ghodges

January 14

Ron (and all): You can read Jeff Herne's reply here on the DF ..... he didn't give any EXACT numbers but expressed his extreme frustration at people who put pressure on him and his committee to give them early room reservations at the Hilton specifically. He implied this tied up about 20 rooms or so before reservations ever went "public". He never named names, but implied it was people who claimed they had "essential business" or "official IPMS" reasons/status as to why they should be given the preferential treatment.

They may or may not have had legitimate reasons to ask for early reservations. However, Jeff certainly feels he and his committee were INSULTED in the manner in which it was done, and he's stated he will be quitting IPMSUSA after he's done making sure Madison is a success. As I've stated elsewhere on other matters..... HOW something is done IS important, and the end does not justify the means.

Gil :cool:

January 13

It'll be interesting to see how you salvage that.... and I'm tucking that tattered "look" away as it would be perfect for a boneyard stored plane!

Gil :cool:

January 13

Wow.... Very cool! Yet another I've never seen before. They more resemble sci-fi space ships than "drones". What are they meant to be decoys for or from?

Gil :cool:

January 13

Good start... and I like the "askance" positioning of the belts.

Gil :cool:

January 13

That is some very crisp detail painting on those interior bulkheads! Looking good!

Gil :cool:

January 12

Noel: Here in IPMSUSA the only requirement is to have 5 IPMSUSA members, and that the Chapter Contact be a current member. Most clubs have far more non-members than members of IPMS, and many have struggled with having the 5 so that they can continue to be "IPMS clubs".

Over here, being an official IPMS club gives each club access to FREE insurance for their meetings, as well as for any model show they hold. That's why we title our clubs as "IPMS such and such".... it serves notice not only who we're a part of, but that we're also under the umbrella of IPMSUSA.

I've been a member since '77.... and there's only been a couple of times that the Eboard has tried to extend their reach into the local clubs. They've failed because of our very basic "American" nature of wanting less government and supervision, let alone their lack of any good reason for it.

Non-members are generally the backbone of most local clubs. The local clubs as a whole are the backbone of IPMSUSA. The fact that only a minority of even our own IPMS members step up to serve in any capacity is just a part of human nature (as in every organization) and if you can't deal with that, then you shouldn't step up if you plan to complain about it.

Gil :cool:

January 12

To begin, I want to thank Rob Booth for stepping in here to explain why he resigned and for stating his sincere beliefs. I also believe, as he says, that HIS goals for IPMSUSA and his feel for the need for change does coincide with much of the membership. I also can sympathize with him to a degree about his frustrations in fighting for change with a seemingly entrenched bureaucracy. If you dig around these forums you'll find my fights against the NCC and the Eboard as well as more than a decade of trying to point out the benefits of GSB.

Where I part from Rob is the idea that the end justifies the means. It does not, no matter how much you believe in something. HOW change is instituted is important, especially when it only involves a hobby, and not anything truly momentous, important, or personally life altering. "Revolution" may be needed for political change in a country, but not in a hobby organization where FUN should be the focus. The posting of the tank picture was step over the line as it cannot be taken as anything but an attempt to belittle IPMS judging. The failure of the Eboard to push back against the ignorant posts on social media, and their almost immediate caving to perceived pressure (much of it from non-members there) by issuing edicts to the NCC is what precipitated ALL of this. The amendments they pushed also did harm by their getting the ability to take over the NCC "legally". How could anyone on the outside, or on the NCC look at the combination of the two as nothing more than a power grab in order to FORCE change? And THAT has been the problem... not the desire for needed change but the forceful implementation of it.

I agree that the NCC has been much too entrenched in its views against change in the past. I've fought against that and their lack of transparency. That said, as I've posted above, I understand their VERY good reasons for being that way. There's a LOT on the line IF you try to make radical changes to the Nats, and the financial consequences could be far reaching; to the point that money for the Journal printing and mailing could become restrained, let alone having any sort of financial safety net for IPMS and the ability to keep holding Nats of the same size and scope. The Eboard should be looking to PROTECT that investment and be very careful of anything that might start it on a downward spiral, especially when it's been successfully growing as is.

So you want change? what SHOULD have been done? The Chief Judge was already retiring.... so the Eboard should have looked for a new person who was more amenable to change over time, and who could lead the NCC in that direction in a series of steps; not all at once. Someone who understands the need to protect what works so well while also understanding the need for better communication with the membership and that eventually the contest may need to move away from being so cut-throat. I don't know that they can still do that, as many very qualified people are now leery about working for them, since they're now the "bosses" of the NCC, something NO previous Eboard ever sought to be.

This may be whistling in the wind, but if the Eboard wants to solve this problem and go to Madison with some confidence, here's what I think they should do:

1) Issue a written apology in the Journal to the NCC and the judging corp for their mishandling of the tank picture issue on social media.

2) Pledge that although they support change, they realize that they HAVE to rely on the DECADES of experience and dedication to IPMSUSA that those on the NCC represent, and that they will work WITH the NCC for change as opposed to handing down edicts for change.

3) Immediately withdraw ALL previous edicts and also suspend the start/enforcement of the recently passed amendment that gives them any control OVER the NCC

4) Find and appoint a new NCC Chief Judge with experience with the Nats AND other judging systems with the express purpose of leading the NCC towards change in measured steps while protecting the success of the Nats.

5) Have that Chief Judge ask the Head Judges who have resigned to return to their old jobs with the understanding they are NOT "working for the Eboard" so that we can have confidence in the ability to get the judging done in Madison. Once the NCC has been reconstituted, then THEY must reach out to the judging corp as a whole to be sure they know they can expect to have experienced leadership in Madison.

Yes.... this involves the current Eboard swallowing its pride a bit, and also (to a degree) perhaps throwing the old 2023 Eboard under the bus somewhat. But I think the Eboard needs to take 1-2 GIANT steps backward in order to be able to rectify this situation. Then it can prioritize problems, identify needed changes and move forward once more, but this time trying to use everyone's experience and dedication to IPMS to make changes instead of tossing aside people they feel are in the way of it.

Gil :cool:

January 11

Ron (and all): I think you and I are actually discussing two distinctly different things without doing a good job of defining them....

The first is the current situation which was created by THIS Eboard, and not by any of the past ones. By that, I mean their knee jerk reactions to the social media fuss over the tank picture where they failed to support our judges, and by that failure made IPMS judging look like a fiasco; and then pointed the finger at the NCC and handed down edicts to them instead of trying to work with them. They also are the ONLY Eboard who pushed through a dozen amendments to the IPMS Constitution in a single vote, the sum of them all being they now "legally" control the NCC and Nats contest, something never sought nor needed by any previous Eboard. That, when combined with the judging fiasco, caused the resignation of most of the 2023 NCC (and yes, the NCC failed in their judging investigation of the Sci-Fi genre). ALL of those items have left the judging corp in a shambles and cast some doubt as to how the Madison show will go. I happen to agree with you that "honorable men and women will step up"; but that is the ONLY way it will be a success unless this current Eboard starts showing us some concrete progress and plans on who comprises the new NCC and how the new rules (like their "no model handling" edict) will be implemented. And.... I also firmly believe that the creation of ANY sort of ethics committees is simply an attempt at another level of control they want to exert over the membership and yet another example of an area that no Eboard before them ever needed. That is why I believe the "bag" they're currently holding is one they've filled themselves.

The second thing we're debating is the general future of IPMS... and that is where I can agree with you more, to a degree.

I agree that the Eboard (and the new NCC, whoever that will be) needs to be VERY transparent. The listing of the voting in the minutes was great step in that direction, although I was NOT happy that 2 of the members voted against free speech for the editor. I agree with your assessment that most past Eboards have "kicked the can" of problems and needed changes down the road and that in the long term, they're now a part of this Eboard's problems, though not as high as a priority as those I listed above.

I'm going to agree AND disagree with you on the subject of change in IPMSUSA being up to the membership in general....

Where the NATS CONTEST is concerned, I believe change there should be driven only by the attendees, and not the general membership, since MOST members never attend the Nats. The FACT is that the Nats has consistently grown and thrived under its current 1-2-3 format; like that or not (and I'm a GSB guy myself). ANY Eboard who wants to play around and mess with that winning formula/money maker for IPMSUSA and the clubs that host it is NOT serving IPMSUSA's best interest; and THAT is exactly what THIS Eboard has done. Any changes there should be tweaks and not wholesale overhauls, as it's something that has worked well and grown MORE successful over the last 20yrs. Is there room to experiment within the current contest format? Yes.... I believe so.... but again... IPMSUSA has a first obligation to protect what has worked before committing to anything unproven in wholesale fashion. Overall, since the majority of IPMS members have no interest in the Nats, the NCC, or its contest; I think they should have little to say in how it's run and leave that up to those who attend and participate in the Nats and those directly involved with its administration and running it.

As for other areas.... Local and Regional contest formats in general should be up to the membership and the clubs and NOT to the Eboard. If any other format (GSB, AMPS style, NNL style) should ever become SO popular that it becomes the norm and 1-2-3 passe, then IPMSUSA can look at changing formats at the Nats to conform and "fit in". But let popular demand determine that, and not some Eboard driven edict of change.

Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from. I also agree with your idea of offering the Journal in digital format, at least to some if not all, IF it's affordable. In the past it didn't offer any financial advantage, but with the progress of technology perhaps it can do so now. I believe those two things MIGHT offer growth past our seeming ceiling of 4000+- membership numbers.

We both have the hope to see IPMS grow and thrive, even if we differ somewhat on our views of the current situation and the exact paths we need take to get there, and that's the light at the end of the tunnel! Now if we only knew where our current Eboard stands on these things and EXACTLY how they plan to tackle them.

Gil :cool:

January 11

Thanks for taking the time to come and fill us in Len! Sorry it didn't work out for you, as I'm sure we'd have been better off with you than without. Hope the model bench can take your mind off of your troubles and make for a much happier and healthier 2024. God bless!

Gil :cool:

January 10

Sounds good Eric, though when you start mentioning rules, besides the common sense idea of civility, I get leery. Also, IF whoever gets the job thinks they'll be able to limit or control trash talking IPMS on any social media, I believe they'll resign in frustration.

Although it does seem obvious, when the President mentions filling this position in his statement while at the same time trying to fill the more current urgent needs, it makes me wonder where the true priorities reside. And no.... I have not seen evidence this Eboard can multi-task with any success.

Thanks very much for stepping up to give some solid, sensible answers to my concerns!

Gil :cool:

January 10

Why Eric? Please explain why it's needed, and what "problems" this person is supposed to solve?

I understand the idea of IPMSUSA wanting to be able to say they have "someone on the job".... but to do what exactly? Monitor? Try to control? Censor posts?

Gil :cool:

January 10

"This current Eboard got caught holding the bag"?

I beg to differ! The ONLY new person on this current Eboard after the election was Len Pilhofer, the 2ndVP. Other than that, the entire slate of members ran for re-election. The president resigned shortly after being reelected, and Phil Peterson took his place and now holds the reins of the Eboard. Len Pilhofer just resigned from 2ndVP after only being in the job (possibly) long enough to find out how bad things had gotten and/or how difficult it would be to work with this Eboard (SPECULATION on my part, but reasonable without any other explanation offered).

As for Secretary Rob Booth, from what I understand, he's doing IPMS a service by stepping down, and the only question in my mind is can we recover from the direction he tried to steer the Eboard and IPMSUSA.

And in BOTH cases of the recent resignations, NO explanations are given except "different reasons". Again, I'm waiting for a leader with the guts to declare what the problems are, where the current members EACH stand on those problems, and how they plan to work together toward solving those problems. The past statements implying unity were obviously complete bull, so please don't start off any newly comprised Eboard with some less than transparent statement of "solidarity" unless it's transparent and truthful.

As for the comment "we've done it that way for 50yrs"..... yes.... that can lead to complacency against needed change. BUT, it can also be used (as it was recently) as a tool to try to make radical, unneeded changes. You have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or do a complete engine overhaul on something only needing a tune-up! As the old saying goes- if ain't broke, don't fix it. Part of the problem right now is we (the members) are being kept in the dark as to what is broke and how badly broke it is. I believe the President's statement as to the items he listed (except maybe contest status).... but he left out a litany of other things.

I'm still worried when I read the Presidents statement that the Eboard is still trying to create a "Social Media Director" when two MUCH more important positions need filling first. It shows me THIS Eboard still has their focus on the WRONG things, like trying to control FB and creating "ethics committees" (according to the Dec. minutes); when they've communicated NO solutions for revamping the NCC and getting the new contest rules they proposed for Madison printed and rolled out in time. Could THIS be the problem on the horizon causing Eboard members to resign before the crap hits the proverbial fan?

This could indeed be a great opportunity for a couple of people to step up and help guide IPMSUSA back onto a path to of stability and to hopefully rebuild the trust they broke with the membership. But WHY should anyone join the group blindly without knowing why the people they're replacing left? And WHY shouldn't we, as members know that too?

Gil :cool:

January 9

Starting to come into museum display shape! I'm glad to know the warp came out somewhat, though I doubt I'd been able to detect a 1mm twist in the finished model.

Hope your hand surgery goes smoothly and your recovery is quick and uncomplicated! I'm looking forward to when you get back to this beauty!

Gil :cool:

January 9

I have no confidence in getting larger room blocks from any of the hotels in the future. It's not in the hotel's interest since they're offering a lower room rate than they otherwise would, and I believe they're granting the smallest block they can and still get the contract. Unless there's some stiff competition nearby that we can use as leverage (one against the other) then they're going to limit their losses to the least number of rooms they can. And it doesn't seem to matter that IPMSUSA can point to several consecutive years of selling out that many rooms and more. They're not interested in selling out that many rooms at a lower rate!

At this point I have to agree with Nick (dear Lord, did I just say that? 😁) and simply have the reservations open whenever the hotel is willing to start taking them; be that 1 year out, 18mos, or whenever. Perhaps "rewards members" for those hotels might even be able to book a room 2 years out.... but so what? Whether there's still a "rush" or not (and I believe there would be less of one) it makes for at least one less thing for the Nats host to worry about or try to regulate.

As for a "lottery".... the idea could work, but it too would require more work either by the host or IPMSUSA, and it wouldn't be long before the validity of the lottery or its administrators would have their integrity questioned, even under the best of circumstances.

It's a knotty problem, but I have to side with Ron's idea of looking at the Nats and applying the KISS principle in every area, including Nats room registrations.

Gil :cool:

January 7

Once more, I learned something today... GREAT pic Ron!

Gil :cool:

January 7

Again... speaking as a layman and not an engineer, I think you have 3 things in your favor:

1) Those cables aren't really needed for structural integrity on the model, unlike the plane, so their anchor points do no have to be on a part of the "superstructure"/supporting frame.

2) It appears they have some stretch or elasticity to them, meaning you may still be able to use them being slightly on the short side (if they indeed are).

3) Moving them back a bit towards those cabane struts may actually shorten the needed distances and solve that problem for you.

In any case.... for models, it's "oddities" that catch my eye, and an asymmetrical "X" above those guns might draw my eye to it, as opposed to the normal looking wire crossings that may be slightly higher and rearward than the plans called for. Best of luck with whatever solution you come up with!

Gil :cool:

January 7

I'm no structural engineer...... but having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...... I see 2 choices depending on accuracy/practicality...

1) If you insist on using those original anchor points, then use a very fine line to tie up (to the top wing) that center section crossing into the position you're holding it with the stick, glue J3/J4 in place to cement that center crossing in that position and then cut the line, and live with the asymmetrical "x' that's left in place over the guns.

2) Abandon the lower anchor points on the fuselage and move them to a point on each forward cabane strut that's high enough to clear the guns. That way you'll have your proper "X" crossing over them, even if they tie into an inaccurate anchor point.

Personally, I'd choose #2 making for the best appearance, and the inaccuracy wouldn't be noticed by anyone but you, IF you can live with that. Hope this helps!

Gil :cool:

January 6

Those bombs, and all that work for that matter is..... da bomb! The hatch door is especially nice! Keep it coming!

Gil :cool:

January 6

Ahhhh.... (in my best Maxwell Smart voice) the old "click on the SPECIAL RATES trick!"

THAT would have been nice to know ahead of time.... can you say Beta Test? I guess Madison didn't, even after my pleading months ago.... just scroll down if you doubt me...

Gil :cool:

January 6

I finally got through to the hotel operator (phone reservations STILL didn't work even then) and she confirmed ALL 150 rooms at the Hilton were sold out.....

BUT HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN IN LESS THAN ONE MINUTE?

Looking forward to hearing HOW it did!

Gil :cool:

January 6

Once again, I have to wonder what is going on.....

I got the email with the codes for room reservations about 10mins til 1pm (EST, 11:50 CST), and clicked onto the Hilton downtown.

I REFRESHED that page a 1pm EST (NOON CST) when the reservations were supposed to go live, and it ALREADY said on the page "sorry we have no rooms for those dates" (July 16-21).

No matter how many times I refreshed it would not let me book a room and always said "no rooms available".

And of course IF you dial the hotel phone number provided it's busy, rings busy about 5 times and then hangs up on you.

SO WILL SOMEONE TELL ME HOW THERE CAN BE NO ROOMS AVAILABLE AT ALL WHEN IT WENT LIVE AT NOON? What the *&$* happened Madison? And note my post time.... it's only 1:15 (EST) now!

Gil :cool:

January 4

Thanks for the very kind words!

Stuart (and all): the white stripes on the wings and fuselage (like the white tail) are actually the white primer used during the build (rattle can Tamiya Fine White primer). It dries well enough to handle and mask in 1-2hrs, which is another one of the reasons I used it on this build. That way, after priming the model, all I had to do was mask off the stripes and the tail before applying the gray on the bottom (Alclad Gray Primer, which also dries in about an hour or less) and then the ODs on the top (Tamiya lacquer and MM).

Decals generally will adhere and go down worse over a primer coat because the paint is so flat and "rough". I only used dry transfer (rub on) stars that had no clear surround to them, so I didn't have to worry about applying a gloss coat to smooth the paint for decalling, or then having to add a flat coat at the end. That said, technically those stars aren't "sealed" in place an could be scratched/damaged if I'm not careful in handling or even pulled off with tape if needed.

I picked this model specifically from the pile because it helped me speed up my build by:

1) Being able to add the cockpit floor/etc, exhaust pipes. tail wheel, after the fuselage was assembled (so I could glue the fuselage as soon as the side cockpit walls were painted)

2) The rest of the kit (wings, landing gear, tires, drop tank, etc.) could be assembled while letting the interior green paint dry

3) I could paint and add the prop blades separately from its hub by cutting off the prop locating pins, speeding it's assembly and painting

4) The kit paint scheme was simplified by being able to use the primer for one of its colors

5) I had the dry transfer national insignia to use.

The only other kit I've ever done this on is the old (1980s) 1/48 Hasagawa F4U-4 Corsair, which once the interior is in and the model assembled, everything is painted only one color, Dark Sea Blue.

This was fun..... but it did involve staying up late into the night to handle the logistics of "24hrs" and not become a "2 day build". Hope this helps!

Gil :cool:

January 4

I know the gray "modified" P-80R had the lines filled and smoothed they way you described (along with the other speed mods) in order to help it set the records it did, but I'm not sure about the production model P-80As. However, since they did that sort of thing on the production Mustang wings at that time, Lockheed may have indeed picked up that idea and went with it on the Shooting Star.

Whether they did or not, the panel line wash did not work like it does on most models and detracts from the finish. Although I used a water based wash, and have since removed as much as possible, it's still there even if only with half of the intensity as before. This is a case where my regular "build habits" kept me from considering whether or not I should accent the panel lines and I now believe the "clean" look would have been much more pleasing to the eye. In any case, it's taught me something and still fills a niche in my collection of Robin Olds aircraft.

Thanks for the critique! Cheers!

Gil :cool:

January 2

Stellar looking builds and a great year! Thanks for sharing and more for '24!

Gil :cool:

January 1

Someone posted a "24hr build challenge" for New Years eve/day, and I opted in. Proud to say I was able to "get 'er done" in just over 24hrs, starting at 2pm yesterday and finishing at 3pm today. This is the Mauve 1/48 P-40M with a True Details resin interior, but otherwise OOTB. The white in the scheme is actually the white primer used in the build, helping speed things along. I also used dry transfer stars, which eliminated the need to gloss and flat coat the model. Overall it took just over 10hrs of actual work, 7 of them yesterday (with final paint going on at 3am!), and 3hrs today to finish painting and assembling all of the details. All in all, it was pretty good fun to get one done in a day!