Weedeater

AAAAAAAaaaaaaaa, Chris.......say it isn't so!?! You throw out MODELS? UUUuuuuuuu, stop the insanity! Those poor lil models didn't do anything to you, except bring you hours of enjoyment and viewing pleasure. Those poor lil models.

Matt, glad to see that you have had an opportunity to read Ron's and Mark's comments. I had concerns that you might continue attending Regional and National contests unaware of how they have been applying the "Open Tops and AFVs with Interiors" rules and placements. They have been doing it this way back to 2000, maybe even further back. Actually, all 4 of you told me I was "wrong" and two of you seemed to rail on me more than the others. Sad thing is, not one of you has apologized for insisting I was wrong because it turns out, I was right. That's OK, we're pretty sure we'll get it right again at Chile-Con III. I had three different conversations with any variation of the 4 attendees that were stressing their point of view. Sorry, can't remember how many of them you were present for. Just the words, may sound polite. It was the delivery, tone, and posture that in my mind demonstrated an arrogant, condescending, disrespectful, rude attitude. At no time during your expressed opinion (nor even here in your posting) have you afforded me any recognition or respect for the rationale I applied to the decision. If I read your tone, posture, and attitude wrong and your intent was to be polite with a true interest to enlightening me, then please accept my apology. As stated in the three conversations and in my email on June 3rd, I acknowledged and agree that AFVs like Nashorns, M-18s, and Marder IIIMs are examples of "Open Top" vehicles, while Tigers, Shermans, and Matildas are examples of "Closed Top' AFVs. You are not the first modeler/attendee to see confusion in the category title....description.....placings. Unfortunately, discontent with those should be directed at the National level and/or the NCC. Again, they have been doing it this way for over 10 years. I merely applied the same doctrine across the board and "to-the-letter" to our hosting of the Region X Contest. A specific point that was generally dismissed "because I was doing it wrong" during the course of the three conversations I was engaged in. Sorry Matt, but IMHO you did deliver it in a personal way. I figure that I'm right by saying you have/had no idea of what and how much experience and knowledge I have at administering rules and contests. You demonstrated a lack of willingness to "listen" to what I had to say about the matter by dismissing it without an acknowledgment nor any indication that maybe, just maybe.....I was right.- The icing on the cake was feedback that we had received from the group (*) that you attended with. Amongst all of the great positive feedback we got, we also got some not-so great feedback. Most all of it was constructive. But the least constructive comments included: ".....the confusion about open top AFV's vs. closed top needs to be fixed." "The judges should too…especially the head judge Educate yourselves on the vehicles and what categories they belong in." "If there is confusion about a category it needs to be addressed long before the contest takes place….not during." "Admit when something is wrong and then fix it." It's OK with me if you still do not want to admit that I got it right. Please, understand that unless and until the category name and/or definition changes or is clarified further by the NCC, we will continue to administer any Contests that we host in the same manner. Read ya later. * (Trying not to name Chapters, or Groups, or geographic locations because I wish to assure you that this is sooooo NOT an "us against them" thing. We have enjoyed attending and participating in other Shows/Regional Conventions in Reg10 and we have really enjoyed having all of the participation from the rest of the Region's members at our shin-digs. We truly hope that it will continue for years to come).

Did you miss my performance in Phoenix last year? (Not my most shining moment ). But hey, I still managed a 3rd. :D

- Of all the genre models that I've enjoyed building (Aircraft of all scale, bikes, subs, funny cars, and even a few of those water container things, think they're called "tanks") hands done the best fitting, best detailed, best engineered and most satisfying is Tamiya's 1/32 Spitwad. (Not sure why folks have said they have had so much trouble with getting the engine panels to all fit.....mine click/snap on so easily with those little magnets that hide so well). Love it, love it, love it. So much so, that the second build is on its way. And I promise the Head Judge at Omaha this year, that I won't try to enter it 90 seconds after registration closes. - Haven't bought one yet, but this thread is taking me to Tasc.....a.... to build one of them thar Sure-mans. Nyuck, nyuck.

- Hmmmm, just read this. This is interesting and very illuminating. This is exactly what I tried telling Don's buddies at our Region X Convention on May 21st thru 22nd. It seemed that no matter how many different ways I tried to explain these exact points to the small group, they just.......either didn't get it......or refused to admit I got it right. - Yer probably wondering what the ba-geebers I'm talkin about at this point. I was the Head Judge for the Region X Contest/Convention and apparently a few of the participants objected or were offended when I made a "Head Judgement call" and moved (carefully and with gloves on) a few entries from the "Closed Top" category over to the "Open Top" category because these "usually considered closed top vehicles" had open hatches (without crew members present) and/or open engine access panels. All of which were filled with interior and/or engine details. Those that disagreed insisted that the vehicles I moved were "Closed Top" vehicles and should not have been moved. When questioned about my decision and told how wrong I was, I explained everything that Ron and Mark have posted here......to no avail. So much so, that I sought out the advice from not just 1.......or 2, but........4 different, long time Nationals qualified judges to get their input on the matter. Not one of them disagreed with me, so I stood my ground. I offered my rationale up to the dissatisfied participants several more times throughout the evening (as they continued to protest) only to be rudely told how wrong I still was. Oh well. The rest of the attendees went home happy. - FWIW, the category was entitled, "Open Top and with Interiors, tracked AFVs, 1/35 and Larger." That apparently didn't matter either. - Thank you Ron and Mark for clarifying this issue. Don, please pass this information on to the guys that were complaining to you about this. Apparently, of the 4 that I sent an email to after the Regional, explaining all that Ron and Mark posted here, I have so far only netted one reply with an acknowledgement of my decision (with an apology of a sort) of which I'm grateful for. The other guys that "railed" on me the most, especially the rudist of them all, haven't bothered to reply. Oh well. We had such a great time outside of this, we'll certainly still host Chile-Con III, in the future.

Mike, this is awesome. Superb job. It is certainly not my 'cup O tea" but it looks eligant and worthy of notice. Kudos.

Chris, This is a magnificent rendering. I can't decide whihc I like more, the intense facial expression or the hair and beard. Kudos.

Does anyone know if someone has produced the three figures (Pete, Linc, and Julie) separately for the old Aurora Mod Squad car model? Or is someone out there contemplating making resin copies of their figures to make available to folks like me that are interested in a set for their Mod Squad Car model that is missing it's crew? Thanks for your help in advance.

A HUGE Kudos to all of the contributors working with Dick to make all of this happen. Righteous!

Dave, for a not-so great kit, the finished model looks fantastic! You did a great job on the paint application and it looks to be an easy award winner at top level contests, if that were something you were aiming at. Kudos.

Hi Bob, - FWIW, I've used the Alumilite RTV sets quite a bit to cast copies of my original masters and copies of other (out-or-business) guys stuff. The beauty of the Alumilite stuff is that Hobby-Lobby carries it and if you get one of their 40% coupons off of their website, its a great bargin. And to add to that, Hobby-Lobby carries Alumilite's Heavy duty RTV sets too. This RTV works great with highly detailed parts like ejection seats. - As for their casting resin.....toss it! The work time is atrocious. - For casting, I have been using Micro Mark. They have a CR-300 and a CR-600. Obviously, they are both two part resins. The 300 has an approximate 3 minute pot life with a 15 minute de-mold time and the 600 has an approximate 7 minute pot life with a 30 minute de-mold time. Either set runs $32.95 plus S&H for a total of 32 oz. I prefer the 600 so that I can poke a prob into the mold and get all the air-bubbles out before it "kicks" and have had great success with it. The down side to these resins, (and I suspect it is true for all resins) is that it seems to turn bad (crystallize) way too soon, if you don't use it within a few months. I can sometimes stretch their self life after opening them, by squeezing the bottles (to get the air out) just enough and tightening the caps as the fluid reaches the top of the bottle. - I've known about the Smooth-on stuff for a few years, I just haven't gottin around to trying it yet. Maybe during the Xmas holidays, I can give it a shot. HTH and Model on, Brothers of the Liquid Sprue.

FWIW, I searched YouTube and found this: ...and it appears towards the end of the 2:32 clip. Sure looks Day Glo orange to me. Maybe some natural metal still visible around the cabin windows.

Richard, - I did a little googling and apparently you aren't the only one that has been looking for Silverkite 211 decals. These other guys on ARC and Zone-Five were inspired by some aviation artwork by Philip West of Lt. Dose lining up on the Connie in '72. - Apparently, Fox One had a sheet, (48-001) in 1/48 scale a few years ago for this aircraft. They are reported to have re-issued the sheet as 48-009! The Big-Ole-Bummer is that it looks like Fox One quit producing decals last Dec 2009!!! - Still not sure if yer lookin for 72, 48, or 12th!!! scale. But HTH narrow down a sheet number to go looking for on evilbay or to advertise if someones got a sheet that they used the other markings off of. Good luck with the search.

Hi Richard, - The US Air Force flew C's, D's, E's, and G's. Conversely, the US Navy flew B's, J's, N's, and S's. I cannot think of an occassion when they each flew the other version except on a possible rare occasion when it was a hybrid airframe, like the USN Bicentennial Screamin Eagle. (But even that is an "iffy" example). - Typically, (but not always), B, C, D, N's had the earlier engines and E, J, S's had the later engines. These engine differences are usually the first clue to look for when modeling a Phantom, because the two types of exhaust cans clearly look different. - Then you look at the main wheels. Typically, B, C, D, and N's have the narrow wheels and the thinner wings to house them, while E, J, and S's have the wider wheels and the thicker wings to house them. On a model, the thicker wing can usually be seen as a raised/bulged panel area over the wheel wells. - Late E's and almost all S's had the extend-able slats on the wing leading edges. This requires adding the actuator fairings under the inboard wings and the clearly visible slats on the upper, outboard wings. - There is also a difference in the leading edges on the vertical stablator slats (sort of an inverse slat) from early Phantoms to later Phantoms. - Next is pylons. In almost all cases, the USAF used rounded leading edged inboard pylons and the USN used pointer leading edged inboard pylons. - There are also a small host of smaller details that vary between USAF and USN Phantoms, like the under nose infrared seeker bulges and the carrier operation details on USN Phantoms that are not present on USAF Phantoms, like the launch lugs on the bottom of the wings to attach the launch bridle to, etc, etc. .....And this does not cover the various RF versions of the Phantom, which can sometimes get even more convoluted. - So, if you want "accuracy" your USAF C/D won't really look like a USN, J if you just paint it in Gull Gray and white. It is possible to convert it, but that would require some good reference books and either some good conversion skills or some after-market products. If you just want to enjoy building a model, the above differences are usually un-noticeable to the average person. Model on. As for decals, you didn't mention what scale you're working in, although I can't think of any 72nd, 48th, or 32nd Revell C/D issue. But the way Revell and Monogram are bouncing their molds back and forth, who knows. You may now have a Monogram molded C/D in a Revell labeled box. There is an Aeromaster 1/48 sheet 48-502: Aeromaster 48-502 ....that includes a VF-92 bird. There is also a 1/72 Monogram kit that includes VF-92 markings. Here is one on Evil-bay right now: Monogram 1/72 F-4J - Unfortunately, I do not know if either of these two options are markings specifically for Cur Dose. HTH anyways.

That is fabulous looking Michael. Great job and thanks for posting the finished pics.

Ralph, David, and All, - I recently acquired Eduard's Profipack issue of the Bf-109E-4, kit number 3003. 1. Was this one of the kits with the effected canopy? 2. If so, did they eventually correct the problem in this kit? 3. And what do I look for to confirm whether or not I got one of the "corrected" canopies? 4. If they did not correct this canopy, where do I go to find the "corrected" replacement? Thanks for your help, in advance.

Nick, did you or anyone else out there come across any further evidence/documentation supporting this find?

- Sanding: I think it could be possible to drag the entire model across sanding sticks. When I first started this adventure, I used a sheet of sand paper before sanding sticks became a regular accessory on our model workbenches. However, you hit the nail on the head that it is a risk to breaking the landing gear or "popping" them outta their mounts. Neither one being a good thing. That is why my method evolved to one wheel (gear) at a time for sanding. - Painting: I have done both, a quick shot with the airbrush or a few brush strokes. While it may depend on the size of the model (wheels) and the amount of sanding, I also fancy myself as a good blender with a brush and that is where I lean towards if I'm too lazy to break out the airbrush and mix up the paint tone. Aaaaaa.....modeling. Finding the happy medium between laziness, relaxation, and too much-like-work. - Show us some pics when ya get done. Enjoy.

Hi Richard, - FWIW, I sand my tires similarly to the way Gil has noted, but slightly different and I think it may address your issue more directly. - I actually wait until I have the wheels and gear already assembled and on the model. That sometimes includes even having the gear, wheels and the plane already assembled and painted. Like Gil, I too use sanding sticks, but here's where it gets different, (I will use my P-400 (P-39) as an example): - I place three sanding sticks on my workbench located exactly under each of the three wheels of the model. I then gently grab a hold of one wheel in the area of the axle and while holding it loosely on top of one sanding stick with just the right amount of downward pressure, I pull the sanding stick under that wheel (for several passes) with my other hand to sand it using the coarse grit. This is done while the model remains on top of the other two sticks. With all three wheels/gear assembled and all wheels sitting on the same thickness of sanding stick you can maintain a level and flat result to all three tires. Alternate sanding one wheel to the other and so on until you accomplish your goal. I can usually get it on the first pass of each, but sometimes go back every now and again. I may also use a successive finer grit side of the stick, depending on how coarse I started with. Once I am satisfied with the amount and level, I carefully hold the model with a soft, clean rag and paint the sanded areas an appropriate dark gray or dirty tire color to match the rest of the tire. - It sounds a little awkward and risky, but I have been making this method work for many years now and I have yet to bust off a wheel, gear, pitot tube, gear door, etc, etc. - To add a little twist to the above noted method, on occasions with a "tricycle" landing gear airplane, I have sometimes encountered a slight tail heavy model (for those that I did not put weight in the nose and/or not quit enough weight). You can modify my method above by removing the stick from under the nose wheel sooner than the main gear. (But after you have already sanded the nose tire). - You then sand the main gear with a "nose-down" attitude. The result is that once you remove all the sticks from under the tires, the ever so slight angle under the main gear will add a certain amount of force towards getting the model to sit forward. There is a certain and small amount of flex throughout the gear and axle and this is part of the the ever so slight forcing of the model to sit forward and on the nose gear. To date, I have never encountered a broken or distorted gear on one of my tricycle geared models. Also, note that this only works when there is only a slight in-balance to the tail heavy model. It won't work very well, if your weighting is already way too far off. Hope these tips help and Model on, Brother of the Sprue.

FWIW, I copied these examples off of the www over the past year, of guys work that I admire. This one: ....would have been a little monitone for my tastes, except the builder splashed it with a few components looking like they had been taken/robbed from other vehicles. I think it looks cool. - I would be hard pressed to not do one of these two though: ....of which I personally, REALLY like! Hope the visual effect helps in your choice. Model on, Brother of the Sprue.

- I am with Gil and Lee. I always sand them a little flat, WWII or modern. At least for me, it's a scale perspective thing. Otherwise the wheels have a tendency to look too "tippy-toed"! I'd like to thing the numerous 1st's I've been lucky enough to nab at the Nats (Including impacted cats) have been a testiment towards the philosophy. Model on, Brother of the Sprue.

OK Tim, - I pulled out of my stash the A-20G, kit #8894 and the A-20J, kit #8895. Neither kits' instructions show parts tree layouts (sometimes a nice bonus to double-check these kinds of things). I looked thru all trees and in my two samples, neither included more than just the specific nose section parts for each of their releases. One only has the "G" nose and the other only has the "J" nose. A small note though, my "J" kits' poly bags are all open. Since I may be the second or third owner on this kit (sometimes I just can't remember all of my sources for acquisition, yuck, yuck) there is a "remote" possibility that more was originally included with the J. But that's iffy.

That's a lot of hard work, with some excellent results. Can't wait to see more of the Goshawk.

Impressive, a fare amount of straightliners/drag cars. More than I can remember seeing at a non-automotive specific event. Thanks for posting the pic link.

I am soooo looking forward to this kit. But I remember the word on the www was that the RoG Ju-88's were supposed to come out at around that same price, $41-ish and LHS's retail them for $75 to 90. Picked mine up for under $50 from evil-bay (S & H included!) from a business that provides support. If I can do that with 10 models with the same cost savings, I have enough left over for 5 more! But I still do buy all my supplies from the LHS along with an occasional kit too. That's the best I can do to continue to support my LHS. ...And yes, I could not agree with you more. With retail prices on 32nd scale Trump kits starting above $150 on up.....they are pricing themselves outta business. I don't blame the LHS for the astronomical retail prices on these kits, but likewise I hope that the LHS owners understand when I buy the same $150 - 200 Trump kits off of Evil-bay for 50, 75, and 120! Just like LHS that gotta watch where they invest their overhead, I too gotta watch where I spend my cash. - As for buying direct from WingNuts, works for me. Love those kits.