WWI Digest 4095 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: control surface positioning by Crawford Neil 2) New images by "Matt Bittner" 3) Re: preflight checks wasRe: Re: control surface positioning/Again/again by KnnthS@aol.com 4) Re: Cutting PE by KnnthS@aol.com 5) Re: New images by xtv16@dial.pipex.com 6) Mortars by Nigel Cheffers-Heard 7) RE: Pegasus decals? by Crawford Neil 8) Re: control surface positioning by "Lee M." 9) Nigels mortars: by Robert Horton 10) Re: control surface positioning by "Lee M." 11) Re: Mortars by KnnthS@aol.com 12) Re: New images by KnnthS@aol.com 13) Re: Nigels mortars: by "Lee M." 14) Re: control surface positioning by KnnthS@aol.com 15) Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? by KarrArt@aol.com 16) Re: Brass tubes and boring corks was Roundels and paint by CoolSpadLuke@aol.com 17) Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers by "iban" 18) Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers by KnnthS@aol.com 19) Re: Mortars by "Lee M." 20) Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? by REwing@aol.com 21) Re: Butterfly was RE: Pegasus decals? by tbittners@sprintmail.com 22) Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? by xtv16@dial.pipex.com 23) Re: Butterfly was RE: Pegasus decals? by Dave Fleming 24) Re: control surface positioning by "D Charles" 25) RE: Nigel's wood finish by "Nigel Rayner" 26) New Madman sighted.... by "Nigel Rayner" 27) Alberto's models by "Marcio Antonio Campos" 28) Re: control surface positioning by "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" 29) Re: control surface positioning by "D Charles" 30) Ceramcoat Acrylics by "Harris, Mack" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:32:09 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: Shane wrote: > > So the weight of the elevators (not tailplane ailerons) pulls > them down, and > the stick moves as far forward as it'll go. > > AFAIK this would be so with almost every WW1 aircraft > *unless* a column lock > was fitted and used, or the seatbelt or something else used > to hold the > stick. > This was interesting, I used to lower elevators, but have sort of forgotten to do it recently, I don't think I've seen it a lot on Spads, but I'll certainly go and have a good look, It's not too late for a bit of elevator bending yet. /Neil C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 06:11:14 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: New images Message-ID: Just added actually new images from Alberto, a pair of Fokker Dr.Is. Superb!! Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Page Assistant Editor ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:10:09 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: preflight checks wasRe: Re: control surface positioning/Again/again Message-ID: <114.b273aa7.297eb0a1@aol.com> In a message dated 22/1/02 1:41:12 am, dcharls@iprimus.com.au writes: << Kick the tyres, light the fires, last one off is a sissy. >> I love this! Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:25:32 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Cutting PE Message-ID: <8b.128911a7.297eb43c@aol.com> Neil: << (I use the single edge blade with double sided tape on a tile for normal thingie cutting). >> this is so obvious! cool thingie device type keeper ...I use nail-trimmers. Cup your hand around them so no flying off of thingie and then >clip< and you have a fairly crisp cut for said thing-uh. The squeezie kind not the skii-zors... otherwise, the method you described for else/all. Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:19:51 +0000 From: xtv16@dial.pipex.com To: Subject: Re: New images Message-ID: <1011712791.3c4d8317c34f6@netmail.pipex.net> Quoting Matt Bittner : > Just added actually new images from Alberto, a pair of Fokker > Dr.Is. Superb!! > Almost makes me weep, Alberto's level of 'slammer' knocks my 'best' off the table ! Something to admire and aspire to ! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:23:19 +0000 From: Nigel Cheffers-Heard To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Mortars Message-ID: Can anyone here tell me the typical altitude reached by a mortar shell, both WW1 and contemporary? TIA 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:26:50 +0100 From: Crawford Neil To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: I was looking at some Henri Farré paintings, he did them fairly bright red, and he was there at the time. And as it suits my purpose right now, I'll do the same. Funnily enough the best looking decals I have are from an Airfix Spad VII, they are on a blue backing, so I guess they came out of a newish box. I'm going to paint them anyway, that way I get the colour I want. /Neil C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:49:14 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4D980A.FE8648C3@x25.net> NOTE: (Except for a few very early planes that only pulled the aileron surfaces in a certain direction and then went slack on the opposing side of the cable. That lovely Farman in the Photo section of our WW I Site used the pull attributes ... The aileron surfaces all hung down at rest, then, went to neutral when airspeed increased. This took the slack out of the cables...They were pulled either way from that position causing the opposing cable to go slack as the extra cable fed in that direction. Looked really crazy with all the loose wire when sitting on the ground. Now the answers to your questions. Elevators can be up or down. It depends on whether the pilot has done any of three things. Quickly also.. All control cables are tight.. He pulls the stick back, moving the elevators up, and, fastens it that way with the seat belt. So the plane which was parked headed into the wind would have down pressure on the elevators. I usually parked my Cub that way when it was not in it's t-hangar behind my house. Pilot parks the plane with the wind toward the rear of the plane and pushes the stick forward so the elevators are downward and then puts the seat cushion or some other object to hold it for the same reason. Or it was not windy and he just lets gravity pull them down without help. Then the ailerons can also be one up, one down, and, anywhere in between. The stick far right or left since it is a bit haphazard and all left to chance. The elevator control cables are the same length for up or down as are those for the rudder which goes the same distance right or left. Ailerons and elevators are not ever inter-connected, except as "Ailevators" in a tailess like the N-9m ,YB-39, YB-45, the B-2, and' other flying wing type aircraft. At least I have never heard of it... It would be a strange bird to control. Some planes, made like an Ercoupe, had the rudder and ailerons interconnected. Later they had a means to disconnect from each other. Connected in the original manner made it really difficult to land in cross winds. The plane was almost un-controllable when close to the ground. I almost hated those planes. With three way control you could slide sideways parallel to the runway, with a wing down, then kind of kick it around to straight and level just before ground contact. With unified controls you had to make corrections to high above the ground causing the plane to be moving sideways in the cross winds and at a higher speed. The ability to "cross control" with three way controls is a positive aspect most pilots like... It also allows some manuevers when higher above the ground using the rudder in opposition to the ailerons. Like what they call "top rudder" etc.. B-52s and a few other planes had "castering" wheels and they could, and do/did, land sideways. It is not a common feature. The three major control axis elements of flight are still the same as when planes were invented. Up-down. Roll. Right and left. Even the Space shuttles do it. Hope I helped a bit. It gets a bit "wordy" but this explains most of it. I hope. Lee M. New Braunfels, Tx Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au wrote: > > Lee; > > So if a particular WW1 aeroplane (say, a Sopwith Triplane, pulling an > example of the top of my head) is shown in all photographs I have seen* of > the plane at rest with the tailplane ailerons down, what does this mean for > stick position and cable adjustment? ie slack cable, very tense cable, etc. > > This question just occurred to me - this is an interesting thread. > > All the Best > > Neil E > > *Datafile plus many other photographs > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > NOTICE: This communication is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies immediately. If you are the intended recipient of this communication, you should not copy, disclose or distribute this communication without the authority of the Department of Human Services. > > Any views expressed in this communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Department. > > Except as required by law, the Department does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. > > If you have received this email in error or have other concerns regarding this transmission, please contact the Department of Human Services System Administrator at Postmaster@dhs.vic.gov.au > _________________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:53:37 -0600 From: Robert Horton To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Nigels mortars: Message-ID: <3C4D9911.74588FAD@netexpress.net> Hi bunch...to reply to Nigels question concerning WW I and WW II mortar and altitude reached by the projectile... I can look up some little data on both periods and both sides of the conflict, but from what I recall ever seeing is usually muzzle velocity and maximum ranges of the various sizes of weapons. Obviously these all were intended to be high azimuth rounds and muzzle speed was least of the concerns...if the other data can help, let me know.....BTW, I loved Lee's description of his induction experience....makes me believe the old Army story about the draftee was being interviewed at his induction and was placed in the Medical Corps because his civilian job excperience had been with Dr. Pepper....heading for the trenches......Bob Horton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:07:00 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4D9C33.8F9AEFE6@x25.net> Turn buckles , clevises, etc can only introduce slack on that side of the cable system then its opposite will in bad shape. The cables are all taut for instant response and they should move in very closely co-ordinated amounts. Some planes are designed with the ailerons hanging down a small amount. It is referred to as "washout" and tends to introduce a bit of stability to the plane. If you droop one side aileron and raise the other the plane will most likely fly funny unless the wing is not straight in the first place. I have never seen one like that. I believe you come up with mostly the same ideas that I have Steven Perry wrote: > > > > The only way they could be different in movement would be by using > > > shorter or longer control horns since cable length is the same for both > > > directions. Up or down.. back and forth.. or however it is said. > > > > > > Lee > > I went through this same mental exercise and came up with the same > conclusion. > > On the Albatros the connection from the stick to the ailerons is pretty > straightforward. > > And the same stick motion, which makes one go up, makes the other go down. > Can't see how you could make the aileron deflection greater in one direction > only. > > Turnbuckles. Adjustable clevis. > > Each control cable has one. The ailerons can be adjusted differentially. > > Adverse aileron yaw is a real problem on slow low powered high drad > airplanes. Since the down aileron causes parasite and induced drag and the > up aileron only causes parasite drag, at low speeds like landing and > takeoff, the drag can cause the airplane to yaw in the opposite direction of > the aileron input. > sp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:22:55 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Mortars Message-ID: Neil calls in: << typical altitude reached by a mortar >> about 20' above the nearest foxhole, is one p.o.v..... -A buncha guys name Joe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:26:23 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: New images Message-ID: <144.837cdd9.297efabf@aol.com> Alberto: << Something to admire and aspire to ! >> I just re-visited *all* your work this a.m.- It is truly magnificent, beautifully done! thanks for sharing- Ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 11:28:56 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Nigels mortars: Message-ID: <3C4DA158.6B4BEAC7@x25.net> Mortars reach a variety of heights. Especially considering there are a wide variety of them out there. The 60mm, 85mm, 105mm and I think now a 120. The smaller ones 60 and 85 have a thing like a shotgun shell in the center. It fires on impact with the bottom of the tube. Now comes the variables. There are sheets of cellulose explosives attached to the fins of the mortar shell. These can be removed and give a variety of range distances dependant on how many remained, and, of course the flight angle of the shell which was determined by the adjustable angle of the firing tube. Due to the changing angles of the tube, Muzzle Velocity and virtually everything else you asked is highly variable. Every degree changes something as does the increments remaining. The projectile will leave the tube nicely with just the original "shotgun shell" as propellant. But a 65mm may only fly 100 yard/meters. During WW II and ther Battle of the Bulge, one of the 85 mm mortar- men in my division fired his mortar at 90 degrees. Straight up. He was surrounded, closely, by Germans, and, the shells returned to the ground about 12 to 15 feet from his fox-hole firing position. He was successful in beating off the attack. Back to the question.. I would believe the 85 mm shells went 800 to 1000 feet vertically since he did not have time to screw around pulling off explosive increments. I will try to look in some of my Infantry weapons manuals but I can't promise I will fine much. How did he fire the mortar straight up... Thought you would never ask... He put the bipod legs into the sidewall of his foxhole instead of downwards and it pointed straight heavenwards. Much was contributed to his happy survivial by thinking of that one. It was never taught in Heavy Weapons school. Lee M. New Braunfels, TX Robert Horton wrote: > > Hi bunch...to reply to Nigels question concerning WW I and WW II mortar > and altitude reached by the projectile... I can look up some little data > on both periods and both sides of the conflict, but from what I recall > ever seeing is usually muzzle velocity and maximum ranges of the various > sizes of weapons. Obviously these all were intended to be high azimuth > rounds and muzzle speed was least of the concerns...if the other data > can help, let me know.....BTW, I loved Lee's description of his > induction experience....makes me believe the old Army story about the > draftee was being interviewed at his induction and was placed in the > Medical Corps because his civilian job excperience had been with Dr. > Pepper....heading for the trenches......Bob Horton ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:30:34 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <33.212993e4.297efbba@aol.com> Lee: << Now the answers to your questions. >> this is as good as it gets. ken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:15:45 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <3d.17fab8e5.297f0651@aol.com> In a message dated 1/21/02 10:16:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, rorygood@earthlink.net writes: << Uh...I think the list library has these well-worn issues. KarrArt@aol.com wrote: > Yeah- about every six months I start trying to find the Butterfly C&C issues! > RK >> Uh- I meant my copies of the well worn issues! Butterfly has come up before on the List, and it's too bad that it's not more widely available, and hasn't (AFAIK)been updated. For anyone who isn't familar with Butterfly, it was a series of articles published in the Cross and Cockade Journal in the 60s. A group of researchers got their hands on several samples of French fabric and performed various chemical and microscopic tests, attempting to determine the true nature of the substances used and the resultant colors. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:18:00 EST From: CoolSpadLuke@aol.com To: Subject: Re: Brass tubes and boring corks was Roundels and paint Message-ID: <41.171f73bc.297f06d9@aol.com> In a message dated Tue, 22 Jan 2002 4:27:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, Nigel Cheffers-Heard writes: > When you live in a pub and don't drink, your view changes.... Is it Dennis that says, "Each modeler rises to his/her own level of masochism."? How true. :-) Mike Kavanaugh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 01:20:50 -0500 From: "iban" To: Subject: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers Message-ID: <006401c1a30c$f2756740$533f21a2@laptop118> Can anyone point me to the best print reference works and/or websites regarding the AGO and Otto German Pushers? Is there a definitive book on the subject? I'm embarassed to flaunt my ignorance, but I didn't even know the Central Powers *made* pusher designs until I saw these pics on Rosebud's site: [url]http://204.83.160.230/archive/b/images/otto.jpg[/url] [url]http://204.83.160.230/archive/a/images/AGO_pusher.jpg[/url] [url]http://204.83.160.230/archive/w/images/CourderoyRunway.jpg[/url] [url]http://204.83.160.230/archive/w/images/otto_pusher.jpg[/url] As you can see, I'm NOT speaking of the AGO CI and CII types, the ones with the twin boom P-38 type tail structure. I was at least familiar with these types. Rather, these are more like the German answer to the Airco DH1 and DH2. However, other than these pictures, I can find nothing about these planes, either on the web or in book subject searches (not that I'm brilliant at either, mind you). Surely there is a comprehensive work on these types somewhere? At very least something like a book on German Pushers that would cover them with a few pages each? Can anyone advise me on this? What I have been able to discover, to my surprise, is that AGO Flugzeugwerke (Aerowerke Gustav Otto, or alternatively, Aktien Gesellschaft Otto, based in Johannisthal, on the outskirts of Berlin) was a branch of Otto (Otto Werke, Munich) apparently financed by AEG. In 1916 they were merged with another big German engineering firm and the conglomeration was rechristened Bavarisch Motor Werke, better known these days as BMW, at which time they started building (among other things) motorbikes and cars, which they still do quite well today by all accounts. It's nice to drive around town and see concrete tangible links to obscure OT aircraft doing rather well for themselves almost a century later! :-) Thank you in advance for any help. Cheers, Iban. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 13:29:53 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers Message-ID: <121.abe308f.297f09a1@aol.com> In a message dated 22/1/02 10:24:23 am, ibancorp@yahoo.com writes: << It's nice to drive around town and see concrete tangible links to obscure OT aircraft doing rather well for themselves almost a century later! :-) >> and even nicer to run up that 6-cylinder and hear it roar ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 12:37:43 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org, Nigel Cheffers-Heard Subject: Re: Mortars Message-ID: <3C4DB177.364C4AD@x25.net> I cannot find my U.S. Army Handbook so I will use the one for the German Army. Actual altitude as mentioned would depend on the increment charges remaing on the fins when the projectile is fired. I have no direct quotes on altitude achieved but it would be a bit less than horizontal travel when fired. So here is what I have for the German 81mm "Medium" mortar. It is the only one somewhat complete. Caliber 81.4mm Total weight 124 pounds (Maximum Traverse. (Left right movement) 14 deg. using the horizontal screw mechanism. Then you must change the bipod heading by moving the legs.. You can probably get close to 40-45 degrees before you have to move the base plate. My Heavy Weapon was a 30 caliber, Water Cooled MG, so my use of the 81 and larger, 105mm, mortar was greatly reduced after traing was over.) Elevation 40 to 90 degrees Maximum ranges using HE shells Maximum propellant charge 591 yards Additional charge 1 1094 yards charge 2 1597 yards charge 3 2078 yards charge 4 2625 yards Weight of Shell 7.7 pounds Rate of fire 10 to 12 per minute The firing pin is fixed in the bottom of the tube and the shell fires on impact after sliding down the tube. That explosion sets off the additional increments instantly. "Read microseconds", and, it causes the expansion of a soft metal ring around the shell which helps use the explosions gases more efficiently. Another variable if the ring does not quite seal correctly Text says this weapon is the equivalent of the U.S. 81mm mortar M-1 Height/altitude achieved would be about 20 to 40 percent of the range quoted. The more elevation used on the tube the higher the shells trajectory. 90 degrees would convert to all altitude minus the effect of gravity and winds aloft. So it might achieve and altitude closer to 85-90 % of range. But.... Don't bet on it. Some one else may have better figures than I do. Lee M. New Braunfels, TX ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:11:13 EST From: REwing@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <51.17cf4180.297f1351@aol.com> --part1_51.17cf4180.297f1351_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit << Uh...I think the list library has these well-worn issues. The library has only two of the articles from Cross and Cockade Journal. The books are extremely well-worn. One is literally falling apart. I was just asked by another list member to provide information on Project Butterfly and referred him to another list member that was doing research on it a few years ago. It would be great if someone that has done a lot of the compilation of materials send a copy to the library. This way I don't have to send people out looking for it all over again. Just a thought, -Rick- List Librarian --part1_51.17cf4180.297f1351_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<< Uh...I think the list library has these well-worn issues.

The library has only two of the articles from Cross and Cockade Journal.  The books are extremely well-worn.  One is literally falling apart.  I was just asked by another list member to provide information on Project Butterfly and referred him to another list member that was doing research on it a few years ago.  It would be great if someone that has done a lot of the compilation of materials send a copy to the library.  This way I don't have to send people out looking for it all over again.
Just a thought,

-Rick-
List Librarian

--part1_51.17cf4180.297f1351_boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:39:58 -0500 (EST) From: tbittners@sprintmail.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Butterfly was RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <20020122193958.65380467CE@eclipse.qis.net> Okay, I'm operating from memory here, so forgive me if I get something wrong. Someone, somewhere contacted one of the original authors (Alan Toelle) about either reprinting the articles, or getting permission to copy the articles onto another medium. He responded back that he could *not* give permission because he was planning on upgrading it and republishing. I personally would like to see this information again, even though I have the original articles. Alan Toelle does have an email address, but I don't have it. Maybe someone on the list in the know (if there is anyone) could email him and ask again about republishing, or getting permission to move it to another medium? Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:47:06 +0000 From: xtv16@dial.pipex.com To: Subject: Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <1011728826.3c4dc1ba9e5fe@netmail.pipex.net> Quoting KarrArt@aol.com: > For anyone who isn't familar with Butterfly, it was a series of articles > > published in the Cross and Cockade Journal in the 60s. A group of > researchers got their hands on several samples of French fabric and > performed > various chemical and microscopic tests, attempting to determine the true > > nature of the substances used and the resultant colors. Wonder what modern analytical techniques could throw up ? Dave ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:51:40 +0000 From: Dave Fleming To: Subject: Re: Butterfly was RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <1011729100.3c4dc2cc0b87d@netmail.pipex.net> Quoting tbittners@sprintmail.com: > Someone, somewhere contacted one of the original authors (Alan Toelle) > about either reprinting the articles, or getting permission to copy the > articles onto another medium. He responded back that he could *not* > give permission because he was planning on upgrading it and > republishing. > > I personally would like to see this information again, even though I > have the original articles. > It's hard to beleive, given all that we've learnt about German and British colours even in the last 10 years, that the standard reference on French colours was printed over 30 years ago. Heck, it may be French, but I'd buy a copy !! Dave ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 06:19:17 +1000 From: "D Charles" To: Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <009c01c1a382$120555a0$62011ad3@Charls> Hullo Lee, If you attach the aileron lever to a rotating crank you can get the down-going aileron to stop and then start to rise as the stick reaches maximum sideways travel whilst the up-going aileron just goes up. This is how it's done on the early DH Moths. I'm not sure when this system was invented. > Turn buckles , clevises, etc can only introduce slack on that side of > the cable system then its opposite will in bad shape. The cables are > all taut for instant response and they should move in very closely > co-ordinated amounts. > > Some planes are designed with the ailerons hanging down a small amount. > It is referred to as "washout" and tends to introduce a bit of stability > to the plane. This would be "washin". Raising the ailerons would give washout. David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:19:19 -0000 From: "Nigel Rayner" To: Subject: RE: Nigel's wood finish Message-ID: <000301c1a382$128d2340$983bedc1@w1o0t3> Neil C said: >Hey, we wanna know too! >It's OT No problem - happy to share. Here's my approach to the wood finish: First, I applied a base coat of Humbrol 148. Several panels were masked and painted different shades, but I did this in too subtle a manner to be noticed once all the top coats were on. Once dry, wood grain was applied using the "smear" method, which was actually described originally by St Harry (IIRC) in Windsock. Get a wash of burnt umber/burnt sienna artists acrylic, put on heavily then rub off with finger or cotton bud. Then use a damp chisel brush to refine the grain effect until it "looks right." You can play around a lot with this and if it all goes wrong, of course you can wash off the acrylics and start again. To get the grain really realistic, panels should be masked off so that the "grain" lines don't continue from one panel to the next. I didn't do this (too time consuming) but just used the brush to break any grain lines that were too obviously going from one panel to the next. I think it looks ok in 1/72, but in 1/48 it would probably show too much and would require masking. I enhanced the panel lines with a Berol artists' pencil, then a couple of top coats consisting of 3 parts Tamiya Clear Yellow acrylic and 1 part Tamiya Clear Orange acrylic were applied to give the deep golden yellow colour to the wooden fuselage. Cheers, Nigel R (unlike Nigel C-H I don't live in a pub but I do drink!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:53 -0000 From: "Nigel Rayner" To: Subject: New Madman sighted.... Message-ID: <000401c1a382$6e40c8e0$983bedc1@w1o0t3> Just checking out the site updates and indeed Alberto's Nieuport Albatros is amazing. But then I checked the other new stuff. Just go and check out Ken Foran's latest. He is way off in Landoni la-la land. Scratchbuilt 1/16 Fokker DrI out of brass with guns with a round in the breech and cocking levers that pivot. This is just unbelievable! Ken, if you're out there, speak to us (ask the nurse to loosen the straps first.....). Cheers, Nigel R ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:59:12 -0300 From: "Marcio Antonio Campos" To: Subject: Alberto's models Message-ID: <009801c1a390$1dcc4930$5d1ba8c0@officesp.starmedia> Alberto, you wrote in your Dr.I page: "If you are too much into serious modelling, try a simpler project: it is a refreshing experience." Hahaha, I'll have to improve too much yet to achieve something "simple" as these two little beauties... All the best from Brazil Marcio Antonio Campos Building 425/17 and wondering if it will be at least decent :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:03:10 -0500 From: "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4DD38E.B17AC24@verizon.net> That's what rudders are for. Alvie Steven Perry wrote: > > > The only way they could be different in movement would be by using > > > shorter or longer control horns since cable length is the same for both > > > directions. Up or down.. back and forth.. or however it is said. > > > > > > Lee > > I went through this same mental exercise and came up with the same > conclusion. > > On the Albatros the connection from the stick to the ailerons is pretty > straightforward. > > And the same stick motion, which makes one go up, makes the other go down. > Can't see how you could make the aileron deflection greater in one direction > only. > > Turnbuckles. Adjustable clevis. > > Each control cable has one. The ailerons can be adjusted differentially. > > Adverse aileron yaw is a real problem on slow low powered high drad > airplanes. Since the down aileron causes parasite and induced drag and the > up aileron only causes parasite drag, at low speeds like landing and > takeoff, the drag can cause the airplane to yaw in the opposite direction of > the aileron input. > sp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:27:21 +1000 From: "D Charles" To: Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <010301c1a38b$946df3e0$62011ad3@Charls> > > > > Adverse aileron yaw is a real problem on slow low powered high drad > > airplanes. Since the down aileron causes parasite and induced drag and the > > up aileron only causes parasite drag, at low speeds like landing and > > takeoff, the drag can cause the airplane to yaw in the opposite direction of > > the aileron input. > > sp > That's what rudders are for. > > Alvie > In older designs, Yes. But that is only a secondary use in modern types: the primary purpose being a rest to raise the level of the feet and imcrease the comfort on long flights. :-) David ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 15:29:08 -0600 From: "Harris, Mack" To: "World War I (E-mail)" Subject: Ceramcoat Acrylics Message-ID: Sorry I didn't save the many threads about Ceramcoat acrylic paints, but what is the best thing to thin them with? Water, alcohol, windshild wiper fluid? TIA Mack ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 4095 **********************