Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Garth

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

91 profile views
  1. I've seen two buildups of that kit (Blue Water Navy, I think), absolutely phenominal and better for the price than the 1/350 CV-6 (ran upwards of $900). But still WAY to expensive for anyone but the most obsessive collector. Of course us aviation modellers aren't immune to beautiful but niche subject/very high-priced kits. I've been drooling over just about every other Anigrand kit (A-12, YA-9A, YF-17, Yak-141, the just released XV-15, XC-142 and a few others) ... and could easily spend $500 on their kits. If I had $500 to spend on kits, that is --Garth
  2. Off thread, but regarding the AGS (NOT the rifle) there was an article recently (about the M1114 issue) about how the PA congresscritter where the tanks are stored is hopping mad that direction came down from senior leadership to reactivate them and that the Army found a way to reappropriate the funds elsewhere (like the USAF did when Congress mandated the return of the SR-71 in the 1990s) ... The article is out there somewhere, just have to find it. --Garth
  3. I've always had something of an interest in model railroading, but never the budget, space or time relative to my other interests to really get into it to the kind of level that I'd find satisfaction with (I LOVE going to the railroading shows and the like). However, a really NEAT alternative - one that I can involve my kids in - are Lego Trains. Lots of different and very cool options including an ATSF SuperChief: A BNSF Geep: And two different steam train options ... a general looking engine with tender: and the Hogwarts Express from Harry Potter:
  4. While Ranger was an experiment to see how big of an airwing could be put aboard a small, twin-screw hull and Wasp was a way to get the most out of the remaining treaty tonnage, I'm not sure either can really be called a "failure" inasmuch as they never fulfulled what I believe to be their intended roles circa 1941: operation as a screening/covering force for the battle line (with the fleet CVs acting in a more autonomous manner). They were "obsolete", at least in a sense, on the day WWII started for the US: when the battle line essentially ceased to exist. While other "obsolete" designs (li
  5. One thing to note is that the B737 deriv. that the USN has selected as its P-3 replacement will have at least one, possibly two, internal weapons bays (I've seen concepts with a bay forward of the wing and/or a bay aft of the wing). I'm not an engineer by any means, but my recollection is that older style airliners (B727 specfically) carried most of their passenger and cargo loads forward of the wing at something close to a 60-40 ratio (maybe even a bit higher than that). On a 727, a weapons bay forward of the wing a passenger/cargo equivilant load would be somewhere in the neighborhood of
  6. It would have been Pennsylvania, which was drydocked with Cassin and Downes at PH. California, thanks to quick and artful counterfloodding, sank on an even keel at the top of Battleship Row (almost exactly where the Missouri lies today). --Garth
  7. Try posting a request out on the HyperScale.com plane-related discussion group. Good group of guys, one of them probably has both the kit and the equipment/exprience needed to make a replacement canopy for you. --Garth
  8. You know, if your dad really has such serious issues with modelling, you could always try doing something that would REALLY freak him out. Like take up collecting Barbies. It would be well worth the $$$ invested ... give that a week or two and I guarantee that he'll come around - or at least start cutting you a break. My parents' only issue with my modelling, growing up, was how much time I devoted to it. Especially during summers (the basement WAS 15 degrees or so cooler than our un-airconditioned house, so there were multiple incentives for me to stay down there). My wife has time issu
  9. Ok, here's an anecdote that might apply ... guy I used to know was a real wiz at scratchbuilding and superdetailing. He'd make resin sets for his own projects and then sell or lease the masters to an aftermarket company for limited-run production and distribution. I think that Jacques hit the nail on the head with this ... there's very little ROI in this kind of business, and if you count the time (opportunity costs) that you'll have to put into making the masters, chances are you're not going to have anything near a positive ROI. I'd think that the only way you can justify it would be to
  10. I've used both paperclips (smaller variety) and sewing pins (the small ones that are left over when dress shirts are unwrapped for the first time). The holes should be amost exactly the same diameter, if not a fraction smaller to allow for a tight fit that doesn't require glue. I have an X-Acto pin-vise set that I picked up a number of years ago. Still have most of the bits, too, despite three major moves. You can find such sets at hobby shops, craft stores and even hardware stores (I think). A pin-vise is a must-have tool, imho ... you can use it for so many different things, from mount
  11. With regards to decaling, the white background is a necessity for any image that is not solid black. When laid onto the model, any color other than black that isn't on a white background is going to be transluscent and is going to look like cr*p. --Garth
  12. What do you mean by "damage". Are you attempting to permanently/semi-permanently affix the model to the plaque? If so, the likelihood of you "damaging" one or both is almost assured. For example, I have affixed models to plaques by sanding the bottoms of the tires so there is a small flat area. Then I drill holes in the flat area where I can insert cut-down paperclips. Once that is done, I figure out where the corresponding holes on the plaque will be and drill another set of holes. The result (so long as the paperclip sections fit snuggly into both sets of holes) is a nice solid join t
  13. I have a nice stash of well over 250 unbuilt kits. Of which mebbe 5 or 6 aren't aircraft. Reason? Well, besides just plain liking aircraft a LOT more than either vehicles or ships, it's just easier to go into a hobby shop and plunk down $10<>$20 on an aircraft kit than it is to stomach the >$35-$40+ armor kits. --Garth
  14. I've just "finished" two 1/72 Hase S-3s a high-viz late 70s scheme A and a NAVY 1 B. Finished except for arming them (and putting the intake warning chevrons - which I don't have decals of at the moment) on the intakes. Right now I'm working on the 1/72 Italeri F-22A. Not a bad kit all in all, it definitely needs some work and cajoling but I think the people who have become accustomed to Tamiyagawa "shake and bake" kits have given it a bad rap. Next up, I think, is going to be a 1/72 Italeri F/A-18F (since the Hase kit came out I've been finding these on sale for <$10.00, so I have
  15. VERY cool. And the Walleyes definitely add some "neatness" to the model. Question ... the Snakes on the centerline have "inert" blue bands, not "live" yellow, right? --Garth
  • Create New...