WWI Digest 3252 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Robert Fabris by "Robert Fabris" 2) Re: Spad A2/4 (was XII) by "Len Smith" 3) Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by Witold Kozakiewicz 4) Re: Lozenge question by "Bob Pearson" 5) Re: FMP Salmson book (And some Pfalz) by "Bob Pearson" 6) Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 by John_Impenna@hyperion.com 7) Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy by KarrArt@aol.com 8) Re: Your own moeling style WAS: You guyes (...) by "Mark Shannon" 9) Amish Country (was: Amish Computer Virus) by Allan Wright 10) Re: Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 by Shon Howell 11) Salmson floor (was: A bit of help on the Hi Tech Roland DII) by "Jim Landon" 12) Subject lines (was: Medicinal drinking) by "Jim Landon" 13) Re: Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 by Todd Hayes 14) Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy) by "DAVID BURKE" 15) Re: Blow By Models? by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 16) Re: Blow By Models? by "Jim Landon" 17) Re: Your own modeling style by Mark Vaughan-Jackson 18) Parallax (was: trust nothing) by "Jim Landon" 19) Different Strokes/Styles/ETC... by MAnde72343@aol.com 20) Modelling Style Poll by Andreikor@aol.com 21) John Impenna's AMS comments by Andreikor@aol.com 22) No Subject by Andreikor@aol.com 23) Gaston and the Amish by Andreikor@aol.com 24) Re: Modelling Style Poll by "Hans Trauner" 25) Windsock March/April 2001 review by knut.erik.hagen@eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:42:15 -0700 From: "Robert Fabris" To: Subject: Re: Robert Fabris Message-ID: <004201c0bdef$6119fb60$e9ce480c@garage> > Lost another address! Bob, good news. The DF > Specials finally arrived. Thanks. > > Todd Great News!! I'll hotfoot-it over to the p.o. to shut off the trace. Thanks for the note ... Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:16:49 +0100 From: "Len Smith" To: Subject: Re: Spad A2/4 (was XII) Message-ID: <000201c0bdf3$60d5c9a0$c0887ed4@mesh> From: "Matt Bittner" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 11:00 PM > > And then there are the SPAD A.2/A.4 drawings. Totally and completly > wrong in the Mini-DF! > Matt, There has been much correspondence recently regarding the accuracy or otherwise of available drawings. More frustrating, to me at least, than dodgy drawings, is to be told by an expert that such and such drawings are wrong - but with no justification given. In this particular case, I would refer to my previous message as copy below, and await a reply with interest. Date: 27 February 2001 11:46 Matt/ Michael, We appear to have uncovered a further problem with the FMP French book, some copies seem to have been printed to a different size to others. Matt claims the wing span is short by 10 feet, Michael by 10%. In my copy of the book the span measures 129mm giving a full size of 9.288m. The published full size span in both the FMP book and the Datafile is 9.550m, (confirmed in WW1 Aero No.127) which should equal 132.639mm in 1/72 scale. To my feeble ancient brain a difference of 3.639mm equates to neither 10 feet nor 10%, so it appears that the drawings must be different sizes ! Matt further states that both the FMP and Datafile drawings are 'wrong', but provides no indication of the 'wrongness'. I agree that the Harleyford drawing shows the correct wing span, but I feel that the lower wing chord is too broad, when compared with the Spad works drawing in WW1 Aero 127. Enquiring minds and so-fifth.......... Regards Len. lensmith@clara.net http://home.clara.net/lensmith ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:16:35 +0200 From: Witold Kozakiewicz To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Your own modeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: <3ACCA873.30F2539F@bg.am.lodz.pl> Tomasz Gronczewski napisał(a): > > 1. quantity or quality You know well I have big collection, some time ago it was quantity but I'm turning to quality. > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject Most interesting. I do not avoid well known subjects. > 3. detailing or painting Painting than detailing but both are very interesting. After spending some time on pe and resin sets it is good to start painting. This time 50/50 > 4. shape or dimensions. Shape, definitely > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" little anarchy. But not to much. I do not want to have completely OOB Airfix-quality kit standing near full of pe and resin. It doesn't looks good. -- Witold Kozakiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:40:19 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Lozenge question Message-ID: <200104050954.f359sOc59051@mail.rapidnet.net> Steven, I have 1/48 and 1/72 lozenge from three or four companies, but so far I have only used the 1/72 from Pegasus and have been very pleased with it. Bob ---------- >From: Steve Whyte >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Lozenge question >Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2001, 12:45 am > > 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, 05 Apr 2001 10:55:36 -0700 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: FMP Salmson book (And some Pfalz) Message-ID: <200104050954.f359sRc59061@mail.rapidnet.net> Colin Owers wrote the Salmson book, and is doing the DH volumes. Peter Grosz was going to do a series of German companies, with Pfalz the first volume. this fell through and Jack wrote it instead. Bob ---------- >From: "Ray Boorman" > 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? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:03:35 -0400 From: John_Impenna@hyperion.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 Message-ID: Hi Folks, Anyone have one of these that they are no longer using and want to sell or trade for? Let me know. Regards, John ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:07:15 EDT From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy Message-ID: <5f.134b446a.27fe0e53@aol.com> In a message dated 4/5/01 9:22:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mdf@mars.ark.com writes: << t 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. >> I think it's Bob Waugh- the guy who did the amazing Albatros drawings- who made himself this bizarre looking frame/movable peg/gauge contraption to take accurate cross sections from full size airplanes- the darn thing fits right over a fuselage or other component...there was sketch of the thing in an old WW I Aero. RK ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:09:43 -0500 From: "Mark Shannon" To: Subject: Re: Your own moeling style WAS: You guyes (...) Message-ID: Tomasz Gronczewski napisał(a): > > 1. quantity or quality Varies. I used to be pretty good at both, but I've slowed down a bit. The quality has been a major driver lately > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject I'm not sure exactly what is meant here - I tend to pick schemes that are both typical of the plane (or tank) type, but have 'visual interest' parts to them. I am not above interpolating details from the one or two photos that show the particulars that caught my eye (e.g., the separation lines and styles for Albatros two and three color wing camouflage there just isn't always info on which of the variations a subject carried.) > 3. detailing or painting I build to display the type and the paint scheme. I put in enough detail that it is not an 'empty hole' in the cockpit, but do not go out of my way to rebuild the back of the instrument panel. > 4. shape or dimensions. Shape, unless the dimensions are obviously off - but this usually affects shape. I'm definitely of the 'it looks like a _____, even if the rudder is a couple of mm oversized' school, though I do try to fix detail errors that are noticeable or make the sub-type modifications. > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" l try to get better all the time. I'm currently a little torn with this, however, in the area of ship models. I have a large 'installed base' done in the days of non-PE detailing, and now there are all of these very nice sets. Does that mean I have to replace all of the old ones so they don't look dowdy against the newer completes? ( I could never live long enough) But those new 1/700 WWI resin kits........... (same with ot aircraft cockpits if it's closed, there isn't a lot of need for tiny detail in 1/72. But now there are all those details and they weren't all parked with closed canopy and flaps up.... I guess that's why I keep doing OT) .Mark. -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:18:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Wright To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Amish Country (was: Amish Computer Virus) Message-ID: <200104051818.OAA00723@pease1.sr.unh.edu> > 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) Lancaster, PA is a good place to visit. If you go there eat at the 'Good and Plenty' - homestyle Amish restaraunt. I go there 2 times a year for historical miniatures conventions. Allan =============================================================================== Allan Wright Jr. | Without love life's just a long fight - Southside University of New Hampshire +-------------------------------------------------- Research Computing Center | WWI Modeling mailing list: wwi@wwi-models.org Internet: aew@unh.edu | WWI Modeling WWW Page: http://www.wwi-models.org =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 13:29:07 -0700 From: Shon Howell To: Subject: Re: Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 Message-ID: on 4/5/01 11:07 AM, John_Impenna@hyperion.com at John_Impenna@hyperion.com wrote: > > Hi Folks, > Anyone have one of these that they are no longer using and want to sell or > trade for? Let me know. > > Regards, > John Call WISE OLD OWL Pubs, it's listed as in stock at $21.00. (310) 944-5033 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:30:00 From: "Jim Landon" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Salmson floor (was: A bit of help on the Hi Tech Roland DII) Message-ID: Alvie said: <> I face the same question for my Salmson pilot's cockpit. No photos or drawings I've seen give any clue. I hadn't posted a question because I assumed nobody would know if "Mr. Salmson" (me) didn't. Does anybody? Jim >From: Michael and Sharon Alvarado >Reply-To: wwi@wwi-models.org >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: A bit of help on the Hi Tech Roland DII?? >Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 15:50:29 -0400 (EDT) > >Diego, > >Saludos amigo. Yes the drawings are a great help. I'm really moving kind >of >slow right now mostly due to pressure from work - its budget time and that >is >the busiest ime of the work year for me. Life was so much easier when I >was a >mere test engineer. I have finally decided that it is most likely a solid >floor >board with access to the fuel tank as you said. 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. 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. > >Alvie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:32:57 From: "Jim Landon" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Subject lines (was: Medicinal drinking) Message-ID: Bob said: <> Good job! (But I failed to notice it because I am in such a habit of ignoring them.) Jim _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:45:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Halberstadt Cl-II Datafile #27 Message-ID: <20010405184542.38431.qmail@web11107.mail.yahoo.com> I just ordered one from Roll Models for $15.75. --- Shon Howell wrote: > on 4/5/01 11:07 AM, John_Impenna@hyperion.com at > John_Impenna@hyperion.com > wrote: > > > > > Hi Folks, > > Anyone have one of these that they are no longer > using and want to sell or > > trade for? Let me know. > > > > Regards, > > John > > Call WISE OLD OWL Pubs, it's listed as in stock at > $21.00. > > (310) 944-5033 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:18:30 -0500 From: "DAVID BURKE" To: Subject: Re: You guyes are beginning to really scare me was( Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy) Message-ID: <003301c0be05$534f6540$90a31e3f@oemcomputer> > > > >Ya' know I stopped going to IPMS meetings because of the same track you > >folks are on. The seeds of AMS. Mistress Lorna's editorial on being > > >buried in data, now in light of this thread is all questionable. Is > > >there anyone else on this list that is an SOB Slammer like me? I > > >sometime catch a glimpse of the joy of the masochism some of you get by > > >spending days detailing a cockpit that will never be seen again, and > > >cost you a ribbon because the colo(u)r police decided the south end of > > >the compass needle was the wrong shade of @#(*$&!(!&# red and pointing > > >in the wrong direction to boot. > First of all: 'Fear is the mind-killer'. Tom's point is interesting, but I have to say that AMS is an allowed condition by the modeller. To whit: No one infected me with it and I am at a stage where I am comfortable with it. As for the endless research and discussion: I enjoy it immensely. It allows me to see a couple of things: one, that there are people who are worth having deep, meaning, and humorous discussions with, and who are those who take this kind of stuff WAYYYY to seriously. Currently, no one on the List fits that bill, and that's great because I know that we can go off on a tangent and when it gets to a certain point of tedium, someone mentions Voss' cowling and the tension is quickly broken. That's important. Second, the historical significance is important to me as someone who wishes to pursue Aviation History as a career. I learn more and more by modelling subjects than studying plans or reading. That's just the best way for me to learn about the subject - as a paralell, I use the line from 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', where Richard Dreyfus, Melinda Dillon, and another guy have escaped the U.S. Army's clutches, and are trying to scramble around Devil's Tower to get to the UFO landing site. Dreyfus tells this guy (who gets sleep-gassed) that there's a box canyon on the other side of the mountain and the future narcoleptic replies that it wasn't in any of his sketches - Dreyfus says, 'next time, try sculpture' - as he had built a big model of the Tower in his living room (while under alien influence - a condition which makes it unsafe to drive). I have nothing but TOTAL respect for the OOB guys. My Shiden Kai is a case in point: I am as proud of it as anything in my collection because it is strictly OOB. Box-stock modelers are often incredible in their accomplishments - and it is something that I try from time to time. The idea of taking just what the box gives you and turning it into a masterwork is true talent, and alot of times it's easier to cram something full of after-market than to just use what comes with the kit - multi-media kits aside, of course. But to be turned away from associating with others in the hobby just out of envy, or because some raging butthole makes a snide remark? That's removing your proboscis to spite your facade, and it just ain't worth it. I guess that it's all Dicta Ira. DB Off soapbox to go use soap.... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:18:56 +0100 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Blow By Models? Message-ID: Dave F wrote >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 I hear you on number 2. I have dozens of the little buggers lurking in odd corners, All put together and languishing in drab grey styrene and a layer of dust. My problem is both lack of confidence in my painting and an air supply posessed by demons who refuse to work when they're supposed to. IF I get a compressor for my birthday (April 22 day after anniversary of MvR's passing) I plan to exorcise said demons with a very large, very heavy hammer. MVJ Who's enjoying glorious sun made moreso by being reflected of metres of snow. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:57:58 From: "Jim Landon" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Blow By Models? Message-ID: I have some "blow by" models. Most recently was the Guillows Piper Cub. http://landoni.freeyellow.com/page1.html I had a nostalgic desire to build a balsa and tissue model airplane like I had as a kid. I hadn't built a model airplane of any kind in some 45 years. I bought the kit, built it straight out of the box, discovered it would require a real heavy weight in the nose to balance it for rubber band flight, and quit. When it accidentally became a static display model, I could have painted it and made a scale propeller for it and applied the decals. But I was bored with it and saw all it's shortcomings. Jim >From: Brent Theobald >Reply-To: wwi@wwi-models.org >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Blow By Models? >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:22:20 -0400 (EDT) > >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_01C0BD98.4108D370 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Howdy! > >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? > >Brent > >PS: How's the Caproni coming Shane? You can't let DB finish his Gotha >before >your Caproni. :-) I'm not interested in discussing either of my Capronies >:-) > >------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD98.4108D370 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > >charset=3Diso-8859-1"> >5.5.2653.12"> >Blow By Models? > > > >

Howdy! >

> >

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? >

> >

Brent >

> >

PS: How's the Caproni coming Shane? You can't let DB = >finish his Gotha before your Caproni. :-) I'm not interested in = >discussing either of my Capronies :-)

> > > >------_=_NextPart_001_01C0BD98.4108D370-- _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:38:49 +0100 From: Mark Vaughan-Jackson To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Your own modeling style Message-ID: > >>1. quantity or quality > I just build whatever I want, whenever I want. . .which means I start something new on a regular basis. Occasionally I actually finish something > >>2. best researched subject or best demanded subject > Neither or both. I have a model bump that itches when I see something I want to build. Strikes at the oddest moments and reacts to everything WWI but a strange selection of ships, tanks, sci fi and even cars. > > >>3. detailing or painting > Cam wrote >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. Ditto, ditto and a big Amen brother. >>4. shape or dimensions. > >Being a child of the list, I now subscribe to Ernie's "it looks like a .. >" on the shelf. Again a big hear hear from me. > >>5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" > I like challenging msyelf to add details that enhance accuracy or at least perceived accuracy. If i can prove that a particular widget was located there I want it there. If I can't, I put it there anyway because it looks right. >>Dicta Ira! Modeling keeps me sane, takes my mind off writing literally millions of words a year in a newspaper and allows me to indulge my fascianton in military history. WWI is the first love right now for no particular reason. If I ever get truly annoyed with a WWI project I take a break and go build a spaceship. Then I get mad at a certain IPMS colleague who instists that the Federation Starship USS Get a Life had square engine nacelles not cylindrical. Working to my advantage is the fact I'm one of the only OT builders in my area. That means I get glazed expressions of wonder when they see intricate rigging or lovely wood tones from a cockpit. And if they can't tell the different between a late model or early model Spad wing tip. . .I'm not about to bloody well tell them. Bottom line Dicta Ira with a dash of to thine own modeling be true. MVJ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:07:02 From: "Jim Landon" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Parallax (was: trust nothing) Message-ID: Dave said: <> I was going to say that. The camera would have to be infinitely far back in order to get a perfect photo. A practical solution would be to take numerous closeup photos with the camera aimed exactly perpendicular to the fuselage, and carefully assemble the photos. Jim >From: David Fleming >Reply-To: wwi@wwi-models.org >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: Re: trust nothing wasRe: Windsock GA Drawings Accuracy >Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:52:01 -0400 (EDT) > >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 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:49:31 EDT From: MAnde72343@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Different Strokes/Styles/ETC... Message-ID: <48.13e0a44b.27fe345b@aol.com> I'm glad the threads on "accuracy" didn't get acrimonious, as it is after all, a matter of preference, and most of us at least, are hobbyists, not museum directors, but I will make the following observations/comments: As to "Don't trust anything" fair advice, I used to use Wylam drawings for detailing/comparason for kits (a while back) and knew, without other sources, that these were between 'not right' and 'bogus' using my own eyes, and the few photographs I had at the time. I don't get bent out of shape if the drawings and a kit don't match up exactly, I look at shape and proportions, and the overall effect, if the fuselage or wings are 1 or 2 mm 'off ' in length, will it affect the accuracy of the model? No, not really, I don't have a laser micrometer, and don't know anyone who does. The cross comments that, in effect "no two OT craft will be exactly alike" is almost certainly true, so small differences are not consequential, Fokker for one, rarely made two aircraft 'the same', and although the differences would be very small, so are the differences you're talking about. Totally strange shapes and proportions 'ruin' a kit, and do beg for correction, but minor differences in dimension are matters of opinion, not certainty. OOB vs AMS is silly, we all (I think) love a beautifully detailed kit, with a complete 'office' and all the small 'widgets', but it's too much 'real' work for some of us, and we decide to our own taste, which is as it should be. AMS, and I catch recurring bouts of it, can be EITHER joy or pain, that's also a matter of personal opinion (I've had both). So ... as some have already (sagely) said enjoy!, to which I add, from experience, 'remember not to get wrapped around the axle, no one is going to die as a result, it's not (sorry Tom) brain surgery. Merrill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:32:38 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Modelling Style Poll Message-ID: 1. quantity or quality Quality. I'd rather build one super piece a year than ten fairly good ones... for several reasons. Since the enjoyment I get out of building comes from the act, not the result, I'm in no need to rush things. Once it's done, the fun is over. Also, being in the commercial art field, I deal with breakneck deadlines every day, so it's nice to take my time on something I do for pleasure. I also do a lot of experimenting and try new techniques with each piece; I tend to find the hardest way to do something, rather than the easiest... just my form of masochism! I usually end up with two models... the one I tested everything on and the finished piece. 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject Whatever appeals to my aesthetics. Well researched machines are obviously easier to build, however. I used to shy away from 'overdone' subjects... trying to do something unique that would stand out in a show, until I realized I was robbing myself of some enjoyment. I build what I want to build now, even if it's been done a million times before. 3. detailing or painting Both equally... painting the details is the best part :) 4. shape or dimensions. Ultimately, shape. I don't get too crazy anymore if something is off by a scale inch; might be old age setting in, but the bottom line is, when the world blows up none of this is going to matter anyway :) 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" Not sure I really understand this question, but based on your answer I would say I detail everything I do. It takes me hundreds of hours to complete a 1/72 scale plane. Although I know it would be fun to do an OOB over the weekend, I see it as 20 hrs. I could have put into one of those more involved projects. I'm feeling lately like I have a fixed number of projects left in me, so choice becomes more important. Andrei Koribanics II 8 Falcon Place Wayne, NJ 07470 Voice/Fax: 973-696-9378 email: andreikor@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:50:09 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: John Impenna's AMS comments Message-ID: Very nicely put, John... wish I had said that myself. I too, have always tried to look on the positive side of things, particularly when judging. Nothing irks me more than the critic who rips apart someone's labor of love, just to make themselves feel important or more knowledgeable, or even to influence the judges! Yes, I have seen this at IPMS contests and others, but in all fairness to IPMS, I have to say that the system itself is very fair and diplomatic (although I am a proponent of the 'open' system vs. 1st, 2nd, 3rd). It only takes one or two individuals to spoil it for everybody, though, unless everybody does what I do... just ignore them... they go away :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:55:26 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: No Subject Message-ID: Neil wrote: 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. Excellent point, Neil... scale modelling has to be a balance of 'accuracy' and 'aesthetics'. Sometimes things need to be purposely exaggerated just to make them more appealing. I like to think of my miniatures like pieces of intricate jewelry... something people will want to get real close to and look at for a long time; you have to give them lots of little goodies to discover. Cheers, Andrei ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:59:58 EDT From: Andreikor@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Gaston and the Amish Message-ID: <50.13ca66ba.27fe44de@aol.com> Gaston wrote: 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) Gaston... they won't force you to do anything; fact is, they don't really want anybody around... just to be left alone to live their lives. If you ever really do get to visit an Amish area, though... I would suggest Lancaster, Pennsylvania. You definitely will come away with a deep respect for these people. By the way, if you see 'anything' (restaurant, etc.) with 'Amish' on it, you can bet it's not Amish. Cheers, Andrei Andrei Koribanics II 8 Falcon Place Wayne, NJ 07470 Voice/Fax: 973-696-9378 email: andreikor@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:43:25 +0200 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Modelling Style Poll Message-ID: <003c01c0be21$d3854a60$7ca072d4@FRITZweb> > 1. quantity or quality Definetely quality. Result? 5 models finished in 5 years. I usually have to do tricks to get them finished. a) Make a present ( work usually only for ot subjects) b) My standard plastic dealer is running the largest modelling magazine here in Germany. Sometimes I ask him if he needs a review or an article. Last subjects where this trick worked was MAC Pfalz DIIIa and a Eduard Fokker DrI. I also reanimated connections to another a/c magazine to write reviews ( Eduard Pfalz DIIIa). Both tricks have the same reason: Deadline. You have to finish! > 2. best researched subject or best demanded subject I am suffering heavily from AMS. Best research subject is counter productive. Example? I am an Albatros lover. I never finished a model after the Mikesh book came out. I was able to reproduce 1/72 nails to fix ribs and struts. > 3. detailing or painting Definitely painting. A lot of over-detailed models are ruined by lousy paint jobs. When I meet this stuff on my club meeting, my comments are: Oh! What a great cockpit! ( Arrogant, I know). O.K. you can't beat a Parabellum 1/72 made from 16 PE parts (less ammo!), but generally a good paint job is the goal I am working for. To be honest, if somebody else will do the detailing, I would be more than hppy to do the painting. > 4. shape or dimensions. Is something looks like a duck, it is a duck. Nobody will take out a ruler and say: No ! No duck! Nostrils are 2,8 mm too far apart! > 5. Fixed modeling standard of an "anarchy" That's a problem I do not see in WWI modelling. But as I do model figures occassionally ( see No.3, that's the reason), I am dissappointed through the years. If you see award winning figures, you can't tell who made them. Same style! Hans ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:53:12 +0200 (CEST) From: knut.erik.hagen@eunet.no (Knut Erik Hagen) To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Windsock March/April 2001 review Message-ID: <200104052253.AAA68969@mail-relay.eunet.no> Hei, Got the latest WS in the mail today, here is a short summary: Some 1/72 and 1/48 models by Matt Bittner adore the inner cover Spad SA.4 from Spin build by Rod Holland Pfalz D.IIIa 1/48 from Eduard build by Steve Ruthland (6 pages) Curtiss H-16 Flying boat photo documentation by Colin Owers LFG Roland D.IV drawn and described by Colin Owers Italian S.I.A biplane colours described by Alberto Casirati Roden Gotha G.III review, cockpit photo and colour drawings. Mercedes 180hp engine report reprint sold by Albatross Publ. (@10GBP). Think it is a "should buy" issue unless you are into just British a/c. Next issue is supposed to be a Nieuport 28 special, also with Aeroclub BE2c build and an article on Pfalz D.VIII. Eders Knut Erik Who just returned from a visit to look at an 1/1 Sopwith Baby build, with aircraft and Clerget engine in bits and pieces. ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 3252 **********************