WWI Digest 1692 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) M-S i by Dakoplast by mkendix 2) Polly S by Matthew E Bittner 3) Re: Web stuff again by Matthew E Bittner 4) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Matthew E Bittner 5) Re: Sopwith Aircraft by Mick Davis, Also why is WWI modelling by David_Zulis@wsib.on.ca 6) Off-Topic: French M/Gs by "David Vosburgh" 7) Re: new web goodies by Pedro e Francisca Soares 8) Re: New Sopwith book by Davis by "Andy Kemp" 9) Re: Another Camel Question by "Andy Kemp" 10) Re: M-S i by Dakoplast by Matthew E Bittner 11) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Albatrosdv@aol.com 12) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Albatrosdv@aol.com 13) Re: Cutting fine brass rod and tubing by "cameron rile" 14) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by John & Allison Cyganowski 15) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by John & Allison Cyganowski 16) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by bucky@ptdprolog.net 17) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by David & Carol Fletcher 18) forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... by KarrArt@aol.com 19) Re: Some OT (lit.)books, was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects.. Why? by bucky@ptdprolog.net 20) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "DAVID BURKE" 21) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "DAVID BURKE" 22) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "DAVID BURKE" 23) Re: why is WWI modelling by Pedro e Francisca Soares 24) Re: Off-Topic: French M/Gs by Pedro e Francisca Soares 25) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "Lee J Mensinger" 26) RE: Paging through the wrong book by "Landon, James D" 27) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects - and intro by Ernest Thomas 28) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by mkendix ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:47:28 -0400 (EDT) From: mkendix To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: M-S i by Dakoplast Message-ID: At the northern Virginia IPMS meeting last night, I saw the Morane-Saulnier Type I by Dakoplast in 1/72nd scale. I believe this is the same kit as that put out by Temeks, buuilt by Matt Bittner and featured in May 1999's Internet Modeler. It had the skull and crossbones with Russian roundels, no cockpit interior etc. Michael mkendix@worthen.ihcrp.georgetown.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:59:23 -0500 From: Matthew E Bittner To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Polly S Message-ID: <19990708.160013.-123131.6.mbittner@juno.com> Does anybody have access to the old Polly S brand of paints? If so, please LMK. Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:43:49 -0500 From: Matthew E Bittner To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Web stuff again Message-ID: <19990708.160013.-123131.1.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:41:21 -0400 (EDT) "Paul Schwartzkopf" writes: > To all who commented on my Nieuport 17--thanks. Now if I could only > paint my figures like Ed's, and Matt--that Morane is, how should I > say this....God, I hate you! ;-) (Beautiful-I need to see that one > in person!) Uh...thanks? ;-) Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 15:43:10 -0500 From: Matthew E Bittner To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <19990708.160012.-123131.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:11:00 -0400 (EDT) "David Vosburgh" writes: > You and Diego... what is it about the Albatros which got so many > people into WWI > modelling? The lines, I guess; it's still my favorite aeroplane. The > first model I can > ever recall building was an Aurora "D.Va", or was it the D.VII with > the flamer on the > boxtop? Well, actually because it was what the hobby shop had at the time. ;-) > Well, if you gotta get beat then there's no dishonor in getting beat > by that guy. But > that's O.K., Matt --- you're still No.1(:72) with us... I agree! And thanks. > (ignoring the chorus of groans from the peanut gallery while he > ducks and runs) Nah, no need too... Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:47:13 -0400 From: David_Zulis@wsib.on.ca To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith Aircraft by Mick Davis, Also why is WWI modelling Message-ID: <852567A8.0071E7A7.00@Notes.Server5.wcb.on.ca> Nigel writes: << They also evoke the period in a very poignant way (the fragility of the machines makes them look almost innocent, a ridiculous thing to go fight a ridiculous war in). >> Excellent point - worth de-lurking for. :-) Welcome, Nigel. DZ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:07:15 -0400 From: "David Vosburgh" To: "WWI Mailing List" Subject: Off-Topic: French M/Gs Message-ID: <002301bec985$dcd78de0$127433cf@Pvosburg> Does anyone have any idea what kind of weapon would be mounted on the gun ring in the observer's cockpit of the interwar Les Mureaux 117? In the Heller kit there's something with a drum magazine which looks vaguely like an inverted Lewis... I know that the British were still using the Lewis at that time in their GP machines, and the French would presumably have had stocks of the same weapons left over from the war. TIA, DV ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:12:30 +0100 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: WW1 modeling list Subject: Re: new web goodies Message-ID: <3785143E.89DB30F3@mail.telepac.pt> Ivan, Jay, Sandy, Al Congrats to all of you guys. Great models, great photos and Al, I believe the gallery arrangement is quite fine. Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:25:33 +0100 From: "Andy Kemp" To: Subject: Re: New Sopwith book by Davis Message-ID: <015701bec989$ef6615e0$03000004@675> I have to declare an interest here, 'cos Mick's a mate of mine! Despite that, it is a damn fine book. Majors on the wartime machines, Strutter, Pup, Triplane, Camel, Snipe - but then that's what most folk want. Some new stuff - a very authorative and well-researched effort - and lots of good photos, mainly from the Stuart Leslie / Jack Bruce collection. Much more depth than the Datafile (with some nice scrap drawings) - and streets ahead of the Arms & Armour booklet ... Best book on Sopwith aircraft yet :-) Andy K ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles and Linda Duckworth To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: 08 July 1999 01:46 Subject: New Sopwith book by Davis > Has anyone on the list purchased or seen, the new Sopwith Fighters book by > Mick Davis. With Arms and Armour's softbound book covering the same subject > matter, the Sopwith Camel book and all the Datafiles that have been > published does it uncover anything new? > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:36:09 +0100 From: "Andy Kemp" To: Subject: Re: Another Camel Question Message-ID: <015801bec989$f058b340$03000004@675> Hi Bob, Strange you should mention our mate Otto, 'cos I've just added a new section to the Cross & Cockade web site called "Detective Stories" to handle just such problemettes. First item posted is "Otto's Camel - who's was it?" - or words to that effect (its been a long day ...). Have a look, to refresh the memories other web sites can't reach ;-) Anyone with similar conundrums is welcome to have them mounted there (is that the right word?) - post them to me and I'll pop them up for an airing. Cheers, Andy Kemp www.crossandcockade.com Society of WW1 Aero Historians > One other marking on the Camels of B flight was an RNAS Eagle on the > stbd fuselage and a blue cowl. These markings can be seen on the captured > Camel that was flown in combat by Jasta 23b's Otto Kissenberth. Andy Kemp > and myself have been trying to determine if Otto's Camel did in fact come > from Naval Three, however our research so far has been inconclusive as so > many aircraft were being transferred from unit to unit during the great > retreat of early 1918. One thing we did determine however was that it was > not the Camel previously attributed to Kissenberth. Sadly all of my email > with Andy was lost in my recent email crashes, so I no longer have the exact > details we settled on .... Andy? > > Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:07:13 -0500 From: Matthew E Bittner To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: M-S i by Dakoplast Message-ID: <19990708.163806.-123131.7.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 16:55:06 -0400 (EDT) mkendix writes: > At the northern Virginia IPMS meeting last night, I saw the > Morane-Saulnier Type I by Dakoplast in 1/72nd scale. I believe this > is > the same kit as that put out by Temeks, buuilt by Matt Bittner and > featured in May 1999's Internet Modeler. It had the skull and > crossbones > with Russian roundels, no cockpit interior etc. I believe you're right. I have also seen it under the Eastern Express and Toga labels. Man, that mold is making the rounds! :-) Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:45:59 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <3d4e1e7e.24b67617@aol.com> In a message dated 99-07-08 15:34:44 EDT, you write: << Digital A/C with digitized pilots. I just hope that they take the time to write a good story... >> That last is the Big Problem, and not just for flying movies, as The Phantom Bore proves so conclusively (I have seen the first Star Wars 39 times, and will likely see it again, and it works every time and always will because it has a great story with characters - not caricatures - that stick; I will never see the Phantom Bore again). The closest I know of of a WW1 script getting taken seriously for longer than 30 seconds here in the past 15 years was about 10 years ago when "The Arizona Cowboy" (a story about guess who?) made it into a six month option (dropped at the end of the term). Most of the people who have to say yes to the idea a.) know nothing (let alone the topic of the submitted script), b.) have the attention span of gnats, and so c.) are bored by something that happened "way back then." I mean, these are the Harvard/Yale bunch who can't tell the difference between the Civil War and the Vietnam War. As one of them said, when shown pictures, "these aren't as cool as spaceships." 'Nuff said. And yes, this is another first-hand "Hollywierd War Story." Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:54:59 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <46637525.24b67833@aol.com> In a message dated 99-07-08 16:54:23 EDT, you write: << Two big areas of WW I subject matter I've yet to investigate very deeply- AustroHungarian stuff and floatplanes >> Well, with that great Flashback Berg on the way, and the Austrian Albatros later this Fall from Eduard, we're all going to get the chance to pinch our noses, grab our knees and cannonball into the deep end. That W.29 makes me look forward to maybe seeing some of the other floatplanes show up like the Lohner and the Macchi, and there's the H.D.2... Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:29:36 -0300 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Cutting fine brass rod and tubing Message-ID: <199907081526424@cameron.prontomail.com> >cutting tube with one of those mini tube cutter wheel thingies >cum- doova-lackies is the best way to go - I bought one but the bloody thing is too big by about 5 mm's, where is a common place to get ones that cut very fine tubing? >BTW - Do you know what a "V" block is ?? If you don't let me know Its's >a useful/ essential tool for holding round sections when cutting or >working on them no I dont know what a V block is. Thanx to all those who wrote suggestions, Ive printed them out and will give them all a go. It doesnt really matter if I wreck 4 feet of tubing, they are pretty cheap to learn on and ruin. cam ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:37:05 -0400 From: John & Allison Cyganowski To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37852811.2D65@worldnet.att.net> Paul Schwartzkopf wrote: > > In my own case, I grew up listening to my Dad's stories of flying the Stearman trainer during WW2. It is these stories that helped get me hooked on biplanes (in general) and it just progressed from there. Also, with the popularity of Snoopy/red baron back then, it also inspired researching that era of aviation. I am at the point now that I believe true flying is getting the wind in your face, and my modeling tends to concentrate in that area. > > Most of the modelers I know tend to build those tail-burners that they knew when they were in the service. Maybe your subjects are dictated by an unconscious desire for nostalgia or childhood--hence the ridiculous prices found on Ebay! > > Granted, it is easier to build and paint a one-oh-(censored) model than a Sopwith Triplane. Maybe the challenge has something to do with it also. I still have not been able to talk any of the other modelers in my IPMS chapter into even trying a WW1 kit. A couple of them actually do buy the kits, but I have yet to see any of these guys build one, or any other model kit as far as that goes. > > BTW, I also have a distinct distaste for Luft '46, but one of these days I will get my German Air Service '19 completed ;-) > > Paul A. Schwartzkopf Paul could you turn on the word wrap in your Email editor? Thanks, Cyg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:43:57 -0400 From: John & Allison Cyganowski To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <378529AD.4B30@worldnet.att.net> Lee J Mensinger wrote: > > Any WW I movie can be made, not exactly on the cheap, but with the availability > of WW I RC models, ala, Darling Lili and many others the price is reasonable. > Throw in the Computerization and they have it knocked. They just don't want to > do it... There was a more recent movie and the Stuka's were RC. > > Don't recall the movie name, where the guy steals a Super Mig and flies away. Clint Eastwood. Firefox. Its okay. Cyg. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:50:12 -0400 From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37852B24.12673AF7@ptdprolog.net> David Vosburgh wrote: > Well, Ernest is on the record as having said he builds WW1 to meet chicks. Funny it > doesn't seem to be working for me, though. Maybe I should grow a beard... ......Nah. doesn't seem to work for me.Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 14:40:56 -0700 From: David & Carol Fletcher To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37851AE8.6500@mars.ark.com> It appears that everyone on the list has stepped in to psychoanalyze themselves (100+ messages on my server in 24 hours...), so I'll leap in too. I'm not a WWI nut - I am an eclectic aeronut. If it has wings and flies (and didn't pop out of an egg), then I'm interested in it. I prefer propellers rather than "no visible means of support", but era and nationality are less important than character and paint schemes. Heck, I built exclusively WWII Japanese for several years! Some of our members are dedicated, lifelong WWI builders (or collectors) and others are passing through a phase of interest. What we all share is a mild form of addiction (luckily with no side effects other than on the wallet or the available shelf space). Some people collect coffee spoons or Coca Cola cans, we collect something that requires the application of research and skill to be fully satisfying. I consider that to be a fairly healthy addiction, so I have felt no compunction to take "the cure". Now to the basic question of why WWI isn't up there with the Blue Angels and the 601*W (read upside down), I think it comes down to timing, the volume of available material and the scale of the conflict. With 33,000 (expletive deleteds) built versus the number of Ilyas, there is a remarkable difference in the potential for markings and "war stories". Besides, self, Dad or Grandpa flew/worked in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. There are few among us who have a remembered connection to The Great War. The volume of material available is a function of greater publicity consciousness among modern companies and armed forces, and so favours the modern stuff. Likewise, the air war in WWII was on a vastly greater scale than WWI, hence more written works, more movies, more models... Figure builders I have known seldom specialize in any one era, and shipbuilders interests often span a couple of hundred years, so I don't feel unusual in having an aviation interest that spreads over less than a century! Just pick the war (or lack thereof) you want to lavish your addiction on and enjoy it. Dave Fletcher (who successfully drew his two sons into the insidious plastic web...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:55:53 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Message-ID: <4bd021cc.24b68679@aol.com> In a message dated 7/8/99 2:49:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Albatrosdv@aol.com writes: << I mean, these are the Harvard/Yale bunch who can't tell the difference between the Civil War and the Vietnam War. As one of them said, when shown pictures, "these aren't as cool as spaceships." 'Nuff said. And yes, this is another first-hand "Hollywierd War Story." Tom C >> Speaking of the American Civil War- I notice that next week TNT is showing a movie about the Confedrate submarine Hunley. We don't have cable- so- somebody watch it and tell me if it's any good! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:59:47 -0400 From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Some OT (lit.)books, was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects.. Why? Message-ID: <37852D63.3BF4C4F6@ptdprolog.net> Ernest Thomas wrote: > 'They Fought for the Skys' by Quentin somebody? That would be Quentin Reynolds. This was the first WWI book I ever read. I picked it up at school one day during "reading time" when I was in 7th or 8th grade. At that time I was only interested in the American Civil War/War between the States/War of Northern Aggression-Southern Secession. I haven't looked back since. I picked up a copy of the booj recently, but haven't re-read it. My memory is that it was a nice, overall history. > 'Full Circle- tactics of Air Fighting 1914 to 1964 I think this was actually written by Johnnie Johnson. A pretty good history of tactics, but not a lot of WWI stuff.hth Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:30:55 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <007401bec995$8ed6bb60$8ef110d1@dora9sprynet.com> Jeezus Tom, That'n sounded like it came straight from Paul Harvey! And that's the rest... ...of the story DaveB >And yes, this is another first-hand "Hollywierd War Story." > >Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 17:54:44 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <007601bec995$90d5e6c0$8ef110d1@dora9sprynet.com> This thread has been very interesting from many points of view, and as a soon-to-be-pursuing-the-Master's -in-History, an educational discussion. Please allow me to throw in my untarnished two cent's worth as to why WWI isn't popular. First, as far as I know, there are no more living WWI veterans, or damned few if there are. The oral first-person history is gone. Also, the Great War was not easy to understand. That includes why it happened, where it was fought, the chronology of the War - it takes a bit of learning. I could say that I find it ironic that with the recent hubub in Yugoslavia that WWI wasn't more the rage - even with that dumb hillbilly in the White House telling us over and over about how this was the area the WWI started in. I like the idea fronted about how the weapons (airplanes) looked fragile and almost antithetical to warfare. That may be, but if the person with that viewpoint is then told of pilots heading to earth on fire, with no means of escape... Hmmm. My point is getting diluted. Laypeople have an impression of WWI that includes brightly colored planes, overt chivalry in the air, maybe a trench or two, and Tommy helmets - and can't forget the spiked German counterparts! Tell someone of the horrors of trench warfare, and they'll look at you like you were crazy. Same with the American Civil War. Tell them of pickett's charge, and that what the TBS documentary showed was merely a percentage of the soldiers that stepped out into the field and were mowed down, and the mind boggles. WWI was a dirty, filthy war that demolished a good part of Europe. But nobody chooses to remember. I was at a bookstore recently. Shelves of WW2 books, but only one or two on the Great War. Why? Can Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg really be that influential? I think not. There are many living WW2 vets, and the appeal of the technological advances of that war are closer to the living memory. It is easier to understand: there were easy to define villains, and ready-made heroes. It was the first big war to involve U.S. soil since 1812. You don't have to be too smart to get WW2. WWI is a completely different story. And that is why I intend to concentrate on Military History for my Masters and especially WWI, as it was truly the Great War. DB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 18:08:49 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <00c401bec997$59c3c740$8ef110d1@dora9sprynet.com> Hear Hear David, As for the rest of you who get bent out of shape when other things are mentioned, well I'm working on a pair of Messerschmitt Bf-109K-4's and an Arado Ar-240A and they seem very content next to the SSW D.IV and the Fokker Dr.1 and vice versa. And I like props too, and as I enjoy the extra skill and patience that the WWI subjects demand, I also like the clean lines and interesting aerodynamic approaches taken on A/C of other periods. I declare myself not to be merely a WWI aviation enthusiast, I am an aviation enthusiast. I'm a wing man. DB -----Original Message----- From: David & Carol Fletcher To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Thursday, July 08, 1999 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? >It appears that everyone on the list has stepped in to psychoanalyze >themselves (100+ messages on my server in 24 hours...), so I'll leap in >too. I'm not a WWI nut - I am an eclectic aeronut. If it has wings and >flies (and didn't pop out of an egg), then I'm interested in it. I >prefer propellers rather than "no visible means of support", but era and >nationality are less important than character and paint schemes. Heck, >I built exclusively WWII Japanese for several years! Some of our >members are dedicated, lifelong WWI builders (or collectors) and others >are passing through a phase of interest. What we all share is a mild >form of addiction (luckily with no side effects other than on the wallet >or the available shelf space). Some people collect coffee spoons or >Coca Cola cans, we collect something that requires the application of >research and skill to be fully satisfying. I consider that to be a >fairly healthy addiction, so I have felt no compunction to take "the >cure". > >Now to the basic question of why WWI isn't up there with the Blue Angels >and the 601*W (read upside down), I think it comes down to timing, the >volume of available material and the scale of the conflict. With 33,000 >(expletive deleteds) built versus the number of Ilyas, there is a >remarkable difference in the potential for markings and "war stories". >Besides, self, Dad or Grandpa flew/worked in WWII, Korean War, Vietnam >War, etc. There are few among us who have a remembered connection to >The Great War. The volume of material available is a function of >greater publicity consciousness among modern companies and armed forces, >and so favours the modern stuff. Likewise, the air war in WWII was on a >vastly greater scale than WWI, hence more written works, more movies, >more models... > >Figure builders I have known seldom specialize in any one era, and >shipbuilders interests often span a couple of hundred years, so I don't >feel unusual in having an aviation interest that spreads over less than >a century! Just pick the war (or lack thereof) you want to lavish your >addiction on and enjoy it. > >Dave Fletcher >(who successfully drew his two sons into the insidious plastic web...) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 00:11:29 +0100 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: why is WWI modelling Message-ID: <37853021.26DCD27D@mail.telepac.pt> David_Zulis@wsib.on.ca wrote: > Nigel writes: > > << They also evoke the period in a very poignant way (the fragility of the > machines makes them look almost innocent, a ridiculous thing to go fight a > ridiculous war in). >> > > Excellent point - worth de-lurking for. :-) > > Welcome, Nigel. > > DZ I guess this is one of the things that can make people interested in WW1 and older a/c. I believe, (and I may be way wrong of course, but seeing that sentence above just made me think a bit about it) that most first time teen modelers when they go out and buy the ultimate tail burner tamygawa kit to try putting it together, do it because they may have an interest in aviation (to some extent) but also because extremely sophisticated war machines as we have these days are also a way to self-affirmation. His model (and the quality of the modeling is not of paramount importance to this type of modeler, at this phase of his learning/interest curve) is what the Big guys use in real life to beat the bad guys and for him that's a way of saying Hey, I could do it also. Much like when we were young and we would play "Indians and cowboys". This type of modeler doesn't even think that one can get killed while driving one of those things and that bullets hurt. He doesn't care about aircraft or aviation he cares about power. He is the typical consumer of Rambo trash. In time, as he grows up, if he really likes aviation and modeling, the hobby itself will lead him to search for other areas of interest. He'll probably begin to look at aicraft not as mere artifacts of war but as really extraordinary machines, that are full of wonder and aesthetically pleasing even when they have nothing hanging from underwing pylons. And I don't mean that he or she will never again touch a jet model because any aircraft will fit into this broad concept. (I know you all have the WW1 button on your shirts, but I'd bet that there isn't one of you that will come forward and say that a Starfighter isn't a beautiful creation) We all love aircraft be they engineless, prop, jets, whatever. What you guys have is a different, more mature, attitude towards models and aviation. There is nothing to say that a teenager can't have this type of attitude towards the hobby, and some of you had Albatrosses and Pups as first kits, as some of you pointed out, but I'm sure that the majority of contemporary teen age kids have their first approach to the hobby by buying something like an F-16 or a Mig 20something, because that's what they see in the news and movies. I'm sure that even if the hobby has to compete with extremely unfair concurrents (playstations and computers) the fact that today there are so many great WW1 kits on the market and a rising interest in this area of modeling, (after all, the best internet modeling pages are dedicated to it and even magazines such as SMI do run a WW1 regular feature on all its issues) will contribute to spread that "awareness" that is the trade mark of the true modeler. Hope I didn't sound to pedantic or idiotic. If i did blame it on my linguistic limitations and please accept my excuses. My 20 eurocents (almost equal to a dime nowadays) Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 00:11:46 +0100 From: Pedro e Francisca Soares To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Off-Topic: French M/Gs Message-ID: <37853032.22C563F4@mail.telepac.pt> David Vosburgh wrote: > Does anyone have any idea what kind of weapon would be mounted on the gun ring in the > observer's cockpit of the interwar Les Mureaux 117? Dave, "Avions" ran a series on Les Mureaux aicraft some issues ago. I'll check and let you know if I find somethig. If you don't hear from me in 3 days, please remind me again. Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 18:38:22 -0500 From: "Lee J Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, "Lee Mensinger" Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <3785366E.B56FC842@wireweb.net> You have my contention exactly. Firefox used models and computers by transposition of a model with a Sabreliner or a similar biz jet that actually flew some of the manuevers. Not complete utilization of computers but a heck of a start. Lee DAVID BURKE wrote: > >Don't recall the movie name, where the guy steals a Super Mig and flies > away. > >Most of that was done by computer... > > 'Firefox' starring Clint Eastwood. And IIRC, that was way before the days > of letting the computer do it. They actually used a bunch of (gasp) MODELS > to make the movie! > > Look, Lucas in that recent fecal spasm referred to as 'The Phantom > Menace' (the Menace is boredom - just to let you know) showed us that you > can articulate ANYTHING with a computer. So to say that a WWI movie can't > be done due to monetary contraints is crap. Digital A/C with digitized > pilots. I just hope that they take the time to write a good story... > > DaveB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 17:52:54 -0600 From: "Landon, James D" To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Paging through the wrong book Message-ID: <98B98E951BA0D1119A590000F8045A47030A2FBA@emss02m05.ems.lmco.com> <> Where does one find out about events like this? Jim, the newbie who is dying to see even just photos, let alone *REAL* WWI bipes!! I would even tolerate the 99 degrees and 90 humidity (but would be upset if any planes left before I got to shoot a whole roll of film on it). > ---------- > From: Charles and Linda Duckworth > Reply To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 1999 7:47 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Paging through the wrong book > > Sometime on 6/22 I was placed in Limbo as this was the last email I got > from > the list. Did a 'review wwi' and saw I was a member but still not > receiving > any mail. So for the last 13 days have been reading the archieves and > wondering where I went wrong - then it hit me I had looked through a book > at > a local bookstore on color profles on WWII Luf.... apparently was placed > in > the penality box. > > Sopwith Baby almost done waiting on an Aeroclub engine; scratchbuild a new > fuselage for by Sierra Fokker DII - looked easier than fixing the rounded > corners. My nine year old and I went to the 2nd annual St. Louis WWI > Fly-in > (99 degrees and 90 humidity). Several Nieuports, full scale beautiful > silver Bristol Fighter and a full scale Pup with WWI engine. Most pilots > left yesterday AM due to the local heat index. > > Bought Acorn's new Scratchbuilding book and have now taken up knitting > (and > drinking) > > Charlie > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:07:25 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects - and intro Message-ID: <37853D3D.6DBB@bellsouth.net> d mather wrote: > > Hello group, > I am new to the list and felt like I might introduce myself - and respond to > the subject, since I am in that catagory too. Hi Doug, welcome to the List. E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:04:57 -0400 (EDT) From: mkendix To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, DAVID BURKE wrote: > First, as far as I know, there are no more living WWI veterans, or > damned few if there are. Around 4,000 U.S. veterans of WWI were still alive as of 12 months ago. They were eligible to receive the Fench Legion of Honor. > The oral first-person history is gone. Also, the > Great War was not easy to understand. True. You should consider subscribing to the discussion list run by Jane Ploetke from University of Kansas, I think. They have a wonderful website; I can give you a bunch of links if you're interested. > > I like the idea fronted about how the weapons (airplanes) looked fragile > and almost antithetical to warfare. That may be, but if the person with > that viewpoint is then told of pilots heading to earth on fire, with no > means of escape... Hmmm. My point is getting diluted. Laypeople have an > impression of WWI that includes brightly colored planes, overt chivalry in > the air, maybe a trench or two, and Tommy helmets - and can't forget the > spiked German counterparts! Tell someone of the horrors of trench warfare, > and they'll look at you like you were crazy. Same with the American Civil > War. Tell them of pickett's charge, and that what the TBS documentary > showed was merely a percentage of the soldiers that stepped out into the > field and were mowed down, and the mind boggles. WWI was a dirty, filthy > war that demolished a good part of Europe. But nobody chooses to remember. Many do remember; e.g. Arlington, VA, 11/11/98 had a special ceremony in the afternoon to honor veterans from WWI. Of course, most of them are 99 or over. > > I was at a bookstore recently. Shelves of WW2 books, but only one or > two on the Great War. There's a huge literature out there but as you can imagine, it's less popular. I compiled a bibliography of several hundered books if you're interested. Not too much on the air war since that was something of a sideshow in WWI. > > And that is why I intend to concentrate on Military History for my > Masters and especially WWI, as it was truly the Great War. I'm cheering you on despite what you said about Clinton:). Michael mkendix@worthen.ihcrp.georgetown.edu ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1692 **********************