WWI Digest 2982 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Most Important? (F2B Brisfit legacy) by KarrArt@aol.com 2) RE: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM by Todd Hayes 3) RE: Who was the most influential pilot? by Todd Hayes 4) Re:Most Importants by Todd Hayes 5) Sopwith kit by "TOM PLESHA" 6) Re: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? by David Fleming 7) Re: Sopwith kit by David Fleming 8) Re: Most Important? by "Michael S. Alvarado" 9) Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 by DavidL1217@aol.com 10) Re: Most Important? by "DAVID BURKE" 11) Re: Contest Etiquette by Scottfking@aol.com 12) RE: Most Important? by Brent Theobald 13) Re: Most Important? by "DAVID BURKE" 14) Re: Sopwith kit by "Robert Fabris" 15) Re: Sopwith kit by "Robert Fabris" 16) Site Update by "Richard Eaton" 17) Re: Sopwith kit by "TOM PLESHA" 18) Re: Site Update by "Bob Pearson" 19) Re: Site Update by Shane & Lorna Jenkins 20) Re: Site Update by "Steven M.Perry" 21) RE: Lone Star Large Scale Announcement by Shane Weier 22) RE: Who was the most influential pilot? by Shane Weier 23) Re: Site Update by "Matt Bittner" 24) RE: Most Important? by Shane Weier ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:48:00 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? (F2B Brisfit legacy) Message-ID: <96.ec6df99.27961b90@aol.com> In a message dated 1/16/01 1:44:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, MSHANNON@tnrcc.state.tx.us writes: << I don't think the Brisfit's legacy is entirely a dark one. It lead the way to the general purpose aircraft that could take care of itself in the whole variety of roles. .Mark. >> No, I don't either. What happened was a misunderstanding by certain designers of certain airplanes that led down a dead end path. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: confidentialSPAM SPAM SPAM Message-ID: <20010116224043.92192.qmail@web9010.mail.yahoo.com> Gaston, Pretty dumb is my guess. I saw a TV special on scams. One elderly woman lost a total of $60,000 on them. The saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me!" comes to mind. Fool me 20 times means, "I must be a moron!!" Todd --- Gaston Graf wrote: > 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 > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:46:54 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Who was the most influential pilot? Message-ID: <20010116224654.2730.qmail@web9008.mail.yahoo.com> Considering that "Dicta Boelcke" is still the basic concept of aerial combat, Boelcke's influence has lasted decades and probably will continue until man is no longer the prime consideration in combat tactics. Todd --- Gaston Graf wrote: > 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 > > > ********************************************************************** > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:00:10 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re:Most Importants Message-ID: <20010116230010.10833.qmail@web9007.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks John, But to give credit where it is due, Gaston was the first to suggest the Eindecker. Todd --- John_Impenna@hyperion.com wrote: > > Hi Folks, > I agree with Todd: most important aircraft Fokker > Eindecker. Garros's plane > provided the inspiration, but the E-III was the > first practical fighter > aircraft produced in significant numbers. Everything > that came later was > based on the premise of countering that plane. > > I also agree that Oswald Boelcke was the most > important fighter pilot. I > think he can pass MvR for one simple reason: he was > MvR's teacher. No > Boelcke, No MvR, or certainly not as the great pilot > he ultimately became. > Boelcke's ideas and tactics laid the groundwork for > air-to-air combat even > as we know it today. > > Regards, > John > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:22:24 -0500 From: "TOM PLESHA" To: Subject: Sopwith kit Message-ID: <000801c08013$2feeffa0$cc474c0c@tom> Hi- I purchased a kit of a 1/48 Camel that is a vacu-form, via e-bay. I plan to use parts of it to construct a Camel Taperwing. According to the seller, the kit has a tag inside with: C.A. ATKINS METAL MODEL AIRCRAFT U.K. Anyone know anything about it? thanks Tom P ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:28:30 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu, Allan Wright Subject: Re: What was this 'confidential' SPAM? Message-ID: <3A64AEEE.A72985E6@dial.pipex.com> DAVID BURKE wrote: > Hi David, > > Are you referring to that ridiculous message that I got twice yesterday? If it was headed 'confidential' and from alexander samuel do akin at a hotmail address. > > > Did the whole List get it? When I checked the return address, it was to > another address, not the List's. > Strange, mine definitely came from pease1 and had the list address in the return line. It was about making money from helping to launder money offshore. It's been around in a few variations for around 10 years, mainly as a snail mail letter, often to do with the Nigerian petrol industry. Quite a clever scam, as it asks you to do something illegal, in the hope you won't go to the cops when they fleece you for thousands (And many have been). A group of Nigerians was jailed for it in the Uk a few years ago. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:44:35 +0000 From: David Fleming To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Sopwith kit Message-ID: <3A64DCE2.6139BB8F@dial.pipex.com> TOM PLESHA wrote: > Hi- > I purchased a kit of a 1/48 Camel that is a vacu-form, via e-bay. I plan to > use parts of it to construct a Camel Taperwing. > According to the seller, the kit has a tag inside with: > C.A. ATKINS METAL MODEL AIRCRAFT U.K. > Anyone know anything about it? 'Tommy' Atkins had a good reputation for mainly metal lits in the 80s/90s (He did a 1/48th Foker EV IIRC). Should be a good one ! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:46:48 -0500 From: "Michael S. Alvarado" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <3A64DD67.6F9B6903@bellatlantic.net> Yes!! Alvie - (former F-4J RIO) "Steven M.Perry" wrote: > > 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 19:43:27 EST From: DavidL1217@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Meikraft Caproni Ca-3 Message-ID: <4a.102ab147.279644af@aol.com> Staaken? Found one 10 years ago for $12. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:45:31 -0600 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <001901c08020$1e10cc20$bbe279a5@com> > "Steven M.Perry" wrote: > > > > 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. > Boy, this has gone a ways off! As to the Bf-110, it was highly succesful in its heyday as a day fighter (up until 1940), and excelled as a nightfighter. Actually, it was a 'Zerstorer' - a heavy fighter or 'destroyer'. The F.2b was interesting as it was a fighter with defensive armament and a defensive gunner. I haven't seen any mention of the Fe.2b, c, or d. These of course had the second gunner in a more offensive role, but still required teamwork (I guess like the SPAD A.2). The ultimate in 2-man heavy fighters (fighters in my definition as being designed for the air-to-air initially, with multi-role assignments being considered later) IMNSHO would easily be the F-14. Unlike the F-4 (a great warplane), the Tomcat was designed to fight in all AtA combat regimes: long distance (Phoenix), medium (Sparrow and/or AAMRAAM), and close (Sidewinder and Vulcan cannon). Unlike the F-4, the Tomcat was always designed with the gun in mind. As to the previous statements about the F-104, it WAS deployed operationally by the USAF, albeit in small numbers. Its shortcomings are best discussed in other forums. The question of what A/C was (or were) most important during WWI is nearly impossible to answer. Most of them represented developments that affected the concept of what we now consider to be an airplane. For instance, the Taube and Eindekkers were equipped with warping wings until the idea of the aileron was introduced. Also, the quest for speed is something to consider especially when it was the conventional wisdom of the day that to travel faster than 45 MpH was fatal! It would not be until the late 20's (IIRC) that the speed of 200MpH would be attained in level flight (might have been the 30's. Keep in mind as well that the average cruising speed of modern airliners - 500-600MpH - wasn't attained until the mid 1940's!).Wood frames and structures, the order of the day most of the way thru the War, gave way to metal alloys and more complicated metal construction. The rotary engine, a nasty and treacherous type of powerplant (mainly owing to the centrifugal forces it produced which caused many a fatal spin or stall) gave way to the radial engine (as is found on the Sopwith Dragon). In-line engines, at first a lower-powered alternative to the rotaries, eventually were refined to the high-compression powerplants that powered the Fokker D.VII (and SE.5/5a A/C). Through more and more advanced wing designs, the bi- and tri-plane was replaced by the faster, lower-drag single wing. The tactics of close-air support were developed with aircraft like the Hannover and Junkers J.I. And ultimately, the seeds of international air travel were sown by the giant Gotha and Zepplin/Staaken aircraft (Not to mention the Vimy and HP 0/400), what with their heavy load carrying and long-range capacities. What was the most important of them all? To me, I would have to go back before Bleriot, back to the first Wright Military Flyer of 1904, which ultimately started several nations and their militaries thinking about the possible applications of flight. Whatever, DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:58:16 EST From: Scottfking@aol.com To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Contest Etiquette Message-ID: In a message dated 1/16/01 8:44:55 AM EST, mkendix@hotmail.com writes: << 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. >> Well, yes. But respectfully I have found that it is usually only necessary in a 1-2-3 system after narrowing the field by eliminating those with obvious construction flaws in visible areas (seams, misalignments, inclusions in the finish, etc). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:20:20 -0600 From: Brent Theobald To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Most Important? Message-ID: <4B9386E83999D411997100508BAF206A79EC47@stamail.telecom.sna.samsung.com> Wow DB! Did you just pull all that outta your arse? That's great! I would've worked all day on that and it would only be half as good and concise. (Does that make it only 25%?) Show off! When can we expect airticles in OtF and C&C? Brent -----Original Message----- From: DAVID BURKE [mailto:dora9@sprynet.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:00 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Most Important? > "Steven M.Perry" wrote: > > > > 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. > Boy, this has gone a ways off! As to the Bf-110, it was highly succesful in its heyday as a day fighter (up until 1940), and excelled as a nightfighter. Actually, it was a 'Zerstorer' - a heavy fighter or 'destroyer'. The F.2b was interesting as it was a fighter with defensive armament and a defensive gunner. I haven't seen any mention of the Fe.2b, c, or d. These of course had the second gunner in a more offensive role, but still required teamwork (I guess like the SPAD A.2). The ultimate in 2-man heavy fighters (fighters in my definition as being designed for the air-to-air initially, with multi-role assignments being considered later) IMNSHO would easily be the F-14. Unlike the F-4 (a great warplane), the Tomcat was designed to fight in all AtA combat regimes: long distance (Phoenix), medium (Sparrow and/or AAMRAAM), and close (Sidewinder and Vulcan cannon). Unlike the F-4, the Tomcat was always designed with the gun in mind. As to the previous statements about the F-104, it WAS deployed operationally by the USAF, albeit in small numbers. Its shortcomings are best discussed in other forums. The question of what A/C was (or were) most important during WWI is nearly impossible to answer. Most of them represented developments that affected the concept of what we now consider to be an airplane. For instance, the Taube and Eindekkers were equipped with warping wings until the idea of the aileron was introduced. Also, the quest for speed is something to consider especially when it was the conventional wisdom of the day that to travel faster than 45 MpH was fatal! It would not be until the late 20's (IIRC) that the speed of 200MpH would be attained in level flight (might have been the 30's. Keep in mind as well that the average cruising speed of modern airliners - 500-600MpH - wasn't attained until the mid 1940's!).Wood frames and structures, the order of the day most of the way thru the War, gave way to metal alloys and more complicated metal construction. The rotary engine, a nasty and treacherous type of powerplant (mainly owing to the centrifugal forces it produced which caused many a fatal spin or stall) gave way to the radial engine (as is found on the Sopwith Dragon). In-line engines, at first a lower-powered alternative to the rotaries, eventually were refined to the high-compression powerplants that powered the Fokker D.VII (and SE.5/5a A/C). Through more and more advanced wing designs, the bi- and tri-plane was replaced by the faster, lower-drag single wing. The tactics of close-air support were developed with aircraft like the Hannover and Junkers J.I. And ultimately, the seeds of international air travel were sown by the giant Gotha and Zepplin/Staaken aircraft (Not to mention the Vimy and HP 0/400), what with their heavy load carrying and long-range capacities. What was the most important of them all? To me, I would have to go back before Bleriot, back to the first Wright Military Flyer of 1904, which ultimately started several nations and their militaries thinking about the possible applications of flight. Whatever, DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:38:39 -0600 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Most Important? Message-ID: <000901c08026$3c0ef660$90e479a5@com> > Wow DB! > > Did you just pull all that outta your arse? That's great! > I would've worked all day on that and it would only be half as good and > concise. (Does that make it only 25%?) > > Show off! When can we expect airticles in OtF and C&C? > > Brent > Yeah, I wrote it on the fly. Thanks for the vote of confidence, although I'm sure that there will be quite a few foks who'll find the flaws in it (about every other word is my average!). I appreciate it all the more as you are aware, I'm sure, that I'm moving to Auburn at the end of the month and will soon hopefully start a Ph.D program (History of Technology) that will allow me to study aforementioned topics! I.E. Air Combat (concentration DEFINITELY OT - I think that WW2 has gotten most of the attention as of late, yet folks are ignorant of the fact that the Battle of Britain, the thousand-bomber raids, tactical and strategic bombing, close-air support, etc. all had their origins in events that happened prior to 1918! Alot of my awareness of this is due to you guys - thanks!) and the U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons programs. Neat stuff, eh? Hell, I gotta go eat and pack up more stuff - getting models ready to transport to a couple of museums that want 'em. And pack the rest o' this crap too. DB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:52:19 -0800 From: "Robert Fabris" To: Subject: Re: Sopwith kit Message-ID: <007401c08028$21c0bb20$0fcf480c@garage> > I purchased a kit of a 1/48 Camel that is a vacu-form, via e-bay. I plan to > use parts of it to construct a Camel Taperwing. > According to the seller, the kit has a tag inside with: > C.A. ATKINS METAL MODEL AIRCRAFT U.K The kit is really mixed media, with the itty bits in metal (mostly the engine), and a length of wire. Atkins' strength is in metal molding, and after creating quite a few aircraft that way, expanded a bit with vacforming plastic. He is located in Bridlington. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:59:19 -0800 From: "Robert Fabris" To: Subject: Re: Sopwith kit Message-ID: <010d01c08029$1c00c1c0$0fcf480c@garage> With this kind of plug, I'd like to publicize that I have four of Tommy's all-metal kits available- but not the Fokker that Dave mentions :( $15 each Bob.... > > 'Tommy' Atkins had a good reputation for mainly metal lits in the 80s/90s (He > did a 1/48th Foker EV IIRC). Should be a good one ! > > Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:59:59 -0600 From: "Richard Eaton" To: Subject: Site Update Message-ID: <000501c08029$34bba0e0$b5441c18@austin.rr.com> Well friends I have dusted off my humble web site and updated it with two recent builds. Aeroclub Felixstowe F.2.A (ala Pearson's Profile Products) HitKit LVG C.V (Pre-Squadron markings) Stop by if you get a moment. http://home.austin.rr.com/reaton/index.htm Regards, Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:08:50 -0500 From: "TOM PLESHA" To: Subject: Re: Sopwith kit Message-ID: <000501c0802a$70060b80$ce474c0c@tom> I appreciate the feed back about the kit. I'm looking foreward to it. Like I noted, I'm going to use parts for a Camel Taperwing. thanks again all Tom P ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Fabris" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 9:03 PM Subject: Re: Sopwith kit > With this kind of plug, I'd like to publicize that I have four of Tommy's > all-metal kits available- but not the Fokker that Dave mentions :( $15 > each > Bob.... > > > > 'Tommy' Atkins had a good reputation for mainly metal lits in the 80s/90s > (He > > did a 1/48th Foker EV IIRC). Should be a good one ! > > > > Dave > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:08:41 -0800 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Site Update Message-ID: <200101170323.TAA16180@mail.rapidnet.net> Damn, but that is just so cool !!!!!!!!! Some decade I'll get my Lone Star and TC Resin Felixstowes built.. Bob ---------- >From: "Richard Eaton" >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Site Update >Date: Tue, Jan 16, 2001, 6:03 pm > > Well friends I have dusted off my humble web site and updated it with two > recent builds. > > Aeroclub Felixstowe F.2.A (ala Pearson's Profile Products) > HitKit LVG C.V (Pre-Squadron markings) > > Stop by if you get a moment. > > http://home.austin.rr.com/reaton/index.htm > > Regards, > > Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:59:57 -0800 From: Shane & Lorna Jenkins To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Site Update Message-ID: <3A6615DD.9057BAB0@tac.com.au> Lovely work Richard! The Felixstowe is too cool - but then flying boats are ;-) Lorna Richard Eaton wrote: > > Well friends I have dusted off my humble web site and updated it with two > recent builds. > > Aeroclub Felixstowe F.2.A (ala Pearson's Profile Products) > HitKit LVG C.V (Pre-Squadron markings) > > Stop by if you get a moment. > > http://home.austin.rr.com/reaton/index.htm > > Regards, > > Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:02:13 -0500 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Site Update Message-ID: <00a901c08031$e55ffd80$f9f2aec7@default> Beautiful work Richard. I love the LVG and that Felixstowe looks like it was all the challenge of an N-9 and an I'lya all rolled into one. Fine work sir! sp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:58:08 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Lone Star Large Scale Announcement Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A41@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Brent, > >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 Conversion to a Nie-11 from what? 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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:56:10 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Who was the most influential pilot? Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A40@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Gaston says: > you probably forgot that MvR was a PUPIL of Oswald Boelcke. Not even slightly, and I'm well aware of whose pupil he was. You might re-read my post, especially the last line which says that *unfortunately* MvR was far more influential on the public because they all heard of him. Forgive me for falling about laughing at the prospect of Charles Schulz having Snoopy fight Boelke - his millions of readers wouldn't ever have heard of Boelke, even in the generally vague way that most non-enthusiasts can recall the "Red Baron" as the greatest fighter pilot. 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 21:20:47 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Re: Site Update Message-ID: <200101170321.TAA28508@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:03:25 -0500 (EST), Richard Eaton wrote: > Well friends I have dusted off my humble web site and updated it with two > recent builds. > > Aeroclub Felixstowe F.2.A (ala Pearson's Profile Products) > HitKit LVG C.V (Pre-Squadron markings) Excellent job, Richard! That Felixstowe is stunning!! Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:27:47 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Most Important? Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A43@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> DB says: > I think that WW2 has gotten > most of the attention as of late, yet folks are ignorant of > the fact that > the Battle of Britain, the thousand-bomber raids, tactical > and strategic > bombing, close-air support, etc. all had their origins in events that > happened prior to 1918! Definitely. Walk into your model club, and ask the comparatively knowledgeable folks there the following question "What was the largest aircraft used by Germany to bomb England" You might get a correct answer, but not many. Question: > What would listee's consider the most important aircraft of the first > world war? Answer: > What was the most important of them all? To me, I would > have to go back > before Bleriot, back to the first Wright Military Flyer of 1904, which > ultimately started several nations and their militaries > thinking about the > possible applications of flight. You may need to negotiate with your supervisors, lecturers, etc. if you intend to stray so far from the question with your answer ;-) 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 2982 **********************