Jump to content

ghodges

IPMS/USA Member
  • Content Count

    6,318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    158

Everything posted by ghodges

  1. DAK: I will stand by my own opinion that while you may be within the letter of the OOTB rules, you're violating the spirit of the category. Since you've been "entering models for 50yrs" then you surely realize that the OOTB categories were created for the purpose of not having to go head to head with the honchos (which you admit IS your purpose). It's a place for people to compete against each other with ONLY what comes in the box, and nothing else. You get to choose "the box" you go with, but since you chose one without a pilot, why should you be condoned or given a pass for adding one from elsewhere? That said, as Jim pointed out, we're merely giving OUR opinions, and NONE of them matter. What you need is for Bill Devins or Mark Persechetti to chime in with a definitive DECISION (versus our opinions). Once more, this is a sore spot with me, as I believe if you're Head Judge or the Chief Judge you should be here no less than twice a week just to look for topics like this where their expertise is needed. Perhaps one of them will chime in here by next Monday, but if experience holds true....don't hold your breath! That said, there's nothing to prevent you from emailing the NCC and asking them the question and asking for a "ruling". Since you don't want to waste your time, and you don't seem to want to accept the advice or criticism from the experienced judges who have chimed in here, that would seem to be your best course of action. Good luck! GIL
  2. I'm considered a pretty liberal/lenient judge....but I have to say that in my opinion adding that figure violates at least the spirit, if not the letter of the OOTB rules. To start, the purpose of OOTB is to separate models with ANY "outside" enhancements from those with them, whetherthey be bought aftermarket items or scratchbuilt items. You've added something that is not from the kit, directly ON the model. Why do so unless you're looking to enhance people's (and judge's) overall impression? Next, while (theoretically) it could be marked as a "do not judge" item; since the pilot is ON the model, it makes it very tough to do so. If it was on a base near the plane, I think you could make an argument for it to be ignored. However, standing on the wing sort of says "look at me". He should be waving instead of having his hands in his pockets.... Lastly, I'll join in on the "slippery slope" argument. If you allow this, then you can add (again, theoretically) resin under wing rocket tubes, after market wheels, and a vac canopy and write "ignore THOSE items". It's a SUPER looking mode, as is the pilot. Why limit yourself to the OOTB category? Enter it in the regular category and let the chips fall where they may. If I was chief judge, I'd move it from OOTB if placed there. By the way....you're welcome! My posting this judging opinion almost assures the head judge will rule against my opinion and let you in! GIL
  3. Check to see if Alclad makes a metallic blue. I know they make several transparent colors that are meant to be used to create heat marks on metallic exhaust pipes, and I thought they had a blue as one of them. If not, you can always fall back on the old method of painting it silver and then over coating it with Tamiya Transparent Blue til you get the hue you like. GIL
  4. Heck of sweet looking Huey, and some of the best glass work I've ever seen on any 'copter! Thanks for sharing! GIL
  5. Those door windows look fantastic! Are you polishing them or dipping them to get that ? GIL
  6. Nifty Nighthawk, and a fitting tribute to its service in Desert Storm! GIL
  7. That's a great looking start! I'm not huge fan of pe, but those seats are So much better than the kit ones (which aren't bad either!) GIL
  8. THAT is an ambitious plan! Still, there's nothing to prevent you from doing it if you allow yourself enough time and patience to get all you want in and on there in the way you want. Moving parts are always problematic. With the articulation of the Hornet's main gear, you'll need to study how it retracts on the real thing before trying to make it work on the scale parts. It won't be bad if it retract straight into the wells. But, if it twists, expands, or compresses during the retraction; that'll make it very complicated to do. Then there's the problem of fitting the gear doors. Making them hinge isn't the engineering problem that the gear poses, but getting them to fit EXACTLY without gaps or misalignment could be frustrating since they're probably not molded to be glued in the closed position and fit together tightly. The same would apply for any other access door you tackle. You'll be doing as much or more engineering as modeling! I admire your imagination, but have almost zero experience with that type of building., There is a guy who's scratchbuilding a P-51B in 1/18 scale over on Hyperscale (and built a similar Spitfire a couple of years ago) out of metal. You might review his work just to get an idea of the way he engineers and makes all of his parts, inside and out. They are absolutely phenomenal and he's a true master builder! Best of luck! Gil
  9. Did A search for images from the movie, but didn't find any such pic. However, who knows what was spliced in for a 1-2 second flying shot just because it looked good. Also, not aware of any experiments with putting a turret in the nose of the Mitchell. Any chance it was such a quick bit of footage in the movie that they put in a shot of a B-24. The twin tails are similar, and most people wouldn't be quick enough to notice 4 engines versus two...I'll have to pay closer attention next viewing! GIL
  10. Nice, sharp glass work Ron. If I'd only seen the pic of the landing gear and not known it was 1/72...I'd have guessed 1/48. I can see what you meant about how nicely detailed it is. Congrats on getting another Brit on your shelf! GIL
  11. ghodges

    Komet

    Nice build and excellent presentation. Is this a good kit? Did it give you any problems? Thanks for sharing! GIL
  12. Sure....IPMS has a long history and some of it involves alienating model builders. Some of the criticism has been rightly earned, at least in THEIR eyes. Like the saying goes...."haters gonna hate".... I've been a member for over 40yrs now. I've seen a number of "scandals" within IPMS. I've seen a good number of the membership who are TOO serious about this hobby. This can be a real problem when they demand that everyone else in their club be as serious as themselves, while many of the members simply want it to be a relaxing hobby. We have a reputation of being "rivet counters" and "color nazis" who live to beat others down in a contest. While that's on the harsh side, there's a kernel of truth in it that's hard to live down. The funny thing is, as you mentioned, MOST of those who espouse those views are not IPMS members, know little to nothing about IPMS, and have NEVER been IPMS members. They simply repeat the grousing they've heard third hand from people who supposedly heard it from someone who's brother-in-law didn't like IPMS. If you actually pin down an "x-member" who didn't like IPMS and left us you'll usually find a much more concrete reason that they left. Most often, it's that they felt out of place because most people didn't build what THEY built, so they didn't "fit in". A correlation to that is the "they didn't appreciate what I built", meaning they either failed to get the praise they hoped for, or they couldn't understand why a group of people with their OWN interests aren't interested in what they themselves were interested in. Occasionally it'll be because "a club was offensive" and criticized their modeling....which usually means ONE person in that club (and every club seems to have one...) was less than tactful when asked what he thought about someone's labor of love. As you alluded to, there's a laundry list of reasons to hate IPMS. However, most of them are somewhat out dated, and the majority of them are people expressing sour grapes about IPMS not being what they expected or hoped it would be for them. What they always fail to mention about IPMS is that it's just about the only modeling club that tries to welcome EVERYONE, no matter what they like to build. Sure, most of us are military builders and the majority of us build aircraft and armor. But, unlike the figure clubs, auto clubs and AMPS, we welcome those who build what we DO NOT build ourselves. The Journal, although totally dependent on voluntary contributions, bends over backwards to SERVE those "others" with articles (and rightly so). Every successful IPMS club that I'm aware of makes a point to make everyone feel welcome, while also being sure that they understand the dynamics of the club they're joining so that there's no illusions. In closing, all I can say is that modelers are a weird clique. We're generally loners who don't need a club or interaction to enjoy our hobby. There's very few (of the millions who actually buy and build models) who venture out and try to associate with others. Of those, too many will find that their attempts to combine "clubbing" with model building doesn't make it more fun. Those that DO like it will probably be okay with IPMS. Those who don't will be very likely to end up hating us.... GIL
  13. Stellar Tomcat Chris! You're obviously your own worst critic as I can't see anything worth complaining about. The display really enhances it too! My only suggestion would be to post some pics directly here instead of having people click to your Flkr page. Thanks for sharing! GIL
  14. Looks good Duke! Are those firestreak missiles on the wingtips? GIL
  15. Good start! That panel rocks! GIL
  16. Wonderful looking Wildcat! Nice to see the later tri-color scheme instead of those usually done. Congrats, and thanks for sharing! GIL
  17. Super looking results! I use MM paints also and have repeated problems with washes, particularly getting them to wipe off without staining areas I didn't intend to weather. Looks like your very reserved approach of applying them in very small amounts helps a lot. Is there a reason you used the Dullcoat instead of their canned gloss coat? The generally accepted theory is that washes "flow" better over gloss, and the flat coats actually tend to absorb washes a bit. Heck of a nice looking Hind! GIL
  18. Very sharp build! I like the muted markings. Were the cracked windows on the cockpit area a kit option, and did the wiring for the rotors come in the kit, or are those mods you added? I can see why it's your favorite! GIL
  19. Great looking group of builds, and a fitting tribute too! What kit and scale is the B-17? GIL
  20. Absolutely mind boggling how many projects you always have on tap! Love the camo on those 'copters! GIL
  21. Welcome Glenn! Glad to have you here! GIL
  22. Glad to have you here with us Chris! Jump in and have fun! GIL
  23. Wow! In a word: dynamic! Nice work and excellent execution of the idea! GIL
×
×
  • Create New...