Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ipmsusa2 last won the day on August 22

ipmsusa2 had the most liked content!


76 Excellent

1 Follower

About ipmsusa2

  • Birthday 12/10/1942

Profile Information

  • FirstName
  • LastName
  • IPMS Number
  • City
    Ft. Worth
  • State
  • Gender
  • Location
    Fort Worth, Texas

Recent Profile Visitors

1,570 profile views
  1. Very nice, Gil. Especially the engines. Now if I can only get my work to that level 🙂
  2. Nick, I haven't seen anything that will help you, but consider that the XP-55 was exactly that, experimental. Chromate yellow in the wheel wells would be quite reasonable. And given the lack of documentation, no one can say you'd be wrong.
  3. Gil, it's always "what the client wants, the client gets". We can argue some of the details and neither one of us will ever be 100% correct, nor will we ever know the absolute truth of that mission as far as the fine details are concerned. BUT one thing is fact. The painting you are referring to was done by Jack Fellows, who is a top ranked aviation artist/historian in his own right and is still alive. Beyond that, it's not even Tony's style. Look forward to seeing your finished 666. Richard
  4. Gil, I've never seen "Dogfights", so I'll stand corrected re that information. Tony's...and my....information came from an article on Zeamer that differs somewhat from the official Medal of Honor statements. According to that article, when 666 finally came to a stop after landing and the crew was removed, the ship was so shot up that they took a bulldozer and shoved the aircraft off the side of the runway. As for the Weddel painting that you have seen, all I can say is that the attached photo is a copy of the original painting that Tony took with his own 35mm camera and it does show the m.g. mounted in front of the windshield. I've also attached a cropped portion of the painting that clearly shows the m.g. in front of the windshield. Where that information about the gun's position came from, I can't say. Is it possible someone did a copy of Tony's painting and deleted the m.g.? Or is the online painting by a different artist who was inspired by seeing Tony's version? Unfortunately, we can't ask Tony since he died in 2015. Richard
  5. Gil, are you going to mount the machine gun on the fuselage just forward of the windscreen so that Jay Zeamer (the pilot) could fire it from the pilot's control yoke? This mod is why he was credited with one kill. There's a very good Wikipedia article about the mission in particular and Zeamer in general. Incidentally, Tony Weddel did an excellent painting of the episode. I'll be glad to send you a jpg of it if you wish.
  6. Hello Cliff. I think all of us who have been around as long as you and I have, can legitimately claim that our ox has been gored. It matters more to some than it does others, but what's truly important is that we have helped...in whatever way...the IPMS/USA to not only survive but to prosper. Had it not been for the IPMS/USA...as well as all the other National groups, and definitely giving proper credit to the Brits who started the whole thing, we would not have the incredible plastic model kit and aftermarket hobby/industry that we have today. That is something that all of us can be immensely proud of, regardless of which individual gets recognition...or doesn't. BTW, I also remember the joys of cutting mimeograph stencils and hoping to God you didn't make too many mistakes that you had to spend time correcting!
  7. I'm not sure what an equitable solution would be to the question of awards/recognition. As some of you know, I've been involved in the IPMS/USA since before it actually existed (I was in the TAHS with Jim Sage when he started kicking around the idea of a US branch of the IPMS). I've never participated to the extent I wanted to due to lack of funds. That situation also led to a gap in membership. My only real claim to fame...such as it is...is that I managed to hang on to my original IPMS/USA number...#2. If some kind of recognition/award was to be made, it probably should be limited to those of us who were the original...or charter...members of the IPMS/USA. Why? Because an argument could be made that if it wasn't for us...the old guard...the IPMS/USA would probably have never come into existence. At least not in its present form. However, that leads to the next question: Where's the cutoff point? 20? 25? 50? 100? And then there's also the fact that not many of the Old Guard are still around...or at least not current members. BUT the bottom line is one overriding question...does it really matter? That's a question for each one of us to answer. Me? It's enough for me to know that y'all know that I was privileged to be one of the founders of the IPMS/USA...no matter how small a part I played. HOWEVER...if our leadership ever decides to hand out a pin, placard, certificate or whatever in recognition of the founding members, I hope I get one. Preferably while I'm still breathing!
  8. ipmsusa2


    Very nice, David. Makes me want to do an OOB myself.
  9. Ralph, I am well aware that Testors is extinct, eliminated, done, fried, hanged, shot, strangled, drowned, suffocated, executed, done for, bought the farm, vanished, gone away, been permanently reduced, listened while the fat lady sang and involuntarily welcomed the grim reaper. The entire point of my post was that RPM et al should have had the decency to kill the testors.com website so that inexperienced and/or beginning modelers won't stumble over the testors website and waste time trying to find some shop such as Hobby Lobby (Don't say it. I know they're not a hobby shop.) that carries Model Master or Testors paints. All that remains is for me to post a photo of Testors' current employer with whom they have permanently merged:
  10. Out of simple...or maybe morbid...curiosity, I checked the old Testors website and found a full list of testors and model master colors. Huh? So I checked the Rustoleum site. They have...or had...a link at the bottom of their home page that goes to their testors website with all the changes. Today that link is gone. BUT the original old testors.com website still exists. Stranger, when you put testors into the Rustoleum search box, you get a page of listings for testor with the top one being a link to the testors.com website. Yes, that's right...the old testors website that is no longer valid. Given the size of the companies involved...from RPM on down...you'd think they'd be able to keep the various company websites up to date...including killing the testors.com site. Or maybe they just don't care enough to bother. Incidentally, for those who might be interested, Stevens International and Megahobby both list 99% to 99 1/2% of all testors products as out of stock. And adding insult to injury for car modelers, there's an online article in the new FineScale Newsletter that recommends the high gloss lacquer and wet look gloss lacquer spray cans from testors as the preferred clear coats for a high gloss car model finish. Now all you have to do is find the stuff.
  11. Appreciate that! Hey...finally someone who found it funny!!
  12. Yes and no. Wound up cobbling up a figure from two different police figure kits. Turned out all right. At least the magazine was satisfied. Here's a couple or three shots of the end result.
  13. Hey Carlos, Yep, that's the one. Here's the story that Lloyd told. When Revell decided to produce a kit of the F-104, it was still a more or less classified aircraft and the landing gear design was definitely classified. Ergo, the USAF provided Revell with the necessary drawings to produce a model of the aircraft...EXCEPT for the landing gear. Initially, Revell intended to produce a kit that could be mounted on a swivel ball in flight configuration, much as many of their earlier kits had been. For whatever reason that Lloyd didn't describe, Revell decided that they would really like to include landing gear in the kit. Since the USAF didn't provide any info, Revell's kit designers sat around a table and started brainstorming landing gear designs, the approach being "If I was an F-104, what would my landing gear look like?". Remember, the F-104 was...or would be...known as the missile with a man in it, due to its being the smallest design possible wrapped around its engine. This meant that the landing gear had to be unique at that time. Anyway, Revell's designers came out with a configuration they thought looked good, incorporated it in the final kit design and put the model out on the market. Note that since the design was fictitious, no one bothered to check with the USAF. After the kit hit the market, things got more than a little interesting. All of the alphabet security agencies of the time...think DIA, CIA, etc...as well as the USAF landed at Revell's front door. Reason? They wanted to know where they stole the drawings for the F-104 landing gear. Turned out that the fictitious landing gear that Revell brainstormed was a dead match for the Lockheed drawings! It took a while for everyone to understand that given a known amount of space and dimensions, certain things such as articulation can only occur in a certain way and that you don't have to be an engineer to figure it out.
  14. Hello Carlos, There's a very interesting story involving the original Revell F-104 kit...not the one you have but the original F-104 Revell produced when the 104's landing gear design was still classified. Lloyd Jones was directly involved in it and I got the story direct from Lloyd during a telcon some years after the smoke had settled. I'm talking the original 1958 vintage kit with a Revell Authentic Kit logo in the lower right hand corner. The aircraft was identified on the boxtop as a Starfighter with Sidewinder Missiles but F-104 was nowhere to be seen.
  • Create New...