WWI Digest 1341 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Sopwith Triplane by "Steven M. Perry" 2) RE: USS Aaron Ward by "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" 3) Re: Sopwith Triplane by "Sandy Adam" 4) fuselage thinning by "Diego Fernetti" 5) Re: fuselage thinning by "Sandy Adam" 6) Re: Shane Raises the Bar! by "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> 7) Re: Shane Raises the Bar! by Bob Pearson 8) Re: Caproni ca 3 by Franco Poloni 9) Re: USS Aaron Ward by Alberto Rada 10) Re: fuselage thinning by KarrArt@aol.com 11) Re: How many: The unscientific analysis by KarrArt@aol.com 12) Random slaverings by KarrArt@aol.com 13) Re: Shane Raises the Bar! by KarrArt@aol.com 14) Re: How many: The unscientific analysis by Bob Pearson 15) Re: USS Aaron Ward by Bob Pearson 16) Re: Web page by KarrArt@aol.com 17) Re: Shane Raises the Bar! by Geoff Smith 18) Shane's Biff by Suvoroff@aol.com 19) Re: Shane Raises the Bar! by Pedro e Francisca Soares 20) Re: Re: How many: The unscientific analysis by GRBroman@aol.com 21) RE: Shane Raises the Bar! by Shane Weier 22) RE: Caproni ca 3 by Shane Weier 23) Re: fuselage thinning by John Huggins 24) Historic Day by BStett3770@aol.com 25) Re: New Images by Pedro e Francisca Soares 26) Re: Fw: Pedro's Dr.1 by Pedro e Francisca Soares 27) Re: Fw: New Images by Pedro e Francisca Soares 28) Re: Sopwith Triplane by Pedro e Francisca Soares ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:51:49 -0500 From: "Steven M. Perry" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith Triplane Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19981217105149.0068e594@pop.mindspring.com> >Continuing on the Sopwith Tripe thread I've had one on my work bench for a >couple of weeks ready for the middle wings to go on. I've enjoyed this >project and am really looking forward to finishing it but...WHERE THE HECK >do the landing and flying wires pass through the middle wing!!??? I've >stared at photos, drawings, and other models and I'm still unsure of what >the best method is for determining where to drill! I suppose the best >method is to glue them in place and determine the location in relation to >the attachment points on the upper and lower wing and fuselage but I can't >imagine getting a drill bit into that space to get a suitable hole. I know >others on the list have built this one - any tips? > >Chris Cato Chris: I had the same problem. I tried the "By Guess & By Golly" method. Golly it doesn't look right :-(. I have another Tripe kit I will try the following method upon: Looked at head on, each set of bays form a parallelagram horizontally bisected by the mid wing, (one on either side of the fuselage). On paper, draw this parallelagram in exact size. Use dividers to get the exact measurements. (Top side=cabaine strut to mainplane strut, Inside= Cabaine/top wing to bottom wing/fuselage, Outside=underside of top wing to upperside of lower wing along the mainplane strut and Bottom side= fuselage/lower wing to lower wing/mainplane). When this parallelagram is accurately transferred to paper,(Be sure to account for the dihedral angle and have the top and bottom of the parallelagram reflect this), draw in lines representing the upper & lower mid wing surfaces again using measurements taken from the model with dividers. Now use a straight edge to draw in the diagnals of the parallelagram. Where the diagnals intersect the lines representing the surfaces of the mid wing will be where the wires go through. Use the dividers to measure the distance from the intersection points to the outside edge of the parallelagram on the paper and transfer this distance to the mid wing (mainplane strut/mid wing surface to intersection point). Cross your fingers and drill :-) If the top wing is already secure and a drill is too big, use a hot needle to make the hole in the mid wing. Anyway, that is how I plan to attempt it. Now somebody please post a vastly simpler and much more precise method so I can feel like a real dummy. sp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 09:57:34 -0600 From: "Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: USS Aaron Ward Message-ID: <01BE29A3.AC2D2380.panz-meador@vsti.com> bob: two excellent sources are "U.S. Destroyers" (Naval Institute Press) and "H.M.S. Campbelton" from the Anatomy of the Ship series. The former traces the development of all destroyer types back to torpedo boat destroyers, whereas the latter describes the history, camo, and anatomy (literally) of the USS Buchanan/HMS Campbelton. Both include photos and diagrams, but the latter devotes 80% of the book to detail drawings, down to the level of ship's boats and hatch hinges. a really neat WW1 4-stacker variant was the up-gunned version built to deal with U-cruisers. HTH, phillip -----Original Message----- From: Bill Shatzer [SMTP:bshatzer@orednet.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 1998 1:35 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: USS Aaron Ward Bob Pearson writes: >Greetings all, > >Chris B-R has shamed me into actually building something again. To which end >I >am looking at the Revell 1/240 USS Aaron Ward. Were any of the ships in this >class completed before the end of WW1? If so are there any easily obtained >references showing these ships and details that may differ from the kit? Not being a "ship person" my references are fragmentary but what I have indicates that the Aaron Ward was a "Wickes" class destroyer and that several ships of that class were completed and commissioned before 11/11/18. There endeth my knowledge of USN WW1 destroyers. Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org "Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say 'ni' at will to old ladies!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:47:11 -0800 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: Sopwith Triplane Message-ID: <199812171658.QAA04764@beryl.sol.co.uk> > project and am really looking forward to finishing it but...WHERE THE HECK > do the landing and flying wires pass through the middle wing!!??? Yes, this is the fun bit of a Tripehound model! There is no really easy way of doing it. You really just have to line up the wings and mark where you think the mid-point penetration will be. I spent ages with my first one viewing from front, back, top, bottom and marking pencil lines then using the transection point to make the angled hole. I haven't got to this stage yet with the other two planned but will probably drill holes first in unpainted middle wing and dry fit it between painted top and bottom wings and use some surgical steel wire to see if the mono will go straight through. If it doesn't I'll have to enlarge until it fits, then fill with wire in place, let it set, remove wing, sand and then paint. The leading edge one is easy though - you fit the middle wing, run the mono through attachment holes and then mark and cut a notch in the leading edge where it transects. The real one has a hole in the leading edge with a little leather patch covering it. If you are interested, I took a close up picture of this in the RAFM last month and can send you a scan if you want. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:15:45 -0200 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: "WW1 mailing list" Subject: fuselage thinning Message-ID: <000101be29d8$8493b520$4640a8c0@prens-001.ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Gentlemen: Since I'm on this list, I learned a lot abuout many thechniques, specially rigging. But you rig when the whole thing is finished, but what about the beggining of the process of modelling? As you all know, WW1 airplanes were quite fragile and representing in scale the correct thickness of the fuselage walls (in some cases only doped linen) will be always troubling, if impossible in small scales, for example 1/72. Even so, I spend many time sanding the interior of the fuselage halves knowing that I never should get the correct thickness because the model won't stand the next stage of completion (interior detail, wing attachment, cabane struts, etc.). I've found this part of the modelling necessary, specially in limited run injection molded kits, where the parts are heavily cast, but I find difficult to sand the inside of small corners or complex curves and retain its shape, mainly because I have the "create" concave space, a negative of the exterior of the fuselage. Maybe we can share different approachs to this? I don't know if the topic were discussed before, but I'd like to hear your opinions anyway. Yours. D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 18:05:21 -0800 From: "Sandy Adam" To: Subject: Re: fuselage thinning Message-ID: <199812171803.SAA06965@beryl.sol.co.uk> I use a Swann Morton modelling knife - (one of the old brass handled ones - not the crappy new scalpel types) number 1 or number 3 blade - to fine the cockpit lip down to an acceptable wafer (usually add coaming later, see below). Then out with the mini-drill, on with an orb-shaped router bit and set to with gusto. I'm pretty savage with this - I find you can't really be too heavy handed - it's like trying to stick a pin in your own finger - your muscles just won't let you do it! A few minutes and lots of noise and tiny shavings everywhere and voila! paper thin cockpit walls. Usually, after gluing fuselage halves together, I'll add a coaming if appropriate - either from something like white glue built up over a few layers - or occasionally by lining the hole with a piece of plastic strip and carving and sanding it down to the right shape - depends on the plane and what it looks like in photos. FWIW Sandy PS this is one of the things I don't like about BM's buttery plastic - its too soft to set about with the router - and BM's always need lots of thinning! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:00:40 -0700 From: "D. Anderson" <2814823733@home.com> To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19981217110040.00714ad8@mail> At 08:37 AM 17/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >Hi Everyone! > > Do yourself a favor and check out the images Shane just sent me of his >Bristol Fighter. They're on-line on his section of my web page at: > >http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/Images/Weier/index.html > > I'm stunned - fantastic and quite possibly the most impressive scratch >built model I've observed. > >-Al I already complemented Shane in a private e-mail, but thought I'd join in the public praising as well. Shane, I hope you took notes and photographs of your project, because this belongs in *Fine Scale Modeler*. It would look great, and provide the editors with some genuinely new material, making for a refreshing change from the usual "how to paint miniatures with oils," "how to apply decals," and "getting the best from your airbrush." Good show. Dane >=========================================================================== ==== >Allan Wright Jr. | You fell victim to one of the 'classic' blunders! >University of New Hampshire+--------------------------------------------------- >Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu >Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu >=========================================================================== ==== > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 10:30:21 -0800 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: <18302146607198@KAIEN.COM> Dane writes > Shane, I hope you took notes and photographs of your project, because this > belongs in *Fine Scale Modeler*. It would look great, and provide the > editors with some genuinely new material, making for a refreshing change > from the usual "how to paint miniatures with oils," "how to apply decals," > and "getting the best from your airbrush." > > Good show. > > Dane -------------------- Dane, Even better . . it is going into an upcoming Internet Modeler Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 19:28:39 +0100 From: Franco Poloni To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Caproni ca 3 Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19971217192839.0068e26c@lo.itline.it> At 06.10 17/12/98 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 16 Dec 1998 15:22:44 -0500 (EST) Franco Poloni > writes: > >>no, the Caproni ca3 was a Meikraft kit, that I bought thanks to the >>help of >>the guys on this list. >>And I'm sure that you may find another one, if you want. >>The kit comes in multi media form, plastic for the main airframe, p/e, >>metal and even wood. >>It required some work, of course, but all in all, was a good buy. >>(60 $) > >Hey, if it's done, let's see some scans of it. Well, not scans of *it*, >but scans of photo's of it. ;-) > > >Matt Bittner > ok, I must have a photo somewhere, and I will scann it.... but where do I have to send it? to you?or to Allan? Franco ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:58:42 -0400 From: Alberto Rada To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: USS Aaron Ward Message-ID: <36795462.29B0CEF3@argonaut.net> Hi Bob Are you referring to the four stacker DD 139 that sank the Japanese mini sub in Pearl Harbor a couple of hours before the attack, and nobody believe them ? Saludos Alberto Bob Pearson wrote: > Greetings all, > > Chris B-R has shamed me into actually building something again. To which end > I > am looking at the Revell 1/240 USS Aaron Ward. Were any of the ships in this > class completed before the end of WW1? If so are there any easily obtained > references showing these ships and details that may differ from the kit? > > Regards, > Bob Pearson > > Visit my WW1 aviation page at > http://www.kaien.com/~bpearson/Index.htm > > Managing Editor / Internet Modeler > http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:07:09 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: fuselage thinning Message-ID: <1fc8774a.3679565d@aol.com> In a message dated 12/17/98 10:05:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, cbbs@almac.co.uk writes: << Usually, after gluing fuselage halves together, I'll add a coaming if appropriate - either from something like white glue built up over a few layers >> Great minds think alike? Sometimes I'll dip the brush into a spot of acrylic paint to tint the white glue, just to see what I'm doing. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:07:08 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: How many: The unscientific analysis Message-ID: In a message dated 12/15/98 2:46:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, cbbs@almac.co.uk writes: << Isn't it astonishing that the trends are so strong throughout our merry bunch, spanning as we do the Americas, Europe, Oz, the Pacific Rim. This is a truly international hobby! Sandy >> All we need is an Antarctic member! RK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:07:07 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Random slaverings Message-ID: <28a61ca3.3679565b@aol.com> In a message dated 12/15/98 3:16:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, sdw@qld.mim.com.au writes: << >> P.C.10 is a definite minus score for the RFC when it comes to >> choosing what to build, so British aircraft generally have to have >> 'character' to overcome the dreadful paint schemes. >Ah, but PC.10 is *subtle*. I understand the attraction of the garish...... -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>From my perspective, WWI aircraft are much more time-consuming to build and >>provide a greater challenge - so the level of satisfaction is high, but the output is >>dismally low. Is this why so many of us build something 'off topic' and younger >>modellers are discouraged? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- >Mmmm. Am I starting to sound like all those early modellers > i recall saying that there was no challenge in a *plastic* kit, and that >we should all go back to wood solids. I *know* a couple of respected >members of this list started back there, and it's a little un-nerving to >discover I understand what they meant. >> Sorry, for the random thoughts! >Hell, there's no reason to be sorry, this sort of "modelling philosophy" >discussion is interesting and in this company it's likely to be fun as >well Shane>> Lot's of comments and comments within comments to comment on here! PC10 IS subtle, but I've always thought it was rather attractive when combined with the roundel colors.The by-now-were're-all-sick-of-hearing-about-it 0/400 had a LOT of PC10 - overall top and bottom, but a little weathering and wear and tear made it just interesting enough. Toss in a few roundels, and some visible woodwork visible in the crew positions, and it almost becomes..."colorful". Same effect with you-know-who's beautiful Biff- the rich woodwork is complimented by the PC10. I don't know about levels of difficulty. WWI and other bipes have rigging, but later airplanes have more clear parts. Each era and genre of modeling has its own peculiar set of quirks. I have seen several WW I entries in the junior category at contests, but generally what I've noticed is that a lot of kids haven't really settled on a 'specialty' yet. Multiple entries from the same junior might include a car, a sci-fi and and airplane from any era. One kid at a contest last year entered a small WW II tank diorama, a Batmobile and the Smer DH-2. Those big, dripping- with-Verlinden F14 and F-15 etc. models seem to be the products of a certain late teen to late twenties group.( I've considered scratchbuilding a 1/32 Draken just to burn these guys- yeah- it's evil, but it would be fun!) Maybe it is just the old farts and the kids who do WW I. Odd as it seems, WW I may appeal more to the kids who build cars ( and to a lesser degree, sci-fi), because of certain similarities- garrish paint jobs, exposed and powerful engines and a scale that lets them imagine thewselves in the cockpit/driver's seat. Paint a Taube black and you've almost got Batman's airplane. I started in the "age of plastic", and only found out about wood later. I had no preconcieved notions about a conflict in materials, but after crossing over into my mid-forties, I DO find myself sometimes muttering about "these kids today with their Tamiya/Hasegawa don't know what the ******real modeling is". Never mind that I've been aware of Tamiya for 30 years! I have dark, irrational thoughts about maybe there ought to be an initiation into the modeling brother-sisterhood involving a finger being sliced with a good ol' fashioned single edged razor blade while cutting balsa stringers.Yet, I also gripe and whine about a plastic kit if it doesn't behave the way I think it ought to. I'm just another spoiled "boomer"! Well forgive this little bit of rambling random modelling philosophy- and it all may change tomorrow. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:06:58 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: In a message dated 12/17/98 8:07:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, cbbs@almac.co.uk writes: << Well its been a long gestation - but well worth the wait! >> Sandy has it right! Well done.Now for the post partum depression! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:19:00 -0800 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: How many: The unscientific analysis Message-ID: <19190017307325@KAIEN.COM> Perhaps Knut Erik in his many travels will/or has touched base there. Bob ---------- > From: KarrArt@aol.com > All we need is an Antarctic member! > RK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 11:15:08 -0800 From: Bob Pearson To: WW1 Mailing list Subject: Re: USS Aaron Ward Message-ID: <19150846907301@KAIEN.COM> Alberto, Nope, the kit I have is of the USS Aaron Ward DD132, USS Ward DD139 is the ship you are refering to. No doubt in an earlier incarnation Revell released the kit as the Ward. Bob ---------- > From: Alberto Rada > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: USS Aaron Ward > Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:02:37 -0500 (EST) > > Hi Bob > > Are you referring to the four stacker DD 139 that sank the Japanese mini sub > in Pearl Harbor a couple of hours before the attack, and nobody > believe them ? > > Saludos > > Alberto ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:07:03 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Web page Message-ID: In a message dated 12/16/98 12:27:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, 2814823733@home.com writes: << Congratulations, and not just on the model. I can't tell you how reassuring it is to see a neophyte HTMLer's page devoid of blinking text, dancing logos, and coloured text on black. Good page. Great model. I've tagged if for reference for when I get around to my own DH-2. Dane >> I agree completely- both about the DH-2 and the page's tasteful lack of things that explode, dance or whistle. Now- let's see more! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:50:28 +0000 From: Geoff Smith To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: <36796084.1A5@cwcom.net> On the strength of seeing this, I'll PAY the bar if you get over here. Absolutely beautiful and I'll bet this and the Hurricane look good together. How about a Wimpey without fabric next? :-) Thanks for showing us, it was worth the (long) wait. Geoff ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:43:17 EST From: Suvoroff@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Shane's Biff Message-ID: <7a5390d4.36795ed5@aol.com> To Shane I give the ultimate modeller's compliment; I hate you! You show me that everything I can't do is possible. Yours, James D. Gray ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 19:51:42 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: <367960CE.DD1D9732@mail.telepac.pt> Allan Wright wrote: > Hi Everyone! > > Do yourself a favor and check out the images Shane just sent me of his > Bristol Fighter. They're on-line on his section of my web page at: Shane, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. You're crazy man. Congratulations for your master piece. Um abraco Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 15:40:48 EST From: GRBroman@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Re: How many: The unscientific analysis Message-ID: <2e14f287.36796c50@aol.com> In a message dated 12/17/98, 1:20:01 PM, wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu writes: <> Those of of us in the US Upper Midwest and Canada could very nicely fill in, at least on temperature points. Glen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 06:55:40 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Shane Raises the Bar! Message-ID: Hello gang, >>> Well its been a long gestation - but well worth the wait! > > Sandy has it right! Well done.Now for the post partum depression! > I subscribed to this list in March 1995. By 6 April I'd worked up the guts to post for the first time and commented: >I'm new here (thanks Allan) and __Very__ pleased >to find a group of such obvious >discernment and taste in modelling subjects. :-> I then asked for advice on references for *the* Biff, and finished: >All suggestions gratefully accepted. I *did* learn enough from that post to commence the model immediately. Over the next three years the Biff progressed slowly, interupted from time to time by lack of information or enthusiasm BUT.... In every case the list brotherhood (and now sisterhood) came through with the necessary information, motivation and friendship. All this fullsome praise is very, very flattering, but in truth the model was made as much by you as me, with me as a tool of sorts. Thanks everyone for the kind comments, but thanks even more for the help, encouragement and cheering from the sidelines. Mmm. Raised the bar have I? Now how the hell is this fat old bloke going to get up there again? And deal with the depression? Ahh, I *know* ! I'll ask the list ! Gratefully yours, Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 07:51:13 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Caproni ca 3 Message-ID: Franco, > > > ok, I must have a photo somewhere, and I will scann it.... > but where do I have to send it? to you?or to Allan? > > Please send it to Allan, we *all* want to see. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 16:06:52 -0600 From: John Huggins To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: fuselage thinning Message-ID: > snipUsually, after gluing fuselage halves together, I'll add a coaming if > appropriate - either from something like white glue built up over a few > layers - or occasionally by lining the hole with a piece of plastic strip > and carving and sanding it down to the right shape - depends on the plane > and what it looks like in photos. Has anyone used the insulation from telephone hook-up wire (the solid copper type used in the house) for the coaming around the cockpits. I have been using it for many years now. For gun barrels and other tube structures, just pull it off of the wire. You can also leave a bit of the wire to add strength to the tube. For cockpit/opening coaming, remove a piece and trim to the proper length. Split the tub with a knife blade and then slide it over the edge of the opening. Seal it in place with a bit of CA, paint and you are done. John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:23:13 EST From: BStett3770@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Historic Day Message-ID: <58778640.36798451@aol.com> Hi Gang Today is the 95th anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight at KittyHawk N.C. Keep Modeling Barry Rosemont Hobby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 21:58:07 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Images Message-ID: <36797E6F.D590CC61@mail.telepac.pt> Sandy Adam wrote: > > Pedro, > > Good job and beautiful birds. > > Hiro > > Superb Pedro - what a vast array of talent we have on this list! > Sandy > > PS - Hiro - was it you who bought the stack of old Aurora kits on ebay for > a small fortune the other day? Matt, Bob, Hans, Hiro, Steven, Sandy and all of you guys, Thanks for the very kind words about my models. At the risk of sounding pretentious let me say that It feels great to hear such words of encouragement, furthermore when they come from experienced and knowledgeful blokes as you people. I feel that my skills have gone up the ladder quite a bit every since I joined this list and what I've taken from you all is only equalled by the sincere admiration I feel for the whole gang. Never have I seen more talented, generous and merrier a gang, You all, boys and girls, cut on my modeling time as hell but it's worth every single second I spend in front of the screen. Thanks Um grande abraco from Portugal Pedro (who's feeling high, with a little help from his friends) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:13:14 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: WW1 modeling list Subject: Re: Fw: Pedro's Dr.1 Message-ID: <367981F9.BE42D5BC@mail.telepac.pt> > ---------- > > From: Steven M. Perry > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: Pedro's Dr.1 > > Date: quinta-feira, 17 de dezembro de 1998 1:48 > > > > Pedro: > > > > That Dr.1 is very nice. Can you tell us how you did the detail on the > join > > line on the cowl? I am impressed and inspired as my next up is in 1:72. > > > > sp Steve, The cowl wasn't worked upon except for trying to correct the centre "lip" which is not perfect but is better than the way the kit part has it. All the detail (rivets) on the join are there, it's just a question of giving it a wash of dark paint (I used brown water-colour pencil diluted in water) and then highlighting with a lighter base colour and finally a touch of NM. Pretty easy. BTW your DH2 is sensational and also a source of inspiration. And yes, I'll do as you and my next one up will also be in 1/72 ;-). Um abraco Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:18:15 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: NAER , WW1 modeling list Subject: Re: Fw: New Images Message-ID: <36798327.DDF1A91C@mail.telepac.pt> > - > > From: 尾崎 浩久 > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: RE: New Images > > Date: quinta-feira, 17 de dezembro de 1998 1:13 > > > > > > Pedro, > > > > Good job and beautiful birds. > > I don't like Fokker Dr.I reason I don't know why, but I like your pretty > > nice model. > > What did you use yellow paint? > > > > Hiro Hey Hiro, Good to hear again from you and I hope you're feeling better nowadays. Thanks for the kind words. As to Yellow, I used a cheap household yellow paint (robialac brand) that I buy at the supermarket in 1/4 litre tins. One tin will last a whole life and they spray very well. There is a great deal of controversy about this particular aircraft, particularly in what concerns the use of yellow. I tried to match a painting on the cover of an issue of the french Avions magazine that shows the fuselage crosses painted over a yellow fuselage, just as I did. Still the fuselage side anchors on this particular painting appear as yellow too, but I choose to use the black ones on the decal sheet since I have not that steady a hand to paint the new anchors and after all, who is to say that the original anchors weren't black in the first place? Um abraco Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 22:27:17 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith Triplane Message-ID: <36798545.5BDFA93A@mail.telepac.pt> "Steven M. Perry" wrote: > >Continuing on the Sopwith Tripe thread I've had one on my work bench for a > >couple of weeks ready for the middle wings to go on. I've enjoyed this > >project and am really looking forward to finishing it but...WHERE THE HECK > >do the landing and flying wires pass through the middle wing!!??? I've > >stared at photos, drawings, and other models and I'm still unsure of what > >the best method is for determining where to drill! I suppose the best > >method is to glue them in place and determine the location in relation to > >the attachment points on the upper and lower wing and fuselage but I can't > >imagine getting a drill bit into that space to get a suitable hole. I know > >others on the list have built this one - any tips? > > > >Chris Cato > > Chris: > > I had the same problem. I tried the "By Guess & By Golly" method. Golly it > doesn't look right :-(. > I have another Tripe kit I will try the following method upon: > > Looked at head on, each set of bays form a parallelagram horizontally > bisected by the mid wing, (one on either side of the fuselage). On paper, > draw this parallelagram in exact size. Use dividers to get the exact > measurements. (Top side=cabaine strut to mainplane strut, Inside= > Cabaine/top wing to bottom wing/fuselage, Outside=underside of top wing to > upperside of lower wing along the mainplane strut and Bottom side= > fuselage/lower wing to lower wing/mainplane). > > When this parallelagram is accurately transferred to paper,(Be sure to > account for the dihedral angle and have the top and bottom of the > parallelagram reflect this), draw in lines representing the upper & lower > mid wing surfaces again using measurements taken from the model with > dividers. Now use a straight edge to draw in the diagnals of the > parallelagram. Where the diagnals intersect the lines representing the > surfaces of the mid wing will be where the wires go through. Use the > dividers to measure the distance from the intersection points to the > outside edge of the parallelagram on the paper and transfer this distance > to the mid wing (mainplane strut/mid wing surface to intersection point). > Cross your fingers and drill :-) > > If the top wing is already secure and a drill is too big, use a hot needle > to make the hole in the mid wing. > > Anyway, that is how I plan to attempt it. Now somebody please post a vastly > simpler and much more precise method so I can feel like a real dummy. > sp Steve and Chris, I have a couple of photos of the tripe at teh RAF Museum that might be of some help for you. Can you receive jpg's? will scan and e-mail them soon if you're interested. Pedro ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1341 **********************