Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Joel_W

  1. Kent, Congrats on your article. It's certainly well deserved. Not many builds can come close to what you've achieved. Joel
  2. Lee, Now that's stepping up to the plate big time Joel
  3. Brian, ​ Excellent progress for sure. What I love most about your builds is both your thought process, and how you explain it to us in words and pictures. Well done. As for the update, outstanding as usual. Centering any hole for me is a major challenge that a one eyed half blind old guy al ways struggles with. Yours came out perfect. The dolly looks great. Your method for gluing the stanchions correctly in place is fool proof. BTW, I like the toothpick idea of securing those cups from spilling over. Joel
  4. Shaka Hi, Yeah, I won this round, but it's the next one that always worries me. Joel
  5. Bryan, Thanks buddy for the vote of confidence on this fix. I lucked out this time. Sure hope the rest of the build doesn't have this kind of surprises waiting for me. Joel
  6. Don, Unfortunately, not so much so from the few KH kits I've tried to build in the past. Following build threads here, the quality of the KH kits has gotten better, but the engineering is still off in wackyland. What they do makes literally no sense other then create as many pcs as possible regardless of the fit issues that are a direct result of that philosophy. KH's best quality as far as I'm concerned is their choice of subject matter that keeps me coming back despite knowing better. Joel
  7. Guys, I'm not sure either as to the reasons why, but the end results are sure evident. Compare my pictures to Brian's and it's like two different sets of molds were used. Moving on, and hopefully things will get better. Joel
  8. Spyros, The weathering just continues to look better and better. At this point I'd call the top side and outer lower wing panels done. Wheel wells certainly have that operational look to them. And nice job on the pilot figure. Anyone who can paint one gets a from me, simply because I can't. Joel
  9. Breaker, The Daco M47As really look great. used and abused for sure. Joel
  10. Been a while since my last update due to a combination of work, bad back issues (once again), and my continuing battle with the main wing lower section fit. As I previously said in a post, I decided that I had to correct the issue of the one inner wing panel not matching up to the fuselage wing flaring to the point of actually being under it. This drove me nuts, as both the top center section and the lower sections are each one piece. there isn't any reason for this that I could think of, other then some change in the mold for the one inner wing section. The dihedral is just way to flat in cross section. Your also notice that to align the leading edge, the rear flap edge isn't flush with the top surface flap edge, while the dihedral is clearly to flat in cross section. Yet in Brian's build it's flush. I just can't figure it out. So the only solution I could think of was to cut a slit in the center of the inner panel, then using a plastic wedge to pry both sides up and try to keep them even. I also used some plastic strips to support the cut adjustments from the bottom Well I got close, but some sanding and blending in with Bondo was needed. After all the work, here's the fit on both sides. the other inner section still fits fine and now the other wing section that didn't fit, now does. Almost perfectly I might add. the slight issues on the leading edge joints is mostly from it being just a dry fit without any tape or clamping. Now I can finish painting the anti glare panel, mask, and install the front windscreen. Joel
  11. Chuck, The gloss coat is simply amazing. I'm assuming that your rubbes and polished it out, or are you able to achieve that level of prefection straight from the AB? Joel
  12. Jim, Just love those on location shots. Boy do they look real or what. Joel
  13. Darren, Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving a post, it's really much appreciated. I'm not a fan of the Kitty Hawks philosophy of how many pieces they can make each sub assembly out of. multi piece fuselage halves, 4 piece cowls, overly complicated engines and engine mounts, only leads to excess frustration by those attempting the build, with what I'm betting is a higher percentage of SODs, and others that were contemplating buying the kits, just opting on taking a pass. While I'm still trying to find the time this week to take pictures of the wing/fuselage joints now, I've been frustrated by the anti-glare panel fit issues. Again, no real alignment points, coupled with a super tight fit inside the windscreen, I'd had to more then once remove it, and try again. I've done that so many times, that I now have to repaint the anti glare panel. Joel
  14. Spyros, Thanks buddy for stopping by, it's much appreciated. While I'm very slowly making progress, I'm indeed making some. As for the wooden spars I lucked out, as they're very strong in the configuration I used. But the bottom line is that I had them in house, but didn't have any brass square tubing. Joel
  15. Winnie, Thanks for stopping by and checking out the OV-10 build to date. I came across that picture after I finished the seats, so that they stayed the way they were with the packs on the right side of both seats. My goal right from the start was a busy enough cockpit to fool the viewers eye. The key to that without any question is the white wire bundles. So that's where I put my efforts. I added enough bundles to create the effect that I was looking for, and I still just might add another bundle or two. My concerns has for the last few weeks focused solely on the wing issues caused by the way over engineering of how many panels can we comprise to make the rather complicated wing especially with the twin engine booms. After looking at the short inner panel I've come to the conclusion that since the panel is one piece, and the upper middle section is one piece, and that the opposite panel fits correctly, the issue is that the short panel is indeed just molded a few mm to short. The missing female receptacles for the alignment pins for the center section is still a all time 1st for me. IMHO KH has gotten a lot better with this offering, but it still falls way short in execution of what a modeler really wants and expects. I'm 0 for 3 with KH kits. I'll just wait till they finally figure out the entire process before I buy another KH kit. Until then, my Kingfisher will continue to seat on a shelf in my stash gathering dust. Joel
  16. Hubert, Your heart certainly is in the right place with your willingness to share your findings with Glen with the goal being a much more accurate T-6. I'm just not so sure that the powers to be would have made those corrections if the CAD work was already completed or nearly so. At this point it is what it is. As for the OV-10, I'm giving it my best, but like I said, the kit just keeps on fighting back with issues after issues. Joel
  17. Chuck, You couldn't have said this any better. I have this "discussion" with Pete almost on a daily basis. Joel
  18. Ernie, Thanks. I giving it my best effort. I'm just not in the same class of builder as you are. Joel
  19. Ernie my Fir Ernie my friend, You've nailed it to a tee. They're always trying to see just how many versions of a model they can create from a set of molds even if none of the finished options are accurate enough. this has always been the big knock on the KH T-6. Close but not close enough. a real shame. And as you said, they come so close, but never quite get there because no one seems to be a modeler who understands these issues. And the results speak for themselves. Now when Mr Tamiya was alive and ran the show, it was the complete opposite. His love of F-1 showed in his 1/12 and 1/20 line of F-1 cars, and the fact that his personal collection of F-1 cars are housed in the lobby. the 1/20 F-1 division head designer left and started Ebbro car models, and is funded in several ways besides just cash by Tamiya. A great idea and concept put into practice. Joel
  20. Danny, I assumed from the lack of shape issue posts that the kit is nicely designed accuracy wise. As I've posted now numerous times, my issue(s) is with their complete lack of understanding what modelers really want in a large scale model. The old expression of they just keep on shooting themselves in the foot, certainly applies to them. The Bronco is right next to me, and I'm typing rather then spending a few hours working on the build. I never use to do that to this degree. It's like I look for excuses not to work on it right now. Joel
  21. Shaka Hi, I'm still building the Bronco, but the constant fighting and problem solving issues since I've left the cockpit really has made working on this build less then enjoyable, and a Mojo killer. But as Chuck posted yesterday, I'm from the school of one build at a time to completion, no SODs. Kits that defeat me mentally pay the final price with a one way trip to the county recycling center. That's how I build, and that's how I feel. I have full intention of finishing this build, and to the contest standards that was and still is it's main build goal. Joel
  22. Don, Just might be the Chinese connection. In today's day and age, the real aircraft for the most part are scanning into a CAD program, it's not like the old days where it took a team of design engineers to do all of this the old fashion way; by hand. And then master mold makers made the molds. Today computers do just about all of it, so the accuracy side should be as close to perfection as a Computer program and associated hardware can get it. The human factor should be all about making the model building experience as enjoyable and frustrating free as possible, by focusing on how each part interacts with the other parts in each sub assembly. Having huge gaps and ill fitting parts should almost be a thing of the past. If Tamiya can get it right, then there just isn't any excuse as far as I'm concerned. Clearly as I've alluded to at Kitty Hawk, the parties in control aren't modelers, or they just wouldn't accept all these wacky concepts. Multi pc fuselages halves for the sake of a different version, but they also seem to cherish doing this to increase parts count whenever possible. the number of gates on sprue frets, their size, and positions are a major issue for otherwise nicely designed and executed parts. I've yet to read a single build on a Kingfisher that didn't take KH to task for the ignition manifold ring, and the sloppy designed and thus finicky motor mount assembly. A highly detailed engine that will be buried and never seen is a waste of resources and budget on their part. Both better put to use on visible details. the bottom line for me as a senior is to get the best bang for my modeling buck. Not spend my modeling time working out one poor design issue after another. If I want issues that need solving, I've got plenty of them at work and enough of them on the home front. So for me, the bottom line is that until KH takes and makes the next step to correct all these nagging issues, I'll just take a pass on all things kitty Hawk. Joel
  23. Don, No need to apologize. I more then glad I can bring a smile to anyone's face. The reviews don't mention any shape issues, so I'm assuming it's close enough. I'm not a rivet counter, so I rely on others to keep me out of trouble. KH has been around long enough to have learned enough about model building and modeling to avoid these issues. The wing is just plain Moronic. Much like their F9F Cougar that had 4, that's right, 4 sections per fuselage side. And their F-101 Voodoo has similar issues that they got creamed for just about everywhere. I was going to buy the kit, but the old Monogram kit is more accurate and has a 2 piece fuselage. Go figure. I'm betting that the gun pods will be tons of fun since I plan on closing them. And just to add a little spice to the story, the fuselage has a sealed compartment with doors that aren't meant to be opened, you can't see in period, yet there is a detailed floor, and two detailed bulkheads, plus the clamshell doors that are basically a butt joint. I honestly just don't get it. It's almost like to death. Joel
  24. No sooner have I solved the wing lower inner wing section problem (pics to follow in a few days), then another issue pops up. Next up I painted the IP anti glare panel Nato black and then installed the IP I made a month ago. Went perfectly. But to install it into the pit I need to fit the windscreen as it's a buldged shape. Naturally, those design engineers who gave us that wonderful multi upper piece wing must have designed the glass and cockpit as well. For starters the windscreen is a tad to narrow, but it's easy enough to spread and glue as I just dry fitted it at this point. But the anti glare panel is another est. placement issue, which is why i needed to dry fit the wind screen. And just to make it more of a challenge they put the fret attachment on the upper surface rather then on the bottom surface that gets glued to the fuselage. So now I have to very carefully cut, scrap, sand and polish, which of course I ended up with two scratches, so it's going to need a Pledge bath, Then to make it even more fun lets have two huge, and I mean huge pour points all on a the lip that visible when the cockpit glass is open. What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like they go out of their way to create issues that should never be, and been done a million times correctly by other manufactures. Sorry Brian, but you can tell Glen for me that I'll never, ever, buy another Kitty Hawk kit again. Way to much frustration over issues that should never be. It's plain to see that the engineering team doesn't have any model building experience, or they never would do things the way the do, I've never boxed up a 1/32 scale build yet, but this sucker is quickly reaching that stage. Joel
  25. Bryan, all the various technics are really coming together quite nicely. the overall effect sure looks like one really well worn and tropical weather beaten birdcage -1. Joel
  • Create New...