WWI Digest 2090 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Gavia 1/48 Fokker D.II by "Bob Pearson" 2) Care and feeding of airplanes. by "Lee Mensinger" 3) Re: unsuspected OT literature by "Lee Mensinger" 4) Parachutes? by Suvoroff@aol.com 5) RE: Just as I suspected, was;ailerons by Shane Weier 6) RE: Care and feeding of airplanes. by Shane Weier 7) Re: unsuspected OT literature by Zulis@aol.com 8) Re: Aileron deflection on models by Pedro e Francisca 9) Re: Aileron deflection on models by Pedro e Francisca 10) Re: Aileron deflection on models by a1b73869@telus.net 11) Re: Care and feeding of airplanes. by "Lee Mensinger" 12) RE: Aileron deflection on models by Shane Weier 13) RE: Care and feeding of airplanes. by Shane Weier 14) Re: Aileron deflection on models by "Lee Mensinger" 15) Re: ot flying RE: Just as I suspected, was;ailerons by REwing@aol.com 16) Mac Fokker E..IV -1st look by BStett3770@aol.com 17) Re: Aileron deflection on models by "Lee Mensinger" 18) Re: Gavia 1/48 Fokker D.II by "Charles and Linda Duckworth" 19) Re: Aileron deflection on models by "David C. Fletcher" 20) Congratulations!!! by "none" 21) Re: Aurora Boxes & Bases by "David Calhoun" 22) RE: Aileron deflection on models by Shane Weier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:48:51 -0800 From: "Bob Pearson" To: ww1 mailing list Subject: Gavia 1/48 Fokker D.II Message-ID: <200001132100.NAA01752@mail.rapidnet.net> Just had the above mentioned kit arrive on my doorstep (thanks Lubos) ... think early Eduard (sans PE) and you have it ... Beautiful boxart, beautiful decals (propagteam). basic PE seatbelts, control horns etc .. no PE guns. Review in the next IM Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:56:13 -0600 From: "Lee Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Care and feeding of airplanes. Message-ID: <387E3BEC.56002E41@wireweb.net> ot report on Navy and planes I know of a Base Commander at Albuquerque that grounded a Navy plane until the pilot cleaned up the cockpit and threw away about a six month supply of used sandwich bags and garbage that had accumulated on the cockpit floor area. The Navy pilot wanted maintainence work done in the cockpit area, and he wanted the maintainence people to clean it up as well. The Maintainence Unit Commander would not allow the USAF maintainence personell to repair the plane until it was cleaned up. Pilot foolishly complained and they got the on base Navy co-ordinator involved who made a call that made the Base Commander aware of the situation. Stuff hit fans instantly when he saw the cockpit of the plane. He made him, the pilot, clean the plane, inspection clean, and then did the inspecting.. Don't bother ganging up on me "Navy guys". I am a thick skinned very old, retired, Sergeant. I was there when it happened and saw the whole thing. Could watch it from my window on the flight line. It was right outside. The plane was on the ground for two and a half days with the nosewheel chained to a grounding and tie down ring. so the plane could not be moved without the Base Commander's permission. He kept the key to the lock. Never saw so much junk come out of one plane before. I have also seen a Fairey Swordfish on a catapult aboard a British warship right after the end of WWII that was almost snow white from saltwater spray when it pulled into Landsend north of Blackpool Care of aircraft is partly the urge to do it and also the time. Great to excellent care is not always possible, but they do try most of the time. In WWI it was supposedly chewing gum and string with a little paint thrown in. As planes became more complex the time to do it becomes more demanding as well as increasing the time requirement exponentially. Now it can take 30 hours, and maybe more, for each flying hour. I do agree with the idea that a small amount of weathering goes a long way. Even the Memphis Belle looked pretty darn good when it came back to the states. Patched but clean. Lee Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 00-01-13 09:10:54 EST, you write: > > << Just a tad though makes for a more lifelike model. >> > > Exactly! I am always arguing with people who do "too much" of anything to > their airplanes, from too much stylization of the paint scheme to where it is > completely inaccurate-looking, to enough soot and grime and etc. that no sane > pilot would get in the thing. > I have really had this argument with some British USN Golden Age builders, who > persist in doing USN airplanes of the 30s with any weathering on them at all - > they don't get it when I tell them the CPO of the squadron would have the head > of the Plane Captain who allowed > that to happen. "Less is more" should be tatooed on modelers' frontal lobes. > > Tom C ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:09:35 -0600 From: "Lee Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: unsuspected OT literature Message-ID: <387E3F0F.14D050AF@wireweb.net> I have the Kennikat Press, limited (500 copies in 1964), reproduction of The Lafayette Flying Corps, and authoring credit must also be given to Charles Bernard Nordhoff as well as James Norman Hall. A two volume, highly prized, part of my book collection. Lee Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 00-01-13 12:06:46 EST, you write: > > << I've never read "biggles" nor many of the books that you mention in your > posts. But how many good writers have experienced WW1 and we don't suspect > it? Can you mention a few others? >> > > James Norman Hall, who served in the Lafayette Escadrille, wrote "Mutiny on > the Bounty." He did also write about his Lafayette Escadrille experiences, > but the other book is better-known. > > I would be very much surprised if no one knew that both Hemingway and F. Scott > Fitzgerald served in the war, but I will mention them for Diego's sake since > he may not have "read the canon." To me, their writing about post-war > experience would not have been as it was had they not done so. :-) > > Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 16:29:49 EST From: Suvoroff@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Parachutes? Message-ID: <23.4012b0.25af9dcd@aol.com> The latest discussion about parachutes has been interesting, but is there any source of information on German parachutes? Everything I have ever read on Great War parachutes has concentrated on the lack of British parachutes. I would like to know who developed the German parachute (an individual? a company? the German Air Force?), how long it took, how much it weighed, success rates, was it a seat pack, and stuff like that. I am also wondering if the British even really had time to develop (or even copy) a chute between the time they realized the Germans had a working parachute for aircraft use, and the end of the war. Yours, James D. Gray ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 07:41:57 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Just as I suspected, was;ailerons Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1BDD@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Dave says: > Control locks were not common > in WWI True, though not unknown. Albatros fighters have a column lock which prevents for and aft movement *only*, so it's possible to park a D.V and have the elevator stay in line with the tailplane - if the pilot bothers to lock it. IIRC the lock was really intended to make it easier for the pilot to beat sh*t out of his jammed guns with both hands, rather than any modern control lock concept. Shane (Albatros control lock is the fairly large lever below the handgrip BTW) ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:09:54 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Care and feeding of airplanes. Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1BDE@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Lee, > > In WWI it was supposedly chewing gum and string with a little > paint thrown in. I'm often wrong, but I don't beleive this is true, except in so far as we modern day types consider carpentry and fabric work "low tech" WW1 aircraft were *for the time* high technology equipment. They were (and had to be) rigorously *for the time* maintained because otherwise they'd last no time at all. It's a fact that most of us will read every word written by a publicity seeking ace, but don't give a damn for the reminiscences of the ground crew of the time. It's worth reading some of them to get an *accurate* perspective on how much work was involved in keeping the planes in the air. No, it didn't reach 30 hours per hour, but it was in the order of several hours per hour. Rotary engines required endless maintenance, including major overhauls after just tens of hours and complete rebuilds (if they survived so long) after only a couple of overhaul cycles - or after the first time the pilot nosed over. Aircraft (particularly those with wooden fuselages)required re-rigging on an almost daily basis, a procedure involving truing up the aircraft with levels and plumb lines, then correcting the various incidences etc to fractions of degrees. I've read a couple of WW1 rigger biographies in the last year and they're surprisingly interesting. Those chaps worked bloody hard, long hours overnight to complete these daily tasks, then spent the day checking stressed aircraft and (here comes the chewing gum) quickly getting them airworthy for another flight is needed. They needed to be fine craftsmen to do it - and I believe they repaired the aircraft with the best materials money could buy (for the time) provided by the aircraft parks etc. for the purpose (this also dealt with in C&CI BTW) Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:23:57 EST From: Zulis@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: unsuspected OT literature Message-ID: <99.3be644.25afaa7d@aol.com> Ray strikes a nerve when he writes: << When I first read Lord of the Rings I skimmed through that section since its so depressing, but when you know where his inspiration came from you read it with a whole new outlook.... >> I remember reading it as a teenager and feeling that some of the scenes of destruction and wasteland were so vivid that they made me very uncomfortable. Now I know.... Dave Z * who had the great pleasure of meeting list member John Cyganowski yesterday. Amazing.... he has been staying in a hotel about 600 feet from Toronto's best aviation modelling shop, but was unable to locate it. I wonder if that is because there is a club featuring exotic dancers in between? :-) Great to meet you, Cyg - come back again soon! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:46:45 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387E55D5.C7029210@mail.telepac.pt> Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > I was just looking at Alberto's models, and went on and perused some others, > and I noticed something that people may not be aware of - I think I may be > aware of it because I am a pilot and work around 1:1 airplanes. Tom, Many thanks for this message of yours. I, for one, didn't know it. Pedro (who feels that one day, just for reading all the interesting stuff on The List will get an honoris causa Phd in aeronautic engineering :-). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 23:18:52 +0000 From: Pedro e Francisca To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387E5D5B.6E342CD5@mail.telepac.pt> Still on the subject of aileron deflection, there's something that's been intriguing me . May I call the attention of those of you with the FMP book "Victoria Cross" (the one with illustrations by "legs") to the picture of William Barker's B6313 Camel, taken from the rear. Is this my imagination or a trick of light and shadow or are the ailerons in a strange position? In fact, it seems that the upper right is up, but the lower left is up too and the upper left just seems to be very slightly down... Can this be? Pedro ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:59:21 PST From: a1b73869@telus.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387e66d9.b76.0@telus.net> I've always wondered about the ways some control surfaces are modeled to be at various angles. Elevator Droop, that makes sense even more so if the pilot knocked the stick getting out. Offset rudder I get too, since it was used in landing and taxying (sp). But Ailerons being more than marginally off there normal attitude settings I dont get on wwi aircraft. I have never flown a real airplane but have flown and built RC. A good way to damage a wing on landing was over use of Aileron on final approach. Rudder was more effective at that point as the wing doesnt rise on one side and lower on the other as you turn (Not a great idea a foot or two off the ground). Then once landed aileron control is totally inefectual, again rudder balanced against engine thrust steers you whilst taxying. Now as Shane said there were designs that had both ailerons drooped but thats different and obvious - I really can't beleive model show judges wouldnt realise this fact on OT aircraft, but then they were probably looking for the jet orifice ;) I know someone who once got nailed for a detail the judge thought was wrong, so the next year he built a nice handy dany base with a photo of the aircraft and a few notes of significant items. Didnt do any good then they nailed him on non matt finish lol......... Ray > > >Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > >> I was just looking at Alberto's models, and went on and perused some others, >> and I noticed something that people may not be aware of - I think I may be >> aware of it because I am a pilot and work around 1:1 airplanes. > >Tom, > >Many thanks for this message of yours. I, for one, didn't know it. > >Pedro (who feels that one day, just for reading all the interesting stuff on The >List will get an honoris causa Phd in aeronautic engineering :-). > > > ================================================================= Internet service provided by telus.net http://www.telus.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:15:10 -0600 From: "Lee Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, sdw@qld.mim.com.au Subject: Re: Care and feeding of airplanes. Message-ID: <387E6A8E.41F3571B@wireweb.net> Shane, I am deeply connected with the replication and reconstruction of old aircraft. I am a member of a group called the Vintage Aviation Historical foundation and any time tyou wish you may see a couple of real machines on the images and graphics section of the list. I am sorry I used the 'movie" dialogue but the key word was supposedly. The parent company, Vintage Aviation Services, behind and seperate from the Vintage Aviation Historical Foundation is the maker of the Fokker DR 1 and the Fokker D VII in the USAF Museum at Wright Partterson AFB. They just finished a Fokker E-V which is in the US Army Museum at Fort Rucker, Dothan, Alabama and restored completely the Nieuport 28c that is on display at Champlin Air Museum in Mesa, Arizona. You can see the 1909 Bleriot and the 1911 Farman as well as the Thomas Morse Scout S4C on the site and as soon as I get the chance I will be getting pictures of the latest challenge a Curtis JN4 Jenny. I know as well and maybe better than most how much it takes to do and redo those old planes. To do it at all in those days took very large amount of skill, woodworking expertise and a lot of determination to do the job. I plead guilty to a bad choice of words but it was intended jokingly. I am trying to get a CD disk made to get about 160 pictures or more to Allan. A very detailed photo essay on the E-V. Made up of mostly my own picture with a little help from some other. The Nieuport 28c usng Vintage Aviations Service pictures. plus some of my own. It is getting a bit difficult to seperate the photos in a really good manner so proper credit goes to the right place. But I will make it one of these days. My problems are more in teh planning than in the execution. I do not have the plan working yet. the equipment works just great. I am the part that is flawed. Appreciated your comments it was not totally unexpected. But I am glad it was you that did it. Lee Shane Weier wrote: > Lee, > > > > > In WWI it was supposedly chewing gum and string with a little > > paint thrown in. > > I'm often wrong, but I don't beleive this is true, except in so far as we > modern day types consider carpentry and fabric work "low tech" > > WW1 aircraft were *for the time* high technology equipment. They were (and > had to be) rigorously *for the time* maintained because otherwise they'd > last no time at all. > > It's a fact that most of us will read every word written by a publicity > seeking ace, but don't give a damn for the reminiscences of the ground crew > of the time. It's worth reading some of them to get an *accurate* > perspective on how much work was involved in keeping the planes in the air. > No, it didn't reach 30 hours per hour, but it was in the order of several > hours per hour. Rotary engines required endless maintenance, including major > overhauls after just tens of hours and complete rebuilds (if they survived > so long) after only a couple of overhaul cycles - or after the first time > the pilot nosed over. Aircraft (particularly those with wooden > fuselages)required re-rigging on an almost daily basis, a procedure > involving truing up the aircraft with levels and plumb lines, then > correcting the various incidences etc to fractions of degrees. > > I've read a couple of WW1 rigger biographies in the last year and they're > surprisingly interesting. Those chaps worked bloody hard, long hours > overnight to complete these daily tasks, then spent the day checking > stressed aircraft and (here comes the chewing gum) quickly getting them > airworthy for another flight is needed. They needed to be fine craftsmen to > do it - and I believe they repaired the aircraft with the best materials > money could buy (for the time) provided by the aircraft parks etc. for the > purpose (this also dealt with in C&CI BTW) > > Shane > > ************************************************************** > The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential > and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). > If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution > or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are > requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems > to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. > E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. > ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:32:23 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1BDF@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Ray, > But Ailerons being more than marginally off there normal > attitude settings > I dont get on wwi aircraft. Since I'm a little over 6 foot tall and nearly as far across I suspect I can make a guess. Put the stick in a neutral position. Remember that there are *no* locks on most aircraft. Now get out of the *cramped* confines of the office without knocking the stick with one or the other leg as you disentangle them from the rudder bar and around the stick. It seems to me more surprising that the pilots didn't actually always push the stick across to one side as they wriggled free, but it may well have been a matter of holding on to it as one got out, then reaching in to let it carefully forward under the weight of the elevator (possibly preventing damage). While the pilot might try to centre it as it went it's likely that sometimes it'd be off a little one way leaving the ailerons - and this is what one tends to see - centred, or only slightly deflected. FWIW (and as a guess that may be very little) Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:46:52 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Care and feeding of airplanes. Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1BE0@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Lee, > Shane, I am deeply connected with the replication and > reconstruction of old > aircraft. I am a member of a group called the Vintage > Aviation Historical > foundation and any time tyou wish you may see a couple of > real machines on the > images and graphics section of the list. Yes, I know, and believe me, this makes me *very* jealous. > I am sorry I used the 'movie" dialogue but the key word was > supposedly. My fault, not yours, and I had not intended to "take you to task" just to pass on some of the interesting info I'd gleaned from reading ground crew bios lately > Appreciated your comments it was not totally unexpected. Pshaw. Sorry if I sounded like I was executing a putdown - it was not intended that way. Indeed, I'm guessing that you'd be better aware than any of us of the fact that many of the skills needed to build OT aircraft are craftsman skills of high level not widely found now. For example, the Sopwith Triplane and Bristol M.1C replicas built in England over the last ten years have been widely publicised. The articles written about the making of the replicas are full of comments about dificulties in building them, even with modern power tools, because the necessary skills no longer exist widely. At the beginning of the 20th Century wooden furniture was *all* made by skilled cabinet makers using hand tools - so it was natural to build aircraft with wooden frames using skilled worked used to the techniques. Now furniture is widely made by semi-skilled workers using machinery, and there are relatively few people around who would know just how to do much of the woodwork. I suppose I'm just arguing the case of the worker for general interest - the people building and maintaining those old planes *were* equal in skill to todays airframe fitters and electronics techs, just in a very different field. Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:50:59 -0600 From: "Lee Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387E72F3.EC1482AA@wireweb.net> With the plane facing into the wind the stick was usually pulled to the rear and the seat belt pulled up tight on the stick. This way the tail plane was being pressed downward by the airflow.. It is almost impossible to fasten the stick in a forward position with the seat belt. We fastened it after getting out of the plane. I did know a pilot that had a piece of board made that went up against the seat back and held the stick in a forward position. But I was never sure why he bothered. Lee Shane Weier wrote: > Ray, > > > But Ailerons being more than marginally off there normal > > attitude settings > > I dont get on wwi aircraft. > > Since I'm a little over 6 foot tall and nearly as far across I suspect I can > make a guess. Put the stick in a neutral position. Remember that there are > *no* locks on most aircraft. Now get out of the *cramped* confines of the > office without knocking the stick with one or the other leg as you > disentangle them from the rudder bar and around the stick. It seems to me > more surprising that the pilots didn't actually always push the stick across > to one side as they wriggled free, but it may well have been a matter of > holding on to it as one got out, then reaching in to let it carefully > forward under the weight of the elevator (possibly preventing damage). While > the pilot might try to centre it as it went it's likely that sometimes it'd > be off a little one way leaving the ailerons - and this is what one tends to > see - centred, or only slightly deflected. > > FWIW (and as a guess that may be very little) > > Shane > > ************************************************************** > The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential > and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). > If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution > or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are > requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems > to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. > E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. > ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:56:49 EST From: REwing@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: ot flying RE: Just as I suspected, was;ailerons Message-ID: <79.8ad3bd.25afce51@aol.com> << D. "Glider pilots do it quietly" >> But they can't get up by themselves!! Sorry, it's been one of those days. ;^} -Rick- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:09:01 EST From: BStett3770@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Mac Fokker E..IV -1st look Message-ID: Hi Gang Got the Mac 1/72 Fokker E.IV kit today. Molding is MPM style - short run, not bad , about a 6 1/2 on the 1 to 10 scale. Decals look real good, markings for 3 A/c - Boelcke, Wintgen & unknown 127/15 P/E instrument panel, seat belts and fuselage steps. Looks like they used the wings & tail of the Revell E.III kit and reworked them. Molding of most parts fair, but the engine is the pits. Keep Modeling Barry Rosemont Hobby www.swiftsite.com/rosemonthobby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:18:26 -0600 From: "Lee Mensinger" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387E7962.3EBE6184@wireweb.net> Off set rudder is also used to counteract with the torque of the engine in flight. Check out a certain WWII plane with an airfoil section on the rudder and no trim tabs. Lee a1b73869@telus.net wrote: > I've always wondered about the ways some control surfaces are modeled to be > at various angles. > > Elevator Droop, that makes sense even more so if the pilot knocked the stick > getting out. > > Offset rudder I get too, since it was used in landing and taxying (sp). > > But Ailerons being more than marginally off there normal attitude settings > I dont get on wwi aircraft. I have never flown a real airplane but have flown > and built RC. A good way to damage a wing on landing was over use of Aileron > on final approach. Rudder was more effective at that point as the wing doesnt > rise on one side and lower on the other as you turn (Not a great idea a foot > or two off the ground). > > Then once landed aileron control is totally inefectual, again rudder balanced > against engine thrust steers you whilst taxying. > > Now as Shane said there were designs that had both ailerons drooped but thats > different and obvious - I really can't beleive model show judges wouldnt realise > this fact on OT aircraft, but then they were probably looking for the jet orifice > ;) > > I know someone who once got nailed for a detail the judge thought was wrong, > so the next year he built a nice handy dany base with a photo of the aircraft > and a few notes of significant items. Didnt do any good then they nailed him > on non matt finish lol......... > > Ray > > > > > > >Albatrosdv@aol.com wrote: > > > >> I was just looking at Alberto's models, and went on and perused some others, > > >> and I noticed something that people may not be aware of - I think I may > be > >> aware of it because I am a pilot and work around 1:1 airplanes. > > > >Tom, > > > >Many thanks for this message of yours. I, for one, didn't know it. > > > >Pedro (who feels that one day, just for reading all the interesting stuff > on The > >List will get an honoris causa Phd in aeronautic engineering :-). > > > > > > > ================================================================= > Internet service provided by telus.net http://www.telus.net/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:41:44 -0600 From: "Charles and Linda Duckworth" To: Subject: Re: Gavia 1/48 Fokker D.II Message-ID: <002e01bf5e30$86e10c00$392c57d8@cnlduckwor> I'm like Peter in his earlier post, I'm glad to see a Fokker DII out, I have an attraction for the pre-1916 aircraft more than the late war aircraft. Barry do you know if Rosemont will be carrying this kit? and Bob how does the outline match up to the DF Special on early Fokker fighters? Thanks, Charlie -----Original Message----- From: Bob Pearson To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 2:51 PM Subject: Gavia 1/48 Fokker D.II >Just had the above mentioned kit arrive on my doorstep (thanks Lubos) ... >think early Eduard (sans PE) and you have it ... Beautiful boxart, beautiful >decals (propagteam). basic PE seatbelts, control horns etc .. no PE guns. > >Review in the next IM > >Bob > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 18:05:11 -0800 From: "David C. Fletcher" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <387E8457.808DDD52@mars.ark.com> a1b73869@telus.net wrote: "I've always wondered about the ways some control surfaces are modeled to be at various angles." Okay troops - nothing is as easy as it seems. I know it's "ot", but I do have the rigging manuals for the Harvard and T-6. Aileron travel on early T-6 models was down 15 degrees, up 30 degrees (and the same for all Harvards); late model T-6s had the same downtravel (15 degrees) and the up travel resticted to 15 degrees - so there goes the differential aileron theory! The elevator travel was 30 degrees up, 20 degrees down and rudder travel was 35 degrees left and right on early models and restricted to 30 degrees when a Mustang tailwheel steering assembly was installed. Those figures all seem to be fairly typical and are probably safe as maximum deflections. So, whether or not aileron deflection is equal or differential even differs from one model of the same aircraft to another. The old rule of "use a photo" applies. Retreating from even muddier waters... Dave Fletcher -- Visit us at our Home Page: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 02:09:51 +0000 From: "none" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Congratulations!!! Message-ID: <200001140212.VAA23115@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Congratulations, You have been specially selected by our computer. You now have a chance to win a Nokia NK402 mobile phone, PLUS £100 worth of mobile phone accessories, totally free!!! UK ONLY !!! To win choose a door below and take your chance... http://www.atb.co.uk?door1 http://www.atb.co.uk?door2 http://www.atb.co.uk?door3 Good luck..... Other great offers: Personalised Registration Numbers: Just quote "congratulations.net" to save £100 off any personalised car registration number. Thousands to choose from - we have the perfect number for you!! Call 0709 111 2796. Win a classic MGB GT goto : http://www.winacar.website.com. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:20:26 -0800 From: "David Calhoun" To: Subject: Re: Aurora Boxes & Bases Message-ID: <00f101bf5fe1$674c57c0$cd083ccc@oemcomputer> Hi Sandy, I have the box from the Aurora Sopwith Triplane Black Maria, as well as the base & nameplate. The box is in excelent condition. I think that I have the nameplate from the Pfalz and Fokker E.III, but these are from the K&B kits and have no base except for the vacuform bases. I also have the original Albatross (sic) C.III box if you need it, and the crewmen, nameplate & base from this kit. e-mail me off-line if you wish to trade reference material for these. Thanks, Dave Calhoun -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Adam To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Thursday, January 13, 2000 7:13 AM Subject: Aurora Boxes & Bases >As part of a project for a local museum, I am trying to put together a >display of all the old Aurora WWI kits built up in front of their boxes. I >have got most of them now but some of the boxes are a bit tatty. Also I can >use a painted Smer or Glencoe kit in front of an Aurora box for some of >them. >However I lack some of the bases, figures and name badges. >I have a list of what I need but baulk at paying ebay prices (especially >having been bitten just recently when I got what I thought was a half decent >Pfalz but then found the water damaged box literally fell to powder when I >tried to open it.) If anybody can help please let me know off list. >The ones I really need boxes and bases etc for are the Pfalz, Eindecker, >Razor, Tripehound and the DH10 and Gotha. >I can offer to buy or swap. I've got duplicates of quite a few OT books - >including some pretty rare ones, and kits, if anyone can help. >Thanks >Sandy > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 12:35:27 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Aileron deflection on models Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1BE1@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Lee, > With the plane facing into the wind the stick was usually > pulled to the rear and > the seat belt pulled up tight on the stick. This way the > tail plane was being > pressed downward by the airflow.. It is almost impossible to > fasten the stick > in a forward position with the seat belt. I doubt if it was fastened at all most of the time. Look at a lineup of WW1 aircraft and many (most) times the elevator(s) is/are on or near the ground - so surely the seat belt was *not* used to fasten the stick *though* I dare say a modern day pilot might do so. I only have one datafile at work with me at the moment - Albatros C.VII - and the great majority of unmanned aircraft have the elevator deflected down, almost to or actually touching the ground. (I'm excluding the obviously broken aircraft BTW) The only ones unmanned and with neutralised elevator are on trestles, so presumably being rigged, or factory "posed" photos. The rigging notes for most aircraft require that the control surfaces be fixed in position during rigging so that the controls can be rigged in the neutral position, so this is easily explained. BUT the serviceable aircraft on the flightline either don't have the stick fastened or it's right forward. In any case, the issue I was writing about was to surmise why the *ailerons* are centred or almost so - when the stick isn't (by the evidence of the photos) locked. Shane ************************************************************** The information contained in this E-Mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this E-Mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this E-Mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted E-Mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Help Desk. E-Mail: helpdesk@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2090 **********************