Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 2 points
    Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.,
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 2 points
    Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave
  10. 1 point
    Continuing onward this week I am working on the main landing gear bays. After locating reference photos on Google, I started by drilling many, many holes to install the numerous hydraulic lines. Using a .09 drill bit I drilled out the many locations where the lines go to. I then took 32 awg wire and ran the individual lines. I then added the electrical cables and routed them. Still have a couple of more lines to run then need to do all the yellow and blue connections and holders on the lines. Then I can weather and highlight the bays. See all the photos from start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/
  11. 1 point
    David, FWIW, this survey has nothing to do whatsoever with IPMS/USA switching to GSB. It is merely an informational survey that the E-board asked several members put together to provide an accurate and up-to-date accounting of the memberships' judging preference. It's been a good five years since the last GSB/123 survey was done and the E-board felt it was time for another. IMHO, it should be done every five years since the membership constantly changes.
  12. 1 point
    Hi Joe Rule I.3 states (emphasis is mine): "Prior Winners. Models that have won First-, Second-, or Third-place, or Outof-the-Box awards in any category of any previous IPMS/USA National Model Contest may not be entered in any subsequent IPMS/USA National Model Contest for awards, except as provided in Section II, Rule 19 (last sentence) and Section III, Rules 5--7. Previous award winners can be used as noted in Dioramas, Collections, Triathlon and Group entries. Models that have won an award as part of a Collection, Triathlon or Group entry may also be entered individually in subsequent National Contests. However, models that have won individually, and as part of a Collection, Triathlon or Group entry, are not eligible for subsequent National Contests." Note that there is no exception for Juniors moving up to Standard categories in subsequent years. There is the qualifier in Rule I.2 that a Junior entrant may choose to enter any or all of his entries [for that year] in the Standard categories. Your son's model, and I am assuming we are talking about his excellent Perry frigate from the Omaha show, may be entered for an award as part of a diorama/vignette (II.19) or as part of a Trathalon, Collection, or Group Entry (III.5-7). It may also be shown as a Display Only entry. I hope this answers your question. Ed Grune NCC Head Ship Judge
  13. 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/
  14. 1 point
    That's some fantastic looking detailing! GIL
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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/
  18. 1 point
    Picked up a few things over the past few weeks. Even tho I continually complain about Unicraft, I'm an addict for their odd ball Luft '46 places. Here's the latest - Then Fantastic Plastic came out with their latest (#6) in their "Classic Rocketship" series. Was to be a 1920's suborbital passenger craft taking people from Berlin to NYC in 1 hour. Then whats a Star Wars collection without Yoda - Moving to the garage kit side, I got the latest from John Dennett. It's the star of The Reptile - And finally, I picked up Fr. Karras from The Exorcist. He is part 2 of the trilogy. Regan was the 1st one, but all these years later wifey is still creeped out - so Regan was out... 😉 Karras is a little more benign looking. Thanks for looking.
  19. 1 point
    Here’s another save from the attic. He’s been stripped and reassembled where necessary and primered then hand painted. No airbrushing in this piece. Last pic is what I started with.
  20. 1 point
  21. 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.
  22. 1 point
    Hi, Peter, I would say you have quite an imagination. I liked every one of these simply because you did not repeat yourself when building them. Excellent quality and details. Thanks for sharing. Ed
  23. 1 point
    Very nice! That is so cool! Brilliant job Kevin!
  24. 1 point
    Thanks, Bill, With a meeting theme for March of "anything green," a yellow, orange, white, metallic red, and metallic purple vehicle assembly will fit right in. So I'll be bringing it! Ed
  25. 1 point
    Thanks so much, Gil. Your photos confirmed the data I have. They're particularly helpful since they show some present-day birds. The -9DD is particularly frustrating as it has a straight axle, no half-yoke. I think I'll try to correct the models. Wish me luck! 🤔 Dick
  26. 1 point
    In an effort to collect Medusa kits whenever possible, I came across this kit at a not so recent JerseyFest (or was it the old Resintopia?). The kit came fro the Morland Studios. The kit comes in 6 parts plus a 60mm round base and the figure is scaled to 32mm. Following the card, I tried to copy the image. The small size of kit was a real trial to my limited abilities. The sculpted base comes in 2 parts, and they are made to attach together, but sitting on the round base, there was extra room. I decided to fill the black base. In the pic you can see gray Aves to fill the basesplitting the difference between rocks and sea. I also used V's Plastic putty to fill the seam between the monster/sea and the rocks. I made the tip of the snout of the monster shades of gray as if it was turning to rock, again a la the Clash of the Titans remake. Don't know how well that comes across being so little of the monster is seen. From there, I concentrated on the TINY details for the figure. There was no decal for the shield, so I tried my best, thinking of the Clash of the Titans remake, and painted on a scorpion. Finally adding some gloss to the scene, and gluing Perseus in place, I was finished. Thanks for looking. Size comparison to a Quarter
  27. 1 point
    I really can't go out! There's nothing I can do with my hair! Great job Kev! I love all the little detail painting you did. Bill
  28. 1 point
    Don't think so. I believe they were "inspired" by the what was known as the "Liberty Tank", like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Mark_VIII
  29. 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.
  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
    Okay, this is a small update, and an all armor one as well. I did get a lot done, so it's small in reference to the number of models I made progress on. First off, I got my Russian SG-122 clearcoated and then washed with a brown wash. My picture taking still needs some work but with the limitations I have, I think you can see this well enough. Here's the vehicle all glossy and washed up: Now this didn't come with any markings so I decided to rummage around in my decal stash and found some that would fit. I applied these on both sides while it was still glossy: You can see I also painted the tracks. Later, I dullcoated this: Now all that is left is to weather this and then I can call it done. While I was glossing and washing things, I also glossed and washed the Russian BREM: Interestingly enough, this one also did not come with markings so I just dullcoated it: I'm just going to add the remaining detail bits and then weather this and call it done. Moving along, I pulled out my Diamond T wrecker. I had started the painting on the cab as you see here: Afterward, I painted the interior, even though this probably won't be seen after I close it up: Next I added the front windscreen: I might have to adjust those windows. While waiting for them to dry, I started the assembly of the back deck: After that was done, I pulled out my Chi Nu and also painted the tracks along with the SG-122 and BREM: You can't really tell that much in this pic. Anyway, if I was painting the tracks for this, it was time to move on the camouflage pattern. So, I pulled out my trusty Silly Putty and masked off where I wanted the brown to remain: By this time it was too cold to airbrush so I need to wait for a warmer day. Hopefully soon. Finally I got to the project that I made the most progress on. The two Russian tractors received some significant work. First off, I assembled all the axles for these tractors, after painting the wheel hubs. Here is one of the two identical sprues with the work I did: When these were dry, I added them to the two chassis. Here's the first Tractor: And the second tractor: Next I assembled all the parts on the cabs, excluding the delicate fiddly parts that would break with handling. This included the windscreens, dash boards and steering wheels. The dash boards and steering wheels can't be seen in these pics. This is the cab for the second tractor with the bed; it is identical to the first one except for the headlights: Here are the two cabs side by side: Next I assembled the interiors....such as they were. I basically added the seats to the cab floor: With the steering wheels and dash boards already added to the cab tops, you can see they "spared no expense" with these interiors! So I went and painted everything up inside; knowing it wouldn't be seen well, I didn't get fancy. Here it is while still wet: Well after they were dry, the next thing to do was to cement the cabs to the floors and close everything up: Then I added these cabs to their respective chassis, making sure the right cab went with the right chassis. I then added the two other assemblies which hide the empty engine compartment: Unfortunately for me, I didn't notice that you can see right through the grills on the side of the trucks till too late. I don't know if I can fix that now, given that everything is already glued in place. Anyway, here is the two tractors from the rear: Now with that bare plastic showing, I knew I had to mask the windows so I could re-shoot these models. Therefore, I tried a couple different masking agents. First, I found this liquid masking agent from Model Detailers... and liquid it sure is! It runs horribly, so you have to place the masked area horizontal to keep it from running off the area you want to mask. After that fiasco, I went with the Tamiya tape that I had other issues with. The Model Detailers stuff is the purple tint on the windows of the one cab: That's as far as I got on all those so far. I have to wait for a warmer day to try and spray these later. I am happy with the progress so far though. Thanks for looking in, comments are welcome. Stay tuned, more to come.
  32. 1 point
    Thanks Bryan, Rob, for the nice comments. I wish Tamiya would release more modern subjects in 1:48!
  33. 1 point
    More work done on the Tamiya 1/48 AR-196A float plane. I have completed most of the cockpit and installed it in the fuselage. The fit was a little difficult. The top of the cockpit walls fit fine but I had to twist it a bit to align it. If you ever go this route don’t install the cockpit to one side then join the fuselage. Put the fuselage together then install cockpit from bottom. I made a couple of shims to keep the cockpit floor square to the top. I then started on the engine. The part with the pushrod’s had one pushrod that was “short shot” in the mold. I trimmed the nub and scratch built a new one using some stock styrene rods. The photo etch details and wiring were added and painted. After reviewing some photos of the real engine I used 32 gauge wire to make the oil return line. I cleaned up the cowl parts (the seams and a little flash) then installed the engine. The photo etch set also comes with the front cowl mounts. It was tricky getting them mounted the correct height so they would meet the cowl edge correctly. Once I finish cleaning the outside of the cowl and the assembly mounted to the fuselage I will be starting on the wings. You can see all the build photos from the start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-arado-ar-196a/
  34. 1 point
    Here's my latest.... I managed to only buy one thing at the Military Hobbies Airfix contest because they were also having a "pull your discount from the hat" sale. Mine was 20% off: Earlier that week, I had gotten a package in the mail from a friend on another Forums. It contained this for starters: But it also had these decals: Yeah, I got this started already. Finally, during Hobby Day my friend Harmon walked over to the thrift store next door to our hall and found this item which he gave to me: Imagine finding one of those in a thrift store! Okay. that's everything for now. I gotta go post my latest progress now....
  35. 1 point
    Thanks, Gentlemen! Gil, I used paper masks and Silly-Putty for the camo. I started with the Putty but with the plane being so small, it was difficult to get it right. So, I just ended up cutting paper masks from Post-It notes. These worked well as they didnt have a lot of 'stick' on them. Bill
  36. 1 point
    One of your best works! Great capture of Ross. In all his shows I never saw him get a drop of paint on his shirt, would have been nice to see one on your figure>
  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
    Welcome David! Glad to have you here with us! I think you'll find modeling it like riding a bicycle.....sure, you'll lose your balance and scrape a knee as you regain your balance; but you'll be popping wheelies in no time! Be sure to post your work as you start getting models built again! GIL
  39. 1 point
    That is one vicious looking airplane. One of my faves, beautifully done.
  40. 1 point
    Thanks! I wish I had the set up for SBS photos but I work at the diner table most of the time. 😑
  41. 1 point
    I've been slowly returning to the hobby since I retired 4 years ago. The first year into it, I was just contemplating a built when the whole city had to evacuate south to get away from the wildfire. After returning a month later, it just took awhile to think about building again. Though I haven't build anything in decades, I have acquired a rather large stash. At last, about one year ago, I started an Airfix 1/72 Hawker Hurricane fabric-wing. My plan is to do it up as # 313 of the RCAF, just before WW2. My main interest is aircraft, WW2, in 1/72, with a bit of armour thrown in. I build at a rather glacial pace, which is why I'm still working on the Hurc. I am trying new thing, for me, with it so that accounts for some of my slowness. Chris
  42. 1 point
    Thanks Bryan! I have seen those before, now that you reminded me. I'm just not a big fan of resin kits. I tend to stab myself deeply whenever I work on one. I am hoping to get one or more of his Chaffees someday.
  43. 1 point
    Marvel's Captain Marvel had been a male originally and then a female. If you remember the X-Men character Rogue, her superpowers came from permanently absorbing a female Captain Marvel's powers leading to that person (Carol Danvers' death). When I was a child, the teenager who Bruce Banner saved from the gamma bomb that then turned Banner into the Hulk, was named Rick Jones. He had the nega-bands that when he smacked his wrists together he would trade places with a male Captain Marvel (a Kree supersoldier) and become a superhero. The original Shazam/Captain Marvel was a copy of Superman by another company that DC eventually obtained the rights to. Superman was originally basically Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars with Earth replacing Mars and Kal-El of Krypton replacing John Carter.
  44. 1 point
    Lookin' good so far!
  45. 1 point
    Don't really remember this guy, but nice job on the paint up.
  46. 1 point
    Great work like the base
  47. 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
  48. 1 point
  49. 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.
  50. 1 point
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...