Aaronw

I saw this in the clearance rack at Michaels and just had to have it, being marked down to $11 just made it better. I love the cool action box art. Opened it up and found we share a birth year, 1967. Actually doesn't look bad for a kit pushing 50 years old, not a lot of parts but actually decent detail. The figures are not too bad either, a couple of crewmen and several frogmen (as advertised on the box lid ). I think this I can actually get finished over the next couple of months, I've had a terrible time finishing anything lately.

I've been struggling for ideas and this just fell into my lap. I was in Michaels and there in the clearance rack for $11 was this old Revell kit, UDT boat with frogmen. Inside the hull it is stamped 1967 so the kit is as old as me. I have accepted this as a sign from the modeling gods, and I am in.

Just because it isn't a Corsair, I'm going to say yes. and for anyone else wondering, slightly started is ok where the line is falls somewhere between a few pieces off the sprue and "just needs decals".

Patience, that is one of the most important things I've gained from models. The lesson that it is worth taking the time to do it right the first time, because rushing things tends to create more work. Also simple customization and scratch building. Maybe you can get some old for sale signs for the plastic sheet, some scraps or wire etc to show how easily one can add extra detail to a model. Also things like drilling out the end of an exhaust pipe or gun barrel. This kind of stuff is not really very difficult, and goes a long way toward a better looking model. Even some experienced modelers se

So what guidelines exist for accuracy? I picked up the old (1966 stamped into the castings) Revell / Monogram M48A2 on clearance for $9. I'm almost certain that the markings are pure fantasy, but it is clearly intended to be a tank used in the (then current) Vietnam War, and M48s were there... I got this kit with the same markings for my birthday somewhere 1978-80 and plan to build it mostly OOB. I picked it up to build for me, so not a big hardship if it is decided that it doesn't really fit the GB. In fact it is calling to me as I type so it may be complete before the GB starts... :wh

I saw that too, really well done if a bit depressing.

A similar article came out last year, and on another site there was a member who worked on the floor at Amazon pulling orders. He said much the same as Platycqb. He said the work was fast paced, but far from the sweatshop portrayed in the article (last year), and he felt as well treated as in any other warehouse job he had held previously. While there were performance standards he did not find them particularly hard to meet as long as you planned your work (pull the books that are close together before moving off to get books across the warehouse).

I understand the main issue against fixed wing tankers in Australia is a lack of suitable airports to support them. Turn around time is an important consideration, the faster speeds of the jet tankers may have turned the corner on that issue (suitable airports are still few and far between but flight times have been reduced). That doesn't explain the lack of smaller tankers (crop duster based aircraft) which can operate from primitive facilities or the lack of amphibians assuming a suitable source of water. There is also cost, firefighting aircraft are very expensive making any excuse not to

Something a little different, over the last 2 years I've managed to catch 4 of the 5 types of aircraft used by the US Forest Service Smokejumpers. The turbo prop DC-3TP (Basler BT-67) is the one that has eluded me, and it is scheduled for retirement at the end of the year. Since it is based out of Montana at this time odds are I won't be able to get it. :crying2:/> CASA 212-200 operated by Bighorn Airways of Wyoming. Assigned to the North Cascades Smokejumper base near Winthrop, WA Dornier 228-202 operated by Bighorn Airways of Wyoming. Assigned to the Region 5 Smokejumper base in Re

I remember going camping on the Russian River when I was in high school (mid 80s), heard this thing rumbling overhead and saw a B-17 flying low. I now know it was one of the last B-17 air tankers which were all retired by the late 80s. A few years later I started working for the US Forest Service, and on one of my first fires we were working on a steep hillside which put me nearly eye level with a PB4Y2 tanker that came in to make a drop down the hill from us. Used to get the S-2s, and DC-4,6,7s all the time. Now all that is left of the old piston tankers are the P2V-7 Neptunes and their da

RIP Those inserts in the Monogram kits really had an impact on me. The wrecked B-17 diorama inspired me to try doing something similar with a B-26 my cat knocked off the shelf. I'm actually quite surprised he was only 69, I always assumed he was much older. He must have been in his 20s when he started doing that work for Monogram.

This helped me a lot. I used to just throw everything into the main library which worked fine until a couple of years ago when they stared playing with things. Now every type of thing gets a folder, with each item within getting its own sub folder, occasionally a sub sub folder.

Cool, I was hoping you would answer this way. Like you said it was a global war and there were a lot of weird actions on the periphery that few have heard about but they make interesting model subjects. While the Sept-Mar / Apr-Sept is a neat idea, I hope you won't give up on it if the dates don't work out.

Yes! I've got a ton of normal stuff to fit into this, but also a couple of odd ones, so... What about involved non-combatants, Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, Portugal etc. They were not actively engaged, but they played a part enforcing their airspace and were quite involved on the diplomatic front. They also received a fair bit of war material to gain favor. What about nations prior to entry? The US was in theory neutral until the end of 1941, but was actively patrolling and (selectively) enforcing its neutrality since the invasion of Poland. Just opens a few doors to some lesser seen thi

Revolver guns work like a revolver handgun, except they can load during the operation unlike the small arms. Similar idea to the rotary gun, both having multiple chambers but the revolver gun only has a single barrel. Rotary cannons are better for sustained firing (more barrels to absorb heat), but the revolver gun is less complex with no requirement for an outside power source. A rotary cannon can be sustained by gas operation, but still requires power to get it going. I found one quote of 35hp or 25kW required to spin the M61. A revolver cannon gets up to speed instantly since it just has

I think you are being rather US-centric, note that most other nations have opted for revolver over rotary designs for their aircraft guns. The US has also typically chosen smaller caliber higher velocity rounds, while Europe has preferred a larger caliber. WW2 .50 vs 20mm / 30mm, Post war 20mm vs 27mm / 30mm.

The complete M61 Vulcan installation in most fighters weighs almost as much as a DH-2. :D

I think the GAU-8 has technological issues beyond the gun, the ammo plays a major part and is well beyond the known technology of the 1940s. Something else to consider with a B25, the strafers with gun packs had 14-18 forward firing .50 cals (a ROF of 11,200 - 14,400 rpm), so you are back to multiple M61s, a single gun in the nose drastically reducing ROF. Although for strafing M134 miniguns would be a possibility which could result in an insane number of bullets downrange. I think something being overlooked is the aircraft guns of WW2 were the peak of "standard" configuration weapons, the

M134 would have been useless by 1942. There is a reason most nations got rid of their ".30 cals", early in the war, they were all but useless once aircraft started to get more armor. At the start of the war the British favored lots of .303 Brownings (up to 12 in the Hurricane for a combined ROF of 14,400 rpm or more than double the M134), they quickly (by 1941) dumped this weapon set up for 20mm cannon. The Germans similarly started off in Spain with mostly 7.9mm mgs, but had gone to mostly cannon armed by 1940. Same with Japan (7.7mm) and the USSR (7.62mm) all of whom adopted 20mm armament

and then there were 2... The lines are open, caller 25 will win fame and fabulous prizes Ok maybe not fame but you will have the knowledge that you were that guy who got us that last yes vote to get this thing going. As far as prizes go.... well I've got an old tube of chap stick around here somewhere, I think it only a has little bit of lint and cat hair on it (the cat likes the flavor so tends to keep it clean they only way cats can... :blink: )

If I were king, we would have a fleet of late model P-3 Orions. It is the best tanker we have ever had in the US. I understand Canada has some L-188 Electras in service which are more or less the same as the P-3. Fast and powerful, good load capability (2500-3000 gallons), and new enough that parts are available without cannibalizing other potential museum pieces. Operating costs are considerably lower than the jets that are starting to come online. late model C-130s are not a bad second choice. Scoopers are not as common in the US, they are best where you have lots of lakes and few large air

The Mars is not the best or even the biggest. As long as the public continues to be gobsmacked by visually impressive big aircraft instead of actually efficient modern tankers we will continue to operate fleets of WW2 era aircraft with a few young pups that came of age during the Korean and Vietnam wars (S2 Tracker, P2 Neptune, P3 Orion / L-188 Electra, C130 Hercules). Except for a handful of "new" jet aircraft (20-40 years old) Bae-146 (1980s), MD-87 (1980s), DC10 (1970s) the only modern aircraft in the fleets in a sizable number are the less impressive CL-215/415 and crop duster based aircr

We don't get a lot of the CL-415s down here, but I've never seen one that could mix retardant, I know of no aircraft that can mix retardant. They can mix foam but that is quite a different thing. Retardant uses a dry powder containing fire retardant chemicals as well as thickening agents. It is mixed into the water (in the old days they would often use small cement mixers, these days they look more like giant kitchen mixers) and is then pumped onboard the aircraft. A gallon of water will get 1-2lbs of the dry powder added. Foam on the other hand can be injected into a tank of water, and is

Four more people.... I know there are a few more out there with a stash full of old kits you need to build.

I have never been hunting and have little interest in it, so I can't explain the attraction beyond food. Some big game hunting, and in fact a lot of that done today is for population control, a part of wildlife management so it does serve a purpose. In fact in some parts of Africa it serves a dual purpose, wildlife management and fund raising to support the agencies that maintain the preserves. People pay a lot of money to hunt these animals, and if it wasn't paying hunters killing some animals, it would be game wardens doing the killing. Of course much of the sport hunting of the past had n