Re: Query...

Matt Bittner (
Thu, 28 Sep 1995 08:28:20 -0500

On 28 Sep 95 at 9:18, Joseph R. Boeke typed diligently:

> What about the Camel :(

Yes, I did forget about the Camel. Sorry.

> Actually, I think that is a pretty good list (I would bid on it :). My one
> concern would be avialability of references for the models. Specifically, I
> think we (scale modelers) tend to go reference beserk before building a
> model (I know that both of us do).

Good point.

> Although there are data files for all of these planes, are there other
> readilly avialable (and less expensive) sorces for the subjects that you
> would want to include?

Well, since I'm trying to keep this under $20, I don't think I would
include reference material. However, maybe I'll put a caveat on the
"lot": whomever buys this also "buys into" my reference collection.
Although I'm reluctant to lend my things out, I definitely will be
more than happy to photo copy stuff.

> Second concern is accuracy of the models. Will the kits assemble into a
> good looking and reasonably accurate model without a ton of after-market
> parts and/or scratchbuilding?

That's why I chose the above. The only one really "suspect" is the

> Ideally, what I'd like to see, is a set of 4 models, historically
> significant, easy to find references (perhaps ones avialable at the local
> library), and easy to build (without having to spend an additional $10 on a
> $5 kit).

Hear, hear.

> Personally, I think the Nie.17 is a good choice (almost everyone has seen
> the plane). The Dr.1 might be a bit of a chore accurize (is that a word?),
> but I think you have to include it (for cryin' out loud, it was Baron von
> R.'s plane). I think the SPAD is a good choice (since the Camel's aren't
> very good kits), but the DH.4 is also a pretty good kit. What about one of
> the Albatross models for a 2nd German? Isn't the ESCI D.III supposed to be
> a good model (sorry, I can't remember).

Well, the Dr.I is passable as it. Only us list members would go to
the length that Steve H. has. Actually, the Revell Camel is a good
one: the ESCI is a bit suspect, though. True about the DH.4, but
I'm trying to avoid two-seaters just because of the "confusion" for
newer WW1 modelers. In all honesty, the ESCI D.III is worse than the
Revell. Not only does the ESCI mold retain all of the "problems" of
the Revell, but ESCI also molded the top wing _shorter_ than the
Revell one. That's why you have people flocking toward the Xtravac
vac-form D.III. Much better all around, and by the time you
"correct" the Revell one, you would be done with the Xtravac.
(Although the D.III isn't as bad as the Airfix D.V...)

> Just my $.02 of course...

Hey, thanks for the input! It made me think of the Camel.


Matthew Bittner WW1 Modeler, ecto subscriber, semi-new dad, PowerBuilder developer; Omaha, Nebraska

"We devour those who would subdue us." - Morticia Addams,
Addams Family Values