Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

redwoodmodels

Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About redwoodmodels

  • Rank
    Tenax Sniffer (Open a window!)
  1. I don't know then. There's something weird about this kit. I can't figure out where it is...
  2. It's too wide. I've been looking at the real thing (we have one in our museum), and this kit is off. I couldn't figure out why, but I think someone has. It would explain why the canopy is flat too. I attached his picture to this post. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1898060503579560&id=736521713066784 His references: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/mcdonnell-f-101-voodoo-family-wars-and-conflicts-vietnam-war-general-boeing-kc-1 https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/mcdonnell-f-101-voodoo-family-wars-and-conflicts-vietnam-war-general-boeing-kc-4 The canopy doesn't fair smoothly into the fuselage, but it's not much wider at the canopy base than the canopy. The kit fuselage is at least twice as wide as that canopy. It just sort of balloons out with a really significant curve. Monogram is right. Kittyhawk is very, very wrong. https://www.evergreenmuseum.org/new-artifact-mcdonnell-f-101a-voodoo A too-wide fuselage would explain all the extra real estate in the cockpit bulkhead and consoles. They might want to measure this thing to see what else needs replacing before they proceed. It could be like the Hobby Boss Corsair II. Is anybody hearing anything about the RF's coming with the F-101B exhausts instead of F-101A/C exhausts?
  3. Hi. I'm interested in this too. Here are some references for the anniversary schemes. http://masm.fr/galleryjapanHelo.htm Beyond the antennas on the nose and the bulged windows, what's not in the kit?
  4. What is a 747-400P? Can it be repainted in a different livery and still be right? What kind of changes need to be made to paint it up like say Quantas? BTW, where do you get 747-400 decals? I like colorful special event paint schemes.
  5. Win 7, like all other Windows, sucks for viruses. Just had to toss a Win 7 machine because of a BIOS virus it got through some version of trojan.fakeAV. I'm wondering if a properly configured XP machine isn't more resistant than 7. For example, partition hd w/ C as small (70-80 Mb) dummy drive with windows directory filled with a few junk files, D as Win, E as data, with a good virus guard. That computer has been up and running with no major problems for 3 years. The new Win 7 box has been formatted twice in less than half as much time. I don't think any mainstream computer beats Mac for virus protection. Linux is only better than Mac because both are Unix based and there are even fewer viruses out there for Linux to get.
  6. We used to have to watch this explosives safety video of 6 Mk 82's exploding under the wings of a Voodoo (IIRC) in a hardened aircraft shelter. They detonated one bomb and it set off the rest, reducing the shelter to rubble and blowing the 40 ton doors completely off their tracks. Is that online somewhere?
  7. Hell YES. I spent 15 years working on PC's. Worked on Macs for 3 months and will never buy another PC for my personal use. Almost everything I've spent all those years complaining about with PC, works on Mac. They've got other problems, but they don't affect me.
  8. Aside from the billions spent on the stadium, you loose the revenue the money could have generated if it was spent on something that generated revenue. For example, according to Mark Zandi at Moody's, every $1 spent on nonrefundable tax credits generates $1.01 in economic activity. So for every dollar you spend on that you earn a penny. However, every $1 spent on food stamps generates $1.79 in economic activity because the people receiving food stamps spend every single cent they earn (poor = spend more than you earn) while the people getting the tax credits don't (rich = earn more than you spend). So you loose $.78 cents on every dollar spent that way. For sports, we're loosing the money that money could have created. Also, we spend billions on these stadiums and to pay for it, we either raise taxes (which they say kills jobs = lost revenue) or we cut spending (demand = jobs, which means more lost revenue). Plus, because we're in a massive deficit, the money were spending is borrowed, which means the taxpayer is on the hook for the interest on that debt. Not only that, but most of the cuts come from education (always the first cut)which means we loosing both the spending and devaluing our workforce because they're not as well educated as they would be, which lowers their earning ability long term. So not only are we loosing money on the money were spending (lost earnings on the money), but spending the money is also costing us tons of money in several different ways with long term compounding losses because of the kind of money it is (tax dollars during a defict). Then there's the 0% interest taxpayer funded loans and bonds and other nonsense they're getting. That interest is lost income for the US taxpayer because we could have loaned that money to someone that would have paid us for it. Then there's the money lost when these sports teams overspend. If they can't pay back those 0% interest taxpayer loans, the taxpayers are out the money they borrowed. Even if it isn't our money we loaned, the governments (city, state, federal) in order to coax the teams to exist in a specific city guaranteed those loans, so if they don't pay, it becomes taxpayer debt. Then there's the tax revenue lost because of the sweetheart deals they get in the form of tax credits/cuts. If these sports teams are a business like everyone says they are, they should be paying taxes like every other business, right? Why aren't they? Why is the crap they sell in the stadiums tax free for the people selling it? Why aren't the teams themselves paying taxes on their revenue like Bob's tire shop around the corner does? Here's two more sources: "For example, from 1994–2000 owners of professional sports teams spent over $8 billion on building new stadiums and arenas and another $1 billion renovating existing facilities. Funding of $5.4 billion, approximately 60%, came from state and local governments. The public largesse since then appears to be increasing, if anything. A leading textbook on sports economics reported that 25 new stadiums and arenas were scheduled to open from 2000 to 2006. They would receive $5.5 billion in public funding, an average subsidy of $220 million per facility and equal to 63% of the total funding."1 1 The data from 1994–2000 are from Rappaport, J., and Wilkerson, C. (2001) What Are the Benefits of Hosting a Major League Sports Franchise?, Economic Review, First Quarter 2001, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, p. 57. The data from 2000–2006 are from Fort, R. (2006) Sports Economics, 2nd edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall), p. 338. I found that in a report here: http://www.palgrave.com/economics/tresch/example/pdfs/Example20.3.pdf That's fine, but these sports teams need to be economically viable without taxpayer subsidies just like we require of most small businesses. If that means no multimillion dollar salaries, then that's what they should deal with. Let them survive on their own earnings instead of taxpayer dollars. Get rid of the antitrust exemptions and let them compete in a free market like small businesses have to. 80% of the jobs in America are created by small businesses. I don't think any business should be getting any benefit from anyone at any level of government that small businesses don't get. Let these professional sports teams compete on the same playing field all other businesses (and most Americans) have to compete on. And we're not going to have the money to fix any of those things as long as we're wasting it on over priced luxury items. Creating jobs should be our first priority because nothing else can happen until Americans can get a job. Right now, every single dollar we spend needs to be spent in whatever way generates as much economic activity as possible, adds value to our country, and adds value to our workforce. Those three things are where our money should go. Everything else is a luxury.
  9. Agreed. Plus playing sports does a lot for the kids. It's amazing the difference those experiences make in their lives. I was watching a softball game a few years ago and I couldn't help but be amazed by the connection between the mothers on the sidelines and their daughters on the field. The mothers, many of whom where once running those same bases 15 years earlier, watching/coaching their daughters, who will one day coach their daughters, who will coach their daughter, and so on. Plus, sports is where dads get to be dads. Teaching their girls to throw, catch, tactics...Guys where nothing else is working in their lives (ie lost jobs, divorce, etc) got to shine for their kids while they were teaching them how to play. This one guy I knew was so freaking beat down because of what happened to him this recession, but on the field coaching his kids, he became what I remember him as. Family is everything. I think the other thing to remember is that if we're going to spend billions of our tax dollars (see previous page) on something while we're $14 Trillion in debt, it should be something that adds value to our country and our economy. You build a new high capacity bridge, electric power grid, highways, lakes/rivers for irrigation, and all the other infrastructure that the Chinese are currently building with our money, you add value to your country. Education adds value to your workforce. The experience kids and their families get from playing sports makes them more valuable to our economy. Going even deeper into debt and raising taxes so these guys can get multi-million dollar salaries is a horrific waste of money when there are lots of people who'd love to play for free and who need the experience they'll get from doing so. Minimum wage is $15,080. You could double the income of 10,600 minimum wage earners with that ONE guy's paycheck. All of those people want to spend money. They want buy food for their families. They want to pay bills. They want to go places and cant. They want to have health care and cant afford insurance. Half of Americans earn less than $32,000 per year (2 minimum wage jobs per family). A HUGE proportion of Americans can't afford to live in America anymore. Giving that money to those people generates economic activity. Demand creates jobs. You hire people to make something you can sell. Period. So, we need people to be able to buy stuff. Spending billions (especially when you're spending taxpayer money - they say higher taxes kills jobs) on professional sports is like buying a 52 inch plasma screen TV when you're going bankrupt and can't afford food and rent. I think while we're $14 Trillion in the red and the economy is in the toilet, we really can't afford to spend billions to subsidize professional sports. Especially when the kids are so much more entertaining. Sorry for all the edits. I need caffeine this morning.
  10. "In 2009, the richest 10% of Americans accounted for about half the nation's wealth. Narrow that focus a bit further, and the trend is even more alarming. The top 0.1% -- those who make at least $2 million each year -- controlled 10% of the economy. That's a far cry from the 1950s, when the suburban American dream ruled: the bottom 90% of Americans controlled about 68% of the economy." http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/news/economy/income_inequality/index.htm?iid=EL I'm pretty sure that's NOT me. In dollars: "Taken literally, the top 1 percent of American households had a minimum income of $516,633 in 2010 — a figure that includes wages, government transfers and money from capital gains, dividends and other investment income. That number is down from peak of $646,195 in 2007, before the economic crisis hit, all adjusted to 2011 dollars, according to calculations by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the bottom 60 percent earned a maximum of $59,154 in 2010, the bottom 40 percent earned a max of $33,870, while the bottom 20 percent earned just $16,961 at maximum. As Annie Lowrey points out, that gap has grown wider over time: “The top 1 percent of households took a bigger share of overall income in 2007 than they did at any time since 1928.” (And in New York City, it’s even more skewed: the top 1 percent have an average of $3.7 million in income.) When you look at the disparity in net worth, things look even more skewed. Wealthier Americans have assets — in home equity, stocks and other investments — that generally outstrip their cash income. Average wealth of the top 1 percent was almost $14 million in 2009, according to a 2011 report from the Economic Policy Institute. That’s down from a peak of $19.2 million in 2007. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/who-are-the-1-percenters/2011/10/06/gIQAn4JDQL_blog.html That's really NOT me. Let's look globally, like you mentioned: "only $2161 was needed in order to belong to the top half of the world wealth distribution, but to be a member of the top 10 per cent required at least $61,000 and membership of the top 1 per cent required more than $500,000 per adult." (Davies et al. 2006, p. 25) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_inequality Yep. Any way you look at it, I'm definitely still NOT in the 1%. Are you? Thought this was interesting: "Currently, the richest 1% of people in the world receives as much as the bottom 57%." http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php (emphasis added) That's insane.
  11. That is absolutely true and something that freaking haunts me. Not to get all religious on you, but Matthew 25:31-46. I loose sleep thinking about the inequity of what you're saying above. That is something I desperately want to do something about and have no idea how to even begin addressing. Actually, most things in professional sports are exempt from antitrust regulation one way or another, which means that almost everything sports is NOT free market. But baseball especially: Baseball's Con Game - How did America's pastime get an antitrust exemption? - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2002/07/baseballs_con_game.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act Actually, they did exactly that when they raised everybody's taxes to subsidize professional sports. "During the 20th century, more than $20 billion has been spent on major league ballparks, stadiums, and arenas. This includes a minimum of $14.7 billion in government subsidies that has gone to the four major league sports —Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League —including more than $5.2 billion just since 1989. These numbers (all in 1997 dollars) exclude the billions of dollars in subsidies provided through the use of tax-free municipal bonds, interest paid on debt, lost property and other tax revenues not paid on facilities, taxpayer dollars placed at risk of being lost if the venture failed, direct government grants to teams, and the billions of dollars spent by taxpayers on minor league facilities. Looking to the rest of 1999 and the next several years, considering what is already agreed to and what various teams and cities are seeking or proposing, another conservative estimate indicates that at least $13.5 billion more will be spent on new ballparks, stadiums, and arenas for major league teams. Taxpayers are expected to pay more than $9 billion of that amount (in nominal terms)." http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-339es.html I generally don't like, trust, or quote the CATO institute because they're a right-wing (libertarian) think tank that often bends the data to suit their beliefs. I only posted the above because found a second source to back up some of what they're saying (see below). Please feel free to take their numbers with a grain of salt if you wish, but know that it is a fact that the money spent by these sports teams raises our taxes. People can't have it both ways. Either higher taxes kill jobs or they don't. They've been screaming for 30 years that they have to lower taxes to create jobs. Well, professional sports is NOT paid for by the teams and the revenue they generate, it's paid for partially through US TAXPAYER subsidies. Back in 1997 when sports teams weren't wasting anywhere near as much money as they are today: "Some taxpayers get stuck paying more than others, the authors say. In San Francisco, where voters first balked at more expensive stadium proposals for the Giants baseball team and the 49er football team, the $200 million-plus subsidy for two new stadiums probably will cost each city resident about $10 a year for 25 years, Noll calculates. In neighboring Oakland, the recent $135 million in renovations for the Raiders and Warriors will probably cost that city's smaller population about $50 per capita per year, and the Oakland Athletics are still threatening to leave unless something is done for them. In Seattle, where the voters also initially balked, the Seahawks managed to win a statewide referendum to spread the costs over the state's population, and in Cincinnati, new facilities for the Reds and the Bengals will be subsidized by a sales tax throughout the metropolitan area. In New York, where the Yankees want at least $800 million from the city for a new stadium in Manhattan, it would be cheaper if the city fathers simply gave the Yankees a cash bribe of $10 million a year, Noll facetiously says. "Even better, the city could pay $100,000 for each game won, with a million-dollar bonus for winning the pennant." In nearly all cases, Noll says, federal taxpayers are also being hit hard. They provide about 30 percent of the local subsidy in the form of tax-free bonds that the cities sell to build the facilities. The 1986 Tax Reform Act encourages cities to subsidize stadiums, because they can only sell tax-exempt bonds if the revenues from the stadium account for less than 10 percent of their debt service. " http://news.stanford.edu/pr/97/971218stadiums.html If higher taxes do kill jobs and the economy like they've been saying they do, then this guy's paycheck and all the other taxpayer dollars being wasted by these sports teams is in fact costing jobs and killing the economy. I would LOVE to see those massively inflated salaries be "economically viable" WITHOUT all the taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, exemptions from free market competition, and other taxpayer/government handouts they get. If these salaries really are justifiable, then they should be able to pay them without taking a single cent from any taxpayer and without a bunch of legal/tax exemptions that most small businesses don't get.
  12. The pressure regulator on compressors like this generally suck snot at low pressure. The gauges are generally inaccurate and the valve is imprecise. You won't really ever know if you're airbrushing at 13 or 18 psi except by the problems you're having. Iwata makes an inline pressure regulator that'll give you better control. http://www.dickblick.com/products/iwata-airbrush-accessories/?wmcp=google&wmcid=products&wmckw=25055-1003 The quietest compressor I've ever seen/heard is the Quietzone. http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Quietzone+compressor&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=11463755404781109190&sa=X&ei=0vDUTp_LMMqsiQKeueTBDg&ved=0CFAQ8wIwAA Walmart has a similar version with a GMC sticker on it, I think. http://www.walmart.com/ip/GMC-Generators-GMC-SYCLONE-4610-Ultra-Quiet-Oil-Free-Air-Compressor/13997351?findingMethod=rr My Quietzone is so quiet that I can run it in my apartment at night and my neighbors don't hear it. The tanks hold enough air that, unlike my old airbrush compressor, it only kicks on once or twice during painting a color on most of my 1/48th scale jobs (at most, if ever), and when it does kick on, the tanks absorb the surge of pressure so that I don't get spots in my paint. I find that I don't need a moisture trap because the water condenses in the tanks and never makes it to the hose. However, remember to drain the tanks frequently. It has enough power to do anything I can think of with it. The cheapest place to get the fittings for a compressor is at harbor freight. Get one of their hose kits with the air nozzle/tire adapter and all of the little brass fittings for like $15, because all of those brass fittings (especially the quick release) cost like $8 each at Home Depot.
  13. I just looked into this. The Academy PBY cowls are drastically smaller than the Airfix nacelles in diameter. It looks like it'd be a VERY difficult conversion to do using the Quickboost parts (assuming they're of similar size for the kit they're supposed to fit).
  14. I'm guessing this one will have to be scratch built. But I'd need parts like the lanterns and the wheels. Anybody make anything useful for that?
  15. Anybody know of a kit or whatever of a 1946 Ford Convertible like the one used in Back to the Future? I know someone that's interested in modeling, but she wants that specific car. I'd prefer the standard 1/24-25th scales, but she probably doesn't care.
×
×
  • Create New...