WWI Digest 2998 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: What's on the Bench? by Shane Weier 2) Re: Another web site update by "Richard Eaton" 3) Re: wood simulation again by Lee 4) RE: What's on the Bench? by Todd Hayes 5) Spin Models Spad A.4 by Todd Hayes 6) New VAMP Order Update by Todd Hayes 7) RE: Most Important? by Crawford Neil 8) RE: ot heads-up by Crawford Neil 9) RE: Tom C vs Chris Gannon by "Nigel Rayner" 10) Re: ot heads-up by "Sandy Adam" 11) Re: Price of Toko/Roden, was Thanks Neil and Steven by Jan Vihonen 12) Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats by "Bucky" 13) RE: Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats by Crawford Neil 14) Hanriot HD.3 by "Matt Bittner" 15) TB-3/ was: Tom C vs Chris Gannon by "Michael Kendix" 16) Re: What's on the Bench? by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 17) Re: Eduard 1/72nd D.V help by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 18) RE: Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= 19) Kits for kids - Camel by Crawford Neil 20) Re: Giant Cookup by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 21) Re: Wood simulation by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 22) RE: Giant Cookup by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:07:23 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: What's on the Bench? Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748A99@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Richard, > Shane seems to be slacking off a tad:-) > > Only two reviews, three scratch builds, one oob, and some off > topics in the que............ > Shane, mate, could we pick up the pace a tad? > LOL... Unfortunately, at the moment "modelling" consists of sitting at the bench with sweat dripping off my nose onto the model and wishing I still had air conditioning. Luckily, sweat works as well as water on wet and dry paper, so I can make *some* progress on those I have to do - the reviews Shane (hoping to win lotto - as usual - and retire in air conditioned splendour to build models exclusively) ********************************************************************** 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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:09:13 -0600 From: "Richard Eaton" To: Subject: Re: Another web site update Message-ID: <00c301c08431$779b3c20$b5441c18@austin.rr.com> Great stuff Dennis! That German page has become a real 1/72 tour de force! The D.III and D.IV are great builds beautifully photographed. Your are making us site slackers jealous with your updates! Regards, Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Ugulano" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 9:15 PM Subject: Another web site update > Everyone, > > Another change to the German page and I promise this will be the > last one for a while. > > I've added the Pegasus SSW D.III and the TOKO SSW D.IV to > German/Siemens Schuckert page. > > The D.III was built right after its release and was the kit without > any metal parts. The decals are probably Americal but it's been too long > to know for sure. The D.IV is OOB with Pegasus decals. > > The feed back is the page seems to be working ok. The British page > will be next as it is growing very large. > > Dennis Ugulano > email: Uggies@compuserve.com > http://members.nbci.com/Uggies/dju.htm > Page Revised 1/19/01 > "Each modeler will rise to their own level of masochism." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:16:43 -0600 From: Lee To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: wood simulation again Message-ID: <3A6BC23B.9080004@x25.net> --------------040606090506010807070303 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the note. I had forgotten about that stuff since I am still using the old Floquil Model Railroad paints ands dabble with acrylics very little. I am sure it will work on anything that uses water as a thinner. I am also fairly sure it won't damage anything. A little test won't hurt. Lee Shane Weier wrote: > Lee recommends > > >> With some of the comments I woould guess thatr Tamiya paints >> may need a >> "wetting agent" like they use in Film processing. A little >> drop might >> do it if you really want to brush it on. Kodak made a thing >> like that >> and I am sure others did as well. Just a thought since that >> is an agent >> in soap products also. Never used the stuff but it is the chemistry >> that makes the difference and "a little drop'll do ya. > > > I use a bottle of Kodak "Fotoflo" (IIRC, label fell off in about 1975, but > the brown glass bottle has "Kodak" moulded in it) - the one bottle has > lasted me all the intervening years. I use *one* drop in a large glass of > water and find that's plenty. > > 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 > ********************************************************************** > > --------------040606090506010807070303 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the note.  I had forgotten about that stuff since I am still using the old Floquil Model Railroad paints ands dabble with acrylics very little.  I am sure it will work on anything that uses water as a thinner.  I am also fairly sure it won't damage anything.  A little test won't hurt.

Lee

Shane Weier wrote:
Lee recommends


With some of the comments I woould guess thatr Tamiya paints 
may need a 
"wetting agent" like they use in Film processing.  A little 
drop might 
do it if you really want to brush it on.  Kodak made a thing 
like that 
and I am sure others did as well.  Just a thought since that 
is an agent 
in soap products also.  Never used the stuff but it is the chemistry 
that makes the difference and "a little drop'll do ya.

I use a bottle of Kodak "Fotoflo" (IIRC, label fell off in about 1975, but
the brown glass bottle has "Kodak" moulded in it) - the one bottle has
lasted me all the intervening years.  I use *one* drop in a large glass of
water and find that's plenty.

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
**********************************************************************


--------------040606090506010807070303-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:16:16 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: What's on the Bench? Message-ID: <20010122051617.56605.qmail@web9006.mail.yahoo.com> Come to Iowa, Shane, and you'll have all the air conditioning you want!!! Todd --- Shane Weier wrote: > Richard, > > > Shane seems to be slacking off a tad:-) > > > > Only two reviews, three scratch builds, one oob, > and some off > > topics in the que............ > > Shane, mate, could we pick up the pace a tad? > > > > LOL... > > Unfortunately, at the moment "modelling" consists of > sitting at the bench > with sweat dripping off my nose onto the model and > wishing I still had air > conditioning. > > Luckily, sweat works as well as water on wet and dry > paper, so I can make > *some* progress on those I have to do - the reviews > > Shane > > (hoping to win lotto - as usual - and retire in air > conditioned splendour to > build models exclusively) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ********************************************************************** > 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!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:31:58 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Spin Models Spad A.4 Message-ID: <20010122063158.15194.qmail@web9009.mail.yahoo.com> Just a suggestion for anyone planning on building this kit. As nice of a kit as it is, the skis seem a little too thick. I bought some Tom's Russian skis for mine and they're really nice. With the Digmayer Integral prop I bought through CSM, a beautiful A.4 is a real possibility. And I have a question. What type of engine did the A.4 use? Is it a 110hp LeRhone? TH __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:35:25 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: New VAMP Order Update Message-ID: <20010122063525.15430.qmail@web9009.mail.yahoo.com> In order to allow more time for the payments to arrive, I have moved up the cut-off date for additions to the order to Wednesday, Jan., 24. On Thursday I will post a list of wanted kits and the listees who want them. Todd __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:42:22 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Most Important? Message-ID: Hmmm, didn't think of this, maybe Dave is right after all! If you think of the manufacturing capacity available for civil a/c production after both wars, that must certainly have been of great benefit to the advancement of aviation. OTOH without the industrial build-up created by the production of a/c like the Northrop Gamma/delta and DC3, it's difficult to see how the US could have geared up into wartime production so quickly. Likewise pioneer sportsmen, and people who hoped they could make a living from aviation built up the infrastructure that made a/c production possible at all during WW1. And WW1 large-scale production created the cheap Jennies and Avro 504's used for barnstorming after WW1, which got Lindbergh started, which in turn created such an enormous interest for aviation, so that the racers could earn money, which so benefitted aviation development in WW2, I could go on for ever..... It's just so fascinating, I'm rather jealous of Dave who's going off to study this, difficult to think of a more interesting career choice. I think the only thing certain is that you can't make sweeping statements, history is so intertwined that its really impossible to unravel, but it sure is fun trying to. /Neil Mark wrote: > I ran across this in the book "Milestones of Aviation" - and > I think Richard K. Smith makes the point pretty well: > > "More concerned with production than contributing to > improvements in airplane design, World War 1 contributed less > to the airplane than it did to aviation. It took aviation out > of the hands of inventors, tinkerers, and sportsman and > created the foundations of an industry. It trained thousands > of young men in design, manufacture, operations, and > maintenance, and established aviation as a vital aspect of > national security." > > cool thread, always nice to find out what you don't know > Mark Miller > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:22:05 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: ot heads-up Message-ID: Being fairly new on the list, I should leave this alone, but I've never been sensible so.... One of the best things about the list is that I finally get to see the truth about kits. After years of reading Ray Rimells ever so carefully worded reviews in Windsock it's great to be told that a kit is crap. I am going to form my own opinion anyway, but I do like to be told that a kit might have wing ripple, if I'm going to spend a lot of money on a kit, it would really make me mad if I got a defect kit. I've had 3 Pegasus kits, the Spiteful and Siemens-Schuckert very early on, they were dreadful, and the Junkers D1 which is OK. I remember reading reviews at the time, which made me believe that these (and even the merlin kits) were quite good, that's why I enjoy reading reviews here that are much closer to the truth. I should point out, so that nobody misunderstands me that I don't mean Ray Rimells reviews in WS, they are always very good and fair, but you have to interpret faint praise, which I sometimes forget. I'm glad it's not me writing all those reviews, I never know if a kit is good till I've built it, and sat looking at it for six months, then finally I begin to see whats wrong with it. As to Tom's ot content I don't think he's much worse than any of us, I enjoy his posts. /Neil PS. The more modern Pegasus kits are mostly extremely good in my opinion, I'm looking forward to the SPAD XII, I hope thats not the one Tom is talking about. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:31:28 -0000 From: "Nigel Rayner" To: Subject: RE: Tom C vs Chris Gannon Message-ID: <000001c08456$19284fa0$983bedc1@w1o0t3> Hi all, I don't want to get involved in any personal attacks on anyone, but just to offer a perspective. I was recently researching an ot kit on the web (sorry) which happened to be a large and interesting looking Russian bomber by ICM (TB-3). I found a review online which severely criticised the kit's fit and engineering, and said it was unbuildable by anyone but a "master." So that put me off (as I am nowhere near that level). I then found another comment by someone who had built the kit who said "The model itself was beautiful. The fit was so good that even when I thought that it was wrong it later turned out that the kit was right but I was wrong." So who do I believe? The only answer is for me to try it and find out. At least the second comment made me think I might have a chance building it. And even have some fun along the way. So my own view now is that I do not take any one review in isolation. People who review products have different perspectives and skill levels, and what I look for in a kit may be different from what they look for. It's sad that Tom C is sometimes less than objective in his views, but he is entitled to express them. And we are entitled to ignore them if we wish. I still read Tom's reviews, because he builds some nice kits, and I still buy Chris Gannon's products (a *very* satisfied customer). I have never experienced the wing ripple problem with a Blue Max/Pegasus kit, but when I bought one from Chris at the recent IPMS Nats I did ask to see it first (alerted to the *possibility* of a problem). He didn't mind, and the kit was perfect. And here's a suggestion - if you see a review you don't agree with, build/review the model yourself and post a positive view to some forum on the web. When people search on the web, they will get both the positive and negative views, just as I did with the TB-3. They can then make a judgement themselves based on more than one opinion. Cheers, Nigel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:29:07 -0000 From: "Sandy Adam" To: "AAA - WW1 Group" Subject: Re: ot heads-up Message-ID: <001901c08456$c4a3d8e0$30e8b094@sandyada> >I saw the Dr.1 for sale at a show once but I did not but it. Today I would >probably snap it up. How was that kit in terms of quality? Is it better to >stick to the DML Dr.1? Hi Cyg I still haven't built mine yet, but will shortly (honest). The DML is certainly the one to go for but the BM is a nice little kit. Seems to me there are good and less good BM kits (although all are good builds) - the Dr1 is in the first category. Slightly translucent white plastic makes it a little difficult to judge before the first paint coat, but I shall look forward to it. Usual multi-cylinder construction of metal Oberursel, but no PE for guns of course. Trannies for MvR and Voss machines - I'll go for the latter, but will paint the cowling whatever I feel like! I got it at a kitswap for about half price - I see it on ebay for double price. This is daft - buy the DML instead. But if you see it for 20-25 bucks go for it. Sandy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:34:23 +0200 From: Jan Vihonen To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Price of Toko/Roden, was Thanks Neil and Steven Message-ID: <3A6C0CAF.D9BFEF2B@helsinki.fi> Shane wrote: > > Cripes, my next cruise will be to Poland. ;-) > > You might as well. The price for the kit in Australia equates to just under > US$18 too, but I fear that the on cost of cruising here might be a *little* > much :-) Or then I should buy a cabinfull of Gothas and sell them with good profit here in the northern hemisphere. :-) Jan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:25:56 +0900 From: "Bucky" To: Subject: Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats Message-ID: <001101c08466$16dd33e0$104207d3@compaqcomputer> A couple of questions/info requests on the Friedrichshafen G.IIIa to those in-the-know from one who is not (even though I have the Windsock Datafile): 1) The schematics of the radiator(?) arrangement in port-off-center of the top wing are unclear: How far did it protrude from the top surface of the wing? Was it also visible from the bottom? Also, was it covered in lozenge, painted, or natural metal? Could I fudge it reasonably with leftover Eduard Alb D.III radiator brass? 2) There seem to be panels of some sort on the TE of the top wing directly above the engine nacelles (presumably as some sort of fire precaution?): What were they made out of? Are they separate from the main structure of the wing (IOW, do they need panel lines around the perimeter)? Are they lozenged, or painted Bosta gray? 3) Windsock states that the inboard sections of the lower wings were plywood covered. Were both top and bottom surfaces of this section of the wings plywood? Again, were they lozenged or painted Bosta gray? 4) There is a curved ventral protrusion in the vicinity of the tailskid. What was this made out of? It appears to be Bosta gray in Rimell's schematic, so does this imply that the entire undersurface of the fuselage, including aft of the Gotha tunnel, was also this color? 5) Last question, and I feel kinda dumb asking it (having been into WWI planes since "The Blue Max" was playing in movie theaters), but were the undersurfaces of the wings and tail section done in night lozenge, or were they also Bosta gray? I read somewhere that some Bosta aircraft had undersurfaces overpainted. Wonder if this applies to a Friedridactyl circa Autumn 1918? (sorry, I squeezed in one more question there) Any help on any of these items would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. New progress pix, as promised, can be perused here: www.geocities.com/msheftall/friedcon2.html Bucky ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:34:35 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: RE: Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats Message-ID: Certainly looks like a winner in the making. Great work so far. /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:42:00 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu" Subject: Hanriot HD.3 Message-ID: <200101221141.DAA10122@hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Having just attached the lower wings on the Roseplane HD.3, I'm amazed by the size. Here is a two-seater that is *smaller* than the Albatros D.V. Most amazing! I wonder - if the war had lasted longer - if the HD.3 would have proved itself better than the BrisFit. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:19:05 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: TB-3/ was: Tom C vs Chris Gannon Message-ID: >From: "Nigel Rayner" >I was recently researching an ot kit on the web (sorry) >which happened to be a large and interesting looking Russian bomber >by ICM >(TB-3). Have you bought and started to build this kit yet? I was trying to find someone who'd actually built it so I could ask them a load of questions. I have the kit but when I opened it, saw the pile of sprues and the veritable tome that is the instruction booklet, I had a big "Ilya Mourametz" flash back and haven't looked at it since. I do, however, have some background material on it, including a 3-D drawing/view. I saw a couple of builds of it on the web but the photography wasn't that great and it was hard to make out the details. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:18:31 -0400 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: What's on the Bench? Message-ID: On the bench: For the next few hours after I get home a raft of ot stuff as the msueum project wheezes it's last. As it turned out I built 10 kits and colleagues loaned me 9 others for the duration of the exhibit. . .there are still three to be built for the museum - two that arrived late and one that had a fatal seizure and requires a full strip down. But the good news is that soon I can rid my bench of ot and return to OT. So next up will be - the Eduard 72 DVa (still limping along for the cook-up) Smer Sopwith Tripe, awaiting removal of old crappy decals and replacement with new ones, addition of bracing, petrol pump, strut metalware and assorted sundries; After that not sure. . .either the Flashback EV in 1:48 or an old Eduard EIII in 48th. Then again maybe another Vimy, DH10 or the Ilya. MVJ (still woozy from lack of sleep (a total of five hours over the past 48, and too much thinner fumes. My boss asked if I was okay. . .my fingertips and nails are varying shades of olive green, neutral grey and dark earth. He thought it was some strange disease ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:29:11 -0400 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Eduard 1/72nd D.V help Message-ID: Matt asked: >For those who have built the Eduard 1/72nd D.V. Is it possible to add >the guns *after* the fuselage halves are together? I really don't want >to put them on until then. > >Yes, I am working on the first cook up entry, why do you ask? ;-) God I hope so, otherwise I am royally sc**wed!. BTW Matt nice to know I'm not the onlyone still limping along on the Tross cook-up. IIRC, you should be able to add the guns after. I seem to remember test fitting the fuse halves and trying to fit the guns just to make sure - but right now that could be a lacquer thinner induced hallucination. MVJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:55:21 +0700 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Oodles and oodles of Friedri-dactyl this-and-thats Message-ID: Bucky, her are a number of comments on your questions: "1) The schematics of the radiator(?) arrangement in port-off-center of the top wing are unclear: How far did it protrude from the top surface of the wing? Was it also visible from the bottom? Also, was it covered in lozenge, painted, or natural metal? Could I fudge it reasonably with leftover Eduard Alb D.III radiator brass?" Actually, that structure is the auxiliary fuel tank. It stood slightly clear of the wing. look at photo 19 of the Datafile. This tank was usually covered with a piece of fabric, held in position by press buttons. At least one or 2 photos I know clearly show printed fabric in this position. There was a fuel indicator mounted on the lower side, visible from the cockpit. The radiators were obviously mounted in front of the engines. Like most of the info below, this comes from the MoM/Flight report (C&C (US) 26/2 - that final magazine of that series, but also somewhere in C&C(I) and WS, IIRC). "2) There seem to be panels of some sort on the TE of the top wing directly above the engine nacelles (presumably as some sort of fire precaution?): What were they made out of? Are they separate from the main structure of the wing (IOW, do they need panel lines around the perimeter)? Are they lozenged, or painted Bosta gray?" Actually, these are traditionally constructed, but DETACHABLE wing panels, used to ease removal of the engines. Usually (or always?) covered with fabric. "3) Windsock states that the inboard sections of the lower wings were plywood covered. Were both top and bottom surfaces of this section of the wings plywood? Again, were they lozenged or painted Bosta gray?" The TOP surfaces only of the lower inboard wings were three ply wood. Finish is difficult to determine, as there were so many variations on this theme. I think MOST of the panels were painted, like the wooden portions of the fuselage,. However, in at least one instance you can also see printed fabric in this area. Again, just look at the wild variety of schemes shown in the Datafile - I doubt wether a standard answer is possible over here "4) There is a curved ventral protrusion in the vicinity of the tailskid." Not so sure what you are looking at: The lower tailfin of late model GIIIa/b? "5) Last question, and I feel kinda dumb asking it (having been into WWI planes since "The Blue Max" was playing in movie theaters), but were the undersurfaces of the wings and tail section done in night lozenge, or were they also Bosta gray? I read somewhere that some Bosta aircraft had undersurfaces overpainted. Wonder if this applies to a Friedridactyl circa Autumn 1918? (sorry, I squeezed in one more question there)" Again, I think it depends very much on which a/c you want to model.Definitely a high number of late model G IIIa´s were covered with lozenge on the lower wings as well. IMHO, the "overpainiting" of many German aircraft is actually a result of misinterpretations of printed fabric wings, where the contrast is not or just visible. See also the many Pfalz D XII etc interpretations. Volker ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:03:00 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "WW1 list (E-mail)" Subject: Kits for kids - Camel Message-ID: Hi Steve and everyone else. Here's what I wrote about the Camel, as usual I can write plenty on the technical bits, but go completely to pieces when it comes to history. Who were the Camel aces, did McCudden fly Camels, or was it Mannock, and who was that famous australian, I'm pretty sure there was one, but was he a Camel pilot? Also how about my version of MvR's death how many of you are now choking to death over your keyboards, I'll be happy to change anything, just let me know:-). Just remember I have to keep it quite simple. /Neil Ps. I'm not actually sure wether the Camel went best to the right, or the left, I think it was to the right, anybody good at mechanics/physics is wlcome to correct my explanation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- The Sopwith Camel was a strange aeroplane, it was probably the best British fighter in World War One. But it was by no means the fastest fighter, it's strength was manouvrability, if the pilot was good. For a novice pilot it was a dangerous beast, very easy to stall and crash. The pilot who knew the camel would always turn right in a dogfight, if he did this he could turn better than any other plane, better even than the Fokker Dr1, if he turned left he was in trouble, because in that direction the Camel was a poor turner. The reason for this was that the Camel had a rotary engine, which meant that the whole engine span with the propeller, as the engine spun to the right it meant that there was a gyroscopic effect that tightened tuns in that direction, turning left meant that the plane had to sort of fight against the spinning engine. There were many other planes with rotary engines but the Camel also had everything heavy like the engine, pilot, machine-guns concentrated in the nose, this concentration of mass exagerated the gyroscopic effect, making it a very tricky aircraft, both to friend and enemy. Other good things about the Camel was that it was light so a good climber, strong and with two machine-guns well armed. Disadvantages were really just that it was difficult to fly well, and maybe a trifle slow. Later in the war they put Bentley engines in the Camels which made them much better. The reason it was called a Camel was because of the humped cowling over the machine-guns, it reminded people of a Camels hump. Many famous pilots flew the Camel, McCudden ???????????????....... Bill Lambert of Canada, the famous Australian pilot Cobber Kain (or was that WW2) HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm useless on aces. Possibly the Camel pilot who became most famous was Roy Brown, he was a flight commander in the RFC, very experienced, and rather tired of the war, still doing the best he could. One day he was on patrol when his squadron got embroiled in a big dogfight with one of the crack german Jastas, he saw one of his youngsters called May, going down with a red Fokker triplane on its tail, and gave chase. This distracted the Fokker pilot enough to let May escape, then Roy Brown chased the Fokker right down to low level just above the trenches, finally he got in some good shots and the Fokker crashed. It turned out that the pilot of the red Fokker who was killed, was the red baron himself Manfred von Richthofen, the greatest ace of the first world war. This battle has been discussed ever since, many people say that he was shot down by australian soldiers in the trenches, but in any case it was Roy Brown who drove him down to that dangerous low level. I guess we will never know the truth. The Camel pilots concentrated on ground-attack towards the end of the war, this was the most dangerous flying of all. Most pilots weren't too scared of air combat, but when it came to flying at low-level where the could be shot down by rifle fire from the trenches, then they were really scared. Finally the Camel was replaced by a new plane called the Sopwith Snipe, the Sopwith company changed its name to Hawker and eventually built the Hawker Hurricane and the AV8B Harrier which is in service with the US marines today. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:49:18 -0400 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Giant Cookup Message-ID: >In a message dated 1/20/01 2:23:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, >lensmith@clara.net writes: > ><< > My knowledge of Germaniac Aircraft is minimal to non-existant, but I vaguely > recall an article in Windsock on a Linke-Hofmann R.II, a SINGLE engined > aircraft with a span of roughly 130ish feet. >> > > According to the Grosz/Haddow Giants book, it's probably the largest >single-propeller airplane ever built. Four Merc 260hps were couple to one >massive 23 foot diameter Garuda prop turning at about 545rpm. In 1/144 it >would look like a regular two-seater in 1/48. >Oh yeah- span- 138' 4" >RK And now the really dumb question. . .anyone ever kitted this baby?? Vac, injection, resin, carved from soap I don't care. . .goyta get one. MVJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:55:05 -0400 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: Re: Wood simulation Message-ID: Tom, I've never had a good result using Tamiya clear anything except totlyy immersing said part (like clear lenses etc). It don't brush well it don't airbrush too well neither. I've found all of their clears have a consistency unlike anything else in the Tamiya line (and I have most of them). The clears are like maple syrup. In other words it is an utter pain in the proverbials. . .tried a subsitute?? MVJ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:18:55 +0700 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu Subject: RE: Giant Cookup Message-ID: Never kitted in any scale. However, to take up Shanes sophisticated answer from the morning, there is Balsa and plasticard available. The LiHo R II is not that complicated. However, the investment in all those sheets of printed fabric decals you will need is substantial - better consider selling off your car. Volker -----Original Message----- From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of Mark Vaughan-Jackson Sent: 22 January 2001 21:13 To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: Giant Cookup >In a message dated 1/20/01 2:23:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, >lensmith@clara.net writes: > ><< > My knowledge of Germaniac Aircraft is minimal to non-existant, but I vaguely > recall an article in Windsock on a Linke-Hofmann R.II, a SINGLE engined > aircraft with a span of roughly 130ish feet. >> > > According to the Grosz/Haddow Giants book, it's probably the largest >single-propeller airplane ever built. Four Merc 260hps were couple to one >massive 23 foot diameter Garuda prop turning at about 545rpm. In 1/144 it >would look like a regular two-seater in 1/48. >Oh yeah- span- 138' 4" >RK And now the really dumb question. . .anyone ever kitted this baby?? Vac, injection, resin, carved from soap I don't care. . .goyta get one. MVJ ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 2998 **********************