[WWI] WWI Digest, Vol 51, Issue 6

[Michael Kendix]

Hi:

Well thanks for the responses. Naturally, I cannot tell what both sides look like for the ones I am doing - one is the French/IRAS scheme with French roundels but used by IRAS.  The other is the Czechoslovakian scheme as it is reincarnated from the "Bob" markings.

Apparently, there is some lack of concensus as to whether "Bob" was a Nieuport 17 or 23.

Thanks.

Michael


> From: "Andy Bannister" 
>
> Michael,
> I looked into this when Matt mentioned it a while ago (I hadn't noticed it
> on the Eduard model until he pointed it out). Looking at pics I discovered
> there was a bewildering variety of positions for these holes. Some were
> asymetric, some weren't. Some had the upper holes forward on one side and
> rearward on the other - on the same aircraft - or no stagger at all. Some
> were the reverse of this. Holes could be positioned closer to the cockpit,
> or further back towards the tail. Upper and lower holes quite close together
> or further apart. As always, check your photo references, if you're lucky
> enough to have pics of both sides that is.
>
> So short answer is yes, it is correct for some aircraft...
>
> From: "Steven Perry" 
>>From rigging working pull/pull elevator cable systems for my R/C models, I might venture to say that the asymetry may well be correct.
>
> If for some reason of fit and design requirements, the belcrank that the cables attach to may not be mounted exactly dead center in the fuselage. This might make the cables exit at different points along the fuselage.
>
> I mounted one a bit off center but kept the exit holes the same on both sides. The elevator ended up having more down than up throw. That would not have happened if the exits had been staggered a bit.
>

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan