WWI Digest 1693 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Ernest Thomas 2) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI by Albatrosdv@aol.com 3) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by GRBroman@aol.com 4) RE: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Shane Weier 5) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... by Brent & Tina Theobald 6) RE: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject by Shane Weier 7) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject by Albatrosdv@aol.com 8) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Matthew E Bittner 9) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "Charles and Linda Duckworth" 10) RE: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Shane Weier 11) RE: Pirates, was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Shane Weier 12) RE: Escallops... by Shane Weier 13) RE: Future of the Hobby (was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects) by Shane Weier 14) RE: Eyewitness books wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Shane Weier 15) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Ernest Thomas 16) Re: Kits FS by Brent & Tina Theobald 17) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by KarrArt@aol.com 18) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Ernest Thomas 19) =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_letters_from_the_front,_Nr.1?= by Dave Watts 20) Re: Eyewitness books wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by KarrArt@aol.com 21) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject by KarrArt@aol.com 22) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by KarrArt@aol.com 23) new junk by KarrArt@aol.com 24) Re: why is WWI modelling by "DAVID BURKE" 25) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by "DAVID BURKE" 26) =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_G=F6=F6f_=DCp?= by Dave Watts 27) Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? by Ernest Thomas 28) =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20G=F6ring=5FG=F6=F6f=5F=DCp?= by KarrArt@aol.com 29) Re: Göring_letters_from_the_front,_Nr.1 by Albatrosdv@aol.com 30) Re: They Fought for the Sky by Shane & Lorna Jenkins 31) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject by Albatrosdv@aol.com 32) Re: was: new Junk - now RK's great new things by Albatrosdv@aol.com 33) Re: Göring_Gööf_Üp by Albatrosdv@aol.com 34) Re: Sopwith Aircraft by Mick Davis, Also why is WWI modelling unpopular by bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) 35) Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI by "Bob Pearson" 36) =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_Nr.1_letter,_dated_July_20th,_1918?= by Dave Watts 37) Re: new junk by peter crow ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:17:31 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37853F9B.360@bellsouth.net> DAVID BURKE wrote: > I just hope that they take the time to write a good story... > Now you're dreaming, Sparky. E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:38:52 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Message-ID: <804f4032.24b69e9c@aol.com> In a message dated 99-07-08 18:57:44 EDT, you write: << 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! >> that's easy - it sinks just before each commercial break. They hire new actors for each 10 minute segment. Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:39:44 EDT From: GRBroman@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <11d14270.24b69ed0@aol.com> In a message dated 7/8/99 3:27:48 PM EST, mkendix@worthen.ihcrp.georgetown.edu writes: > > I maintain that to achieve an "acceptable" appearance is more difficult > for a rigged biplane than a monoplane; my analogy would be from diving > where more points are obtainable as the degree of difficulty increases. > It's harder to do a dive with 3 piked turns and a twist, than a simple > "swan" dive, judged in terms of entry and performance. On the other > hand, people tend to persist in their interest since the "investment" > required to attain a similar level of performance in a new area may be > substantial. So, if I decided to do armor, I'd have to learn a whole new > set of techniques, perhaps buy some more tools and defintely acquire more > references. Michael, absolutely true. I do agree that a bipe is tougher to do well. My 0/400 took longer to rig than to build. And it's absolutely tougher to do when you have to do it twice (don't ask). But I'm still mystified as to why WWI seems to be low man on the totem pole in all areas. Planes may be self-explanatory, but I have yet to see a Revell Emden, Dresden, or four stacker on a display table. Can't count the number of WWI U-boats though. Same same with tanks. It's strange. > Your last point about exclusivity is well taken; I enjoy this aspect, to > some extent. How would we feel if we awoke one Thursday and every modeler > decided to do WWI? Hmm, too awful to contemplate... Glen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:40:42 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411AA@mimhexch.mim.com.au> David B (*another* Heretic) says: > 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. Because, in part, this is aimed at me I'd like to respond. I'm doubtful if any of the list members, and certainly myself, give a toss whether the others build off topic subjects occasionally, primarily, or exclusively. However, it is a *long* standing tradition in the group to dump on *particularly* the 10-thingy. This is partly meant as a joke, but as with many jokes, there is an element of truth in the sentiments expressed. In the case of the 10-thingy, I can walk down to the nearest bookshop NOT A SPECIALIST SHOP and be fairly certain of seeing at least one book on that aircraft, or to the specialist shop and find at least dozens. I can go to a model club and find that half the members build them, many repetetively, some exclusively. I can pick up any mainstream modelling magazine, and will see articles, find *hundreds* of decal sheets, dozens of conversions, and just as many sets of brass. I can open Usenet at rec.models.scale and find *hundreds* of modellers willing to discuss the subject endlessly. Of course, much of this also applies to P-51's, Spitfires, FW-190's and so forth. But....WW1 enthusiasts are a tiny minority - if nothing else, that should be obvious after this thread in particular. To most of us, and especially to those who build primarily WW1 stuff, this list is Nirvana - a resource we'd never have dreamed of during the great WW1 droughts of the past. It is also, practically, unique. Most of us will know at most one or two people who care for WW1 models *other* than those on the list, and there are perilously few other places we can gather and discuss this stuff without being deafened by off topic chatter. So do me a favour - take advantage of one of the many resources available for the lengthy discussion of other subjects *elsewhere*, read the FAQ about the subjects intended to be discussed here, and don't "get so bent out of shape" when one of us makes a joke about 10-thingies or other overpublicised Off Topic digressions Shane (feeling grumpy, forgive me (Grumpy has)) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 19:41:39 -0700 From: Brent & Tina Theobald To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Message-ID: <37856162.7084D806@airmail.net> Howdy! > << 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. Us guys at work conducted a history test at work one day. We all called our wives and asked who won the Civil War, Blue or Grey? The results were pathetic. (Although my wife did guess correctly). Brent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:49:30 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411AB@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Brent, > Us guys at work conducted a history test at work one day. We > all called our > wives and asked who won the Civil War, Blue or Grey? The > results were pathetic. I'd have said "The Roundheads" ...and been right as well. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:56:33 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject Message-ID: Don't know if many of you watch Leno, but he goes around the neighborhood of NBC studios out here and asks people simple questions, to which he gets really stupid answers (I've seen him do this in the Pavilions parking lot). this last week he asked when the Declaration of Independence was signed and some kid said "1965." I guess it was all "ancient history" to him. Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:05:28 -0500 From: Matthew E Bittner To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <19990708.200546.-234167.0.mbittner@juno.com> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:41:50 -0400 (EDT) GRBroman@aol.com writes: > Can't count the number of WWI U-boats though. Isn't there a resin one? Ken? Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:22:38 -0500 From: "Charles and Linda Duckworth" To: Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <002501bec9a9$8ad4a400$735cdfd1@q1p5x0> >> Can't count the number of WWI U-boats though. > >Isn't there a resin one? Ken? Believe I read several years ago someone brought out a resin and vac WWI U-boat.....a brave man. > >Matt Bittner >http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook >http://www.discoveromaha.com/community/groups/plasticmodelers/index.html > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:14:08 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411A4@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Bob, > I have spent 34 years without ever seeing a Biggles book. . I > do have the movie though. You'll probably be less than surprised to hear it bears sod all relationship to anything ever written by WEJ. Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:40:42 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Pirates, was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411A6@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Pedro warns > >> Ernest Thomas wrote: >> Also the place where the wife and I had our first kiss. (schmooch!) > > Be warned, > > He'll try to do the same to you!!!!!! Better take the Mrs. along. > > ;-) ROTFL Shane (drawing a thick black line around the southern parts of the USA - I'll visit elsewhere ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:18:50 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Escallops... Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411A5@mimhexch.mim.com.au> James, > Does anybody out there have a suggestion about cutting even, > correctly spaced > scallops in the trailing wire edge of a wing? This defeated > me on my Caudron but I do not want it to defeat me again. I attach a straight edge along the upper surface of the wing so that the trailing edge of the metal runs along the line of the deepest point of each scallop. Then wrap a piece of wet and dry around a suitable sized former (brush handle, dowel broom handle if you're making clunky old 1/32 ;-) and sand back between each rib station until it reaches the metal Should take 5 minutes to set up and 10 to finish Shane ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:00:24 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Future of the Hobby (was Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects) Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411A8@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Mark says: > Either of them might pick up an X-Acto and Paasche again at > some future > point. They know what is involved, and if they have the > interest, know where to get pointers. Good attitude. My 9yo daughters build models (and enter contests!) and are continually bugging me to let them use my tools (airbrush included non - yikes!) and my 5yo son is desperate to be thought old enough to build a model by himself. I've certainly encouraged them, but if they decide *not* to build models at any point I won't sweat it. I think it's enough to give them opportunity to try things and guidance but leave the choices to them Shane (OTOH I will be sad if none of them go on with it :-( ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 07:06:14 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Eyewitness books wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CD0411A3@mimhexch.mim.com.au> EtH > > Somehwere in this batch of mail, EtH has the publisher listed. > > DK. Dorling-Kindersley (not Dead Kennedy's). Pretty popular stuff. > Should be available at any McBooks chain(B&N, Borders, etc...) as well > as any good shop that specializes in kids books. But probably *not* available in Australia, at least not widely. Our market was divided up by US and UK publishers many years ago, with US publishers agreeing not to export into our market in return for the Poms leaving other markets of theirs alone. An attempt by our government to break this cartel was rebuffed by local authors and publishers happy with the semi protected status of the market. It doesn't BTW mean we don't *ever* see US published books, just that they have to be imported by the individual bookshop, rather than by a distributor for that publisher, and as a consequence the range and price of books is affected to our detriment. 'Nuff whingeing. That's why mail order was invented ! Shane ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:27:04 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37854FE8.3293@bellsouth.net> mkendix wrote: > So, if I decided to do armor, I'd have to learn a whole new > set of techniques, perhaps buy some more tools and defintely acquire more > references. As someone who's built a tank or two, it's a worthwhile endeavor. The techniques are pretty much the same(seams are seams, paint runs are paint runs), the tools are the same(unless you're gonna start doing homemade zimmeritt). You would need more references if you're gonna let AMS kick in, but you also might learn a few new tricks that you've never thought of. You may learn a new way of looking at modeling problems. At the very least, you'll get lots of practise painting wheels. And many of these new skills can transfer to your stringbags. And not just tanks, but anything different from what you'd normally build. Think I'm gonna build me a Patton before too long... E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:53:11 -0700 From: Brent & Tina Theobald To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Kits FS Message-ID: <37857226.1677374@airmail.net> I would like a list please, Thanks! Brent BOBFABRIS@delphi.com wrote: > I find that I have a number of kits and books that are surplus to my > needs - and will send a list to those who reply off-list, to > bobfabris@delphi.com. Thanks. -- ************************************* They’ve got us surrounded, the poor bastards! ************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:19:12 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <5ae4f064.24b6b620@aol.com> In a message dated 7/8/99 1:05:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, GRBroman@AOL.com writes: << If WWI models are unpopular just because of rigging, then WW I armor and ships would be in abundance on the tables, right?. No rigging on a tank and no more effort with a WWI Dreadnought than an Iowa class battleship. >> Being interested in models and miniatures in general, and WW I in particular, I would love to go to a show and see more WW I armor, ships, vehicles etc. I may never get around to building such things, but it would be great to see someone else's work. If it's WW I, and it can be reproduced in minature, I want to see it! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 21:26:36 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <37855DDC.79B7@bellsouth.net> KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > If it's WW I, and it can be reproduced in > minature, I want to see it! Want to se some miniature barbed wire? E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 21:33:36 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_letters_from_the_front,_Nr.1?= Message-ID: <199907090236.VAA45283@ind.cioe.com> Hi all,

  I took some time to translate some of Herman G=F6ring's letters from the front, copies of which were sent to Fokker, and I thought you might enjoy some words from the past concerning the BMW motor performance in the Fokker D.VII.  More letters to follow, I'm also posting them on "the Aerodrome forum".

Best,
Dave Watts



Jagdgeschwader Frhr. v. Richthofen=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 O.U.20.7.1918.
Br.Nr. 1354/I/18
Kogenluft Kofl. 7


Report.
...........

            &nbs= p;      Now that two Stafflen, (flights), of the Geschwader, (squadron), are equipped with the BMW IIIa engines, it is obviously apparent, that it is an urgent necessity to get as soon as possible the entire Geschwader, (squadron), equipped with these engines.=A0 The BMW engine is superior to the Mercedes, (particularly at greater altitude).=A0 It is this fact that does not allow the co-operation of all four Stafflen, (flights), to fly as one Geschwader, (squadron), federation.=A0 If we are to continue without the great advantages of the BMW engines, it cannot be done.=A0 Both, in the speed and in the climb rate, the Mercedes and BMW partiucularly do not compare.=A0 The two first Stafflen, (flights), usually succeed to climb and engage the enemy squadrons, but the other two Stafflen, (flights), remain behind and thus only half of the combat capability of the Geschwader, (squadron), is utilized.=A0 A uniform attack is not possible.=A0 Being aware of this fact arouses great discontent with the pilots whom do not have the BMW engine.=A0 Especially if they see their comrades with superior performance able to engage and score, without themselves being able to attack.=A0 Such a closed federation, as is the Richthofen-Geschwader, (squadron), which is assigned at the main fighting fronts always, must be equipped uniformly with the best and most modern material available.=A0 I please therefore again ask for accelerated delivery of BMW engines.=A0
gez. G=F6ring=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
Oblt. u. Geschwader-Kommandeur.



------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:34:08 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Eyewitness books wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: In a message dated 7/8/99 6:24:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sdw@qld.mim.com.au writes: << > DK. Dorling-Kindersley (not Dead Kennedy's). Pretty popular stuff. > Should be available at any McBooks chain(B&N, Borders, etc...) as well > as any good shop that specializes in kids books. But probably *not* available in Australia, at least not widely. Our market was divided up by US and UK publishers many years ago, with US publishers agreeing not to export into our market in return for the Poms leaving other markets of theirs alone. An attempt by our government to break this cartel was rebuffed by local authors and publishers happy with the semi protected status of the market. >> DK is out of London. Alfred Knopf has the US publishing rights, and Random House the distribution. Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:34:09 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject Message-ID: <5790bac8.24b6b9a1@aol.com> In a message dated 7/8/99 5:59:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Albatrosdv@aol.com writes: << Declaration of Independence was signed and some kid said "1965." I guess it was all "ancient history" to him. Tom C >> Wasn't that really the year of the Battle of Hastings? You know- where Napoleon defeated Casius Clay? Sorry...back to the easel Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:43:37 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: In a message dated 7/8/99 7:28:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ethomas6@bellsouth.net writes: << KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > If it's WW I, and it can be reproduced in > minature, I want to see it! Want to se some miniature barbed wire? E. >> What are you tryin' to say sailor? RK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 22:43:38 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: new junk Message-ID: <9d432e57.24b6bbda@aol.com> Shucks, I might as well take these few precious moments of typing time and announce that after 231 years, we finally have a bunch of new(to the web) junk on my site, including a tiny bit of on-topic stuff. Head for: http://members.aol.com/karrart/index.htm To those of you that have visited before and are tired of my same old crud, scroll around till you come to something vaguely called "new stuff" or "new junk" or something like that. I can't remember. Thanks Y'all! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:40:09 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: why is WWI modelling Message-ID: <006b01bec9b5$f429db80$5763c0d1@dora9sprynet.com> Well spoken, Pedro! Keep up the linguistic limitations! ;) DaveB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:50:25 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <006c01bec9b5$f4e27d20$5763c0d1@dora9sprynet.com> >David B (*another* Heretic) says: Calm Down, You are taking things too seriously, and I wouldn't be here if I wasn't honestly interested in WWI aviation. And yes, I understand where some of the animosity comes from, and yes, I DO use other resources to get info on ot subjects, and yes, it gets a little warm in the face when somebody takes something meant as whimsical and believes that I am trying to ruin his time. But if it makes you happy, I will be more restrained in my comments and focus of topic. I hereby consider myself chastened. DB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:06:08 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_G=F6=F6f_=DCp?= Message-ID: <199907090308.WAA47030@ind.cioe.com> Sorry for the transmission garble on that Göring letter, I hope you were able to make it out anyway, if not, just ask and I will attempt to send it again. Best, Dave Watts ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:09:15 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Unpopularity of WWI Subjects... Why? Message-ID: <378567DB.7928@bellsouth.net> DAVID BURKE wrote: > I hereby consider myself chastened. > Go put on the hair shirt and call us in the am. E. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:10:26 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20G=F6ring=5FG=F6=F6f=5F=DCp?= Message-ID: In a message dated 7/8/99 8:07:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time, davew@wattstrainshop.com writes: << Sorry for the transmission garble on that Göring letter, I hope you were able to make it out anyway, if not, just ask and I will attempt to send it again. Best, Dave Watts >> a bit like reading through Venitian blinds, but still able to extract the gist...Thanks! Robert K. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:22:01 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Göring_letters_from_the_front,_Nr.1 Message-ID: <459b0b64.24b6c4d9@aol.com> Whatever word processor you are using is creating a format that is totally unfriendly to the site's operation. Can't read a thing. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:26:44 +1000 From: Shane & Lorna Jenkins To: WW1 posts Subject: Re: They Fought for the Sky Message-ID: <37856BF4.39C6E542@tac.com.au> Ernest wrote, >So I've been thinking about what got me into WWI a/c. It wasn't Biggles, I too >have never seen one of those. I think it was when my older brother showed me a >picture of a Sop.Camel when I was a wee lad. Told me that was what Snoopy flew. >For a few years, every biplane I saw was a plane like Snoopy flew. I never even saw a Biggles book till I met Shane the younger. But at the tender age of twelve I read a book called "Rilla of Ingleside" by L M Montgomery which deals with the Great War seen from the eyes of the women and men left behind. It took ages to read this book because I had to get the atlas out to find where places were, then I had to go and get a history book from the library to get a better feel for it, then another and another.....and then in one of these books I saw my first Albatross. Wow! What a great shape for a plane. Where can I find out more about them??? It only takes one small step and then one day you wake up to find yourself surrounded by reference material, kits and talking to a whole bunch of other "loonies" ;-) I LOVE IT!!!!!! Lorna ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:22:55 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Subject Message-ID: <2088d6e5.24b6c50f@aol.com> In a message dated 99-07-08 22:37:32 EDT, you write: << Wasn't that really the year of the Battle of Hastings? You know- where Napoleon defeated Casius Clay? Sorry...back to the easel Robert K. >> I could *almost* laugh at this.... Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:40:14 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: was: new Junk - now RK's great new things Message-ID: I know, I know, that guy down there in Australian crocodile-land is gonna get me for naming these names, but when you go to RK's site, what is going to knock you on your you-know-what is the XP-80A and P-40C dioramas. Talk about making a model come to life!!!! Woooo.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (O.S. SOUND: wild APPLAUSE from the CROWD) Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:41:52 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Göring_Gööf_Üp Message-ID: <3d507c68.24b6c980@aol.com> In a message dated 99-07-08 23:07:04 EDT, you write: << if not, just ask and I will attempt to send it again. >> Please!! Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:55:07 -0700 (PDT) From: bshatzer@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer) To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith Aircraft by Mick Davis, Also why is WWI modelling unpopular Message-ID: <199907090355.UAA14600@compass.OregonVOS.net> Nigel writes: >A confirmed list lurker appearing from the gloom to reply to the request a >couple of days back for thoughts on the new Crowood Book by Mick Davis on >Sopwith Aircraft. I bought this last weekend and although I haven't read it >completely, have been impressed so far. It's basically a history of Sopwith >from its flying school origins through to its liquidation in 1920, focusing >on the a/c designs in chronological order. Lots of text (172 pages), main >chapters on the major types (Schneider/Baby, Strutters, Pup, Tripes, Camel, >Dolphin, Snipe and Dragon) with other chapters on shipboard Sopwiths, ground >attack designs, and final designs (Dove, Wallaby, Antelope, Grasshopper etc >etc - no wonder they went bust, should've sacked their marketing team!). The blame for Sopwith's liquidation in 1920 lies not with its marketing team but with the British government. Sopwith was actually a quite profitable company right up until the end. The post-war British government, however, had proposed an "excess profits" tax to be levied on the supposedly excessive profits war-time contractors had been alledgely making during the war. Sopwith decided to liquidate (and reform as Hawker) principally to escape liability for the excess profits tax. British and Colonial Aviation went through a similar process to become (new) Bristol as did Fairey. In liquidation, Sopwith paid off all its creditors at 100 cents to the dollar (or rather, 20 shillings to the pound). Tom Sopwith himself came out the the liquidation with net assets of almost a half million pounds - in the days when a pound was worth $5.00 and a dollar was actually worth a dollar. Cheers and all, -- Bill Shatzer - bshatzer@orednet.org "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows." -Bob Dylan- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:48:49 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: forgive an off-topic blurt wasRe: Unpopularity of WWI Message-ID: <199907090408.VAA12951@mail.rapidnet.net> > Us guys at work conducted a history test at work one day. We all called our > wives and asked who won the Civil War, Blue or Grey? The results were pathetic. Uh, the Americans won. . no wait, , they lost. .. no, gimme a minute ... Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 23:02:01 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ring_Nr.1_letter,_dated_July_20th,_1918?= Message-ID: <199907090404.XAA50052@ind.cioe.com> Hi all, I'll give it another go. Best, Dave Watts Jagdgeschwader Frhr. v. Richthofen O.U.20.7.1918. Br.Nr. 1354/I/18 Kogenluft Kofl. 7 Report. ........... Now that two Stafflen, (flights), of the Geschwader, (squadron), are equipped with the BMW IIIa engines, it is obviously apparent, that it is an urgent necessity to get as soon as possible the entire Geschwader, (squadron), equipped with these engines. The BMW engine is superior to the Mercedes, (particularly at greater altitude). It is this fact that does not allow the co-operation of all four Stafflen, (flights), to fly as one Geschwader, (squadron), federation. If we are to continue without the great advantages of the BMW engines, it cannot be done. Both, in the speed and in the climb rate, the Mercedes and BMW partiucularly do not compare. The two first Stafflen, (flights), usually succeed to climb and engage the enemy squadrons, but the other two Stafflen, (flights), remain behind and thus only half of the combat capability of the Geschwader, (squadron), is utilized. A uniform attack is not possible. Being aware of this fact arouses great discontent with the pilots whom do not have the BMW engine. Especially if they see their comrades with superior performance able to engage and score, without themselves being able to attack. Such a closed federation, as is the Richthofen-Geschwader, (squadron), which is assigned at the main fighting fronts always, must be equipped uniformly with the best and most modern material available. I please therefore again ask for accelerated delivery of BMW engines. gez. Göring Oblt. u. Geschwader-Kommandeur. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 21:03:53 -0700 (PDT) From: peter crow To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: new junk Message-ID: <19990709040353.27067.rocketmail@web703.mail.yahoo.com> --- KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > Shucks, I might as well take these few precious > moments of typing time and > announce that after 231 years, we finally have a > bunch of new(to the web) > junk on my site, including a tiny bit of on-topic > stuff. > Absolutely knock down awe-inspiring... just when I was starting to feel good about my own stuff, I gotta go and look at this.. My favorites... Bt-9 pic and the "Castle" ..."Yankee Clipper".. "The Livid Digit". They're all great, but these knock me out.. P. Crow .. sort of relating to "The Livid Digit" figure at the moment..;-) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 1693 **********************