VADM Fangschleister

Hoping for: 1/32 T-38 1/32 F-106 I know....I know. A dream too far.

..

Neil, This is quite impressive. I sincerely hope it all works out and that you proceed to grow your business and develop a following. We hardline modelers do desire ever-more-accurate and fun models to build and you seem to have your hand on the pulse of what we want. The 737 has rarely been modeled well, except for BPK. I taught the -300 for several years and it's a favorite. Maybe, hopefully, you'll be able to rival those who've put badly molded kits out there and replace their expensive-but-meager offerings. I personally would request a DeHavilland Comet 1/1A along with some others but before I go "all about me", I'll simply wish you all the good fortune such an endeavor can bring. Cheers Fang

...

..

..

So you say. Enamels are best. As years pass, the acrylics peel away. I agree that they may be losing market share but it has more to do with sky-is-falling environmental BS imposed by over-controlling governments rather than modelbuilder preference. Plus nanny parents who don't want their kiddly diddlies using that "toxic" enamel paint (based entirely on ignorance) as fumes from acrylics are as toxic, if not more so. I'm not buying your specious position.

So Rustoleum buys the paint line because they want to be the only ones producing small-batch paints. Then, they eliminate MM, cutting off dedicated modelers who've used it for years. What is the motivation? Is it some self-righteous move by corporate greenie-fiends who want to "save the planet" and decree that all enamel paints are evil? Or, is it because some guy who built models stole their girlfriends? I cannot, for the life of me, sort that it's a "business" decision. Since they own the rights to the paints, no one can pick it up and produce MM paints? No, I am NOT interested in converting to acrylics. No, I disagree that enamels are "bad for gaia" (eyeroll). Rustoleum can go suck it. Just another corporation that has now manipulated the market to their satisfaction and limited their production line---this is common for post 1990 businesses who've hired post-graduate weenies who studied economics from a comic book who are all on board with "maximum profits by ONLY producing the high-selling items". "We lose money on the hobby paint because we don't sell that much of it and it's expensive to produce" PHAGH! I have a large assortment of cusswords for them.

The Revell 1/72 is a bit of a disappointment and needs surgery to fix the nose. The 1/48 Fiberglass one from Russia is gorgeous but expensive. This thread caused me to purchase one of the NItto/Doyusha/Entex/Otaki 1/100 ones and I will build it faithfully as the prototype but with the visor dropped. I did not know until about ten years ago that there were two visor versions; One was the more solid type with the two small windows looking upward and the other was the more complex streamlined Lots-O-Glass version that went on the production machines. But I noted when in the UK that the retracted visor on the one looked similar to the other but I was not aware that the bigger, more sheet-metal version also retracted. Now it all makes perfect sense. Back then, no internet so no quick reference to how it looked retracted. Now there's lots. Also, the shorter tailcone and different engine configurations. Lots of minor but significant differences.

The best Concorde prototype kit is still the Entex/Doyusha 1/100 rendering of which there are many, many available. I remember building it in the 70's and being so disappointed that it wasn't a production machine. How my position on that has changed although....we still need a good 1/100 production version.

Stop Gum II, The Search For Spark.

Thanks Tim, I think I heard or read about it as such but don't remember where or from whom...so it stored in my memory as an imagined belief until you said otherwise. Either of those subjects would certainly be fun. The F-11 in Blue Angels colors would be sweet. I tried to order the Combat 1/32 F-84F but the person I emailed got the communication so bollocks'd I begged off. I requested the correct kit # and asked for pricing/availability and got a quote for an entirely different kit and such so I figured if they cannot do that right, why bother? I don't want to pay for something I don't want. It often happens that many of the people in the hobby business are not aware, through no fault of their own that an F-84E/G is not a "F" but makes no difference to them. This is not precisely what happened but I am using a simple example. In any case, though kits abound in the world today of a great many subjects that are quite incredible, none of them are anything I want. A 1/32 B-17 is certainly awesome and cool but...my tastes run to cold war jets and they are getting attention in 1/48, especially with the MiG-25 love that's been happening and some others. But I still desperately desire a 1/32 F-106 to add to the F-100, F-105, F-104 already kitted. Sorely missing are the Deuce and the 'Six. On a side note, the huge overpopulation of the Navy and air forces around the world with F-4's seemed (back then) to make a statement about the upcoming single-aircraft/multirole mission capability that so many politicians seemed to believe was simply a matter of a pen-wag. (*sigh*) In any case, an F-84F or F-11F in 1/32, being of roughly the same era would be a definite purchase for me.

370's and occasional C/L tank, ok. But no "exposed" munitions due to laws where they required closed doors, such as on the SUU-21 for BDU-33's and sometimes on the other side, Mk-106's. It was for safety reasons where an accidentally dropped munition could cause bodily harm or death or significant property damage. It was a requirement of the German government. I hauled/hung/moved hundreds of SUU-21's at Spang from 1980 to 1982. On Victor Alert, there were five "hot-cocked" jets with C/L nukes...B-61's, and during alerts (exercises) we loaded on the D's, Mk-82's on stas 2 & 8, on TER's or a LAU-88 with AGM 65's on it, or GBU-12's (one, ea) on stas 2 & 8, and on rare occasion, if the mission frag called for it, two AGM-45's, also on 2 & 8. It also wasn't uncommon to do a combat "quick turn" where an F-4 would either taxi out and come back to the same spot or one that had flown and returned to a TAB-V and get a Mk-82 hung or even a GBU-12. But that was for weapons-load proficiency evals vs. larger mission requirements but it all tied into the final "score" when the exercise was over. We did this a lot. 12 hour shifts for a week or more, chem-gear, C-rats and busting our butts for being ready against "Ivan". Once the conventional part was over, the entire flightline got special weapons and then we downloaded them and the jets would do the "elephant walk" to the runway, fast taxi on it, turn off and taxi back their spot. However, day-to-day, "going to the range" was a SUU-21 on either sta 2 or 8 sometimes one each and maybe with six BDU-33's each or one with BDU-33's and the other with Mk-106's. Never a gun pod though we loaded them occasionally, and always both 370's, sometimes with a centerline bag sometimes not. On very, VERY rare occasion, the SUU-21 might be loaded on the C/L. Another typical config would be a TGM-65 on a LAU-88 with the store on the bottom station. The "missile" would never leave the launcher (no motor) and was used for practice with the video acquisition/targeting. HTH

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually a Rolls Royce Welland in the F.1, never a Ghost or Goblin though the De Havilland Venom and Sea Venom had them as well as the Swedish Saab Trunnan. The one kit of the Tunnan has some engine parts but not very accurate and really just physical representations for when you look up the tailpipe or intake. I noticed the nice engine in the Meat-box kit and considered it but the mods I'd have to make kind of made it so that buying an expensive kit like that a little pointless. However, I also considered casting the parts that might work and scratchbuilding the rest. However....the project I'm prepping for may not need an engine to display after all for the access hatches all open downward and so you would never really see the engines in-situ. I was originally of the opinion that they were accessed from above, but no. It would still be nice to have one to display, in scale, with the model. I may just learn to carve sculpy and make my own castings. I don't know.

OK....looks like it'll be tech drawings, photos and putty. This is not going to be easy. I think I'm in need of a mini-course in sculpting.