Sunday, September 25, 2016
To The References!
I used to know this guy, way back in the 60s when I was working my way through college at Dibbles Arts and Hobbies, who's most immediate claim to fame was something he said pretty much each and every time he'd come into the store. Someone would raise a question about a new kit, or a way to convert an older kit into a variant other than what the manufacturer had intended, or a new decal sheet, or pretty much anything having anything to do with scale modeling, and Don's first and most immediate comment would be an ardently-presented rendition of his favorite saying: "To the references!" That imperative would cause us to begin pulling books down off the shelves so we could all look up the airplane in question and then either settle, or perhaps prolong, the discussion. Which way things went honestly didn't matter very much because the exercise was a lot of fun in and of itself and we all learned from it.
That was then, and this is now. The references we used some 50+ years ago are still around for the most part, as are countless other books, but for most people the go-to reference of choice now lies within a collection of cold and impersonal electrons known as the internet. It's all there, isn't it? Anything you ever wanted to know about pretty much anything is hiding somewhere on the web, so you really don't need much besides a computer in order to document that new model you're building. Nope---no more costly and largely boring reference books, and no more exorbitant cash outlay to build your very own library. All you have to do is click a mouse and you're there, information at your fingertips as it were, and for free.
There is, however, one tiny little catch to the whole thing. That free information you can drag off the 'net isn't always entirely correct and is, in fact, quite often wrong! Yep, you heard me; a lot of that free information to be gleaned off the internet can be anywhere from a little bit to a whole bunch incorrect, which often places things into a category we might choose to call "useless". Here's why:
Back in the pre-internet days research was done manually, by what we could hope was the exhaustive study of source documents and photographs that were sometimes easily available in a public (or private) library, or were perhaps more difficult to access because they lived in a repose of genuine study such as the National Archives. Serious research could, and often did, take substantially more time than it took to author any of the books that resulted from such a study.
There were, of course, different kinds of authors back then, just like there are today. Some, the good ones, would take the necessary several years researching a book that they were subsequently able to write in several months. The other kinds of authors, and there were several varieties of them, were generally content with using secondary sources in order to gather their information, and their work showed it. That difference is why some of those books have easily withstood the test of time and are go-to references even today, while others from the era are found in the sale bin at Half Price Books.
Let's take that state of affairs, update it somewhat, and apply it to the internet. First, there's a lot of good news out there, because there are a ton of source documents that have been scanned by the agencies or companies that control them and have been placed on the 'net for free, there for everyone to use for research. What we once had to accomplish by making a trip to DC, or Maxwell, or any of the other repositories of knowledge that we utilized can now be done by spending the same amount of time on the internet presuming, of course, that the researcher is willing to take the time to actually read those documents, organize them in a meaningful way, and make use of them. Most people don't do that, because it's a whole lot of work to properly research the docs and then actually make something of that research.
What happens all too often is a quick and dirty search of the most obvious things to be found by means of a computer, and then the regurgitation of the information thus discovered (and often misunderstood) as gospel truth. Sometimes that works but more often it doesn't, because it's no longer the age of print and there isn't a team of editors fact-checking references (presuming references are even given) to make sure everything is as correct as it can be. The sad fact is that most web sites occasionally exhibit sloppy or incomplete research that ends up being published as The Gospel Truth for all to read and assimilate.
There's a huge exception to that, of course: The First Person Account, wherein somebody who was actually there and participated in the event, whatever it was, provides a written account and shares it with us all. That sort of thing is generally treasure beyond compare, because you get to hear what the guy who did it has to say about it. Yes, it's often opinion, but it's first-person opinion and can constitute primary research presuming, of course, that we're savvy enough to read it and compare what was said against what we already think we know.
Here's the point, then. A whole bunch of what you need in order to research that airplane, or those markings, or that flyer's exploits, is indeed out there in Internet Land, just waiting for you discover it and do something with it, but it's masked by a tremendous amount of incomplete and misleading information (which we might want to call "horse poot") and you're going to have to dig a bit in order to make use of it. Very few modelers will actually take the time to do that and will continue to rely on the efforts of others, perpetuating the problem in the process. What are you going to do?
To the references!!!
An Easy Way to Do It
A couple of months ago I purchased a 1/48th scale Eduard Spitfire Mk XVI and actually built it, which was followed by one of the new Airfix Spitfire Mk Vbs, which I also built. That wasn't enough to slake the thirst, as it were, so I'm presently hip-deep in a Pacific Coast Spitfire Mk XIVc, and, after completing two other iterations of the "Spit" family, finally started thinking about what it was I was doing! The primary objects of my concern this time around, and probably yours too at one point or another if you choose to build a Spitfire of any flavor, are those darned wing-walk stripes that usually appear on the upper wing panels on models of Dr. Mitchell's Finest, represented for the most part by really fiddly decals included with the kits that are almost always a royal pain to work with. That pain led me to consider alternatives which drove me back to those halcyon days of 1969, which was when I first figured out how to deal with such things as this.
While we're here and discussing this particular kit, there are a couple of other things I think I ought to mention before we leave the Pacific Coast Spitfire XIVc:
The kit is pretty easy to get together and would make an ideal first short-run kit for someone with modest skills. There's minimal photo-etch and resin, and almost everything fits together pretty well too. What's provided in the kit is largely accurate but there are a couple of tiny issues you should be aware of if you choose to build one for yourself.
The model as given is a Mk XIVc, and the decals that come with the kit are, with one exception, for the Mk XIVe variant. The difference between the two isn't huge but you'll have to relocate the shell ejection ports for the 20mm guns if you choose to model an XIVe and move the fairings on the upper wing surfaces too---those fairings are separate parts so your only difficulty will be in moving the ejection ports. The decals that work for the model straight out of the box, as a Mk XIVc, are for RB159/DW-D from 610 Squadron. All the others are for the e-winged variants which means you really can't use them on a box-stock (unmodified) model. (And a further note for anyone contemplating building Lacey's YB-A; the colors should be grey and green, not dark earth and green, and the airplane did not feature clipped wings. Of course it's a XIVe as well, but we figured you'd want to know...)
While we're dealing with the wings, there should be a small opening in the starboard wing root, up towards the fuselage, to accommodate the gun camera. It's not on the kit but it's a five-minute fix with a sharp drill. To the references!
The airplane's pitot tube hangs off the port wing out towards the tip and the kit supplies that component, but it doesn't provide the small blade for the airplane's IFF gear that lives under the starboard wing in more or less the same location. Another easy fix with a bit of styrene strip.
The kit provides both the early flared and later tubular exhaust stacks in resin. If you're building RB159 you need to use the flared ones.
The Mk XIV Spitfire dispensed with the familiar radio antenna mast located immediately behind the aft canopy transparency in favor of a whip antenna positioned about halfway down the fuselage spine. It's easy to add this with fine wire, stretched sprue, or similar.
If you've got a Tamiya Spitfire Mk VIII, IX, or XVI laying around, you'll want to steal the extra set of bulged gear covers and use them to replace the ones PCM gives you. PCM's are perfectly flat and not appropriate to this variant of the "Spit". While you're at it, and if you happen to be building RB159, you might want to steal one of Tamiya's aux tanks for it as well. There's an excellent photo of that aircraft on page 268 of Profile Publication #246, Supermarine Spitfire (Griffons) Mks XIV and XVIII that presents a 3/4 belly shot of her in flight and defines use of the external tank---the same photo also shows the flared exhaust stacks and IFF antenna! You can also find quite a few photographs of it if you Google "610 sqdn spitfire xiv" and then click on "Images". You'll want to do that too, because the kit's painting instructions only show the left side of the airplane and the other side is different in terms of markings placement. Dare I say it? To the references!!!
There's a bulge under the fuselage, back behind the trailing edge of the wing, that's for something called a "boat antenna". The bulge is correct, but there should be a tiny bit of antenna sticking out the back of it---you'll want to drill a tiny hole in the appropriate place and insert a small piece of stiff wire or similar to replicate it. Not a big deal, but it needs to be there.
The round tube that goes from the back of the pilot's bulkhead to the bulkhead at the rear of the opening for the aft-most transparency isn't given or its presence even indicated on the instructions, but it should be there. Get yourself some Evergreen rod or similar and it's a five-minute fix.
In short, it doesn't take very much work to get a decent model out of Pacific Coast's Griffon-engined "Spit" and it's well worth your time to build one. Just remember that it's a short-run kit so fit twice, fit once more, then glue! Forewarned is forearmed...
A Bright Idea That Should've Worked.
We're all familiar with McDonnell's fabled F-101 Voodoo family, and everybody who's read anything at all about the airplane also knows that it was FAST when in a clean configuration. Unfortunately, the performance degraded seriously when the airplane was encumbered with external stores of any sort and it then became distinctly sub-sonic, somewhat of a detriment if your intended purpose was strategic weapons delivery. McAir addressed that subject early on during the development phase of the "tactical" Voodoos. Here's one result of their experimentation:
We can only speculate about how well the Model 96 did or did not work in practice, but at the end of the day the Air Force stuck with two gas bags and a Mk 7 for their Doomsday loadout for the Voodoo. Many thanks to Mark Nankivil and the Greater St Louis Air and Space Museum for sharing this unique image with us, and to Jim Wogstad for explaining the technical nuances of the store to us.
A Nifty SNJ
When we ran our SNJ piece a couple of issues ago we inadvertently omitted this photograph, which had hidden itself in a nest of similar black and white shots. It crossed our mind to just move on and not run it but it's such a nifty shot that we couldn't do that---we had to share!
Or, in actuality, one of a whole team of Huns. The year was 1968 and the place was Colorado Springs, Colorado, at the Air Force Academy. A young Gary Emery, best-known nowadays as the proprietor of San Antonio's Hill Country Hobbies, was well on his way to becoming an Air Force officer and was already an accomplished photographer, as these images attest:
Gary's photography only got better with the passage of years and acquisition of more capable gear. With any luck we'll be able to show you some more of it in the months ahead.
How Lucky Could They Be
The USO spent most of the Second World War trying to bring a little sunshine to the guys out on the pointy end of things, and every once in a while that effort involved the bringing of prominent movie stars to the troops. One such example was Ann Sheridan, a well-known movie star and pinup girl ("The Oomph Girl") during the war and a movie and television star afterwards, with a stellar career lasting until her untimely death from cancer in 1967. She was apparently a hit with the troops too, at least if this photo is any judge:
Some GSB Neptunes
Those of you with long memories, or maybe just the ability to use the search feature at the bottom of each and every one of our blogs, may remember that we ran a few photos of Vietnam-era P-2 Neptunes some time ago. Whether you do or don't remember is irrelevant to what we're doing today, though, because we're going to drop back even further into the past of a patrol bomber that was there for every minute of the Cold War, performing every mission imaginable and doing it all in the most capable of manners.
Many thanks to Doug Siegfried and Mark Aldrich of the Tailhook Association for sharing these fascinating images with us. Now where's that old Hasegawa kit...
The Relief Tube
We're taking a different approach to things today and telling you about something we're about to do, rather than trying to correct something we've already done! One of our readers, Ed Ellickson (aka "The Real Mister Ed") sent in a series of photographs of a really nice conversion he did on the Hasegawa P2V-7, turning it back into a Korean War-vintage P2V-3 of VP-6, along with some interesting notes and comments. We'll be running those photos and comments next issue, but here's a teaser to wet your whistles while we wait:
Friday, September 2, 2016
A Couple of Strafers, A Glass-Nose, The Real Deal, It's Been a While, Maybe I'm Amazed, and Some Euro Bugsuckers
A Small Circle of Friends (with apologies to Phil Ochs)
The other day I was indulging myself in that often-entertaining pastime I call Reading the Boards and discovered that an old friend/adversary, Classic Airframes, was in the process of being re-birthed via its purchase by Special Hobby. That's an action that makes a lot of sense business-wise since SH had produced a great many of the original tools and kits for CA, and it's going to put a lot of one-of-a-kind models back in our grasp at reasonable prices. It is, essentially, a Good Thing for the hobby.
There's a caveat to that Good Thing, however. In simplest terms, those Classic Airframes kits can be a bit fussy to build (an understatement, that), with some of them being so difficult that the average modeler will have considerable trouble getting an acceptable model out of the contents of those kit boxes. They're not, and this needs to be stressed in the strongest of terms, an easy date. They're great kits for expanding your horizons, replica-wise, but they're also a scale modeler's test of tests in many respects. Add to that difficulty the fact that, in common with almost every other brand of plastic kit on the market, some of them have significant dimensional or detail errors, and you could easily find yourself driven to the Why Bother end of the modeling spectrum. When you weigh everything at face value it's pretty easy to just walk away from those kits and a lot of people have done that very thing; they've attempted one or two, seduced by the siren call of a unique subject, and have punched out part-way through the project muttering things like "never again" as they go.
Let's put things in perspective, though. The aspect of scale accuracy is probably the easiest issue to deal with by uttering one simple statement: Every manufacturer of plastic kits, no matter what the subject, occasionally incorporates accuracy errors into their models. It happens to everyone and is not unique to any one company and, in all honesty, Classic Airframes got things right a whole lot more often than they got them wrong. Their track record for scale fidelity is, quite honestly, as good as anybody's and probably better than most.
Once we accept the fact that their accuracy was pretty good we get to confront the true bugaboo of their kits; ease of assembly. They're not easy to build if you happen to be a novice or average modeler and getting a really nice model out of one of them can be pretty tough. That said, let's consider the down side of those old CA kits for a minute. For starters, they're all short-run in nature and are produced from tooling that's not on the same page as that used by a Tamiya or Airfix. Component detail is acceptable for the most part, but sometimes things just don't fit properly, a condition exacerbated by the multi-media nature of the kits---each and every one of them contain resin and photo-etch parts that are not in the kit as nice-to-have-if-you-want-to enhancements but rather as essential parts of the model. You don't get a plastic interior with a resin option---you get a resin interior, period. Some of the earlier kits feature vacuum-formed canopies as well, and they all are of the fit twice/modify a few parts/glue once ilk. Allow me to repeat myself here: They are not particularly easy to assemble no matter what you've read on certain of the modeling boards.
Now that all that is out of the way, let's look at the positive side. First and foremost, Classic Airframes offered a great many subjects that the mainstream guys wouldn't, and for the most part still won't, touch with the proverbial ten-foot pole, which in turn makes most of their kits unique. If you want a 1/48th scale Hudson or Battle, for example, you're going to be building a CA kit (at least until the reborn Airfix gets around to kitting those particular airplanes). Their subject matter has a lot to offer, and CA kits can be a bit pricey on the second-hand market. Having them available again will be what we can term a Good Thing.
Of course, there is that buildability thing to contend with. None of them are easy if you don't have the chops to deal with their issues, and some of them will leave you talking to yourself as you build them. In my personal world each and every Classic Airframes kit I've ever built has been a Six Month Model---I'd build for a while, get frustrated and put the thing away, then go back and work on it a little bit more, then put it away again, and so on and so forth, eventually ending up with a completed model airplane for the shelf. Most of them came out looking pretty good at the end of the day, but it was a struggle to get there each time/every time. Maybe it was just me (and it certainly could have been!) but my cynical side has to wonder if some if not most of the other people reviewing and building those kits for publication didn't have the same issues but chose, for whatever reason, not to comment on them.
On the other hand, you'll never never never grow as a modeler if all you build is the easy stuff. Repetitiously building easy kits will certainly hone your skills and you'll improve to some small extent with each new one you build, but you'll never make the jump to competent modeler if you don't challenge yourself from time to time. It's important for us to remember that Classic Airframes was a limited-run company who's kits were produced for them by Special Hobby and Sword, both of whom are well-known limited run manufacturers themselves. They were never intended to be Everyman's Model Airplane, but were meant for the journeyman or expert modeler from their very inception. That's the nature of the beast.
Here's the point, then: If you've got the skill sets you've probably already built a couple of CA kits and welcome their return to the marketplace. If you don't have the requisite abilities you're going to be challenged a bit if you choose to build one of them, but that takes us back to that whole growth thing, which also applies to any limited run kit and not just those of Classic Airframes. You're probably in the hobby because you like airplanes and you enjoy modeling. There are a great many kits out there you can build without any grief or angst whatsoever and you can easily get through your entire scale modeling career without ever touching a limited run kit, but you'll never grow to your full potential as a modeler and you'll be missing out on a whole bunch of stuff that isn't available any other way if you choose not to push your limits from time to time. It's a challenge that's worth accepting.
Are you ready to stretch out a bit?
Pappy Gunn's Kids
Or a couple of them, anyway. Most of you are aware of Paul "Pappy" Gunn and his part in the development of the B-25 and A-20 strafers so beloved of the 5th Air Force during the Second World War. They were a devastating weapon against soft targets such as air field revetments and parked aircraft, and their part in the reduction of both the JNAF and JAAF during the conflict cannot be understated. Here are a couple of fine examples of the type in service, photographed on the ground in New Guinea during 1943.
Thanks as always to Gerry for his dedication to the acquisition and preservation of images such as these!
And While We're at It
Not every B-25 in the SWPAC was a strafer, as illustrated by this photograph:
Let's Raise a Glass
Ok, so you've seen a couple of B-25s sitting on the ground in peaceful, if somewhat uncomfortable surroundings. Have you ever stopped to think what they were actually doing over there? We're guessing you probably have, but if you haven't...
Many thanks to Gerry Kersey of 3rd Attack.Org for the detailed information regarding these aircraft!
Where Are the Phantoms?
Yep; it's been a while since we've run anything on the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II, but here's a photo to make up for it:
Never Throw Nothing Away
Bad grammar, that, but good advice and here's a reason why:
I've been in a sort of modeling slump lately, just sort of piddling around with this kit and that and not getting inspired enough to actually do much of anything other than make a mess. My modeling chops were AWOL, at least temporarily, but the desire was there so I went looking for something I could work with that wouldn't be much of a loss if I messed something up, and that particular search took me to an old Pyro re-issue of Inpact's 1966/67-vintage 1/48th scale Hawker Fury. I'd started it years ago and had a serviceable interior in the buttoned-up fuselage, which meant the hard work was all done. A quick examination showed that the kit didn't need a whole lot more in order to become a good, solid place-keeper on the shelf, so the die was cast!
There was, however, one tiny little problem: Decals. This particular Fury is part of a series that Inpact produced way back in the day, and the kit decals were problematical even in their original kit (P202). Inpact went tango uniform in late 1967 and the tooling was picked up by Pyro; the four airplanes in that 'Tween the Wars RAF fighter series have subsequently been re-released by Pyro, Life-Like, and, I'm told, the reborn Lindberg. The decals (except maybe in the Lindberg releases---I've never seen one so I can't comment) have been mediocre to poor in each and every release and gross laziness on my part precluded cutting masks for the markings. Oh, what to do!
And that's the part where we come to the notion that you should never throw anything away if you're a serious scale modeler. Allow me to present, if you will, the solution to my problem:
So there you have it! That 42-year-old decal sheet has survived several moves and at least a couple of offers to sell or trade it to someone else, but I've kept it all that time because I'm a sucker for those old Inpact kits and I knew I'd want the decals some day. It's time to airbrush the Fury portion of the sheet with MicroScale Superfilm and see if they can be used. Cross your fingers, folks!
A Phew More Phantoms to End the Day
A while back Scott Wilson sent us quite a stack of F-4 photos taken during his stint with the USAF and we've been running them, a few at a time, for the past couple of years or so. Here are a few more for your viewing pleasure and scale modeling inspiration. They're all of aircraft assigned to the 26th TRW stationed at Zweibrucken AB, Federal Republic of Germany, during the 1980s.
One final note before we leave Zweibrucken's RF-4Cs for the day: We've said time and time again on these pages that military aviation is, and always has been, a dangerous occupation. To prove that point (as if it ever needed proving), 72-0146 bought the farm near Wales, crashing into the sea in July of 1986 and killing both crew members. The Air Force call that an operational loss, but it's no less tragic than if the aircraft was lost in combat. Let's all extend a Thank You to the men and women who willingly risk the odds every day they serve! There are no easy days...
It's definitely been a while since we've had a Happy Snap for your enjoyment, but here's one to break the fast:
One more thing before we leave this part of the blog: If you're a military aviator, either current or former, and you've got some photography you'd like to share, we'd love to see it. Please feel free to contact us at replicainscaleatyahoodotcom . (We apologize for having to write it out like that, but the internet's version of those junk mail guys have become a fairly regular nuisance and that's the best way we've come up with to deal with the problem! Just put an @ and a period in the appropriate places and you're there!)
The Relief Tube
We fooled ourselves and ran this issue's Relief Tube entries the last time so there's nothing new for today, but we'd like to take a moment to congratulate Doug Siegfried on his recent retirement from The Tailhook Association's publication, The Hook. A former "Stoof" driver, Doug has always been one of our go-to guys for imagery of Naval aviation and most definitely one of The Good Guys from an editor's point of view. This project has been all the better because of his help and we're proud to have worked with him. Blue skies, Doug, and may your retirement be all that you've dreamed of!
That's it for this time, but we'll be back before you know it. Until then, be good to your neighbor and we'll meet again soon!
Sunday, August 7, 2016
A Falcon Tub, How to Do It, A Hornet For Once, A Couple of Colonel Neel's Boys, A Forty-Niner, A Goofy Scooter, And Some Mystery Meat.
What About the Kids?
Every once in a while it's good to think outside the box, plastic kit wise, and this past week was one of those times for me. I've been on a Korean War binge of late and have, in that vein, been enjoying the magic of one of my two remaining bottles of Floquil Old Silver in the creation of the required weathered natural metal finishes, an activity which led me to consider building the relatively new Eduard Spitfire Mk XVI. My chosen subject was a late example of the type, a post-War example in overall silver from 601 Sqdn RAF, and the build was what can only be described as pleasurable, although I'd be more than a little remiss if I didn't mention that Eduard's choice of landing gear attachment did cause me to utter what that old-time cowboy song termed a discouraging word (or two).
Let's use that landing gear, all draped in colorful epithets, as the starting point for today's ramble. It occurred to me while arguing with its attachment that other people had complained about it too, so it wasn't just my inherent ineptitude that was causing the problem. It was the way those parts were designed to fit together and it was a challenge, although it wasn't the end of my own personal polystyrene world by any means. I eventually figured out how Eduard meant for things to go together and everything turned out just fine in the end. The thing that got me thinking wasn't the gear installation itself, though; it was the fact that I've been doing this stuff since 1956 and have, for the most part, learned enough tricks of the trade to cope with almost any sort of plastic foolishness a manufacturer could come up with, and this kit threw me a curve.
What's the point, you may well ask yourself. That Friddell guy had trouble with the Spitfire, but so what? I probably won't---to use yet another set of old cowboy song lyrics he'd probably use to describe his misadventure, "it's your misfortune and none of my own". Ok then; maybe you won't, but what if you happen to be ten or twelve years old and the proud owner of an Eduard kit of almost any flavor, or maybe someone a little older who has developed an interest in the hobby and decided to buy that first kit and try things on for size? In a case like that, Eduard's landing gear could easily be the deal-breaker that pushes the novice right out of the hobby (that's presuming all the teensy-tiny detail parts included with almost any Eduard kit don't do the job first).
It's not just an Eduard problem either; I mention them because I happen to like their kits and build a lot of them. I've also been doing this stuff for a while, so most of my problems regarding the hobby are self-induced and I fully understand that phenomena. When I mess something up I take a deep breath and go back to figure out where I went wrong so I can fix the problem. You probably do a variation of the same thing but your typical Newbie won't, particularly if he or she happens to be on the youngish side.
We could easily make the point that a rank beginner shouldn't be starting off with a kit such as the Eduard "Spitty", but quite a few people new to the hobby buy kits based on box art and price. A Profi-Pack Eduard Anything is going to cost fifty bucks or more, but their Weekend Edition of same will start in the twenty to thirty-dollar range, which is affordable for some kids. Let's consider the consequences.
Junior Newbie wants to build plastic model airplanes because he's interested in both history and flight, and he's read about the legendary Supermarine Spitfire. He's hooked, and he wants to build a model which will, of course, come out looking just like all those models he sees on the Internet. He finds himself an Eduard "Spit" of any flavor and it's a Weekend Edition so he can afford it if he puts off buying that new video game until next week. He plunks down his money and takes it home, excited and ready to build a model of his favorite airplane, and reality sets in when he discovers he can't get past the cockpit or wheel wells. His new treasure is an unmitigated disaster and ends up in the trash can, while he goes back to playing video games. We lose another aspiring scale modeler but in the grand scheme of things we, as a hobby, lose a whole lot more than that.
Most plastic kits of recent design are intended for the modeler who's been at it a while, and said kits tend to cater to the high side of the standard. Some are unnecessarily complicated, and many of the limited-run specimens are virtually impossible for the novice to successfully complete. All of these things conspire against the kid (or novice adult) who's infatuated with model airplanes and wants to get into the hobby. They give a model an honest shot but, quite by accident, purchase something that's intended for the guy or gal who's got the chops to deal with what we're going to call severe polystyrene idiosyncrasies and they fail. They walk away from the hobby but that's no big deal, right? WRONG!
A great many of us are a rapidly aging demographic as far as this hobby is concerned yet a whole bunch of the newer kits are aimed at us; the Old Guys (relatively speaking, of course) who can afford the initial purchase price of our toys and have achieved the skills necessary to turn them into the models we want them to be. Eduard could be the poster child in terms of the production of the models we want to have, because they listen to what their customer base have to say and they act on what they hear. They don't always get it right in terms of accuracy but you can't fault their kits as kits---they're superb! The problem is; they're also largely unsuited for beginners.
This is a discussion that could go round and round, but in simplest terms you and I have a mission when possible; a duty, if you will, to help The New Guy or Gal, or The Young Guy or Gal, pick out kits they can actually be successful with if they decide they want to experience the magic of this hobby of ours. Hobby Boss has a range of kits intended for the relative newcomer to the hobby, as do a few other manufacturers, and there are still simple kits being boxed and marketed that were originally designed in the 50s and 60s and are pretty easy to assemble. That means the kits are out there, just waiting for someone who's new to the hobby to discover the magic we've enjoyed all these years. Maybe, just maybe, you ought to help the Newbie pick out something they can be successful with. It's the right thing for them because it will let them get the results they want with a whole lot less angst than they might otherwise have to endure, and it's the right thing for all of us because it helps fill the pipeline with aspiring modelers as we graybeards inevitably age out of the hobby, thus ensuring that there are still quality kits and accessories around for the remaining serious scale modelers to enjoy in years to come. Today is truly the Golden Age of plastic modeling and Today is likely to last for a few more years but, inevitably, the brand spanking new wonder-kits we're able to purchase now will begin to dwindle away as fewer and fewer modelers buy them because the folks that produce the kits aren't altruistic to any great extent. If they can't make money they won't produce new kits and at the end of the day we'll all suffer for it.
What do you say, then? Are you willing to help the novice modeler choose kits he or she can actually complete? Are you willing to help steer them through their first few models so they'll stay with the hobby, thus ensuring new and better kits for us all? Are you ready to do that? Can I get an Amen?
Think about it, ya'll; it's most assuredly the right thing to do!
Speaking of Getting Older
It seems like only yesterday that the F-16 Fighting Falcon entered the inventory but it has, in fact, been substantially more than a few years since that event and the Electric Jet has now achieved a certain seniority on life that rarely registers on those of us who have been around a while. Just to put things in perspective, here's a shot you may not have seen before of a B-model with a really neat paint job:
THIS is How It's Done!
We're greatly privileged around here because we're read by quite a few of the heavy hitters in our hobby. A lot of our discussion with those guys occurs over the telephone, but we still receive a bunch of e-mails as well. The following images came to us via the internet and from one of those aforementioned heavy hitters, Pat Donahue, who's polystyrene skill-sets are to be envied. He sent these photos a couple of months ago and they, plus shots of the completed airplane, have long since appeared on several of the plastic modeling web sites, which means they aren't exactly brand new to most of us. They are, however, excellent depictions of a project in work by someone we consider to be a master of the craft, so let's take a look at what we've got.
And that's it for this particular essay. Pat did finish the model, as we mentioned up there in the introduction, and you can see how it came out over on Hyperscale and, I suspect, a few other sites as well. Many thanks to Pat for the images and the opportunity to share them with all of you!
Something Rarely Seen
At least on this web site! We almost never run photography depicting any airplane in service after the very early 1990s, but this shot is really pretty and we need to share it with you:
Thanks as always to Mark for sharing the photo with us.
Those Guys Liked the "Jug"
Yes they did. In point of fact, you could probably say the guys in the 348th FG loved the airplane once they figured out how to properly employ it in combat. There's a fair amount of photography out there depicting the group during their days with the P-47D, but it's sometimes a little difficult to come up with something that everyone hasn't already seen. In that light we're guessing a few of you may have seen these images before, but they're new to us and they're something special!
Please note that I had originally attributed these photos to the collection of Bobby Rocker. I had mis-filed the original images when I received them and the rest, as some folks say, is history! That said, there truly aren't enough superlatives to adequately describe Bobby and his ongoing dedication to the preservation of those images of a remarkable time in our history and we'll show you a photo that actually is from his collection in a minute, but first let me apologize to Gerry Kersey for the mistake I made when I captioned these photos. Gerry's another one of the Good Guys who deserves credit for preserving the history of the the greatest generation, and we most assuredly want to give credit where credit's due. Yes; these photos could be better quality (and probably were, once upon a time), but the airplanes they depict, and the attitude and sacrifice of the men who maintained and flew them, are a significant part of our aviation heritage and their preservation is both remarkable and appreciated. Time hasn't been overly kind to those photos but they're here and, because of Gerry, Bobby, and so many others like them, we can all treasure them for the irreplaceable record they are. Thanks, guys, for everything you do!
Just One More
From the Rocker Collection, that is!
Thanks once again to Bobby Rocker's kindness, both for the photograph and for the enigma it presents to us!
A Different Bobby
You remember Maddog John Kerr, right? Well, way back in what constituted the beginning of The Publishing Day for me, I spent a lot of time in his home looking at airplane slides, a fair number of which came from a fellow named Bob Burns. Bob's photography stood out in John's collection, both for the uniqueness of its subject matter and for its exceptional quality, because Bob had ramp access at Pax River and used that access to the max. Here's an example of the sort of thing we're talking about:
We Wish We Knew
Not about the airplanes---we can pretty much figure that part out. No; the confusion part comes from the photographer of these images. They reside in our collection but we don't have a clue, not the first idea, who took them! (Well, actually we do---we're guessing Rick Morgan to be the culprit here...) We don't know when or where they were taken either, which makes them Mystery Meat par excellence, but lack of information never stopped us before and they're a really good way to end this edition so, without further delay:
Finally, here are a couple of shots of VF-102 F-14A Tomcats to round out our homage to The Mystery Photographer:
And that's it for today's Mystery Meat! (Would the real photographer please stand up? Beuller? Beuller?)
And it's time for a correction already, a mere five hours after I originally posted this particular photo essay. Rick Morgan sent in an e-mail which is of interest, I think:
Phil- Nice work, as always, but none of those Navy shots are mine! VFC-12 used overall gloss dark engine gray as a standard paint scheme for years for some reason. It certainly doesn’t look bad either. Those shots all appear to be at their Oceana home. The brown camo A-4 is from VF-126; picture is obviously at Miramar. While both of the Oceana adversary units (VF-43 and VC/VFC-12) had “house” colors in their later A-4 days, the West Coast units (VF-126, VA-127) painted practically all their aircraft differently. Very few of them were alike.
The Intruder is definitely VA-75, also home at Oceana. If the last two digits are “96” as they appear, that makes it about four possible aircraft… another classic example of how TPS’ grays melted into each other over time. Not a problem on, say, that Black Falcon KA-6D off to the right.
Many thanks, Rick! Now then, would the guy who shot the airplanes in this piece please get in touch with me so I can properly credit the images? Please?
Happy Snaps, and Under the Radar
Not today, folks. Things have been absolutely lunatic crazy around here for the past couple of months and I've really had to push to get this issue out so you wouldn't think I'd forgotten about you! With any luck those departments will be back with the next issue.
The Relief Tube
We honestly weren't prepared to run a Relief Tube this issue, but an hour or so ago I received a couple of comments from Doug Barbier that I felt needed to be published:
Phil, Another great blog - as usual! I really liked the opener about the graying of the hobby and helping out the newcomers, as well as the internet types who generally have no factual knowledge of the actual aircraft that they are raving/complaining about. I have sent a couple of e-mails to both xxx and xxx (internet modeling websites that I'm choosing to keep anonymous. Editor) about factual inaccuracies in reviews that would lead the unknowing the wrong direction and were unjustified in the face of the plastic/resin in question being accurate, and have received dead silence in return. Or when I tried to answer a couple of questions that were asked on the discussion forums---people did not want to hear a factual answer, they were more interested in flaming someone who did not see things "their" way. So I simply quit participating there rather than spend the time and effort just to get flamed - I have plenty of other things to keep me busy... I feel sorry for the poor guy who initially asked an honest question...(This) is a sad state of affairs, because I have more than a fair amount of knowledge that I could share - and there are plenty of misconceptions and fallacies out there.
Doug, I couldn't agree more! The things you describe are 100% of the reason we don't run an open forum on this site. And for our readers: Doug's comments are part of an e-mail discussing something else and have therefore been heavily edited by me, but they're so germane to what we try to do around here that I thought they needed to be published. Your comments regarding this particular Relief Tube entry are welcome and encouraged as long as they're civil, polite, and on-topic!
Now we're done! Be good to your neighbor and we'll try to meet again real soon!