GCA333 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Yes I am. It sounds like there is quite a bit of support for this GB! I hope it turns out that way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brady Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I'm all about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Sweet! Thanks for everyones support! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Nirel Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 All this talk of a group build has got me motivated. Don't worry, I've got a few saved that I won't touch until kick-off! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Nirel Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) .................. Edited October 22, 2008 by Ed Nirel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Those look pretty close to completion. I think the kits have to be non started for a GB. Not sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Trojan Thunder Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Those look pretty close to completion. I think the kits have to be non started for a GB. Not sure. Gareth, It's up to the moderators to decide what percentage complete started kits can be. if you want to see a lot of models inthe completed thread you may want to consider well started kits? I konw some GBs allow up to fuselage put together etc. I have a couple I have started, one of which would fit into the GBNF theme nicely. it is my 747-300 conversion which I have spliced the fuselage parts from the Revell 200 and 400 together. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
carioca Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Leading to another important question: who will moderate the GB? I vote for Gareth, naturally. :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flyfort17 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Would a MATS Constellation qualify for this GB? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'll have to talk to Felix, but I think we will allow military transports (to a point). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Still nothing from admin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boeing767mech Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I'll have to talk to Felix, but I think we will allow military transports (to a point). If we did that then it wouldn't be an AIRLINER MODELING group built??? It would be a transport aircraft group build. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Yeah, you are right. No go for those. Sorry! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Nirel Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Those look pretty close to completion. I think the kits have to be non started for a GB. Not sure. I wish! Mostly just fuselages together with some primer to find the gaps. Everything else is just set in place or taped up. I did say that I was going to save some for the actual group build... :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Nirel Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Yeah, you are right.No go for those. Sorry! That's too bad. There's a lot of airliners that simply wear military colors. I can understand excluding a C-130 that was designed as a military transport, but how about the 757 as Air Force Two? That's not really a military transport. How about a compromise? If it was designed and built (in the real 1/1 world) to be an airliner, then I think it should be allowed. If it was designed and built to be a military transport, then it's out. How about this: No camouflage or flat colors if in military colors. There are some beautiful, colorful military paint schemes (like the 757 AF2, or the connie, etc.), that would do well among their civilian counterparts. Edited October 22, 2008 by Ed Nirel Quote Link to post Share on other sites
David Walker Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Or the C-9A/B. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
flyfort17 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 That's too bad. There's a lot of airliners that simply wear military colors. I can understand excluding a C-130 that was designed as a military transport, but how about the 757 as Air Force Two? That's not really a military transport. How about a compromise? If it was designed and built (in the real 1/1 world) to be an airliner, then I think it should be allowed. If it was designed and built to be a military transport, then it's out. How about this: No camouflage or flat colors if in military colors. There are some beautiful, colorful military paint schemes (like the 757 AF2, or the connie, etc.), that would do well among their civilian counterparts. I would be out if this was not allowed. I would like to build my connie with the MATS decals it came with. I would really like to build it with TWA decals. But nobody seems to make them. To bad. A Connie with no TWA is like coffee with no caffine. JMO :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Let me see with Felix. Edited October 22, 2008 by GCA333 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Felix and I are working on it. I am getting PM's from both sides, and will respond to all of them. Any questions, please contact me. Edited October 26, 2008 by GCA333 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
indydog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) I'm in. When we find out when it will take place, I'll decide what to build. I would really like to build it with TWA decals. But nobody seems to make them. The Heller 1/72 is available with TWA markings. Kinda pricey thou... that one even includes microscale Blue Angel decals. In 1/144, RoG makes a nice 1049 Super with TWA and Lufthansa markings. Here's a link to one on Ebay. Edited October 23, 2008 by indydog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
svaz Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 We decided no Military aircraft. This is airliners. I think there is an upcoming GB for military transports.Sorry, but we want to stay airliners. -Gareth Works for me. mmmm, would either of these two qualify? Gorlitsa Airlines An-26 Shar Ink An-74 I guess custom decals would be in order. Sure would make a nice change from Aeroflot white/gray ... Alright, enough of the eye-poking. His Noodleness knows I have enough airliners to do something serious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GCA333 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 WOW! That Shar Ink one is beautiful! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed Nirel Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 We decided no Military aircraft. This is airliners. I think there is an upcoming GB for military transports.Sorry, but we want to stay airliners. -Gareth The upcoming transport group build is for "trash haulers." I wouldn't think a 747, 757 or DC-9 would fit in (though some might argue that AF1 and AF2 haul trash all the time...). Do trash haulers have flight attendants? Not the last time I checked. Military airliners do... You've stated that you want to get as much participation as possible, but you've already exluded a group of airliner subjects based on the operation/ownership of the airliner. Again, JMHO, but I think a reasonable compromise would be to include subjects that are designed and produced as airliners, but just happened to be picked up by a government for official use. No camo, no flat paint schemes, and no "weapons systems." If it's primary, original purpose is to carry passengers, then I think it's an airliner. I can find the C-32 on Airlinercafe.com. It looks like they think it's airliner material. Airline Hobby Supplies lists items for Air Force One. They too think it's airliner material. What about cargo companies? Are those aircraft airliners? What about private aircraft like Travolta's 707? How about NASA's 757? The Orbis DC-10? A BBJ? An aircraft in manufacturer's colors? My point is that this group build should be inclusive as much as possible rather than exclusive, and there are a bunch of interesting options out there that, while they aren't for-profit, passenger carrying entities, they are based on an airliner. Airliner builders seem to be the minority on ARC and I would hope that we would want people encouraged to build airliners rather than turned away because of the paint scheme. I think it's a shame that at least one person who wants to participate in the group build has been turned away because of the paint they want to put on their airliner kit. I agree that a line should be drawn, and I've made the suggestions above. I don't think that an E-3 should be included, but I do think there is room for a VC-137. This is a proposed "group" build, right? How about a poll or something to get the consensus of the group that's interested? Ok, I'm off my soapbox. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
svaz Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I think Ed hit a pretty good measuring stick: if it has a full-time flight attendant, it's an airliner. Whattayasay? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
indydog Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 include subjects that are designed and produced as airliners, but just happened to be picked up by a government for official use. No camo, no flat paint schemes, and no "weapons systems." If it's primary, original purpose is to carry passengers....What about cargo companies? Are those aircraft airliners? What about private aircraft like Travolta's 707? How about NASA's 757? The Orbis DC-10? A BBJ? An aircraft in manufacturer's colors?.... I don't think that an E-3 should be included, but I do think there is room for a VC-137. I second that idea, I hadn't even considered cargo companies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.