WWI Digest 4097 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Re: control surface positioning by "Thomas Solinski" 2) Re: control surface positioning by "Thomas Solinski" 3) Re: e-bay D.VII by "Steven Perry" 4) Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= 5) Has anyone heard about this? by Carlos Valdes 6) New modeler by "Matt Bittner" 7) Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers by Shane Weier 8) Re: Has anyone heard about this? by "Matt Bittner" 9) Re: Nigels mortars: by "Lee M." 10) Re: control surface positioning by "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" 11) Re: Cutting PE by Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au 12) Re: control surface positioning by "Lee M." 13) Re: control surface positioning by "Lee M." 14) Re: control surface positioning by "Lee M." 15) Re: control surface positioning by "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" 16) Re: control surface positioning by "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" 17) Re: Nigels mortars: by Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au 18) Re: control surface positioning by "ot811" 19) Re: Nigels mortars: by Shane Weier 20) Re: Ceramcoat Acrylics by KarrArt@aol.com 21) Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? by KarrArt@aol.com 22) Re: Ceramcoat Acrylics by KnnthS@aol.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:28:44 -0600 From: "Thomas Solinski" To: Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <00b801c1a3a4$ea8da540$a6a20d41@okcnc1.ok.home.com> > This is true. The rudder on my C152 was next to useless. The plane could very > well be flown with the feet planted firmly on the floor. Try to get it to spin > to the left - forget it! But when you did remember the rudder turnsnwere so > comfortable and coordinated. > > Alvie Alvie, you had a poor instructor. The 150/152 had a tad of adverse yaw built in to teach you to lead with the rudder! Next time you fly pick a nice straght road and fly down it once you're stabilized add just aileron in either direction and watch the nose go the other way for about 3 degrees! Sorry for the ot Fokker SPAD tom S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:32:51 -0600 From: "Thomas Solinski" To: Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <00f901c1a3a5$7da54900$a6a20d41@okcnc1.ok.home.com> > > Who makes a living out of designing and testing submarine control > > systems/stability. Remember a submarine flies through the water the same as a > > airplane flies through the air. Same equations different Reynolds numbers. But when you make a mistake, they crash AND DROWNED! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:42:53 -0500 From: "Steven Perry" To: Subject: Re: e-bay D.VII Message-ID: <004e01c1a3a6$e447e4a0$0fe82341@tampabay.rr.com> > Peter says: > > > > I plead guilty as charged. In mitigation I shall use the > > proceeds to buy the Battleaxe DVII Good show old boy! "For sale to the highest bidder" makes no requirement that the bidder be sane. Enjoy that Battle Axe D.VII, sp ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:24:11 +0800 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Volker_H=E4usler?= To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers Message-ID: <001d01c1a3ac$a9ad64e0$236e160a@CSP00> Iban, > 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: > As I'm just recovering from the latest obscenities of my ISP (still receiving mails 4 or 5 days old), this might already have been said: First, there was an article on the Otto pushers in a Windsock - I guess around 4 or 5 years ago. Written by Peter Grosz, it contained a fair number of photos of the Otto, as well as a 3 view. Same for the later version mainly sold to Bulgaria (with an interesting story involving lots of alcohol behind, IIRC). Something like the definitive thing on the subject. The Pfalz Flugzeugwerke also started production with some license build Otto pushers. There's a number of photos in the FMP Pfalz book. Then there is a book in German on the "Koeniglich Bayrischen Fliegertruppen" by Peter Pletschacher. Originally published by the Motorbuch Verlag, now (I think) republished by the Aviatik Verlag. As the Ottos were mainly used by Bavarian flying units, there's a lot on these aircraft in this book (but obviously in German). Finally, on what I consider the most interesting of the Otto's, there was an article in two 2001 issues of the German magazine Jet and Prop covering German WW I aircraft in Africa. One of the 3 subjects covered was Buchner's Otto, flown both in German South West Africa and German East Africa (later also converted as a floatplane, and the engine was later used to propel a railway car). Again some nice photos. There's a rather generic vacform Otto from Phoenix, and Luedemann did a nice resin, obviously based on the series that included the Africa aircraft. Both in proper 72 scale - but I think some Czech manufacturer did or announce a 48 scale Otto as well? And BTW, the Otto is a pre-war design, not really an answer to the DH's etc. The founder actually was a son of the inventor of the Otto motor. A good mechanic, but a terrrrible businessman, who took care that he's father's fortune was reduced substantially... Volker ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:57:46 -0500 From: Carlos Valdes To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Has anyone heard about this? Message-ID: <3C4E0A8A.156135B4@conted.gatech.edu> http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=gs0092 Carlos ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:01:08 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: New modeler Message-ID: Just added a new modeler - Maire Jean-Pascal - to the Gallery. Excellent work!! I really like the Breguet. Matt Bittner WW1 Modeling Page Assistant Editor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:03:42 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: Help Please? re German AGO/Otto pushers Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCDAA7@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Volker says: > First, there was an article on the Otto pushers in a Windsock > - I guess > around 4 or 5 years ago. Written by Peter Grosz, it contained > a fair number > of photos of the Otto, as well as a 3 view. Same for the later version > mainly sold to Bulgaria (with an interesting story involving > lots of alcohol > behind, IIRC). Something like the definitive thing on the subject. January 1995, Otto B and C.I 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:07:38 -0600 From: "Matt Bittner" To: "wwi@wwi-models.org" Subject: Re: Has anyone heard about this? Message-ID: On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:58:54 -0500 (EST), Carlos Valdes wrote: > http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=gs0092 FWIW, Grub Street: http://www.grubstreet.co.uk/milhistitle.htm Matt Bittner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:27:45 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Nigels mortars: Message-ID: <3C4E1191.35CAFEEC@x25.net> Modern science as the world moves ahead. Explosives that did not exist in WW I were common in WW II. Gross improvements were made and used daily. Even metals for weapons were vastly improved and it may well be that Mortar made with WW I metals may not have held up to the explosives available in WW II. I do not know. Some European mortars seem to have a hollow fin area that could have held explosives. The U.S. used sheets of cellulose that could be ripped off easily since the had a hole in them to allow the little pad to be hooked thru the lower fin hole, and, the fins were exactly that, thin metal fins, four in all. They had holes in them to make them even lighter and gave obviously a place to hook the increments on to. The increments were like small 2" X 2" tablets with about five or six pages. Made them explode even more quickly and efficiently. All the specs given for the shells were from government documents, and, I must say I never saw a Mortar round go up or down. But I could hear them which is probably why I was never hit by one. I am not certain what kind of eyesight it would take to see a foot long projectile going thru the air at much distance away. I know I could see a Bazooka round in flight, but, never ever saw a mortar go up when I fired it myself and knew when it would appear at the muzzle. Even 120 MPH is not very fast but it is 176 feet per second. Not to much time for looking around. We could hear many large shells coming so they were traveling less than the speed of sound 1056 feet per second. A small thing to think about also is that Mortar shells were fired in the wrong direction to begin with. They went up-up and away first. Then came back down toward the real target on the ground. So the speed increases at about 32.2 feet per second/per second for each second of free fall. They can arrive at ground level going a good deal faster than they went up. Even a five second fall would come in about 200 feet per second or more. Hard to see that. So I can only presume the WWI mortar was a far slower projectile than those in WW II. Maybe I will learn a bit more about it if this thread lives a while longer. Always remember this item.. Even the piston in an automobile engine must stop rising to go down in the opposite direction. Therefore at some time one could say it actually has to stop a brief amount of time. A mortar in a trajectory will not have to stop but it will slow down considerably just before it begins it's descent. I believe the distance would prevent most people from seeing it. At 89-90 degrees it will almost stop in the air. But, that is an uncommon way to shoot. The German name for the standard mortar was Granatenwerfer. Another was called Leighter Ladungswerfer the shell was ignited electically. There were 2 of them for sure A 200mm with a 46 pound projectile that went a maximum of 766 yards. Another the Schwerer Ladungswerfer that does not have an indicated range but it was 380 mm and weighed 331 pounds Explosive on board was 110 pounds. The lighter device had available with a cord or light cable and a grapnel hooked device. It could be launched and then retrieved. As it was pulled back it was to contact and explode mines entoute. I have no idea if it worked at all or was ever used for that purpose. Mainly they no longer had a Minen Werfer in use.I suspect a higher weight and size made it move quite slowly. Like the "screeaming Mimi" They may have been visible in flight I hope I have not bored the people. This is a good way to learn about things. Lee M. New Braunfels,Tx Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au wrote: > > Hi All; > > Just adding my five cents (au) worth on the mortar question. Whilst I don't > disagree with Lee re the performance of WW2 mortars, contemporary 1914-1918 > infantry accounts regarding German minenwerfers ("coal bins") often talk > about being able to track the shell by sight from firing to impact, this > would possibly indicate a relatively low muzzle velocity and height reached > at the top end of the trajectory of the shell. > > Other factors would relate to the period of the war we are talking about - > pre Stokes British mortars ("Jam Tins" 1914-1916) were often spring loaded > rather than using an explosive charge and therefore would have had lower > performance than the vastly more efficient Stokes - which is maybe the > granddaddy of the modern mortar, both in design of the mortar itself and > also that of the shell (had fins, variable charges etc), minenwerfers had > no fins but was more like a large "bin" filled with explosive and able to > do a large amount of damage over a small area. Contemporary accounts > mention minnie shells "hanging in the sky" allowing quick minded (and > lucky) infantry men to duck into whatever cover was available to avoid the > blast. > > Hope this helps > > All the Best > > Neil E > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 20:31:38 -0500 From: "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E127A.CEAC2E5A@verizon.net> Actually on a submarine the entire hull is a lifting surface. The angle of attack of the entire hull is important for depth control enven more so than ballast control. Alvie Steve Cox wrote: > > From: "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" > > Reply-To: wwi@wwi-models.org > > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:41:24 -0500 (EST) > > To: Multiple recipients of list > > Subject: [WWI] Re: control surface positioning > > > > > > Alvie > > > > Who makes a living out of designing and testing submarine control > > systems/stability. Remember a submarine flies through the water the same as a > > airplane flies through the air. Same equations different Reynolds numbers. > > > Do you have to fit the wings on upside down, so that the sub flies > downwards, rather than upwards? > > Steve > =========================================== > steve@oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk > http://www.oldglebe.freeserve.co.uk/steveshome.html > http://www.bramptonscalemodelclub.fsnet.co.uk > If I didn't spend so much time on line > ‹‹ I'd get some models finished > ================ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:18:12 +1000 From: Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Cutting PE Message-ID: Ken; Nail trimmers? Hmmm, time to raid the bathroom cabinet in the dead of night to obtain modelling tools again ( it will soon join the nail files x5, the scissors, the nail polish remover, and other recently disappeared items) and then 'disappear' into my toolbox. (laughs evilly, flashes cape and fades into shadows) Neil E KnnthS@aol.co m To: Multiple recipients of list Sent by: wwi@wwi-model cc: s.org Subject: [WWI] Re: Cutting PE 22/01/2002 10:29 PM Please respond to wwi 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 _________________________________________________________________________________ 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 19:38:28 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E1414.D70F1F79@x25.net> A stop would work on both ailerons and therefore will not work.. A downward stop on one prevents upward motion on the other. eg = crash and loud noises. Darned physics got in the way again. Those irresistable forces and immovable objects. Still haven't found success on that one. NEver heard of a bungee on a control system. Ought to be a real blast in real turbulent conditions. First thing the Bungee would rebound and slam you against the roof. That could smart. Lee M. Lee M Shane Weier wrote: > > Lance says: > > > Of course, the upward travel can be limited by the simple > > expedient of a stop > > that only permits the aileron to travel so far, despite > > enough slack in the cable to go further. > > Cool idea. Buggered if I know whether they did it though. It's not apparent > in any of the control run schematics I have though that may just mean "bad > schematics", not "no stops" > > Would that make the machine a little odd to fly? Perhaps not, they were odd > enough already! > > > > > But I am only here as the devil's advocate, having no real > > knowledge of the > > truth of the matter. I'm on company time, you see. > > > > Just stirring the pot... > > I like it. This way we learn more. > > As very much *not* a mechanical engineer I've been sitting here (on company > time) doodling on my desk pad trying to design a simple lightweight > mechanical means of acheiving differential travel. It doesn't need slack > cables though. You use a...... > > ..bungee cord ! > > Think about it. Put a bungee cord (or spring) in the top side run of cable > but not in the bottom one. > > 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:04 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E1474.1E97AF7F@x25.net> Michael ansd Sharon, Your comment is an absolute. It will stay that way forever... Lee M. "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" wrote: > > The only way to get differential deflection on an aileron control system using > equal length calbe systems without cams is by the use of different sized/angled > control horns or hinge lines offset from the centerline of the aileron > false/hinge spar. If the control horns on the upper and lower surfaces of the > ailerons are of equal length/angle and the aileron hinges are centered between > the upper and lower surfaces of the wing the aileron deflection will be equal up > and down. I don't think differential aileron displacement was a major concern > of World War I aircraft designers. This was a concern of the post war racing > pilots looking to squeeze the last available knot of speed out of the available > horsepower. > > Alvie > > Who makes a living out of designing and testing submarine control > systems/stability. Remember a submarine flies through the water the same as a > airplane flies through the air. Same equations different Reynolds numbers. > > Shane Weier wrote: > > > SP says: > > > > > 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. > > > > IMHO Nope. I *think* you misunderstood the original post. While the position > > of the ailerons can be altered by messing with the control cable turnbuckles > > you had better be adjusting them so that they're both at the same angle of > > attack when the stick is in neutral position. > > > > Then.....modern control surfaces move so that when the aileron goes up, it > > travels less than the opposite one going down for all the reasons previously > > discussed by you and others. Opposite but *unequal* deflection. > > > > The point being made though, was that most (all??) WW1 aircraft with > > differentially operating ailerons used a closed wire loop to the control > > column - so if you pull one wire by x inches you automatically let the other > > to the same aileron out by the same amount AND do the reverse to *exactly* > > the same number of inches on the other aileron. Result is equal and opposite > > deflection. > > > > FWIW (and I'm no pilot so I may have this all arsey versey and be making a > > goog of myself) > > > > 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:43:52 -0600 From: "Lee M." To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E1558.85EA3DB3@x25.net> Only the horns can be used to make a difference. Length or location on the aileron can do things. Cable changes are a no-no and will not work properly. Big trouble is around the corner. Lee Shane Weier wrote: > > SP says: > > > 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. > > IMHO Nope. I *think* you misunderstood the original post. While the position > of the ailerons can be altered by messing with the control cable turnbuckles > you had better be adjusting them so that they're both at the same angle of > attack when the stick is in neutral position. > > Then.....modern control surfaces move so that when the aileron goes up, it > travels less than the opposite one going down for all the reasons previously > discussed by you and others. Opposite but *unequal* deflection. > > The point being made though, was that most (all??) WW1 aircraft with > differentially operating ailerons used a closed wire loop to the control > column - so if you pull one wire by x inches you automatically let the other > to the same aileron out by the same amount AND do the reverse to *exactly* > the same number of inches on the other aileron. Result is equal and opposite > deflection. > > FWIW (and I'm no pilot so I may have this all arsey versey and be making a > goog of myself) > > 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:45:29 -0500 From: "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E15B8.AB09BDB8@verizon.net> Actually, How the airplane is rigged can affect this significantly. What you say is true. When I first acquired the plane properly coordinated turns required leading rudder. But I had a student put the plane in a snowbank along side the runway while attempting a take-off one day having hit an ice patch while taxying and collapsed the nose gear. The wings were taken off and the bird loaded on a flat bed truck and taken to Alphin Aviation in Hagerstown, MD for repair. After they re-rigged the plane adverse yaw was significantly reduced. This made the plane less useful as a trainer but much more comfortable to fly in cruise mode especially my bi-weekly Leesburg, VA to Newport News,VA runs. Alvie Thomas Solinski wrote: > > This is true. The rudder on my C152 was next to useless. The plane could > very > > well be flown with the feet planted firmly on the floor. Try to get it to > spin > > to the left - forget it! But when you did remember the rudder turnsnwere > so > > comfortable and coordinated. > > > > Alvie > > Alvie, you had a poor instructor. The 150/152 had a tad of adverse yaw > built in to teach you to lead with the rudder! Next time you fly pick a > nice straght road and fly down it once you're stabilized add just aileron in > either direction and watch the nose go the other way for about 3 degrees! > > Sorry for the ot > > Fokker > > SPAD > tom S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:48:45 -0500 From: "Michael and Sharon Alvarado, NSWCC" To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <3C4E167A.A2FA856B@verizon.net> Cardinal rule of aviation: Whatever goes up must come down. Cardial rule of submarining: Whatever goes down does not necessarily comne back up. I finite number hull lengths worth of depth and CRUNCH. Alvie Thomas Solinski wrote: > > > Who makes a living out of designing and testing submarine control > > > systems/stability. Remember a submarine flies through the water the > same as a > > > airplane flies through the air. Same equations different Reynolds > numbers. > > But when you make a mistake, they crash AND DROWNED! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:53:59 +1000 From: Neil.Eddy@dhs.vic.gov.au To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Nigels mortars: Message-ID: Lee n' All I have a small amount of material at home on stats and description of the "Minnie", Stokes Mortar, and Maybe one or two others. I'll post them tonight if anyone's interested. Descriptions of the Minenwerfer shell describe a large black cylinder approximate 3 feet long. Other accounts describe the "rush" of the shell to its target on the downwards arc of the trajectory, following a lazy upwards arc. For some reason also Minnie rounds often had a screw to the left just before impact, though I've never seen an explanation of why this was. All the Best Neil E _________________________________________________________________________________ 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 21:07:45 -0500 From: "ot811" To: Subject: Re: control surface positioning Message-ID: <00f401c1a3b2$c0f78e40$0101a8c0@delos> Sopwith Babies, earlier versions had bungees on the ailerons. > > NEver heard of a bungee on a control system. Ought to be a real blast > in real turbulent conditions. First thing the Bungee would rebound and > slam you against the roof. That could smart. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:24:29 +1000 From: Shane Weier To: "'wwi@wwi-models.org'" Subject: Re: Nigels mortars: Message-ID: <7186131CB805D411A60E0090272F7C7102BCDAA9@mimhexch1.mim.com.au> Neil says: > Other accounts describe the "rush" > of the shell to > its target on the downwards arc of the trajectory, following > a lazy upwards arc. The same (with negligible variations) maths governs the upwards flight as the downwards. Upwards it starts at muzzle velocity and decelerates by 9.8m/sec/sec plus effects of drag. Going down it accelerates at 9.8m/sec/sec less effects of drag. Victim hears "BANG" and looks up. By the time he sights the minnie it's decelerated at travelling slowly. At some point it ceases to go up and at that point its vertical velocity is zip. Down she comes, and also, incidentally, a horizontal component. Accelerating by the square of course, which means it gets faster, faster (and incidentally, is also coming towards you with the horizontal component of the motion which was also so on the way up but THEN it was tangential and not nearly so scary) Add a very large pucker factor and is it any wonder we get descriptions of the "rush" to the target at the end of flight? 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: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:28:09 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Ceramcoat Acrylics Message-ID: <112.b4e5c61.297f79b9@aol.com> In a message dated 1/22/02 3:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, sperry03@tampabay.rr.com writes: << > I use water or Future and sometimes Windex window cleaner. Furure really > makes the paint tough, but too much and it reduces the opacity. > RK Exactly my experience. Future really improves it by making it tougher as well as imparting Future's exceptional leveling properties. It also seems to make it easier to touch up. Windex seems to help the acrylic keep from drying so badly in the brush. Not a 100% cure, but it doesnt lengthen the drying time on the model too much either. sp >> I've also used Liquitex airbrush medium, but I find it weakens the paint film, and it seems to be more cranky about the mix ratio. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:45:19 EST From: KarrArt@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Butterfly wasRe: RE: Pegasus decals? Message-ID: <1e.21e9b7ed.297f7dbf@aol.com> In a message dated 1/22/02 11:51:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, xtv16@dial.pipex.com writes: << Wonder what modern analytical techniques could throw up ? Dave >> Lunch? sorry.......anyway, Alan Toelle is still at it. The most recent work of his I've seen is an analysis of MvR's triplane fabric that was in WW I Aero not too long ago. He's still using the ol' trusty microscope and still splopping various chemicals on samples and seeing what happens. RK ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 21:48:56 EST From: KnnthS@aol.com To: wwi@wwi-models.org Subject: Re: Ceramcoat Acrylics Message-ID: <3b.20f20091.297f7e98@aol.com> Rob't Rites: << Windex seems to help the acrylic keep from drying so badly in the brush. >> with Amonia-D, tm, ...this is the thing in Windex, said the bigmouth(hello)...it's the amonia that saves that brush--it's what you clean a house paint brush up with having used a poly coat or etc, of ilk...as such, it would cut as well, but not like Future/Kleer, present tense, Queen's Own, and so on. Future, For Every Man Jack Of Them, floors or plastic linen or nay. -Heloise ------------------------------ End of WWI Digest 4097 **********************