Tnarg

No "6" in the kit number, so it isn't a re-release of an older kit with a figure added. That will really mess up my wallet. Hoping for a Breguet XIV, something Austro-Hungarian and something Italian, or maybe just two somethings Austro-Hungarian. Not hoping for a Nieuport 17 from them, but very interested in many from Copper State. A SPAD XIII would be welcome, but Roden SPAD VII and even their DR.I is good enough to make me want something different from WNW. (Sorry to you Triplane lovers). Tnarg

Cool article. I remember hearing about this when it happened and how no one could believe that someone would spend money to move the bridge... but then there are other uber rich people who want to build a Mars colony or upload our consciousness into the machine and most people think they are way out there also. Money is like gasoline.... makes your engine go or makes a big fire. I am just glad one rich person likes 1/32 scale WWI aircraft models since I like them too. Hope he keeps his engine going well. Tnarg

Great to see you still at this project. Looking good. Tnarg

I have judged a few IPMS contests as an amateur in that process. It almost always came down to an analysis of the shape of the plane, the integrity of the seams and assembly and any obvious surface finish defects. Once we eliminated those model aircraft that had misaligned wings and tail surfaces or had gaps or unfinished seams we could look at landing gear and see some that just didn't have the same angle on both sides. Big fingerprints in the canopy were not a usual problem, but could happen. A field of ten aircraft in one category came down to only the three that could get an award. Sometimes the "work" that appeared to have been added was amazing, but came to nothing if the tail was quite visibly misaligned. It makes me see the obvious assembly defects in my work, but I still have those. It is hard to get that done right without a fixture and some real care to align things well. Unfortunately, the conclusion I make says that a fully tricked out interior and gear bays doesn't really mean a lot to the rules of judging. I'd prefer to see an aircraft model that makes me think it is the real thing. Yes, you need to build the kit with some skill and align it correctly, The "real thing" to me means some careful work on the finish and weathering, plus more to scale features like thin trailing edges or even oil canning of the metal skin. None of those enter into most of the judging, unless you talk about a people's choice award. So... build what you like and have fun doing it. As Richard Feynman said, "Why do you care what other people think?" (Not to dismiss them as beneath you, but don't let them ruin your life). Tnarg

Not as much famous nose art on the A-20 as on the B-26, but I like that one with sandy brown splotches on OD.... interesting camo. Thanks for the weathering photo. Looks well worn but might be a bit hard to duplicate. I am sure you guys are up for the challenge. I am happy to see any twin engine kit in 1/32. Somehow they are more interesting than another 109. Tnarg

Sounds like a great possibility for a resin aftermarket conversion? So many Austro-Hungarian options and add the Polish ones for fun too. Tnarg

I really like the SBC-3 and SBC-4 biplanes.. not silver, but yellow wings, and the plane of the "Commander, USS Enterprise" with the sailing ship logo looks just amazing. The Duck deserves some love too. Tnarg

My sons are in Chapel Hill, NC and just outside of Washington DC. Both will likely get a lot of rain from this thing, but hopefully less wind. Not so lucky for those closer to the coast. Hope all of you in that situation are able to find a safe, dry place to wait this one out. Tnarg

Nice! Tnarg

I thought this was a "chat room" or at least one updated from the 1990's. The enforcement of "no politics" may bother some people, but it does keep us quite civil. I appreciate that and I enjoy the company here. It also is interesting to see other people's perspectives on things besides models, such as the great photos of Western Australia posted recently. It is all here if you look, even news from other members' local perspectives without the distortions from networks, etc.. I see real caring for people we may not have met physically, but have grown to respect and feel close to via this medium. Tnarg

Beautiful and dangerous. Thanks for some amazing views. Tnarg

I seriously doubt that anyone will create an injection molded 1/32 scale kit of the Couzinet Arc En Ciel that flew the south Atlantic in the 30's, nor will I be able to display a 1/32 Boeing 707, but I have both in 1/72 scale, which is an "oddball" scale for airlines, but gives some room for details. 1/72, 1/48 and 1/24 scale all have Real Space options, but you can find some 1/32 scale Science Fiction and Real Space as well. I had all sorts of 1/48 scale models, but you really can put a lot more detail in a 1/32 scale kit. Unfortunately, you really can put a lot of detail in a 1/32 scale kit, and I seem to want to do that. Almost all of my 1/48 scale stuff was traded up, with the exception of a few Drakens and Viggens, but I am still hoping for a 1/32 scale version of those. When I get tired of trying to add too much detail to a 1/32 scale kit there are plenty of other less difficult options like Ma.K in 1/20 which no one knows the actual colors of on a particular day in August 1944, nor whether the plane was blue or OD or ? on top, nor if they puttied the wings or washed them with gasoline too many times and the putty fell out. I just like it all. Have fun, Tnarg

Dark skies sound very good for dim objects, but to see them well you need a bigger objective or mirror. An 8" or 10" Newtonian reflector is a stand up sort of thing, but the Schmidt Cassegrain reflectors with the eyepiece in the back could work while sitting on a stool. Some people really want to have a great lens without any diagonal obstruction to interfere with the best imaging, so that would require a refractor type telescope. That is likely long if it has a big lens, which means more light and a lot more money versus a reflector of the same diameter. You can use that one from a chair, but be prepared to move around with any of these options. The big binocular option is a bit easier to move around, but you won't get the convenience of the GO TO mount that lets you just tell the scope what you want to see and let it go there. All of the options require moving around to see the different areas of the sky, and some are just difficult to contort your body into a convenient place to look... so you just wait a bit until the earth turns to let you see that area better. Have fun, Tnarg

It sort of depends upon what she wants to do with the telescope. In some ways binoculars are the most satisfying of any way to look at the skies, but that may apply to a pair of "big binoculars" like 20X80 which are really 3 inch telescopes and require a stable mount. I like to use those because they are very stable yet very portable. I can look at the moon or nebula and see interesting things from a site with dark skies. On the other hand, if you want to see Mars, you need a rather large telescope and you may be better off trying to stack hundreds of photos taken as the best of thousands of photos and averaged to let you see what you might have seen in that part of a second when the atmosphere finally settled down. Yahoo Mars observers group has lots of contributors and they have some amazing photos. All of the planets would benefit from a larger telescope and some camera work. The moon is so much easier to see because it is so much brighter and larger, but a binoviewer on your telescope makes it even relaxing. That takes two eyepieces (at more cost), but keeps both eyes open and adjusted to the light, so less strain. Mars or even Jupiter is only as big as a crater, which is a lot harder to see clearly. An interesting alternative is a solar telescope, like the Hydrogen Alpha scopes that only see that fine line of red radiated from energetic Hydrogen on the sun and show the prominences, flares and more fine detail. Also expensive, but lots of fun. Lunt Solar, Coronado, etc., have good solar scopes. They only work on the sun, since other sources don't have that much light. A bigger pair of binoculars may be the most satisfying for just looking at the sky. bigbinoculars.com used to be the name of Oberwerk's site, but they still sell that 20 x 80 pair of binoculars for $200 (which needs a good binocular mount, since they are very heavy). I got one quite a while ago and it is a good pair of binoculars.... not a great (expensive) Zeiss set of optics, but a lot of fun to look with, and much bigger than the 7 x 35's that most people think of when they think of binoculars. Don't forget to get a very good mount for big binoculars. You can't hold the big ones by hand, they will shake too much. I found a parallelogram mount but am not sure where to get one now. It you find that sort of mount, it makes them work incredibly well.

.... and thanks a lot for your service. Tnarg