WWI Digest 3251 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Snow day musings by Crawford Neil 2) RE: Spad XII by Crawford Neil 3) Witolds PART Gotha page by Jan Vihonen 4) Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by John_Impenna@hyperion.com 5) RE: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by "dfernet0" 6) RE: Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by Crawford Neil 7) Re: Witold's Gotha P/E Link by Witold Kozakiewicz 8) Re: GA Drawings Accuracy by "Brian Nicklas" 9) Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by "Steven M.Perry" 10) Re: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by "Steven M.Perry" 11) RE: Amish Computer Virus by "Ray Boorman" 12) Re: Was YOU GUYS and Drawing Accuracy. by John_Impenna@hyperion.com 13) RE: FMP Salmson book (And some Pfalz) by "Ray Boorman" 14) 200 dpi scan Gotha PE set. Was:Re: Witold's Gotha P/E Link by "Hans Trauner" 15) Re: trust nothing by David Fleming 16) Exaggerations was RE: trust nothing by Crawford Neil 17) exaggerations was: trust nothing by "dfernet0" 18) Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA by "DAVID BURKE" 19) Re: Blow By Models? by "DAVID BURKE" 20) RE: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by "Gaston Graf" 21) RE: Amish Computer Virus by "Gaston Graf" 22) Re: Your own modeling style by "cameron rile" 23) Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by huggins1@swbell.net (John Huggins) 24) Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy) by "Michael Kendix" 25) Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by "mdf@mars.ark.com" 26) Re: Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) by David Fleming 27) Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by David Fleming ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:49:32 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: Crawford Neil , Subject: RE: Snow day musings Message-ID: The only thing odd is that nobody told me I was talking out of my arse. I had a look through Winged Victory, and the only references to LeRhone was comparing a Clerget 130hp to the Le Rhone in the Pup (90hp). And to one of the pilots saying he had a french built LeRhone and it was a super engine. Apologies to everyone. /Neil, who will probably do the same thing next week again! Neil (unfortunately) wrote: > There's something odd here, because V.M Yeates is very clear > about which > Camel was the best, the Clerget powered one. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:26:27 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Spad XII Message-ID: I wonder if they haven't taken the FMP drawings and straightened the lower wing tips by removing the curve at the last rib? I hesitate to say that they are wrong, but from what photos I could see, I think Ian Stairs drawing is more correct. They are both (I think) based on the same original by Captain Davis. The kit wingspan is about 5mm less than Ian Stairs drawing. I probably wouldn't bother about it, except that I have a spare set of wings for a Revell XIII, and I think they look nicer. /Neil > > Michael wrote: > > Fair enough. Where then did Pegasus come up with the > > dimensions for their > > kit? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:45:18 +0300 From: Jan Vihonen To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Witolds PART Gotha page Message-ID: <3ACC76EE.954BC45B@helsinki.fi> Some one asked for Witolds page where the photoetched partse are visible. It's here: http://www.modelarstwo.org.pl/lotnicze/dodatki/part/s72-150_gotha/index.html JAn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:58:23 -0400 From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: Sorry, Folks Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even better than Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! Oh, by the way, that's MR. JOHN Daniels to the rest of you.................................: o) Regards, John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:01:23 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: RE: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: <022801c0bdd8$e682eee0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> You'll become blind drinking that stuff. ;-) D. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 11:02 AM Subject: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) > > Sorry, Folks > Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even better than > Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack > Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! > > Oh, by the way, that's MR. JOHN Daniels to the rest of > you.................................: o) > > Regards, > John > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:03:52 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: Keith Richards says so too! /Neil > -----Original Message----- > From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com [mailto:John_Impenna@hyperion.com] > Sent: den 5 april 2001 16:02 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) > > > > Sorry, Folks > Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even > better than > Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack > Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! > > Oh, by the way, that's MR. JOHN Daniels to the rest of > you.................................: o) > > Regards, > John > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:10:19 +0200 From: Witold Kozakiewicz To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Witold's Gotha P/E Link Message-ID: <3ACC7CCB.9CC23BBF@bg.am.lodz.pl> Brent Theobald napisał(a): > > 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 The pictures are also on PART website, http://www.part.pl in s72 section. -- Witold Kozakiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:15:52 -0400 From: "Brian Nicklas" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: What is scary - we worry about these GA's from various sources because the model might not look right. Other modelers may worry because the build flying scale not stand-off scale. But again, what is scary, is that there are some people out there who use these various drawings as a basis for full-size flying replicas. They start with these 3 views, or if they are lucky six views, and re-draft detailed drawings. Some get redone when the ribs don't space right, others might just force the drawing to fit. It doesn't happen often, or a lot, but it does happen. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:29:06 -0400 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: <001601c0bddc$c65b4960$13f3aec7@default> > > An immortal conflict between OOB and AMS styles turned into very interesting > > direction. What conflict? I enjoy building in both 1/72 & 1/48 as well as larger scales, so it isn't surprizing that I also enjoy building to a wide range of standards. In order to avoid the downside of AMS, a pile of half built kts, I set the standard I will build to before starting a kit and try hard to stick to it. I get a kick out of making a nice model from a basically lousy kit, but I also enjoy building OOB. For me, the key to enjoying any build is seeing the image of the finished model I have in my head before starrting the project turn into three dimensions on the bench. I just don't know enough yet to make informed judgements on the accuracy of a given set of drawings. I choose a reference to follow based on what I've heard & read about that reference, balanced with the availability of the reference. Often there are conflicting opinions on what modifications need to be done to a given kit. In these cases I choose the one I like and follow that. The catch here is that it is necessary to state the source of the guiding information. For example, when I built my I'lya, I attempted the modifications that Harry Woodman said were needed to correct what he found to be deficiencies in the kit. By setting a standard and defining specific goals before I begin, I seem to have fun wether I go all out or out of the box. Like I said. "What conflict?" sp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:35:25 -0400 From: "Steven M.Perry" To: Subject: Re: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: <002801c0bddd$a7a98260$13f3aec7@default> > > Sorry, Folks > > Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even better than > > Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack > > Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! > > > > Oh, by the way, that's MR. JOHN Daniels to the rest of > > you.................................: o) > > > > Regards, > > John > You'll become blind drinking that stuff. ;-) > D. I don't know about that. It seems to help BvB see ALL my faults quite clearly (in her opinion) and she drinks A LOT of it. sp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:38:08 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: RE: Amish Computer Virus Message-ID: Yup a barn with no nails, that lasts much longer than more modern buildings. I stayed in an Amish town in Illinois (sp) about 8 years ago for a weekend. The town was a bit of a tourist trap, but sheesh the level of craftsmanship and attention to detail the Amish put into everyday items was astounding. Makes people with AMS look like amateurs. Plus when they use the items they make in there everyday life they make darn sure they get them finished too. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@wwi-models.org [mailto:wwi@wwi-models.org]On Behalf Of David > Fleming > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:51 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Amish Computer Virus > > > 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, 5 Apr 2001 10:44:28 -0400 From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Was YOU GUYS and Drawing Accuracy. Message-ID: Hi Folks, Tom makes some good points as does Shane, Andrei and Peter. While I don't think I have terminal AMS, I'd certainly consider myself a carrier. WHile I enjoy detailing a cockpit, I don't bother with stuff that can't be seen. You have to admire folks like Alberto who have hands of gold to detail a 1/72nd scale cockpit the way they do!!!! I never quibble over a mm or two difference. Shane is right when he says if you can spot a 1 or 2MM mistake on a 1/72nd model, some governments would want you working for them!! I will always try to do it "right", especially if there are sources that allow this. I'd much rather have an accurate model, or as close to accurate as possible. My turn off to IPMS meetings wasn't so much folks with AMS as what they DID with it. I had models more than once "critisized" instead of "critiqued". There IS a difference. Ultimately, we all subscribe to our own level of DICTA IRA. To say one way is better or not, is not IMHO, what I think Tom was saying(correct me if I'm being presumptious, TOM), but rather what people will do with their "knowledge" in a negative manner. "Oh, look the tail outline on the RevllogramAuroraRodenPegasus Albfoksopspadnieuroland D-XXXVIII is off....How can you even enter that......"type of stuff. Fortunately, we seem to have NONE of that on this list. I have been on this list for about a year now and I don't recall ever seeing a message that negatively criticisized someones work. Quite the opposite. We see very complimentary and encouraging messages, especially to newcomers and constuctive discussions if someone sees something that doesn't match theirs or other reference sources. Frankly, it has made me want to post pictures in The Gallery, if I ever get this Esci Albatros finished!!!! As long as you enjoy it, whether it is 1 or 100 models a year, that is DICTA IRA. Regards, John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 07:46:08 -0700 From: "Ray Boorman" To: Subject: RE: FMP Salmson book (And some Pfalz) Message-ID: Hey Matt, whats actually covered in the book. The two types??. Is the book smaller in page count than the Pfalz book? Just curious since it would seem to be overkill for 180 pages or so for two types. Oh who wrote the book btw. Jack Herris?? Oh on another subject, weren't the german books already largely written but too large to put into one book, therefore they were split them into manufacturers. My point here was at the time I thought the authors were a similiar group to who wrote the Austro Hungarian Aircraft. Instead it was Jack Herris. No slur on Jack its just that back a couple of years ago he wasnt mentioned as being the author?? Just curious? Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@wwi-models.org [mailto:wwi@wwi-models.org]On Behalf Of Matt > Bittner > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:21 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: FMP Salmson book > > > 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 17:10:44 +0200 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: 200 dpi scan Gotha PE set. Was:Re: Witold's Gotha P/E Link Message-ID: <002f01c0bde2$9656bfa0$cea272d4@FRITZweb> Hi, AMS-sufferers! I have just got my set of the Gotha PE set. I made a 200 dpi scan, which is sharper than those shown on the various web pages. Of course, it 226 KB. But to all of you who can't restist, contact me off-list and I'll mail the scan. P.S. Service from Jadar was comme ci, comme ca. It took several weeks and the Albatros B II resin kit I ordered also was not complete. I complained but did not get any reaction. Hmmm. Hans ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:03:28 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: trust nothing Message-ID: <3ACC893F.6038C54A@dial.pipex.com> Shon Howell wrote: > 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. I'd agree - I'm a paid up member of the 'If it looks right' brigade. One point - I remember an interview in Scale Models with Chris Gannon where he said he DELIBERATELY exaggerated some features in his kit, because the model just didn't look right as a 'pure scale' replica. Make of that what you will !!! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:17:10 +0200 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Exaggerations was RE: trust nothing Message-ID: That's something we all do, especially the 1/72 brigade, if you were to scale up our panel-lines 72 times, they would be ditches. But if we left them off as we should, the model doesn't look right. /Neil Dave wrote: > One point - I remember an interview in Scale Models with > Chris Gannon where he said > he DELIBERATELY exaggerated some features in his kit, because > the model just didn't > look right as a 'pure scale' replica. Make of that what you will !!! > > Dave > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:21:29 -0300 From: "dfernet0" To: Subject: exaggerations was: trust nothing Message-ID: <025601c0bde4$17087fc0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> a.k.a. "Artistic License". Add to taste. D. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Fleming To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 12:13 PM Subject: Re: trust nothing > Shon Howell wrote: > > > There are some kits that I'll kick out the jams > > researching & detailing (SIERRE SCALE's ROLAND C.II), but others that I'll > > settle for a good looking finished model. > > I'd agree - I'm a paid up member of the 'If it looks right' brigade. > > One point - I remember an interview in Scale Models with Chris Gannon where he said > he DELIBERATELY exaggerated some features in his kit, because the model just didn't > look right as a 'pure scale' replica. Make of that what you will !!! > > Dave > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:27:02 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Message-ID: <007401c0bde5$fd83af00$d1f91c3f@oemcomputer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Superczynski" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:19 AM Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA > > Dicta Ira....... > > Al > Ditto. DB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:30:56 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: Blow By Models? Message-ID: <007501c0bde5$fe5de260$d1f91c3f@oemcomputer> > Ahhh, errrr. Yeah, well I have to finish these two review kits first. Other > than that and lack of time I have no excuse anyone would believe, especially > DB, who is sacrificing himself to the greater good by trying to beat Eduard > to the punch. Me, I'm right out of "selfless sacrifice" today :-) > > Shane > Well, it's a greater SOMETHING - though 'good' might not be accurate. I got so tired of watching myself go bald on this project that I got a crewcut! I have tons of 'PBM's' (Partially-built models) and 'PBK's' (kits) - the distinction being whether they can still fit in the box. Most of them are ot subjects. See what Y'all have done to me? DB ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:49:16 +0200 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Re:Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: I LOVE Jack Daniels hickup stuff - but didn't try to use it for flying yet ;o). Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > > > > Sorry, Folks > > Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even > better than > > Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack > > Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! > > > > Oh, by the way, that's MR. JOHN Daniels to the rest of > > you.................................: o) > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 05:54:56 +0200 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: RE: Amish Computer Virus Message-ID: LOL - I must add two things here: 1) On my next trip to the US I would like to visit the Amish folks because I am highly interested to see how they live. I think it will certainly become a very nice experience (unless they want to force me to say prayers and such) 2) The honest virus joke is in fact a joke we tell about our Belgian friends-brothers/sisters-neighbours and they certainly tell the same about us Luxies. cheers Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de > -----Original Message----- > From: wwi@wwi-models.org [mailto:wwi@wwi-models.org]On Behalf Of David > Fleming > Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:51 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: Amish Computer Virus > > > 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: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:08:46 -0500 From: "cameron rile" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Your own modeling style Message-ID: <70E8513C1D925D115A660005B80A2E33@cameron.prontomail.com> Nice breakdown Tomasz! >1. quantity or quality I have had bugger all time, so lately havent let the much get in the way of the build process. I have found that going to IPMS has given me finish dates which is good as it stops things languishing half done. >2. best researched subject or best demanded subject Since I have an overriding fascination in the Australian Flying Corps ( ttp://members.nbci.com/pointcook/ ) I tend to make most of the one I have interact someway with Australian history from the period. The last two I completed were MvR's DrI and Bolle's DVII, the former came down in Australian lines and was buried by 3 AFC, the latter took several chunks out of 2 and 4 AFC. Part of Shane's "history coming alive" builder. After seeing Steve Perry's round the world idea, I have started on adding colourful roundals to my little shelf as well. >3. detailing or painting I like doing the cockpits and rigging. Other than those I dont try to do anything extra. A WWI cockpit oozes ambience. I did a P40 and as much as I love the plane the cockpit was still metallic and lifeless. Wood and wires makes a cockpit breathe IMHO. >4. shape or dimensions. Being a child of the list, I now subscribe to Ernie's "it looks like a .. " on the shelf. >5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" Rigging and cockpits is what makes me build. Though I will chop it if I have no time, I am also not adverse to making up a cockpit too if I havent any references :) >Dicta Ira! I get a real kick out of modelling, I am no master builder and what I do is predominantly for my enjoyment only, despite me taking them to the local IPMS meeting and displaying them. Which I enjoy too lol. Modelling is about the only thing I do that doesnt involve my hands being at a keyboard. It is a great hobby :) cam AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/ ________________________________________ Get your email at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:07:20 -0500 From: huggins1@swbell.net (John Huggins) To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: This sounds a lot like my own building state. In a more simpler way, I normally build what I call 3 foot models. If it looks good from 3 feet away, it must be right. From that distance, you can't see inside the cockpit and behind the engine under the cowl. Besides, 99 percent of the people who see the model wouldn't know if the stuff was correct or not, or even if it came in the box or was scratched by the modeler. This statement includes model contest judges. I used to not or enter any of the regional or larger contests because I knew i could not compete with the super detailing it took to win. After I attended my first National, I started to enter my models. I haven't changed the way I build, and I do not build a model for a contest. I build for me, and if a contest is available, I enter it. It was a shock when I placed in some of the larger categories and beat out many of the super detailed models. At first, I didn't understand why. After becoming more involved with the judging process and and understanding that you can't judge a group of models on accuracy first, it all started to come together. When I looked at the model through the eyes of a judge, in many cases, it was very clear why the super detailed models didn't place. The builder had become so involved with having every switch, lever, panel and box in the insides, that they had lost sight of the first rule of building. The basic -basic construction..fit and seam filling (or not if it wasn't), basic alignment..do the parts line up correctly, symmetrical and aligned with their counter parts. basic finish..not so much nuts on colors but applied with out brush marks, orange peal, finger prints etc. basic decaling..no silvering, air bubbles etc. A lot of people miss these things. Sorry about the long winded reply. I'll stop before this turns into a novel. John >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 16:16:30 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy) Message-ID: >From: "Tom Solinski" > >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? I > >sometime catch a glimpse of the joy of the masochism some of you get by > >spending days detailing a cockpit that will never be seen again, and > >cost you a ribbon because the colo(u)r police decided the south end of > >the compass needle was the wrong shade of @#(*$&!(!&# red and pointing > >in the wrong direction to boot. Possibly this is why "some" IPMS clubs are suffering from lack of members. At the 2 clubs I attend, Northern Virginia and DC, unsolicited criticism of someone else's model is not tolerated. Anyone engaged in such rude behaviour would be asked to leave or not repeat their error. In my view, the appropriate response to such criticism begins and ends with an "F". As for "costing you a ribbon" for minor detailing stuff, it is rare that such factor figures into the calculation of an award for a well-judged competition like a Regional or National event. Apparently, 95% of entries have fundamental problems such as alignment, glue blobs and paint problems, that push them down the ladder of contention. As for colour, unless the error is glaring, e.g. painting a Blue Angel's display model red, that should not come into the calculation either. Is it possible that your views are coloured by a few unfortunate incidents? Have you attempted to judge a modelling competition? As for AMS; personally, I sometimes like to make a detailed model and sometimes not. What the heck difference does it make to anyone else anyway?:) >If you aren't making waves, you aren't making headway! and, and, ..... "A fish without a bicycle is like a gnome without a matchstick... or something...." Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:25:31 -0400 From: "mdf@mars.ark.com" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: <3ACC9C7B.22658FB6@mars.ark.com> It was more than just simple parallax error - the lines were all over the place. I was thinking about that recently though and my question is - how do you accurately measure a shape that is curved in three dimensions, and does not use any circles? Apart from chopping the original up into slices - it would be very difficult to be consistent. I think I'll stick with my slab sided Nieuports...where all the curves are really circles. Mike F. David Fleming 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:23:20 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Medicinal drinking (was Re: a Q to the real pilots) Message-ID: <3ACC8DE8.86524494@dial.pipex.com> John_Impenna@hyperion.com wrote: > Sorry, Folks > Best solvent, medicinal drink, all around miracle liquid(even better than > Future; you can't DRINK Future) is good old Tennessee Bourbon: Jack > Daniels, Green Blue or Black Label!!!!! > bleugh bleugh bleugh ! Once you've tasted true, malt Scottish Whisky, JD tastes like what I use to clean my airbrush with !! Is Allan away ? We're all going ot today !!! Dave (My Mr Kit PC-10 looks really nice, brushes very smooth finish, still think it's a bit light, but LOVE the paint !!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:30:45 +0100 From: David Fleming To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: <3ACC8FA5.849686EF@dial.pipex.com> Tomasz Gronczewski wrote: > An immortal conflict between OOB and AMS styles turned into very interesting > direction. I thought you said immoral the first time I read that !!! > 1. quantity or quality > I wish Quantity, but it's not quality that delays my models, but a lack of confidence !! > > 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. > At the moment I'm on an 'actual' aircraft kick, with my captured ones in priority - now that does involve some conjecture, but I ahve to do some 'research' (read- looking up books !) as well -- so I'll claim 50:50 > > 3. detailing or painting > Can't paint, can't detail !! Maybe I should stick to diecasts !! > > > 4. shape or dimensions. > 'Form' ! i.e shape and dimensions An example - The Revell SPAD XIII (1/72) - it looks like a SPAD, but I can't get round that it looks overscale. > > > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" Bit of both - If it can be built OOB, I'll do it, but will add detail to some. But, I have been known to struggle with brass for a subject I really want to do (ot SB2C for example) Dave ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 3251 **********************