Jump to content

Aaronw

Members
  • Content Count

    2,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Aaronw

  • Rank
    Life Member (Mon-Key Handler)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.geocities.com/cnf_e32/index.htm
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

16,168 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 alte
  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,
  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 s
  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 dedicat
  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 th
×
×
  • Create New...