WWI Digest 2626 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: ot near-miss by "David C. Fletcher" 2) Will trade for OT kit by NodalPoint@aol.com 3) Re: ot near-miss by Lyle Lamboley 4) Re: Bubbles in Future by bucky@ptdprolog.net 5) Re: Bubbles in Future by Zulis@aol.com 6) Jenny by BEN8800@aol.com 7) Re: Pegasus DH-2 by WStew10180@aol.com 8) Re: Pegasus DH-2 by WStew10180@aol.com 9) Re: Pfalz E.I was: Laskodi's done it again!! by skarver@banet.net 10) Printed versions of large scale BE2a models by "Steve Bucher" 11) Re: OT autos by Ernest Thomas 12) Re: Bubbles in Future by "DAVID BURKE" 13) Re: ot near-miss by "DAVID BURKE" 14) The first stealth aircraft (was: Re: ot near-miss) by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= 15) Re: OT autos by Lyle Lamboley 16) Goering's Dr.1 by "K. Hagerup" 17) Ruston-Proctor Camel by Dennis Ugulano 18) New books by "K. Hagerup" 19) Re: by Dave Watts 20) Re: Bubbles in Future by "Limon3" 21) Re: Pegasus DH-2 by Brent & Tina Theobald 22) Re: The first stealth aircraft (was: Re: ot near-miss) by Dennis Ugulano 23) Re: Bubbles in Future by bucky@ptdprolog.net 24) Re: by "Leonard Endy" 25) Re: Travels by "John & Allison Cyganowski" 26) Hanriot by "John & Allison Cyganowski" 27) Dumb question about Squadron putty by "Ken Zelnick" 28) Re: Dumb question about Squadron putty by Ernest Thomas 29) OT ground vehicles, further thoughts. by Ernest Thomas 30) Re: OT ground vehicles, further thoughts. by KarrArt@aol.com 31) RE: OT ALERT!!! by Shane Weier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:28:31 -0700 From: "David C. Fletcher" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: ot near-miss Message-ID: <39B9680F.C55613C3@mars.ark.com> DAVID BURKE wrote: "My question is why doesn't the Air Force restrict stealth-capable aircraft (which, even with the radar-reflectors installed, are difficult to pick up well on ground radar - especially on civillian radar..." Civilian radars are not optimized for "skin paint" anyway and generally rely on transponders - which the F-117 has and would have had turned on if in civilian-controlled airspace. And, confining it to Tonopah would be unnecessarily restrictive from an operational standpoint. Now, to bring this "OT", there were a number of attempts at stealth aircraft in WWI, generally being the substitution of transparent covering materials for linen. The first, I believe, was a Fokker Eindekker. On the subject of fabric and wood, I offered my "ot" aeroplane to assist in drug-runner training exercises with the local air base; it was rejected as being too hard to find! Dave Fletcher -- Visit us at our Home Page: ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:06:38 EDT From: NodalPoint@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Will trade for OT kit Message-ID: <7e.a08ac43.26eacafe@aol.com> Wondering if any one out there would be interested in trading an OT kit for some 1/72 scale Me262's that I have. Maybe someone out there is interested in early German jets and has an extra OT kit they might like to swap for a few 262's. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:06:10 -0400 From: Lyle Lamboley To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: ot near-miss Message-ID: <20000908.190612.-347643.0.lyle.lamboley@juno.com> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:34:51 -0400 (EDT) "David C. Fletcher" writes: there were a number of attempts at stealth aircraft > in > WWI, generally being the substitution of transparent covering > materials > for linen. The first, I believe, was a Fokker Eindekker. > The covering used was "Cellon", and it had the annoying habit of reflecting all light. This made it totally useless for camouflage. I believe the Linke-Hoffman R-types had it as well. Lyle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:14:47 -0400 From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future Message-ID: <39B972E7.672BC93D@ptdprolog.net> DAVID BURKE wrote: > To explain further, Future is a clear acrylic liquid that is used as a floor > covering. It is God's gift to the scale modeler. > I just used some on the Morane...disappointing results. Hand brushed it on and it dried all over the place...no uniformity. This happened 1 x in the past. It also seemed to attract a lot of dirt/dust this time....used different brushes to no avail. Anyway, it comes off pretty easy. Just dip the model in ammoniacand cold water, lightly scrub, and back to the basic paint. Now to airbrush another coat or two of french linen and then try a gloss coat on this one. Maybe buy a new jug of Future? Can this stuff go bad? (Not like hanging out on street corners and hasseling kids for lunch money bad, but some lose its consistency?) Mike Muth ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:25:54 EDT From: Zulis@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future Message-ID: In a message dated 00-09-08 19:20:17 EDT, you write: << Maybe buy a new jug of Future? Can this stuff go bad? (Not like hanging out on street corners and hasseling kids for lunch money bad, but some lose its consistency?) Mike Muth >> Mike - I think you hit the nail on the head there. Occasionally, I will pour out a small container of Future for something and, when I return to it the next day, it has thickened just a little and behaves like the stuff which gave you trouble. I love the stuff, and if it is fresh it seems to dry evenly and without a brush stroke to be seen. As for the dust - well, I think that is more about the environment than the Future (at least, around my house it is!). Dave Z ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:37:57 EDT From: BEN8800@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Jenny Message-ID: <3c.af0120.26ead255@aol.com> I just received a copy of a catalog called Historic Aviation - 800-225-5575 telephone. There are 2 items that may be of interest. A new Video 30 min. for $9.95 It's Gotta Be a Jenny. States early film and also a comprehensive look at Ken Hyde's restoration of a Jenny. This is the one I saw in Maryland Museum. Also, there is a book $12.95 - Album of Rare OX-5 Airplanes. Restored aircraft using the OX-5 engine. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:54:29 EDT From: WStew10180@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Pegasus DH-2 Message-ID: <9.a5c9546.26ead635@aol.com> Thanks for the input. I'll check out those on line places next. Bill S. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:52:27 EDT From: WStew10180@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Pegasus DH-2 Message-ID: <1e.a760ae5.26ead5bb@aol.com> Unfortunately, my hobby shop owner will never put it on sale. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:57:20 -0400 From: skarver@banet.net To: Subject: Re: Pfalz E.I was: Laskodi's done it again!! Message-ID: <00a601c019f0$89031560$0f706420@stephen> "Lance Krieg" Friday, September 08, 2000 9:55 AM responded to Witold with | I think they [French original Morane G and German Pfalz E.I] were as near as dammit identical, except for the manufacturers plates, which were very similar. Weren't they licensed copies? Well, not quite. Although license built, the Pfalz had a forward rake to the v-strut landing gear that displace the wheel position forward, perhaps the most visible difference. The lower curve of the forward profile is also slightly different from the the front strut to the firewall. The Pfalz may also have had the longer wing of the Morane H (see below), which may be the same as the N's, however. I will check. Other than the wing, the fuselage modifications should not be hard to accomplish using either the Russion Morane H that was once available or even the Eduard Morane L (although then some more slight surgery would be required). Actually, isn't there someone on the list who has already undertaken this 'conversion' and posted photographs? In another post, Matt Bittner asked: >Which was the single seater - the 'H' or the 'G'? That could be a huge difference. I'm at work so I don't have my references handy.< Except fo rthe wing span, these two models are identical, IIRC. The 'two-seater' was an entirely different affair than what we have come to call by that name. In the Morane, there was just a single long(er) bench on which both pilot and passenger sat--very intimately indeed. Rather like on a motorcycle. I believe the H's wing was just one rib space longer. Regards, Stef ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:31:21 -0400 From: "Steve Bucher" To: Subject: Printed versions of large scale BE2a models Message-ID: <001101c019fd$a9734ce0$fce49ed1@oemcomputer> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C019DC.21A16A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I've put up a printed version of the 1/32nd and 1/28th scale BE2a card = models on site. Go to http://ww1cardmodels.bizland.com and follow the = Digital card model link if intrested.=20 Steve ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C019DC.21A16A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I've put up a printed version of the 1/32nd and = 1/28th scale=20 BE2a card models on site. Go to http://ww1cardmodels.bizland.co= m and=20 follow the Digital card model link
if intrested.
 
Steve
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C019DC.21A16A20-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:11:00 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: OT autos Message-ID: <39B98013.D4702A5F@bellsouth.net> Lyle Lamboley wrote: > Guys, > I'm looking for a suitable automobile in 1/48 that would be applicable in > any OT setting--Model T, Renault, etc. TIA-- Lyle, Renwall made a 1914 Mercer Raceabout in 1/48, which would be perfect as a personal car for a WWI Flying Ace. I've got one, but it's slated for my Barnstormer Jenny dio, which I swear will be finished one of these days. Check with OOP dealers. I got mine from a car guy for 15US. E. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 20:00:16 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future Message-ID: <002301c019f9$5e4f99c0$9688aec7@com> If its that thick, or cures funny, you can: 1 - buy a new bottle, or 2 - add a little Windex to it to thin it. Also, you can sand Future lightly if there are some minor imperfections. DB ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 6:22 PM Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future > > > DAVID BURKE wrote: > > > To explain further, Future is a clear acrylic liquid that is used as a floor > > covering. It is God's gift to the scale modeler. > > > > I just used some on the Morane...disappointing results. Hand brushed it on > and it dried all over the place...no uniformity. This happened 1 x in the past. > It also seemed to attract a lot of dirt/dust this time....used different brushes > to no avail. Anyway, it comes off pretty easy. Just dip the model in > ammoniacand cold water, lightly scrub, and back to the basic paint. Now to > airbrush another coat or two of french linen and then try a gloss coat on this > one. Maybe buy a new jug of Future? Can this stuff go bad? (Not like hanging out > on street corners and hasseling kids for lunch money bad, but some lose its > consistency?) > Mike Muth > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:47:50 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: ot near-miss Message-ID: <002101c019f9$5c720020$9688aec7@com> I'm CRAZY like that, ya bastid! CRAZY!! DB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaston Graf" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Friday, September 08, 2000 5:28 PM Subject: RE: ot near-miss > Ouch, that hurts... perhaps we should travel back in time, setup an elite > squadron called "The Flying Nutmill". We could load our gunz with > chromate-yellow paintballs and strafe a certain Fokker FI 103/17 on the > ground.... > Oh and you won't need a supersonic piece of fabric, Dave. Flying such a kite > low over ground makes it undetectable by any radar. Perhaps you won't get a > chance to get an F117 before your gunz flying a WW1 kite, but in MS CFS I > once got 6 Fw-190s, riding that ugly Camel. > > tataaaaaaaaaaa.......... > > Gaston Graf > Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: > http://www.jastaboelcke.de > > PS: Who wants to be the commander of the "Flying Nutmill Squadron"? Any > volounteers - or do I have to do the job alone? Dave could be my wingeman > :oP. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > > DAVID BURKE > > Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 12:04 AM > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: ot near-miss > > > > > > Hey Guys, > > > > Sorry to go ot, but I realize that alot of us are flying buffs. Did > > anyone else hear about the near-miss between an F-117 and a > > United Airlines > > 757? The UA jet was flying out of LAX, or so I understand, on its way to > > Boston. Fortunately, the Collision Avoidance system was triggered and the > > passenger jet leveled its climb-out so that the F-117 passed 500 > > feet above > > it. Both sides maintain that they were following FAA-approved > > flight plans. > > > > My question is why doesn't the Air Force restrict stealth-capable > > aircraft (which, even with the radar-reflectors installed, are > > difficult to > > pick up well on ground radar - especially on civillian radar, which is not > > designed to be searching for anything but easy to see passenger jets) to > > Military Reservations like Tonopah? IIRC, that's where the > > damned thing was > > developed anyway. It's like riding a black motorcycle in black leather at > > night with the lights off. Sure, it's doable, but not advisable as though > > even you are in the city with all of the streetlights on, you are a hard > > thing to see, and are more likely to foul up. > > > > After looking to the story on the ABC.com website, I found where they > > claimed that the F-117 is the first stealth aircraft. Actually, > > the FIRST > > stealth-developed jet fighter was the Horten 9/Go-229 German jet fighter > > (which flew). But then I thought - WWI was full of 'stealth' fighters! > > Wow! If we could come up with a supersonic fabric and wood > > aircraft, why it > > would be damned-near invisible, yes? Or is it just Friday > > evening, and the > > celebrations have begun.... > > > > > > DB > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 03:53:24 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= To: Subject: The first stealth aircraft (was: Re: ot near-miss) Message-ID: <001101c01a00$bdd2b9c0$209a6acb@oemcomputer> It's interesting how early people tried to build "invisible" aircraft. First attempt actually seems to be A-H with an "Emaillit" covered Lohner-Etrich Taube in 1912. Experiments in Germany started in 1913 with the 2 Knubel Taube aircraft, the second of which used Cellon for the first time. The Knubel 1915 biplane seems to be the first purposly build military stealth aircraft . 1916 experiments included Albatros B II, Fokker E III, Rumpler C I and Aviatik C I. These aircraft were obviously used for operational trials, as photos and RFC reports indicate. The main disadvantages seemingly were the fragility and the poor moisture resistance of Cellon. The 2 R planes using Cellon were Li-Ho R I 8/15 and VGO I. A comprehensive history of Germany's first stealth attempts is published by Peter Grosz (whom else?) in different magazines, eg 'So, what's new about stealth?" in Air International vol 31 no 3, Sept. 1986. A nice, if somewhat nerve-robbing reconstruction is obviously possible using the Eduard sceleton E III - I think there were photos of one in a Windsock a few years ago. Volker ----- Original Message ----- From: Lyle Lamboley To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2000 1:18 AM Subject: Re: ot near-miss > > > On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:34:51 -0400 (EDT) "David C. Fletcher" > writes: > there were a number of attempts at stealth aircraft > > in > > WWI, generally being the substitution of transparent covering > > materials > > for linen. The first, I believe, was a Fokker Eindekker. > > > > The covering used was "Cellon", and it had the annoying habit of > reflecting all light. This made it totally useless for camouflage. I > believe the Linke-Hoffman R-types had it as well. > Lyle > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:45:14 -0400 From: Lyle Lamboley To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: OT autos Message-ID: <20000908.214517.-275483.0.lyle.lamboley@juno.com> Ernest, Thanks for the lead. I wonder if Nungesser had one...sounds like his sort of car. Will see what turns up- Lyle > Lyle, > Renwall made a 1914 Mercer Raceabout in 1/48, which would be perfect > as a > personal car for a WWI Flying Ace. I've got one, but it's slated for > my > Barnstormer Jenny dio, which I swear will be finished one of these > days. > Check with OOP dealers. I got mine from a car guy for 15US. > E. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:53:40 -0500 From: "K. Hagerup" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Goering's Dr.1 Message-ID: <39B99824.508E@prodigy.net> The Jasta Pilots says Goering's Dr.1 had struts, tail unit, rear fuselage, cowl and whell covers in white. Roden's instructions show the wing crossefields overpainted in black. I think olive overpainting may be be equally likely to be correct, but used black on my Roden kit. My rationale (or rationalization) was that Goering seemed to like black, and to provide some variety from another Dr.1 I've just finished with olive overpainting. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:07:22 -0400 From: Dennis Ugulano To: "INTERNET:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Ruston-Proctor Camel Message-ID: <200009082207_MC2-B2B7-4704@compuserve.com> Everyone, One of the models that came home last week for new photos was my Ruston-Proctor Camel. There are now five shots on the web site. For any who may question the longevity of the nylon thread I use, the rigging in this kit is 15 years old. Dennis Ugulano email: Uggies@compuserve.com http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm Page Revised 8/21/00 "Each modeler will rise to their own level of masochism." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 21:04:51 -0500 From: "K. Hagerup" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: New books Message-ID: <39B99AC3.1683@prodigy.net> I received two new OT books in the mail this week: - Osprey's Jutland 1916 - Sq/Sig's German Bombers of WWI in action Both are pretty broad topics to cover in a slim volume, but I like both books. The Squadron book covers the A.E.G. G.IV, Friedrichshafen G.III, various Gothas, and the Zeppelin heavy bombers. The Osprey book doesn't have any profiles, but does have several paintings of the opposing fleets in action and some of those "slice of the ocean" paintings depicting the positions of the ships and their course changes. I leave it to those more expert to find the inevitable errors, but recommend the books. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 21:05:48 -0500 From: Dave Watts To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Message-ID: <200009090212.e892Cxv69241@ind.cioe.com> Sorry to post this, but, I am going on vacation and want to UNSUBSCRIBE from the list for a week or so. I have sent four letters with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the text and the subject to "listproc@pease1.sr.unh.edu" with no results. Any ideas welcomed, as I have to have a employee go through my daily e-mail, and she doesn't understand all of these list mailings, nor can she easily sort them out from "real" e-mails. Thanks! Best, Dave P.S. I'll try to catch a fish for everyone on the list! ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 19:24:03 -0700 From: "Limon3" To: Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future Message-ID: <005501c01a05$06388560$0fde2a3f@f4w2s5> This has happened to me also, and it is a bit frustrating. The ammonia cure is the only way. Gabe -----Original Message----- From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Friday, September 08, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future > > >DAVID BURKE wrote: > >> To explain further, Future is a clear acrylic liquid that is used as a floor >> covering. It is God's gift to the scale modeler. >> > > I just used some on the Morane...disappointing results. Hand brushed it on >and it dried all over the place...no uniformity. This happened 1 x in the past. >It also seemed to attract a lot of dirt/dust this time....used different brushes >to no avail. Anyway, it comes off pretty easy. Just dip the model in >ammoniacand cold water, lightly scrub, and back to the basic paint. Now to >airbrush another coat or two of french linen and then try a gloss coat on this >one. Maybe buy a new jug of Future? Can this stuff go bad? (Not like hanging out >on street corners and hasseling kids for lunch money bad, but some lose its >consistency?) >Mike Muth > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 21:19:15 -0500 From: Brent & Tina Theobald To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Pegasus DH-2 Message-ID: <39B99E23.8FA33522@airmail.net> Howdy! > Does anyone know if the Pegasus DH-2 is worth paying $25.00 for? Weeell, that depends. Do you want a 72nd scale DH-2 really bad? And are you wanting to finish it soon, like around New Years. Be honest. If the answers to these two questions are "yes" then I say go out and get one today and start building. $25 is nothing for the hours of modeling pleasure you'll get out of this little kit. On the other hand, if any of the answers were "no" I'd say wait a little and watch Ebay. I'm sure there's more than a few modelers who felt up to the challenge at the hobby shop, but later realized they weren't up to the challenge. Mine was free and I'm not sure I would have paid $25. It is on sale for $19 and change at SMO right now though. It is a nice kit. The booms are precut, the trailing edges are nice and thin. The white metal parts look good too. Pegasus made this kit about as easy to build as can be expected. There is some detail missing in the cockpit which I feel needs to be added. But that's me... Thanks for the compliment Merrill on my DH-2. It hasn't progressed much farther since you saw it last. Later! Brent ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:13:56 -0400 From: Dennis Ugulano To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: The first stealth aircraft (was: Re: ot near-miss) Message-ID: <200009082214_MC2-B2AA-D6A1@compuserve.com> Volker, >> A nice, if somewhat nerve-robbing reconstruction is obviously possible using the Eduard sceleton E III - I think there were photos of one in a Windsock a few years ago. << That may have been mine. I built the Eduard E.III and covered it with the cellophane from a cigarette package. There a few shots on my web site (German page Fokker E.III). I will be bringing it home this year for some new photos. Working on that kit was like working on a butterfly wing. It was as nerve wracking a kit as I have ever built. But I always wanted one but it wasn't until the crazy person at Eduard designed the kit that the crazy person in California could build it. Dennis Ugulano email: Uggies@compuserve.com http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm Page Revised 8/21/00 "Each modeler will rise to their own level of masochism." Dennis Ugulano email: Uggies@compuserve.com http://members.xoom.com/Uggies/dju.htm Page Revised 8/21/00 "Each modeler will rise to their own level of masochism." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:04:59 -0400 From: bucky@ptdprolog.net To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Bubbles in Future Message-ID: <39B9A8DB.166D496D@ptdprolog.net> Dave,Dave & Gabe Thanks for the info....off to buy a new bottle. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 23:07:51 -0400 From: "Leonard Endy" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:19:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >Sorry to post this, but, I am going on vacation and want to UNSUBSCRIBE >from the list for a week or so. I have sent four letters with >"UNSUBSCRIBE" in the text and the subject to "listproc@pease1.sr.unh.edu" >with no results. 1. Leave the subject blank ! 2. In the body type "unsubscribe wwi" Make sure there is nothing else in the msg. That includes any signatures or other stray items of info. Len (This worked fine for me earlier this week when I went out of town for a few days.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:18:36 -0400 From: "John & Allison Cyganowski" To: Subject: Re: Travels Message-ID: <009601c01a0c$a6a2c9f0$df39183f@cyrixp166> Scotland? Salmo Trutta here I come! ;-0 I really don't travel for business overseas. I did get to Ireland once but that was it. However, who can tell? Don't worry, I will take care of you soon Sandy (~1 week). Regards, John Cyg. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:25:10 -0400 From: "John & Allison Cyganowski" To: Subject: Hanriot Message-ID: <000501c01a0d$9058f560$df39183f@cyrixp166> Does anyone have the Eduard Hanriot with Willi Coppens' markings that they would be willing to part with? My business partner Scott is looking for this one. Email me off line. Thanks, John Cyg. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:28:47 -0700 From: "Ken Zelnick" To: Subject: Dumb question about Squadron putty Message-ID: <00e001c01a1e$d5453ec0$552ab4d0@tcac.net> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C019E4.28155B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings all, What's the difference between Squadron's white and green putty (aside = from the color)? TIA, Ken Zelnick ------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C019E4.28155B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings all,
 
What's the difference between = Squadron's white and=20 green putty (aside from the color)?
 
TIA,
 
Ken Zelnick
------=_NextPart_000_00DD_01C019E4.28155B20-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:17:36 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Dumb question about Squadron putty Message-ID: <39B9C7EF.1A6F88FC@bellsouth.net> Ken Zelnick wrote: > What's the difference between Squadron's white and green putty (aside = > from the color)? The green is somewhat corse, while the white has a much finer texture. Go with the white. The white is also easier to paint over. E. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:45:26 -0500 From: Ernest Thomas To: The List Subject: OT ground vehicles, further thoughts. Message-ID: <39B9CE75.C71429F4@bellsouth.net> Doesn't one of the model RR scales translate to 1/48? If so, I'd bet there's a whole bunch of cars and trucks available in the RR section of the hobby shop. E. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 02:12:05 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: OT ground vehicles, further thoughts. Message-ID: <10.20809fd.26eb2eb5@aol.com> In a message dated 9/8/00 10:46:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ethomas6@bellsouth.net writes: << Doesn't one of the model RR scales translate to 1/48? If so, I'd bet there's a whole bunch of cars and trucks available in the RR section of the hobby shop. E. >> vaguely "O" scale...and the cars and trucks are 1/2 step below toys for the most part. Some are little more than generic four wheeled "things". That odd 1/43 scale just doesn't quite look right- it's one notch too big not to notice.Jeez, the more I think about it, the more disgruntled I get. RK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 18:24:47 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: OT ALERT!!! Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C71621A08@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> RK says: > Probably just that new series with that laughably pompous > hack Robert Hughes. > If he wasn't involved with this show, I'd be watching. I > caught a few > minutes the other night, and it looked great, sounded horrible.... it > would've been great... > RK > (doomed to considering Hughes to be a poisonous bedbug on the > sheets of the world) Hughes did Australia a massive favour by buzzing off to live in New York many years ago. The series in question is supposed to be all the better for his "native" viewpoint, but frankly he's about as Australian as Bill Clinton and doesn't know as much about us as the average American roadkill. His behaviour here about 2 years ago when he nearly killed himself and three others in an auto accident was despicable (and even worse during the subsequent court case). Hughes is not welcome here - and he's none to popular (if you didn't guess!) 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 phone: Australia 1800500646 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2626 **********************