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
    Very nice, the work is great
  12. 1 point
    Ok, they must have some time on their hands at the museum today. This is the second video release in the last hour.
  13. 1 point
    I follow the Air Force museum Face book page and they just posted this video of the cockpit of their 262. I was somewhat taken back by the simplicity of it. I suppose that is because I am more use to cockpits that have more Nav/aids. At any rate, enjoy.
  14. 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
  15. 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/
  16. 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.
  17. 1 point
    The Italeri 1/48 F7F-3 Tigercat is complete. The HVAR’s have been replaced with Eduard Brassin rockets. These look way better than the kit rockets. The photo etch mounts look great as well. I then built the base using Tamiya’s accessories, the oil barrel with crate from the kit, resin wheel chocks, and a Scene-A-Rama kit that I found at a local arts and crafts store. The Scene-a-Rama comes with many nice features. It has grass mats, bushes, trees, gravel, and many other items. I did have to purchase the sand mat separately. I bought a wood base and using contact cement spray I attached the sand mat and trimmed the edges. Using the white glue in the kit I put a coat of white glue on the edges and on the edge of the sand mat. I sprinkled the road gravel and built up the area behind the barrels and gas cans. I painted the oil barrel black and the crate green drab then weathered with light and rust pastel chalk. The Tamiya fuel barrels and gas cans were painted olive drab and weathered the same way. The folded tarp was painted desert tan with dark tan in the folds. This was then weathered with tan light tan and brown pastel chalk. I used 80 lbs test braided fishing line to create the rope and weathered with dark gray pastel chalk. The resin wheel chocks were painted safety yellow. To keep the aircraft stable and mounted to the base, I use 28 awg wire and drilled a hole in the bottom of each wheel. Then I drilled corresponding holes into the base. I used CA glue to glue the wire posts to the base. The white glue from the kit was used to attach the other accessories. As for this build, I really like how this came out. Aside from the weight issue trying to keep it from tail dragging and the poor kit HVAR’s this was a nice kit to build. The decals were very good. If you build this kit the only other thing I would like to note is the main landing gear is a little tricky getting mounted. It takes some tedious work to get it inside the bay and lined up. Overall it presents great. Thanks for following along. On to the photos! See the entire build from start to finish at 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
    They’re a lot of fun and I’d done right, you can really appreciate the expert sculpting by Bill Lemon on those Aurora kits of the 60s.
  20. 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.
  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
    Wow, you did some outstanding and unique models Pete! Sensational work! I think I've seen the six-wheeled Marlboro car once. Gil, that submarine was a stroke of genius! With all the models I've built in my life, I think I only have about three or four unique and different models. This first one was a modification of the Tirpitz into a "what-if" modern ship... complete with a helicopter deck! Aside from that, all I have are the Japanese Zero egg plane I did for a one-hour build contest. And yes, I did finish that in one hour as you see it in the pic. My prize was a 1/32 scale Visible P-51 Mustang. ...and the rival set from the anime movie "Porco Rosso" which isn't that unusual, except the Savoia S-21 never existed. Other than that, there are these movie and TV cars along with two Tom Daniel's designs. That's about the extend of my unusual models in my collection.
  23. 1 point
    Very nice! That is so cool! Brilliant job Kevin!
  24. 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
  25. 1 point
    Starting the Eduard 1/48 MIG-21 PFM. I will be using the decal scheme for the Polish Air Force. The scheme represents the aircraft as it appeared in 1996. The kit includes photo etch details so no extra accessories were added. To begin I started with the cockpit and the engine exhaust. For the interior color, Vallejo makes a Model Color (70.838) which is a match to the interior color used on the actual aircraft. The cockpit section also has the nose gear bay attached. I detailed the bay walls and assembled them. The dash was multiple layers of photo etch and looks great. The exhaust was detailed with photo etch and then weathered with pastel chalk to add a level of realism. The main landing gear bay was assembled and detailed. I added some 32 awg wire for details. I added some weight to the nose cone so the aircraft would not drag the tail once fully assembled. All of these sections needed to be built so that the fuselage can be built up. Assembling the fuselage was a little tricky for the area around the cockpit. I had to trim the sides of the cockpit floor by removing about 1mm from each side to get the fuselage to meet together. You can see all the build photos in my build log https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-mig-21-pfm/
  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
    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
  28. 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.
  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
    Just spit-balling for fun here…based on my limited experience, the “Modeler’s Guide”, and previous responses to this thread, this is what I came up with as a brief “definition” of our 1-2-3 System: Current Form of Judging IPMS/USA National Contests (1-2-3) Model entries are evaluated based only on the entries in the categories of that year’s contest. They are compared only to each other, and judged irrespective of any perceived personal expertise of the entrant as the entrant is anonymous. The best model in the category on any given day is just that: of the models entered that day, this one is better than that one. Judges are IPMS members who volunteer their time. They follow the guidelines in our Modeler's Guide To IPMS Contests. According to that mandate, judges look at the whole model and determine how well the modeler did in bringing the whole project to completion, focusing first and foremost on “the basics”. While there will be class-specific (aircraft, armor, etc.) nuances, the overarching “basics” that will govern each class are construction, painting, and decaling. Judges only dig deeper when the basics do not allow for a clear-cut ranking. Judges are grouped in odd numbered teams to prevent a tie, and to provide balance when a judge may have a preference/bias. Currently, any judge can leave comments on any entrant’s model-entry sheet. Because the 1-2-3 system uses no “national standard” to compare all models, nor does it use a numeric system to present an unknown number of awards per category, inherently it defines the maximum number of awards to be purchased and presented. **Portions (if not all 😀) of my post are drawn from The IPMS/USA Modeler’s Guide To IPMS Contests, and previous responses in this thread. This is in no way meant to inflame, "one-up", or provide commentary on any other post in this thread. It is simply my stream-of-consciousness regarding this subject. Feel free to laud it, rip it to shreds, or print it out and use it as toilet paper.
  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
    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/
  33. 1 point
    Only the Japanese... Very cool! Bill
  34. 1 point
    It appears that Shapeways has reorganized its website to make items easier to find. Here is a link to the "Aircraft" index page, where you can filter by scale, type, era, and country. Accessories such as engines are also included. There's even a Norden bombsight! https://www.shapeways.com/marketplace/miniatures/aircraft/ There are also index pages for sci-fi, ships, vehicles, trains, and other items. Note: I have no connection to Shapeways or any of the designers whose work is sold there.
  35. 1 point
    But was it tongue in cheek? What rule did I violate, please? I am curious. I used no bad language. I singled no one individual out for insult. I did not use all capital letters or coloured type. So what rule has been violated? Thank you.Regards, Nick
  36. 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
  37. 1 point
    Fantastic build David. Love the weathering. Not over done. Congrats!
  38. 1 point
    Simply amazing! You have the Midas touch when it comes to finishing something ins a realistic manner. Way to go Bryan!
  39. 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
  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
    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.
  42. 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.
  43. 1 point
    Lookin' good so far!
  44. 1 point
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Great work like the base
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    Awesome. Love the base Dave
  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
    I'm going to have to defer to our legal eagle to get a ruling and get back to you. I don't want to use the wrong words and convey the wrong thing.
×
×
  • Create New...