Leaderboard

I've finally completed a kit! For me it's nothing short of amazing! 😊 This is the Trumpy Type 63 107mm rocket launcher. I've got the Revell-Germany MAN 5T Mil GL truck about to move to the paint booth right now.

A simple graphic illustration of why Telford works for The UK but not here.

Sorry, but your first model is just not complicated enough. Well, now I have to go shoot myself. Make sure you keep posting photos. So my survivors will know why I offed myself.

Actually it works best if you use an "Old Guy" computer!

Yes! I look forward to buying you a beer! And we can discuss whether the line between passion and insanity is raised or recessed. Regards, Nick

This week’s update on the F-22 is a small one. Between my oldest son’s graduation from college and life getting in the way I was not able to spend a lot of time on the bench. However I was able to complete the main weapons bay doors. The small doors had 14 parts and the larger doors had 50 parts each. The braces are 1mm X 1mm styrene stock and the hinge shaft is 28awg wire. Next I will be assembling the photo etch replacement missile bay doors and then priming all the doors for paint.

Scale Motorsport has just announced a new super detail set for the Revell GT 40 kit. It is not on their web site yet, but it is up on their facebook page. No information about what will be included but if I know Matthew Wells(and I do) it will be outstanding! Glad to see new product coming out! It has been a while.

This week the Raptor build is moving forward with many details. To start with the kit does not come with any weapons so I purchased some Eduard Brassin AIM-9X and a few AIM-120’s to load up the weapons bays. I finished the main landing gear bay walls then moved on to the exhaust. The photo etch kit supplies the inside details of the exhaust. Once installed they were painted then weathered with pastel chalk. The top part of the fuselage is also the top of the main landing gear bays. I added the kit parts then detailed them with more wire and cable mounts. I turned to the intakes by painting them white and adding the decals. I like that the intakes assemble on the edges instead of the middle. Makes the intakes look seamless. Finally I assembled the fuselage halves together. This was a bit tricky especially around the intake openings. But once I got it lined up and some minor trimming they fit well. Will need some minor putty in a couple of areas to smooth out some minor gaps. The next step is to address the fuselage and some overly thick RAM panels. See all the photos and notes from the start at https://davidsscalemodels.com/build-log/1-48-f-22-raptor/

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...

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/

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

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.

Here’s an original that I stripped and rebuilt as best I could, then re-painted.

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.

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

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.,

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

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

Trumpeter KV-5 built as a BeutePanzer. Because why not. Needs some minor clean up before paint. Added lots of pieces from the spare bin or items I recently picked up at local shows. Lionroar tow cable ModelKasten clamps Tasca jerry cans with scrap PE bracket Aber tow loops for the Tiger 1 MIG productions resin tail light Copula, Notek, horn, etc from Dragon bits and pieces Still need to make the brackets to hold the spare wheels and tracks. A couple of color studies:

Now Blue Oyster Cult is stuck in my head! Great build! Dave

The "moving venue" is, in my view, an excellent approach. As Kevin mentioned, attendance at the convention can be built in to the "family summer vacation". Wife and I have visited all fifty states/state capitols/multiple National Parks and Monuments, State Parks, beaches, mountains, prairie land, and historic sites of all kinds as we travel to and from a Nats. This is a definite advantage that the current system has over a permanent and fixed location, or even two or three fixed locations. I would suggest that having a fixed location would result in the need for the hiring of a professional staff to plan and execute many of the administrative functions at a convention. Some immediate effects would be 1. conventions become more expensive with higher costs being placed on the attendees, and 2. a huge burden being placed on the nearby IPMS Chapters who would, year after year, be called upon to provide staff to run the convention activities. 3. Fewer participants would attend from those areas farther away from the convention, an issue that we currently experience, but that would be multiplied year after year as those out-of-towners loose interest in returning to the same city, or 2 or 3 cities, year after year. 4. I don't believe any research has been done in this area, but a sedentary venue would most probably result in a concentration of attendees within a single day's driving distance from the event, and an unintended concentration of winning entries from that same radius of attendance. Over a number of years such an issue could have a very negative impact on IPMS. The current system allows for any chapter, in any part of the country to offer a bid for one of two convention dates, either two years out or three years out. In many cases, bid preparation results in a number of chapters working together, leading to cooperation in other areas among those chapters in issues not related to a bid. The current system creates opportunities for attendees in the nearby area to volunteer their time during the convention, serving in staff positions. The fact that the convention will rotate to another part of the country means that these volunteers will not be expected to serve every year in these roles, and that others who cannot travel long distances to conventions will have the opportunity to serve on staff. The current system does not favor those living in an area that is close to the convention site year after year, benefiting from lower transportation costs. That particular happenstance rotates through the IPMS population due, in fact, to not having a permanent location. Clearly, my personal preference is to continue the current system which allows for bids from any chapter, located anywhere, relying on the Host chapter(s) to plan and execute a successful and enjoyable convention. And, at the same time, providing attendees the opportunity to visit a part of the country they've not visited before, or visit that part again due to the variety of sites and activities which call for a 2nd visit. I'm very much looking forward to going to the Chattanooga Convention in July/August of 2019. Wife and I have not visited Nooga and we've already got a list of places to eat and things to do on our way there, while on site, and on the way home.

Alcohol! Two parts single malt scotch to 1 part water chilled to 17 degrees Fahrenheit.

Found a model of the Spook almost a year ago & finally finished it. The colors are not according to any scheme. If you do a google search, you'll even find him wrapped in a British flag & bowler. The blue is Tamiya Flat Blue; the cape & mask are Model Masters Gunship Gray; his hat band is Model Masters Light Gull Gray; and his hair is Tamiya rattle can primer. I mean, he's 57 years old. He has a right to gray hair. The glossy finish is Future or whatever they call it these days. Had to show that I could actually finish something even if it did only have 4 parts.😊

To make the wings he used elements from a different model and plastic plates.

Thanks Gil, I hope, however, that someone will help me and will go to the museum and take some photos of this plane, or maybe someone has them? Unfortunately, I can not make it out of Poland too far for a trip to the museum, I do not have so much money for such a madness. But once, who knows, it will be possible to organize such a trip, such a dream of life, see aerial museums in the USA. For now, I hope that he is a modeler who is interested in the American air races of the Golden Age and will help me. As for the idea using elements from Wedell Williams 44, he is very good, I have such ideas from the beginning. I mainly use the fuselage and maybe the engine, the wing fins and the engine cover need to be redone. in the hull also need to make many changes because in the model 45 the hull is bigger and has a slightly different shape. But quite similar, so it will be suitable for modifications. I once made a 1/32 model Laird Turner LT 14 "Meteor" with a larger model (1/30) so this time I will do with a smaller bit bigger. As for interior furnishings, it is very poor and simplified in the Williams Bross model, so it is not a good model. In addition, the hull frame in model 45 had to be significantly different because the wing structure was different and additionally had a retractable landing gear. This is how the hull construction looks like: I used two models of Williams Bross 1/32 type 44 "Red lion" for this modification

Dak, you make a valid point. However, I would suggest that it isn't limited to the IPMS/USA. The current "I'm Offended" culture that has developed in this country has to be a major factor. Keep in mind that practically anything that exists has the potential to offend anyone, but it has gotten completely out of control. Consider the efforts to make the Washington Redskins football team change their name because 'Redskins" is offensive to one small tribe. Other people are offended by the use of certain words, while others by actual historical events. Look at the complaints that started with objections to the Confederate Battle Flag...actually the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia...and expanded to statues of Confederate heros and schools that were named for men who had virtually no connection to the Confederacy other than fighting for the South. Political views are now subject to similar bias. Liberal viewpoints are widely publicized, while those of a conservative bent are castigated or banned. I was unable to market an article to a magazine I wrote for because the model in question....a Peterbilt 377 with an American Bald Eagle w/crossed American & Confederate flags on the air dam....was refused because "it might offend someone". If I did that model today as an ebook, I would be forced to apologize for it, accused of being a racist and required to remove the ebook from the marketplace. And if you want to get an idea of just how hypersensitive people are getting...as well as ignorant...I very recently had a magazine article corrected by my editor because "I've never heard of it, so I'm sure no one else has ever heard of it!" What was it? Believe it or not, a Mexican Jumping Bean. Instead, the editor changed Mexican Jumping Bean to simply 'jumping bean", thereby identifying every bean on the planet as a jumping bean! And if you think all of the above is a recent development, it's just the extreme result. Tony Weddel, a deceased aviation artist and my friend, quit doing heavy combat aviation art back in the late '70s or early '80s because he could no longer sell the art or prints. Why? Because people didn't want to purchase art that depicted violence. Result? He wound up doing pretty paintings of aircraft against storm clouds or toned down combat...unless a client specifically requested heavy combat. That, by the way, leads to your comment about viewing scenes of violence in model dioramas. Incidentally, it's also the reason why I've never created a crucifixion diorama of my own....it would offend virtually everyone who saw it. I have no idea where this is going to end, but if you build models, dioramas, articles and/or books for a living, it's already having an impact on what you can produce without offending someone. And it doesn't matter if it's a group or a single person. Dak, in case you're wondering, I'm 76 and I have no more problem viewing real life scenes than you do. I knew a preacher who I offered a copy of my P-38 CD-ROM to, warning him that it had a lot of nose art images containing pinup or semi-nude figures. His response? It's history. It'll be interesting to see what kinds of responses I get to this little tirade. Richard

Anyway, here is my last acquisition I got last year as a Christmas gift to myself. I didn't post it above because for some reason the camera could not focus on the box and all my pics were blurry. This time, after considerable effort; I have a pic to show: I had wanted that since it came out. I figured it was time since I had Christmas money to burn. I hope to get started on it this year.

What's an allowance?

Lousy modelers need an organization to help them rationalize their lousy results! l

Like all Air Force pilots of the era, T-38 was the fastest. Loved that bird. From there went to KC-135A's -- Big jets

http://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-by-gary-kerr/ http://culttvman.com/main/a-modelers-guide-to-painting-the-starship-enterprise-pt2-by-gary-kerr/

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.

After seeing this figure on the Nats table.....Had to have one.....

The MK44 Queens 'B' Knight is a variant of the MK44 designed and released as a kit by Takaaki Saito of LoveLove Garden. I was enamored with the design when I saw the first images he posted of the master. I picked this kit up as a Christmas present to myself at the end of 2017. It took a few months before I could build the kit but it wet together quickly once I started. The Hasegawa MK44 line of kits are a breeze to build and the resin add-ons from the LLG kit make this a unique looking mecha. The only change I made was adding the shoulder armor plates from the GrobberHund Altier to the hull sides and replacing the kit hand with an unused claw from the KingKrote kit. A couple of smoke launchers were drilled out and wires are from 0.015" solder wire. The model was painted with Tamiya acrylics and weathered with oils, enamels and pigments. I made extensive use of oils to filter the base colors and add some interest. Additional images can be found here: MK44 Ausf G Queens 'B' Knight

Another completed build that was started over a year ago. It's an NHRA class Super Comp dragster build using a Revell top fuel kit as the base. The body and chassis has been shortened to better represent the dimensions on a super comp car. The graphics are fictitious in nature and were created on my home computer and transferred to decal film. The scoop is a resin piece that I created the master for using Renshape. And, the engine, interior and chassis is loaded with added details for wiring, plumbing, etc. If you go to my Fotki link you can see the entire buildup in pics. which also shows the change in graphics after a failure in clear coat application. http://public.fotki.com/1320wayne/my-drag-models/sportsman-cars/super-comp-dragster/

Real Life has kept me away from the workbench over the last 7 months, but more free time recently allowed me to finish the Accurate Mini kit of the Vindicator.

The M42 Duster is finished! It will go into the GJ VAMC display case later this week, at which time I'll take some photos of our 2 cases and post them here. The Duster was a challenging build, but turned out pretty nice! I added an M60 instead of the .30 cal MG and also a few pieces of stowage. Weathering was purposely kept to a minimum, and all the interior photos of the turret I found showed that everything was painted OD. The decals (except the stars) were from that Tamiya kit that I have now disposed of. Please check out the photos and tell me what you think.

I did find the Batmobile on eBay for a decent price. My local Hobby Lobby has listed the Tamiya Gama Goat for $12.49 on clearance. I bought two. They were regularly $49.99 so it was 75% off.

Rusty says it best and I wish I could instill that attitude in all my model buddies. While I go to contests and enter models I no longer worry or care about not winning. I still chat and discuss when something wins that I feel shouldn't have (as all modelers tend to do). My theory or mentality is that if I win I was fortunate enough that 3 fellow model builders (hopefully) thought my entry was better than the others presented on that day and time. If I don't win.....Guess what? I will still build models to the best of my ability and will still enter contests until I can no longer build.

Personally, I've never thought of them as smelling pleasant; just stronger or not so strong. And, I've always used enamels and lacquers which have the heaviest fumes. That said, I do have a "fondness" for the smell of paints, thinners, and glues; but I think it's simply because I associate them with the fun of model building; not with any direct olfactory stimulation. To paraphrase Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now"...."I love the smell of Dull Coat in the morning".... GIL

IMO, FWIW, this is an over-read of the Guidelines which appear to be far more concerned with speech than markings. The simple rule for nose-art/figures/scenes used to be, that if it didn't have to go behind the curtain, it would be OK -- it would after all be sitting on the contest table for all to view.

Hey Ron...First off...I think you'll enjoy build scale cars, if you like 1/1 cars. OK..to try and answer your questions... Personally... I strip all the chrome(using concentrated laundry bleach...Clorox is what I use) from every build that I do. The Chrome that's applied to most of the the kits are way too brite for the smaller scales. I will leave the chrome for 1/12th and larger builds. To re-chrome....I shoot a Black or Blue High gloss base coats. Alclad II has Chrome that has a little learning curve. You can use Alclad polished Aluminum as it works good too. I also use ALSA Mirror Chrome which has a small learning curve but does not rub off when dry. If you want to leave the chrome and just touch up where it was cut from the sprue...then you can use a small paint brush( 3 0 or smaller) and a dab of Model Master Chrome Silver #FS 17178. Model Master has another chrome paint but it's not as good. I've used both and this one works the best between the two. Put a small amount of paint in a mixing pallet and add a drop or two of Lacquer thinner. Don't mix it in just let the thinner hit the edges of the paint and then load you brush and apply to the spot on the part. NOW...since MOLOTOW has come out with 3 paint pens and a refill bottle...all one has to do is just touch the part with it and it's rechromed. But...the small down side of it is..it takes at least 3-4 days for it to dry. It's is remarkable how well this paint looks when applied. If you can work with the dry time...then Molotow is the way to go. You can do a search on the web and watch a a few videos that's out there on it. Well Ron...I hope I've shed a little light on the chrome thing for you. Just remember there's no right or wrong..it's what ever works best for you. Gary

Gil, I chose to do a more subdued scheme.

That's some fantastic looking detailing! GIL

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.

Have to give a BIG shout out and thank you to all the volunteer photographers that made this years photo coverage happen! William Dedig, Phil Peterson, Chris Nicoll, Rick Jackson, and Randall Cox. Thank you all so much!

Wow, that is one magnificent beast! What a fantastic job you did bringing him to life.

Uh yeah--fixed! My bad. And I was sure the tracks were on right. Obviously I didn't check as much as I should have. Thank goodness for nice, flexy rubber-band tracks.

It is now completed! This is the Glenco 1/48 scale J2F-2 Grumman Duck representing VMF-2 that patrolled the Caribbean Ocean off the Virgin Islands. The Duck’s were used for patrolling areas and performing search and rescue of downed pilots. More photos can be seen in the Gallery page on my blog: https://davidsscalemodels.com/gallery/1-48-j2f-2-grumman-duck/

Okay, here's another small update, thanks to the time had yesterday to work on models. I'll start again with my aircraft. The F-102 has been coming along. After dullcoating this plane once the decals dried, I peeled the masking off the windows. It took a bit of cleanup afterward to make the canopy look well enough: After doing that I had also started the missile racks underneath. But first, I shot some white on the AIM-4 Falcons and set them aside to dry while I worked on the rest of the plane: As mentioned, I started the missile racks in the weapon's bay first, adding the lowered racks to the interior: Once they had dried enough, I completed the painting of the interior of the weapons bay as well as the landing gear bays: After a break and after checking the missiles to see if they were dry enough; I masked off the forward parts of the Falcons and painted the rear section red: While those were drying, I added the main landing gear as well as the gear doors and weapons bay doors: Next came the nose gear and the wheels. I cemented them in place once the gear doors and main landing gear were dry enough: Finally, after adding a little more white to the missile fins, I cemented the AIM-4 Falcons in place on the launch racks: After a bit of touch up and final parts additions, this bird will be finished. I am hoping to have it finished today. On one of those breaks working on the Dagger, I also got the last decals on the F-15E Strike Eagle. Now I can finally finish this bird too: Finally, on my armor; I focused on the T-80U since it was so close to being finished. I first shot a base coat of green on this with the airbrush; then I used my Sotar to freehand the brown pattern over it: Later on, I sharpened up the edges using a brush and then added the little black squiggles to complete the pattern: Once that was sufficiently dry, I shot a glosscoat on the turret and added the decals: You can see the Solvaset still has to work to pull those decals down. Now all I have to do is dullcoat this again and finish the final assembly and weathering. I hope to finish this today as well. That's it for now; thanks for looking in, comments are welcome.