WWI Digest 3250 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Amish Computer Virus by Al Superczynski 2) Lozenge question by Steve Whyte 3) To Tom S re: AMS by Andreikor@aol.com 4) Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accu... by LEONARDPeterL@aol.com 5) Re: Amish Computer Virus by David Fleming 6) Re: Blow By Models? by David Fleming 7) Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings by David Fleming 8) Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by David Fleming 9) Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by "Tomasz Gronczewski" 10) Re: Your own modeling style by "Matt Bittner" 11) FMP Salmson book by "Matt Bittner" 12) Tom's waves WAS: You guyes are beginning to really scare me by "dfernet0" 13) RE: Nieuport IV by "dfernet0" 14) RE: Nieuport IV by "dfernet0" 15) RE: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by Crawford Neil 16) An fake pilot Answer WAS: a Q to the real pilots by "dfernet0" 17) RE: A bit of help on the Hi Tech Roland DII?? by "dfernet0" 18) Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by Shon Howell 19) RE: Your own modeling style by Crawford Neil 20) RE: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by Crawford Neil 21) Free Loot! by Brent Theobald 22) Witold's Gotha P/E Link by Brent Theobald 23) Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by Shon Howell 24) Re: book comments by "Hans Trauner" 25) RE: An fake pilot Answer WAS: a Q to the real pilots by Crawford Neil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 01:50:59 -0500 From: Al Superczynski To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Amish Computer Virus Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:43:18 -0400 (EDT), Brent wrote: >Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to >everyone on your mailing list. I'll say they don't understand technology! One would have to do the above in the reverse order......... ;-p Al ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:42:36 -0700 From: Steve Whyte To: "'wwi@pease1.sr.unh.edu'" Subject: Lozenge question Message-ID: <01C0BDB4.BFEE43C0@steve-white> Hi WWI list, I am not a member but would like to ask a few questions on lozenge decals. Please bare with me as I am new to aircraft modelling and WWI (A figure and armour modeller diversifying into the amazing world of WWI aircraft - 1/48 scale) I know Copper State Models and Americal/Gryphon produce good lozenge in 48 scale, but I would like to know if anyone has used lozenge decals from EAGLE STRIKE, PEGASUS or TECHMOD. And how do these compare in quality, thickness, colour and ease of use with wetting solutions. If someone has time to answer, please reply to my e-mail address swhyte@heritage.co.za Thanks in advance Steven Whyte Sunny South Africa ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:45:48 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: To Tom S re: AMS Message-ID: Hi Tom, Interesting that you say "If you aren't making waves, you aren't making headway!". Questioning things like long-relied on references IS making waves. I really don't think anybody here is ready to have a breakdown, but some of us do get a great deal of pleasure out of "getting it right". Sure, we suffer from AMS, but so what? That's our version of hell, and I don't think anybody is implying you should subscribe to it... so why are you so upset? Everybody needs to fulfill their own prerequisites for what makes a successful model; if we're going to start cutting corners on things like accuracy, we may may as well take the notion to the 'nth' degree and say "why build it at all?" Enjoy your modelling in your own way and don't worry about the rest of us... we'll live! :) Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:07:22 EDT From: LEONARDPeterL@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accu... Message-ID: <7b.12a1e603.27fd81ba@aol.com> In a message dated 05/04/01 06:15:39 GMT Daylight Time, tskio4@home.com writes: << Is there anyone else on this list that is an SOB Slammer like me? >> Not quite but very nearly. I can never quite bring myself to do anything 100% OOB. But what do you do when, as with my own recent fight to the death with a Merlin Nie 10, a kit is so bad something clearly must be done? And what about scratch building? Or worse, master modelling a kit? In these circumstances we owe it to ourselves, and in the case of master modelling everybody else, to check all available references. An Eduard Nieuport or Albatros built OOB by a skilled modeler is a joy to behold. But at times it is necessary to be a little more anal I'm afraid. cheers Peter L ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:25:54 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Amish Computer Virus Message-ID: <3ACC1E02.A7ABBF80@dial.pipex.com> Brent Theobald wrote: > > You have just received the Amish virus. As we don't have any technology or > programming experience, this virus works on the honor system. Please delete > all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to > everyone on your mailing list. Thank you for your cooperation. > Amish Computer Engineering Dept. > > ============================================================================ > = > > PS: This is a joke. For all of you who don't live in North America the Amish > are a religious group here who shun all technology after about 1850. > LOL ! Yeah, but they sure can build a barn !! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:29:10 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Blow By Models? Message-ID: <3ACC1EC5.CD68E113@dial.pipex.com> Brent Theobald wrote: > I don't know about ya'll but I as accumulating a number of "blow by" models. > These are models that are started, usually with the fusealage assembled and > wings on, that never get worked on again. > > Why is that? > > My number one reason (okay... excuse) is that the model has been neglected > for so long that my modeling skills have really improved. I have no interest > in completing a model that was started in such a shabby way. Perhaps there > is a flaw I am waiting for the skills to correct. > > What about ya'll? > I suffer from a similar modeller's block - in my case at two stages in the build: 1) Rubbing down filler - jsut because I hate that, I really have to psych myself up to do it 2) Painting - not because I don't like it, this time a lack of confidence in my painting abilities ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:37:18 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Message-ID: <3ACC20AE.DD33820B@dial.pipex.com> Tom Solinski wrote: > Ya' know I stopped going to IPMS meetings because of the same track you > folks are on. The seeds of AMS. Mistress Lorna's editorial on being buried > in data, now in light of this thread is all questionable. Is there anyone > else on this list that is an SOB Slammer like me? Almost, but not quite !! I'll build OOB most of the time, but if the cockpitis empty I'll add a few bits,n, pieces, but nothing you'd call super detailling. I admire those who do, but brutally I just don't have the skill or dexterity to emulate Shane, Matt or Alberto (And anyone else I've missed). I do like to get my overall shapes right, so drawings that are out of scale or wrong concern me - but not enough to stop building if I think it looks right !(Roden's Fokker EV is a case - the fuselage is a litttle out compared with the DF, but I'm building it OOB any way) Bottom line, sit back, admire the detail fanatics, but build it your way and be happy ! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 08:42:11 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: <3ACC21D3.4F0F9C01@dial.pipex.com> Shon Howell wrote: > A few years back, WW1 AERO had an article on this topic. They took a side on > photo of an Albatros D.III & overlaid it with about a dozen outlines based > on various wellknown scale drawings. ALL failed to sync up exactly... ^_^ Parallax error on the photo ...... :-) Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:11:10 +0200 From: "Tomasz Gronczewski" To: Subject: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: An immortal conflict between OOB and AMS styles turned into very interesting direction. After Tom's e-mail Shane, Jay and Peter showed their own attitude toward modeling subjects. It would be nice to make a small poll, what do you ladies and gentelmen focus on during modeling an airplane 1. quantity or quality I must confess that although I try to balance the ratio, I always tend to trade quality for quantity. I prefer to make ten acceptable models in a year instead of superdetailing one. 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject I approach every model from the "software" side. I prefer to make partly conjectural markings of the well known ace instead of well researched but anonymous aircraft. 3. detailing or painting Someone of the listees stated once (I can't recall who) that he was better builder than painter. I occupy an opposite corner of the modeling playmate. Definitely I focus on painting and finishing. If I had certain timeframe to finish the kit I would prefer to focus on the playing with paints, airbrush, decals, wash, future instead of scratching "throttle quadrant". 4. shape or dimensions. I always prefer Nieuport looking like Nieuport, but never bother with underscaling or too big span. Also I wouldn't sand all Eindecker ribs in order to reduce or increase their number if it deteriorated overal quality of the surface. On the other hand I would sand an edge of a cowling if it looked too sharp. 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" Some time ago I tried to keep the same level of the detail during each construction. Now I dropped the idea. I prefer to make two OOB kits after I have been exhausted by superdetailing previous. And of course any combination can provide much fun or much frustration. It depend on us only. Dicta Ira! Tomasz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:14:17 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: Your own modeling style Message-ID: <200104051011.DAA21231@gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:14:25 -0400 (EDT), Tomasz Gronczewski wrote: > 1. quantity or quality I'm definitely on the quality end. I'm not a fast builder, so tend to make the most of it. > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject Definitely researched, although I messed up on the HD.3. ;-) > 3. detailing or painting Both. Well detailed and well painted. Gotta love that French five-color... :-) > 4. shape or dimensions. As we all know, definitely dimensions. How many others on the list are concerned with a millimeter off on a Nieuport wing? > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" When I get too bogged down in the mire of AAMS IRT WW1 modeling, I always pick up a 1/72nd ground vehicle model and build that. For some silly reason when it comes to armor modeling I'm not concerned *at all* about dimensional accuracy and instead build it as it comes in the box. Yes, I do at times detail the heck out of a piece of armor, but even so it's more relaxing to me than the level I adhere to in my WW1 building. Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:16:32 -0500 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: FMP Salmson book Message-ID: <200104051014.DAA10721@avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net> My FMP Salmson book finally showed up yesterday. Excellent! Although expensive, to me it's worth it. Tons of great photos, although - and personally unfortunate - most are USAS instead of French. Some very interesting schemes, including *all aluminum doped* 2A.2s!! Now if we could get someone to come out with the SM.1... And I can't wait until MPM/Azur releases their 2A.2... :-) Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:23:54 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: Tom's waves WAS: You guyes are beginning to really scare me Message-ID: <00b401c0bdba$84397a60$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Hey, what's happening with the Toms on this list that always shook us from our cozy chairs in this virtual barber shop? :-) > Ya' know I stopped going to IPMS meetings because of the same track you > folks are on. I'd deplore to loose you just for that! I must confess: I like superdetailing. I like superdetailing cockpits and engines and fuselages and those small access panels all over the aircraft (that's why I build so slow) and on second instance is the scale accuracy of the overall model. I tolerate some small discrepancies with the WS plans or the Wylam plans if the model ends looking with the same "attitude" than the real thing. However, some drawings are misleading for some other reasons, for instance discrepancies amongst different views of the same subjects or odd shapes (remember the Nieuport 11 cowl face? the Datafile and Toko renderings were both wrong when compared with pictures of the real thing) There's many good information sources today, and it's hard to choose the point where you can say "enough!" and stop collecting and start building. I always try to rremember an advice given by St. Harry himself in his book on "Aircraft Modelling with Plastic Card" on the subject: we must no forget that we are bulding a model -not the real thing- and being modelers we must use our common sense and keep modelling even if we don't really know what colour the compass needle was. > Throw the references away for once, I like to have as much as I can... I'll keep them and if you like I can send you copies ;-) > build the kit (not critisize) and HAVE > FUN!!! I completely, absolutely, 100%ty, ninewholeyardely agree! D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:32:39 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: RE: Nieuport IV Message-ID: <00f401c0bdbb$bda030e0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Len wrote: > It should look different, the Nieuport in Paris is a Type IIN, not a IV, > built in 1919 by the Nieuport factory for the Museum. Mordious! Yes, I noticed that is a different type, butI was referring to the colour of the aircraft. And it should have a finish more accurate -at least in terms of time period- than the modern reproductions or re-covered aircraft. I also looked to the spads on the same museum (wasn't Guynemer's plane covered with original restored fabric?) The yellow finish is different as well. I'm sorry to have opened this can of worms.... D. PS: Does anyone know the colour of Voss cowl....? naaah.... never mind! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:35:12 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: RE: Nieuport IV Message-ID: <012a01c0bdbc$1add83c0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Certainly not as a "piece of cake" after all the differences we noticed! ;-) D. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Fleming To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:32 PM Subject: Re: Nieuport IV > Weren't early French CDLs described as 'biscuit' due to rubberised fabric ? > > David > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:46:11 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: I have a couple of comments here, I have occasionally checked the accuracy of our copiers here at work, and never found anything wrong. We have OCE and Canon mostly. The other thing was, Shane wrote: > simply by starting with known dimensions like wing span (from > manufacturer and military specs), Which gets me back on my pet bandwagon, manufacturers specs. Imagine Sopwith, Hawker and Sigrist lofting up an a/c, presumably someone might write up the length, (without prop or maybe even without cowling ) . Then during design somenone else gets told to do a G/A, he asks the length, adds on length of the originally designed short cowling, and a generic prop. Then they change the cowling, the tail was too small so gets redesigned, nobody remembers to change the dimensions on the G/A. Eventually when the machine is in production, one of the bosses gets the bright idea of measuring the a/c, so sends off the office boy with a measuring tape. He does a shabby job, measures from the lower tip of the prop to the rudder (which wasn't straight), so now we have two versions of the length, an artist during the thirties takes an average of the two lengths, and so on in absurdum. In other words I agree completely with Shane, but I wouldn't trust manufacturer or military specs either. /Neil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:36:01 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: An fake pilot Answer WAS: a Q to the real pilots Message-ID: <01c201c0bdc4$974512e0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Gaston! I can't consider a real pilot... most of the time I was tossed in the air, powerless and I glided down in various degrees speed and skill. I also did some powered flight but much fewer. Dave Fletcher mentioned the "time compression" factor wich was a curious phenomenon. On my first flights, the landing pattern was fast, things happened quickly and I barely managed to control all the parameters of flight and at the same time get the glider inside the runway. Later, as I familiarised with the procedures, the landing pattern was a reassuring part of the flight and a good chance to practice accurate turns and speeds. My instructor told me (and showed me) that most aircraft can be flown using small force. He told me to hold the controls as I would caress a young girl's breast... The advice worked, all flights were soft and pleasant. 75 min. of flight is quite an amount of time for a new pilot! You endured well. Drink your beer with clean conscience, you earned it! Regards D. Glider pilots do it quietly! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 08:56:01 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: RE: A bit of help on the Hi Tech Roland DII?? Message-ID: <01f201c0bdc7$62ecc6c0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Alvie! > My question as whether the > floor was solid or like the Fokker Dr.I or a Sopwith with a floor board on > either side of the aileron rocker shaft that the control column attaches to. Pardon? The Fokker Dr.1 (as the Fok DVII and E.V) IIRC has a rectangular wooden floor with two curved sheet aluminium heel reinforcements to avoid wearing the plywood with the boots (good pictures of this are on the WW1 modeling site, those of the repro Fokker D.VIII taken by Lee Mensinger). Sopwiths had two planks or "heel boards" as you described and this design survived until WW2 in the Hurricane! (after all, another Sopwith fighter of a later generation) > I will be posting photos as I go along. The first one are in my camera and when I > finish the roll of film and get it developed I'll scan them and send them to > Allan. I'll be looking forward to see them! They'll be very useful for my own -semi abandoned- project. Best regards D. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:00:23 -0700 From: Shon Howell To: Subject: Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: on 4/5/01 1:52 AM, David Fleming at dave.fleming@dial.pipex.com wrote: > Shon Howell wrote: > >> A few years back, WW1 AERO had an article on this topic. They took a side on >> photo of an Albatros D.III & overlaid it with about a dozen outlines based >> on various wellknown scale drawings. ALL failed to sync up exactly... ^_^ > > Parallax error on the photo ...... > :-) > > Dave BUT... all the drawings failed to synch indevidually up in different directions. ^_^ Tying this in with the "ARE YOU GUYS NUTS..." thread, I search out the best references I can, but try not to let it hobble me in actually building anything. Por ejemplo, SIERRE SCALE's UFAG C.I doesn't match up with the drawings in the massive AH Army Aircraft book. I considered rebuilding the entire upper decking, but finally decided against it. Why? As I couldn't find ANY good cockpit ref (and beleive me, in 1/48 scale, this thing shows off A LOT of it's innerds...), i couldn't built a REALLY accurate replica, so instead opted for a show stopping finish (hmmm... overal k.u.k. hex or AH "Air Superiority" greys?). There are some kits that I'll kick out the jams researching & detailing (SIERRE SCALE's ROLAND C.II), but others that I'll settle for a good looking finished model. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:00:56 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Your own modeling style Message-ID: Tomasz Gronczewski wrote: > > > 1. quantity or quality > Definitely quality, although I admire people who build en-masse. > > > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject > I try to combine both, If I can't get enough research material I won't build it, however much I want to. > > > 3. detailing or painting > Detailing, I hate painting, I only do it because I must. > > > 4. shape or dimensions. > Shape, I can live with a wing that's too short, but I hate uncharacteristic surface detail, or a model that has the wrong sit. > > 5. Fixed modeling standard or(?) an "anarchy" I have two modelling standards, one high, and one medium, I can't build really badly, poor modelling irritates me, especially if it's mine. I do scratchbuilds and what I call "state of the art" models to the high standard, usually about one every year or two. I also do "quickies", so as to keep my painting skills up , and for fun, often the quickies degenerate into full-blown extended-ams models, but I do try and keep them simpler. I usually manage one or two quickies a year. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:05:38 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: Makes sense I do the same, I usually check carefully if I'm scratchbuilding otherwise Dicta-Ira within reason. /Neil > > Shon Howell wrote: > > BUT... all the drawings failed to synch indevidually up in different > directions. ^_^ > Tying this in with the "ARE YOU GUYS NUTS..." thread, I > search out the best > references I can, but try not to let it hobble me in actually building > anything. Por ejemplo, SIERRE SCALE's UFAG C.I doesn't match > up with the > drawings in the massive AH Army Aircraft book. I considered > rebuilding the > entire upper decking, but finally decided against it. Why? As > I couldn't > find ANY good cockpit ref (and beleive me, in 1/48 scale, > this thing shows > off A LOT of it's innerds...), i couldn't built a REALLY > accurate replica, > so instead opted for a show stopping finish (hmmm... overal > k.u.k. hex or AH > "Air Superiority" greys?). There are some kits that I'll kick > out the jams > researching & detailing (SIERRE SCALE's ROLAND C.II), but > others that I'll > settle for a good looking finished model. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:12:16 -0500 From: Brent Theobald To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Free Loot! Message-ID: <4B9386E83999D411997100508BAF206A01608EC9@stamail.telecom.sna.samsung.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDC9.A79CEF50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Okay, nothing is really free. But I can offer model sponsorship. I know a bunch of you guys out there are building models, I'm seeing images posted all the time and I'm reading what you all write every day. So I know you have what it takes to write reviews. Here's the deal: Build a model, take pictures, write a short article about the experience and send it to me. IF everything is good you will receive a credit at Roll Models equal to or greater than the value of the kit you reviewed. Example: you build, photograph and write an article on the Eduard Roland C.II Profipak (hint-hint). I think the article is great and the photos are wonderful. I post it on the Roll Models web site You get $23.00 worth of credit at Roll Models (I *think* we are going to cover shipping too). That's good for anything in the catalog. You also get fame and acclaim of the masses. I don't care what you build. OT, ot, oT or Ot. Something from the Roll Models catalog or not. Cars, tanks, figures, you name it. The only rule (basically for figures) is nothing will be considered if I can't show it to my wife and children. The author keeps the copyrights. The article may appear on other web sites if he so desires. I'm willing to coach you through writing the articles and I think there's a ton of material on photographing models on the web. Get in touch with me *offline* if you have any questions. For you married guys it is a great way to get models in the house. When a package arrives and you get *that* look you can say "Hey! Free stuff!" It's been working at my house for a while now. I look forward to hearing from some of you folks. Have a good one! Brent ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDC9.A79CEF50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Free Loot!

Okay, nothing is really free. But I can offer model = sponsorship.

I know a bunch of you guys out there are building = models, I'm seeing images posted all the time and I'm reading what you = all write every day. So I know you have what it takes  to write = reviews.

Here's the deal: Build a model, take pictures, write = a short article about the experience and send it to me. IF everything = is good you will receive a credit at Roll Models equal to or greater = than the value of the kit you reviewed. Example: you build, photograph = and write an article on the Eduard Roland C.II Profipak (hint-hint). I = think the article is great and the photos are wonderful. I post it on = the Roll Models web site You get $23.00 worth of credit at Roll Models = (I *think* we are going to cover shipping too). That's good for = anything in the catalog. You also get fame and acclaim of the masses. I = don't care what you build. OT, ot, oT or Ot. Something from the Roll = Models catalog or not. Cars, tanks, figures, you name it. The only rule = (basically for figures) is nothing will be considered if I can't show = it to my wife and children.

The author keeps the copyrights. The article may = appear on other web sites if he so desires.

I'm willing to coach you through writing the articles = and I think there's a ton of material on photographing models on the = web. Get in touch with me *offline* if you have any = questions.

For you married guys it is a great way to get models = in the house. When a package arrives and you get *that* look you can = say "Hey! Free stuff!" It's been working at my house for a = while now.

I look forward to hearing from some of you = folks.

Have a good one!

Brent

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDC9.A79CEF50-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:22:42 -0500 From: Brent Theobald To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Witold's Gotha P/E Link Message-ID: <4B9386E83999D411997100508BAF206A01608ECB@stamail.telecom.sna.samsung.com> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDCB.1D045D90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Howdy! Could somebody forward this to me? I have lost it (again!). Thanks! Brent ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDCB.1D045D90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Witold's Gotha P/E Link

Howdy!

Could somebody forward this to me? I have lost it (again!).

Thanks!

Brent

------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BDCB.1D045D90-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 07:26:24 -0700 From: Shon Howell To: Subject: Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: on 4/5/01 2:14 AM, Tomasz Gronczewski at gronczewski@interia.pl wrote: > An immortal conflict between OOB and AMS styles turned into very interesting > direction. > > After Tom's e-mail Shane, Jay and Peter showed their own attitude toward > modeling subjects. It would be nice to make a small poll, what do you ladies > and gentelmen focus on during modeling an airplane > > 1. quantity or quality > I must confess that although I try to balance the ratio, I always tend to > trade quality for quantity. I prefer to make ten acceptable models in a year > instead of superdetailing one. > (Nervously eyes the mighty stack of SMER kits) I...um, tend to build for grins, but set aside several projects for extra attention. > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject > I approach every model from the "software" side. I prefer to make partly > conjectural markings of the well known ace instead of well researched but > anonymous aircraft. > Agreed > 3. detailing or painting > Someone of the listees stated once (I can't recall who) that he was better > builder than painter. I occupy an opposite corner of the modeling playmate. > Definitely I focus on painting and finishing. If I had certain timeframe to > finish the kit I would prefer to focus on the playing with paints, airbrush, > decals, wash, future instead of scratching "throttle quadrant". > Little of both. > 4. shape or dimensions. > I always prefer Nieuport looking like Nieuport, but never bother with > underscaling or too big span. Also I wouldn't sand all Eindecker ribs in > order to reduce or increase their number if it deteriorated overal quality > of the surface. On the other hand I would sand an edge of a cowling if it > looked too sharp. > I'll do what it takes to make the kit look good. I made a set of resin replacment wings for the Monogram/SMER Fokker D.7. Why? Currently, it's difficult to find a DML D.7, so it's wait or build. Besides, as Mr. Rimmel pointed out in WINDSOCK, the current info on the D.7 is a tad more charitible to the AURORA based D.7's; add 1/4" to the tail & fix the wings and the results aren't too shabby. $5.00 kit + elbow grease beats $30.00 kit every time... ^_^ > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" > Some time ago I tried to keep the same level of the detail during each > construction. Now I dropped the idea. I prefer to make two OOB kits after I > have been exhausted by superdetailing previous. > A previous example I gave was SIERRE SCALE's UFAG C.I; no cockpit reference is readily availible, so like it or not, it's edging it's way to being a slammer. If some day WWI AERO unearths & runs some interior info, fine; I'll build another one. But for now, I'll settle for a sharp looking finish on a good kit. > And of course any combination can provide much fun or much frustration. It > depend on us only. Dicta Ira! > > Tomasz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:32:42 +0200 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: book comments Message-ID: <006d01c0bdcc$82a7ffc0$89a272d4@FRITZweb> > I just ordered a book by its title, not having seen it. Any comments on: > Eisernes Kreuz und Balken Kreuz/Markings of German Aircraft in WWI 1914-1918 Good purchase. But be careful with the captions. The book is quite old now and Nowarra did have his own style to interpret. Always cross check the infos, esp. JASTA designations. Hans ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:30:37 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: An fake pilot Answer WAS: a Q to the real pilots Message-ID: I'm also an (ex) glider pilot, but it's so long ago that most all I remember is how much fun it was. And the feeling on my first solo, "oh god here I am all alone in here, and I've got to land it all by myself". I think I made a good landing even so. The idea of getting a beer after a flight in Sweden is unfortunately a dream, I guess I had a cup of coffee. /Neil Diego wrote: > I can't consider a real pilot... most of the time I was > tossed in the air,> powerless and I glided down in various degrees speed and > skill. I also did> some powered flight but much fewer. > Dave Fletcher mentioned the "time compression" factor wich > was a curious> phenomenon. On my first flights, the landing pattern was fast, things > happened quickly and I barely managed to control all the parameters of > flight and at the same time get the glider inside the runway. > Later, as I> familiarised with the procedures, the landing pattern was a > reassuring part> of the flight and a good chance to practice accurate turns and speeds. > My instructor told me (and showed me) that most aircraft can > be flown using> small force. He told me to hold the controls as I would caress a young > girl's breast... The advice worked, all flights were soft and > pleasant.> 75 min. of flight is quite an amount of time for a new pilot! > You endured> well. Drink your beer with clean conscience, you earned it! > Regards > D. > Glider pilots do it quietly! > ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 3250 **********************