Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ghodges last won the day on November 24

ghodges had the most liked content!


896 Excellent

Profile Information

  • FirstName
  • LastName
  • IPMS Number
  • Local Chapter
    IPMS First Coast
  • City
    Orange Park
  • State
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,777 profile views
  1. (In my best Obi-Wan voice) Oooo... "By-Plane".... now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...... Good looking build and very nice display! What did you rig it with? Gil
  2. Good work, especially overcoming the problem of the too low wing that would have had the prop swinging through the canopy! The shelf of display is as good a place as the shelf of doom if and when you ever want to revisit them for more work. Congrats! Gil
  3. I haven't used them myself, but here's a link to a full review of them using an airbrush and a brush: http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/misc/True_North/TrueNorthPaints/TrueNorthPaints.htm Hope this helps! Gil
  4. Excellent progress and a good tip on using the silly putty to secure and align a model for assembly! Gil
  5. Truly impressive little jewels, even more so when you look at all of the corrections and body work done to the airframes that came out so smooth that it's not evident without seeing the in progress pics! Thanks for sharing! Gil
  6. Great job on getting info out..... in fact, I got TWO notices! Also, kudos for opening the hotel reservations on a Saturday afternoon so more working folks have an equal shot at them. Gil
  7. Actually, though James is close, I was fired as RC-11 for vocally (here on the DF) opposing the Eboard's proposal at the time to force ALL Regional contests to be 1-2-3 shows. I knew there were some GSB shows around the country who hosted Regionals from time to time, (Pittsburg, etc.), including one show in my R-11 that I rotated the Regional through every 3-4 years. Their rule, if implemented, would have hampered RCs from having more clubs to pick from, would have prevented clubs with years of successful contest experience from hosting a Regional, and all despite IPMSUSA having no financial stake in ANY of the shows. I wrote my dissenting opinions on this forum under my name only as an IPMS member and never as "RC-11". The irony was that after I was fired, the rule was never implemented! Oh well! If there's anything to take away from the above, it's simply that we as members have the obligation to oppose what we see as poor decisions made by the Eboard. We have a more limited ability than the Journal editor or the president, since they have columns. However, you can send them emails, inform your fellow IPMS club members (at least the ones interested in the running of IPMS) to be sure they're aware of issues, and contact your RC to let him know where you and your club stands on things. If you attend the Nats, I encourage you to attend the IPMS business meeting because it's your one chance to stand up and question Eboard members face to face to let them know that although they are in office, they are accountable to the membership. IPMS is like any other club, locally and nationally. Only a very few of the entire membership are interested in how things are run and/or volunteer to help run them. That's not going to change and those who volunteer have to accept that (which is why the President's labeling everyone else as "freeloaders" was a waste of time). It's even more frustrating when this is all about running an "hobby" organization who's sole purpose is supposed to be to help the members have fun. That, however, doesn't make any of these issues we have to tackle unimportant to those of us who want a better IPMS in the future. We'll just have to suffer through some rough times before we get back to the fun! Gil
  8. WOW! That is some world class model building with exquisite attention to detail! Thanks for posting! Gil
  9. I was merely defending him on the grounds that as Journal Editor he has an obligation to the membership to put things in his column, and the right to do so, including his own personal opinion. Also keep in mind that IF he happens to want to agree and support the current Eboard he has both the right and ability to do so in the Journal, even if others have a contrary opinion to his op-ed. I too missed the Nats this year and thus have written my opinions based solely on what I've read here and on the IPMSUSA FB page. My comments and positions are easy to find and I'll stand by them based on the information I've been aware of as of today. I do not support the Eboard, their actions over the last year, nor the direction they've decided to hijack and take IPMS towards. That's why I've been vocal here on those issues. The fact Chris has a larger "bully platform" is something he's earned through decades of service to IPMS, so I will not begrudge him that advantage. While it's always nasty to have dirty laundry aired publicly, that doesn't mean it should be shied away from. If Chris did indeed print only one side of the story, got some facts wrong, or only gave part of the picture then he should indeed be called out for that. As I mentioned above, there is no "letters to the Editor" anymore (and I agree with that policy) so it seems that THIS DF and the IPMS FB page is where members will have to fight back if they feel the need to do so. Does his column serve a purpose other than to start a pot that was simmering boiling again? We'll see. In my own opinion, I'd like to see these issues confronted and solved NOW instead of letting them fester for 6 months only to have them ramp up again just before the Nats. THAT has more potential for a larger disaster than getting things in the open and tackled now when we have the time to do so. I fully agree that whether we get the problems solved or not, NONE of this will make IPMS look attractive to non-members. But it IS an opportunity, IF we were to handle this in an open and fair way, to show others that IPMSUSA is an organization with integrity that is worth supporting and being a member of. We can only hope we can do so. Gil
  10. Sorry Andrew, but I must strongly disagree with you in this case. 1) I understand that most of the membership doesn't follow and isn't interested in "politics" in IPMS. In the past, especially back in the days of the Update and Quarterly, politics were MUCH more prevalent than they have been the last 20 years in the Journal. BUT, there has come a time where there's too much going on and too much at stake to allow the important issues, controversies, and poor policy decisions recently made by the Eboard to slide by under the radar. The Journal is the ONLY IPMS item that goes out to each and every member, and thus it should be used to be sure the membership is aware of what's happening, IF they bother to read the column. 2) The editor has already been taken to task (and I believe rightly so) for not challenging the President's recent column where he called local IPMS club members who didn't join IPMSUSA "freeloaders" before actually including it and printing it. His failure to challenge the President before printing it meant there was one less filter that might have prevented unneeded backlash against IPMS, especially on the internet. The fact that he's standing up now is a sign he realizes he has an important obligation to YOU and the rest of our members to be sure you have information that is being swept under the rug by the Eboard and that most members are not aware of. He also realizes he may face consequences from the Eboard in doing so. He has an obligation as the editor of the official IPMS USA publication to be sure all members are properly informed of pertinent, important IPMS issues. The members can then decide whether or not they agree with him once they've been so informed. 3) I can vouch personally for Chris and his true concern for the future of IPMS. He and I have little in common personally outside of an interest in model building and the hope that we can steer IPMSUSA back onto a road with fewer controversies and better policies going forward. He does not overreact and if you go back and read his columns he does not inject politics into the Journal. In fact, if anything, he tries to motivate members to be better builders, build more models, and find ways to have more fun in IPMS. The very fact that he DID inject politics into his column means YOU should be very concerned because he felt he HAD to do so. It IS that bad. 4) As for using his column as "his personal sounding board"' THAT is his privilege as EDITOR. In fact, it is what he does in every issue whether it's his opinion on a show, a modeling trend, or in this case raising the alarm to the problems that the Eboard have created and their potential disastrous consequences in the next year, especially for the Madison Nats. And whether he uses his page to talk about modeling, or to try to make you take note that YOU need to pay attention to what's going on inside IPMSUSA with the NCC, and other controversies; it's his page to use and it doesn't take away from the regular content of the Journal. It's not like the old days where they had to print page after page of "letters to the Editor", which did indeed affect the modeling content in the publications. I fully understand you find the injection of politics into our modeling Journal distasteful. Knowing Chris, he gave it hard thought before he did so. He did so believing that things are bad enough that SOMEONE needs to stand up, raise an alarm, and call EVERY member's attention to the situation as best they can. I'm sure he finds it regrettable in having to do it. I applaud his display of backbone in standing up the the powers above him (the Eboard) in calling them out and shedding light on everything that's gone on in the last year. I, like you, am sorry that it's come to this, but he was right to do it. Gil Hodges
  11. Impressive cockpit! When you say you polished the clear parts, what did you use to polish them with, and was this by hand or with a motor tool? Gil
  12. Can't add much more to the deserved praise by the Duke! Thanks for sharing this eye candy! Gil
  13. In my experience the kit plating is just a metallic paint that was factory applied so that the builder could skip painting it themselves. It should accept paint over it like putting paint over any other painted surface. That said, since some paints can interact, it would be wise to test whatever gloss black you choose to use on a plated area that will not be seen and could be "sacrificed" or hidden if things went wrong. My main point is that unlike most modelers who take the extra time and steps to strip off kit chrome or other plating types; I don't. I just assemble it, sand seams and remove mold lines, polish it so it has a glass smooth surface, and then prime the entire part in the gloss black. I've found that to be enough for my purposes.... but you may not. Gil
  • Create New...