Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Thanks Gil for the very detailed reply.
  3. I totally agree with the Tamiya Fine White primer as a good starter for any light color paint overcoat. Another need is to then "polish" that primer coat a bit. It usually has a very "baby powder smooth" finish when correctly applied, but I recommend using either a very fine (1000grit or higher) sand paper, or very coarse paper towel (if no fine sand paper is at hand), in order to have a nearly glass smooth surface to apply your gloss paint to. In my experience, as nice as the TFWP is, it's a "dull white", and not a bright white color, which is what you need for an airliner. If you normally use enamels or lacquers, I recommend Model Master Gloss White, thinned with lacquer thinner, and misted on in a few fine coats. It's a much brighter white, which I believe you'll see as soon as you apply it over the primer white finish. Decals can be applied directly over the gloss white, and then you can then apply the clear gloss of your choice to seal them and add a bit more shine. Others who use acrylics can recommend a good acrylic gloss white to use, but the point I'm trying to drive home is that as nice as the Tamiya Fine White primer is, it is not as bright a white as a gloss white paint, especially for airliner liveries. Hope this helps! GIL
  4. IPMS/USA thanks a new supplier, DN models, for supporting the IPMS USA reviewer corps with one more of their prolific releases. I have only recently been selectively purchasing masking sets, and am finding them almost exclusively a must-use item. And of course, thanks to IPMS leadership for sending it to me to be reviewed. One of the benefits of procrastinating at assembling a kit is occasionally something comes along which makes it easy to move said kit up in the building queue. In this case, the availability of DN models masking sets to IPMS was an epiphany to me: These addressed the dread I had of painting the final B-2 model scheme. Even though B-2 fleet has had a change in RAM (Radar Absorbing Material) read more View the full article
  5. Hi Rick, I'll do automotive if no one has spoken for it yet. My contact info is Hamy3@aol.com for e mail, and 203 461 0534 for my cell. Give me a call in the next few days to work out the details of what's set up in terms of image transfer and such. Doug
  6. Thank you Nicholas, and Michael.
  7. Yesterday
  8. Doug

    Do you have a preference as to which class to focus on?



  9. Revell's big Saturn-V with a few minor mods. Botched it at age ten; still a challenging kit. Still got my scrapbook, too.
  10. Last week
  11. The weekly update on the J-35 Draken has the build up and detail of the ejection seat. This is all resin and photo etch details. I found some reference photos of the seat and copied the detail as best as I could. After being painted I added some scratch built details then moved on to adding the photo etch details and seat belts. The seat was installed into the cockpit tub and I started painting the aluminum center and the gray bottom. Moving to the top I painted the base coat of the camouflage and the tail. Finally the aluminum leading edges were painted. I also realized the tail required a wire to be added as this detail is not included in the kit. The aircraft is now ready for decals and weathering. Check out all the build photos from start to finish in the build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-j-35-draken/
  12. Tamiya Fine Surface Primer, White. Use from the spray can or decant for airbrush use. When it's fully cured, polish it to a smooth, satin finish. Apply decals, then a final semi-gloss or gloss coat.
  13. What exactly do you need the letters and numbers for? There are actually a lot of letter and number sheets available but the style or font, if you will, varies. RAF differs from U.S. for example. British aircraft civil codes have a different style than military. Nick Filippone '
  14. The CF-188A Hornet, more commonly known as the CF-18, is a multi-role fighter that first flew with the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1977. It was chosen as a replacement for the CF-101 Voodoo and CF-104 Starfighter. The CF-188s were upgraded through two incremental Modernization Programs, with a new radar and avionics from the F/A-18C/D as well as a new targeting pod. This new kit from Kinetic is the latest special edition of the CF-188 Hornet and it covers the commemorative scheme for 20 years of service with the RCAF. read more View the full article
  15. The best advice I can give you is to use a white primer. Almost any gloss white airbrushed in light coats will give you a good finish if you're careful about dust.
  16. FYI - Martin Kovac has a YouTube Channel with very informative model tutorials. Mostly armor models but the techniques are usable on any genre. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNM5EknY1XBA9buLmJqYLdw/videos.
  17. Gentlemen, I rarely build anything that is shiny. I’m starting a Boeing 747–8F. Can anyone recommend a good white paint that I can use. I’ll be shooting it through my airbrush. Any replies are much appreciated . Christopher
  18. AMPS is the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society. They are a modeling group dedicated to armor with chapters worldwide. https://www.amps-armor.org/SiteMain/Main.aspx Jaxcon is the annual contest hosted by IPMS/First Coast in Jacksonville, Florida. http://ipmsfirstcoast.org/
  19. Has Model Cars Magazine gone under? Heard nothing about it recently.
  20. Seen AMPS and Jaxcon mentioned a number of times in this thread. What are they? Guess they are big Stateside modelling events. Please relieve this Old Englander of his ignorance.
  21. I do not know of any waterslide decals for generic numbers and letters. I do have about10 sheets of the microscale sets. I have white, dark blue, black, and brown letters. I have scanned in the colored ones so I can make my own. As soon as I can get the white toner ink I plan on printing a few sets of the white letters. The sheets have many different sized letters for many scales.
  22. A few thoughts related to Ralph's remarks, I agree with most of what he says. I left IPMS in the 80s because the aircraft guys were making rules about armor and dioramas clearly without consulting any of those genres. Even today, I still can't understand why we can't have a diorama group in the triathlon. But I came back because all the other groups were only interested in one subject and I have many interests which I satisfy with IPMS. However, that miss-action by the powers created many of the non-aircraft groups. I've been in four different clubs. The only one that has models show up at each meeting is the Oklahoma Historical Modelers Society. Often, many MODEL clubs have meetings with no models. ( Has anyone else experienced this?) Why is OHMS different? We do a model of the month contest. It is a simple popular vote deal, but it seems to inspire members to bring stuff in and talk about it. Competition is ubiquitous in virtually every element of society. It doesn't matter it if is bowling, golf (model building is a lot like golf), fishing, or surfing. Personally, I think competition has given us better models and more variety. So, I see competition as a good thing. What I do like about the National today is there is a generally well run event. I remember one in the early eighties which had truly poor management. Part was the local group and part IPMS. I came close to punching one of the contest officials. If we want to change to a new system, then let's do it right and make sure it works with what we have to work with. Lots of people will say they will help out on stuff, then have plenty of reasons to back out at the last minute. I don't offer to do much because I can only attend intermittently. I have found many who dislike IPMS are those who don't want to improve. They resent being told the glob of glue hurts the model; hence our reputation as too picky. I do all of this and I enter to show off my work and win awards. One does not exclude the other. The competition is important to me, but I use it as motivation to do better if I win nothing. ( I am often motivated) I do think we can do a better show, and the E-board needs to be more flexible. Like in all things, you can use the experience in different ways. Some good and some bad. Dak
  23. My largest misgiving on this whole survey is that it put the cart before the horse. I stated such when work began, I said so when the questions were being written, and I'm saying it now. The first question that needed to be asked is "What does IPMS/USA envision the purpose of it's National Model Contest to be?" Does IPMS/USA want to simply pick the best models presented at that show on that day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to recognize well-built models and more or less ignore the rest?) If that's the goal, they already have it in the 1-2-3, comparative/triage judging currently in use. Does IPMS/USA want to aid modelers in their efforts to become better modelers? (OR--Does IPMS want to offer structured feedback and advice to the modeler in an effort to help them help themselves?) If this is where the aim is, look to the AMPS system. Does IPMS/USA want to recognize a modeler's body of work entered in a given show on a given day? (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to reward a modeler for their effort on that day?) If this is what they're looking for, check out the MMSI Chicago System. (As an aside, I note that several of the IPMS Open Judging systems in use on the local level--Jaxcon, Chattanooga, etc.--are a hybrid of all three.) Those questions needed to be asked before the survey questions were issued. They needed to be asked before the questions were written. Next, a rudimentary structure for said Open Judging system needed to be developed before the survey was released. Why? We now have four (maybe five by now) pages in this thread of "why". The way the survey is worded is akin to asking your kid if he wants baked chicken for dinner, or "something else". When the kid asks, "What's the something else?", the only answer you have for him is "I don't know, and I can't tell you until you choose it--it hasn't been defined." So, the kid either goes with chicken, something he knows and kinda likes, or--if he's adventurous--takes a stab at the pig in a poke, which could be pizza. It could be liver. Or, the kid could spend the next day speculating as to what "something else" is and go hungry. The smart kid goes with the chicken. What infuriates me is the President's Column in the July/August Journal, where Ron Bell stated that, and I quote, "We just thought it was time to get this issue settled once and for all and put it behind us, one way or another." (Emphasis is mine) What this tells me is that the E-Board has a closed mind and has no vision of growing and changing the Society with the times per the membership's wishes. This attitude, I believe, has caused people to leave IPMS/USA and go to AMPS and to other organizations (even forming other organizations--look to the South Carolina Modelers Association as an example), never to look back. I personally know at least a dozen former IPMS/USA members who left and won't come back. One (a former E-Board member, no less) once told me that he tried to change the system, but was met with, as he called it, "the IPMS/USA Good Old Boy's Stone Wall." When I asked why a stone wall, he stated that "it is cold, deaf, uncaring, and unyielding." Couple that to the IPMS/USA Chief Judge's attempts to color the current system as "The Best. Judging. System. Ever.!", and paint Open Judging as an effort to see that "everyone wins a trophy", and it indicates that the E-Board is using this survey merely as an attempt to look like they are listening to the membership without intending to change a thing. The motion will fail, then they will say "We've done that, it failed, end of story" the next time this same issue is brought up. In this thread alone, there's already an IPMS/USA Past President doing that very thing, looking back to a failed effort in 2004--as if nothing changes over time. I am a proponent for Open Judging, believing that a well developed, uniform system could yield good results over time. A well-defined, thought-out system CAN work--but it will require several things to happen. Most importantly, it requires a buy-in from the majority of the membership. If the membership doesn't believe in it, it won't matter what system is used--it will fail. It will take time and a lot of effort to change--it won't happen overnight, and will probably require a years-long phase in. Start at the local level, iron out the bugs, take it to the Regional level, work out the new bugs, then move it to the National level--where, undoubtedly, more issues will come to the fore and will need to be dealt with. Rome wasn't built in one day, nor will any sort of new-to-the-organization judging system. My vision for an Open Judging system extends to more than the Nationals--it needs to be a UNIVERSAL system, required to be used by ALL IPMS/USA Chapters at ALL IPMS/USA sanctioned contests, whether they be local, Regional, or National. Judges will need to have formal training and periodic re-training. Whatever system used needs to be applied consistently and reviewed periodically, updating it as needed. Without these things, all you will wind up with is an Open Judging version of what we have now. The current system is only required to be used at the Nationals--local contests can simply say they will hand out medals to every fifth pink model that comes through the door and call it an IPMS contest, if that's what the host Chapter wants to do. The word, and I've used it many, many times before, is Standardization. Have a standard, uniform, universal system that is required throughout IPMS/USA. "But, how can you require us to do anything?" Easy--it comes with the deal. You wanna be an IPMS/USA Chapter? You agree to the terms set out by IPMS/USA. Period. Don't like it? Don't play. But that probably won't happen. If we talk about the Chicago System, some see it as "limiting the number of models on the table"--when, actually, nothing is limited EXCEPT the fact that the entrant, if the scored model in their group scores enough points, takes home ONE award for their body of work. AMPS, likewise, encourages the entrant to self-asses their work and only enter one model per category. Why? Because they will only take home the award for their model that scores the highest in any given category, so even by entering eight M4 Shermans into Allied Armor, WWII will only yield ONE medal. "But I want the feedback!" Usually, as the models are judged, the same faults are found on all the models entered by that person. How many times do you need to read "Watch the floating tracks" before you realize that you need to do just that? The examples above also serve a purpose--it eases the burden on the judges. They don't have to judge 500+ (or 1000+, or 10,000+) models, the judging goes quickly, and the end result is the same. This is why "Display Only" has been a standard category for AMPS for as long as I've been a member. Submit your best work for evaluation, put the rest in Display Only. The goal of the show isn't about "winning" or "losing", it is about showing off your work. But I am not optimistic that any of what I just wrote will come to pass. IPMS/USA has slowly evolved their contests into bloodsport--the winner take all, "I'm the GOD OF STYRENE!" attitude has eroded any semblance of friendly competition. Even the survey says it--Advantage #2 of the 1-2-3 system is stated as "models vie head-to-head for awards, creating a healthy (really?--me) spirit of competitiveness amongst (sic) our members." And why do we feel the need to compete, anyway? I get it--'Murica and all that. But a very vocal minority has taken an enjoyable pastime and twisted it into yet another way they can climb to the top of the pile, beat their chests, and wail at the moon... I will now go back to my position of a few years ago--Exhibition only, no contest, no awards. Make it about the models, NOT the medals. After all, everyone says they enter shows to show off their work, right? So, by their own admission, the awards don't matter--and following that logic, that means the method used to determine the awards likewise doesn't matter, but some will NEVER enter a contest judged by a system they don't like. Funny, that... Club stands, SIG stands, vendors, food, and friendship. Hang out with a bunch of like-minded people and enjoy the show by looking at, talking about, and sharing techniques for scale models. Screw the contest, screw the judges, and screw the awards... Ralph
  24. Thanks Bill. I've set you up and added your contact info to my email and phone.
  25. Where is this current MAP? Last I looked, IPMS/USA didn't have one, because the re-worked version that was presented in 2005 was basically ignored by the E-Board before it was dismissed as "unworkable" six months later. They preferred the Adult Building Course which is nothing close to the MAP you wrote OR the re-worked version (which, to be fair, wasn't that much different than the one you wrote).
  26. The objective of going to a GSB system is to get more awards to more people than the current methods allow, correct? Also, the objective of GSB is also to rank models showing the level of skill, correct. We want to do this while at the same time maintain the contest as a competition and not turn everything into participation awards. I like that; here are many categories where excellent models get nothing and other categories where poor work gets rewarded. Simply making more categories or splits, will ultimately reach a point of impracticality, so we do need to start planning for a replacement system before we are forced to do so by events. Gil, as you describe your vision, there would be no reason for categories beyond organizational. You only put all the 1/72nd aircraft together to help the judges find them, correct? And the awards would not reflect in what category you won, correct? (I.E. you won a bronze for your 1/72nd Me-109G/10R.) Showing pictures of all the winners at the awards ceremony will ultimately become impractical regardless of what system we use. The main problem I see facing the judges of 2000-3000 models is accountability. This would also included tracking which judges judge which models as the current system does.There will be someone...probably several... who will come in towards the end of registration and worry their models did not get judged. Without question, someone will claim they did not get a fair shake. This is why judging on Friday night has such an advantage. The registration is complete; all the models are there and all the judges are together. This does not mean other methods cannot work, just that it will require more accountability than is need for a one day event. I am concerned those advocating strongly for GSB have not given enough thought to the logistics of total revision of the system. Dak
  27. Greetings Rick I have done this the last few years and had a good time. I have done Space & Sci-Fi and also Juniors. My contact info is wedjr@aol.com and Cell is 412-449-7505 Let me Know Bill
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...