Jump to content

D Bellis

LSP_Members
  • Content Count

    3,282
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

D Bellis last won the day on May 28 2015

D Bellis had the most liked content!

About D Bellis

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SE CT, USA
  • Interests
    Way too many to list here!

Recent Profile Visitors

1,463 profile views
  1. "In box" accurately describes what one might find in the box. If I ever happened across a review labeled "look see", I'd get the impression that it was written by someone totally out of touch with reality and ignore it. Why? Because that term hasn't been in common use for several decades. D
  2. Mark P hit the nail on the head for what sort of content I look for. When I feel the need to search for more information on a given kit, I Google either the term "review" hoping to find copious images of everything that's in the box, as well as (hopefully) some intelligent comments on the accuracy of the shapes and details, or I switch to the term "build" looking for various modelers' impressions on how the kit went together. These are very different forms of information, and should not be lumped together as one. Although, adding the term "in-box" to "review" would highlight exactly what one should expect to find there. Adding the subject's history has to be the single most useless thing a reviewer can put in a kit review. If someone doesn't know what it is that you are reviewing a kit of, then why would they be reading that review? Stick to the subject at hand: reviewing the kit. Those that are reading it online can search for more info, or not, to their heart's content. The comments so far on overly-glowing reviews being useless are also extremely important to keep in mind when writing a review. If there are any "yippee hooray" type hyperboles in the first paragraph or two, I simply ignore the text and examine the images, or skip the whole thing entirely and move on to the next hit on my search because that kind of commentary is not worth the few seconds it takes to read it. Also, if one is smart enough to be looking for information on a kit, then they are likely to be smart enough to ignore idiotic 'yippee hooray' reviews of crappy kits - thus the reviewer has wasted everyone's time including their own. Some sites so commonly post useless 'yippee hooray' reviews, that I completely ignore those hits when searching (CyberModeler, ARC, etc.). Maybe all of that is just me, though... D
  3. You might want to just wait for the forthcoming Zoukei Mura P-51B kit. Based on their track record, it is sure to be a fantastic kit. No release date has been announced, but it is supposed to be "next" in their lineup. I have a Rutman P-51B kit that I started to build a few years ago. The biggest issue with it is that the fuselage is 3/16" too wide due to being based on the Hasegawa P-51D. That translates into a fat/wide canopy and many other fuselage shape issues. Plus, it was produced around 15 years ago, long before modern casting techniques and resins were available. The tan resin he used is extremely stinky and brittle. All of these reasons and more are why it sits in the box while I await the release of the ZM kit. D
  4. This image might help (the only known period, color photograph of Mrs. Bonnie): Scanned from "War Eagles in Original Color" by Ethell & Bodie. The photo was reportedly taken on Luzon, Philippines (which was never part of the CBI, so I don't know why that theater keeps coming up in this thread). HTH, D
  5. The H-0, being pre-production, only occasionally had wooden tails. The wooden tail became standard on the H-1, but there were still metal tails on some of those, too. HTH, D
  6. DougN was the guy on LSP that did it a while back. The 'why' has to do with Hasegawa's wings looking like they're made of plywood sheets with irrigation ditches between them, and the Trumpeter fuselage looking like a clown's balloon toy sporting a 1/24 scale canopy. HTH? D
  7. Surely you didn't write all of that out just for you? Just a suggestion, but at least change the title to reflect what it really is: "1/35 Revell/MRC OH-58D Kiowa 03871". That way, it won't get confused with the earlier Revell Kiowa kit (which has already happened at least once). D
  8. I totally agree. But, the kit reviewed here is mislabeled as the "Revell" kit, when it is in fact the MRC 1/35 kit (only mentioned in the text of the review). Unfortunately, the thread title is misleading since Revell did release their own 1/32 Kiowa, which was a reboxing of the ancient IMC Jet Ranger kit (in that case with Revell having acquired the molds as their own). D
  9. Just got an email from BNA stating that they will donate 100% of the proceed of their sale "to help Australian Bushfire firefighters and victims". Very impressive support: https://www.bnamodelworld.com/bush-fire-donation?zenid=2bfe755f2858618871792943d067eabf D
  10. His promise kept: I'm sure Troy will be along shortly to fill in the details. D
  11. You'll find 2 types of head armor on Sprue E. Also, Eduard's E-3, E-3/4 and E-7 kits contain both styles of later E canopy/windscreen on Sprue I. Their E-1 and E-1/3 boxings only come with the E-1 style canopy/windscreen on Sprue J. HTH, D
  12. ...for all the customers in the rest of the world that are not subjected to European VAT. D
×
×
  • Create New...