Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    My model is the Italeri 1/72 scale Fiat CR-32 Chirri." It represents an aircraft assigned to XXIII Grupo Caccia, Aviazione Legionaria. The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel Andrea Zotti and based at Puig Moreno, Spain, June-July 1938. The unit formed part of the Italian contingent fighting for the Nationalist cause during the Spanish Civil War. I used the Osprey Fiat CR-32 Aces of the Spanish Civil War (Aircraft of the Aces 94) for inspiration; profile 28. I wanted to model Zotti's aircraft; he flew "3-4", but I only had the decals for "3-6". The model was built out-of-the-box except for the rigging. Took me 3-months to figure out I can't paint Italian camouflage with an airbrush freehand and another 3-months and a lot of Tamiya tape to manage that effort. I enjoyed the build; never worked harder to complete a model...
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.,
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  11. 1 point
    Thanks guys! Gil: Stubo is short for Sturzbomber or dive-bomber . I would have been used to carry one 1000kg bomb. There was a stubbier one - Stubo I - that would have carried a 500kg bomb.
  12. 1 point
    This was a model I've wanted to get out of my stack for a while. The Stubo II is a Fantastic Plastic offering, that comes back in stock every once in a while. It's another one of the German WW2 planes that never made it off the drawing board. I *really* like this genre! 🙂 The kit comes in 14 parts including a seat and stick, which you'll never see, and I left out. The canopy is clear but following the directions, the majority of it gets painted. Being cast by Anigrand, you know you are getting a good kit. As usual, the parts went together with minimal effort. One thing I noticed with this kit is if the fuselage holes don't match the pins in the wings - swap the wings, don't clip the pins. They are made to fit only to one side. Cool idea! A lil seam filling. The process continued effortlessly, and a coat of white paint, for the fuselage, and V. Game Color Gory Red, was the shade of red I chose. Then it was time for the decals. The decals went on just as effortless as the rest of the build. After a short wait the Micro-Sol went on and suck the decals into all the panel lines perfectly. It was here that I noticed that there was no decal for the gun placement. It wasn't sculpted into the fuselage, so I thought it was a decal. Looking closely at the instruction sheet, it says the model was created after the original which didn't have guns. So if I wanted I could carve wells into the fuselage (THAT wasn't going to happen) or I could create a decals for it. Umm, didn't the FP guy create decals for his? Why couldn't his design be added to the decals sheet? Even if it added another $1 to the price of the kit, I'd pay it. Having no ability to create a drawing for a decal, mine will do without. Hard to see - the skid also went in place with no problems. Looking back one thing I should have done that I didn't was paint the inside of the canopy. With the white paint on the outside and the light tan resin showing on the inside, the windows almost disappear. I'll have to keep that in mind for the next time. While I was waiting for the clear coat covering the decals to dry I went apart creating a base for it. It consists of a square of foam that it coated in DAPs Plastic Wood. I started out using a spatula, but it seemed to go on faster and smoother with just a wet finger. Being the craft just has one landing skid, I created a mini sawhorse to level the plane for display. All done. Thanks for looking. I used Chinchilla Dust for the dirt. Is much more in scale than regular sand.
  13. 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.
  14. 1 point
    Maybe instead of an abstain selection, maybe there could be a "No preference" vote for those who don't care which system is used as long as awards are being offered for competition. I for one really have no preference for the system used; I would enjoy the contest either way. Something to consider.
  15. 1 point
    John.....This is just a personal guess, but my understanding is that the purpose is to find out whether GSB or 1-2-3 is preferred among those who DO care. After all, if you have no strong opinion, you're going to simply go with the flow when you attend, and aren't necessarily interested in the direction of IPMS over the next decade (and probably aren't voting in the first place). If you believe that one or the other is better for IPMS, or if you simply like one better than the other, then your vote needs to be recorded one way or the other. As for having it as needed to actually place a vote in order to vote in the general election, I think that's meant to (again) avoid apathy. Only a fraction of the membership will vote either on-line or by mail. If you allow people to abstain or cast a "don't care" vote; IPMS learns nothing as to the preferences of 1-2-3 vs. GSB. I can see where some people like yourself feel like they're being forced to enter into a fight they don't care about. But, I think if you stop and consider it more as a referendum on whether we should change for the future or continue with the status quo for the future; you can come to an easy decision personally. GIL
  16. 1 point
    Spring snow storm update! Yes it is spring and the middle of April but I think someone forgot to tell Mother Nature. Snowing like crazy here. So spent the day finishing the weapons bays and starting on the landing gear bays. The front landing gear bay is done. I added some wiring and hydraulic lines as well. I drew out the shape and laid out the wires then CA glued them together then fit them inside the bay. The photo etch supplied the wall details. I then glued the weapons and nose landing gear bay into the lower half of the fuselage. Next moving to the main gear then the engines. More photos at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  17. 1 point
    Weekly update on the Raptor, I started on the weapons bays. First the main bays. I found a photo on Google that gave me a close look at them. Using 32 awg wire with black sleeving I shaped the harness and used CA glue to join them together. I was looking thru my scrap photo etch items to find something I can use for the harness ties. I taped the photo to the wall for reference then realized the blue painters tape was an exact match to the color of the harness ties! I then cut small strips and wrapped them along the harness. Once all the wire harness’ were built and installed I stripped some wire and used the bare wire to simulate the hydraulic lines. I made my own fittings and ran the lines to the individual launchers as well as left some hanging for when I attach the doors. I added some weathering and used a black colored pencil to color in some of the fine wires. Next I started on the starboard missile bay. Eduard provided some photo etch parts for the avionics and I then drilled and installed the wires for each. Still need to do some fine details on the missile rail then I can repeat the process for the port missile bay. You can see all the other photos in my build log at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  18. 1 point
    Thanks guys! I had to make one fix, and it is done. I'll post the pics for it soon.
  19. 1 point
    Took a small break from modeling. Back at it again. Finally finished adding the photo etch to the engine, and cockpit. I purchased 4 sets from Eduard. Engine, cockpit, seatbelts, and gun bays. I also purchased a set of resin tires, and propeller with spinner. The kit rubber tires had nasty seams down the middle. After cutting the engine panels apart, I added photo etch to the inside of each one. I took the paper fuel tanks that came with the kit, and added them to the display. I used Testor's Metalizer Lacquer to simulate metal . This stuff is fantastic. I used it a lot for the engine components. Spray it on, let it dry, then buff it out. I seal mine after buffing. This prevents getting silver finger tips. One of the guys in our local model club was commissioned by the pilots son to build this exact same kit.The son gave him a copy of his fathers flight logs, and a very descriptive book detailing every one of his father's mission during the war. Thanks Ted for letting me use this info while building this kit.
  20. 1 point
    The Creature Brothers. One on left is my first and a keeper, and I may put the other and future ones up for sale at some point...I don’t know. Neither is finished but I’m happy with the technique so I can reproduce it a couple times.
  21. 1 point
    My most unusually model I’ve built to date is this 1/35 scratchbuild: A short write up here: http://www.arcair.com/Gal13/12001-12100/gal12076-Rabbit-Michaels/00.shtm
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Stripped and restored this original Aurora. Missing tree and snake but I’ll find originals for it. First pic is what I started with.
  24. 1 point
    USS Enterprise light leakage test: Detailed blog entry here: https://geekjournal.ch/uss-enterprise-model-build-part-12-light-leakage/
  25. 1 point
    The MIG-21 PFM is now complete. I detailed the canopy and opted to leave it open to show the details of the cockpit. After reviewing some photos on line I dulled the finish a little. I then detailed the R-3S missiles by making the sensors look realistic. The method used is in my Tips and Tricks section. https://davidsscalemodels.com/tips-and-tricks/how-to-make-laser-and-ir-sensor-heads/ The missiles were then mounted as the final step. This was a very nice model to build. The fit was very good with very minor work required to line up the parts. Aside from the numerous decals they all went on nicely. Thanks for following along. Here are the final photos. To see all the photos from start to finish check out my build log. https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-mig-21-pfm/
  26. 1 point
    I am proud to announce that my latest E-book is now available. The attached image should give you all the information. Any questions, don't hesitate to reply in this thread or send me a private message. And since a functioning hyperlink can't be inserted into an image, here are working links for your choice of E-book formats at smashwords.com or a printable PDF at scalepublications Now, who do I contact to submit a review copy?
  27. 1 point
    And on yet another note...without a doubt, the single most important and beneficial thing that I have done to better my overall skill as a modeler, increase my enjoyment of the hobby, and improve the quality of the models I produce is to apprentice as a judge under an experienced and accomplished modeler/judge, and then judge in my class (armor). In my opinion, the more you judge alongside competent, "non-b-hole-ish" judges, the more constructive and valuable your feedback is (when shared/sought), the better builder you develop into, and the less subjective and more objective your judging becomes.
  28. 1 point
    Just a personal life changing story on the subject. Years ago(twenty years ago now) I built a custom model car that I entered in a local contest. I worked very hard on the model and was quite proud of it. It didn't place in the contest. After the show I took it to the head judge for the category. As it happened the judge was Drew Hierwarter. Many of you may know him as a long time staff writer for Fine Scale and Scale Auto. Drew took the time to go through the model with me, pointing out flaws and other things that were detractors. We were both very respectful of the other and it made a difference. Well to make a long story short, I took the model home, set it on the bench and took a deep breath and tore the model apart to rebuild it. The end of the story is that the following show I took it to was Tamiya/Con and it won Best Extensive conversion and an all expense paid trip to Japan for a week. That set me on a lifetime path of working to make the best models I can and seek advise and critiques from many sources. My experience with a judge may not be typical, but it could be. When I judge, I remember my experience and am willing to help any modeler who asks.
  29. 1 point
    Just a quick post to let y'all know that my latest Marmo Modelbuilding Guide will be available within the next few days. #9 in the series, this one focuses on the 1/32nd Revell AH-!G HueyCobra. That's right, the one first released in 1967 and still the only 32nd scale kit ever produced of the original AH-1G design. The Guide adds a Cobra Company aftermarket cockpit and rocket pods, along with a scratchbuilt revetment wall to form a Viet Nam vignette. One more thing. The Guide subject wears the familiar SEA three tone camouflage. As far as I've been able to determine, only four Cobras ever carried that scheme.
  30. 1 point
    Mr. Willis: What you wrote, although a little more detailed and therefore longer than what our Survey working group would have prepared, is exactly the way we wanted the description of the 123 judging system to appear on the ballot- factual, unemotional, objective. Designed to inform, but not to persuade. Kudos to you! You must not have slept through those Civics classes that covered voting in an open honest system of government. At least somebody else gets it! Thank you. Regards, Nick
  31. 1 point
    Greetings The two replies offer more "definition " than anything in the original posting. Thank you Barry and Gil for clear and detailed information. Your replies shall be 100% more effective in informing members of some of the details regarding "Open Judging" and 1-2-3 Judging. As President of Three Rivers IPMS, I will do my best to ensure our club members are reading this forum and actively involved in this discussion. A. IPMS E-Board please try for an open mind regarding this subject.The survey looks to be a step. B. Thank you Gil and Barry for your time. Regards Bill Dedig
  32. 1 point
    Lots of work completed on the AR-196A. First, assembled wings and found that the fit to the fuselage has an issue. There is a large gap on the port side. The other side and bottom also have small gaps. These were all filled, filed and sanded. Then the floats were assembled and detailed with photo etch parts. The oil cooler was replaced with photo etch parts and added some more photo etch details to the fuselage. The rear machine gun was then detailed, painted, and mounted. The dolly was then assembled and painted. I painted the “wood” to look weathered and aged. Painted a brown base, then dry brushed tan and finally lightly dry brushed light gray. Once the paint was dry I used dark brown and black pastels to add weathered and dirt to the surface. Now working on painting the base coat on the aircraft. The first color of the scheme is done. Letting it dry overnight before I mask and paint the other color. Many more photos can be viewed on my blog at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-arado-ar-196a/
  33. 1 point
    Well, I have about 400 models in my stash, but I have about five or six models on the Shelf of Woe, or Doom if you will. I do need to get more of them done. I'm tired of them taking up space in the workbench and hobby room.
  34. 1 point
    Here's a couple shot of my Billiken MechaGodzilla 2 kit. This is a vinyl kit that includes white metal parts for the "fingers". Once again hand finished in acrylics and Tamiya Weathering System palettes. Thanks for looking!
  35. 1 point
    Another great event Gil!! Congrats to you and your team for putting together another fine show!! Doug
  36. 1 point
    Here's a photo of a weary Abrams that shows how the road wheel hubs look. The blackened road wheel had a blown seal.
  37. 1 point
    Noel: to answer your question, the IPMS Nats is judged on Friday evenings starting about 7pm. Thus, they have no time constraints on getting done for the public since the room is not due to open until the next morning. There have been times when the judges weren't done til after midnight and the final Grand Award winner wasn't picked until close to 2am, but that's rare now. Generally, they're all done by midnight. The ONLY time constraint I'm aware of is occasionally the VENUE will have a "lights out" policy for the entire convention center of midnight, and THAT does cause some headaches; but as mentioned it is VERY rare. By the way, many years ago judging was on Saturday morning and there was a "rush" to get done so that the people would have enough viewing time on Saturday afternoon. That's why judging was moved to Friday night, and it's worked very well; though it completely eliminates the ability for anyone to come and enter anything on Saturday. And Rusty, it IS possible to be overly zealous as a moderator. It's one thing if one member insults another directly by labeling them as deceitful, even if done with flowery language. But, making a point, even with a bit of sarcasm, is not entirely out of place. It's tougher to discern intent on a forum because there's no voice inflection, but I think a moderator can simply question a statement before accusing or warning someone about it. Stepping in TOO often can kill an ability to have a flowing dialog, which is the purpose of a forum like this! GIL
  38. 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.
  39. 1 point
    Way to go Kevin. "Bob" looks great! I agree with Gil about the shirt. Bill
  40. 1 point
    Excellent!!! That really is an effective camo scheme. Great work again, Bryan. Bill
  41. 1 point
    Thanks! I wish I had the set up for SBS photos but I work at the diner table most of the time. 😑
  42. 1 point
    In part, because of low pay in certain jobs. But in places like convention hotels, many guests are on an expense account and tip bigger because it is not directly out of their pocket. The hotel staff tends to believe ALL convention goers are that way. Dak
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Here it is. Finished it back in early December. The Paper belly tank is from the 1/72 Italeri P-47N kit Paint is RAF Dk Green over RAF sky gray. Modelmaster enamels with Testor's dullcote. Decals are Superscale 72-886 First time for me posting pictures on this forum. Thanks for your feedback back in October. Got 3rd in our local P-47 contest.
  45. 1 point
    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.
  46. 1 point
    Well, it's the second day of a new year and yesterday I actually finished a Shelf Queen of four years. This beastie fought me like the Boeing 737 did but I am more thrilled with the finish of this model that the other. I present to you my first model of 2019, the Heller 1/72 scale C-118 transport plane: It feels good to start the year with this thing out of what's left of my hair. Unlike the Boeing, I think I'll be taking this to contests. It most likely won't place, but it's gonna look great on the tables! Thanks all for looking in, comments are welcome!
  47. 1 point
    I call my stash my hedge fund against inflation!
  48. 1 point
    Okay, after a bit of free time for the Hobby Room, I was able to finish these last two armor models that were so close to the finish line. This first one is the 1/72 scale ACE Italian Lince armored car. It turned out to be all wonky and misaligned, but it is finished. I'm not sure what else I could have done with this without making it a major production, but at least I have all four wheels on the ground: This next one is another one that gave me fits. I just decided enough was enough and I finished it off. This is the Riich Models 1/72 scale M-992 armored artillery support vehicle: That's all for now, and for 2018. Stay tuned for more next year. Thanks for looking in, comments are welcome.
  49. 1 point
    MY experience with IPMS "haters" who criticize the importance we place on craftsmanship is that they are modelers who are sorely lacking in craftsmanship themselves. They cannot win a contest so those who can put too much emphasis on craftsmanship. Building a model without trying to do a good job is like playing golf with no particular concern whether the ball ever gets in the cup. Since I joined IPMS in 1964, I have had to listen to the likes of AMSO criticize this venerable organization and its 1/2 century endeavour to raise plastic modelling from the low regard in which it was held ( remember when the wood modelers thought that WE were the ones lacking in craftsmanship?) to the level of excellence it now enjoys. I have long since run out of patience with modelers jealous of what IPMS members have achieved individually and collectively through hard work and a demand for excellence to make plastic modelling every bit as sophisticated and respectable as hand carved balsa and basswood modelling. This was always one of our earliest goals. Hence, I will eschew any semblance of modelling "political correctness!" I will not take back what I said above nor will I apologize for it. As long as such people as AMSO members keep their comments to themselves, I will forbear to criticize them. But once they start the childish nonsense such as was reported above, then they better be prepared to knock the chip off my shoulder that I unashamedly wear for IPMS. Nick Filippone, IPMS #969 and proud enough of it to stick up for it!
  50. 1 point
    PeteJ, I started this thread not as criticism, but as curiosity if others have encountered such groups. In my description of the AMSO group, I have very charitable of them. They are not really that creative, but merely use it as a an excuse to justify poor craftsmanship. I realize everyone builds models for their own reasons and we have several in both the local IPMS chapters who only build for themselves. They have no interests in contests, nor do they try to build at a high competitive level. I like them and have great respect for them for they accept both complements and suggestions with good grace. You can be extremely creative and be a good craftsman, I have seen that constantly at the Nationals. The man I described in the earlier post hardly ever built a model, but from day one was constantly pestering people to trade stuff with him. And he kept at it until I told him to leave me the F alone. This was not a difference in how to build, but about common courtesy. One was posting racist remarks on the internet and another was a drunk constantly stinking of beer. I would disagree that creativity doesn't win or isn't considered, particularly in the final stages of judging. My experience says those who feel the creativity of their model is over looked, are just trying to rationalize their failure, but it is true different groups see "good craftsmanship" differently. These two photos from OHMS show both creativity and good craftsmanship, IMO. That's Manta Ray Charles, by the way. Dak
×
×
  • Create New...