WWI Digest 2551 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: New Kit Survey by David Fleming 2) Re: Historical Fiction by Brian.Nicklas@nasm1.si.edu 3) BM OEF Albatros D.III review by Albatrosdv@aol.com 4) Re: Sanding Tools by "Lance Krieg" 5) Re: Sanding Tools by Allan Wright 6) Re: Future by Lee Mensinger 7) Re: Sanding Tools by Allan Wright 8) Re: Future by Allan Wright 9) Re: New Kit Survey by "Michael Kendix" 10) Albatros C.IX by huggins1@swbell.net (John Huggins) 11) Re: Future by KarrArt@aol.com 12) Re: Humbrol (was Future) by KarrArt@aol.com 13) Re: New Kit Survey by WStew10180@aol.com 14) RE: Humbrol (was Future) by "Tomasz Gronczewski" 15) Re: Albatros C.IX by Dennis Ugulano 16) Re: Albatros C.IX by "Matt Bittner" 17) Re: Future by "DAVID BURKE" 18) Re: New Kit Survey by "DAVID BURKE" 19) Re: New Kit Survey by K129000@aol.com 20) Re: Sopwith Snipe Questions by ERIC HIGHT 21) Re: One person's view..... by "DAVID BURKE" 22) Re: One person's view..... by "DAVID BURKE" 23) Re: New Kit Survey by "Michael Kendix" 24) Re: Future RE:also diosol by Lee Mensinger 25) Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals by "DAVID BURKE" 26) Re: Future by Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com 27) Re: New Kit Survey by "DAVID BURKE" 28) Re: Humbrol (was Future) by Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com 29) Re: Future by Lee Mensinger 30) RE: Humbrol (was Future) by Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:21:24 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <399ABF83.304CF7D1@dial.pipex.com> Paul, I can't recall if you said what material your 'friend' was planning. IMHO, vac would be better than resin, but such is the nature of modelling these days that resin may sell better. As for scale, I think that either would be welcomed by OT modellers in this scale, 1/28th maybe preferred as the Revell ones are in this. However, if it's a popular type, then there is a larger constituency of 1/32 modellers who may like an OT subject to go with all their other ot models, therefore I would think 1/32 would have a bigger sales appeal. As for subject, I think the most popular would be: (1) A fighter/scout (2) One that can be associated with an Ace My choice would be an Albatros, but I don't build in that scale. David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:21:54 -0400 From: Brian.Nicklas@nasm1.si.edu To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Historical Fiction Message-ID: I like all of Bach's stuff - I cried when he wrote in one of having to sell his de Havilland Dragon Rapide... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:31:19 EDT From: Albatrosdv@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: BM OEF Albatros D.III review Message-ID: <54.8228fb3.26cc29e7@aol.com> Bob Laskodi has an excellent review of the Blue Max Austro-Hungarian Albatros in today's edition of Modeling Madness. The URL is: http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/ww1/laskodialboef.htm Cheers, TC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:32:24 -0500 From: "Lance Krieg" To: Subject: Re: Sanding Tools Message-ID: John asked: "What type of sanding tools should I be using?" ... and Brian gave him a good rundown. Another excellent tool is the fingernail buffing stick with four different grits mounted on a stiff but flexible slab of plastic. I find myself using this more and more, as I don't have to fool around changing belts in th Flexi-file or fumbling for the right sheet of mylar. Lance ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:48:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sanding Tools Message-ID: <200008161748.NAA10631@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > Another excellent tool is the fingernail buffing stick with four different grits mounted on a stiff but flexible slab of plastic. I find myself using this more and more, as I don't have to fool around changing belts in th Flexi-file or fumbling for the right sheet of mylar. Ahhh Squadron sanding sticks - quite handy, but $3.99 each! BAH!!!! Go to the drugstore, get some of the high-end emmery boards for women's fingernails. The best ones are made identicly to the squadron sticks, with foam backing and a plastic spine, with 2 grits on them, roughly corresponding to the Tan and Orange Testors sanding films. I get them 2 for $1.49 at the drugstore local to me. With these and a Flexi-File I;m just about set. I also have a stick sander that came from the hardware store that takes thin belts, but only use that for really rough shaping and sanding. Adapt, Improvise, Overcome....but above all else do it affordably! -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:54:09 -0500 From: Lee Mensinger To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <399AD541.D30C0FFA@x25.net> Brent. Diosol is tough stuff. It goes directly through and eats the plastic. Just the fumes alone can do a number on plastic. At one stage, years ago, I made my own glue by dissolving sprue in the stuff. I am still using Floquil paint that is 28 years old, in the big bottles, and I have about 3/4 gallon of Diosol on hand. Enough to last me many more years. Much of the Floquil has been blended into special Camouflage colors and I still use it along with the sttandard blend. Lee M. New Braunfels, TX Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com wrote: > Howdy! > > RK states: > >I have no qualms about enamel and thinner washes over Future- never had it > goof up >yet. > > I forgot about washes! Never, ever, use a wash made from Diosol. It'll eat > Future like you won't believe. Perhaps there's amonia in it? I ruined the > interior of my ot TB-3 this way. Usually Future protects the base coat from > the thinners in washes. Not this time. > > Thanks for weighing in RK! > > Brent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:54:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sanding Tools Message-ID: <200008161754.NAA10736@pease1.sr.unh.edu> Oops! One more sanding tool. A 2'x2' piece of glass and normal hardware store 220 grit sandpaper (carbide preferably). Put the sandpaper sheet on the glass surface (completely flat) and use to true fueslage halves, or vacuform parts. The value of a solid, flat sanding surface can't be overemphasized. Your local glass shop can cut you a square for next to nothing, or may even have some pieces in a bin that will do for this. -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:59:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <200008161759.NAA10801@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > Brent. Diosol is tough stuff. Careful with this stuff. If it is the original formula, use in a well ventalated area. Disol has what an environmental engineer friend calls "Ethelmethylbadshit" in it. Tolouline Methelkeytone (M-E-K) Acetone Mineral Spirits This stuff was discontinued in it's original formula because it contained several known carcinogens. That said, if you can get your hands on a quart, it is tremendously usefull as a solvent, thinner and brush cleaner. Just use with the windows open please - we want you all around for many years to come. -Al =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:02:49 GMT From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: >From: David Fleming > >I can't recall if you said what material your 'friend' was planning. >IMHO, >vac would be better than resin, but such is the nature of >modelling these >days that resin may sell better. > Possibly true. My personal favourite combination is resin fuselage and vac wings since the fuselage is generally the most tricky part of a vac to sand out and the thinness of the vacuform is ideal for WW1 wings. As for the struts; don't bother going to the expense of making resin struts, especially in giga scale. Either make them out of metal or plastic, or just supply an accurate jig so the builder do their own. Michael ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:57:08 -0500 From: huggins1@swbell.net (John Huggins) To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Albatros C.IX Message-ID: Does anyone know of a kit of the Albatros C.IX in the one true scale (1/72). Any medium will work, but I would prefer not to start with a Merlin kit, but if it is the only game in town, it is a starting place. Thanks John ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:16:19 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <97.979e3c2.26cc3473@aol.com> In a message dated 8/16/00 8:47:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com writes: << I forgot about washes! Never, ever, use a wash made from Diosol. It'll eat Future like you won't believe. Perhaps there's amonia in it? I ruined the interior of my ot TB-3 this way. Usually Future protects the base coat from the thinners in washes. Not this time. >> Diosol! I didn't mention that stuff because I so rarely use, though I keep a jar on hand. Now that stuff is HOT. I've used it for plastic cement from time to time in a pinch. I have sprayed Diosol-thinned paint over just about everything with no bad results, but only with light misty coats. Diosol's kind of like that universal solvent in the Roger Rabbit movie that was going to be used to melt all the 'toons. RK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:16:20 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Humbrol (was Future) Message-ID: <68.67d76c3.26cc3474@aol.com> In a message dated 8/16/00 8:45:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com writes: << Has anyone had Humbrol change shades after sanding lightly? I had a Wellington that did that. I was sanding the paint getting ready for the next coat and it became lighter. Very odd. >> Most paint will show some change after sanding, but there's something about the way the pigments mix (or don't) in Humbrol, plus, I've mentioned this before- Humbrol fades more rapidly than any other model paint I've used. RK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:18:23 EDT From: WStew10180@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <7c.9b8f4e9.26cc34ef@aol.com> Bristol fighter please! Bill S. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 20:20:49 +0200 From: "Tomasz Gronczewski" To: Subject: RE: Humbrol (was Future) Message-ID: Hi, >What is the correct thinner for Humbrol and in which incarnation does it >apply? I've never had much luck with any of it. For a couple of years I have been using ModelMaster airbrush thinner with best results. > Has anyone had Humbrol change shades after sanding lightly? Brent, I don't know if you are talking about the same effect, but some Humbrol (but not only) colors have extremely significant tendence to change brightness and saturation depending on the fact how rough the surface is. This is one of notable reasons why to use clear gloss (e.g. Future) overspray. > Overall I would say that I am very happy with Humbrol products. After a long voyage around various enamels and acrylics I eventually returned to old die-hard Humbrols. The original Humbrol enamels tended sometimes to clog my Testors airbrush, but current brand labeled Super Enamel is a totally different story. The main advantage of Humbrols is that they stick very good to plastic and thus provide me with most durable finish. I am hard-core airbrush user as well as fanatic vinyl mask believer and Humbrol enamels are safest during lifting the masks. I know that when properly handled, even acrylics can withstand lifting masks but Humbrol is just a few times more durable. I use acrylics to paint masked insignia, but Humbrols remain always as a priming base. Greets, Tomasz -------------R-E-K-L-A-M-A--------------- Skad sie biora dzieci, gdy bocian odleci? Odpowiadamy tez na trudniejsze pytania... Wyszukiwarka AltaVista teraz w INTERIA.PL http://szukaj.interia.pl Zapraszamy ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:34:48 -0400 From: Dennis Ugulano To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Albatros C.IX Message-ID: <200008161434_MC2-AFF5-7FB2@compuserve.com> John, XTRAVAC has one in 1/72 and it is a nice little kit. It has resin parts, a little strut material but no decals. It was produced by Hannant's and I got mine from Aeroclub. I can't find a date on the paperwork or kit but I think I got it about 4 or 5 years ago. The kit number is XV01. Dennis Ugulano email: Uggies@compuserve.com http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm Page Revised 8/2/00 "Each modeler will rise to their own level of masochism." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:21:25 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Albatros C.IX Message-ID: <200008161822.LAA03577@avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:10:32 -0400 (EDT), John Huggins wrote: > Does anyone know of a kit of the Albatros C.IX in the one true scale > (1/72). Any medium will work, but I would prefer not to start with a > Merlin kit, but if it is the only game in town, it is a starting > place. What are the vacs that Xtravac did? Albatros D.III, J.2, and I can't remember the other two. Could one of them be the C.IX? Or were the other two the C.X and C.XV? Gads...the mind... Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:49:47 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <002c01c007bb$727dcde0$4d86aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:50 AM Subject: Re: Future > > Howdy! > > RK states: > >I have no qualms about enamel and thinner washes over Future- never had it > goof up >yet. > > I forgot about washes! Never, ever, use a wash made from Diosol. It'll eat > Future like you won't believe. Perhaps there's amonia in it? I ruined the > interior of my ot TB-3 this way. Usually Future protects the base coat from > the thinners in washes. Not this time. > > Thanks for weighing in RK! > > Brent Yeah, you never said anything about Diosol. That stuff is murder! DB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:51:58 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <002d01c007bb$73674380$4d86aec7@com> How about a 1/48 Voisin (Eduard said that they had no plans to scale up the 1/72 kit). How about an injected Spad VII? 1/48 Salmson 2A2!!! DB ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 11:37 AM Subject: Re: New Kit Survey > > I would love to see a big Brisfit. Failing that I would suggest a Fokker > E.I or Morane Saulnier Type N. Let your friend learn the ins and outs of > producing kits on somthing simple. I'd hate for him to produce a Sopwith > Tripe and become so disenchanted with the endevor that he never produces > another kit.. Plus I would think the simpler models would have greater > appeal to the general modeling public. Sometimes I think we forget how > small a slice of the pie we are. > > I would like to see a Caproni Ca.3 in 48th more. > > Later! (Good to know *someone's* keeping score this time) > > Brent > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:56:31 EDT From: K129000@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: In a message dated 00-08-16 12:36:43 EDT, you write: << Failing that I would suggest a Fokker E.I or Morane Saulnier Type N. >> I'd opt for the Morane Saulnier type N myself. I agree that this plane looks a lot simpler to make than lots of others. I'd prefer to see the model fitted with a Hotchkiss machine gun and French markings. K-129 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:58:52 -0700 From: ERIC HIGHT To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith Snipe Questions Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20000816125852.006a2198@pop.amug.org> bob, i'll send you the plan drawings for the csm kit. i'd still recomend the data file if you are going to the nines on details. this should answer your questions, but if you have any more contact me off list. eric At 11:55 AM 8/16/00 -0400, you wrote: >Just got the Blue Max Sopwith Snipe and CSM P/E set and got a few questions. >Unfortunately the Datafile is not available any where locally, and mail >order will take too long. Wanna build this sucker, it's quite nice! Been >able to figure out where most parts go but a few are still stumping me. >Where were the wing access doors (CSM #1) (4), oval cowl panels (CSM #4) >(2), oil tank access covers (CSM #7) (2), and discharge chute plates (CSM >#10) (2) located? Was the tail fin/rudder mounted on short posts (ala >Tripehound) or flush with the stabilizer? >TIA >------Bob > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:55:21 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <00e701c007bd$ba57bf20$4d86aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Thomas" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:28 PM Subject: Re: One person's view..... > > > MAnde72343@aol.com wrote: > > > > (remember Waldo? yech! and I > > built their Bristol M1-C, too) > > > Fyi, "Waldo" is on the list. > E. Waldo? Where? DB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:58:20 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: One person's view..... Message-ID: <00e801c007bd$bb1801e0$4d86aec7@com> Yeah, I figured that out. Well, I guess that there's harder things than scratching an engine! DB ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:08 PM Subject: Re: One person's view..... > 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 20:08:52 GMT From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: Dave: > >How about a 1/48 Voisin (Eduard said that they had no plans to scale >up >the 1/72 kit). > Although Dennis Ugulano did a fine job and won a competition with his Italian version, that kit has some significant weakness. These can be overcome, naturally, if you persevere but better for them to take something better that they've done and scale _it_ up. problems include, too large ribs on the flying surfaces (Where else would you find ribs?), photoetch material for the boom (it's a pusher plane). Photoetch to excess actually, and is impractical, good only as a rather expensive jig. Michael ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:29:00 -0500 From: Lee Mensinger To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future RE:also diosol Message-ID: <399AF98C.89DC8A55@x25.net> Extremely True. As I said the fumes can destroy plastic. Imagine what it could do to your insides. All extra precautions apply. Well ventilated is an understatement. I have been using it for over fifty years and I really do take many extra precautions. Lee M. Allan Wright wrote: > > Brent. Diosol is tough stuff. > > Careful with this stuff. If it is the original formula, use in a well > ventalated area. Disol has what an environmental engineer friend calls > "Ethelmethylbadshit" in it. > > Tolouline > Methelkeytone (M-E-K) > Acetone > Mineral Spirits > > This stuff was discontinued in it's original formula because it contained > several known carcinogens. > > That said, if you can get your hands on a quart, it is tremendously usefull > as a solvent, thinner and brush cleaner. > > Just use with the windows open please - we want you all around for many > years to come. > > -Al > > =============================================================================== > Allan Wright Jr. | "I Played the Fool" - Southside Johnny > University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- > Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu > Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://pease1.sr.unh.edu > =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:26:49 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals Message-ID: <013901c007c0$c21a6980$4d86aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Weier" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 7:01 AM Subject: RE: Miscellaneous Thoughts on IPMS Regionals > Neil, > > > I'm sorry to disillusion you, but if you want to do a good job on WW2 > > its more work than WW1 > > Clearly this is why so many people build WW2 and so few build WW1. It's > because WW1 stuff is too easy for them :-0 > > > OK there's rigging on OT subjects, but > > you've got a much more complicated cockpit, u/c, turrets etc, and > > then panel-lines, you can either cheat and go the verlinden way > > or you can do it properly and try and emphasise the different panels > > using different shades of paint, pastels, washes, whatever. Jets are > > even worse. > > Mmmm. It takes me 2 weeks to make a contest standard WW2 aircraft and at > least 6 times that for a WW1 model. After 25 years practice you'd think the > easy ones would be the quickest. > > Shane > > FTIC ! > ...and the Aussie contingent belts that one WAYYY out in center field; it's going, going, gone!! Home run! I only pointeed out that there's different skills used in different periods. I also pointed out that metal finishes are hard to do. But I have yet to see a WW2 model that has anything as much of a pain in the ass than trying to line up 8 wing struts perfectly vertical to try and mate up with locater divots on the underside of a wing! Why is WWI stuff so labor intensive? Well, first, most of the structural stuff in WW2 A/C is all hidden under metal panels! Not too many ball-and-socket spar joints on a Spitfire, eh? I guess that someone can spend any length of time on any given model. But I don't believe that WW2 is harder than WWI. The main reason that I went to WWI modelling is that it offers more challenge, and I'm learning alot more than I was as 'Mr. Luftwaffe'. Just not enough wings! DB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:04:39 -0500 From: Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: Howdy! >Diosol! I didn't mention that stuff because I so rarely use, though I keep a >jar on hand. Now that stuff is HOT. I've used it for plastic cement from time >to time in a pinch. I have sprayed Diosol-thinned paint over just about >everything with no bad results, but only with light misty coats. >Diosol's kind of like that universal solvent in the Roger Rabbit movie that >was going to be used to melt all the 'toons. Wow! I didn't realise it was THAT hot. For once I wish there was a warning label. I too have successfully sprayed paint thinned with Diosol. It's the only thing I've found that makes Floquil Old Silver look right. It gets grainy with other thinners. Heh heh, I like the Roger Rabbit reference. Later! Brent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:33:42 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: New Kit Survey Message-ID: <014001c007c1$456b0ce0$4d86aec7@com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Kendix" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 3:17 PM Subject: Re: New Kit Survey > Dave: > > > > >How about a 1/48 Voisin (Eduard said that they had no plans to scale >up > >the 1/72 kit). > > > > Although Dennis Ugulano did a fine job and won a competition with his > Italian version, that kit has some significant weakness. These can be > overcome, naturally, if you persevere but better for them to take something > better that they've done and scale _it_ up. problems include, too large > ribs on the flying surfaces (Where else would you find ribs?) Sandpaper. >, photoetch > material for the boom (it's a pusher plane). Metal tubing included a la BM's D.H.2. > Photoetch to excess actually, > and is impractical, good only as a rather expensive jig. > > Michael > You are correct there, PE is only good for some things. Booms and struts aren't usually on the list. But seeing as how it's a cool pusher bipe, and I like the shape, so I'd want one. Wouldn't mind a gunbus, either. DB > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:10:25 -0500 From: Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Humbrol (was Future) Message-ID: Howdy! RK mentions: >Humbrol fades more rapidly than any other model paint I've used. Hmmm.... Perhaps I'll do an intense UV test on the aforementioned Wellington. I'll cover half the plane with foil and take it outside for a week or two. That ought to simulate several years accumulation of RV for the average model. We'll see how bad it fades. I wonder what other models with other paint I could do this to at the same time? Or, if I wanted to be really scientific about it I'd paint several panels of Evergreen plastic card the same color from different paint companies. Then cover half of each panel and take 'em outside. That ought to get results! Later! Brent ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:39:11 -0500 From: Lee Mensinger To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Future Message-ID: <399AFBEF.32F2064@x25.net> There was a time when a few people tried to "brush Paint" [plastic models with the Floquil Model Railroad paints. Until the brush glued itself to the plastic. It could only be airbrushed and then in very light coats. As RK stated it made excellent glue. Count your blessings. They have other stuff now. With lots of OT and ot colors. Love to hear the complaints. Oh Yes. Lee M. DAVID BURKE wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Multiple recipients of list" > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:50 AM > Subject: Re: Future > > > > > Howdy! > > > > RK states: > > >I have no qualms about enamel and thinner washes over Future- never had > it > > goof up >yet. > > > > I forgot about washes! Never, ever, use a wash made from Diosol. It'll eat > > Future like you won't believe. Perhaps there's amonia in it? I ruined the > > interior of my ot TB-3 this way. Usually Future protects the base coat > from > > the thinners in washes. Not this time. > > > > Thanks for weighing in RK! > > > > Brent > > Yeah, you never said anything about Diosol. That stuff is murder! > > DB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:26:03 -0500 From: Brent.A.Theobald@seagate.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Humbrol (was Future) Message-ID: Howdy! Tomasz remarks: >I know that when properly handled, even acrylics can withstand lifting masks but >Humbrol is just a few times more durable. I use acrylics to paint masked insignia, >but Humbrols remain always as a priming base. I wanted to add to that the hardest, most durable paints I have used are from Xtra Color. I don't know about color fastness, but they hold up better to my weathering and mishaps. I don't know what it is, but Xtra Color also smells the worst. BTW: Xtra Color Russian Armor Green is my favorite shade of olive greenish PC-10. Later! Brent ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2551 **********************