WWI Digest 2548 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Historical Fiction by "Bob Pearson" 2) Re: Speak of the Devil.... by "Bob Pearson" 3) Re: Cookbook Request by "Bob Pearson" 4) Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals by Ernest Thomas 5) Re: One person's view.. by "DAVID BURKE" 6) Re: One person's view..... by "DAVID BURKE" 7) Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals by "DAVID BURKE" 8) Re: Future by Zulis@aol.com 9) Re: One person's view..... by "P. Howard" 10) Re: OT Fiction by Albatrosdv@aol.com 11) Russian Book Site by "cameron rile" 12) New Kit Survey by "P. Howard" 13) Re: One person's view..... by Albatrosdv@aol.com 14) Re: Speak of the Devil.... by MAnde72343@aol.com 15) Re: historical fiction by Ernest Thomas 16) Re: One person's view..... by MAnde72343@aol.com 17) Re: Future by MAnde72343@aol.com 18) Re: One person's view..... by MAnde72343@aol.com 19) Re: Future by "P. Howard" 20) Re: Future by Zulis@aol.com 21) Re: Albatros Cookup and Disenfranchisement by Ernest Thomas 22) RE: New Kit Survey by "John Glaser" 23) Re: One person's view..... by "Bob Pearson" 24) Re: One person's view..... by Ernest Thomas 25) Re: New Kit Survey by "P. Howard" 26) Re: New Kit Survey by Ernest Thomas 27) Waldo was:Re: One person's view..... by smperry@mindspring.com 28) Re: Speak of the Devil.... by Lee Mensinger 29) Re: Future by KarrArt@aol.com 30) Re: New Kit Survey by "P. Howard" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:57:11 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Historical Fiction Message-ID: <200008160209.TAA28314@mail.rapidnet.net> > Not too long ago, I found another novel on WWI, but I can't remember the > name of it. It begins with a fellow flying a BE2 over the Channel and > pranging it on arrival. It's repairable, but his squadron commander > promptly lights it to "prevent pilots being killed in it." I think the > rest of the novel describes the pilot's experiences flying the FE2. tis WAR STORY by Derek Robinson. . the second best WW1 'novel' after VM Yeates "Winged Victory'. . I like this book more than Goshawk Squadron which struck me as somewhat cynical and sureal compared to Piece of Cake or War Story. The naval series mentioned earlier is by Alan Evans and includes Ship of Force, Seek Out and Destroy, Dauntless and Thunder at Dawn. A nice series that hopefully will expand. Other naval historical series include Hornblower (obviously), Ramage (Dudley Pope), Bolitho (Douglas Reeman writing as Alexander Kent), Aubrey (O'Brien - best of the lot .. I even got my mom to read the first of these years ago. . this reached 15 or 16 books before his death a year or two ago) . There is also a five volume series based on the Crimean War that I just finished rereading by V A Stuart. Gives a nice overview of this forgotten conflict from a mainly naval perspective (with jaunts ashore to join the Highland Brigade and others) Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:02:02 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Speak of the Devil.... Message-ID: <200008160213.TAA28419@mail.rapidnet.net> Not a bad book if you can get past the wrong period of service for the aircraft ... and the silly plotline of why the French pilot is after the German guy. . and what really happened .. No I won't tell - read it for yourself. Bob ---------- >From: Sharon Henderson >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Speak of the Devil.... >Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2000, 6:55 pm > > .and he will appear! Look what I found on eBay this evening. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=405440635 > > It's a copy of Ernest K. Gann's "In Company of Eagles"! No one's > bid on it yet, starting price of $6.75, only 3 days to go. :-) > > No, it's not my auction.... just a public service. > > Cheers, > Sharon > (Still wondering about chalk and rib tapes....) > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 19:02:41 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Cookbook Request Message-ID: <200008160213.TAA28432@mail.rapidnet.net> Unless you misalign it ---------- >From: "Matthew Bittner" >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: RE: Cookbook Request >Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2000, 6:58 pm > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:51:04 -0400 (EDT), Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com > wrote: > >> I have been thinking about that method a lot recently. This time I need to >> do it the "easy" way. Well, that's what I thought before I got this far >> into it. This is the first time I've lozenged a model in dinky Bittner >> scale. Today I think the best answer for lozenge wings in 72nd is three >> color camo. > > Or single piece ALPS lozenge decals, with the rib tapes in situ. Can't > be beat!!! ;-) > > > Matt Bittner > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:34:32 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals Message-ID: <3999FDB8.A5F6C291@bellsouth.net> David Solosy wrote: > I have to say that WW1 aircraft modelling is much more challenging than WW2. > I've never built a jet so couldn't comment on that. Jets are much harder. I built one a year or two ago and it took forever. Every time I worked on it, I would fall asleep. Especially when I got to that fab looking grey paint job. :) E. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:25:35 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: One person's view.. Message-ID: <003e01c0072b$bea2c3a0$4582aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 7:19 PM Subject: Re: One person's view.. > In a message dated 8/15/00 1:32:23 PM Central Daylight Time, > John_Impenna@hyperion.com writes: > > > Granted, it probably isn't worth $68 > > retail, but if the Br-14 by Hi-Tek is worth $40 then the Swordfish is worth > > $100!!! > > I should comment that I bought my "Hi-Tech" Breguet for $28, not $40. I do > agree it's not worth $40, when for less than that you can get a great Eduard > Profipack. I just don't think that the kit is a total dog as has been alluded > to, that's all. But it's all a matter of opinion anyway and we're all > entitled to our own, whether we're wrong or not!:-) > > Otis I reckon that Otis is right, and it's like I said - gonna take some work to make it look right, overpriced, definitely not something worth drooling over... DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:43:19 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <003f01c0072b$c01ba800$4582aec7@com> > Shane > > nb Nothing. Sitting in a coal mine again. But back home > tonight when the BM Snipe gets some more work > (a lovely kit IMHO, as are all of the BM kits > in my possession with the slight exception of > the SPAD VII) Lemme know how the Snipe goes together. I bought a CSM Snipe kit from Eric at the Nats. What a beauty! And the A.1 was nothing to sneeze at either! I've been wanting to build up a few Brit and French A/C. I have to say that the D.H.2 is a real nice bunch of parts. No wing ripple present, and some nice foresight to the layout of the kit. It is easily worked with, and except for the overly-heavy injection gates on the leading edges of the wings, very nicely cast. I had trouble with their supplied cabane struts, and the wing struts (which are supposed to be 29mm long - mine are like 27.5mm). The Monosoupape engine is a neat little kit in its own right, with splendid detail. Because of the design of the aircraft, the cockpit is very exposed, and lends itself well to superdetailing. As I said before, I want to do another one, and I think that I will delete the supplied sidewalls in favor of doing the cockpit framing, and cover it in cigarette paper to replicate the doped fabric on the nacelle. I had fun doing the prop - I have to say that the pics don't do it justice. This is one of the times where I can truly say that. But aside from my added stuff, it's still a nice kit. I have still to finish my other BM stuff. I remembered why I wasn't pleased with my Halberstadt - not only wing ripple but missing parts too! And the Brisfit, which has very bad wings. I had forgotten about the missing bomb racks and Parabellum gun in the Halberstadt until I re-opened the box, and found that I had bought a Halb. Cl,ll/IV detail set and gun from Eric and had stuck them in the box and had forgotten them. To be fair, I have not yet returned the wings to BM, but will soon. With all of my gripes about BM, it is very plain to see that the release s have been increasing in overall quality, and hopefully the problems that some of us have faced in the past will be eliminated in the near future. And there's nothing that a little scratchbuilding can't fix, eh? DB ...who forgot what he was saying... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:51:32 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals Message-ID: <005101c0072d$0bbe0860$4582aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Thomas" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals > > > David Solosy wrote: > > > I have to say that WW1 aircraft modelling is much more challenging than WW2. > > I've never built a jet so couldn't comment on that. > > Jets are much harder. I built one a year or two ago and it took forever. > Every time I worked on it, I would fall asleep. Especially when I got to > that fab looking grey paint job. :) > E. Awwww, now: I'm working on a big-scale jet (O.K., a certain WW2 jet), and I'm having a ball! Especially since I'm also working on my WWI stuff. I like the research and photos and all that. I would say that WWI modelling is more challenging than some modelling, and less than others. With rigged A/C, there is the challenge of getting it to all be straight and taut. With this jet, there's the challenge of a mostly bare duralumin finish. Getting a good natural metal effect is a hell of a challenge! I'm enjoying tooling it out as much as I enjoy rib-taping, or scratchbuilding a set of wing struts. I'm even working on two nuclear-ballistic missile subs right now! I'm just having fun. Jets can be fun too. They take some different skills than do WWI modelling. However, I think that wings and wires just look, well, cooler. DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:14:50 EDT From: Zulis@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: In a message dated 00-08-15 18:27:23 EDT, you write: << Me, I use the raving idiot approach. Any over any, with "sufficient" time between coats. And I never lost a paint job either. I'm either lucky or set low standards Shane >> I think of Future as being a coat of very inert liquid plastic. I use it for something which I am sure will make some of the more cautious types cringe. Sometimes, no matter how much your stir it before brushing it on (I dont airbrush) those Humbrol paints dry to a tacky finish, but seem to take forever to lose that last bit of tackiness. Once, in a rush, I tried an experiment. When it has dried as far as it appears it is going to (say, overnight) and that tackiness remains, I brush a coat of future over top. Future dries hard and clean, and in the dozen or so times I have used this method, I have yet to have the two materials react to each other or (as my nightmare had it) the bottom one come bubbling out. May be a useful trick for those who have to slam out some quick builds for wargaming, etc. Dave Z ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:08:26 -0500 From: "P. Howard" To: Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <00e501c00730$7dc71e80$899d8ece@phoward> > >My argument is that if HiTech wanted to say that their kits are on a similar >level to Cyg's Halberstadt (though on a parts quality level there could be no >competition), but rather that they are "garage kits" which require a great >deal of input from the modeler, and are mostly a rough basis of what will be >created, I would have little difficulty with them, and would make no negative >comments about them. However, that is not the case - the kits are marketed >as "full kits." For that, I would expect at a minimum a similar quality to >early Eduard kits, which is *not* the case. I am *not* holding up "high >standards" here, but rather minimal ones: that for $40-$80 one should expect >a kit that is at the level of those three JMGT kits; i.e., something that >will look well if built according to instructions, upon which a modeler can >lavish any level of effort they want for the outcome they desire. I do not >think that is unreasonable. One can do that with the Bre 14, as evidenced in >the SAMI article, but I also think that, if one built that kit (I have >examined it) per the instructions without a high degree of additional effort, >one would have a very sub-standard model. >What's so terrible about requesting that quality delivered by equal to value >put out?? We can certainly see any number of examples of producers who seem >capable of doing this - once again, I will mention Spin, as a company >composed of a couple of guys working out of a garage, the same as the guys >who are doing HiTech, that way we are comparing apples and apples. The >difference in quality is night and day and would be if they were doing their >models in injection plastic rather than resin. > >I would be willing to bet that every one of you hold every manufacturer of >anything else you buy to the kind of standard I am talking about here. > >Tom Cleaver > Tom, All model companies have kits that have major errors in them. Some have poor molding, some have poor research, some have poor fit, and some have all of the above. I am much less tolerant of those problems from high volume manufacturers than from limited run manufacturers. I spent over 450 hours building my SSW DIII from Eduard because it was the only game in town. It doesn't look like I spent that much time on it, but that's my fault not Eduard's. The kit was crappy, rough, ill fitting, and the decals didn't even approach being right, but I attacked those obstacles because the end result matters to me. I could have built the kit in 20 hours, but I'm just not a good enough modeler to make a kit like that into a presentable model in that time. My point? Simple. I had a place to start. Not perfect or even average, but still it was a place to start. Eduard's molding got better, but the accuracy of those molds is still suspect. Do the Albatros landing gear length problems ring a bell? How about the Triplane's rear fuselage problems, or the rear of the Hanriot's fuselage being closed up tight? Eduard sells five kits for every one BM sells, or Hi Tech or any other limited run company, but I don't hear you yelling about them constantly. If you continue to scream about the limited run manufacturers as though they were making a mint and stealing your money, there won't be anyone left to complain about. Please, don't spend your money on limited run kits. That would leave one more left of those 1500 BM kits for the rest of us who appreciate a starting place. Comparing Eduard to BM, or any of the other limited run companies is also misrepresenting the actual situation. According to an Eduard employee, the company has a monopoly in the Czech Republic on injection molding for models in that country. That can hardly be said of BM or Hi Tech. Classifying Eduard as "limited run" is pretty much like saying that Olympic teams from the former Soviet Union were made up of "amatuers." Just my .02 Paul H ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:36:15 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: OT Fiction Message-ID: In a message dated 8/15/00 6:38:35 PM EST, AMillen@seic.com writes: << There was a series of, I believe, three books about an Austro-Hungarian soldier, starting out as a ground pounder, transfering to the submarine service, thence to the air service. "Soldier of the Emporer?" maybe? >> And of course there is the one good book that explains *exactly* how and why the Austro-Hungarian empire finally fell apart: "The Good Soldier Svejk." One of the funniest and most subversive stories ever told. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:41:12 -0400 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Russian Book Site Message-ID: <617F980F00374D115AC40005B80A9E19@cameron.prontomail.com> Got an email from a Russian bloke, he has a webiste that sells Russian books. There is the book on the Ilya Muromets but I couldnt find anything else that was WWI. But for those that are interested in Russian pre-WWI, WWII and Cold War there is plenty of books of aircraft, trucks etc. http://www.armybook.com/ Got no affiliation to the site, just thought it looks like it has obscure enough material that someone will get something out of the link. cam AFC - http://members.xoom.com/PointCook/index.htm ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail and Homepage at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 22:45:50 -0500 From: "P. Howard" To: "WWI POST" Subject: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <00fd01c00734$7b991e20$899d8ece@phoward> Hi All, I've been asked by a friend to get a feel for how a new large scale (1/28th or 1/32) kit would fare in the WWI modeling arena. He hasn't settled on a subject, but he wants to do the kit right, so good drawings are really a necessity. At this point in time, he is looking at British planes very closely, but until he has a really definitive set of plans, nothing is set in stone. Modelers constantly complain that nobody asks our opinion (especially me), so if you are interested in a mostly resin large scale kit, here is your chance to sound off. If you post to the list with a reply, please send a copy to me at phoward@abilene.com so that I can pass the results on to my friend. Since I'm posting this to the list, I guess I get to post my pick first: 1/28 or 1/32 SE5a (No real scale preference) Paul H ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:50:53 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <9d.978f75e.26cb699d@aol.com> In a message dated 8/15/00 10:18:47 PM EST, phoward@abilene.com writes: << Classifying Eduard as "limited run" is pretty much like saying that Olympic teams from the former Soviet Union were made up of "amatuers." >> Comparing BM with *early* Eduard, which I was doing, is comparing apples and apples. Nowadays one should compare Eduard with Hasegawa or Tamiya. I am not holding out for major accuracy either, and not commenting on that issue with any of these - I am talking about simple things like fit. I agree if you are an accuracy nudnik, nothing will ever satisfy you. But I do think the ability to make something that resembles what is allegedly being sold is not too much to ask. TC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:57:16 EDT From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Speak of the Devil.... Message-ID: I remember those errors, too but ignored them, Gann was the best aviation writer of his generation, (he flew C-84's I think in W.W.II) I don't remember the name of his non fiction account of his own early experiences, but I remember that I read it after 30 years or more, so it was pretty good. In the same line, Gann's errors were minor, compared to so called historians like Stephen Longstreet ("The Canvas Falcons") or, (Avoid this turkey, it's utterly rotten) Frederick Oughten ("The Aces") Merrrill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:02:18 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: historical fiction Message-ID: <399A124A.E9D6B7D4@bellsouth.net> Mark Miller wrote: > > Hi all > I'm a big fan of historical fiction - I'm currently reading Sharp's Rifles by Cornwell Mark, It looks like everyone else already offered all the likely suggestions. But I will say that the next book, Sharpe's Eagle, is my fave of the series. And he's since backed up a bit and wrote two more books with him as a private, and sargent in India. I just got the second one yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet. His ACW series is good to, as is his King Arthur series. His latest, Stonehenge, is just 'ok'. Sort of like "Pillars of the Earth" meets "Clan of the Cave Bear". No epic battles, which is what I like from Cornwell. I really wish he'd do a series with a WWI pilot as the hero. Could even make him the great great grandson of Sharpe(his son is a character in the Starbuck series). Aside from that and all the other stuff mentioned by the well read listee's, I would suggest going to one of the big multi death corp bookstores where you should find an entire section labled hist.fict. Bon apetite` E. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:02:44 EDT From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: DB, you will need to scratch an engine for the CS Snipe, Eric 'cheated' he used his very nice 110hp Clerget for the much more massive Bentley on that kit, and other than the lower wing attachment problem, it's a very nice kit. Merrill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:04:38 EDT From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <90.86b953f.26cb6cd6@aol.com> Dave, if your Humbrol is not drying, you're using the wrong thinner. Merrill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:08:23 EDT From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <4a.9a47727.26cb6db7@aol.com> Paul, you have a valid point (and not just your head), but sometimes, the passing of a limited run company is a blessing (remember Waldo? yech! and I built their Bristol M1-C, too) Merrill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:10:14 -0500 From: "P. Howard" To: Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <017101c00737$e2445a60$899d8ece@phoward> -----Original Message----- From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:06 PM Subject: Re: Future >Dave, if your Humbrol is not drying, you're using the wrong thinner. >Merrill > What is the correct thinner for Humbrol and in which incarnation does it apply? I've never had much luck with any of it. They have some good colors I'd like to be able to use effectively. Paul H ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:10:51 EDT From: Zulis@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: In a message dated 00-08-16 00:06:46 EDT, you write: << Dave, if your Humbrol is not drying, you're using the wrong thinner. Merrill >> Well, the only thing I use thinner for is to clean my brushes. This stuff is all brushed on - no airbrush. I used to think it was because I just wasnt stirring them enough, but with a few colours (especially a certain shade of grey) I have alternated between stirring and shaking for ten minutes and still get the same result - maybe they turn out a bad batch now and then? Anyway - this is a lot less annoying now that I discovered this trick. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:18:59 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Albatros Cookup and Disenfranchisement Message-ID: <399A1633.55DF1244@bellsouth.net> Merrill, and Tomasz Gronczewski wrote: > > >> Ernie, I'm with TC. > > Me too Ernie. I really hate continuing this thread, but I just want to make it clear. I'm not asking Tom to stop giving his blunt opinions of kits. I really do appreciate them. He's kinda like Rex Reed. He don't like much, but what he does like is pretty good stuff. I mearly ask that he stop calling people morons. It makes for bad feelings. And I'm not asking for a total ban on it either. Afaic, polititians and model airplane smashing postal workers are fair game if he wants to call someone a moron. But not the polititians supporters. And postal workers should proably be excluded too, but I'm still brooding over the D-VII.(there! I'm OT) E. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:15:16 -0500 From: "John Glaser" To: Subject: RE: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <000401c00738$96847500$8d00000a@jcgws> Paul: Even though you said British, I'd vote for any one (or several) of the Albatros scouts in either scale. - JCG -----Original Message----- From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of P. Howard Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:53 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: New Kit Survey Hi All, I've been asked by a friend to get a feel for how a new large scale (1/28th or 1/32) kit would fare in the WWI modeling arena. He hasn't settled on a subject, but he wants to do the kit right, so good drawings are really a necessity. At this point in time, he is looking at British planes very closely, but until he has a really definitive set of plans, nothing is set in stone. Modelers constantly complain that nobody asks our opinion (especially me), so if you are interested in a mostly resin large scale kit, here is your chance to sound off. If you post to the list with a reply, please send a copy to me at phoward@abilene.com so that I can pass the results on to my friend. Since I'm posting this to the list, I guess I get to post my pick first: 1/28 or 1/32 SE5a (No real scale preference) Paul H ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:21:09 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <200008160432.VAA32617@mail.rapidnet.net> Uh-oh. .. now you're in trouble .. Waldo is on this list. ... ---------- >From: MAnde72343@aol.com >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: One person's view..... >Date: Tue, Aug 15, 2000, 9:14 pm > > Paul, you have a valid point (and not just your head), but sometimes, the > passing of a limited run company is a blessing (remember Waldo? yech! and I > built their Bristol M1-C, too) > Merrill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:24:57 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <399A1799.2937AFAF@bellsouth.net> MAnde72343@aol.com wrote: > > (remember Waldo? yech! and I > built their Bristol M1-C, too) > Fyi, "Waldo" is on the list. E. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:25:08 -0500 From: "P. Howard" To: Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <018401c00739$f6fbc7c0$899d8ece@phoward> John, Nothing is set, so your vote is counted equally AFAIK... Paul H -----Original Message----- From: John Glaser To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:20 PM Subject: RE: New Kit Survey >Paul: > >Even though you said British, I'd vote for any one (or several) of the >Albatros scouts in either scale. > >- JCG > >-----Original Message----- >From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of >P. Howard >Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:53 PM >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: New Kit Survey > > >Hi All, > >I've been asked by a friend to get a feel for how a new large scale (1/28th >or 1/32) kit would fare in the WWI modeling arena. He hasn't settled on a >subject, but he wants to do the kit right, so good drawings are really a >necessity. At this point in time, he is looking at British planes very >closely, but until he has a really definitive set of plans, nothing is set >in stone. > >Modelers constantly complain that nobody asks our opinion (especially me), >so if you are interested in a mostly resin large scale kit, here is your >chance to sound off. If you post to the list with a reply, please send a >copy to me at phoward@abilene.com so that I can pass the results on to my >friend. > >Since I'm posting this to the list, I guess I get to post my pick first: > >1/28 or 1/32 SE5a (No real scale preference) > >Paul H > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:28:57 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, phoward@abilene.com Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <399A1889.9DA7EB5E@bellsouth.net> "P. Howard" wrote: > Since I'm posting this to the list, I guess I get to post my pick first: > > 1/28 or 1/32 SE5a (No real scale preference) I've always wanted a big Eindecker. But whatever it is, please make it affordable. E. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:31:13 -0400 From: smperry@mindspring.com To: Subject: Waldo was:Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <008b01c0073a$d0397d20$1b0356d1@default> > Paul, you have a valid point (and not just your head), but sometimes, the > passing of a limited run company is a blessing (remember Waldo? yech! and I > built their Bristol M1-C, too) > Merrill I have a Waldo Dolphin. Now there is a kit that is just packed with Sunday, go to meetin' challenges. I have enjoyed my Smer DH.2 ever so much more because people mistake it for a BM kit. I can't wait until I build my Waldo Dolphin and have it mistaken for a CSM kit. ;-) Peter, you produced a fine starting point for a model and I 'd like to point out that it was the only show in town or darn nearly so for a while. Very cool artwork on the box too I might add. sp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:36:23 -0500 From: Lee Mensinger To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, lemen@x25.net Subject: Re: Speak of the Devil.... Message-ID: <399A1A46.6F17527B@x25.net> There were only three C-84s.. they were impressed (drafted) into Army Service, Douglas DC 3Bs and there never was very many of them at all. Lee M. MAnde72343@aol.com wrote: > I remember those errors, too but ignored them, Gann was the best aviation > writer of his generation, (he flew C-84's I think in W.W.II) I don't remember > the name of his non fiction account of his own early experiences, but I > remember that I read it after 30 years or more, so it was pretty good. In the > same line, Gann's errors were minor, compared to so called historians like > Stephen Longstreet ("The Canvas Falcons") or, (Avoid this turkey, it's > utterly rotten) Frederick Oughten ("The Aces") > Merrrill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:30:51 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <90.86c6aaa.26cb72fb@aol.com> In a message dated 8/15/00 1:19:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com writes: << Maybe RK can shed more light on this. He's pretty knowledgeable about paint ain't he? >> I'm just dumb enough to keep experimenting......Honestly, I haven't tried much "hot" stuff over Future- yet. I have put laquer and dope over just about every other substance around- acrylic, enamel, bare plastic. Most of the time I chicken out and spray a couple of misty coats over any potentially fragile paint. Back to the Future- I have no qualms about enamel and thinner washes over Future- never had it goof up yet. The one substance Future DOESN'T like is anything with ammonia, such as a lot of household and window cleaners....but I don't imagine too many of us are doing washes and/or overcoats with ammonia based goo. All the foregoing statements apply when Future has dried at least 20 minutes in my "hot box"- a homemade mess about the size of a small picnic cooler,cobbled up from scrap plywood and heated with a 75 watt bulb. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:32:47 -0500 From: "P. Howard" To: Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <019501c0073b$08719420$899d8ece@phoward> That was exaaaactly what I told him. Really nice and really pricey is not the way to go. Really nice and sell two or three is much better... Paul H -----Original Message----- From: Ernest Thomas To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:28 PM Subject: Re: New Kit Survey > > >"P. Howard" wrote: > >> Since I'm posting this to the list, I guess I get to post my pick first: >> >> 1/28 or 1/32 SE5a (No real scale preference) > >I've always wanted a big Eindecker. >But whatever it is, please make it affordable. >E. > ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2548 **********************