Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.,
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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/
  7. 1 point
    More progress on the Tigercat. I first cut out the molded wing tip lights. Later I will add clear parts to make the lens. Next I assembled and detailed the main gear bays with some photo etch and detail painting. Moving onto the engines I used the photo etch wiring harness. The engines were painted with aluminum for the cylinders and black for the pushrod covers. The wiring was painted burnt umber and the front cover was painted light gray with chrome bolts. The landing gear was then detailed. The main struts had the hydraulic lines molded on. I cut them off and replaced them with black sleeved 32 awg wire. I drilled a small hole at each end then stripped the sleeving off to the bare wire and CA glued the wire into the hole. I added the one for the nose gear as well. When assembling the fuselage I filled everything forward of the cockpit to the nose with lead weights. Alas even with all the weights the aircraft still wants to sit on its tail. There just isn’t enough room to add more weight due to the sleek fuselage. I am most likely going to make a display base for the aircraft to sit on so that it displays correctly. The fuselage has been base coated and the decals will be the next step. You can see all the build photos from the start on my blog at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f7f-3-tigercat/
  8. 1 point
    All, While we've been quiet on the website front, we have been very busy behind the scenes. Registration is now live. We have a link to the IPMS store shopping cart for on-line registration, and we have a fillable PDF downloadable for those who prefer to register by mail. Model registration will follow later. We've announced two off site events. One is a tour to the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville AL, the other is a BBQ dinner at the Songbirds Guitar Museum in Chattanooga. Both of these will be excellent activities. Check the site for more info on both. We've got a list of vendors who have reserved tables posted. It's a MONSTER list and it's turning into a historic vendor hall. The current record for vendor tables at a Nats is 424 in Atlanta in 2005. We currently have 431 tables reserved. With 5 months to go before the convention, even with some drop outs we really like our chances for setting a record for number of vendor tables. In a huge change from past conventions, we are going without a banquet. See the website for more details, but we're going to have a $5 desert reception to be followed by the awards. We should have seating for over 1000 for the reception and awards, and we're really hoping to have a huge party to wrap up this year's convention. We also have a rather extensive list of seminars that we're working on. Topics and presenters are currently listed on the website, and a schedule will follow soon. Finally, for now, we are really trying to emphasize display only models. We want to see as many as folks are willing to bring. Again, see the website for details. Any questions? Let me know. My email is on the Home page of the Convention Website! Thanks Mike Moore 2019 Convention Chairman
  9. 1 point
    USS Enterprise light leakage test: Detailed blog entry here: https://geekjournal.ch/uss-enterprise-model-build-part-12-light-leakage/
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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/
  13. 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/
  14. 1 point
    I have considered many of the potential problems going to GSB would create for IPMS/USA as has many others out there, but that's for another thread. IMHO, there are answers to all the problems, but some will be learned the same way we did when 1-2-3 was used the first few times. That is, fix unforeseen problems as they arise. As I said, no one has contacted me; probably because I'm too difficult to work with. 😉
  15. 1 point
    Like I said Duke, I really hope you'll be able to make it, so we'll start praying out here! Mike
  16. 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.
  17. 1 point
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 1 point
    Welcome to IPMS/USA! You mentioned having been a mech on USMC H-34's in the early 1960's. Did that perhaps include the USMC H-34 squadron TDY at Danang in 1963? Our C-123 squadron was there on the other side of the runway, on a temporary duty six month "Joint Training Exercise" from Pope AFB NC. At the time we joked that our "joint training" was mainly providing live targets for VC practice AAA ....and at low altitude and about the world's slowest airplane to shoot at, they still had trouble hitting anything. But as we all know they got better, so the "joint training" must have been effective.
  24. 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.
  25. 1 point
    Thank you, Mr. Filippone! I did, in fact, sail through my civics classes with flying colors! So, I'm putting your post down as one vote against using my response as toilet paper. 🤣🤣🤣
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. 1 point
    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.
  29. 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
  30. 1 point
    Nicely written tip! Thanks for the link! GIL
  31. 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/
×
×
  • Create New...