Kranman

Indeed, the information presented answered all my questions.

Me, too. Last one I was at was Columbus, so I'm overdue.

The Hasegawa F-104 is still available and is inexpensive. It's a good kit and lends itself well to the NMF. I have one in paint now (Alclad) and am picking out different colors for differing panels. I can recommend the kit for ease of assembly. And yes, your F-86 looks much better than the earlier application! Well done. Frank

Just finished this one. OOB with the exception of the Aeromaster decals. For being 20 years old, they went down with no problems. Base coat is Rustoleum Aluminum in the big can from Home Depot. Giving it several days to cure applied Model Master Metalizers to the rear fuselage. I also used an AK metallic blue there as well (I cannot recall the exact name). Model Master Glosscoat came next, followed by the decals. Yes, it's the wrong refueling probe for this livery; I may correct that. Overall, not a bad build - the horizontal fuselage joint is the biggest chore to tackle. My next Hun will also be a Monogram, but with a mix of the old Eduard PE set and the Black Box resin cockpit. This one I considered a test bed for the NMF application. It's certainly not perfect, but it's built! Frank

Here's my Monogram Hun, OOB, with Aeromaster decals. This was painted with the aforementioned Rustoleum Aluminum from the hardware store, the big cans.

Love this thread! Metal finishes are something of a draw for me as I have quite a few unbuilt models which will require them. I just completed a Monogram 1/48 F-100 and tried some old-school products on it. Firstly, the whole model received Rustoleum Aluminum from the big rattle can, as the forward fuselages of these aircraft were painted aluminum lacquer and do not show a lot of dissimilar panels. Don't discount this product as a viable metallic finish! I was pleasantly surprised with the outcome. But, it needs several days to cure. After Glosscoating (Model Master) the entire model, I then used Model Master Metalizers to depict the rear, burnt and distressed natural metal portions. I have a lot invested in Alclad, Floquil, Model Master, and AK metallic paints. I was surprised to find this Rustoleum paint worked as well as it did. I'll post a pic or two of the Super Sabre tomorrow.. Kudos to the models depicted - they're great examples of our craft!

Dave, many thanks for that article link! Very helpful, indeed. Ron, what you illustrate is pretty much what I was thinking of - I can see a variety of sheens, textures, what-have-you for a few of the Alclad products. Gil, I've come to realize there is a 'tipping point' when using Alclad. Once you reach it, it may be too late. My efforts have been to limit the amount of paint - it's a balancing act, to be sure. One second, you're going along fine and the next, the effect you want is gone. Been there a few times. The latest was on the Monogram Duesenberg SJ; stripped ALL the chrome. Some parts turned out fine, others looked like metal paint. I learned a lot with that model...

Over the years, I've embraced the Alclad line of metallic finishes. A few of them demand gloss black as an undercoat - chrome, for example - to achieve a high gloss finish. It occurred to me if I use different undercoats, for example, gloss green, flat black or grey, even a yellow, different sheens, finishes, and effects could be obtained using only one or two Alclad colors. I wondered if anyone else may have considered this approach. I have some older, inbuilt kits that may be my guinea pigs on this. Just wondering if anyone else considered my wacky proposal... Frank

Ugh. Richard, if what you say is true, it's like watching the old Mission Impossible series when the recording self-destructs in the beginning of each show. While I have quite a few bottles with old dates (I date everything I buy), there is a good number of recent purchases I've made. While I have had one or two bottles dry up on me over time, I will watch the newer bottles closely. The secretary will disavow any of my cuss words. Grrrrr...

I've been acutely aware of Model Master's slow death for some time now. While I don't 'love' MM's paints (where I did 'love' Floquil's military line), I get them to work very well and get good results from them. Over the past months, I've been assembling the current lineup of every color available from MM. I now lack two that will complete my collection. Before you ask, my reasoning was that I was well over half, so owning the whole range was not that difficult or expensive. It's frustrating seeing this trend. As an enamel and lacquer user (don't even ask me about my Floquil collection!), the choices are getting narrower by the month. I covet the paint I have and wonder aloud what think tank made the decision to fritter-away a popular, widely available, and good selling American brand. RPM/Rustoleum has proven they do not want to support the hobby. As MM was really my only choice after RPM bought and killed Floquil, I presumed MM would continue on strongly. That, alas, was an incorrect presumption. I've got enough paint to finish hundreds of models, so I'm good. It's a cleaner, more environmentally friendly world for the future - at least that's what they're shooting for, I suppose. Now, where's my lacquer thinner? Frank

Gil, are you still able to source Floquil Old or Bright Silvers? I've got a couple bottles I guard like a hoarder and wondered if they're still available. Beautiful work on the B-66! I have a couple Collect-Aire kits that I have to get around to building. You're inspiring me! Frank

Usually, I use blue painter's tape that I have "de-stickyfied" by applying it to fabric (jeans, sweatshirt, etc.) so it sticks, just not so well. This will also work with Tamiya tape. While Alclad is a pretty tough finish (in my experiences), I treat it carefully. Using tape with less tack helps immensely. Hope this helps you! Frank

I have a question on cancelling a room reservation: Is there a waiting list or pool it will return to? It looks increasingly bad for my attendance as I'll be moving my son to Baltimore that weekend and I did not want to just cancel my reservation without checking to see if any mechanism was in place to accommodate another member. And, will the room still carry the discounted rate for someone in line to book it? Many thanks! Frank

Just throwing it out there - would you consider CO2? I've been using it for years now and like it a lot.

Clare is a man after my own heart... I've got several hundred bottles of Model Master enamels and I hoard old Floquil Military paints like a miser. I also use lacquer thinner most of the time. I have a few bottles of acrylic I use for some applications where I need the different combinations to avoid one paint attacking the other. I'm a Badger guy, currently using the Krome model to good effect, powered by several CO2 bottles.

Indeed, it's not a wax but a finish, like a polyurethane finish you'd use on woodwork. Future (or whatever name it's currently been given), is a pigment-less finish. It cleans up easily, is easy to use/apply, is very forgiving, and can double as a decal setting agent, a windshield/canopy adhesive, etc.

Um, wow. This disappoints me to no end. First RPM bought and killed Floquil's military line (which was my go-to brand) and now it seems to be killing off Testors (which replaced Floquil for me). What's an enamel paint enthusiast to do?

I've tried Perfect Plastic Putty and can concur with Nick - it works and cleans up very well. Wing roots are an obvious strong candidate for its use. The reason I got it was a recommendation on Track Link for its use as Zimmerit. I see it as Ralph says, "another tool in the toolbox." I'm very partial to NitroStan glazing putty but the Mr. Surfacers will clean up/smooth out with denatured alcohol to my satisfaction. I've not yet embraced acrylic paints and fillers yet as my spray booth works very well for removing fumes. Still, PPP has made strides in winning me over.

Here are two shots of a kit I thought would never get built. Several chapter members kicked-around the idea of a 'throwback build' and we chose kits offered prior to 1979. I have gotten a little more done since these pics were taken; the engine is installed and I've added some varying metallic finishes to different parts. Body colors are Model Master enamels, Classic Black and Imperial Japanese Army Navy Green. I'll post more as practical... This is one big model for 1/24th scale. And for only seating four, this is a really big car!

A couple points if I may, as I'm the one who started this whole thing... Dave Morrissette, the number we're talking about is the number of IPMS entrants in the contest, not the registrants nor the entries of models. That number could then be used to weigh how many entrants, less the number of banquet attendees, are denied (in some manner) access to the awards ceremony. Secondly, my disappointment in this is limited to the fact that one number cannot be pulled from our convention data. It stems from my fairly commonsense (to me) notion that we, as a society, hold a yearly convention yet we cannot ascertain how many entrants participate in the contest portion of the convention. With all the mincing of data I see from the yearly breakdowns IPMS/USA provides in their convention activities, this should be a number that should have been kept from day one, so it's not really a knock against the Columbus folks, Ron Bell, please do not take it as a reflection on the whole of the convention. I and the guys I was with had a great time. The fact we do not track that number puzzles me. Third, while the vast majority of banquet-goers are probably IPMS members, how many dine with their spouses - who may or may not be members? That would skew the numbers of members attending as well. If we're trying to find out how many members in attendance are shut-out of the awards ceremony due to unwillingness/inability to pay for or unavailability of banquet tickets, that number of entrants in the contest is required. I simply reiterate the fact that several dozen IPMS members and contest entrants were sititng in the corridors in Columbus, trying to catch a glimpse of the ceremony. This, I find, is wholly unacceptable. Not surprisingly, I agree with Paul Cotcher and Mike Moore in their assessment that a member and contest entrant in good standing and in attendance, should be afforded a seat at the awards ceremony, banquet notwithstanding.

Well, this is even more disappointing that I first thought. For a national organization to be unable to tell how many members attended their national convention's contest seems very strange to me. I had the thought it would be a number that would have been tracked all along. Getting back to the Columbus awards ceremony, all I can say is there were dozens sitting in chairs and standing at the doorways during and scores waiting in the prefunction area outside the model room afterwards. Until real numbers can be associated with these members, it'll have to remain subjective; e.g., 'dozens' or 'scores' of members.

Well, this is a bit disheartening. If we cannot have this information to make comparatives, we're not going anywhere with the discussion. Ron, are you saying you cannot provide a number of how many IPMS members participated in this year's contest? I just expected that would be a fairly available number.

Instead of posting to next year's convention's website, can anything be done on a level where every member will be able to participate in the awards ceremony? I think if you handle it on a year-by-year basis, that doesn't address the issue. If the C&BLs already mandate there be an awards ceremony, this member feels that event should be made available to all members in attendance. As others have mentioned, the banquet is all well and good but... A: Not all members choose to attend it and B: Not all members may be allowed to attend it (limited attendance). And, since the banquet and awards ceremony have been morphed into one event, perhaps some allowance should be made to those members withing to attend the latter.