Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral


About Weedeater

  • Birthday 09/20/1962

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • FirstName
  • LastName
  • IPMS Number
  • Local Chapter
    Albuquerque Scale Modelers
  • City
  • State
    New Mexico
  • Gender
  • Location
    The Duke City
  • Interests
    *Plastic Models
    *Motorcycle Roadracing
    *Marx Tin Toy Train Operation
    *Family and Friends
    *Love of Country
    Sometimes the order changes.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,002 profile views
  1. Hi Cameron, TAG! I'm it. Or at least one of the three its. I was one of the three judges for THAT specific category split, 107A. Aircraft; Small Prop; 1/48 — US / Allied Inline, Commonwealth. FWIW, we three judges (Bruce, Guy, and myself) LOVED the opportunity to judge that category split (there were a total of 6 splits for 48 single-prop). Nearly all 23 entries in that split were awesome builds to view so closely. Of course, that meant that our job was very challenging. As has been mentioned elsewhere, our first task was to review all entries to first confirm that they were all in the correct category and split. Next, using the model entrants' numbers (aka IPMS/USA member number written on the entry sheet) we collected mini groupings of entries from the same builders. Then we chose the best of each builders' entries to be used for judging and gently placed all others towards the back of the table to free up space towards the front of the table. Part of that process involved each of us spending a certain amount of time individually looking closely at each of these models to ascertain each entries pros and cons. We then re-grouped and compared our individual findings where we sometimes learned from each other about areas where we might have not found specific pros....or cons.... Discussions developed, observations were weighed out against each other (model), and we arrived at our collective decisions. This amounted to a repeating process as we began (if you wish to call it this) "eliminating" models that displayed the more significant levels of flaws. Each level of elimination included closer and closer scrutiny beyond the mire obvious. This also included narrowing down our findings to a level of "nitpicking" build quality flaws that out weighed build quality excellence. While we three judges did engage in serious and frank discussion, at no time did we ever need to elevate to "heated" debate. We all worked well together and found common ground of agreement on all issues. I can tell you that many of our first level "eliminations".....were the result of "basic" building flaws...(alignment, visible seams, and translucent painting....to name a few). The one flaw that became quite prevalent was found using a small (mini) flash light pointed from the aft of the subject directly at the windscreen and canopy(ies) areas. That was where we found many models with not only the translucent paint on canopy/windscreen frames (not minor but significant translucency!!!) but also windscreens that "hovered" over the fuselage where there were definite cases of the windscreens having NOT been glued down completely. Simply, the light would clearly shine thru the gap! The second most common short coming were the alignment/positioning of the horizontal stabilizers. Minor anomalies weren't counted so much as the obvious (unquestionably) ones. We didn't need to use the ruler method, just the Mk.I eye-balls, looking from the front of the subject (approx. 2-3 feet back), and lining up the horizontal stab tips with the top of the wings. Another common issue that arose was found by directing the light obliquely across seam areas (ex: fuselage tops) to find "over sanded" seams (aka flats), and "under sanded" (or stepped) seams. As for your models here, I think that you can look closely for the noted issues and see how they compare. While these issues were not necessarily THEE reasons that yours might not have placed, they may have contributed to a sort of "stacked up" mini list of observed anomalies that led to our decisions. The models that placed.....with various levels of great-to-flawless build qualities, did not have the above mentioned anomalies. I recall that your "best-of", at the very least, made it into the top 10 of the split. Perhaps even into the top 6. I hope this is helpful towards future building for contests. As always, we can build for the fun of it too, in-between the contest stuff. Thank you for participating in the National Convention Contest and for allowing me and the others to see your work.
  2. Ditto what Nick said. Smooth n easy. See yuz Guyz next August. Model on, Brothers of the Sprue. :smiley20:
  3. Phil, _ Whadda ya mean, "....not the greatest quality"? It almost felt like I was there with you and Mike. That looked like an awesome experience that I might never get to have, except for your posting of the video. Thank you very much for sharing your time with us. And those props in the video look funky/cool. Something that Salvador Dali would be proud of.
  4. James..... - Don't bother. I also have the Academy SB-17G kit and I checked it. It does include the G chin turret in addition to the extra "SB" chin radome thing, but (at least in my issue kit) the instructions don't show any clarification of the chin turret installation that I'm thinking Rob needs, just the radome installation.
  5. Hello Rob, - I was all set to post a few digi's of my Airfix (Old 1975ish issue) B-17G kit parts and instructions, showing how they are supposed to go together.....when I came across this thread on an Airifx dedicated Discusion Site: Airfix B-17G, 8005 Blog - Basically, it has confirmed that your kit, number 8005, is a re-boxing/re-issue of the Academy 1/72 scale B-17G in an Airfix box and the two kits are totally different in design, detail, and construction layout. (The airfix kit has you assemble the chin turret and then mount it under the floor before you assemble it between the two fuselage halves. Whereas the Academy kit apparently has you assembly the fuselage halves first, then install the turret). Unfortunately, I don't have an Academy kit to look at to help out any further. Maybe another member here can take a look at their Academy kit for you and post a digi or two. Best of luck getting that turret inplace and Model on, Brother of the Sprue.
  6. Jesse, - I'm really enjoying watching your progress here. I have this kit and Max also. IMHO your first "vents" were not bad, but these definitely look better. Also, in this last pic, the clear top isn't sitting too straight. If that's just a slip-up in the pic, no sweat, But if it's a fit problem, thought that you might like to take a closer look at it before your start painting. Please, keep the update pics coming, they are very inspirational. Rusty, - As a matter of fact, about 10 years ago, I used a "Black Light" (fluorescent tube type) fixed in the roof of a wood cabinet with closing doors and the decals laying on the next shelf about a foot away from it. They were Tamiya decals and it took about two weeks, but it worked! On that first attempt, I monitored the setup constantly, to make sure there was no "over-heating" issues. That light generated a fair amount of heat. I have kept the setup ready on hand for other decals ever since.
  7. AWESOME news, Dick. Thanks for keeping us informed about the positive stuff. Model on, Plastic Slingin Coach. :smiley20:
  8. Alllllright!!! The Dukinator strikes again, and comes out shining! Way to go, buddy. (Party Time. Teehee.)
  9. Hi Steve, - A fair number of Albuquerque Scale Modelers are looking forward to attending your show. You should have received our sponsorship support by now. If not, please let me know so that I can give out Treasurer a whack in the side to git off his behind and take care of it. Also, FWIW when I clicked your link above, all I got was: "404 Error File Not Found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable." It may be just temporary, but just in case, thought you'd like to know. Model on, Brother of the Sprue.
  10. Weedeater

    FW 190 A5

    These look excellent Michael. Great job. :smiley20: Thanks for posting the pics.
  11. Hi Richard, - It appears that your image didn't make it into the posting. I don't get anything when I click the "Posted Image". Annnnnd, I'm dying to see the image you have described. As far as I know, the Starfighter's tip tanks are "handed" with respect to the fin arrangement and while they shouldn't have been mounted the way you have described, I can see that it is possible. Ready ya later.
  12. Hi Richard, - Perhaps these: ....will help. And I totally agree with Gil, whatever angle you settle on using, from a competitive/contest point-of-view, make certain that your tails are symetrical to one another. If you're building it for the fun of it, build it however you want so that you have fun. Model on, Brother of the Sprue.
  13. Gil, - As usual, this is absolutely awesome looking. I have been ruminating about building one of my 1/48 109's in this early paint scheme, and your example is most inspiring. Now I just gotta figure out whether to build the Hasegawa kit or the Tamiya kit. Hmmmm, decisions, decisions. Thanks for posting these pics. Model on, Brother of the Sprue.
  14. - Sorry Ed and Gary, but the Monogram Albatros review you are referring to is a "re-issue" of the original 1960's kit, in 1/72 scale. I WISH that monogram was issuing a 1/48 Albatros. Trumpeter has listed a 1/48 scale HU-16 kit release, but that is not a sure-thing solution to Gary's "1/48 aircrew-in-a-raft" request. Best of luck with your endeavour. Model on, Brothers of the Sprue.
  15. - Was talking with the Model dudes at our usual Restaurant snack after our last club meeting and we were all wondering why Eduard and/or HobbyBoss still haven't issued a follow-up to their Mirage IIIC's as the slightly longer/re-engined and more widely used Mirage IIIE / 5??? If they were smart about it, their would engineer the kit to accommodate IIIB's, IIID's, Cheetah's, Pantera's, and perhaps the most popular of them all, the Kfir family. - Perhaps even more desirable, how about a new tool 1/32 scale Mirage III. You could easily engineer the modularization of that to accommodate all of the above. Mirage III's and it's variants could possibly have been used by just as many, even more Nations than the F-4 and MiG-21. There has got to be a market for new and updated releases of them. - And while we're at the Mirage table, how about a new tool 1/48 Mirage F.1.......and a 1/32 scale Mirage F.1? They are currently being used around the globe.
  • Create New...