Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aaronw

  • Rank
    Life Member (Mon-Key Handler)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Redwood Empire
  • Interests
    Models, fire stuff, models of fire stuff

Recent Profile Visitors

16,037 profile views
  1. I remember these kits, neat to see one getting built.
  2. Sorry work has been keeping me away. Some nice choices
  3. I've seen this as well, good fun if you grew up watching these movies. Interesting even if you didn't.
  4. Fine Scale Modeler is a pretty good general subject modeling site, the tie in to the magazine results in a large number of members of varying interests and ability. http://cs.finescale.com/f/ Model Cars Magazine has a good forum for car models (in case the title doesn't tip you off). http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/
  5. Diamond plate is the common term, tread plate is another but can take other forms than the raised diamond shapes (raised lines, cross hatching, circles etc). Plastruct offers several varieties, but you can't go by their listed scale so it is best if you can get it from someplace where you can physically paw the product. I think the last time I bought it the HO scale tread plate was the best match for 1/25. They also offer a variety of patterns, not just the common alternating diamonds. On modern vehicles it is often bare aluminum, older vehicles typically used painted steel. There are alternatives to Plastruct but I've found that to be the best value giving you 2 large 8x11" (ish) sheets, many of the alternatives are 4x6" at the same or greater price. As a fire apparatus modeler I go through a fair bit of the stuff.
  6. That spacer in the wing is clever. I've run into that issue before but never thought of that solution, just relied on the brute force hold it in place until the glue cures with hit or miss results. The black looks almost like a very dark navy blue, does it come across that way in person or is it just a feature of the photography process.
  7. That kit offers an interesting version of the F117. I have to agree with you that the Two Bob's decals are probably more appropriate for the GB, although there is a small voice in my head saying do it OOB.
  8. Here is my issue, basically it comes down to military leadership is lazy. Doing the right thing is hard, time and time again they have chosen the easy way out until the civilian government that they work for says enough. Then it goes back to the whole well they don't "get it" they don't know how it is in the real world we work in and their soft civilian rules are going to get people killed. Understand I'm referring to the culture of top management not the individual service members. There is example after example of playing the "readiness" card when they are asked to conform to modern life, whether it is properly disposing of hazardous materials or treating their service members like employees of a 1st world nation, not disposable factory workers of the 1890s. You've responded before that raising the standards for women to that of men would practically eliminate women from military service, you have also said that having standards for combat troops and non-combat troops is not an option. Either seems to be workable to me. If it excludes a large number of women from service is that really a bad thing? We already exclude many men of small stature or with certain physical disabilities who would be able to meet the lowered women's standards. If they adopted a combat arms standard and a non-combat arms standard again you would open up the opportunities, women who could meet the higher standard would no longer be second class members of the organization, and the services would gain more potential recruits into non-combat operations. Does it really matter if a drone pilot weighs 300lbs, or has no legs. Does it really matter if an intelligence analyst has a brilliant mind for cryptography but also has bad asthma? I'm sorry but the race issues and gender issues are tough, deal with it. We expect these people to go into a country and kill the soldiers while protecting the civilian population. Do you really think that will happen in a force that can't keep its members from harassing its own members based on race, gender and orientation? The military can't keep its service members from raping other service members in peacetime and I'm supposed to believe that if they didn't have women serving that they would be able to prevent these people from raping the population at large during military operations? This is the 21st century, having a "break glass in case of emergency" force is no longer an option. We expect the military to be a professional, controlled force able to discriminate between friend, foe and non-combatant. The days of harassing the local population and acceptable collateral damage are over. If the current organization is unwilling or unable to meet these standards then perhaps there is a need for a major overhaul and re-organization. Don't blame the guys on the ground, it all stems from a leadership that chooses to look the other way.
  9. As they have lower standards for women, would you expect any other result? It seems pretty simple to me, one standard for combat troops male or female. I would be more sympathetic if the answer from the military for every change asked of them wasn't DOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!! The military has integrated minorities, women, and homosexuals into the service, each time insisting that it would have dire effects on combat efficiency, yet somehow the world still turns and we aren't speaking Russian, Chinese or Canadian. Not sure why I should believe the hype this time.
  10. Yeah, I found the color of plastic an interesting choice as well, there must have been a sale on abnormally bright baby blue plastic when they pressed this kit. :unsure:
  11. Sean, that is quite an ambitious program of work you have there. Those are both fine and fit right in with the theme.
  12. I thought I had some aftermarket decals, but I'm not finding them. Luckily the kit decals look to be in good shape, they just don't give any details as to the history of the markings, unit, date etc. I probably built this kit more than 30 years ago, I don't recall any issues with it. The kit I have appears to be a re-issue from 2000. I have 2 more in the stash one appears to be an '84 Monogram re-issue and another is a RoG boxing from '94. The instructions in the '84 kit include both 1984 and 1973 copyrights so I assume 1973 was the first issue of this kit. The 2 Monogram kits include the same decals, the RoG kit actually has the most interesting markings, but the decal sheet does not seem to be as well done, and the girl on the nose art is just a flesh colored more or less women shaped blob, no detail at all. A plus for the Monogram markings besides being better quality, they represent what is believed to be the aircraft used to score the first US air to air kill in the Korean War. Strangely nothing in the kit indicates this, I had to google the tail number to find that out.
  13. Apparently this guy couldn't be bothered to find out why they used black in the first place. Studies found black broke up the shape so the eye didn't recognize a tank (or man or jeep) outline it saw several individual blobs. These people have the attention spans of 3 year olds hopped up on Mountain Dew. It's like the quote posted in the F35 thread, where after spending a considerable amount of time explaining that the F35 totally makes the A10 redundant, and then in almost the next paragraph he explains that the USAF never planned for the F35 to replace the A10, they want to get a new dedicated CAS aircraft in the works to replace the A10.
  14. I've decided to start off with a Monogram F-82 Twin Mustang. I remember building this kit as a kid, so it has been around a while. The F-82 was initially designed as a long range escort fighter for use in the Pacific. The war ended before the fighter was delivered but due to delays in jet powered night fighters, and the short range of jet fighters, the F-82 found a new role replacing the P-61 as the USAF's primary night fighter / all weather interceptor as well as being used in its original role as a long range escort. F-82s stationed in Japan scored the first US air to air victories in the Korean war, and it continued to serve as a night fighter and long range night / all weather strike aircraft through 1951 when jet night fighters began to arrive.
  • Create New...