Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About madmanrick

  • Rank
    E Sempre L'Ora
  • Birthday 07/09/1960

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    East Village, Manhattan
  • Interests
    Models, music and collecting. I also enjoy traveling and camping.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,352 profile views
  1. Sio, respectfully it is not my place to tell you how to run your business. You seem to be capable enough at it. However, speaking only for myself, these vague "I know, but won't tell" posts don't sit well with me. I do not believe this to be the appropriate forum for the airing of those types of grievances. Surely none of us here are qualified to adjudicate your claims, nor do we have the authority. I also do not believe it is an appropriate forum for the company bashing that has gone on here, tbh. Discussing the minutiae of the kit and potential fixes and workarounds on the other hand ARE what this forum should be for in my opinion. However, not my forum, not my rules, just expressing my opinion is all.
  2. Listen, the stewardess in me resembles that remark! 😜😜😜
  3. You Squids sure talk funny! 🤣🤣
  4. Gives a whole new meaning to "Smokin' O.P.'s" 😎
  5. First we would need to figure out how to prevent struts that are meant to piston up and down in use, settle in and be satisfied with being static. No easy answer that.
  6. Are similar blemishes present on the clear parts that fit in the separate frame?
  7. I agree this is off-base. While there are some that ARE trying to actively dissuade people from buying this kit, I have never gotten the sense that Zactoman was one. Perhaps you confused him with one of the other posters, IDK? But, Zactoman as an axe grinder doesn't fit in my narrative. But opinions are like, well you know, we ALL have 'em.
  8. Mark, Happy New Year to you and yours as well! Speaking only for myself, I find your comments are usually fairly middle of the road. So I see no reason for apologies, but in the spirit they were given, so shall your sentiments be reflected. The rest of you rat bast.....I kid, Happy New Year to all! 🥂🥂🥂🥳🥳🥳
  9. While I don't speak for Sio or AMK, I took what he said about "bashing AMK" to not be about constructive analysis. But more the mindless plastic/Company hate a few have engaged in. No need to point out names or specific posts, we've all read the same posts. In my mind there is a complete disconnect between something like what Zactoman (just as an example) has done with and for the kit and what the select other few have done in regards to spewing vitriol. You are more than free to disagree, just my take on what Sio said FWIW.
  10. Neo, I got the same emails from Sincere and replied. Received my 3 kits fairly soon after. What email address are you using?
  11. Thank you Sio, the same to you and the AMK family. Best wishes for the coming year and hopefully we'll see that Annetra Mi-17 soon!
  12. The Navy didn't decide that it's next fighter aircraft have the features you mentioned, McNamara in his infinite wisdom pushed the Air Force and Navy to share a common airframe, in order to save on development costs and that Air Force TFX proposal was where those design elements derived from. This led to the F-111B an airframe that was forced upon the Navy by DefSec. The other mistake made was designating the USAF as the project manager, thereby ensuring that while the F-111 may fulfill their needs (and this is endlessly debatable), almost nothing about the 111 would fulfill the Navy's. Something you forgot to mention is that the AF/Navy had learned its' lesson regarding a lack of onboard guns and this was yet another feature lacking in the B. The crew capsule was part of the 111's weight problem, it added unnecessary weight and complexity and the USAF also chose to ditch (no pun intended) the crew capsule concept with the B-1. The side by side seating was something the Navy had done away with in designing fighter/attack aircraft in the '50's. Lastly, the swing wings were a very popular design choice in the '60's. With the possible exception of the Su-24 and Tornado (both of which began design work in the '60's), they really haven't been used since, again weight and complexity being the death kneel (and before you jump and say B-1, the B-1 was initially designed in the '60's to replace the failed B-70 and wasn't actually put into production until the 80's). TBH and you are going to HATE this, the F-111 was an aircraft the USAF didn't want and didn't really need. They had to search for a mission for the airframe and as you yourself admitted, it wasn't until the F model, that the airframe even began to realize its' potential. TAC had cheaper, more versatile options available for flying bomb trucks and SAC surely could have used an airframe with the range to actually reach the targets it was intended to strike, without having to rely on a string of aerial refuelings. While the 111 may be sexy(?), it was not really an effective combat aircraft, when you evaluate cost vs. capability. It is no wonder that the 111 was retired 10 years before the Tomcat.
  13. In my opinion, nothing says Cold War Navy, more than the Tomcat. I also don't think it hurt having the Tomcat in a couple of movies and various video games. All of those raised its' stature to mythic proportions. Lastly, while it may have been underpowered in its' early iteration (the "A" model), the "B" and even more so, the "D," made up for that.
  14. Psshh...Yet ANOTHER AMK shill. "When the fuselage was joined together, I only had a small area fill gaps." This simply cannot be, when the "well-informed internet surfers" tell us that this kit is a putty hog and unbuildable by even THE most experienced builder? <sarcasm off> Great job Paolo, looks like a Tomcat to ME!
  • Create New...