Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


eoyguy last won the day on April 17 2013

eoyguy had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,372 profile views
  1. Looking at the pic a bit larger, it looks like the entire tail base is slotted into the top of the fuselage, and it isn't siting flush.
  2. Way back in the day I did that as well, sans template. The gun with cage may well still be floating round in the parts piles somewhere. Not difficult to do. I would actually prefer it to 3d printed, as I find most 3d parts to be a pain to get cleaned up, brittle, and for some reason, some that I have had sitting for a while are turning frosted (printed in clear resin). I have a 1/16 SA-7 missile launcher that I had printed on Shapeways that has been laying in the box for a while. One half of it is still the milky resin color as printed, the other half, with a clear demarcation line running down the middle, is white and now feels a little more textured (fuzzy). I find it very odd. Its been sitting in a box for about a year or so.
  3. I get the feeling that a lot of the resentment of this is because the people who are doing it are the richest folks in the world. Well, spaceflight ain't cheap, and the few time that tourists have flown to the ISS it has cost a LOT more. The super wealthy have super expensive hobbies, this is just another one. Yeah its a rich persons thing, but so much in life is. I don't drive an exotic (or even nice ) car, I don't live in a mansion, I don't have a second, third or fourth vacation home. But I don't feel that gives me the right to tell the wealthy how they should or should not be spending THEIR cash. Remember, this is space TOURISM, not space exploration. That means if you can pay your way, you get to go. If not, book a Carnival cruise. That also means that the people going aren't going to train like astronauts. They are going for a ride, plain and simple. If that means Shatner just stares out the window pondering life, so be it. If Branson, Bezos or Musk want to power these things by stuffing cash money into a reaction chamber and setting it alight, so be it. If someone wants to pay 10x my lifetime earnings to be on board, OK by me. They aren't coming on here and telling us how the spending of our money on plastic toys is a waste of time, money and our lives, or lecturing us on the damage that plastics (like, you know, polystyrene) does to the environment. Maybe in 100 years people will look back on it and tell us how useful the money they spent was on the advancement of space exploration, just like they do now when talking about the billions of tax payers dollars spent sending people to the moon and back...
  4. Well, yeah, that's a large part of all the trips at this point. Bezos, Branson and Musk are trying to one up each other. Its not like they are doing important science experiments or anything, the whole thing is pretty much about it being a bucket list experience for the wealthy. Shatner got to go gratis, so.... I'm 52 and move around like that quite frequently.
  5. You should get the Zacto intake for it, it will save you a lot of hassle and looks much better than the kit part. https://zactomodels.com/product/1-32-f-16-nsi-intake-small-mouth-academy/ Looks like Zacto is closed at the moment for moving, but its worth the wait to get one. The kit part is...mediocre. Before Chris came out with his, I fit a Tamiya intake to it. Not the easiest thing to manage, but I got it in the end.
  6. I'm just amazed that Shatner is 90yo! I think he looks about 65. I'm guessing he's had some work done and hair plugs, whatever, but man, still, most at his age are far more...fragile.
  7. eoyguy


    Not that I am aware of. Other than being tandem rotor and general shape, not that close. The 46 is about 3/4 the size of a 47, just for starters. This might help: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1021067
  8. I don't care for either, honestly. are you planning on a fictional scheme? Because there are plenty of real variations of the camo schemes
  9. If anything it should be too small, yes? Being that 1/35 IS smaller scale than 32nd, and I assume this is a 7.62 minigun. I was thinking of using a 1/72 20mm vulcan, which would scale out to about 8.8mm, so a fraction too big. This is probably a better way to go, it passes the MK1 eyeball test, methinks.
  10. Just...an unfathomable marketing ploy to kick off a new line of kits. Why slap the name of your new line onto a repop that's 1)overpriced 2) has nothing to do with a new tooled, new line of kits and 3)doesn't even include the upgrade parts that you are peddling? Regardless of what you think of the Revell Phantoms ( I kinda like them for what they are, at the RIGHT price), this is not the way to do it. Not. Very. Wellthoughtout. And it just struck me, the extras they are shilling add up to another $89. Yeah, I'm all in...
  11. Unknown, but there is plenty of their stuff still available on e-bay
  12. Im thinking about using a Master 1/72 M61, it scales out very close.
  13. Recoil shouldn't be an issue as these were basically like recoiless rifles, the blast out the back offsetting the projectile going out the front. The bigger worry was the back blast setting something on fire or killing someone. On the Sherman "Calliope" they ended up putting a form of blast deflector in the rear hull.
  14. I'm just hoping for a Japanese Type 95. I have some 1/16 Marines that would go with one very nicely. Not too large, either. Right up Takoms alley, I would think. And just in case anyone else is interested, DES is selling a 1/16 Renault R35. Resin and spendy, though. https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/351926-116-scale-french-renault-r35-by-des-kit/
  15. Yep Pak 40 gun used as an elevation mechanism. Like the Sherman, they wouldn't be able to fire the gun with the elevation arm mounted to the barrel, the recoil would bend/break it. Later on, Shermans mounted the arm to the gun shield so that the gun could be fired with the launcher mounted..
  • Create New...