Jump to content

Ralph Nardone

IPMS/USA Member
  • Posts

    682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

Everything posted by Ralph Nardone

  1. Most photos of F-15's on the ground show them in the "up" position, although Wikipedia does have one photo with one up and one down. When the engines are running on the ground and when the airplane is subsonic in flight, I believe they'll be in varying degrees between up and down... R
  2. Aviation USK also did a vac-form of the Dominator in 1/72 scale. I have one in the stash, and from what I remember, it was a nice kit. But think of this from a manufacturer's standpoint--the Dominators didn't see widespread service, it had one user, it was built in limited numbers (115 or so were actually delivered to the USAAF), and was withdrawn from use very quickly after the war ended (the service life of the fleet was something like eight months). It is great fodder for the "Whiffers", sure, but would any mainstream company risk the tens of thousands of dollars to tool up and produce a kit with such limited appeal? The PBY and Ju-52 saw much wider service and was used by many more air arms, and was on top of many modelers' "Wish Lists" for years--but if you believe the stories, these were two of the worst selling kits Monogram ever produced. Granted they were in 1/48 scale--maybe it was the size of the competed model, but how does that explain the nearly perpetual production runs of Monogram's other big kits? Wish lists are nice, but in many cases they are pipe dreams... R
  3. To do it justice, an Electra would have to be a completely new tool--while loosely based on the Electra, the P-3 is much different from nose to tail. That being said, I doubt Hasegawa would do it, but someone like Roden might--even in 1/144 scale. It would be welcome since Minicraft's abomination is just so bad. It sure would beat using Welsh Models' fuselage on a much-modified Arii P-3 wing... R
  4. Scott Bregi has it spot-on. As far as I'm concerned (and I do build model cars, too), if you want to compete in IPMS you need to follow the IPMS rules first and foremost. Build basics rule--mold marks removed or filled, seams eliminated, alignment correct, quality of the finish etc. THEN you start looking at the quality of the rest of the build--how well did the builder incorporate any resin, photo etch, major mods, or other add-ons...it shouldn't matter if the guy spent a dollar or a thousand on aftermarket--if he can't add them on to the model without giant glue boogers showing, it counts against the build... It ain't rocket science. A good build is a good build, I don't care whether it is a plane, ship, car, tank, or whatever--the basics are, well, the basic ingredient to a good build. It is about the craftsmanship first, then the artistry... If you can't live with the IPMS rules, lobby to have them changed (good luck with that, by the way) or start your own organization. Some folks in South Carolina did just that when they founded the SCMA...it is largely an automotive group, and their judging criteria is geared more towards "what looks best". I've seen them in action many times--I don't always agree with that style of judging, but it works for them. And who am I to say which way is the "right" way? Ralph
  5. Here are three to start you off, drawn from my AMPS experience--which, in essence, mirrors the IPMS philosophy when it comes to basic construction: 1. Start with the hull and running gear. The running gear needs to be correctly aligned with the lower hull, and then the running gear needs to be aligned with the "ground". Make sure that all the road wheels actually touch the road... 2. Make sure you have no mold seams or mold marks, and take a drill to the end of gun barrels... 3. Make sure the tracks are aligned properly. Make sure they touch the return rollers (if there are any), and make sure they fit into the drive sprocket properly. Check the spacing from the hull, too--make sure they are more or less the same distance from the hull. That ought to get you started on your list... Ralph
  6. When I airbrush it, I cut it 50-50 with 91% Isopropyl Alcohol--it flows out and dries to an almost eggshell finish. You can shoot it straight, it is thin enough, but the alcohol helps it dry quicker. Furutre is great stuff--you can spray it or brush it, it is self-leveling, and in a pinch, you can apply it with a Q-Tip--been there, done that. If it seems to dry too quickly on the brush )or in the airbrush, if you shoot it straight), it has most likely exceeded it's useful life as a mdoeling product and is best left to the floor. Get a new bottle for your models. R
  7. And, to go along with Gil's request, how about the Midway class CV's in any guise and in any scale? The later modernized versions of Midway and Coral Sea would most likely need to be separate kits, but late war time frame would be similar... I'm also waiting for an injection molded Cleveland and Baltimore class cruiser in 1/350 scale... R
  8. Also consider the ProModeler re-work of the Monogram P-51B--it didn't work out as well, I'm sure, and the guys at Monogram wished it would have. And unlike some, I don't condemn a kit because of raised panel lines, nor do I resign myself to the fact that I have to re-scribe kits with raised panel lines. I prefer recessed lines, sure, but I can live with raised lines, too. Now, if we were talking 1/72 scale, I'd be in agreement--there are only the old Hasegawa RF-101A/C, F-102, and F-106 to choose from. Interceptor Voodoos are well served by Revell--if you can find one. And hell, Hasegawa's Voodoo isn't that bad, but it is rather barren, detail-wise, and conversions to make the escort fighter versions are out there (and the conversions aren't difficult). R
  9. Didn't Encore do the Deuce, not the Dart? I give you the HobbyBoss F-105's. I'll take Monogram's any day... Cheers! R
  10. If memory serves, there is only one tool kicking around for the 1/48 scale Hs123, the ESCI mold. AMTech used it, as did Italeri. The plastic is the same no matter which box; AMTech did add some resin bits to their first release of the kit. Still a great kit, by the way--I built one back in 1984, and don't remember it having too many vices. The rocker blisters on the cowl were a bit of a challenge, but other wise, it is the easiest biplane I had built at the time. Nice model, Dick. Ralph
  11. Since Aerospace Modeler Magazine folded a few years ago, I haven't bought any modeling magazine other than Boresight and the IPMS Journal. There isn't much in the magazines that interest me, and I won't buy an issue of any magazine for one article. From what I've seen, though, the Airfix magazine looks pretty good. MMiR was always good, but as has been said, you never knew when you were going to get the next issue. I lost interest in Finescale Modeler about 10 years ago... Ralph
  12. Gil's post brings up something that makes me wonder--I have never found the need to reserve one airbrush for big jobs, one for fine detailing, one for metallics, etc. I use one airbrush. Period. In other words, I won't start a project with the 200, then fill in with the 150 or the 105, right now my airbrush of choice is the 105 and it does everything. Anyone else do likewise? I'm always an advocate of "Whatever works"... R
  13. Right now, I'm using a Badger 105 Patriot. I like the gravity feed plus the "single needle/tip" design--the gravity feed means using less air pressure. The single needle/tip means that I don't have to remember to match a tip to the needle, it keeps things easy. My air supply is a Badger 180-1 compressor that has served me well for about 15 years. As far as cleaning goes, I shoot acrylics, which clean up well with Isopropyl Alcohol. Stubborn stuff comes off with ammonia. If I want to ultrasonically clean it, I place it in a container filled with water and drop in a couple of denture tablets. Works like a champ... Previously, I have used the following (in no particular order): Badger 200 (my first airbrush)--great "starter" airbrush. Badger 150 (my second airbrush)--Badger's dual action airbrushes gave me a bit finer control than the competition. Badger 350--very good, easy to use airbrush. Binks Raven II--After the 105 and 150, this is my favorite "traditional" dual action airbrush. Binks Wren--another great starter airbrush, not as easy to find as they once were. Paasche H--a standard of the industry, very easy to learn, some people think there is no need to get anything else in our end of the hobby. I've seen people do better paint schemes with an H than others who use the top of the line dual action stuff... Paasche VL--not a bad dual action, but I found I got better control with the 150 and the Raven II. Testor Aztek 470, nee the "Model Master Airbrush"--great tool when they came out, I bought mine right after they were introduced. You couldn't beat a Lifetime Warranty. The airbrushes and tips were rugged and reliable. As time passed, though, it seemed like the tips didn't last as long--my first set of tips lasted a good five years before the needed replacement. Later tips would last six months, if I was careful. Then, Testor's changed the warranty to a Three Year warranty. They tend to develop leaks internally--somewhere out there, somebody posted a tutorial on how to disassemble the body and fix the leak. If you bought one with a Lifetime Warranty, they'll honor that... Testor Aztek 320--not bad for $28 at Wal-Mart back in the late 1990's. It is decidedly an entry-level airbrush, but it uses the same tips as the 470. Iwata (various models)--Iwata seemed to replace Paasche and Badger as the darlings of the scale modeling world back in the late 1980's, and they aren't bad tools. Some say the tips are fragile (my wife's tip stripped the threads)... I have only test driven a few of the Grex line--they seem to be supplanting the Iwatas as the new darlings of the hobby. Same for the Harder and Steenbeck line. As far as which one is best, that's very subjective, and the answer is easy--the one that works for *you*. I always advise people to hold the airbrush, and if they can, give it a test. Also, make sure your local emporium carries parts--nothing worse than being in the middle of a session and lose an O-Ring, only to find that you have to order one, and it won't be there for a day or so... Cheers! Ralph
  14. I was also under the impression that Jules wanted to eventually do some of the RAF Between the Wars aircraft. Can you say Hawker Hart, or Hawker Hind, or even Gloster Gamecock? R
  15. Say what you will, those ESCI kits were great for their day, and still great today. Nice work, Gil! Ralph
  16. On judging: I always am amazed when someone enters a contest and feels they were "cheated" by the judges and the judging was "wrong" or "suspect". As for the particulars, the comment "These guys (car modelers, per the original poster's intent) don't focus on that sure they will go all out on a beautiful paint job, but will leave details like mold pins under the hood, or leave seams on the transmission etc. , now how do you resolve this with IPMS and car guys." How do you resolve it? Read the IPMS Competition Handbook. Under "Automotive", the number one phase is "Basic Construction". And I quote: Automotive Basic Construction 1. Flash, sink marks, mold marks, ejector-pin marks,and similar molding flaws eliminated. 2. Seams filled if not found on the actual vehicle. (This is especially important on the car’s body. Rubberized kit tires usually also have a mold seam that must be removed.) 3. Contour errors corrected. 4. Gaps between body and chassis eliminated as applicable. 5. Detailing removed while accomplishing the above steps restored to a level consistent with the rest of the model. 6. Alignment: A. Where applicable, external items (e.g., mirrors, exhaust pipes) aligned symmetrically. B. Internal items (e.g., seats, some engine/drive components) aligned properly. C. Wheels: All wheels touching the ground and aligned properly when viewed from front or rear of the vehicle. If turned, front wheels should be aligned in the same direction. 7. Windshields and other clear areas: A. Clear and free of crazing caused by adhesives or finishing coats. B. Gaps between windshield, windows, or other clear parts eliminated where applicable. C. All clear areas scratch-, blemish-, and paint-free. Notice number 1. Mold marks, mold flaws, etc. need to be eliminated. There it is in black and white. And it follows the basic IPMS premise on judging--Basic Construction always comes first. That's where a great many models miss the cut--the basics of good model construction are not followed. Period. What amazes me is that some modelers won't read the rules before they enter a particular contest. It usually comes down to the fact that they didn't win (or, according to them, they got screwed out of a trophy) because they either didn't read or decided to disregard the rules of the road. You wanna play in the IPMS ballpark? You need to do so by the IPMS rules. No more, no less. Simple, really...nothing to "resolve". I've heard the car modeler's gripes for years--and I do build car models myself, so I'm not saying this as a car-basher. The answer has always been what I just posted--read, understand, and follow the rules of the contest you are entering. Similar gripes are heard from a modeler who builds OOB, then enters an IPMS contest and doesn't provide the instruction sheet. Their model is rightfully DQ'd from OOB and moved to the open category, but according to the modeler somehow that's a failing on the part of IPMS--when in reality it is that the modeler has not followed the rules spelled out Competition Handbook. I wouldn't expect to win at a SCMA event if I didn't read, understand, and follow their rules. Same for AMPS, or any of the other competitive modeling groups. And that's as it should be, since each group has a different take on how models "should" be built. FWIW, YMMV, etc., etc. Ralph
  17. *bump* Less than a month to go, and it is shaping up to be a great show. Hope to see y'all there! Ralph
  18. If you are a masochist, you could replace the kit tracks with the AFV Club T-80 tracks--but you really have to hate yourself. I'm replacing the lousy DML T-80 tracks on their mid-'90s vintage M4A4-based M50 (I built the model when it first came out, but have always wanted decent tracks on it), and I gotta tell ya, they are tedious...
  19. Howdy, all... A co-worker of mine brought me some of his father's pictures from WWII--he was a B-24 pilot attached to the 739th Bombardment Squadron, 454th Bombardment Group, based in San Giovanni, Italy. In one photo, the crew is standing behind a B-24L-5-FO, but that's not the airplane I'm interested in--of course, not, I have a full view of the S/N, researched it, and found that it wound up with another BG...that would be too easy, right? The airplane of interest was named "Midnight Curfew" or "Midnite Curfew", and possible had some sort of pin-up nose art. This was recited from memory by the man that flew the airplane, but not confirmed--the man is near blind, has prostate cancer, and can't remember breakfast, but has vivid (I'm told) memories of his service days. That's all I know right now--I have no serial number or even a subtype to run with (yet). Scott's moving his dad to a nursing home, so he's starting to pack up his dad's personal effects. As he digs stuff up, he's sharing it with me--and I'm fairly sure that what I need lurks within the dusty boxes of his dad's wartime collection of stuff. In the meantime, can anybody point me to some sources? I've scoured the interwebs, and will continue to do so, but any assistance would be greatly appreciated. I've already navigated--or tried to, to the best of my ability--the BestWeb B-24 site, the 15th AF site, and anything else I could Google on the 454BG/739BS. Cheers! Ralph
  20. The T-44 was actually a 90-series King Air, I believe that Hawker Beechcraft calls it the H90. The L-23 and U-8 were Queen Air variants... Ralph
  21. Correction on the 1999 host--it was IPMS / Florida, a consortium of three or four of the Region 11 (Florida) Chapters. Ralph
  22. Common misconceptions about airbrushes--ANY airbrushes: You can modulate the amount of air by the amount of pressure (up/down) you put on the trigger. Nope, it is either on or off. There is no in between. Now, there might be one out of a million airbrushes out there that has a variable valve, but I'd bet it was beyond the realm of hobby airbrushes (read as it costs more money than any scale modeler would be willing to mortgage his or her house for). The spray pattern is changed with the various tip sizes. Nope--well, not really but sort of. If memory serves, Paasche has fine, medium, and heavy tips--but those descriptors really relate to the fluid being sprayed, not necessarily the fineness of the pattern. As Ken at Badger says, the fineness of the spray pattern is a product of the taper of the tip--the faster it tapers (a short tapered area), the coarser the spray, and the more gradually it tapers (long taper, like a sewing needle) equates to a finer spray. So, there is some truth that a fine tip gives a tighter pattern than a heavy or coarse tip. But there are things you can do to get a nice, tight freehand camo. Aim the tip straight at the surface, you get a circular pattern. Hold it at an angle, you get an elliptical (think comet) pattern where one edge is sharper than the other. You can use that trick to your advantage--hold the airbrush at an angle when you spray demarcation lines, aiming the tool towards the area you want to be that particular color--that sharper edge of the comet is what gives you a sharper line. You can't beat practice. Like any tool, you get better with it by using it... Ralph
  23. Thanks--it is always a quick bit of fun and ensures that I'll get at least one model built every year. As for the R-18, we can only hope--and I'm kind of surprised that Revell AG hasn't asked/sought out the rights for the Aston Martins and Peugeots, too... R
  24. Pictures have been posted to my blog page, here I wonder what next years' will be? Ralph
×
×
  • Create New...