WWI Digest 4088 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) RE: Latest Scale Models Int'l by Volker Haeusler 2) Data File Swap by "Tom Plesha" 3) IM articles by "Matt Bittner" 4) re: IM articles by "Grzegorz Mazurowski" 5) Re: Fokker DRI - 1/48 by PetersList@aol.com 6) re: Lubos's New Web Site/famous aircraft by KnnthS@aol.com 7) Re: Tidying up by "Michal Beran" 8) e-bay bidder jastab by "Tom Plesha" 9) Update link by "Matt Bittner" 10) Re: My budget is spent for this month... by "Hans Trauner" 11) Depth of field - again, but with good news- by "Hans Trauner" 12) Re: Update link by "Ross Moorhouse" 13) Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- by Nigel Cheffers-Heard 14) Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- by "Chris Banyai-Riepl" 15) Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- by "Hans Trauner" 16) Site Updates by "Nigel Rayner" 17) Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... by "ot811" 18) Russian Nieuport help by Rory Goodwin 19) VAMP Site by "Brent Theobald" 20) Re: Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... by "Bob Pearson" 21) Re: VAMP Site by "Ross Moorhouse" 22) Re: Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... by "Michael Kendix" 23) Re: VAMP Site by Shane Weier 24) Re: VAMP Site by "Ross Moorhouse" 25) Re: VAMP Site by CoolSpadLuke@aol.com 26) Re: VAMP Site by Todd Hayes 27) RE: Aircraft dimensions by "mdf@mars.ark.com" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 15:45:40 +0800 From: Volker Haeusler To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: Latest Scale Models Int'l Message-ID: Sandy said: "I don't mean to be unkind - and I recognise the builder's name Rod Holland, as somebody whose work I've seen before. Maybe the poor guy was seriously ill" Must be like that - and hopefully he´s back on track. I have met (10 years ago) Rod Holland twice on the Southern Expo - he was involved in organizing that event, and he was one of a group of dedicated WW I modellers that also included Les Cooper and Joe Chubbock - the guys behind most of the vacforms originating from England in the late eighties - and I have seen some of his 72 scale vacs. Some of them were really excellent - so there must be a (sad) story behind that SE 5 A. Volker ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 09:39:04 -0500 From: "Tom Plesha" To: Subject: Data File Swap Message-ID: <000901c1a0f7$0b419c20$2cfdfa18@mcmb1.mi.home.com> Hi All- If anyone is interested in a data file swap: I have extra #33 Ju.D.1 and #35 Rumpler C.IV. Looking for:#'s 65, 73,75,83,87 or Mini-file#'s 2 or 14 Contact me off-list Later Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 08:58:56 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: IM articles Message-ID: I was bored yesterday, so I added a bunch to the IM page on the site. Too much to go into here, just go there and take a look. Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Page Assistant Editor ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 16:12:04 +0100 From: "Grzegorz Mazurowski" To: Subject: re: IM articles Message-ID: <046501c1a0fb$a9439aa0$0200a8c0@x.pl> I still beg you for your Roland article. :-) G. > I was bored yesterday, so I added a bunch to the IM page on the > site. Too much to go into here, just go there and take a look. > Matt Bittner _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:42:07 EST From: PetersList@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Fokker DRI - 1/48 Message-ID: There has only ever been one manufacturer with a WWI line that did not include a Fokker DrI. Are you lisrening Mr Eduard? Peter L ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:03:03 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: re: Lubos's New Web Site/famous aircraft Message-ID: <15e.7572c7b.297b00c7@aol.com> Sandy scolds: << Don't bust a gut over trying to find the resin kit, order the vac from Aviation Usk. >> Thank you, Sandy--I had no idea on either, save this: Only one available. I'll build a cranky fitting, incorrect model over *no* model anyday. This is my version of scratch. And on that thread, the Shane Memorial Kit Creation Theory: Build it and they will come. Was going off Bob P's review in IM and taking soft cowl under advisement...which is unfortunate, that being the point with that aircraft. Thanks again for the pointer. Linguistic or otherwise.. Ken, putting various grammer primers back on shelf ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 18:21:00 +0100 From: "Michal Beran" To: Subject: Re: Tidying up Message-ID: <003b01c1a10d$f628cb80$7e700bd4@cz> << How often do people tidy up their modelling area? If at all! > I usually do it when I've finished a major step in a project, > like sanding, or painting, or decalling. Most of the time > it's middling pigish, I've seen worse. > /Neil C. >> My workbench is of very temporary nature, usually serves as a kitchen dinning table. I usually work on kits early morning when Klara (my SWMBO) sleeps still. Tidying up this area after my every modelling session is therefore an issue of family peace. In the best of cases (at least for Klara), this process should be topped by preparing of breakfast. BTW Klara just finishes her final architectural project at university and HER working area includes almost the whole flat, with her drawings, plans, sketches and drawing pens occupying kitchen, living room and recently bed room too, leaving our bathroom the only safe place. I think to take photo documentation secretly , because it could be usefull in the future. happy modelling! Michal ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:29:13 -0500 From: "Tom Plesha" To: Subject: e-bay bidder jastab Message-ID: <000701c1a117$32051c40$2cfdfa18@mcmb1.mi.home.com> Hi All- Is anyone on the list use e-bay with the name jastab? There are some items being bid on that I'm looking at with that bidders ID. TIA Later Tom ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:02:23 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Update link Message-ID: We normally don't announce when we change the "small stuff", like other sites' links. However, I feel this announcement is important, since it was basically a name change. The new "VAMP" has been added to the links page. Since Lubos is now calling it HOBBYSHOP.CZ, it can be found more toward the top of the commercial links (since they're in alphabetical order). Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Page Assistant Editor ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:14:38 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: My budget is spent for this month... Message-ID: <000501c1a11d$8a49cb20$4fad72d4@FRITZweb> Yes, of course, Lance! But Americal are hard to obtain for me as they don't accept plastic money. And cheques drawn to a US bank are nearly as expensive as I would fly over to Americal and pick the decals up myself... H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lance Krieg" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: [WWI] Re: My budget is spent for this month... > Hans, Americal has 1/32 decals for various Storks, if that is of interest. > > Matt has the list online: > > http://home.sprintmail.com/~tbittners/AG/index.html > > HTH > > Lance > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:33:00 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Depth of field - again, but with good news- Message-ID: <00b801c1a120$1aeab7a0$4fad72d4@FRITZweb> Listees, Bob Laskodis mails ( "max f8") made me think again. What I forgot was that those digicams do have short lenses, 7mm to 21 mm f.e. which is comparable to around 28mm to 80mm. And what happened when the focus is short? Yes, Sir, depth of field increases! So, f8 is more than enough on a 21mm camera. And so I went to town this morning and bought one. It's a Canon with 4.0 Megapixels and it was around 1100 Euro. ( 1Euro = 1 US $ or so). I start to train now. Thanks again for any help, especially to you, Bob! Hans ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 07:16:50 +1100 From: "Ross Moorhouse" To: Subject: Re: Update link Message-ID: <002701c1a126$3ab42c00$3b482dcb@nsw.bigpond.net.au> His site has been down for 2 days now. :-( Ross ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Bittner" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 6:02 AM Subject: [WWI] Update link | We normally don't announce when we change the "small stuff", like | other sites' links. However, I feel this announcement is | important, since it was basically a name change. | | The new "VAMP" has been added to the links page. Since Lubos is | now calling it HOBBYSHOP.CZ, it can be found more toward the top | of the commercial links (since they're in alphabetical order). | | | Matt Bittner | WW1 Modeling Page | Assistant Editor | | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:16:53 +0000 From: Nigel Cheffers-Heard To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- Message-ID: >Listees, >Bob Laskodis mails ( "max f8") made me think again. What I forgot was that >those digicams do have short lenses, 7mm to 21 mm f.e. which is comparable >to around 28mm to 80mm. And what happened when the focus is short? Yes, Sir, >depth of field increases! So, f8 is more than enough on a 21mm camera. Umm, not quite true, I'm afraid. Picture this: a full-frame head shot at f8 with a 28mm lens. You can take it from about 300mm away. Moderate DoF. Now go to a 300mm lens, and do a full frame head shot. You are now working from several metres away, also at f8. The DoF will be identical. The perspective will be strange! DoF is governed by aperture and SCALE of image ONLY. Nothing else, lens focal length doesn't come into it, assuming you are getting the same size image. Honest........ (I promise I will say nothing more on this subject) (Cheers from the back....) N -- Nigel Cheffers-Heard photography + design tel: +44 (0)1392 87 58 57 fax: +44 (0)1392 87 74 97 mobile: 0771 261 4514 nigelch@cheffers.co.uk www.cheffers.co.uk Laburnums, Bridge Hill Topsham, Exeter EX3 0QQ, UK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 12:40:10 -0800 From: "Chris Banyai-Riepl" To: Subject: Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- Message-ID: Just to chime in my 2 cents worth. Yes, that is true, but it's not a valid scenario of the digital cameras. Do the same experiment, but instead of using a 35mm camera with a 28mm lens, use a camera with a smaller negative. The depth of field changes because the focal plane arrangement is different. The image size of a current 5-megapixel camera is still less than that of a traditional 35mm camera by about 15%, and it gets progressively smaller as you go down in megapixel size. As a practical example, I've shot comparison photos with my Minolta 600si 35mm and Nikon 995, same view, same settings, and the digital camera has a much larger depth of field at the same f stop & focal length. Sincerely, Chris Banyai-Riepl Publisher/Illustrator Internet Modeler http://www.internetmodeler.com > >Listees, > >Bob Laskodis mails ( "max f8") made me think again. What I > forgot was that > >those digicams do have short lenses, 7mm to 21 mm f.e. which is > comparable > >to around 28mm to 80mm. And what happened when the focus is > short? Yes, Sir, > >depth of field increases! So, f8 is more than enough on a 21mm camera. > > Umm, not quite true, I'm afraid. > Picture this: a full-frame head shot at f8 with a 28mm lens. You can > take it from about 300mm away. Moderate DoF. > Now go to a 300mm lens, and do a full frame head shot. You are now > working from several metres away, also at f8. > The DoF will be identical. The perspective will be strange! DoF is > governed by aperture and SCALE of image ONLY. Nothing else, lens > focal length doesn't come into it, assuming you are getting the same > size image. > > Honest........ > (I promise I will say nothing more on this subject) > > (Cheers from the back....) > > N > -- > Nigel Cheffers-Heard > photography + design ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:46:43 +0100 From: "Hans Trauner" To: Subject: Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- Message-ID: <000501c1a12a$6794fc00$0fad72d4@FRITZweb> Hmm, whenever will I understand this? When I made a pic with my old SLR with a 28mm lens at f11 the DoF will cover a 1/48 Alb CII over the complete wingspan. When I use the 50mm lens I had to use f22 to get the complete wing sharp. To we define DoF in different ways? Or is my 'feeling' based on illusion because I changed the distance object to lens also when changing from 28 to 50mm? Anyway, I made my first test shots with my Canon at f8 and it works. H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Cheffers-Heard" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 9:21 PM Subject: [WWI] Re: Depth of field - again, but with good news- > >Listees, > >Bob Laskodis mails ( "max f8") made me think again. What I forgot was that > >those digicams do have short lenses, 7mm to 21 mm f.e. which is comparable > >to around 28mm to 80mm. And what happened when the focus is short? Yes, Sir, > >depth of field increases! So, f8 is more than enough on a 21mm camera. > > Umm, not quite true, I'm afraid. > Picture this: a full-frame head shot at f8 with a 28mm lens. You can > take it from about 300mm away. Moderate DoF. > Now go to a 300mm lens, and do a full frame head shot. You are now > working from several metres away, also at f8. > The DoF will be identical. The perspective will be strange! DoF is > governed by aperture and SCALE of image ONLY. Nothing else, lens > focal length doesn't come into it, assuming you are getting the same > size image. > > Honest........ > (I promise I will say nothing more on this subject) > > (Cheers from the back....) > > N > -- > Nigel Cheffers-Heard > photography + design > > tel: +44 (0)1392 87 58 57 > fax: +44 (0)1392 87 74 97 > mobile: 0771 261 4514 > nigelch@cheffers.co.uk > www.cheffers.co.uk > > Laburnums, Bridge Hill > Topsham, Exeter EX3 0QQ, UK ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:55:37 -0000 From: "Nigel Rayner" To: Subject: Site Updates Message-ID: <000001c1a12b$a5835d80$983bedc1@w1o0t3> Hi all, A belated congrats to Pedro for getting that Phonix DI fixed, it looks really nice. And you managed to beat me to the finish! And Fraser's Albatros is just a fantastic piece of work. I don't think I would ever dream of attempting a scheme like that. Well done both! Cheers, Nigel R ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 15:42:59 -0500 From: "ot811" To: Subject: Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... Message-ID: <007501c1a12b$4aa0ea90$0101a8c0@delos> Folks, I have been thinking (almost never a safe thing). I want to propose an closed-group international "exchange" for speeding up mail-order hobby purchases. I notice, quite often, that there are serious barriers to mail-order between US and Europe, and to some extent, South America: - some merchants dont accept credit card - some dont accept foreign currencies - they take a long time to clear foreign payments, and sometimes there is a fee involved. These would be eased a lot if a person in the US made the payments for US purchases on behalf on non-US buyers. The same for european purchases by non-eurpoean buyers. The advantages are obvious. To keep things simple, the outstanding balance can be netted and settled periodically, so, eg, every 3 months, the outstanding difference between the US payor and european payor can be settled by a single payment. I wont go into the details here, and I dont know the european payment systems either, but if there is interest we could thresh out the details off-list. A tricky issue will be the foreign-exchange fluctuations and currency conversion fees. Whats needed of course, is one (or more) volunteer in the US and Europe, who are willing to make pmts and willing to trust buyers upto a certain amount. I am willing to be a scapegoat. Please contact me offlist if interested in exploring this. And finally, I hope this not something that will have the US Treasury dept coming after me. regards SSH ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:27:10 -0800 From: Rory Goodwin To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Russian Nieuport help Message-ID: <3C49E4AE.DA70C01C@earthlink.net> I have a copy of pg. 147 from C&C 28/3 which shows a Russian Nie. 23. It appears as if it may have French roundels on the underside of the upper wings and an early Lewis gun on a two-post mounting. Can someone with this issue have a look for verification? I'm also looking to acquire a spare Eduard Profi Nie. 17 upper wing without center section cutout. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:32:22 +0000 From: "Brent Theobald" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: VAMP Site Message-ID: Howdy! The VAMP site doesn't work for me. Nothing gets displayed. Is this happening to anyone else? How much is the Staaken R.VI? Is there a group order yet? Later! Brent _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 13:30:42 -0800 From: "Bob Pearson" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... Message-ID: <101147614701@smtp.vphos.net> That is what I did with a fellow in the former Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, we each got items not normally availble to the other. Bob ---------- >From: "ot811" > These would be eased a lot if a person in the US made the payments for US > purchases on behalf on non-US buyers. The same for european purchases by > non-eurpoean buyers. The advantages are obvious. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 08:42:25 +1100 From: "Ross Moorhouse" To: Subject: Re: VAMP Site Message-ID: <008601c1a132$2f532760$3b482dcb@nsw.bigpond.net.au> 2 days its been like this. :-( Ross ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Theobald" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: [WWI] VAMP Site | Howdy! | | The VAMP site doesn't work for me. Nothing gets displayed. | | Is this happening to anyone else? | | How much is the Staaken R.VI? Is there a group order yet? | | Later! | | Brent | | _________________________________________________________________ | Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 21:45:02 From: "Michael Kendix" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Risky Scheme, was.. My budget is spent for this month... Message-ID: 2 things: 1. Lubos' site the Hobbyist.cz is down undergoing work. Presumably this has somethig to do with people receiving access to the wrong address and he's probably tearing his hair out trying to fix it. 2. Sanjeev mentioned a group orderin scheme. In a similar though non-international mode, Todd Hayes has been organizing mass purchases of Lubos' stuff but of course, that doesn't help non-USA residents obtain US stuff like Americal/Gryphon. Michael _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 07:47:38 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: VAMP Site Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCDA79@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Ross, > > 2 days its been like this. :-( > Model shops closed? Hanging out for a new kit fix? :-) Shane > ********************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s). If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. For general enquires: ++61 7 3833 8000 Support Centre e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au Support Centre phone: Australia 1800500646 International ++61 7 38338042 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 09:15:23 +1100 From: "Ross Moorhouse" To: Subject: Re: VAMP Site Message-ID: <009001c1a136$ca5bbc00$3b482dcb@nsw.bigpond.net.au> Shhhhhhh .. There's at least one ot kit I would like to get. You know Shane I have no kits to build at al... If only.. ;-) Ross ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Weier" To: "Multiple recipients of list" Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: [WWI] Re: VAMP Site | Ross, | | > | > 2 days its been like this. :-( | > | | Model shops closed? Hanging out for a new kit fix? | | :-) | | Shane | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > | | | ********************************************************************** | The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is | intended only for the use of the addressee(s). | If you receive this e-mail in error, any use, distribution or | copying of this e-mail is not permitted. You are requested to | forward unwanted e-mail and address any problems to the | MIM Holdings Limited Support Centre. | | For general enquires: ++61 7 3833 8000 | Support Centre e-mail: supportcentre@mim.com.au | Support Centre phone: Australia 1800500646 | International ++61 7 38338042 | ********************************************************************** | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:17:16 EST From: CoolSpadLuke@aol.com To: Subject: Re: VAMP Site Message-ID: <18d.2044f77.297b4a6c@aol.com> I was able to determine that the Sram 1/144 Zepplin Staaken R.VI sells for $22.58, but couldn't order anything. . . . .did I write that? You can count the 1/72 scale kits I own on the fingers of one hand, but 1/44th?! Then again, 11.5-inch wingspan isn't too bad. :-) I looked in my "The German Giants" but couldn't determine where the "Zepplin" came into the kit description. There were several manufacturers of the R.VI but I didn't see Zepplin among them. S.S.W. seems to dominate several of the earlier Staaken models. Did Zepplin "grandfather" the design? Mike Kavanaugh In a message dated Sat, 19 Jan 2002 4:36:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Brent Theobald" writes: > Howdy! > > The VAMP site doesn't work for me. Nothing gets displayed. > > Is this happening to anyone else? > > How much is the Staaken R.VI? Is there a group order yet? > > Later! > > Brent > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 14:35:51 -0800 (PST) From: Todd Hayes To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: VAMP Site Message-ID: <20020119223551.86215.qmail@web11101.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Brent, There were some problems with people's logins. I think Lubos is trying to fix it. That's why the site is down. I'm considering doing another group order. Spin Models, here I come! I'd like to see the S&H terms though, before I do. Todd --- Brent Theobald wrote: > Howdy! > > The VAMP site doesn't work for me. Nothing gets > displayed. > > Is this happening to anyone else? > > How much is the Staaken R.VI? Is there a group order > yet? > > Later! > > Brent > > _________________________________________________________________ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: > http://messenger.msn.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 17:57:54 -0500 From: "mdf@mars.ark.com" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: RE: Aircraft dimensions Message-ID: <3C49F9F2.83CC9244@mars.ark.com> I have to disagree with you on this - >From original drawings, I have found length to be measured any way the individual doing the measuring wanted to do it. From prop boss, cowling front, firewall, and to rudder post, or to rudder (or elevator) trailing edge. Check out the early Jane's and you will find all of these methods present. I have found them measured tail up along the thrust line or the top longeron, and tail down. Stations have been measured along the top longeron, and along the thrustline, often depending on what was easiest at any given moment but the RAF drawings sets (which are as complete as any) do not have numbered stations on them, and neither did any of the surviving Nieuport-Macchi factory drawings, both having only local dimansions. If the nautical system was in use, it was probably only being used by those compaines with nautical backgrounds, and may have become more common later when standardization was found to be neccesary between the wars. Quality control is also a factor - since if each item is measured from a basepoint, the last station is only going to be out by whatever variation is acceptable from the basepoint, while measuring each item from the previous can result in accumulated errors, with a result that individual variation can be massive. If WW2 is anything to go by, Quality control became much more important once the rush was over, and in one instance 90% of a batch of wartime built P&W R-1340's was found to not meet the standards required and were returned to the manufacturer after the war, without having been used, even though during the war they were deemed acceptable. Better a lemon engine or aircraft than none at all. To make it even more complicated, the original dimensions are often rounded (as on STAé 3 views), and both the original and rounded dimensions are then converted between metric and imperial, and often as not, rounded again, and sometimes even converted back again. On some of the early Nieuport monoplanes, I found dozens of published dimensions for each type, all within a foot (or even two) of each other. On a related note - does anyone know whether the current standard is to measure washout from the leading edge, the trailing edge, or at a spar location? I'm wondering if just the trailing edge would drop, or if the leading edge might be angled higher than the dihedral. Mike F. Eli Geher wrote: > > At 04:42 AM 1/16/02 -0500, Tom Gourdie wrote: > >Tom S > > > >Thanks to all who have contributed to the answers to my question. This is > >helpful and I think I now have a clearer idea of measurement parameters. > > > >To keep it OT my request was specifically related to aircraft of the 1914-18 > >period but I expect you all know that! > > I'm sorry to be so late on this thread, but I have to disagree with some of > what was posted. The dimensioning of aircraft has been generally > standardized since the beginning of the industry. The standard predates > aviation. Its the same standard and nomenclature used on ships for several > hundred years. > > Each point on the vehicle is defined by a Waterline, a Station line and a > Buttock line. The waterline plane is aligned with the nominal flight axis, > and not the ground sitting plane. > > Station zero is generally placed ahead of the most forward part of the > plane so that all stations have a positive value. Waterline zero is > generally placed below the lowest part of the extended landing > gear. Buttock line zero is on the centerline. I have no clue as to what > they did on asymmetric designs, but luckily they're not that common. > > The overall dimensions as given out by the engineering department were > based on the above system. The discrepancies that exist in published data > are a result of design changes, manufacturing tolerances and errors by well > meaning researchers. > > Without being too dogmatic about it, I believe that every legitimate World > War I aviation shop used some version of this system. Unfortunately, a lot > of the original documentation didn't survive, so we modelers need to make > the best of the situation. > > Eli Geher ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 4088 **********************