WWI Digest 3068

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: 1:16 scale American observer
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
  2) RE: Dimes and 5c pieces [was RE: Saturdays]
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
  3) Re: filling in seams, etc.
	by CAUhlir@aol.com
  4) Re: CSM lozenge
	by "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
  5) GOTHA!
	by MAnde72343@aol.com
  6) Re: filling in seams, etc.
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
  7) Re: filling in seams, etc.
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
  8) RE: Flying qualities of the BM RAF SE-5a
	by Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
  9) RE: I Have Returned ...
	by Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
 10) Re: Gotha Drawings
	by "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
 11) Re: Model Expo 1/16 scale Nieuport 28
	by "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
 12) Re: filling in seams, etc.
	by Ernest Thomas <ethomas6@bellsouth.net>
 13) RE: Gaston's novel
	by "Nigel Rayner" <nigel@rosnar.demon.co.uk>
 14) Re: Walrus & D.Vlll
	by "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
 15) RE: Gaston's novel
	by "Michael Kendix" <mkendix@hotmail.com>
 16) Re: Model Expo 1/16 scale Nieuport 28
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
 17) Re: filling in seams, etc.
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
 18) RE: Gaston's novel
	by "Gaston Graf" <ggraf@vo.lu>
 19) query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
	by Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
 20) Re: Aircraft performance terms.
	by Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
 21) Re: RE: Guns
	by Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
 22) New Salmson photos
	by "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
 23) Re: Aircraft performance terms.
	by Ernest Thomas <ethomas6@bellsouth.net>
 24) RE: filling in seams, etc.
	by "Paul Schwartzkopf" <pschwartzkopf@neb.rr.com>
 25) Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
	by "Lee J. Mensinger" <lemen@x25.net>
 26) Re: GOTHA!
	by ERIC HIGHT <copperst@sd.amug.org>
 27) Re: RE: Guns
	by ERIC HIGHT <copperst@sd.amug.org>
 28) Re: 1:16 scale American observer
	by "David Calhoun" <dcalhoun01@snet.net>
 29) RE: Aircraft performance terms.
	by Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
 30) Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
	by "D Charles" <charls@bit.net.au>
 31) Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
	by Suvoroff@aol.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:28:29 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: 1:16 scale American observer
Message-ID: <F1240vJXpV8oYs8ldpy00004e77@hotmail.com>

Dave said: <<How about using the 120mm Model Cellar Rickenbacker figure & 
using the extra head from Richthofen figure with flying helmet & goggles?>>

Thanks Dave.  People have told me about the 120mm Model Cellar Rickenbacker 
before BUT NOBODY EVER SAID IT CAME WITH AN EXTRA HEAD WITH HELMET & 
GOGGLES!  I'd have to rework the uniform.

Thanks
Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 23:36:44 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: RE: Dimes and 5c pieces [was RE: Saturdays]
Message-ID: <F38Z2y2Fko8C7wyfwjH00006ec0@hotmail.com>

Shane said: <<Okay, but the point was that putting a coin in a photo is a 
usefull reference only for those resident in the country of origin of the 
coin - and using a "dime"...>>

I've started putting a 6 inch steel ruler in the scans, sometimes in 
addition to the dime, and stating whether the graduations are 32nds or 
64ths.  From there it's an easy conversion to mm.  IIRC there are 2.54 cm in 
an inch.  If I find a ruler that has mm on it I'll use it.

Jim
Trying to catch up with my email, as usual.  How do you guys ever get any 
modeling done?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:42:46 EST
From: CAUhlir@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <80.6b680ca.27b72bf6@aol.com>

I also use toothpicks, thin it a bit with acetone and "paint it on'. For 
seams and stuff like that I use masking tape to mask out the area for the 
putty, the apply.  After 5 minutes I pull off the tape and I have a thin, 
narrow line to sand.  

Candice

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:46:44 -0500
From: "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: CSM lozenge
Message-ID: <3A85D2E4.F558F642@bellatlantic.net>

Eric;

Put me on the list for a Gotha too.

Alvie

DAVID BURKE wrote:

> > dave dave dave,
> > now i am a swine???!!!  no gotha for my man!!!!  i assume you want to be
> > put on the list???  lmk!! and i luv you too!!
> > eric
>
> Luv you back, babe!  Yeah, you know that I wouldn't miss being one of the
> first batch of Gotha owners, especially after you tempted me with those
> masters!  You are hitting me right at the correct time me amigo, as I can
> build one of your fantastic kits and scratch the GVb!
>
>     As soon as my Visa mess is cleared up, you can bet the farm that I'll be
> ordering mine!  And some stuff for my new 1/28 SPADs!
>
>                                                                     Later
> Bud!
>
> DB
>
> P.S., you are not a swine, but it rhymed and I assumed that you had
> forgotten that I emphatically demanded to get one of the fresh Gothas.  My
> apologies - physical labor does weird things to my brain....


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:18:17 EST
From: MAnde72343@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: GOTHA!
Message-ID: <5b.11ba454e.27b73449@aol.com>


--part1_5b.11ba454e.27b73449_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, eat your heart out, Uggie, MY Gotha is in and on the workbench! And 
it's better than I had hoped.  Already had Toms brass and EnT Mercedes laid 
out for it, but the basic kit looks good, and I'm damn near giddy.  I also 
got my CS MOS AI, (better than ever, wow, I love you, Eric).
Merrill



--part1_5b.11ba454e.27b73449_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=2>Well, eat your heart out, Uggie, MY Gotha is in and on the workbench! And 
<BR>it's better than I had hoped. &nbsp;Already had Toms brass and EnT Mercedes laid 
<BR>out for it, but the basic kit looks good, and I'm damn near giddy. &nbsp;I also 
<BR>got my CS MOS AI, (better than ever, wow, I love you, Eric).
<BR>Merrill
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_5b.11ba454e.27b73449_boundary--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:26:42 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <F114Yxc9NUpuabjKoMF00004de2@hotmail.com>

Ern said: <<Yes. Mix some putty with liquid cement until it's the 
consistancy of goo.  Then apply with a toothpick, or some similar small 
stick like thingie.>>

Thanks Ern.  I had the same problem but never thought to ask.

Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:28:26 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <F250yjkZ1p5bkObx2oN00001055@hotmail.com>

Robert said: <<I use some red stuff I get at auto parts stores .... >>

Whoa!  Another tip I can try.  Thanks.

Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:30:11 +1000
From: Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: Flying qualities of the BM RAF SE-5a
Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748BF1@mimhexch1.mim.com.au>

SP....


> Bummer dude! Know the feeling. Before, you could have listed 
> all the model's
> imperfections, now all you can think about is the good parts. 
> Just think of
> it as another kit in the todo pile. A strangely engineered, 
> prepainted but
> buildable kit. Just try not to collect to many from the same 
> "manufacturer".

....has more experience at this than I personally would like.

Poor old SE-5a.  Looking again this morning I see that the one wheel which
came adrift has come off the axle, not broken it, and all of the interplane
struts have come out of their mounting holes rather than break. Lots of
details shaken loose, but only one cabane strut actually fractured. It's
probably pretty easy to resurrect, but I've never been much inclined to
spend time redoing old models when there were new ones to be built (probably
a consequence of years in the Army and broken models at every move)

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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 10:32:38 +1000
From: Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: I Have Returned ...
Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748BF2@mimhexch1.mim.com.au>

Dale says:

> (aka know how ya feel Steve ) 

> The kits I'm afraid were another casualty of war! And I had a 48 scale
> Roland DVI that was going to grab ya all on the go!

Uh-oh.  BvB has a wingman.

Look out for yourself old mate

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: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:25:24 -0500
From: "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Gotha Drawings
Message-ID: <3A85DBF4.BA6B2270@bellatlantic.net>

Withold;

I too would very much appreciate a copy.

Alvie

Jim Landon wrote:

> Witold said <<If anyobdy wants to get those drawings let me know (about
> 500KB both)>>
>
> I've always wanted to build a Gotha, so I'd sure like to see the drawings.
>
> Jim Landon
> Denver CO, USA
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:34:37 -0500
From: "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Model Expo 1/16 scale Nieuport 28
Message-ID: <3A85DE1D.B29EEBFE@bellatlantic.net>

No Jim, the wings have 0 degrees sweep back but the lower wing also has 0
degreees dihedral (perfectly flat) while the upper wing has about 21/2 degrees
of dihedral.  This creates the optical illusion of wing droop.  The kit looks
good to me.  The fuselage rames my be slightly overscale but so are those in the
Albatros kit.  Scale components would probably be too fragile for commercial
production.

Alvie

Jim Landon wrote:

> Lee said: <<I did see a picture of an assembled model and the photograph was
> not bad but the model had a severe wing droop on both sides.  I know you
> mentioned that a wide angle lens would do that
> but it would take a reqlly foolish , commercial photographer to use a wide
> angle lens on a photo of that sort.>>
>
> I just had a thought (second one this year!): does the Nie 28 have slightly
> swept-back wings?  (Showing my low IQ)  If it does, then that might create
> the optical illusion of the wings drooping.  Just a thought.
>
> Jim
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:54:35 -0600
From: Ernest Thomas <ethomas6@bellsouth.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <3A85E2CB.57BCFF6C@bellsouth.net>



CAUhlir@aol.com wrote:
> 
> For
> seams and stuff like that I use masking tape to mask out the area for the
> putty, the apply.  After 5 minutes I pull off the tape and I have a thin,
> narrow line to sand.

Whoa! Masking the filler. Yet another great idea from the list. Simple,
and so obvious it's no wonder I never thought of it before. 
E.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:03:44 -0000
From: "Nigel Rayner" <nigel@rosnar.demon.co.uk>
To: <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: Gaston's novel
Message-ID: <000001c093c6$7b807e00$983bedc1@w1o0t3>

> Thanks Nigel - but where the heck is Solzhenitsyn?

Just a bit to the left of Dostoevsky.....?

Cheers,

Nigel

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:58:36 -0500
From: "Michael S. Alvarado" <sm5192@bellatlantic.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Walrus & D.Vlll
Message-ID: <3A85E3BC.B7977C02@bellatlantic.net>

Lee,

Its interesting to see you mention Dibbles Arts and Hobbies in San Antonio, Tx.  I
worked summers there in my high school days back in the 60s when Ray and Shirley
Johnson owned the place.  When I was home visitng my mother last summer I stopped in
and was glad to see the place was still there pretty much unchanged except for new
owners.

Alvie

"Lee J. Mensinger" wrote:

> Since I have no idea where you are located it is more difficult to tell if you
> can get the Air Enthusiast at all.
> The subscription address is:
> Subscription Department Air Enthusiast
> Key Publishing Limited
> P.O.  Box 300
> Stamford, Lincs.  PE9 1NA  UK
>
> e-mailsubs@keymags.demon.co.uk
>
> I have purchased the magazine for more than 20 years from Hobby Shops, Book
> Stores and several off the wall places that sell used books.
>
> In San Antonio, TX it is sold in Barnes and Nobles, Borders and Book Stop stores,
> as well as several Hobby Shops, like Dibbles which I visit about twice a month.
>
>  I can't say exactly how much it costs as I have not paid attention to that,
> since I stopped getting it last year, and it may be more costly.
>
> Lee M.
> New Braunfels, TX
>
> VMA324Vagabonds@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Bob Horton, many thanks for the copies of the articles from Air Enthusiast on
> > the Walrus and the Fokker D.Vlll. These are very nice and look to be a most
> > enjoyable read. Just where is this Magazine obtained, I have not run across
> > this one before? Thanks again.
> >
> >                         Best Regards,
> >                             Jon


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:20:22 
From: "Michael Kendix" <mkendix@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: RE: Gaston's novel
Message-ID: <F44L1uGqVsc4o61PnBT00011ad9@hotmail.com>

>From: "Nigel Rayner" <nigel@rosnar.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
>To: Multiple recipients of list <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
>Subject: RE: Gaston's novel
>Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:05:24 -0500 (EST)
>
> > Thanks Nigel - but where the heck is Solzhenitsyn?
>
>Just a bit to the left of Dostoevsky.....?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Nigel

Actually, he's fairly far to the right; Solzhenitsyn I mean.  Dostoevski was 
a total idiot.

BTW, I agree about August 1914 - a fantastic piece of work.

Michael


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:25:36 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Model Expo 1/16 scale Nieuport 28
Message-ID: <F3135chn3g2CNqNQqte00008885@hotmail.com>

Alvie said: <<No Jim, the wings have 0 degrees sweep back but the lower wing 
also has 0 degreees dihedral (perfectly flat) while the upper wing has about 
21/2 degrees of dihedral.  This creates the optical illusion of wing droop.  
The kit looks good to me.  The fuselage rames my be slightly overscale but 
so are those in the Albatros kit.  Scale components would probably be too 
fragile for commercial production.>>

Hi Alvie, haven't talked to you in an eternity.  Thanks for the response.  
Where did you see this kit?  Do you think it's worth the price?

Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 01:29:59 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <F1237pmMwY15pqw13ib00007d2d@hotmail.com>

Ern said: <<Whoa! Masking the filler. Yet another great idea from the list. 
Simple, and so obvious it's no wonder I never thought of it before.>>

It's covered in a book I have with a title like "Detailing Scale Models" or 
something like that (where the h___ did I put that book?).

Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:34:33 +0100
From: "Gaston Graf" <ggraf@vo.lu>
To: <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: Gaston's novel
Message-ID: <NEEILCFEPCBGPDBHJFKHEEIJCGAA.ggraf@vo.lu>

Oh well - that doesn't sound much Belgian so I won't find it in the woods
between Arlon and Virton anyway...

Gaston ;oP

>
> > Thanks Nigel - but where the heck is Solzhenitsyn?
>
> Just a bit to the left of Dostoevsky.....?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nigel


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:39:07 EST
From: Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
Message-ID: <6b.fb69680.27b7473b@aol.com>

Are scales all SAE?
What was the idea behind choosing any given scale?  If a mould maker and 
other manufactory types wanted to get together and produce models in certain 
scales then why do something in say, 1/72?  Why not 1/70?  For that matter, 
since HO scale is already 1/87, why not 1/87 as a standard scale for small 
models instead of 1/72?
    Why did Tamiya - sorry - clearly ot - develop a 1/35 scale rather than 
the already common 1/32 scale?  Why a 1/32 scale?  Why not a 1/30?
    And ships are the absolute worst: 1/232 (U.S.S. Olympia); 1/326 
(Arizona); The Japanese production of 1/700 is as sensible as any but then 
these other concerns put out stuff in 1/720, 1/750!  HelloooOOoo.  
    At present my primary hypothesis is that all the existing scales form a 
sum universal average which correlates to the Numerological analysis of all 
of the world's religious texts and are determined by the Minister of Voodoo 
in the Illuminati and this is how they control world economy and governments.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:49:32 EST
From: Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Aircraft performance terms.
Message-ID: <bc.1030c5c1.27b749ac@aol.com>

Hi Tom.  Yes, that's probably what I would have asked if I had known how to 
ask it.
Cheers,
~Steve

In a message dated 2/10/1 6:14:43 PM, APPMAN@worldnet.att.net writes:

<< Hi Steve-
Some of the items that you have refered to are of a nature that they must be
calculated for each aircraft.  In general, again, power or thrust overcomes
drag, lift overcomes weight, the other items, roc, speed, etc. are those
items needed to be calculated.
Highly maneuverable would be related to, for ex: a roll rate of 270 - 360
degrees per minute, etc.
There has been considerable graphing done on the WWII aircraft, such as a
table comparing an Me 109 to a Spitfire to a P-51 to  P38, etc. in
maneuvers, speeds, weights, altitudes, etc.
I will look into my references and see what publications and books might
have the data you are seeking.
Hope this helps
TP >>


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:00:30 EST
From: Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Guns
Message-ID: <a1.11030ccc.27b74c3e@aol.com>

You're from S. Windsor?  Ha!  Where do you abide nowadays?
I guess you know that I'm in Windsor Locks - until May 18th or so.
Cheers,
~Steve

In a message dated 2/9/1 5:53:26 PM, copperst@sd.amug.org writes:

<< ah nobody likes a smart ass!!  and what do you expect from a south windsor
high grad!!!
eric




At 01:06 PM 2/9/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hey ya bub, << accrutaments >> You mean accouterments, right? >>


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:06:47 
From: "Jim Landon" <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: New Salmson photos
Message-ID: <F117bXCH5n00zepDI8N000074d5@hotmail.com>

I just posted some new photos on my Salmson web site.  They start at:

http://content.communities.msn.com/isapi/fetch.dll?action=show_photo_index&ID_Community=Salmson2A2&ID_Topic=3&ID_Message=31

and then click on next page, next page, next page, etc.

If the link above doesn't work for you, go to:

http://communities.msn.com/Salmson2A2

Then select "My Model, Part 1, Fuselage" and scroll clear to the bottom of 
the page.

Of course I love it when people say my work is wonderful, but what I really 
need is tips and advice and constructive criticism.

Jim


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:16:11 -0600
From: Ernest Thomas <ethomas6@bellsouth.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: Aircraft performance terms.
Message-ID: <3A85F5EA.7AA2589B@bellsouth.net>



Stephendigiacomo@aol.com wrote:
> 
> *gulp*  Thanks, E.  Do these terms date back to WWI?  Not important, just
> curious.

While the terms themselves may not date back to WWI, they do represent 
factors that determine whether or not an airplane would be a good
fighter plane. Just as the modern V/G diagram, which essentially
represents an aircraft's performance envelope, was probably not yet
developed in WWI, one could make V/G diagrams of all the different WWI
aircraft and through comparison tell at a glance which models would be
better performers in combat. 
> 
> I never imagined that landing gear or flaps could not be extended at or above
> a certain speed.

Now you know. 

> 
> Now, I can see the relevance of these terms for not crashing a plane.  But I
> was thinking of terms which assess aircraft performance for combat. 

All of those terms would come into play when determining the performance
of a fighter plane. Some more than others. I think the most important
factors would be ceiling, rate of climb, load factor, roll rate, and
speed. And of these, rate of climb, speed, and manueverability, all
decrease with altitude. So the aircraft that has the the best
performance, at the highest altitude, is the better combat aircraft. BUt
speed is a funny thing, the slower an airplane is, the tighter it can
turn. A P-51 could NEVER out turn a Camel, regardless of roll rate.  

Of course, all of this doesn't take into account several other factors
which would determine whether or not an aircraft is suitable for combat. 
Things like useful load(which covers fuel capacity, armament, additional
crew members, equipment carried, etc) and serviceability, and
availability can have as much to do with it as flight characteristics. 

If you're interested in what may have been the best fighter plane in
WWI, the spring '99 issue of OTF has an article on that very subject.
The authors findings? The SSW D-IIIa was the best WWI fighter. 
E.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:32:56 -0600
From: "Paul Schwartzkopf" <pschwartzkopf@neb.rr.com>
To: <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: filling in seams, etc.
Message-ID: <NEBBIHDFALJDEFLGEGAKKELFCCAA.pschwartzkopf@neb.rr.com>

If the seam is in a location where filing/sanding won't destroy too much
detail, I use a gap filling super glue.  After applying, I can usually start
filing and sanding within an hour.  Seams (sorry about that one) to work
fairly good, and doesn't shrink.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu [mailto:wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu]On Behalf Of
Stephendigiacomo@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 3:40 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: filling in seams, etc.


I'm using Squadron's Fast Drying White Putty.  I wish I knew of a way to
apply it with at least some measure of precision.  Are there any techniques
for this?  Are there better products or solutions than this putty?
~Steve



------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:01:43 -0600
From: "Lee J. Mensinger" <lemen@x25.net>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
Message-ID: <3A860097.7B5AD28D@x25.net>

They shot all over the area a number of years ago but the modelers continued to
request a standardizatrion and the scales we have now are what was chosen ove a
perios of about 20 years.  Why?  Because that is what sold.  It is easy to
calculate except 1/32nd, but, rulers are base lined with that dimension, and it
is readily available.  Other than that no good reason for it.

Lee M.

Stephendigiacomo@aol.com wrote:

> Are scales all SAE?
> What was the idea behind choosing any given scale?  If a mould maker and
> other manufactory types wanted to get together and produce models in certain
> scales then why do something in say, 1/72?  Why not 1/70?  For that matter,
> since HO scale is already 1/87, why not 1/87 as a standard scale for small
> models instead of 1/72?
>     Why did Tamiya - sorry - clearly ot - develop a 1/35 scale rather than
> the already common 1/32 scale?  Why a 1/32 scale?  Why not a 1/30?
>     And ships are the absolute worst: 1/232 (U.S.S. Olympia); 1/326
> (Arizona); The Japanese production of 1/700 is as sensible as any but then
> these other concerns put out stuff in 1/720, 1/750!  HelloooOOoo.
>     At present my primary hypothesis is that all the existing scales form a
> sum universal average which correlates to the Numerological analysis of all
> of the world's religious texts and are determined by the Minister of Voodoo
> in the Illuminati and this is how they control world economy and governments.


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:31:51 -0700
From: ERIC HIGHT <copperst@sd.amug.org>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: GOTHA!
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010210203151.009533c8@pop.amug.org>

merrill,
glad you're happy!
eric


At 07:22 PM 2/10/01 -0500, you wrote:

  I also 
>got my CS MOS AI, (better than ever, wow, I love you, Eric).
>Merrill






------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:33:01 -0700
From: ERIC HIGHT <copperst@sd.amug.org>
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: RE: Guns
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010210203301.00952f9c@pop.amug.org>

steve,
yes our mortal enemy when i was in high school.  i have been in phx. the
last 20 years.
eric


At 09:04 PM 2/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>You're from S. Windsor?  Ha!  Where do you abide nowadays?
>I guess you know that I'm in Windsor Locks - until May 18th or so.
>Cheers,
>~Steve
>
>In a message dated 2/9/1 5:53:26 PM, copperst@sd.amug.org writes:
>
><< ah nobody likes a smart ass!!  and what do you expect from a south windsor
>high grad!!!
>eric
>
>
>
>
>At 01:06 PM 2/9/01 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hey ya bub, << accrutaments >> You mean accouterments, right? >>
>
>


------------------------------

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 22:42:45 -0800
From: "David Calhoun" <dcalhoun01@snet.net>
To: <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: 1:16 scale American observer
Message-ID: <011601c093f5$d8e17a20$bc0b3ccc@oemcomputer>

Hi Jim,
The Richthofen (red Baron) figure has the 2 heads, I think the Rickenbacker
just has his cap.  So you would have to buy 2 figures, or find someone who
used the Richthofen head with officers cap & has the extra head with goggles
& helmet.  Or maybe someone can make a resin copy for you.
Dave C
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Landon <thegreatlandoni@hotmail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2001 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: 1:16 scale American observer


>Dave said: <<How about using the 120mm Model Cellar Rickenbacker figure &
>using the extra head from Richthofen figure with flying helmet & goggles?>>
>
>Thanks Dave.  People have told me about the 120mm Model Cellar Rickenbacker
>before BUT NOBODY EVER SAID IT CAME WITH AN EXTRA HEAD WITH HELMET &
>GOGGLES!  I'd have to rework the uniform.
>
>Thanks
>Jim
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>



------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:45:12 +1000
From: Shane Weier <sdw@qld.mim.com.au>
To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: RE: Aircraft performance terms.
Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7101748BF4@mimhexch1.mim.com.au>

EtH tells us:

> If you're interested in what may have been the best fighter plane in
> WWI, the spring '99 issue of OTF has an article on that very subject.
> The authors findings? The SSW D-IIIa was the best WWI fighter. 

Excuse my cynicism,, but this is one of a class of articles which usually
start with the authors bias towards a certain result and ends with the
"correct" result through the creative selection of assesment criteria and
criteria weighting.

IIRC I have (in the last, maybe, five years) seen at least three similar
articles announcing variously that the D.VIII, D.VII and (errrr I think it
was French) were the ultimate WW1 fighter. Further to that, I can remember
at least two articles from equally qualified observers (ie, someone else
with a personal bias) debunking the above choices on the basis of their own
choice of criteria, or of criteria not previously considered by either
party.

Read the articles and enjoy them the way you would a film review - in the
sure and certain knowledge that you'll find as many contrary opinions as
supportive ones.

...But don't ask me which one was best. I don't have an opinion ;-)

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: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:33:35 +1000
From: "D Charles" <charls@bit.net.au>
To: <wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
Message-ID: <02fa01c09405$6f094640$212ad7d2@charls>

>What was the idea behind choosing any given scale?

1/72 seems to be a logical choice for a scale, being one inch represents 6
feet.
I always figured it was easy to look at a model in that scale and have one
inch represent (a bit less than) the height of the average Australian. So,
you could easily imagine the size of the real thing.
Some of the other scales are a bit of a mystery.
Check the archives.
David


------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 03:56:09 EST
From: Suvoroff@aol.com
To: wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu
Subject: Re: query/mystery  model scale rationale (i.e., 1/144, 1/72. 1/32, etc.)
Message-ID: <f2.762c5cb.27b7ada9@aol.com>

"Are scales all SAE?"
     Scales are all independant of what system of measurement you use.  
1/72nd is the same for feet or meters or cubits or versts.  

"What was the idea behind choosing any given scale?  If a mould maker and 
other manufactory types wanted to get together and produce models in certain 
scales then why do something in say, 1/72?  Why not 1/70?"
     You have to go back to our modelling ancestors.  They usually did not 
express scales as fractions like we do, but rather as ratios.  1/72nd scale 
is 6 feet = 1 inch.  Likewise, 1/48th scale was originally 1 foot = 1/4 inch. 
   They picked this up in turn from draughtsmen, who always expressed the 
scale of their drawings in this manner, and tended to work in standard 
ratios; 1/48th was one.  

"For that matter, since HO scale is already 1/87, why not 1/87 as a standard 
scale for small models instead of 1/72?"
     That might have been a good idea, but when 1/72nd started, compatability 
with HO scale was not in their heads.  (I think 1/72nd scale started out 
being used for recognition models in WWII, didn't it?)  It would be nice, but 
its too late now.  Maybe all those model railroaders can convert to our 
scale...

"Why did Tamiya - sorry - clearly ot - develop a 1/35 scale rather than the 
already common 1/32 scale?"
     Hellifiknow.  Ask somebody who speaks metric.  Maybe to drive the early 
1/32nd manufacturers out of business by making sure that their products would 
be incompatable.  The Japanese likewise tried to push 1/100th scale aircraft 
for a while but 1/72nd was too entrenched already and the Japanese eventually 
gave up and changed over.   

"Why a 1/32 scale?  Why not a 1/30?"
     It comes from the system used for measuring lead toy solders; height 
from foot to eyelevel, expressed in milimeters.  Miniatures standardized at 
54mm, which works out as 1/32nd scale.  Airfix and Monogram picked up this 
scale but were eventually driven out of the business of figures by the flood 
of 1/35th stuff from Japan.  
 
"And ships are the absolute worst: 1/232 (U.S.S. Olympia); 1/326 (Arizona)"
     These go back to the days when kit manufacturers had not caught on to 
the attractiveness of models produced in a standard size.  Kits were instead 
produced in whatever scale would best fit the standard company box.  This is 
known as "Box Scale" and some early airplane kits are the same way.

"The Japanese production of 1/700 is as sensible as any but then these other 
concerns put out stuff in 1/720, 1/750!  HelloooOOoo."
     Recognizing that airplanes sold better in standard scales, ship model 
manufacturers attempted to standardize their scales likewise.  Unfortunately, 
the Japanese chose a different standard (1/700th) than the West (1/720th).  
Note that in the form of a ratio, 1/720th is after all a round number; 1 inch 
= 60 feet.

"At present my primary hypothesis is that all the existing scales form a sum 
universal average which correlates to the Numerological analysis of all of 
the world's religious texts and are determined by the Minister of Voodoo in 
the Illuminati and this is how they control world economy and governments."
     An interesting theory, but in fact the different scales in use all have 
discernable, rational origins, but the origins are diverse and so the scales 
don't match up.  The expense of making steel molds for injection-molding 
ensures that old molds are not replaced merely for the sake of conformity.  
     1/144th scale is simply half the size of 1/72nd scale.  
     I don't know where 1/76th scale comes from; it is very irritating that 
there are two armor scales so close together, yet incompatable. 

Yours,
James D. Gray 

------------------------------

End of WWI Digest 3068
**********************