WWI Digest 3917 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by "Steven Perry" 2) RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by "Graham Hunter" 3) RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by "Grzegorz Mazurowski" 4) Re: German steel helmet by "Brad & Merville" 5) Re: German steel helmet by "Diego Fernetti" 6) Erwin Rommel in WW1 by "Gaston Graf" 7) Nice French website about the Red Baron.. by "Gaston Graf" 8) Armor question by "Matt Bittner" 9) Re: German steel helmet by Jasta38DD@aol.com 10) RE: Armor question by Crawford Neil 11) Re: German steel helmet by "Diego Fernetti" 12) RE: Armor question by "Diego Fernetti" 13) RE: Armor question by "Grzegorz Mazurowski" 14) RE: Armor question by Crawford Neil 15) RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout by "David Layton" 16) RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout by "Diego Fernetti" 17) RE: Armor question by "Grzegorz Mazurowski" 18) Re: Erwin Rommel in WW1 by "ibs4421" 19) RE: Armor question by "Michael Kendix" 20) Smithsonian/Wright engine pub f/s by zbob@att.net 21) Red Baron CD F/S by zbob@att.net 22) Jasta 16b and Max Holtzem Questions? by "Graham Hunter" 23) RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout by "Matt Bittner" 24) RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout by "Diego Fernetti" 25) Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by KnnthS@aol.com 26) Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by "Tom Solinski" 27) RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout by Witold Kozakiewicz 28) RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe by "Ray Boorman" 29) Re: German steel helmet by "Hans Trauner" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:49:29 -0500 From: "Steven Perry" To: Subject: Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: <000d01c1742e$0ea9a100$61e82341@tampabay.rr.com> > I've been thinking about something that has always > made me wonder. Why did the Sopwith Tripe disappear > so quickly, and then along comes the Fokker tripe > which was something of a copy, and becomes the most > famous WW1 aeroplane. Why the Dr.1 is remembered as it is today is due in large part to the MvR factor. The Tripe was on it's way out or gone by the time MvR made the Dr.1 famous, so there was another reason why the Tripe was removed from service. A.G.Lee, in No Parachute, offers the probable reason. Lee flew Pups, but was near and visited Naval 8. He sung the praises of the Pups manouverability, but dercried the single gun. It was the weight of fire or more specifically the lack of it that was the Tripe's downfall. The offensive advantage gained due to manouverability was neutralized by the lack of firepower. The Camel had two guns and was also manouverable enough to take advantage of it's increased firepower. In addition to the greater weight of fire, the twin gun arrangement added a level of redundancy that often kept a pilot in the fight when one gun jammed. On these accounts both the Fokker and the Camel were superior weapons to the Tripe in spite of it's stellar performance. sp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:16:56 -0600 From: "Graham Hunter" To: Subject: RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: <001401c17431$e48622a0$fa0101c0@grahamh> My biased vote goes to the Sopwith, but that is because It is one of my all time favorites. In the hands of equal pilots I think the Fokker would have the edge but it would be an excellent dogfight. The Fokker had the advantage of cantelever wings and very minimal rigging. The Sopwith was heavily rigged therefore there was substantially more drag. Like John mentioned the Sopwith was basically a modified Pup and outdated. The Sopwith was under armed and there was an attempt to fix that with the twin gun set up on 6 late production planes. Basically the design was dated and the Sopwiths success was at its end when the Fokker appeared. As we know Jacobs used the Fokker well past its prime, and what did he have for an engine, but a Clerget 130hp, same that was in late Sopwiths. Collishaw always said the Tripe was under armed and underpowered, but this was due more to the outdated design. Cheers, Graham ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:25:54 +0100 From: "Grzegorz Mazurowski" To: Subject: RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: <010701c17433$25695a20$0200a8c0@x.pl> Friends! Looking from technical point of view, Fokker was not a copy of Triplane. The only similarities were rotary engine and 3 wings. Fokker had some important technical advantages over Sopwith (Tripe, but even Camel!): metal fuselage construction (it was lighter and stronger), no rigging (less drag), and, which is most important, Dr.I was first serious airplane that used modern (or almost modern) thick airfoil, which gave it various advantages (eg better climb with less power, which is very important), probably better manouver characteristics, and more friendly stall-behaviour, which was very important in dogfight, when in tight turns outer wing was almost always in stall-conditions. It's effect was probably less loosing of altitude in turns, which was essential in dogfight. Ironically, what gave Tripe advantage over Pup, was third wing (it was question of visibility, but also solving problem of bad aerodynamical properties of close placed wide wings, you see that Camel has wings more narrow than Pup, and distance between it is much bigger than in Pup, same thing you can say about advantages of Alb. D.III over D.I/II), and in case of Foker, third wing was rather problem, not improvement. Real advantages of thick airfoil and low-drag rigging-less construction you can observe in D.VI, D.VII or D.VIII, which are similar in many aspects (D.VII has also big power). Greetings! Grzegorz _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:55:41 -0500 From: "Brad & Merville" To: Subject: Re: German steel helmet Message-ID: <003601c17437$4e51ede0$92a8fed8@default> Very interesting. I was always under the impression that the spike was made removable after several unfortunate incidents were reported involving duels with balloons and blunderbusses! Brad "Zer iss nossing a Cherman offizer cannot do!" (my all-time favourite movie) -----Original Message----- From: Diego Fernetti To: Multiple recipients of list Date: Friday, November 23, 2001 6:20 AM Subject: [WWI] Re: German steel helmet >Gasterix wrote: >> As the Germans invaded Luxemburg and Belgium they still >> wore the "Pickelhaube" but in most cases removed the tip. Their equippment >> and logistics was superior to the French and what I plan for my book is a >> most detailed description of the equippment and uniforms of both sides. > >You probably knew this, but in 1914 the spikes of the helmets were riveted >to the crown, but in later versions they were issued with removable spikes >so in frontline use they didn't make a good aiming point for the enemy. You >can read an excellent essay on german helmets at >http://www.worldwar1.com/sfgph.htm Check also the associated links at the >top of the page. >One of the factors of the demise of the classic pickelhaube was the shortage >of raw materials to make them. The body of the helmet (or more precisely of >the head-dress) was made in boiled leather. The leather was imported from >overseas and thanks to the efficient british blockade no new leather stocks >could reach the german ports.... do you know from where the leather was >sent? Yes, from Argentina! Probably the cargo ships with the german orders >ended in England and were used to make equipment for the tommies. Ironies of >war! >D. > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:14:41 -0300 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: Subject: Re: German steel helmet Message-ID: <016001c17439$f4f465e0$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Brad: Reportedly, the lufscitthzballonnenkorps general staff issued an order to all zeppelin crews forbidding the use of spiked headdresses of any kind for any personnel taller than 5 feet 4 inches, being permitted short visits of uhlans (with those flat topped czapkas) and artillery personnel (with those helmets ended with a ball) inside the zeppelins. The visits od ladies with plumed hats was permitted but not encouraged, because their plumed hats turned at least one airship envelope to be filled with "laughing gas" War is a very serious affair you know.... D. ----- Original Message ----- From: Brad & Merville To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 12:59 PM Subject: [WWI] Re: German steel helmet > Very interesting. I was always under the impression that the spike was made > removable after several unfortunate incidents were reported involving duels > with balloons and blunderbusses! > > Brad > "Zer iss nossing a Cherman offizer cannot do!" (my all-time favourite > movie) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:20:54 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: Erwin Rommel in WW1 Message-ID: Friends, the most famous German General of WWII - Erwin Rommel - participated in the Battle of the Frontiers in August of 1914 as a young infantry Lieutenant. I received today a copy of his book that he wrote later: "Infanterie greift an!" (infantry attacks!). My copy is of the 12th field post edition, printed in 1942. The first edition got published in 1937. This book is a brilliant description of all the battles that he participated at. In August of 1914, he fought in the region of Gomery and Bleid in nearby Belgium. The descriptions of the battle against the French is a fascinating read. Albeit written at a time the Nazis censored publications, this is the first German description of a battle that does NOT blame the Belgian civilians for attacking German units (franctireurs = partisans), but Rommel clearly talks about the soldiers of the French I.R. 101 shooting at the Germans from civilian buildings that the Germans then set on fire to get the Frenchmen out. It is amazing to read how he openly talks about German casualties - about the wounded of both sides who suffered so badly - at a time where the Nazis praised German bravery, omitting knowingly the dark side of their heroism. My question: Does anybody know if this book was translated in English? If so, I only can recommend it to everybody who is interested into the tactics of one of the greatest warlords of the past century. Rommel not only describes the battle operations in a brilliant way - he also included his conclusions as an advice to the modern (WWII) soldier. Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 17:21:10 +0100 From: "Gaston Graf" To: Subject: Nice French website about the Red Baron.. Message-ID: Hey WebSurfers, Today I received a mail from a Frenchman who was so fascinated by my site (blush) that he placed a link to it. It speaks for itself that I will place a link to his site as well, not only because of sympathie, but also because it is really a nice site that hosts a good selection of links. One of the links goes to a website about Wop May - the guy that MvR followed to shoot him down as some Aussies threw lead at him... Well, the outcome of the story is known. If you are speaking French you should have a look at it: http://www.tao-yin.com/baron-rouge/ If you don't speak French, well then have at least a look at the links section (LIENS)! happy surfing Gaston Graf (ggraf@vo.lu) Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: http://www.jastaboelcke.de ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 10:58:58 -0800 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Armor question Message-ID: My six-year-old son wants a tank model for Christmas. Unfortunately there are no armor models that are snap tight. What is a good, easy to build tank model in 1/35th? Yes, I know for me it's the wrong scale, but he has little hands. Is the Emhar Mk.IV good enough for a small tyke? The 1/76th model is an easy build which is why I was asking. TIA! Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:02:10 EST From: Jasta38DD@aol.com To: Subject: Re: German steel helmet Message-ID: <46.1e2e5114.292fdb13@aol.com> Diego writes: "....... the lufscitthzballonnenkorps general staff issued an order to all zeppelin crews forbidding the use of spiked headdresses of any kind for any personnel taller than 5 feet 4 inches, being permitted short visits of uhlans...." It should be noted however, that the wearing of spurs was discouraged. Hptm Ritter (Dipl Ing) Karl Otto Titzlinger late of His Imperial Majesty's Jasta 38DD http://www.wwimodeler.com/jasta38dd.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:07:03 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: I used to build all those old Airfix 1/76 tanks when I was about six, so why not, so long as it's cheap. And don't help him, that just means he will develop AMS by the time he's seven! /Neil C. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Bittner [mailto:tbittners@sprintmail.com] > Sent: den 23 november 2001 18:02 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [WWI] Armor question > > > My six-year-old son wants a tank model for Christmas. Unfortunately > there are no armor models that are snap tight. What is a > good, easy to > build tank model in 1/35th? Yes, I know for me it's the wrong scale, > but he has little hands. Is the Emhar Mk.IV good enough for a small > tyke? The 1/76th model is an easy build which is why I was asking. > TIA! > > > Matt Bittner > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:13:36 -0300 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: Subject: Re: German steel helmet Message-ID: <019301c17442$303f4180$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Bien sûr, HauptmannTitzlinger, as the use of high heeled stilettos D. ----- Original Message ----- From: > It should be noted however, that the wearing of spurs was discouraged. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:19:26 -0300 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: <01a401c17443$00d25620$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> I also started wit the Matchbox tanks, that came with diorama bases D. ----- Original Message ----- From: Crawford Neil To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: [WWI] RE: Armor question > I used to build all those old Airfix 1/76 tanks when I was > about six, so why not, so long as it's cheap. And don't > help him, that just means he will develop AMS by the time he's > seven! > /Neil C. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:28:23 +0100 From: "Grzegorz Mazurowski" To: Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: <003d01c17444$422b0bc0$0200a8c0@x.pl> Matt! Matchbox is better than Airfix. But really small. Do you want OT or later? I begun with 1/144 biplanes when I was 6, so maybe your boy can manage. Surely 1/35 would be better, but also more complex. >From my experience with kids (12 hours a week I'm primary school teacher), I can recommend you Matchbox Panther or Jagdpanther, or even T-34, not very accurate, but simple. Also Sherman Firefly can be good, but has smaller wheels. Maybe you should work together, you smaller parts, and your son turret, barrel, main body and tracks? If you want 1/35, Polish TKS is relatively simple IIRC, ask Karen for details, as she has that model (I've seen it some time ago). Greetings! G. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:41:38 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: As a teacher G you have more experience than me, but with all respect, and probably considerable variation between kids. I think they are better left alone as much as possible. Base this on my own experience (starting at 5) and my best friend who still hasn't got his 10-year old son properly started, Dad is "helping" and 1) he doesn't have time, 2) he wants to do it properly, the result; nothing whatsoever! /Neil C. > -----Original Message----- > From: Grzegorz Mazurowski [mailto:grzem@yahoo.com] > Sent: den 23 november 2001 18:28 > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [WWI] RE: Armor question > > > Matt! > Matchbox is better than Airfix. But really small. Do you want OT or > later? > I begun with 1/144 biplanes when I was 6, so maybe your boy can > manage. Surely 1/35 would be better, but also more complex. > >From my experience with kids (12 hours a week I'm primary school > teacher), I can recommend you Matchbox Panther or Jagdpanther, or > even T-34, not very accurate, but simple. Also Sherman Firefly can be > good, but has smaller wheels. > Maybe you should work together, you smaller parts, and your son > turret, barrel, main body and tracks? > If you want 1/35, Polish TKS is relatively simple IIRC, ask Karen for > details, as she has that model (I've seen it some time ago). > Greetings! > G. > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:49:49 -0600 From: "David Layton" To: Subject: RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout Message-ID: <000f01c173e2$aa6c1e20$416cd918@DavidLayton> I purchased this about a month ago from Jadar. I could not use several pieces as the sheet seemed to be based off of the component frame drawings in the Windsock datafile as reference. As a result, the built up fuselage interior will not fit as it does not allow for the thickness of the plastic! I used a combination of the fuselage side panels and some of the interior kit bits. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grzegorz Mazurowski" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 6:01 AM Subject: [WWI] RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout > Oops! > Sorry all! > Grzegorz > > > Grzegorz Mazurowski wrote: > > > > >To explain: > > >Witold is designer of that great PE set! > > > > > Wrong, I only helped Part with references, > > > > -- > > Witold Kozakiewicz > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:58:15 -0300 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: Subject: RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout Message-ID: <027c01c17448$6ce37d80$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> David, Witold > As a result, the built up fuselage > interior will not fit as it does not allow for the thickness of the plastic! > I used a combination of the fuselage side panels and some of the interior > kit bits. I always wondered about this in the "built in" structures of PART details. (I still have none) it's considered the plastic thickness of the kit in each different set, or it is reccommneded that you must sand the innards first to achieve scale thickness? D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:00:11 +0100 From: "Grzegorz Mazurowski" To: Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: <007601c17448$b3113040$0200a8c0@x.pl> Neil! You are perfectly right! I wanted only advice Matt to glue smaller parts together (for example Sherman wheel units), as a preparation to real work, but whole other work and finishing should be done by his son himself! (in our level, dad's work makes model producer, so we don't have to scratchbuild everything). Also supervising by adult is good, if only he strongly keeps rule "help me to do it by myself!". Kid is the builder here, and dad or teacher only hired consultant! Writing "together" I mean also, that Matt can do his Nieuport, and at the same table boy can make T-34. So there is no problem of lack of time :-) G. ----- Original Message ----- From: Crawford Neil > As a teacher G you have more experience than me, but > with all respect, and probably considerable variation between > kids. I think they are better left alone as much as possible. > Base this on my own experience (starting at 5) and my best > friend who still hasn't got his 10-year old son properly > started, Dad is "helping" and 1) he doesn't have time, 2) > he wants to do it properly, the result; nothing whatsoever! > /Neil C. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:01:58 -0600 From: "ibs4421" To: Subject: Re: Erwin Rommel in WW1 Message-ID: <001901c17448$f2b80ca0$153dfad1@ibs4421> Gaston, Yes, it was translated into English. Warren "Rommel, you beautiful bas%$*d!! I read your book!" -Gen. George S. Patton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaston Graf" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 10:24 AM Subject: [WWI] Erwin Rommel in WW1 > Friends, > > the most famous German General of WWII - Erwin Rommel - participated in the > Battle of the Frontiers in August of 1914 as a young infantry Lieutenant. I > received today a copy of his book that he wrote later: "Infanterie greift > an!" (infantry attacks!). My copy is of the 12th field post edition, printed > in 1942. The first edition got published in 1937. This book is a brilliant > description of all the battles that he participated at. In August of 1914, > he fought in the region of Gomery and Bleid in nearby Belgium. The > descriptions of the battle against the French is a fascinating read. Albeit > written at a time the Nazis censored publications, this is the first German > description of a battle that does NOT blame the Belgian civilians for > attacking German units (franctireurs = partisans), but Rommel clearly talks > about the soldiers of the French I.R. 101 shooting at the Germans from > civilian buildings that the Germans then set on fire to get the Frenchmen > out. It is amazing to read how he openly talks about German casualties - > about the wounded of both sides who suffered so badly - at a time where the > Nazis praised German bravery, omitting knowingly the dark side of their > heroism. > > My question: Does anybody know if this book was translated in English? If > so, I only can recommend it to everybody who is interested into the tactics > of one of the greatest warlords of the past century. Rommel not only > describes the battle operations in a brilliant way - he also included his > conclusions as an advice to the modern (WWII) soldier. > > Gaston Graf > (ggraf@vo.lu) > Meet the Royal Prussian Fighter Squadron 2 "Boelcke" at: > http://www.jastaboelcke.de > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:03:46 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: Armor question Message-ID: Neil: I agree with the laissez-faire approach. After an initial training period, say 2 or 3 kits, just leave them alone with the kit at the kitchen table with glue, bottle cap (to put glu in), toothpicks (to apply the glue) and sprue snippers. Lay down plenty of newspaper and leave the room. he'll call you if he wants something. Six is old enough. Michael >From: Crawford Neil >Reply-To: wwi@wwi-models.org >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: [WWI] RE: Armor question >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:44:15 -0500 (EST) > >As a teacher G you have more experience than me, but >with all respect, and probably considerable variation between >kids. I think they are better left alone as much as possible. >Base this on my own experience (starting at 5) and my best >friend who still hasn't got his 10-year old son properly >started, Dad is "helping" and 1) he doesn't have time, 2) >he wants to do it properly, the result; nothing whatsoever! >/Neil C. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grzegorz Mazurowski [mailto:grzem@yahoo.com] > > Sent: den 23 november 2001 18:28 > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: [WWI] RE: Armor question > > > > > > Matt! > > Matchbox is better than Airfix. But really small. Do you want OT or > > later? > > I begun with 1/144 biplanes when I was 6, so maybe your boy can > > manage. Surely 1/35 would be better, but also more complex. > > >From my experience with kids (12 hours a week I'm primary school > > teacher), I can recommend you Matchbox Panther or Jagdpanther, or > > even T-34, not very accurate, but simple. Also Sherman Firefly can be > > good, but has smaller wheels. > > Maybe you should work together, you smaller parts, and your son > > turret, barrel, main body and tracks? > > If you want 1/35, Polish TKS is relatively simple IIRC, ask Karen for > > details, as she has that model (I've seen it some time ago). > > Greetings! > > G. > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:10:55 +0000 From: zbob@att.net To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Smithsonian/Wright engine pub f/s Message-ID: <20011123181057.PJUT941.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> I have a copy of the Smithsonian Museum's "Annals of Flight" series, #5, covering the Wright Bros. Engines. Photos and cutaways 65 pages. $6. ppd Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 18:11:33 +0000 From: zbob@att.net To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Red Baron CD F/S Message-ID: <20011123181133.PEOD5540.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net> Selling new CD of the program "Red Baron" by Sierra Online. Has 33 different British and German aircraft flight simulations. $15. postpaid.. TIA Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:14:11 -0600 From: "Graham Hunter" To: Subject: Jasta 16b and Max Holtzem Questions? Message-ID: <001a01c1744a$a86cf780$fa0101c0@grahamh> Hey list, I am looking for some history on Max Holtzem and on Jasta 16b. Is there a book on Holtzem that gives more detail than the FMP Pfalz book and the Data File on the D.IIIa. I know he lived until the 1980's so there must be something on him. Did he fly anything other than the D.IIIa operationally? Did he get a Fokker D.VII or did he get a Pfalz D.XII? Now what about Jasta 16b info/history/etc? What did this Jasta end the war with the D.VII or D.XII or both? Was the vertical stripes a unit marking or pilot markings? TIA, Graham ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:35:28 -0800 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout Message-ID: On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:54:52 -0500 (EST), Diego Fernetti wrote: > I always wondered about this in the "built in" structures of PART details. > (I still have none) it's considered the plastic thickness of the kit in each > different set, or it is reccommneded that you must sand the innards first to > achieve scale thickness? I can speak in terms of the Roden Dr.I with the Part set. Very minimal sanding is required to fit the p/e. That sanding is probably more due to a quality-control problem then anything else. FWIW, HTH, YMMV... Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:47:58 -0300 From: "Diego Fernetti" To: Subject: RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout Message-ID: <031b01c1744f$5eeccc20$4640a8c0@ssp.salud.rosario.gov.ar> Thanks Matt! D. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Bittner To: Multiple recipients of list Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:39 PM Subject: [WWI] RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout > On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:54:52 -0500 (EST), Diego Fernetti wrote: > > > I always wondered about this in the "built in" structures of PART details. > > (I still have none) it's considered the plastic thickness of the kit in each > > different set, or it is reccommneded that you must sand the innards first to > > achieve scale thickness? > > I can speak in terms of the Roden Dr.I with the Part set. Very minimal > sanding is required to fit the p/e. That sanding is probably more due > to a quality-control problem then anything else. FWIW, HTH, YMMV... > > > Matt Bittner > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:40:15 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: You get a similar comparison in WW2 Luftwaffe *within* German planes concurrent @ the time: FW 190 series and Bf/ME 109 series. I looked into this a decade ago and reached this: Pilot preference, in spite of as well as because of. A report written by both British and American pilots flying captured 109's was that it had a very sluggish roll rate at any but the slowest speeds (i.e. not combat) and, in event, the stick feedback was described as "a broom handle in a bucket of wet cement". Erich Hartman swore by the 109 platform. Others preferred 190's and as soon as available. To me, this has always applied in a comparison of the DR 1 with any of it's contemporaries. Pilot preference. As noted here on list, Jacobsen parted with his DR 1 late. Voss, in an F1, gave 5 excellent combat pilots in SE5's a good struggle before going in. The DR 1 was commented on by many a startled adversary as being able to "turn in it's length" or flat spin. Don't think the answer is found on paper, exclusively, but in pilot ability and preference. A lot of these guys commented that the Albatros was becoming a dated concept. MVR is specific on the matter. Slow. Too steady. etc. I love Albatros-no ruffled feathers here-but the cutting edge guys wanted an eppe not a sabre.... IMHO apologies for bring in WW2 but the contrast intrigued and served point. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:29:08 -0600 From: "Tom Solinski" To: Subject: Re: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: <000801c1745d$811c9880$a6a20d41@Solinski.okcnc1.ok.home.com> The DR 1 was commented on by many a startled > adversary as being able to "turn in it's length" or flat spin. Don't think > the answer is found on paper, exclusively, but in pilot ability and > preference. A lot of these guys commented that the Albatros was becoming a > dated concept. MVR is specific on the matter. Slow. Too steady. etc. I An interesting "new" revelation into the old planes can be found over at the Dawn Patrol site. A group of guys in Kansas City have a squadron of 7/8ths scale Nieuport 11 replicas. In a generation of pilots raised on gentle stability in all the certified planes we fly, these guys were stunned by the comma rudder on the Nieuport. Because there is no fixed fin the airplanes were prone to crab or yaw allthe time unless extreme concentration was applied to center the rudder. One heavy foot left them crabbing along all day. Thier solution is a pair of springs to bring the rudder back to neutral, MTC Tom S ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:47:42 +0100 From: Witold Kozakiewicz To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: PART PE Detail Set for the Gavia Bristol Scout Message-ID: <3BFEB5EE.1010603@bg.am.lodz.pl> Diego Fernetti wrote: > I always wondered about this in the "built in" structures of PART details. > (I still have none) it's considered the plastic thickness of the kit in each > different set, or it is reccommneded that you must sand the innards first to > achieve scale thickness? > D. That depends, for Gotha you only hace to remove moulded interior frames, the same for Pfalz D.III, but ot Karas needs lots of sanding. As allways dry fit before glue. -- Witold Kozakiewicz ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:56:46 -0800 From: "Ray Boorman" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: Fokker vs Sopwith Tripe Message-ID: This is something that really should never be compared. Sopwith Triplane designed in 1915-16, Fokker F1/Dr1 mid 1917 era. Lets face it, 6 months at that time was the equal of an aircraft generation change. The fact that a Sopwith Triplane can be compared such that it comes down to pilot capability says a lot about the aircraft I would say. Both aircraft were abnormalities, how much of the Dr1's success was down to MvR and the fact that it was meant to give the same capabilities or supposed capabilities as the Sopwith Aircraft. Pilot belief in a plane counted for an awfull lot at that time. What went against the Sopwith Triplane was the fact that it was not popular with the decision makers at the RFC since they were suspicious of anything that didnt fit there ideas of the norm for a scout, therefore it had limited use so it cost more to build. It was more expensive to build than a Pup or a Camel just because it had more parts. Even in wartime this can be a big reason not to continue development wih certain designs. Look at the Mustang of wwii, it not only had long range, it was also half as expensive to build as say a thunderbolt. The Camel was easier to build and could accomodate larger engines because of a stronger airframe. Now if you were to go into what if's. Like a Bentley powered twin gun Sopwith Triplane. I think a Dr1 would have a fight on its hands, in fact I would think the DR1 would have been deadmeat with similiar pilots. (I'll go run now whilst all the dr1 lovers throw things at me) Ray ______________________________________________________________ Get Your Free E-mail at http://www.prontomail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 22:21:54 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: German steel helmet Message-ID: <002101c17464$dff7dfc0$76ad72d4@FRITZweb> Gaston, the main source I used is a catalogue of an exhibition about steel helmets from the mediveal age up to 1980 in the Bayerisches Armeemuseum in Ingolstadt in 1984. The catalogue was available under the series 'Veröffentlichungen des Bayerischen Armeemuseums, Band 8', Stahlhelme vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart'. And it is out of print. Sorry! Hans ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaston Graf" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 8:01 PM Subject: [WWI] Re: German steel helmet > Very very interesting, Hans! Would you please share the sources of that > information with us? I will see to get the book because that information > about the German steel helmet is very useful for my book about the "Bataille > des Frontières". As the Germans invaded Luxemburg and Belgium they still > wore the "Pickelhaube" but in most cases removed the tip. Their equippment > and logistics was superior to the French and what I plan for my book is a > most detailed description of the equippment and uniforms of both sides. I > talked already with the people of that German re-enactment group who are > willing to assist me. I want to include color photos of models wearing > German and French uniforms. It would be very interesting to write a bit > about the developement of the German and French equippment in the first > phase of the war. > After all the information that I have gathered until this day, and after > what I still have to research, that book will become a very big project. I > thought already about splitting it up into several volumes covering the > Invasion, the battle and maybe one covering only the weapons used, as well > as the equipment. > > all the best > > 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 Hans > > Trauner > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:40 PM > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: [WWI] Re: German steel helmet > > > > > > No, Sir. Martin ! > > > > Medizinalrat Prof. Dr. August Bier, General Surgeon of the Navy (!) and > > consultant Surgeon of the XVIII Armycorps 'only' reported to the Prussian > > War Departement the need of a steel helmet. He stated that most of head > > injuries were caused by very small metal fragments. The largest fragment > > found was smaller than a bean, usually smaller than a cherrie stone. He > > wrote his report on Aug. 13th 1915. But already in July 1915 the > > first tests > > were ordered by the deputy Secretary of War and on Aug. 14th 1915 > > the order > > to develop a helmet was made to the firm C.E. Juncker in Berlin. > > > > But the 'real' german helmet was developed by Prof. Friedrich Schwert, > > coming from the Technical University Hannover. The first helmets > > were issued > > at the end of the year 1915, mainly to Sturmtruppen at Verdun, > > led by Hptm. > > Rohr. But the first main order was not placed before April 1916 and at the > > end of July over 250.000 pieces were delivered. > > > > Hans > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Martin Héctor AFFLITTO ECHAGüE" > > To: "Multiple recipients of list" > > Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:27 PM > > Subject: [WWI] > > > > > > > Karen > > > > > > In order to contribute to knowledge, the french helmet was > > desinged by an > > > artist. The german one by a neurosurgeon.(1916)!!! > > > > > > Martín > > > > ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 3917 **********************