WWI Digest 2316 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Planes by "Roger L. Belanger" 2) Gotha by "Dale Beamish" 3) Re: Gotha by KarrArt@aol.com 4) LeBoutillier by Dennis Ugulano 5) RE: Glencoe blues, was, WS coverage, was, Re: Glencoe Albatros by Shane Weier 6) Three Strutters by Marc Flake 7) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by "DAVID BURKE" 8) Re: LeBoutillier by Zulis@aol.com 9) Re: Did the virus get anyone? by "DAVID BURKE" 10) Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by "John & Allison Cyganowski" 11) Re: How would *you* have marked...wasRe: Dicta Ira..... by Patrick J haugh 12) Re: Three Strutters by "Matthew Bittner" 13) Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by KarrArt@aol.com 14) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by "Michael Kendix" 15) Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by smperry@mindspring.com 16) Re: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by "Ray Boorman" 17) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by "Ray Boorman" 18) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by "Ray Boorman" 19) Re: Three Strutters by "Ray Boorman" 20) Re: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can by "Bob Pearson" 21) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by Albatrosdv@aol.com 22) Re: Did the virus get anyone? by Albatrosdv@aol.com 23) Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by Albatrosdv@aol.com 24) Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done by "Ray Boorman" 25) Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? by Albatrosdv@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 19:16:00 -0400 From: "Roger L. Belanger" To: "World War two list" Subject: Planes Message-ID: <00a401bfb7b1$0b93e740$71c24f0c@rogerbel> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BFB78F.83DBF520 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was in to Ray and Robbins hobby shop in Portland ME. yesterday and had = a chance to see some plane models by a Carl Thurston of this area, they = were great and I want to know if anyone out there knows him. Roger B ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BFB78F.83DBF520 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was in to Ray and Robbins hobby shop in Portland = ME.=20 yesterday and had a chance to see some plane models by a Carl Thurston = of this=20 area, they were great and I want to know if anyone out there knows = him. =20 Roger B

------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01BFB78F.83DBF520-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 18:04:55 -0600 From: "Dale Beamish" To: "List" Subject: Gotha Message-ID: <001701bfb7b7$e2818360$942eb8a1@darcy> Besides the datafile can anyone recommend some good references for the Gotha series? Dale ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:15:19 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Gotha Message-ID: In a message dated 5/6/00 5:08:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lozenge1@telusplanet.net writes: << Besides the datafile can anyone recommend some good references for the Gotha series? Dale >> The Datafile is about it if you want the most stuff crammed inot the least space. I supplimented it with Woodman's drawings from an old british magazine article (reprinted in Aircraft Archive Vol2), pictures from Janes, the old Profile, and a bunch of books that had a photo here and a photo there. RK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:33:22 -0400 From: Dennis Ugulano To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: LeBoutillier Message-ID: <200005062033_MC2-A405-C3FE@compuserve.com> Everyone, Let me throw out a question that someone of this esteemed group may have the answer to: I have a watercolor print of a Sopwith Camel, #B3858 flown by an American, O.C. LeBoutillier, who happened to be in the air and in the area of where the Red Baron was shot down. He did not participate in the action and the watercolor seems to be only recognize the fact that he was in the same area at the time. However, my question is this. The watercolor has this inscription on it: To Baron Mardo Von Marano (Narano?) with best wishes signed by: Capt O.C. 'Boots' LeBoutillier 209 Squadron R.A.F. Does anyone know anything about this Baron? This watercolor is dated around 1965 and at the time LeBoutillier was still alive and living in Las Vegas, Nevada. I obtained the print from a Thrift Store in the mid 80's in Fresno, Calif. Can anyone help me? Dennis Ugulano email: Uggies@compuserve.com http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm Page Revised 2/6/00 "Every modeller will rise to his own level of masochism" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 11:09:04 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Glencoe blues, was, WS coverage, was, Re: Glencoe Albatros Message-ID: <65C968E11318D311B0BD0060B06865CDBD1FAE@mimhexch.mim.com.au> Otis in rely to Stef: > > > IThere is no real > > > comparison with the Eduard, although THAT kit drives me > > >nuts because the > > >nose > > > contours look all screwed up to me, and I think this is > > >mainly because the > > > engine (as in almost all Eduard kits) is too short. > > I have compared the Eduard D-III contours to a scale drawing > in Datafile and > to me it looks almost right on. I laid a fuselage half on top > of the drawing > and it matched almost exactly. What am I missing? > The drawing is slightly wrong - most are. Frequently it's because subtleties can't be seen, sometimes it's just an error. You have to use both drawings and pics. IMHO there are two problems with the D.III nose other than the engine. The engine *is* too short, and while this is an error, i feel confident that it's a deliberate one on Eduards part. Most, maybe all, kit engines which need to be fitted inside a kit engine bay are made undersized because the wall thicknesses must be *way* overscale or the kit would be impossible to injection mould and very fragile to build. The real engine fits hard up against the front of the aircraft with maybe 15mm clearance. On the kit there's a 1.5mm thickness of plastic - 5 times overscale - and the need to leave a little space to pevent the kit engine being an impossibly tight fit. So the engine is a little short - about 2 - 2.5mm IIRC The second error is that the spinner is slightly oversized. You can see this when looking at a head on view - there should be a fairly wide ring of the nose visible behind the spinner and isn't. Finally, the nose ring actually tapers down quite severely and many photos show this. It causes a break in the lower fuselage curvature which is NOT shown on the Stair drawings and gives the impression that the forward underside of the fuselage is more highly bulged than it really is. Incidentally, this imprssion is almost always exagerated by photos since many are taken from front quarter below the nose and almost all cameras were then fitted with wide angle lenses which worsens the distortion. In any case, the Eduard kit doesn't have this increased taper. *My* fix will be to reduce the nose diameter and taper down from the back of the ring to the new dimension, and to mould a new, slightly smaller spinner. Add a new engine and it should be pretty close IMHO. Or you could take RK's approach, which is *completely* different ! OR you can accept the kit interpretation which is *still* better than anyone else ever did and will certainly convince 99% of the people who view it. 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 Support Centre. E-Mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. ************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 20:08:24 -0500 From: Marc Flake To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Three Strutters Message-ID: <3914C207.749@airmail.net> I just put the "Wings" Lohrner L, "Pegasus" Macchi M-5 and "Toko" Hansa Brandenburg W 29 in the display case (I know y'all like pictures, but I don't have an adjustable lens camera nor a scanner, sorry). Now I've pulled out three more OT aircraft for my next project(s). I guess I'm hooked, I was going to do a couple of USN light cruisers, but changed my mind. Two are Toko Strutters, the bomber and the Comic. The third is the Pegasus Strutter. As almost all of you know, the Pegasus Strutter comes with a clear upper wing, in two halves. My first question is, how do I stick these two halves together? Regular liquid cement? Or should I use a tiny amount of CA? In either case, the area I will need to be "clear" could be fogged. I am planning on dipping the wing halves in Future first, to prevent this, but that still leaves the question as to which glue will provide the best bond. The second question is, can I use this wing, with its clear cellules (sp?) on the single-seat bomber version? Just from looking at the Toko boxtop, I can't help thinking that pilot would be aching for a clear roof through which he could spot predatory Huns hiding in clouds. The third question is that since this aircraft is available in so many versions and from so many different manufacturers, wouldn't it be a good candidate for the "Group Build" put forward by Chris Crofoot via Ray Boorman? Thanks, I'll just go back and wait for the next digest for the answers. Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:09:30 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: <000a01bfb7c0$e7279cc0$9781aec7@dora9sprynet.com> Like in WW2 - the Luftwaffe could have defeated the 8th >AF over Germany in daylight raids and it would not have impacted the ultimate >outcome of the war other than to extend it Yeah, but they didn't. The superority of the USAAF pilots, combined with superior aircraft basically killed the Luftwaffe, which was a self-defeating organism anyway. Even with the jets and all, Germany was in no position to win the air war in WW2. The P-47 was enough to prove that alone. In WWI, especially during 'Bloody April', the Germans decided to take the war to the allies. Superior fighters (especially the Dr.I and the Albatros D.Va contributing to the bloodletting), were able to secure a true air superiority from time to time. Allied air losses were awful. However, there was the fact that aircraft production was unhindered on the allied side, as well as the fact that allied pilots eventually began to receive better training. The introduction of the SE-5 family really spelled the doom of Germany in the air - it outperformed the German aircraft, and the SE-5a really carved a niche in history, even though it didn't have as cool a name as 'Camel'. You historians out there, poke holes in my statement. I'm trying to learn about this stuff - correct me when I'm wrong! DB ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:16:19 EDT From: Zulis@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: LeBoutillier Message-ID: <9f.4fe3a86.26461de3@aol.com> In a message dated 00-05-06 20:37:22 EDT, you write: << To Baron Mardo Von Marano (Narano?) with best wishes signed by: Capt O.C. 'Boots' LeBoutillier 209 Squadron R.A.F. Does anyone know anything about this Baron? This watercolor is dated around 1965 and at the time LeBoutillier was still alive and living in Las Vegas, Nevada. I obtained the print from a Thrift Store in the mid 80's in Fresno, Calif. Can anyone help me? >> Gee, Dennis - I think we had this conversation over a year ago... dont know if it was about your particular watercolor or something else, but all the same names cropped up. You might want to run the names through the archives search engine - perhaps you will have better luck with that gizmo than I do. Dave Z ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:19:32 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Did the virus get anyone? Message-ID: <004701bfb7c2$54371e20$9781aec7@dora9sprynet.com> Hi Shane, Well, according to ABC news, the virus was created by some dipshit Kraut studying in Australia. Apparently, the bugger didn't know what he had created, but the problem is that this friggin' thing MUTATES. Now, there are several subject lines that hide this thing. I don't want to make anyone paranoid, but this thing is a nasty one, and I hope that they catch this ass and hang him from a eucalyptus tree! DB -----Original Message----- From: Shane Weier To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Saturday, May 06, 2000 5:41 PM Subject: Did the virus get anyone? >Hi all, > >It was so quiet yesterday that I started to wonder whether everyone got >zapped or was carefully sitting on their hands to prevent infection. > >You didn't need to open the virus to get in trouble BTW. The geniuses who >look after our firewalling cut us off from the internet for 12 hours while >they installed scanning software and checked our 5000 PC's for problems >(NONE !) then switched us back on only to discover that they hadn't set >things up properly and a half day of mail which *should* have been buffered >and able to flood in when the gate opened - was *not* and everyone lost a >bunch of incoming mail > >Thanks to the archive I can find out what you've all been saying, but if >anyone emailed me off list yesterday it's probably gone to the great big bit >bucket. Sorry ! > >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 Support Centre. >E-Mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au or phone: Australia 07 3833 8042. >************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:38:02 -0400 From: "John & Allison Cyganowski" To: Subject: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: <000c01bfb7c4$e35dedc0$6a3c183f@cyrixp166> The Glencoe Albatros can be done. We need look no further than our own archive: http://www.wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu/Images/Howard/index.html However since the advent of the Eduard D.III, it probably isn't worth the effort. I used the Glencoe as the basis for my Passchendaele conversion and it looks pretty good. But I only had to work the fuselage. The problems with the fuselage are these: 1.) Glued together, the fuselage is too narrow and has a cross section that looks like a "U" where the sides are collapsed inward. The forward engine mount needs a thick spacer and the belly of the fuselage needs a thinner one extending back to the cockpit floor. You then need to force this together while the superglue cures. 2.) As pointed out, the horizontal stabilizer doesn't fit. You need to file the mating surfaces of the stabilizer & repeatedly dry fit & glue in place. Copious amounts of Testors putty & superglue wet sanding are the way to finish this off. Actually, after "truing" up the fuselage and fitting the cockpit & and cowling panel, fitting the horizontal stab. won't seem that tough. Oh, don't forget to add ribs to the horizontal stab. 3.) Okay, here is the tough problem. The fuselage halves are not symmetrical. The starboard side is pretty close to being correct i.e. flat & slab sided. But the port side is bowed and much too rounded. So you need to wet sand the port side almost all the way through to get it flat. Even then it is still not quite correct. Your eye will deceive you though and you will think you are done. Until it comes time to fit the cabanes. Now the asymmetries will be come apparent. A series of compromises carefully carried out can produce a finished product that looks pretty good. Okay, that having been said, I had lots of Dicta Ira and I am a better modeler for having lived through all this. On the other hand the Eduard was not released when I was doing this. Been there + Done that Cyg. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 21:44:22 -0400 From: Patrick J haugh To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: How would *you* have marked...wasRe: Dicta Ira..... Message-ID: <3914CA75.ABA09E7F@erols.com> bucky@ptdprolog.net wrote: > Nope! But I forgot to add my own personal marking....an aardvark on its > hind legs with boxing gloves on the front ones! > Mike....who is not from South Africa > E + HEL ? Haya Safari Patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 20:46:00 -0500 From: "Matthew Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Three Strutters Message-ID: <200005070148.SAA00637@raven.a001.sprintmail.com> On Sat, 6 May 2000 21:14:08 -0400 (EDT), Marc Flake wrote: > My first question is, how do I stick these two halves together? Regular > liquid cement? Or should I use a tiny amount of CA? In either case, the > area I will need to be "clear" could be fogged. If you bought the Flashback kit, and built it into a French bird, you would have an extra wing and you could ditch the Pegasus wing, which is much too thick IMHO. Matt Bittner http://www.geocities.com/~ipmsfortcrook http://pease1.sr.unh.edu/misc/FrenchWW1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:52:31 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: In a message dated 5/6/00 6:41:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, janah@worldnet.att.net writes: << Okay, that having been said, I had lots of Dicta Ira and I am a better modeler for having lived through all this. On the other hand the Eduard was not released when I was doing this. Been there + Done that Cyg. >> I saw Cyg's fuslelage in the "flesh". I'm still in awe. RK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 19:19:33 PDT From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: <20000507021933.46955.qmail@hotmail.com> >From: "DAVID BURKE" Talking about "Bloody April", I think, says, >Superior fighters (especially the Dr.I and the Albatros >D.Va contributing to the bloodletting), were able to secure a true air >superiority from time to time. Allied air losses were awful I thought the Albatros D.Va was less highly regarded and not a successful improvement on the D.V and D.III's. Of course, I'm just trying to remember what I've read somewhere. Michael ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 22:29:57 -0400 From: smperry@mindspring.com To: Subject: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: <000501bfb7cc$236b28e0$ef0956d1@default> I lined up a few Mercedes D.III engines from several kits.: http://smperry.home.mindspring.com/sitepics.htm Check 'em out for yourself. sp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 19:46:02 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: <003701bfb7ce$622b15c0$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Where did the Artur Mercedes come from. I didnt think the DII was out yet or was it a typo??? ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 7:32 PM Subject: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done > I lined up a few Mercedes D.III engines from several kits.: > > http://smperry.home.mindspring.com/sitepics.htm > > Check 'em out for yourself. > sp > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 19:51:53 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: <003d01bfb7cf$335e6200$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Michael, I have to agree. I always thought that the DV had the worst problems with its wings and the beefing up done to fix those problems made both it and the DVa no better than the DIII. Of course none of them were as good as the Oeffag versions. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Kendix > > I thought the Albatros D.Va was less highly regarded and not a successful > improvement on the D.V and D.III's. Of course, I'm just trying to remember > what I've read somewhere. > > Michael > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:03:07 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: <004501bfb7d0$c5531420$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Tom, David, I think you have to be very careful comparing to the 2nd event of the century. If you do then the Jagdgeschwader are a much better example of air superiority than the allies overall numbers. I.e. they maintained air superiority in specific areas. In fact even up through mid 1918 this was true, they did this with no more than 200 or 300 aircraft or at least that is what I have seen quoted. My question more the fact that the commonwealth tactics were seem to be an extension of the ground fighting, as in throw more and more aircraft at the enemy hoping to bleed them dry, but in the process bleeding yourself dry too. The only saving grace being they had more aircraft and resources. This is very different than maintaining air superiority. In a situation where you have air superiority you control the skies your enemy can't move and your aircraft are practically safe and can operate at will. The other question of course is what were the French Tactics, were they different? Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: DAVID BURKE To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 6:20 PM Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? > Like in WW2 - the Luftwaffe could have defeated the 8th > >AF over Germany in daylight raids and it would not have impacted the > ultimate > >outcome of the war other than to extend it > > Yeah, but they didn't. The superority of the USAAF pilots, combined with > superior aircraft basically killed the Luftwaffe, which was a self-defeating > organism anyway. Even with the jets and all, Germany was in no position to > win the air war in WW2. The P-47 was enough to prove that alone. > > > In WWI, especially during 'Bloody April', the Germans decided to take the > war to the allies. Superior fighters (especially the Dr.I and the Albatros > D.Va contributing to the bloodletting), were able to secure a true air > superiority from time to time. Allied air losses were awful. However, > there was the fact that aircraft production was unhindered on the allied > side, as well as the fact that allied pilots eventually began to receive > better training. The introduction of the SE-5 family really spelled the > doom of Germany in the air - it outperformed the German aircraft, and the > SE-5a really carved a niche in history, even though it didn't have as cool a > name as 'Camel'. > > You historians out there, poke holes in my statement. I'm trying to > learn about this stuff - correct me when I'm wrong! > > > DB > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:26:17 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: Three Strutters Message-ID: <004d01bfb7d4$01897a80$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Marc, I have the Pegasus 1 1/2 strutter but I have decided to mix the parts with a Toko 1 1/2 strutter. For the following reason. The fuselage is way undersized in width. You almost need a length of plastic card between the fuselage halves. As to the wings one solution I looked at was to drill between the halves then use florists wire to join them. That way I really dint need to glue all along the halves. Only where I had wired the wing. To make the joint mechanically sound I planned to use small amounts of epoxy since this dries clear. At least the stuff I have does. However the next problem reared its head. That being once you have painted the wing it seemed to me you should see ribs at each side of the cellon covering. This would not be the case. Therefore I came to the conclusion it was better to cut away where the cellon should be then join the wing as normal and use cling film for the cellon. I tried the cellon method it made a terrible mess but the cling film would have worked, I am just too clumsy to get it right. It was around this point the Flashback 1 1/2 strutter came out I looked at it and well the Pegasus offering just never progressed ;) As to 1 1/2 strutter being a good candidate for a mass build I agree, especially since I have 3 Toko's and 2 Flashbacks plus what's left of the Pegasus model. Heck if you want 1/48th theirs Eric's model. Plus with the datafiles it means there is a lot of information available. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Flake To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 6:14 PM Subject: Three Strutters > I just put the "Wings" Lohrner L, "Pegasus" Macchi M-5 and "Toko" Hansa > Brandenburg W 29 in the display case (I know y'all like pictures, but I > don't have an adjustable lens camera nor a scanner, sorry). > > Now I've pulled out three more OT aircraft for my next project(s). I > guess I'm hooked, I was going to do a couple of USN light cruisers, but > changed my mind. > > Two are Toko Strutters, the bomber and the Comic. The third is the > Pegasus Strutter. > > As almost all of you know, the Pegasus Strutter comes with a clear upper > wing, in two halves. > > My first question is, how do I stick these two halves together? Regular > liquid cement? Or should I use a tiny amount of CA? In either case, the > area I will need to be "clear" could be fogged. > > I am planning on dipping the wing halves in Future first, to prevent > this, but that still leaves the question as to which glue will provide > the best bond. > > The second question is, can I use this wing, with its clear cellules > (sp?) on the single-seat bomber version? Just from looking at the Toko > boxtop, I can't help thinking that pilot would be aching for a clear > roof through which he could spot predatory Huns hiding in clouds. > > The third question is that since this aircraft is available in so many > versions and from so many different manufacturers, wouldn't it be a good > candidate for the "Group Build" put forward by Chris Crofoot via Ray > Boorman? > > Thanks, I'll just go back and wait for the next digest for the answers. > > Marc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 20:50:33 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can Message-ID: <200005070353.UAA31438@mail.rapidnet.net> The Artur D.II has been out for awhile, I did a review of it in the January or February Internet Modeler. This is a resin kit, and not a Flashback or Eduard brand injection. Another cool Artur Kit that was being reviewed around the same time is the Salmson 2A2. Both will be given the full build treatment in future issues of IM. .. both are available from Lubos at VAMP (NOTE: Lubos is on holiday until after the 15th and any email will be asnswered upon his return). For those curious as to how the engine should appear shapewise, take a look at http://members.xoom.com/profileart/index.html and go to the engines page, I have the Mercedes D.III and D.IIIa profiled there. Regards, Bob Pearson Visit my WW1 Aviation page http://members.xoom.com/Sopwith_5F1 For the CBR/RNP Profile page visit http://members.xoom.com/profileart/ Managing Editor / Internet Modeler http://www.internetmodeler.com ---------- >From: "Ray Boorman" >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done >Date: Sat, 6 May, 2000, 7:48 PM > > Where did the Artur Mercedes come from. I didnt think the DII was out yet or > was it a typo??? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: Multiple recipients of list > Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 7:32 PM > Subject: Mercedes D.III comparison was: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be > done > > >> I lined up a few Mercedes D.III engines from several kits.: >> >> http://smperry.home.mindspring.com/sitepics.htm >> >> Check 'em out for yourself. >> sp >> >> >> ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:53:25 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: In a message dated 5/6/00 8:18:06 PM EST, dora9@sprynet.com writes: << You historians out there, poke holes in my statement. I'm trying to learn about this stuff - correct me when I'm wrong! DB >> Further proof, DB, if any was needed, that "strategy" to a Prussian is "how do we defeat France?" not "how do we win the war?" They defeated France in WW2 and still lost the war. Prussians have not (study history) been able to think beyond the end of their noses for the entire time the rest of Europe was stupid enough to allow that so-called "country" to exist. Tom Cleaver (a 5th-generation anti-Prussian, going back to my ancestor who was a member of the Congress of Frankfrut in 1848) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:55:18 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Did the virus get anyone? Message-ID: <64.27a608c.26465f46@aol.com> In a message dated 5/6/00 8:28:50 PM EST, dora9@sprynet.com writes: << I hope that they catch this ass and hang him from a eucalyptus tree! >> Along with the rest of Generation Y-bother. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 01:58:05 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: <7d.48a7a5c.26465fed@aol.com> In a message dated 5/6/00 8:41:17 PM EST, janah@worldnet.att.net writes: << Okay, that having been said, I had lots of Dicta Ira and I am a better modeler for having lived through all this. On the other hand the Eduard was not released when I was doing this. Been there + Done that Cyg. >> Reading through all of that, I am completely impressed with Cyg's modeling abilities, and also completely convinced that the Y2K solution is throw the PoS out the window and go buy an Eduard! :-) Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:10:11 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done Message-ID: <000b01bfb7ea$e7336a80$9b1335d1@bconnected.net> Hey Tom. we agree ;), except you need to buy two Eduards one as a DIII and the other to go with a certain DII Conversion kit. Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Glencoe Albatros - It can be done > In a message dated 5/6/00 8:41:17 PM EST, janah@worldnet.att.net writes: > > << Okay, that having been said, I had lots of Dicta Ira and I am a better > modeler for having lived through all this. On the other hand the Eduard was > not released when I was doing this. > > Been there + Done that > Cyg. >> > > Reading through all of that, I am completely impressed with Cyg's modeling > abilities, and also completely convinced that the Y2K solution is throw the > PoS out the window and go buy an Eduard! :-) > > Tom Cleaver > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 02:16:25 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Slow list so new thread..... Commonwealth tactics? Message-ID: <75.3cb6adc.26466439@aol.com> In a message dated 5/6/00 10:03:06 PM EST, Ray_Boorman@telus.net writes: << This is very different than maintaining air superiority. In a situation where you have air superiority you control the skies your enemy can't move and your aircraft are practically safe and can operate at will. Both Allied air losses in WW1 and WW2 were significant, but the ultimate outcome was that the Germans went down the tubes. More important tham MvR shooting down 80 airplanes (which ultiamtely met nothing outside of groups like this) would have been for the Germans to be able to do what the British did: bomb every air base they could find, at night, disrupting them completely - which they didn't. So what if Erich Hartman shot down 750 Russian airplanes? The result would have been the same - the solution was a bomber that could hit the airplane factories in the Urals, not some "ace" shooting down the final product. In both wars, the Germans failed to have any overarching strategy that would give them a clue what to do. Thank God - since the worst thing I can think of is someone stupid enough to be a German having any authority over anything. The Allied stretgic vision in both wars meant that "stars" like MvR or Hartman to the contrary (who cares if the top 265 aces of history were in the air force of the *losers*?) knowing what you were going to do and doing it, whether it was night bombing of MvR's airdrome in 1917 and the subseqent disorganization there, or hitting the Leuna synthetic oil factory in the summer of 1944 so the war criminal Waffen SS scum would run out of gas that December trying to win the Battle of the bulge beats all the pretty airplanes and high scores you can pile against it. The Germans in either war never got past tactics; like typical Prussians, they couldn't see beyond the end of their noses with monocles. Clausewitz would have flunked the German General Staff in either war as morons. The other question of course is what were the French Tactics, were they different? The French were French. Were it not for the British and the Americans coming in as they did, Hitler wouldn't have been the first German to dance a jig on French soil. The German Jastas opposing the French were all second-rank. One needs say no more. Tom ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2316 **********************