFC and RNAS" The author is speaking through his bum then. It is interesting though the Australian Pilots in the RFC and RNAS werent released to the AFC. did either of those Canadian squadrons become operational? cam Visit my homepage at http://www.prontomail.com/Prontomail/users/cameron ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 23:36:02 -0700 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <06360249339690@KAIEN.COM> Cam, They were scheduled to go to France in either late 1918 or early 1919. There are photos of the Dolphins of No.1 Sqn CAF with the maple leaf on the fuselage of all of them. Bob ---------- > From: "cameron rile" > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:28:48 -0400 > > thanx Bob, > > i got that call for "dominions" to have their own air forces from "Australians in the Air" , it has a strange mix of australian propaganda in it. This is from it, > > "British war council was sufficiently impresed with the fact that Australia had formed her own embryonic air force, to suggest that the dominions should form complete squadrons instead of sending pilots to the RFC and RNAS" > > The author is speaking through his bum then. It is interesting though the Australian Pilots in the RFC and RNAS werent released to the AFC. > > did either of those Canadian squadrons become operational? > > cam > > > Visit my homepage at http://www.prontomail.com/Prontomail/users/cameron > ______________________________________________________________ > Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:39:58 -0400 From: "Gerald P. McOsker" To: wwi Subject: zeppelin staaken and other assorted brainwaves Message-ID: is there anyone else interested in getting the vac-form >(only) >> parts for the z-s R.VI? Yes I am- I have a 3 month window of building opportunity starting in April 2026 in which I could fit this behomoth creation. I also was going to post an offer of an Aurora Gotha in exchange for the original Contrail kit which I can get nowhere- but this is probably a better deal. I am thinking of dumping my 1:48 stuff as I find that my eyesight has deteiorated to the point where I can readily work on 1:72 items without eyeglasses. In any case- at the rate- I build- I probably should concentrate on 1:144 and spend the rest of my days doing the Siemans Schukert R plane from Blue Rider an entity that I have never seen constructed- but then again I've also never seen the Meikraft Caproni built. Runinations on an August day- Wieder- Gerry Per Favore! Non Mi Rompere Mi Coglioni. Grazie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:16:16 -0500 From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" To: wwi Subject: Re: Rambling on challenge WAS( Flashback W.29 progess Message-ID: Shane wrote: >And I think I've figured it out. Challenge. The best WW1 kit is >usually going to be a bit harder to build than the best WW2 kit, if only >because you have the problems of biplane wings, struts and rigging, I >really admire the skill that goes into producing a Tamiya or AccMin = kit.............. This is exactly what I meant about Eduard kits having "trouble". I, too, = admire the new kits like Tamiya's that literally "fall out of the box". = Great kits, but you don't get to challenge a lot of your modeling skills = on them. Eduard, and other small run kits, usually require shaping of = parts, etc., to get a good fit, plus working with that small brass is a = challenge to my arthritic fingers. But having grown up building Airfix, = Frog, and Hawk kits, I can take those fit problems in stride. I am = currently building the Eduard Albatros D.V, and although an improvement = over their earlier kits, it still doesn't "fall out of the box". But I = wouldn't have it any other way--I get much more satisfaction out of = building a kit that requires some skill to complete. >So cast one vote from me, that Eduard doesn't get too much better than >the Nie-17 kit.... Motion seconded. I can't wait to get started on this one! "Lafayette = (Escadrille), we are here" :-) Paul A. Schwartzkopf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:22:58 -0500 From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: David asks: >In the American magazines the timber '" BASSWOOD " is continually >mentioned - Ids this another name for balsa, is it a hardwood or soft >wood - alot of the American Scale ship builders seem to favour it too=20 For all of you tree lovers out there, basswood is botanically a hardwood, = and is the softest variety of the hardwoods. In the USA, it is, or at = least was originally, the wood taken from the Linden tree. =20 Paul A. Schwartzkopf ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:33:41 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: wwi Subject: RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808121352.XAA01666@mimmon.mim.com.au> Cam, > This question has been bugging me for a while , when the british passed an order >for colonial nations to have their own air force why was it only the australians >who took advantage of it? Just a detail, but by 1913 Australia was a sovereign nation, not a colony. Formation of the AFC may have been influenced by activities in the UK, but even if there had been a direct influence it would have been in the form of a "request", not an order. The matter of *how* a request would be viewed may be a different question, however the execution of Breaker Morant after a British court martial during the Boer War had influenced Australia *never* to place its own troops under anyone elses command. To a degree this affected the manner in which our forces were raised, organised and commanded and is why the AFC was raised in Australia. This and other issues over British command attitudes were why Billy Hughes (PM at the time) utterly refused to break up Australian forces amongst British divisions and why he and Australias War Cabinet eventually insisted that the 5 Divisions in France be brought together under an Australian commander - Monash As an aside I find it *extremely* irritating that many older references and even current volumes from Rimmel refer to the AFC squadrons by British numbers (eg 1AFC was 68 (Aust) Sqn RFC). In fact, 1AFC was raised in Australia as 1AFC. When it was taken into the RFC organisation - because Australia couldn't provide the supplies - it was renumbered to prevent confusion between 1AFC and 1RFC. A minor point, but Australias air force is one of the oldest, and in the military such traditions count towards esprit de corps. >The AFC had been around in one form or another since 1913 , >it even got planes in 1914. Was there anything similar in Canada? One of the original AFC aircraft resides in the Treloar Restoration and Storage facility of the AWM. It's a 1912 Deperdussin monoplane which AFAIK was unable to be flown with the 3 cylinder Anzani engine provided. Instead it was used in the same fashion as the French penguins - to teach new pilots ground handling. And also AFAIK, nothing similar ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 23:53:07 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: wwi Subject: RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808121410.AAA01717@mimmon.mim.com.au> Cam, >"British war council was sufficiently impresed with the fact that >Australia had formed her own embryonic air force, to suggest > that the dominions should form complete squadrons instead >of sending pilots to the RFC and RNAS" This makes more sense than your first post which seemed to suggest the AFC was formed at UK request. In fact, as the quote says, it had already been formed, the *suggestion* (not order) was that complete squadrons be formed. This was aready under way in Australia, but lack of training facilities, aircraft and competent instructors meant that it would be impossible to train complete squadrons until later in the war. When 1AFC arrived in the ME it was short of equipment, pilots, and virtually every trade of support crew. These were trained in the ME, and supplemented with UK crews (and an RFC commander) until sufficient Aussie crews had been brought to operational standards. Later on, in the European theatre, there were four AFC training Squadrons in England (Nrs 5 to 8 AFC) providing trained crews to the units in France. >The author is speaking through his bum then. Not entirely. We *had* formed an embryonic Air Force before the suggestion was made. > It is interesting though the Australian Pilots in the RFC and RNAS werent released to the AFC. Goes to lack of second line units again. If they'd been released to AFC squadrons the organisation would have been four or five times as large, but without the depth of command, or the support organisation necessary. Australias forces in WW1 had a very high "teeth to tail" ratio, and a very high percentage were fighting soldiers because the UK provided the rear echelon (it is quicker to train a first class infantryman than the doctors for a military hospital, a pilot than a wing commander) The consequence of a high proportion in the front line BTW, can be seen in a casualty list more or less equal in numbers to the US list, and in percentages the highest of any country on the winning side. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:57:13 -0500 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <01BDC5D7.95140680.panz-meador@vsti.com> non-air, but i believe in a similar vein: the governments of australia and NZ ordered battlecruisers prior to WW1; these were, naturally, HMAS Australia and HMNZS New Zealand. i believe that the latter fought at jutland, and both were very active in the pursuit of the war. both were of the 1908 "indefatigable" class, follow-ons to the 1905 "invincible" (may her honor shine forever) class. whereas NZ was a gift to the RN from the NZ gov't, the Australia was ordered to be the first unit of an australian fleet of 8 battlacruisers and 10 light cruisers. IIRC, american forces were initially slated to be doled out as replacements to both british and french divisions. phillip -----Original Message----- From: Shane Weier [SMTP:SDW@qld.mim.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 8:39 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Cam, > This question has been bugging me for a while , when the british passed an order >for colonial nations to have their own air force why was it only the australians >who took advantage of it? Just a detail, but by 1913 Australia was a sovereign nation, not a colony. Formation of the AFC may have been influenced by activities in the UK, but even if there had been a direct influence it would have been in the form of a "request", not an order. The matter of *how* a request would be viewed may be a different question, however the execution of Breaker Morant after a British court martial during the Boer War had influenced Australia *never* to place its own troops under anyone elses command. To a degree this affected the manner in which our forces were raised, organised and commanded and is why the AFC was raised in Australia. This and other issues over British command attitudes were why Billy Hughes (PM at the time) utterly refused to break up Australian forces amongst British divisions and why he and Australias War Cabinet eventually insisted that the 5 Divisions in France be brought together under an Australian commander - Monash As an aside I find it *extremely* irritating that many older references and even current volumes from Rimmel refer to the AFC squadrons by British numbers (eg 1AFC was 68 (Aust) Sqn RFC). In fact, 1AFC was raised in Australia as 1AFC. When it was taken into the RFC organisation - because Australia couldn't provide the supplies - it was renumbered to prevent confusion between 1AFC and 1RFC. A minor point, but Australias air force is one of the oldest, and in the military such traditions count towards esprit de corps. >The AFC had been around in one form or another since 1913 , >it even got planes in 1914. Was there anything similar in Canada? One of the original AFC aircraft resides in the Treloar Restoration and Storage facility of the AWM. It's a 1912 Deperdussin monoplane which AFAIK was unable to be flown with the 3 cylinder Anzani engine provided. Instead it was used in the same fashion as the French penguins - to teach new pilots ground handling. And also AFAIK, nothing similar ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:00:14 +0000 From: "Rob." To: wwi Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <199808121455.KAA28711@mcfeely.concentric.net> > PS In the American magazines the timber '" BASSWOOD " is continually > mentioned - Ids this another name for balsa, is it a hardwood or soft > wood - alot of the American Scale ship builders seem to favour it too Basswood comes from the American linden, what the English call a lime tree (I think). It is technically a hardwood, but it is quite easy to work. Its main advantages are its remarkably fine grain and great dimensional stability once cured. Bass was used alot in old-fshioned drawing tables that needed square edges and, in combination with bamboo, in slide rules. Rob To e-mail me, replace the l with the numeral 1. Visit Chandelle, the Web Journal of Aviation History ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:02:47 -0500 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: zeppelin staaken and other assorted brainwaves Message-ID: <01BDC5D8.5C3002A0.panz-meador@vsti.com> gerald (and other folks who have replied): well, wow. as of this morning, that makes 8 possibles interested in purchasing one or more staakens. i will forward this to AIM, and see how that effects the price per shot (actually i'll request the pricing for 10 shots). BTW, has ANYONE ever seen the built-up B-R kit of the siemens in 1:144? i've been looking around for one here in the US with no success. phillip -----Original Message----- From: Gerald P. McOsker [SMTP:amadon@efortress.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 7:44 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: zeppelin staaken and other assorted brainwaves is there anyone else interested in getting the vac-form >(only) >> parts for the z-s R.VI? [panz-meador] I am thinking of dumping my 1:48 stuff as I find that my eyesight has deteiorated to the point where I can readily work on 1:72 items without eyeglasses. In any case- at the rate- I build- I probably should concentrate on 1:144 and spend the rest of my days doing the Siemans Schukert R plane from Blue Rider an entity that I have never seen constructed- but then again I've also never seen the Meikraft Caproni built. Runinations on an August day- [panz-meador] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:37:33 -0500 From: "Eli Geher" To: Subject: Re: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <199808121518.KAA15066@sh1.ro.com> ---------- > From: David R.L. Laws > To: Multiple recipients of list > PS In the American magazines the timber '" BASSWOOD " is continually > mentioned - Ids this another name for balsa, is it a hardwood or soft > wood - alot of the American Scale ship builders seem to favour it too Basswood is a clear, fine grained wood similar in hardness to pine. Its marketed in similar sizes to balsa wood and is readily available in hobby or crafts shops. Excellent stuff for carving scratch builds or conversion parts. I'm not knowledgeable about trees, but I recall hearing that it came from the "Linden" tree. Is there such a creature? Eli Geher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:04:32 -0300 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi Subject: Re: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808120913033@cameron.prontomail.com> shane sorry i should have been more specific , i was referring to 2AFC and 4AFC , 1 AFC was trained in aust and went to egypt in early 1916 , before them a Mesopotamian 1/2 flight was sent to egypt on April 20th 1915 (though they were given Indian Army , Maurice Farmans cos aust didnt have any planes ). The 1/2 flight was later absorbed into 1 AFC. There were also two crated planes and one pilot for the attack on german land in New Guinea though they didnt see action , the germans capitulating too fast. They never got out of their crates. 3AFC were also shipped from australia , and the pilots of 2AFC and 4AFC were all trained in Australia. But from what i have read the planes were given to the australians by the british , due to equipment shortages in aust , it makes sense though. The AFC started due to the agitation of Aerial League Secretary George A Taylor , who used the media for pressure on the government in 1911. By 1913 the Australian Government established an Australian Flying Corps base at Point Cook in Victoria. However red tape held the new flying school and corp back and the first fight wasn't made until the 1st of March 1914. The first four pupils did not start training until later that year. The AFC is one of the oldest air forces on the planet . ( from my page at http://members.xoom.com/artattack/afc.htm ) Where any attempts to start a local airospace industry started? i know Hawker , Cotton etc all went to england. The main prob with supplies was our distance form europe where all the tech was being developed. Interesting info on the aust psyche after Breaker Morant. That would push a country to independance in its own useage of its military forces. Also never thought of the "teeth to tail ratio" , excellent description. One of the reasons i did that AFC site origonally was due to the fact it is an often overlooked military force (it also had no web presence ) and as u said is one of the oldest and should have the same recognition as other military arms. I rang the RAAF history section , and the ppl i spoke too knew nothing about the AFC , i was told to write the Army History section cos it was under Army control back then. Thankfully the awm has a tonne of pics on it. bob, have seen SE5a's of the RCAF with the Maple Leaf insignia on the tail and on fuselage , assume they are the same insignia? cam Visit my homepage at http://www.prontomail.com/Prontomail/users/cameron ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 12:20:21 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi Subject: linwood wasRe: FW: zeppelin staaken Message-ID: <953d72da.35d1c0c8@aol.com> In a message dated 98-08-12 10:56:44 EDT, you write: << Basswood comes from the American linden, what the English call a lime tree (I think). It is technically a hardwood, but it is quite easy to work. >> First time I bought a hunk of this stuff, my dad looked at it and said "You paid WHAT for that? Hell, that's just linwood" He grew up timber country, and wasn't terribly impressed! Just like balsa, or any other wood for that matter, individual pieces can differ widely in hardness.From soap-soft to rock hard- look around the bin and you'll find what you need for the job. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 07:33:25 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: wwi Subject: RE: AFC , why no CFC or NZFC? Message-ID: <199808122149.HAA03095@mimmon.mim.com.au> Cam, (big snip of accurate description) >3AFC were also shipped from australia , and the pilots of 2AFC and 4AFC were all trained in Australia. ab initio training only. Simply never had the machinery to train fully here. And you should say that the *original* pilots of 2 and 4 afc were trained here, many pilots were trained in England by 5 - 8AFC, often as transfers from the AIF. > But from what i have read the planes were given to the australians by the british , >due to equipment shortages in aust , it makes sense though. This is of course exactly what I said. All supply and support (except the efforst aof the Aussie training wing) came from UK resources. >Where any attempts to start a local airospace industry started? i know Hawker , >Cotton etc all went to england. The main prob with supplies was our distance >form europe where all the tech was being developed. No real attempt at mass manufacture of aircraft was made here, again not enough resources. However the first Australian made aircraft - one ofs - were made well before the war. Unhappily for us, fortunately for the Brits, people like Hawker, Kauper, Busteed, Miller and others went to the UK before the war and added their talents to those available from the home countries and other dominions in time for the massive wartime expansion. >Interesting info on the aust psyche after Breaker Morant. That would push a country to independance in its own useage of its military forces. Needless to say this incident wasn't the main, or only reason, but it's the highest profile and best known on account of the movie. >Also never thought of the "teeth to tail ratio" , excellent description. Not my own work - heard this as the reason why some of my old units were disbanded (after I left) was in order to improve teeth:tail . > I rang the RAAF history section , and the ppl i spoke too knew nothing about the AFC , i was told to write the Army >History section cos it was under Army control back then. Thankfully the awm has a tonne of pics on it. The AFC was part of the Army of course. And the RAAF was only formed independantly in 1921. So the authority is the Museum of Army Aviation at Oakey. Some nice WW1 artifacts there, a replica Bristol Boxkite and Biff (arrggghhhh) as well as stuff from later conflicts. ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1159 **********************