WWI Digest 2978 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: P/E Scarff Rings by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 2) Re: Keilcraft 1:72 by Todd Hayes 3) Re: P/E Scarff Rings by Todd Hayes 4) Contest Etiquette by "Lance Krieg" 5) Group VAMP Order Update by Todd Hayes 6) Re: Contest Etiquette by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 7) Re: Keilcraft 1:72 - Camel by "Hans Trauner" 8) Re: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV by "Hans Trauner" 9) Re: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV by Todd Hayes 10) Re: Keilcraft 1:72 by "Hans Trauner" 11) Kits for kids by "Steven M.Perry" 12) Re: P/E Scarff Rings by "Matt Bittner" 13) Re: I finished a model! by "Steven Schofield" 14) Most important? by "Matt Bittner" 15) RE: Most important? by "Gaston Graf" 16) RE: Project from Hell by Shane Weier 17) Re: Agama paints by "Francisca e Pedro Soares" 18) RE: Contest Etiquette by Shane Weier 19) Re: Contest Etiquette by "Michael Kendix" 20) RE: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV by Shane Weier 21) Back in the Northern Hemisphere by "cameron rile" 22) Re: Most important? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 23) RE: Most important? by Shane Weier 24) Re: P/E Scarff Rings by LEONARDPeterL@aol.com 25) confidential by "alexander samuel-doe" 26) Re: Purple SSW D.IV by "Brian Nicklas" 27) Re: Jenny by "Brian Nicklas" 28) RE: Most important? by "Matt Bittner" 29) Re: Most important? by "David Calhoun" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:57:18 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: P/E Scarff Rings Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/01 12:45:42 PM EST, laskodi@launchnet.com writes: << Does any one know a source for 1/48 P/E scarff ring sets? I believe the Tom's Modelworks British Gun Set no longer includes them, hopefully I'm wrong? >> Far better would be to get the Aeroclub white metal set. I believe List Member Bob Norgren carries them with the other Aeroclub stuff over at Sierra Scale Models. Cheers, Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:00:29 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Keilcraft 1:72 Message-ID: <20010115190029.1377.qmail@web9009.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Robert, Sandy said Kingkit was on the high side in prices and with the value you gave, he wasn't kidding! Assuming Kingkit's prices are in pounds, the price on the Camel kit is way high (9.99)!! Todd --- Robert Fabris wrote: > > > Anyone here heard of a company called Keilcraft? > For > > you microscale modelers, King Kit lists a Camel by > > this company. > > In response, the Collectors Value Guide (Burns) > shows two kits - > F.1 Hawker Hurricane and F.2 Sopwith Camel. > Both 1/72 > These were the only kits produced, 1958-60.. > value, 3-6 dollars. > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:15:23 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: P/E Scarff Rings Message-ID: <20010115191523.8745.qmail@web9008.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Bob, I received some Tom's gun sets by mistake a couple of months back. They have the scarff rings with them. Todd --- Laskodi wrote: > Does any one know a source for 1/48 P/E scarff ring > sets? I believe the > Tom's Modelworks British Gun Set no longer includes > them, hopefully I'm > wrong? > TIA > ---------Bob > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:23:30 -0600 From: "Lance Krieg" To: Subject: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: DB brings up a question, in keeping with earlier competiton threads: "...make sure it's at the FRONTof the table..." How is this accomplished, exactly? My last contest entry was moved, by an unknown hand, from an advantageous place in front to a rather less conspicuous spot. I assumed that judges would move them around, but this occurred well before the judging. Is this common? Are later entrants free to rearrange a category to make room for their own entries? Up until I joined this group, I hadn't entered a contest in almost 20 years; I'm not a club member, so I don't know what the "correct" response should be... Lance ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:27:13 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Group VAMP Order Update Message-ID: <20010115192713.52628.qmail@web9010.mail.yahoo.com> Friends and Co-conspirators, According to my order status page, our order is now listed as "in processing". In my experience so far, this usually means they have been, or soon will be shipped to me. Todd __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:30:38 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/01 2:25:19 PM EST, lance.krieg@amerus.com writes: << Is this common? Are later entrants free to rearrange a category to make room for their own entries? >> Later entries are free to have their hands smashed with hammers for picking up and moving any other model on the table. Members of the hosting club should announce that "we have to make room in 1/48 single-engine" (an example - usually the most active category) and will those with models in the competition please come over and move their models. If someone is not in the building, it's OK for a member of the sponsoring club to do it, but moving things the way you say comes under the category of "not all modelers are as nice as we'd like to think they are." TC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:01:13 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Keilcraft 1:72 - Camel Message-ID: <008a01c07f2d$e9e79ca0$79a172d4@custom-pc> >Anyone here heard of a company called Keilcraft? Yeah! I never laid my hands on one of their kist, but the Great Brad Hansen writes in his 'WWI in plastic': Keil Kraft is a British wood flying model company that made atentative stab at plastic kit production in the late fiftis. They pruduced just two aircraft: The Hawker Hurricane and the Sopwith Camel. Incredibly, the Camel is still available ( Note: Bard wrote this in 1978).That has to be soem kind of endurance recor for a "one-off" model. Particirlary so, because of the quality of the kit. It's poor. It has wing ribs reminiscent of a Aero-Skin-less Renwal reissue and generally is inaccurate. The kit's main redeeming feature is its rotary engine molded seperate from the cowl, the only 1/72 scale Sopwith Camel so equipped. It also comes with a tube of glue. Still, it is far from 'Perfection in Miniature' which is probably why the Keil Kraft line stopped. Kit# F2 Model Name: Sopwith Camel Scale 1/72 Color: Yellow Years: ? - 61 - 78 From: WWI in plastic - a model enthusiast's guide by Brad Hansen A Great Auk Publication California 1979 BRAD! Are you out there? Can you listen me??? Hans ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:05:36 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV Message-ID: <008f01c07f2e$867dfa00$79a172d4@custom-pc> >King Kit also lists a Skybirds Rumpler C.IV for 19.99 pounds. I am collecting WWI kits since the early seventies and I missed many of those now-you-hear-me-now-you-don't-companies. I never heard of that, the Great Brad did not and it is not listed in the Datafile. Does anybody know anything about this kit? It would be fine for my records, also! Hans ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:17:32 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV Message-ID: <20010115201732.70191.qmail@web9010.mail.yahoo.com> Hans, I've never seen a Skybirds kit, but they have a reputation as being extremely high quality. Resin. Todd --- Hans Trauner wrote: > >King Kit also lists a Skybirds Rumpler C.IV for > 19.99 pounds. > > I am collecting WWI kits since the early seventies > and I missed many of > those now-you-hear-me-now-you-don't-companies. I > never heard of that, the > Great Brad did not and it is not listed in the > Datafile. Does anybody know > anything about this kit? It would be fine for my > records, also! > > Hans > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:22:53 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Keilcraft 1:72 Message-ID: <00ec01c07f30$f09617e0$79a172d4@custom-pc> KIng Kit is appearently not intended for the model BUILDER, but for the model COLLECTOR. Take a look for those high prices for the old Airfix or Frog kits or very old Revells. ( If I could realise those prices for my collection I could stop working for a year - but I never saw me as a collector, but a builder who simply has to live for 175 years). Hans ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:56:08 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Kits for kids Message-ID: <004d01c07f35$96393660$f1f0aec7@default> The donated supplies and kits have been coming in and will probably all be here this week or so. I want to include a little history on each type. So I'm looking for listmembers who would be willing to write up a paragraph or three about each type. I'm looking for a little type history but especially an interesting anctedote about someone flying one. The types I need are: Fokker D.VII SE.5a Camel Nieuport 17 Spad XIII Ansaldo SVA.5 The SVA will need special attention as the kit is the Cold War period release and has Russian stars and no English on the instruction sheet. I will be replacing the stars with Itallian rondels and fin stripes . Alberto, are you game to write this one? LMK is you're interested in doing one of these. Regards sp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:59:26 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: P/E Scarff Rings Message-ID: <200101152059.MAA03972@falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:48:11 -0500 (EST), Laskodi wrote: > Does any one know a source for 1/48 P/E scarff ring sets? I believe the > Tom's Modelworks British Gun Set no longer includes them, hopefully I'm > wrong? Eduard does them in 1/72nd, but I'm not sure if they have released them in 1/48th yet. It was easy for them to release them in 1/72nd, since they're the same ones that come with the Flashback Strutters. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:17:18 -0000 From: "Steven Schofield" To: Subject: Re: I finished a model! Message-ID: <002f01c07f38$8b9a1140$e28593c3@oemcomputer> Thanks all for the kind words - and thanks Matt for the decal suggestion. Might have to go to Hannuts for that though... Pfalz E.IV next, follewed by the C272 Pup for the cookup. I'll have to do something about those decals (the white turned out too transparent on the chequerboard Pup I just finished. Then I'm re-doing the Ilya... Scho http://www.ww1.org.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:10:26 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Most important? Message-ID: <200101152110.NAA17203@falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net> What would listee's consider the most important aircraft of the first world war? Regardless of how I feel about the type, I would opt for the Nieuport 11. Why? Look how it changed the course of aviation during the war. It quelled the "Fokker scourge". It also was the type everyone wanted to copy, especially when you move up to the Nieuport 17. The Albatros and (to a lesser degree) Pfalz fighters were a direct result of the Nieuports. Siemens Schuckert (and a couple of others) opted for almost direct copies. You can't say that with the Fokker D.VII. Sure it was an advacement on the airplane, but it wasn't in direct response of another aircraft. It was definitely a better aircraft than the Nieuport, but it didn't change the course of aviation. Just thinking to myself on a gloomy Monday...although I truly should be modeling... Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:27:39 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: The Fokker Eindecker certainly is the most important aircraft of WW! being serially produced with machineguns to fire through a running prop, together with the Morane where Roland Garros fixed his machinegun on its cowling. Garros idea and what the Huns made of it was the turning point in early airwar. sincerely Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > > > What would listee's consider the most important aircraft of the first > world war? Regardless of how I feel about the type, I would opt for > the Nieuport 11. Why? > > Look how it changed the course of aviation during the war. It quelled > the "Fokker scourge". It also was the type everyone wanted to copy, > especially when you move up to the Nieuport 17. The Albatros and (to a > lesser degree) Pfalz fighters were a direct result of the Nieuports. > Siemens Schuckert (and a couple of others) opted for almost direct > copies. > > You can't say that with the Fokker D.VII. Sure it was an advacement on > the airplane, but it wasn't in direct response of another aircraft. It > was definitely a better aircraft than the Nieuport, but it didn't > change the course of aviation. > > Just thinking to myself on a gloomy Monday...although I truly should be > modeling... > > > Matt Bittner > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:41:03 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Project from Hell Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A32@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Lance says: > I just spent another weekend moving steadily backwards on > Lone Star's Felixstowe, and have about reached the point > where I am ready to sweep the wreckage back in the box and > resume home-improvement chores. (snip) > I thought this was supposed to be fun... This sounds remarkably like the procedure necessary to have the Styrene Gods release a near perfect, cheap, easily built and widely available injection moulded kit. It wants only for you to persevere that few extra hundred hours until completion, a course I seriously commend since I'd like to buy my kit sometime in 2001 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 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:31:13 -0000 From: "Francisca e Pedro Soares" To: Subject: Re: Agama paints Message-ID: <014401c07f3e$610cc2a0$1cea41c2@pc1> Jon I've used white spirit (mineral spirits in the US, I believe) and it worked ok. Pedro (catching up on late mail) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:59:37 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A33@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Lance asks: > How is this accomplished, exactly? My last contest entry was > moved, by an unknown hand, from an advantageous place in > front to a rather less conspicuous spot. I assumed that > judges would move them around, but this occurred well before > the judging. > > Is this common? Are later entrants free to rearrange a > category to make room for their own entries? Our main contest has a strict rule that the models may be moved *only* by the owner or one of the contest stewards. Offenders have so far been few, a record which owes much to the vigilance and *presence* of the security people drawn mostly from the local model truck and car club, and therefore including a disproportionate nuber of burly tatooed truckie types ! > Up until I joined this group, I hadn't entered a contest in > almost 20 years; I'm not a club member, so I don't know what > the "correct" response should be... FWIW (and also in part response to the earlier thread) our annual contest is effectively equivalent to perhaps an IPMS regional, but is not run by *A* club, but by a committee of four and their delegates elected from all the local clubs. Similarly every contest section is judged by a syndicate of three all drawn from different clubs, and overseen by a chief judge and two stewards again from three different clubs. Of course, we have the considerable benefit of their being 11 clubs in the Brisbane/Ipswich conurbation plus three more remote ones who also provide accredited judges. It all makes "local bias" highly unlikely, and our stats show that in fact the results are skewed towards the remote entrants who (presumably) only bring their very best models when they travel as far as they do, with a surprising number of awards to non "club members" who appear at the contest, then disappear again until next year. 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 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:00:07 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: >In a message dated 1/15/01 2:25:19 PM EST, lance.krieg@amerus.com writes: > >Is this common? Are later entrants free to rearrange a category to make >room for their own entries? Nobody except the judges/organizers should be touching anybody else's models. if there's no room, find one of theorganizers and he'll see to it. If someone moves my stuff, I'd be more than a little upset. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:03:47 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: King Kit/ Skybirds Rumpler C.IV Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A34@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Hans says: > >King Kit also lists a Skybirds Rumpler C.IV for 19.99 pounds. > > I am collecting WWI kits since the early seventies and I > missed many of > those now-you-hear-me-now-you-don't-companies. I never heard > of that, the > Great Brad did not and it is not listed in the Datafile. Does > anybody know > anything about this kit? It would be fine for my records, also! > Reviewed in Windsock May 1997 according to my database. The actual magazines are at home so I can't give you any more info! 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 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:18:45 -0600 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Back in the Northern Hemisphere Message-ID: <8CA5678680BE4D115AE50005B80A2E33@cameron.prontomail.com> Welcome back Volker, >Point Cook was a great surprise, I was not aware of that superb Farman they >have over ther; now where is that Blue Rider kit? One of the other PointCook CFS Farmans is at the Ottawa Museum. >As for the beer, I was amazed about the choice you got over there - feels >nearly like being in Bavaria; As informed by Lance, I tasted the main local >beers like the VB, Toohey or XXXX, and there was always someone to inform me Three things certain in life, death, taxes and aussies love their beer. Havent had a VB in three years :( >And Cam, your comments on the Hunter were very helpful.We No worries, glad to be of help and envious of your trip! :) cam AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/ ________________________________________ Get your email at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:17:32 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important? Message-ID: <38.10af60aa.2794d0fc@aol.com> Interesting points, Matt, but I disagree. Most important aircraft would be the Albatros series. The first "modern" fighter, with enough horsepower and firepower to overcome any enemy at the time of its introduction; coupled with the effective tactics developed by Boelcke, it ended British air superiority over the Somme for well over a year. It was directly responsible for both the British and French looking for a type "beyond" the Nieuport that could really take it on - resulting in the Camel/S.E.5a and the SPAD series. The Albatros type existed before the Nieuport, and was "done in" by its designers following the developmental dead end represented by the Nieuport - and even hobbled by the single-spar wing it still gave good account of itself to the end. The Albatros was the first of the classic fighter type that would last until the monoplane/monocoque airframe revolution of the mid-30s. During the war, everyone else followed it design-philosophy-wise (sufficient horsepower and sufficient firepower), while the Nieuport was discarded by 1917. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:30:17 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A35@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Tom asserts: > Most important aircraft would be the Albatros series. The > first "modern" > fighter, with enough horsepower and firepower to overcome any > enemy at the > time of its introduction; Here I disagree. In fact, the Albatros was merely a development - more engine power, more firepower - of earlier aircraft which themselves were developments of the same sort starting at unpowered gliders and continuing today. Can't agree with Matt either. The Nie-11 wasn't so much a revolution as a response to the revelation that guns aimed along an aircrafts axis were simpler to point at the target because it required doing no more than simply flying the plane vis a vis the separate actions of flying and pointing. That being so my vote is balanced between a single aircraft - Roland Garos' Morane - and a type, the Fokker Eindekker. From that point on the improvement in fighters was mainly of the "more of" type of development - more speed, more climb, more stregth, more firepower, more manouverability, more visibility, and these all being of an incremental rather than revolutionary degree. 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 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:31:44 EST From: LEONARDPeterL@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: P/E Scarff Rings Message-ID: <63.107181ed.2794d450@aol.com> In a message dated 15/01/01 17:45:42 GMT Standard Time, laskodi@launchnet.com writes: << Does any one know a source for 1/48 P/E scarff ring sets? >> Aeroclub do it in one and two gun forms cheers Peter L ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:03:26 -0700 From: "alexander samuel-doe" To: doealx989@hotmail.com Subject: confidential Message-ID: ALEX SAMUEL-DOE AKIN Dear Sir, PARTNERSHIP OVERTURE Pardon the abruptness of this letter; it is due to its exigency I am a government functionary in my country. I am representing a caucus in dire need of a foreign partner to assist in the investment of US$18.55M (Eighteen million, Five hundred and fifty thousand dollars) at the first instance. The key issues are the transfer and the subsequent investment of the said sum. You know this would require a great amount of trust considering the amount of money involved. My Principals are ready to go into an agreement with you plus offer you a negotiable fee for putting together a portfolio for investment. All we need is your trustworthiness and your capability to work according to instructions. Please note that we shall go through the legal procedures entailed in our laws and international laws in transferring the funds to you. The source of the money is authoritative. We pray that you will take the essence of this letter in strict confidence. You can reach me immediately for more details by return email for us to commence in earnest. Best regards, ALEXANDER DOE-AKIN _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:20:05 -0500 From: "Brian Nicklas" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Purple SSW D.IV Message-ID: I asked Frank Ryder at his last Aerodrome show why he painted it that way, when an accurate scheme was readily available. As I recall, he said that since the schemes were gaudy anyway, making his SSW in a mythical scheme really wasn't a harm, and he hoped that the gaudiness and the lion's head would attract kids and others who didn't know much about WWI. Then when they were in his trap, he'd illuminate them with real WWI history. I know it is a weird way to go about it, but whatever worked for Frank. He always had a crowd at Sun N Fun in Florida, and his airshow in Alabama got a lot of local press. Brian Nicklas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:22:04 -0500 From: "Brian Nicklas" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Jenny Message-ID: Ben, If it helps you in any way, I'll try to look at the Jenny rudder at the NASM Garber facility when I hope to be out there later this week. Contact me direct off list if there are specifics to be careful about, or if there are other questions. Brian Nicklas brian.nicklas@nasm.si.edu Archives Division, Room 3148 National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560-0322 USA 1-202-357-3133 (telephone) 1-202-786-2835 (telefax) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:38:04 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: RE: Most important? Message-ID: <200101160138.RAA12858@albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:34:49 -0500 (EST), Shane Weier wrote: > Here I disagree. In fact, the Albatros was merely a development - more > engine power, more firepower - of earlier aircraft which themselves were > developments of the same sort starting at unpowered gliders and continuing > today. Against what Tom thinks, the Albatros was a direct result of the Nieuport. The Nieuport was in existence before the Albatros. > Can't agree with Matt either. The Nie-11 wasn't so much a revolution as a > response to the revelation that guns aimed along an aircrafts axis were > simpler to point at the target because it required doing no more than simply > flying the plane vis a vis the separate actions of flying and pointing. Makes sense. > That being so my vote is balanced between a single aircraft - Roland Garos' > Morane - and a type, the Fokker Eindekker. From that point on the > improvement in fighters was mainly of the "more of" type of development - > more speed, more climb, more stregth, more firepower, more manouverability, > more visibility, and these all being of an incremental rather than > revolutionary degree. I see your point on this. I'll then assert that the Nieuports were *one* important development, then, and not *the most* important. However, I still say that in terms of what the Nieuports "spawned" (e.g. the Albatros bipes, etc.) it was important for that fact. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:42:22 -0800 From: "David Calhoun" To: Subject: Re: Most important? Message-ID: <008d01c07f76$b8ad2f80$50e23ccc@oemcomputer> How about the Gotha bomber series? Started the concept of strategic bombing against Britain, leading to the Giants & British HP bombers, basing a foundation of airpower carried on in the 2nd WW. Dave Calhoun ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Weier" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Most important? > Tom asserts: > > > Most important aircraft would be the Albatros series. The > > first "modern" > > fighter, with enough horsepower and firepower to overcome any > > enemy at the > > time of its introduction; > > Here I disagree. In fact, the Albatros was merely a development - more > engine power, more firepower - of earlier aircraft which themselves were > developments of the same sort starting at unpowered gliders and continuing > today. > > Can't agree with Matt either. The Nie-11 wasn't so much a revolution as a > response to the revelation that guns aimed along an aircrafts axis were > simpler to point at the target because it required doing no more than simply > flying the plane vis a vis the separate actions of flying and pointing. > > That being so my vote is balanced between a single aircraft - Roland Garos' > Morane - and a type, the Fokker Eindekker. From that point on the > improvement in fighters was mainly of the "more of" type of development - > more speed, more climb, more stregth, more firepower, more manouverability, > more visibility, and these all being of an incremental rather than > revolutionary degree. > > 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 2978 **********************