Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/28/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I've finally completed a kit! For me it's nothing short of amazing! 😊 This is the Trumpy Type 63 107mm rocket launcher. I've got the Revell-Germany MAN 5T Mil GL truck about to move to the paint booth right now.
  2. 3 points
    A simple graphic illustration of why Telford works for The UK but not here.
  3. 2 points
    Kudos for one of the Head Judges and NCC member for monitoring and stepping up to answer a rules question in a concise manner. This gives us an authoritative determination of the rule, as opposed to the rest of us offering our opinions. I hope more Head Judges follow this example! GIL
  4. 2 points
    It's now halfway through March and I'm finally able to post something finished. These are my two latest finished armor models . This first one is of the Military Wheels 1/72 scale Soviet SG-122. It's a 122mm cannon mounted on a PzIII chassis and hull and covered with a casemate. It was a stopgap project that only had a bout a hundred or so built before the SU-122 was accepted: The next one is the Trumpeter 1/72 scale Russian SA-6 Gainful. I made this as an East German machine that was repainted with the West German insignia after the German re-unification: My apologies for the poor pics. These look better in person. Well, that's all I have completed so far. Stay tuned, I have more to come.
  5. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  6. 2 points
    I finally finished this baby last night. My first competed build for 2019. It's the Tamiya kit built in Operation Iraqi Freedom (thanks for correcting me, Rob) scheme. I used mylar for the optics and a resin set from Red Zebra for stowage. I also printed out cardboard boxes for MREs from Freddie's set and assembled them for a neat look that breaks up the stowage on the tank. I added a boom mic to the tank commander with copper wire. I used the hairspray technique on this one and tried to bring out the NATO woodland scheme underneath like the original. It didn't work out too well in that the top coat was very tenacious and didn't want to come off easily. Final weathering with Wilder oils and Flory pigments. I also made use of an item called "ceramic wire" for the aerials. I'm pretty satisfied with this build. The kit is highly recommended.
  7. 2 points
    As one of the individuals involved, and as a proponent for Open Judging, I read the NCC's summary. While the mechanics of a possible Open Judging method were not fully developed at this time, I see several flaws in the NCC's assessment of how they believe Open Judging works. Here's my counterpoint to the NCC: There is no "Ideal" or "Standard" (other than the Contest Rules) that needs to be met in order for anyone to enter models. You can enter as many models as you wish as long as you pay the entry fee, the same as has always been done. Models are judged using the very same criteria set that is currently employed by IPMS. Rather than counting flaws and making cuts, each model is evaluated as to how well the modeler met the criteria. Nothing has been said about skill levels. Had these been mentioned, I would suggest that it would be initially left to the entrant to determine their own skill level. Once they've won Golds at their current level, they get promoted to the next level. But that's step 1,278. We're on Step 1. The judges would still be your peers within IPMS--It isn't as if IPMS will all of a sudden start using some "Intergalactic Model Judging Guild" to judge the show. Because the models aren't compared to each other, the judging can begin as soon as the first models reach the display room--they get placed on the display tables and are judged as they sit. Done properly, judges will be able to pick what shifts they want to judge, rather than having to cram it all into a few hours on Friday night. As soon as each model has the required number of judging sheets, it can be tabulated and the award determined. Class Awards, Best-of-Show, and Special Awards are judged as they always have been--all the Gold winners in a given class are compared and a "winner" determined. The work is spread out over several days. Start a Sign Me Up page or make other efforts to get volunteers to assist in tabulating the data, same as we do for other show volunteers. I'm sure there are folks who want to see how the sausage is made after the judging itself is done. IPMS/USA designs a standard, non-show specific Field Award (medals or challenge coins, ideally) to be used at ALL National Conventions. Order in bulk, the ones that don't get used this year are saved for the next year, or the following year, etc. Put that onus on IPMS/USA and the NCC. This will actually save money--ask me about the boxes of unneeded field awards left over from the 2016 Convention sitting in my garage. They cannot be re-used as contest awards--most of them will have had the plaques torn off and the wood used as model bases by the time they're all gone. In effect IPMS/USA tossed that money in the county landfill. Only the Class Awards, Best of Show, and Special Awards need to be designed and tailored to the current Convention's theme. That work will still fall on the host chapter. Not everyone wants a 'contest'. Many modelers want to be informed/educated, and many others certainly do just want to show off what they've done in a Display Only format. A model that doesn't win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd under the current system doesn't meet the IPMS Standard. While every model should have at least one comment, there is no requirement to comment on each model in the room. These comments are quick notes--"There's a seam on the right wing", not short versions of "War and Peace". Dragging out the "every model wins a trophy" argument is beneath you, Mark, and I wouldn't have expected to see it. Should the membership opt for Open Judging, it won't happen overnight. I estimated a five- to seven-year implementation plan when it was discussed, starting at the local level for a few years, then migrating to the Regional level. By the time it gets rolled out on a National level, most of the bugs will have been discovered and the wrinkles ironed out. Like anything new, it won't always go to plan--I doubt our current system was seamless and foolproof when it was first used, either. But the benefits of a properly designed and implemented Open Judging system--specifically the score sheet and feedback--outweigh the growing pains I know will happen. Ralph Nardone President, IPMS/Mid-Carolina Swamp Fox Modelers IPMS #33984 AMPS #2540
  8. 2 points
    Let me now provide the history of the preparation of this ballot It began after last year’s National Contest with the annual forum debate on open judging (GSB) vs. 123. I joined the discussion and innocently made what I believed to be a practical suggestion: attach a simple tear-off ballot to the National Convention Contest registration form, deposit it in a box at the time of registration and add them up. That was rejected by the IPMS leadership, but, to their credit, they asked a working group of those interested in the question to create a ballot that would be included in an issue of the Journal so members could vote. I was one of the group, as was Rusty White. Again, to the credit of the leadership of IPMS, we were to be allowed to prepare the entire ballot. Our goal was to prepare a dispassionate, objective description of each system. It would be brief, fair, balanced and unemotional. At the beginning of the preparation of this ballot, I offered to write the initial description of our current 123 judging system for this ballot. However, Rusty White, who, from the start, had arrogated to himself the position of working group leader, rejected this offer and unilaterally decided to have someone from IPMS administration prepare the portion of the ballot that would describe the 123 system for the voters. I can only assume that Rusty decided that I, who he perceived as having some deep-seated and unalterable pro-123 bias, would somehow scupper the attempt to create a fair ballot. No one else in the group was allowed any input in this decision.There was never any question about the group’s other members being able to be objective about GSB open judging. I, however, was apparently not to be trusted to be fair. The irony is that I worked as hard as anyone in the group to prepare an accurate and fair description of open judging. We argued back and forth to create what you now see as the “position paper” for open judging. I insisted, as did others, that it take the form you now see. We wanted to provide basic facts and let the members decide. The Forum can provide the platform for debate and comment. We did not want that discussion to take place on the ballot. Then, without any warning or preparation from Rusty, the entire ballot suddenly appears as you see it. The working group was not permitted to sign off on it in it’s entirety. We never would have! And that is because the “position paper” for 123 was everything the group wanted to avoid. It is not brief or fair or balanced or unemotional! It is electioneering ON THE BALLOT by the very people who will be counting the votes. If I sound like I am whining, it is because I am. I am trained as a scientist. I want facts obtained honestly and objectively. I also have great respect for fairness in any vote. This ballot, as presently constituted, is not fair and should be seen as an embarrassment to this organization! I worked hard on this project. So did the others. We deserved the opportunity to produce something we could take some satisfaction in, regardless of the outcome of the vote. That opportunity was taken away from us by the very person in the working group who assumed the leadership position for himself and got out- manouvered. Please don’t blame me. Thank you. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.,
  9. 2 points
    Interesting. In my opinion, the referendum implies an immediate change to our system. As such it will of course be rejected. Let me explain. I have been a judge at IPMS National Conventions for 20 years. I’ve also been the head judge at the Three Rivers IPMS contest for about that same length of time. Our show uses open judging. There is a common thread to the discussions on this and other forums regarding the GSB system. The topic is nothing less than radioactive. This is not intended to be an ad hominem attack on any individual or group of individuals, but again through years of experience I have some idea of how these things work. Mr. Dedig has a very good point. One could easily see his description of “Lobby Champion” in the definition of the 1-2-3 system. It is not so much a definition as an indictment. I will interject in the definition below. Definition: Currently, model entries are evaluated based only on the entries in that year’s contest - comparing them only to each other. Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria. Nor are entries judged, based on any perceived personal expertise of the entrant (“beginner/advanced/master modeler”). This is absolutely true, and the inherit weakness of 1-2-3 contests. Much of any judging team’s time is often spent finding the “best of the rest” to fill out the 3rdor even 2ndplace winners of a category. The first plane winner may be obvious, but the rest could have so many problems that the team simply adds up the flaws of one model vs. another to determine the remaining winners. This frequently results in models winning at a national level that would not win in the open (GSB) format. Is that what we’re striving for? I’ve heard the argument that this point doesn’t matter. The three best models on the table in that group on that night won. Well how about the larger categories with 20-30 models that typically attract very good builders? I know we tend to split larger categories, but occasionally that can’t be accomplished due to the finite number of splits available. So here some very good models will not place, where in the first example, some not very good models will. There are no “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” that I am aware of. But there are good and bad paint jobs, decal applications and basic construction. These can be dispassionately scored and the results evaluated. Perceived personal expertise of the entrant? We don’t do that now and would not in the open system either. Judges are your IPMS peers, who volunteer a portion of their convention time to support the contest. They follow the guidelines in our Modeler's Guide To IPMS Contests. On average, we get 204 judges each year to cover 2,350 model entries. They ‘score’ an average of 600 winning models. Want to require those 204 to spend three times longer at their tasks, to ‘score’ all 2,350 models? Currently, any judge can leave comments on any entrant’s model-entry sheet; want to require them to leave comments for all 2,350 models? Are you going to make the commitment to help accomplish that task? We do evaluate all 2,350 models now. Some take very little time due to obvious flaws. Depending on the open judging format, this may not be necessary in GSB either. A scoring sheet does codify the results and focus judges’ evaluations. It does take more time. But judges at Telford use one and I haven’t heard any complaints about that. I’m not sure why this would take three times longer. Also, comments would not be required. A recent Regional Convention that I attended (and judged) solicited comments from judges. Some were helpful; most were not. The scoring speaks for itself. If you score 3 out of 10 in decal application the judging team doesn’t have to comment that the model didn’t place due to poor decals. Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper, to provide entrant and model names for those winners. They work all Friday night and into Saturday until Banquet time. To do the same for 2,300 entries, are you ready to sacrifice your own convention time to help do that task? This could be an issue, but perhaps not. We have run two Regional Conventions using the GSB system in Pittsburgh. One serious advantage is that judging can take place at any time. Our shows were two day events and judging began on Friday evening and continued through Saturday. Teams came and went at intervals. For a National Convention this would be a challenge to coordinate. But it could be done with proper planning. At the other Regional I mentioned, the judging time commitment was no greater than the typical 1-2-3 event. In no way do I wish to denigrate the efforts of the National’s staff. You all do absolutely excellent work and deserve all the credit we could possible give. The virtually flawless execution of the awards ceremony is evidence of the work of this group of people. For cost efficiency and planning, the 1-2-3 system pre-defines the maximum number of awards to be purchased and presented: 200 categories X 3 awards in each = 600 awards. G-S-B method leaves open the count of potential awards to be purchased (from 0% to 100%), for approximately 2,350 entries each year. How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case? This is an issue. But does anyone seriously think that 0%, no winners at an IPMS National Convention, or 100%, where everyone goes home happy is realistic. This type of argument clouds the issue and exaggerates the risk. Many shows of late have opted for medals as awards. These are relatively inexpensive. Extras could be ordered and some may not be used. If there are not enough, have more made and sent to the winners after the event. This is not a perfect solution, but we could ask other societies such as AMPS or the figure modeling groups how they handle the logistics. Also, there are no categories in open judging. We group the models together along natural lines: aircraft, armor, etc., just for ease of viewing. Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’. How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions? I don’t even understand this point. GSB events are no less a contest than the current system. “Critiquing entries to determine 1-2-3 vs G-S-B rankings is a distinction without a difference.” If this is true why is there resistance? “Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’?” Old line dating back to an unfortunate incident at a National Convention. Every model going home without at least a third place award feels precisely the same now. Our current processes are predictable and efficient. Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments. The volunteer efforts of the judging corps are effective, without overwhelming our available judges. Our current system isn’t ‘broken’ and doesn’t need to be ‘fixed’ – unless what you ultimately want is for every contest entrant to always be a winner! This is true. Except for the last sentence. I’m not even going to address that because it lacks serious merit. To sum up (a little late for that), the arguments against GSB on this forum seem to be more of an attack on an alternative. “This can’t possibly be done because…” Well it is done by AMPS, MFCA and local and regional IPMS shows. It is out there and it is gaining support. The purpose is to reward excellence and encourage improvement in modelling skills. I realize that we will never shift overnight from one style to another. That would be a recipe for failure. But to dismiss the open system out of hand, or continually attack it without considering its merits is also wrong. I think the National referendum should be something like this. “Would you like to see IPMS/USA experiment with the open GSB system at a future National Convention?” There are some excellent modelers who are also excellent judges and event coordinators who would support this. And by support I mean would sponsor trophy packages, offer to judge and help organize the experiment. Members could be solicited from the end of the prior convention, for let’s say a six month period to indicate if they would participate in an open judging experiment and approximately how many models they would enter. These models would not require any more space since they would be entered anyway. The distinction would be that a certain number of tables would be segregated for the purpose. Since we would know approximately how many models would participate, would could evaluate the number of awards to order. If it fails, it fails. At least the question would be addressed and long standing argument, both for and against, settled. At this point we honestly don’t know whether the topic would be accepted by the membership or not. I do know that after judging at our show, even some diehard opponents to GSB have been won over. They have said that our system is actually easier than they ever expected. Isn’t it time that we fairly approached this topic on a national level? Barry Numerick
  10. 2 points
    I think what's interesting is that the 1-2-3 description actually is written as a NEGATIVE towards GSB! Here are some examples: 1) " Entries aren’t compared to any “ideal”, “perfect-model”, or “national-standards” criteria". Strictly speaking that's true, but they make it sound like having a standard to WIN an award (NOT enter the contest) is a bad thing. Every club that does GSB KNOWS that to be false! And there IS a Standard in GSB... Those same BASICS! 2) "Judges are your IPMS peers"... Seems to imply that GSB uses wizards or outsiders from the GSB galaxy to judge at those shows. Nope! Turns out it's ALSO your "IPMS peers"! 3) " Recording results for just the 600 winners now requires 8 staff, transcribing scoring from just 200 sheets of paper" (etc)...Implies that GSB judging would be IMPOSSIBLE at the Nats because of the logistics of how 1-2-3 is done. FAILS to point out that EVERY GSB system used or proposed does NOT use that 1-2-3 system of recording. IF GSB were ever to be used at a Nats, the system would be entirely different. 4) " How many ‘extras’ of each award level should a host chapter plan to order, ‘just in case’? Just one per category (200 more)? Two or more per category? 2,350 awards – just in case?" This next paragraph rightly points out the differences between the number of awards needed between the two systems. However, it WRONGLY implies that you could NEVER know how much you need! This is dealt with by EVERY GSB show in the nation EVERY year; so it IS something you can "learn". Would GSB be a "higher cost" system? YES! But then THAT is the crux of the debate: Should IPMSUSA look to reward MORE deserving builds than they do now? And with the profits that are being made, IPMS CAN afford to by some more awards! The debate, and the PURPOSE of this survey is to try to determine if the general membership thinks that's a good idea or not. 5) " Our convention attendees want a ‘contest’ "; THAT is a BLATANT assumption, and actually not true! There's enough of a question about that to lead to this survey being done! It also implies that GSB attendees aren't looking to "win" (as opposed to "contest" attendees). Baloney! GSB contestants want to win as MUCH as they can; they just prefer to do so while NOT "beating" anyone else, and (when they do win) not limit anyone else's ability to win. 6) " How many ‘For Display Only’ entries do you ever see at any of our conventions?" What has THAT to do with models in a CONTEST, be it GSB or 1-2-3? People who want to compete enter the show, be it GSB or 1-2-3. Those who prefer to display do that, no matter what format is being used there! 7) " Want to be the one of the few entrants not even good enough to earn a Bronze award – ‘not up to national standards’? MISLEADINGLY implies that a Standard that determines WINNERS (not the ability to enter the show) is somehow mean. Well, how does it feel in a 1-2-3 show to go home EMPTY HANDED and not knowing if you even made the cut? BOTH systems still have "losers"...but GSB will have FEWER "losers" than 1-2-3! 8- " Our contest results and awards are a fair recognition of our entrants’ outstanding model-making accomplishments" BLATANT BALONEY! In ANY 1-2-3 category with 10-25 entries at the Nats there are 7-22 that go home with NO idea of how they did!! There are HUNDREDS of outstandingly built models that go COMPLETELY unrecognized because the judges decide that there are 3 there THAT day that are "better". The "fair recognition" is ONLY truly fair for the top 3 winners! There's a LOT of advantages for 1-2-3 in IPMSUSA, and the system has some positives that make it preferable to many. There was NO need to write the above in such a negative way. Instead of touting the positives and advantages 1-2-3 offers IPMS members, it's written to PUT DOWN GSB. As the IPMS USA Chief Judge, I could understand if Mr. Persechetti wrote an enthusiastic support for 1-2-3. However, he chose to write it as a condemnation, and actually showed his ignorance of GSB in doing so. I'm greatly disappointed and disgusted with his lack of character and honesty in this matter! Gil
  11. 2 points
    Trumpeter KV-5 built as a BeutePanzer. Because why not. Needs some minor clean up before paint. Added lots of pieces from the spare bin or items I recently picked up at local shows. Lionroar tow cable ModelKasten clamps Tasca jerry cans with scrap PE bracket Aber tow loops for the Tiger 1 MIG productions resin tail light Copula, Notek, horn, etc from Dragon bits and pieces Still need to make the brackets to hold the spare wheels and tracks. A couple of color studies:
  12. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  13. 2 points
    The "moving venue" is, in my view, an excellent approach. As Kevin mentioned, attendance at the convention can be built in to the "family summer vacation". Wife and I have visited all fifty states/state capitols/multiple National Parks and Monuments, State Parks, beaches, mountains, prairie land, and historic sites of all kinds as we travel to and from a Nats. This is a definite advantage that the current system has over a permanent and fixed location, or even two or three fixed locations. I would suggest that having a fixed location would result in the need for the hiring of a professional staff to plan and execute many of the administrative functions at a convention. Some immediate effects would be 1. conventions become more expensive with higher costs being placed on the attendees, and 2. a huge burden being placed on the nearby IPMS Chapters who would, year after year, be called upon to provide staff to run the convention activities. 3. Fewer participants would attend from those areas farther away from the convention, an issue that we currently experience, but that would be multiplied year after year as those out-of-towners loose interest in returning to the same city, or 2 or 3 cities, year after year. 4. I don't believe any research has been done in this area, but a sedentary venue would most probably result in a concentration of attendees within a single day's driving distance from the event, and an unintended concentration of winning entries from that same radius of attendance. Over a number of years such an issue could have a very negative impact on IPMS. The current system allows for any chapter, in any part of the country to offer a bid for one of two convention dates, either two years out or three years out. In many cases, bid preparation results in a number of chapters working together, leading to cooperation in other areas among those chapters in issues not related to a bid. The current system creates opportunities for attendees in the nearby area to volunteer their time during the convention, serving in staff positions. The fact that the convention will rotate to another part of the country means that these volunteers will not be expected to serve every year in these roles, and that others who cannot travel long distances to conventions will have the opportunity to serve on staff. The current system does not favor those living in an area that is close to the convention site year after year, benefiting from lower transportation costs. That particular happenstance rotates through the IPMS population due, in fact, to not having a permanent location. Clearly, my personal preference is to continue the current system which allows for bids from any chapter, located anywhere, relying on the Host chapter(s) to plan and execute a successful and enjoyable convention. And, at the same time, providing attendees the opportunity to visit a part of the country they've not visited before, or visit that part again due to the variety of sites and activities which call for a 2nd visit. I'm very much looking forward to going to the Chattanooga Convention in July/August of 2019. Wife and I have not visited Nooga and we've already got a list of places to eat and things to do on our way there, while on site, and on the way home.
  14. 2 points
    Alcohol! Two parts single malt scotch to 1 part water chilled to 17 degrees Fahrenheit.
  15. 2 points
    Found a model of the Spook almost a year ago & finally finished it. The colors are not according to any scheme. If you do a google search, you'll even find him wrapped in a British flag & bowler. The blue is Tamiya Flat Blue; the cape & mask are Model Masters Gunship Gray; his hat band is Model Masters Light Gull Gray; and his hair is Tamiya rattle can primer. I mean, he's 57 years old. He has a right to gray hair. The glossy finish is Future or whatever they call it these days. Had to show that I could actually finish something even if it did only have 4 parts.😊
  16. 2 points
    To make the wings he used elements from a different model and plastic plates.
  17. 2 points
    Thanks Gil, I hope, however, that someone will help me and will go to the museum and take some photos of this plane, or maybe someone has them? Unfortunately, I can not make it out of Poland too far for a trip to the museum, I do not have so much money for such a madness. But once, who knows, it will be possible to organize such a trip, such a dream of life, see aerial museums in the USA. For now, I hope that he is a modeler who is interested in the American air races of the Golden Age and will help me. As for the idea using elements from Wedell Williams 44, he is very good, I have such ideas from the beginning. I mainly use the fuselage and maybe the engine, the wing fins and the engine cover need to be redone. in the hull also need to make many changes because in the model 45 the hull is bigger and has a slightly different shape. But quite similar, so it will be suitable for modifications. I once made a 1/32 model Laird Turner LT 14 "Meteor" with a larger model (1/30) so this time I will do with a smaller bit bigger. As for interior furnishings, it is very poor and simplified in the Williams Bross model, so it is not a good model. In addition, the hull frame in model 45 had to be significantly different because the wing structure was different and additionally had a retractable landing gear. This is how the hull construction looks like: I used two models of Williams Bross 1/32 type 44 "Red lion" for this modification
  18. 2 points
    Dak, you make a valid point. However, I would suggest that it isn't limited to the IPMS/USA. The current "I'm Offended" culture that has developed in this country has to be a major factor. Keep in mind that practically anything that exists has the potential to offend anyone, but it has gotten completely out of control. Consider the efforts to make the Washington Redskins football team change their name because 'Redskins" is offensive to one small tribe. Other people are offended by the use of certain words, while others by actual historical events. Look at the complaints that started with objections to the Confederate Battle Flag...actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia...and expanded to statues of Confederate heros and schools that were named for men who had virtually no connection to the Confederacy other than fighting for the South. Political views are now subject to similar bias. Liberal viewpoints are widely publicized, while those of a conservative bent are castigated or banned. I was unable to market an article to a magazine I wrote for because the model in question....a Peterbilt 377 with an American Bald Eagle w/crossed American & Confederate flags on the air dam....was refused because "it might offend someone". If I did that model today as an ebook, I would be forced to apologize for it, accused of being a racist and required to remove the ebook from the marketplace. And if you want to get an idea of just how hypersensitive people are getting...as well as ignorant...I very recently had a magazine article corrected by my editor because "I've never heard of it, so I'm sure no one else has ever heard of it!" What was it? Believe it or not, a Mexican Jumping Bean. Instead, the editor changed Mexican Jumping Bean to simply 'jumping bean", thereby identifying every bean on the planet as a jumping bean! And if you think all of the above is a recent development, it's just the extreme result. Tony Weddel, a deceased aviation artist and my friend, quit doing heavy combat aviation art back in the late '70s or early '80s because he could no longer sell the art or prints. Why? Because people didn't want to purchase art that depicted violence. Result? He wound up doing pretty paintings of aircraft against storm clouds or toned down combat...unless a client specifically requested heavy combat. That, by the way, leads to your comment about viewing scenes of violence in model dioramas. Incidentally, it's also the reason why I've never created a crucifixion diorama of my own....it would offend virtually everyone who saw it. I have no idea where this is going to end, but if you build models, dioramas, articles and/or books for a living, it's already having an impact on what you can produce without offending someone. And it doesn't matter if it's a group or a single person. Dak, in case you're wondering, I'm 76 and I have no more problem viewing real life scenes than you do. I knew a preacher who I offered a copy of my P-38 CD-ROM to, warning him that it had a lot of nose art images containing pinup or semi-nude figures. His response? It's history. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of responses I get to this little tirade. Richard
  19. 2 points
    Anyway, here is my last acquisition I got last year as a Christmas gift to myself. I didn't post it above because for some reason the camera could not focus on the box and all my pics were blurry. This time, after considerable effort; I have a pic to show: I had wanted that since it came out. I figured it was time since I had Christmas money to burn. I hope to get started on it this year.
  20. 2 points
    What's an allowance?
  21. 2 points
    Lousy modelers need an organization to help them rationalize their lousy results! l
  22. 2 points
    Just got the Tamiya engraving set. Stupid expensive at $30.00 a blade, but far and away the best panel line engraver I own and that is saying a lot. I have a drawer full of panel line scribes. The difference is that these give you a flat bottom with square sides and no ridges on the top. They are so expensive because they are tungsten carbide and are very sharp. Don't bother buying the special handle for them. They fit in a pin vice with the proper collet. I use my large Tamiya pin vice and really like it because it has a decent diameter and with the knurling it is easy to control the angle of the blade. As to the cost, well they are $30 from Tamiya but if you shop around and buy them all together(so you only pay one shipping fee) and they can be had for less than half that. Oh and although my photo shows all 4 blades they are only sold individually and each one comes with the case for all of them. Not sure why but that is the way it is.
  23. 1 point
    Thanks Bob! I do enjoy doing commissions as long as I don't have a lot of them to do at the same time. I have also surprised people with models that they never saw coming. One was a Navy nurse who was at Pearl Harbor in WWII on board the USS Mercy, and another was a stage manager for our production of "Ragtime". She got a model of a Model T Ford like the one Coalhouse drove in the show.
  24. 1 point
    This is the start of the Hasegawa 1/48 F-22 Raptor. I will also be using Ares resin cockpit and Eduard photo etch to detail this kit. The F-22 Raptor is fourth generation in stealth aircraft technology by the USAF. It is the first operational aircraft to combine super cruise, super maneuverability, stealth, and sensor fusion in a single weapons platform. The Ares resin cockpit required the removal of the dash hood/HUD panel so that it can be replaced by the resin part. The nice thing about resin parts is they have much better detail than the injected plastic kit parts. The cockpit tub just required a couple of photo etch parts like the pedals and levers then was painted. For the resin dash I found a photo of the F-22 dashboard for the F-22 simulator. Using Adobe Photoshop I cut and sized the screens to make decals for the resin dash. Once the decals were applied and coat with clear gloss, the dash buttons and controls were painted. The ejection seat was painted and detailed with the Eduard photo etch parts. After installing the seat into the cockpit tub the cockpit was weathered with dark gray pastel chalk. The dash was then installed into the fuselage and resin details were added to the fuselage for the canopy mating hooks. Next I will be working on the main bomb bay section. For more photos see my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  25. 1 point
    You should contact Marie, our office manager, who handles membership to make sure she has your address, etc. correct. Reach her at manager@ipmsusa.org
  26. 1 point
    Here’s another save from someone’s childhood (before pic at end). Stripped, fixed in spots and 100% hand painted back to glory...no airbrushing here. Here’s a few progress pics. Tks for looking and your comments are welcome.
  27. 1 point
    I could have titled this post as "The Rest of the Story." In the November/December 2018 issue of the IPMS Journal, my article on building the AMT 1/25 kit of the 1972 Chevrolet Blazer was printed. Along with the story of building the Blazer, there was a secondary short amount of text on building the MPC Car Trailer as found in the old MPC 1973 Chevrolet Caprice Classic and a brief comment on the car that would be on the trailer. In the magazine, you saw this picture: Now you get to see what was missing . . . because it wasn't done. Now it is. Comments welcome. Ed
  28. 1 point
    Next up is the Italeri 1/48 F7F-3 Tigercat with Eduard photo etch details. The F7F-3 aircraft entered service late in the war in 1944. They were produced in day fighter, night fighter and photo-reconnaissance versions. They were originally designed to be carrier based but there were some issues that caused them to fail carrier qualification. They ended up being used by the Marines and did most of their service later during the Korean War. Starting off with the cockpit, the dashboard was detailed with photo etch parts. The photo etch seat was adorned with the seatbelts then mounted to the cockpit. While assembling the cockpit to the fuselage I noticed the kit did not have parts for the front a rear bulkheads of the nose gear bay. I used a contour gauge to measure the fuselage and cut out the bulkheads from sheet styrene. They grabbing so extra photo etch parts from my spares drawer I detailed the bulkheads . with a little minor shaping they fit right in. Another detail I did was to drill out the gun barrels of the nose guns for a more realistic appearance. See my build log for more detailed photos. https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f7f-3-tigercat/
  29. 1 point
    Beautiful work man! This is going to be a blast to follow! You did a sensational job on that front office. Way to go!
  30. 1 point
    I was going through sorting photos last night and realized that over the last 20 years or so, I have done some pretty weird models. I've done my fair share of "normal" models as well, but here are some of the strangers ones for your enjoyment.
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    All, While we've been quiet on the website front, we have been very busy behind the scenes. Registration is now live. We have a link to the IPMS store shopping cart for on-line registration, and we have a fillable PDF downloadable for those who prefer to register by mail. Model registration will follow later. We've announced two off site events. One is a tour to the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville AL, the other is a BBQ dinner at the Songbirds Guitar Museum in Chattanooga. Both of these will be excellent activities. Check the site for more info on both. We've got a list of vendors who have reserved tables posted. It's a MONSTER list and it's turning into a historic vendor hall. The current record for vendor tables at a Nats is 424 in Atlanta in 2005. We currently have 431 tables reserved. With 5 months to go before the convention, even with some drop outs we really like our chances for setting a record for number of vendor tables. In a huge change from past conventions, we are going without a banquet. See the website for more details, but we're going to have a $5 desert reception to be followed by the awards. We should have seating for over 1000 for the reception and awards, and we're really hoping to have a huge party to wrap up this year's convention. We also have a rather extensive list of seminars that we're working on. Topics and presenters are currently listed on the website, and a schedule will follow soon. Finally, for now, we are really trying to emphasize display only models. We want to see as many as folks are willing to bring. Again, see the website for details. Any questions? Let me know. My email is on the Home page of the Convention Website! Thanks Mike Moore 2019 Convention Chairman
  33. 1 point
    USS Enterprise light leakage test: Detailed blog entry here: https://geekjournal.ch/uss-enterprise-model-build-part-12-light-leakage/
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Gil, In response to your question about a "sealed" exhaust fan. The model I used, Broan AEW110, does indicate the motor is sealed.
  36. 1 point
    Gil, I got a 2nd Panther today. This one is the Revell Germany version molded in blue. May have to try your idea on this one.
  37. 1 point
    Sweet! That sculpt really captures his upbeat/laid back attitude. Is that shirt real, or painted? I cannot tell from the pics! Greta looking build and a nice homage....which reminds me.... GIL
  38. 1 point
    Thanks! I wish I had the set up for SBS photos but I work at the diner table most of the time. 😑
  39. 1 point
    It's tough to make a criticism of a Nats convention hotel here in the USA without coming off as a bit whiny. We're simply at the mercy of the venue the host chooses to use. They, on the other hand are at the mercy of the "calculus" Nick describes in balancing costs vs. what we cheap model building convention goers are willing to pay (and we make Scotts look like drunken sailors! !) And, the E-board, who ultimately decides which host gets to throw the Nats is at the mercy of who bids, IF more than one host does for any particular year.... Are some hotels and "chains" better than others? Sure...and even within certain chains some franchise owners are better than others, so that's why one Marriott might not measure up to another. It's tough to beat Embassy Suites...I mean- FREE HAPPY HOUR and FREE BREAKFAST!?? But not every city/host has one of those available. And, some cities have great convention centers but NO connecting hotels, meaning we have to walk more than we want. And parking? Heck, we've been VERY fortunate for the most part so far....I paid $65+/day in downtown Philly this last summer (off site too)! I cannot recall any convention approaching that (yet). Want to talk Nats hotels? How about the MOTEL used in DC in the 80's? How about the Phoenix show hotel where we had to walk 3 blocks in 100+degrees to get to the convention center (but there were nude statues to cavort on along the way....)? Or the hotel (Oklahoma?) where the second floor on one side of the main lobby didn't connect to the 2nd floor on the OTHER side of the lobby (very sad story behind that one actually)? Or the downtown Miami hotel where you might not want to linger in the parking lot or tour the neighborhood it was in? Or the St. Louis hotel that had banquet rooms SO small that many of us had to watch the awards via closed circuit TV? And those are just MY experiences..... The solution is to simply reserve and stay where it suits you. While most modelers actually scrimp and save a few bucks by opting for a local motel and NOT staying at the convention hotel; you can always book yourself into a hotel with ALL the amenities you're seeking, even if it costs a few bucks more per night. Don't like walking? Find a cheaper motel and use the difference for cab fare back and forth. In other words, MAKE it work out so you get what you want or need when it's not handed to you. The bottom line is that every host does the best they can to give the best "bang for the buck". Some hosts are simply better off when it comes to a hotel chain and convention center combo. Others have to take what they can and make the best of it. I've never know ANY of them to not try to give us the best that they can for the price range we've all become accustomed to expect for a Nats. We're accustomed to "rock bottom" prices and we've actually been spoiled more often than not for those low prices! And as for working a "deal" with a chain.....that's been tried and tried. The sad truth is that IPMSUSA is not worth their time and effort, especially when they look at all of the other business conventions that use more room nights and less floor space than we do. We come with some baggage (space needs) that most conventions our size don't; and we just cannot compare or compete with the others. And then there's the fact we tip lousy.......so do NOT look for us to work any deal with anyone nationally anytime soon. I have to agree that in the end, it's the SHOW that sticks in my mind more than any hotel room much more often than not. And, even the shows with less than ideal hotels often seem to become funny stories and flavorful backdrops to those shows where we had to be inconvenienced a bit. GIL
  40. 1 point
    Hi Joe, that must have been fun scratch building the interior. I put off buying the Cobra set for years and then when they discontinued it I suddenly wished I had bought it. When Lone Star reissued it last year I didn't waste any time and bought one, but I don't know when I'll get around to building my kit. The Hill AFB Museum near me also has a Huskie which I've studied over the years. Besides the rotor head, the servo flaps on the kit blades are also simplified and would benefit from some reworking. I've thought it would be fun to build the original motorized version straight from the box and enter it in an IPMS contest documented with some pictures of a Huskie with giant penlight batteries photoshopped into the rear compartment. Good luck with your build!
  41. 1 point
    Very cool! It has that Japanese mythical look to it. Very well done. Bill
  42. 1 point
    It is true about that flea bag in Columbus! They put 5 mattresses on my bed and I could still feel the pea under them. Nick Filippone
  43. 1 point
    Hello, everyone I have an idea for the next model, it is supposed to be Wedell Williams model 45. I intend to make the model from scratch in 1/32 scale as my other models of racing aircraft. I have some source materials that will help me during construction: I have also found on the Internet a few archival photos of this plane and photos of the replica. I have a question, do you have any pictures of the interior of the pilot's cabin, silinics chassis and other details (can there be pictures of the replica)? I tried to contact the Wedell- Williams Memorial Aviation & Cypress Sawmil Museum. They have a beautiful replica of this plane there so you could take a few photos, I am waiting for a response.
  44. 1 point
    That's cool Kevin. I might not make C'nooga either, mostly due to lack of funds. Still, one can hope and pray. I do hope you can make it to the San Marcos show. If I can't make C'nooga, I'll put all my savings to the San Marcos show.
  45. 1 point
    I call my stash my hedge fund against inflation!
  46. 1 point
    You're killing me Smalls! I'll see what I can do, but with the volume I put out, it will be tough slowing down to get additional figures painted.
  47. 1 point
    EJ, In the photography forum under "on the bench" there are more pics from when I started this kit back in 2014. I will add some other pictures soon. I used the Squadron "USS Wasp In Action" book for reference and internet photos. I don't know if thatSquadron book is still available. Thanks for looking. Mark, Thank you. This took on a life of it's own and I'm glad it is over. I enjoyed most of the time on it but it did get to me after awhile. Thanks Tony; always appreciated. Bill
  48. 1 point
    I do not know if you understand how a hem measurer works when assessing alignment or even if you understand what most judges mean by proper alignment. By setting the bottom of the hem measurer on the surface of the table adjacent to whatever structure on the airframe you are examining ( usually wing tips and horizontal elevator tips but occasionally underwing stores or propellor spinners), adjusting the cursor to the height of that structure and then moving it to the other side, those structures are either at the same height or they are not! If the heights are equal, those structures and the model are considered to be aligned. If not, they are considered not aligned. WHY they are not aligned is unimportant in judging ( except perhaps when many entries are misaligned and one is trying to decide whose error is less egregious ) although it is usually easy enough to spot the cause once one has been " tipped off" as it were by the hem measurer. I am not sure how your aircraft plotter works but if you are holding it up in mid-air and not resting it on a level surface, it is affected by slight movement by the holder and his or her subjective idea of what is horizontal. Also, without some type of gradation marks for vertical height, even if resting on a level surface, I cannot see how height can be assessed other than by " eyeballing it." In my experience as I pointed out above, that is not a reliable technique. Your plotter is also limited by its fixed width in the horizontal plane. Since models vary greatly in span, unless vertical gradations, even if they were there on the plotter, are exactly apart the same distance as the structures being compared, one still would have to guess to some extent that the heights off the table are the same. For judging purposes, the hem measurer does not even need any gradations or units of measure. The cursor either hits the structures on each side at the same spot ( aligned) or it does not ( out of alignment.) Nick
  49. 1 point
    Great work and idea Kev! Definitely a change of pace from real space modeling. Have fun modeling Mike
  50. 1 point
    Both DC geared motors for bridge and boat require control circuits. Decided to use logic controlled circuitry for switching motor rotation (CW and CCW). Also discovered that the span would raise too quickly even with a 148:1 gearbox. Using a lower supply voltage, via a series of diodes, to the motors slowed it down. Also discovered that the motor shaft roation drifts when switched off. This drift needs to be accounted for when placing the triggers that switch the motors off. Building the two motor circuits on the one circuit board.
×
×
  • Create New...