WWI Digest 2980 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Lone Star Large Scale Announcement by Brent & Tina Theobald 2) Re: IPMS< and judging, prejudice, etc. by MAnde72343@aol.com 3) Re: Most Important? by KarrArt@aol.com 4) Re: Most Important? by "Steven M.Perry" 5) Re: Most Important? by "Steven M.Perry" 6) Re: Most important ? by "Alberto Casirati" 7) Kits for kids by "Alberto Casirati" 8) Re: Kits for kids by "Steven M.Perry" 9) Re: Most important ? by "Steven M.Perry" 10) Re: Most Important? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 11) Re: Camel/Swallow Cockpits by Witold Kozakiewicz 12) Re: Most important ? by TomTheAeronut@aol.com 13) Re:Most important by Crawford Neil 14) RE: Most important ? by Crawford Neil 15) Re: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM by David Fleming 16) Re: Most important ? by David Fleming 17) RE: Who was the most influential pilot? by "Gaston Graf" 18) RE: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM by "Gaston Graf" 19) Re: Lone Star Large Scale Announcement by "Matt Bittner" 20) Kits for kids-Spad XIII by Crawford Neil 21) FW: WW1 list OT Places of interest guide - Sweden 2 by Crawford Neil 22) Re: Contest Etiquette by Scottfking@aol.com 23) RE: Contest Etiquette by Crawford Neil 24) Re: Contest Etiquette by "Michael Kendix" 25) RE: Contest Etiquette by Crawford Neil 26) RE: Contest Etiquette by "Matt Bittner" 27) RE: Contest Etiquette by "Paul Schwartzkopf" 28) RE: Contest Etiquette by Crawford Neil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:43:08 -0600 From: Brent & Tina Theobald To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Lone Star Large Scale Announcement Message-ID: <3A63DF6C.1AF11AEE@airmail.net> Howdy Gang, This came across my tube today.... Later! >Lone Star Models will release a 1/32 scale Curtiss JN-4 kit and a N-11 >conversion this year. >Mike West >lsmodels@pdq.net >http://www.lonestarmodels.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:34:58 EST From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: IPMS< and judging, prejudice, etc. Message-ID: <8.ef596c9.27953782@aol.com> --part1_8.ef596c9.27953782_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sadist, (but I agree, after the first 5 minutes, I knew how the game was going to turn out, so I watched PBS). The Vikqueens are finished, most of the key players will be gone next year, so I expect a 2-14 season, even if they fire Denny Green, and a 0-16 season if they don't. Merrill --part1_8.ef596c9.27953782_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sadist, (but I agree, after the first 5 minutes, I knew how the game was
going to turn out, so I watched PBS).  The Vikqueens are finished, most of
the key players will be gone next year, so I expect a 2-14 season, even if
they fire Denny Green, and a 0-16 season if they don't.
Merrill

--part1_8.ef596c9.27953782_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:10:53 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: In a message dated 1/15/01 9:19:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, MAnde72343@aol.com writes: << More interesting is the "light fighter" concept, which the 11 personified, and is still an important type (F-104, F-5, F-16)so, although the design itself was 'tapped out' by mid 1917, it still had profound and lasting effects. Merrill >> an "anti-developement" might be the Bristol F2B- which led to the ME110, Bell Airacuda and other extravagant heavy fighter designs of the 30s. The Bristol was great, but it's children were ne'er-do-wells. RK.........almost over this #@%$&*^ flu!!!!!!! there IS daylight after all!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:29:21 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <000f01c07f85$aa097ba0$16f9aec7@default> > an "anti-developement" might be the Bristol F2B- which led to the ME110, > Bell Airacuda and other extravagant heavy fighter designs of the 30s. The > Bristol was great, but it's children were ne'er-do-wells Don't know Robert, I wouldn't call the Phantom a ne'er-do-well. And a fair portion of it's success is due to the same teamwork required to complete the mission that characterized the F.2b. Not to mention both were rugged, powerful airframes. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:31:31 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <001301c07f85$f7b0a220$16f9aec7@default> RK: Glad to hear you're feeling better. Been missing seeing your posts. Your protracted bout is no doubt due to an allergy to canvas that can only be cured with massive styrene exposure. sp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:39:34 +0100 From: "Alberto Casirati" To: Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <001b01c07f87$4d0416c0$2c18623e@s> Interesting thread, Matt ! I suppose there is not one answer to you question, though. What about thinking of the most important aircraft on WW1 for each role ? That would be more balanced, I believe. For example: as far as bombers are concerned, I would opt for the Capronis, for the following reasons: - theu were the first practical example of strategic bombers (and they were flown in such a role) - they were the first multi-engined bombers ever - although those years technology was not advanced enough to develop the strategic bomber concept to its full potential, Magg. Douhet's theories were well learned and studied by Americans and look at what thye were able to do in WWII ! So the Capronis not only had an effective impact on WW1, but they also demonstrated Douhet's theories could be put into practice, influencing the following war, too. All the very best, Alberto ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:30:48 +0100 From: "Alberto Casirati" To: Cc: Subject: Kits for kids Message-ID: <001a01c07f87$4c43d400$2c18623e@s> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:56:08 -0500, Steven Perry wrote: <> Yes, thanks ! It will be my pleasure to write a few historical notes on the SVA-5. Apart from being one of my favourite aeroplanes (what about a good kit of it, Eduard and Roden ? But please forget the Pegasus one !!!), it is one of the most important aircraft of the war, as it was the best all-purpose one and as it carried out so many strategic reconnaissance missions, not to mention the spectacular Vienna raid.... PLMK deadline for this, Steven. Thanks for your interest ! All the very best, Alberto ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:58:11 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Kits for kids Message-ID: <002901c07f89$b1510d20$16f9aec7@default> > Yes, thanks ! It will be my pleasure to write a few historical notes on the > SVA-5. > > > Alberto Thanks Alberto! I'll put you down for it. Still need something for these: > SE.5a > Camel > Spad XIII TIA sp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:04:22 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <002f01c07f8a$8e23d020$16f9aec7@default> > - although those years technology was not advanced enough to develop the > strategic bomber concept to its full potential, Magg. Douhet's theories were > well learned and studied by Americans and look at what thye were able to do > in WWII ! Alberto: Sorry my understanding of Itallian aviation history is limited, but I was wondering how much influence the Caproni had on Douhet and vice versa. Was he involved with the development or operation of Ca.3s? Kind of like the chicken and the egg, did the plane beget the theory or the theory beget the plane? sp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:22:30 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <8c.116b73c.279550b6@aol.com> In a message dated 1/16/01 0:19:33 AM EST, MAnde72343@aol.com writes: << More interesting is the "light fighter" concept, which the 11 personified, and is still an important type (F-104, F-5, F-16)so, although the design itself was 'tapped out' by mid 1917, it still had profound and lasting effects. >> Interesting point - and I know I am going to wander oiff-topic here, but the single-purpose light fighter has become a failure. The F-104 was rejected by the USAF, and was only saved from complete obscurity by Lockheed's ability to take a simple lightweight design and cram it full of everything it needed to become a multi-role aircraft, something it was really never that good at because it was too small (other than tactical nuclear low-level strike). The F-5 never made it either, because the bigger multi-role aircraft could shoot it down before its weapons came in range. The F-16 began life as a lightweight fighter, but before it went into production it was enlarged, and became the multi-role fighter it had not been designed to be, and all the development of the aircraft since has been only to strengthen the multi-role ability, with the aircraft's main role in the only combat it ever saw being that of "schnellbomber." The bigger, faster, more powerful, better-armed concept that lay behind the Albatros was the way aeronautical development has gone - whether it was hobbled with a sesquiplane or not due ot the lack of aeronautical knowledge to see that the sesquiplane concept was exactly wrong for the Albatros' original concept; the D.I and D.II were actually better than the D.III, in that they could be thrown around the sky with abandon and complete confidence, while with the D.III, pilots had to start worrying about tearing off a wing, which was only made even worse in the D.V. However, the point is that the multi-role fighter - bigger, faster, more high powered, able to do more than one thing successfully - has become dominant (for political and budgetary reasons as much as operational) and traces itself back to the Albatros - not the Nieuport - by way of the SPAD and the Camel and the Bristol Fighter. (BTW - thoroughly off-topic, but if you can get hold of Bill Gunston's "Early Supersonic Fighters of the West", there are some really good developmental histories there; none better than his tale of the F-104 and "the sale of the century.") TC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:33:23 +0100 From: Witold Kozakiewicz To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Camel/Swallow Cockpits Message-ID: <3A63F943.48B086D1@bg.am.lodz.pl> DAVID BURKE napisa³(a): > Look at the Gallery under David Burke and then at the Camel pics. You will > see several images of the naked frame structure and floor (and all of that > damnable piping and tankwork that is hidden from view). I have also posted pictures of the naked fuselage of Camel from Polish Aviation Museum. They are on cook-up page in museum section. HTH -- Witold Kozakiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:43:25 EST From: TomTheAeronut@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <7c.104bac67.2795559d@aol.com> In a message dated 1/16/01 1:47:15 AM EST, alberto.casirati@inwind.it writes: << although those years technology was not advanced enough to develop the strategic bomber concept to its full potential, Magg. Douhet's theories were well learned and studied by Americans and look at what thye were able to do in WWII ! So the Capronis not only had an effective impact on WW1, but they also demonstrated Douhet's theories could be put into practice, influencing the following war, too. >> "Strategic bombing" and Guilio Douhet's theory of terrorizing the population by so doing has accomplished diddly squat in every war it has ever been tried in, including the most recent ten years ago. The total accomplishment of Douhet's pipe dream was to make holes in a lot oif real estate, knock down buildings, and massively piss off populations (rather than terrorize them) so much so that the wars have probably been made longer rather than shortened by popular support for the regime - whether it was Churchill or Hitler - being bombed. Had the RAF and the USAAF been willing to go after the "panacea target" (as "Bomber" Harris called anything that didn't involve burning German civilians out of their homes) of the German oil industry in 1942 (when they had the technology to do so) that would have shortened the war, as it did when they finally did it in the summer of 1944. All the Combined Bomber Offensive accomplished in the short run was the loss of a lot of intelligent, educated aircrew, and the bankruptcy of Britain spending all that money on those holes surrounded by aluminum into which they poured money, known as Lancasters and Halifaxes (and to us as B-17s and B-24s.) "Tactical bombing", i.e., aerial activity connected to some achievable goal, has always been the only effective use of air power. Frankly, the 20th Century would have been well-served by a certain Caproni bomber being blown out of the sky with the loss of all aboard before Douhet could set pen to paper. Tom Cleaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:27:26 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "WW1 list (E-mail)" Subject: Re:Most important Message-ID: Surely everyone knows that the SPAD XIII was the most important aircraft in the first world war;-) Seriously though I think you are are missing the early Sopwiths, most of the landmark ones were before the war, but the Tabloid was very important in aviation development. It led the way by showing that a trussed biplane gave a combination of lightness and strength that was really unbeatable till the stressed skin monplanes took over in the thirties. The Tabloid led to the Pup, which led to the Camel, in fact you can follow that line right up to the Hurricane. /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:22:28 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Most important ? Message-ID: Tom, I think you are over-simplifying, OK Douhet was probably wrong, but in that case why does your air-force still fly B1, B2 and B52, is everyone in Pentagon nuts? Also I don't think the technology was really ready in 1942, the RAF would probably just have lost even more bombers than they did. But I wouldn't want to argue this point with you, I usually have the same viewpoint as you do in this case. /Neil Tom wrote: >snip > Had the RAF and the USAAF been willing to go after the > "panacea target" (as > "Bomber" Harris called anything that didn't involve burning > German civilians > out of their homes) of the German oil industry in 1942 (when > they had the > technology to do so) that would have shortened the war, as it > did when they > finally did it in the summer of 1944. All the Combined > Bomber Offensive > accomplished in the short run was the loss of a lot of > intelligent, educated > aircrew, and the bankruptcy of Britain spending all that > money on those holes > surrounded by aluminum into which they poured money, known as > Lancasters and > Halifaxes (and to us as B-17s and B-24s.) > > "Tactical bombing", i.e., aerial activity connected to some > achievable goal, > has always been the only effective use of air power. > > Frankly, the 20th Century would have been well-served by a > certain Caproni > bomber being blown out of the sky with the loss of all aboard > before Douhet > could set pen to paper. > > Tom Cleaver > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:45:47 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM Message-ID: <3A64184A.D54D35A7@dial.pipex.com> Another variation on the Nigerian money scams that I've spent the best part of 12 years warning people not to send money to !! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:19:22 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most important ? Message-ID: <3A64202A.310F6D54@dial.pipex.com> No RFC/RNAS selections I note ! My suggestion - AVRO 504. Bomber, Night fighter, trainer - the 504 proved so many concepts and was in service start to finish. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:40:23 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Who was the most influential pilot? Message-ID: Shane, you probably forgot that MvR was a PUPIL of Oswald Boelcke. What he knew is what he learned from his master. He sure developed his own tactics and had his own ideas but he did so in the spirit of his dead master. Oswald Boelcke certainly had a greater influence on aviation as well as on the moral of all German pilots than anybody else. Only after the nation reconized the qualities of MvR he became the new Boelcke in their hearts after Boelcke died. >From Boelcke MvR learned that discipline is the foundation of teamwork and success in combat. >From Boelcke he learned the tactics he also applied. If he also learned from Boelckes flying skills is not know but known is that there was much better pilots than MvR himself - Voss, Gontermann, Boelcke - 'tough there was only very few tacticians of his format. Generally seen I think that it is impossible to say that only one person had a major impact on the developement of airwar. The Allies had their Boelckes, Immelmanns and Richthofens as well who had similar ideas at the same time than the Germans developed their tactics. respectfully Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > > On the basis of both his influence on fighter tactics both then and since, > and on the public perception of what fighter pilots are and do, > it's hard to > go past MvR unfortunately > > (IMHO, as always. This is a tougher question, I think) > > 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: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:44:13 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM Message-ID: I wonder how dumb a human being must be to believe such people anyway. Gaston > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of > David Fleming > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:42 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM > > > > > Another variation on the Nigerian money scams that I've spent the > best part of > 12 years warning people not to send money to !! > > Dave > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:56:49 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Lone Star Large Scale Announcement Message-ID: <200101161056.CAA23666@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:35:56 -0500 (EST), Brent & Tina Theobald wrote: > >Lone Star Models will release a 1/32 scale Curtiss JN-4 kit and a N-11 > >conversion this year. Me thinks someone doesn't really know the difference between a Nie.11 and a Nie.17. Cripes... Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:22:22 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "WW1 list (E-mail)" Subject: Kits for kids-Spad XIII Message-ID: Hi Steve, Would this do for you? I have deliberately been very positive to the SPAD, because I think a kid who is building one would like to hear it was good. I didn't find it at all difficult! My spelling and grammar might need correction, and I haven't checked my facts, can anyone confirm Foncks score, and if it was 5 (or 6) in one fight. Also I'm not sure of Captain Eddies final score, was it 27? /Neil ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- The SPAD XIII was one of the best looking planes in the first world war. It was very fast, one of the fastest. Manuevrability was not it's strongest point, it was the kind of plane that needed to dive on it's opponent and then just keep going, because nothing could catch it in a dive. The Spad XIII was rugged and well armed, together with it's speed this made it one of the most successful planes of the war. It was developed from the SPAD VII which was smaller and only armed with one machine-gun, the SPAD XIII was beefed up, had a 220hp engine, instead of 180 hp, and two machine guns. Problems with the SPAD XIII were usually due to overheating of the engine, that was it's weak point, the mechanics had to work really hard to keep them in the air. The SPAD XIII first went into service with the French Air Force, their greatest ace was called René Fonck, he was a master of the SPAD XIII, he once shot down five enemy fighters in one dogfight. His final score was 72, only slightly less than the red baron Manfred von Richthofen. The SPAD quickly became so famous that all the allied air forces wanted them, they were finally supplied to Britain, Italy, Russia and the USA, also lots of air-forces used them after the war. The USA joined the war in 1917, unfortunately they didn't have any good fighter aircraft, SPADs were in so short supply that the AEF (American Expeditionary Force) were forced to use another french fighter, called the Nieuport 28. Eddie Rickenbacker was a young american who went to France to fly, he joined the 94th Aero squadron and was soon on patrol. He was successful flying the Nieuport, and soon became an ace, but the squadron had problems with the Nieuports, the top wings shredded their fabric covering. First it happened to Jimmy Meisner, then when Eddie Rickenbacker was diving hard to catch an enemy Albatross the fabric of his top wing stripped off and his plane was nearly uncontrollable, somehow he made it home, finally Jimmy Hall crashed and was taken prisoner when his top wing stripped. So you can imagine the delight of Eddie Rickenbacker and his fellow pilots, when he was told to go up to Paris and fetch a SPAD XIII. He came back and got the famous "Hat in the ring" emblem (which they had devised for the 94th squadron) painted on. Then he carried on flying his SPAD so well that he finally became the american Ace of Aces with 27 aerial victories. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:16:56 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "WW1 list (E-mail)" Subject: FW: WW1 list OT Places of interest guide - Sweden 2 Message-ID: I updated this a bit, I forgot the Breguet, also saw that they have a Donnet-Leveque in store, I'm not sure if it's OT, but must be close. /Neil Linkoping;Sweden - Swedish Air Force Museum - Nieuport IVG - Macchi M7 - SK1 Albatross 120hp (2-seat Albatross similar to BII) - CFV Ö1 Tummelisa (swedish trainer from 1919) - Phönix 122 (DIII) - Breguet CU.1 (B1) and lots of interesting ot stuff, also some old engines. In store they have a Thulin G and a Donnet Leveque LII Stockholm, Sweden - Technical museum -Albatross BII -Junkers F13 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:37:14 EST From: Scottfking@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: <56.5ea0861.27959a7a@aol.com> In a message dated 1/15/01 2:25:19 PM EST, lance.krieg@amerus.com writes: << My last contest entry was moved, by an unknown hand, >> <> Having been both a competitor and a judge, I can say that as a competitor I never touched another competitor's model without permission, this is the general understanding everywhere I have been. As a judge, I rarely found the need to move a model, unless it was obscured by its location. To lift a model up to look on the bottom (for hidden flaws) is almost never necessary, why would the skill level be much different on top or bottom of the same model? And if it is necessary to move models to make room for more entries, this should be the responsibilty of the contest committee. Rarely necessary, IMHO. Skippy (Scott) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:02:38 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: I usually place my models fairly near the back, for the simple reason that I am more interested in getting them back in one piece than winning prizes. Models near the front are allways at risk to hanging clothes, children, swinging cameras, you name it. When I'm a judge I never pick up models I just don't dare. And I'm not really interested in the underside, if you can't see it, then it doesn't matter. This is more a personal opinion, when I'm a judge I do as instructed, but I've never seen an instruction saying you have to. As a matter of fact I'd say that my skill level,and for a a few people I know, is lower on the underside. If I'm going to do anything difficult I always start below, I think this is legitimate and so long as the model isn't entered on a mirror, shouldn't be judged too hardly. One of the most pointless exercises I know is detailing wheel bays, I'd much rather waste my time on something visible, or a new model. Just my opinion /Neil skippy wrote: >snip > Having been both a competitor and a judge, I can say that as > a competitor I > never touched another competitor's model without permission, > this is the > general understanding everywhere I have been. > > As a judge, I rarely found the need to move a model, unless > it was obscured > by its location. To lift a model up to look on the bottom > (for hidden flaws) > is almost never necessary, why would the skill level be much > different on > top or bottom of the same model? > > And if it is necessary to move models to make room for more > entries, this > should be the responsibilty of the contest committee. > Rarely necessary, > IMHO. > > Skippy (Scott) > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:41:42 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: >From: Scottfking@aol.com >Having been both a competitor and a judge, I can say that as a >competitor >I never touched another competitor's model without >permission, this is the >general understanding everywhere I have been. >As a judge, I rarely found the need to move a model, unless it was > >obscured by its location. To lift a model up to look on the bottom >(for >hidden flaws) is almost never necessary, why would the skill >level be >much different on top or bottom of the same model? Scott: I think judges should look at the undersides of the entries because there is no guarantee that there won't be a bunch of "problems" underneath. What about if someone did a really good job of the underside lozenge and didn't put it on a mirror? The judges need to be able to look all over the model entry. I know that accidents happen; the case of the judge holding a piece of armour by its antenna wire comes to mind - some people think just because it's 1/72nd scale, you can hold it up by anything! Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:54:56 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: Yes but does it matter what the underside looks like? Certainly it wouldn't matter enough to me, to make me want to pick up your Farman F40. The idea of judges picking up my DH4 still scares me, you can only pick it up by the wingtips, there is rigging everywhere else. Actually the underneath of that one is good, but really who care "what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve for" /Neil Michael wrote: > I think judges should look at the undersides of the entries > because there is > no guarantee that there won't be a bunch of "problems" > underneath. What > about if someone did a really good job of the underside > lozenge and didn't > put it on a mirror? The judges need to be able to look all > over the model > entry. I know that accidents happen; the case of the judge > holding a piece > of armour by its antenna wire comes to mind - some people > think just because > it's 1/72nd scale, you can hold it up by anything! > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:00:32 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: <200101161401.GAA17740@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:59:42 -0500 (EST), Crawford Neil wrote: > Yes but does it matter what the underside looks like? Certainly > it wouldn't matter enough to me, to make me want to pick up your > Farman F40. The idea of judges picking up my DH4 still scares me, > you can only pick it up by the wingtips, there is rigging everywhere > else. Actually the underneath of that one is good, but really who care > "what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve for" One thing that actually happened to me was when a judge picked up my Strutter, he popped off a few wires. It's difficult not to do. One way around this, though, is to mount the model to a base. Then they can pick up the base instead. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:03:07 -0600 From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" To: Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: ...or use a mirror as the base, which is something I (and most other auto modelers) have done many times. Paul -----Original Message----- From: Matt Bittner One way around this, though, is to mount the model to a base. Then they can pick up the base instead. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:06:08 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: But if it's on a base you still can't see the underside properly. The problem is that if some models are OK to pick up, and some you don't dare, then you are not judging all the models in the same way. So it's better not to pick any of them up. /Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Bittner [mailto:tbittners@sprintmail.com] > Sent: den 16 januari 2001 15:04 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: RE: Contest Etiquette > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:59:42 -0500 (EST), Crawford Neil wrote: > > > Yes but does it matter what the underside looks like? Certainly > > it wouldn't matter enough to me, to make me want to pick up your > > Farman F40. The idea of judges picking up my DH4 still scares me, > > you can only pick it up by the wingtips, there is rigging everywhere > > else. Actually the underneath of that one is good, but > really who care > > "what the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve for" > > One thing that actually happened to me was when a judge picked up my > Strutter, he popped off a few wires. It's difficult not to do. > > One way around this, though, is to mount the model to a base. Then > they can pick up the base instead. > > > > > ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2980 **********************