Egilman

Reports are it will hit from the gulf side tomorrow morning as a CAT: 3 just north of Tampa... Praying for ya brothers and everyone else in the path...

Above all brothers, STAY SAFE....

.22lr on the left .17HMR on the right// Good guess, but I think the the main casing/base is too big for scale on the .17HMR... but close... {chuckle} Kinda does look like an artillery round... (the round calibre is 1/20th an 85mm artillery round, it would more accurately represent a soviet 122mm AP round)

Me too, it's interesting the things that can be done today compared to what was done earlier.... In reality raised rivets in the aircraft industry when out in the late 30's in favor of flush riveting especially on wings and control surfaces... you can tell where the rivets are, but you couldn't feel them... It does add a "Look" to a model... The bare aluminum finish is going to be interesting for sure... Thanks brother for the detailed demonstration of the technique...

Sometimes multi-media is the way.... Well done brother...

Nice invasion stripes, clean and bright, don't dirty them too much, they weren't on long enough to get really dirty... And a question? why mask off the LG bays? wouldn't it have been easier to lay the LG doors in place and paint the stripes right over them? Any ways, nice work!!!

Looks good Brother, you going to paint the invasion stripes?

He only has half a brain cause the back half took the front half out and played with it, then he lost it.... I wonder if he knows how much he is showing he doesn't know? {chuckle}

Amen brother.... MEE TOO!!! {chuckle}

Yeah, that's the real crux of it... You don't have to make a deck of it to achieve the effect, instead of a ships hull bisecting the base just a straight wall will do the same thing... Essentially, your separating the close up view from the distance view for both objects but still have them in the same aspect... The angled aspect of the ship adds action while laying it parallel to an edge tends to distract... Anyway you wish to do it I think it will be spectacular brother...

Ok, I would use a squarish but rectangular base, cut half-n-half along a diagonal drawn across the long length, ship in front right bedded in a mild running dark grey seas following the diagonal... Then I would build a ships side along the diagonal a bit higher than the ship and place the catapult on the deck at the left rear so it shows the aircraft launching at right angles to the diagonal... This way, you have action in both presentations, but they complement each other.... The ship steaming preparing to launch and the aircraft ready to launch.... The left rear being a detail representation of the overall presentation on the right front.... The ships side gives a break to the viewing angle so you can perceive the ship alone, and the height on the left rear gives the aircraft a representation of action alone.... Step back, and you see both the overall and detail together where one does not overwhelm the other... Just a suggestion... EG

Nor would they be if it is a true F4F-4.... First off the -4 only had 4 machine guns, second they didn't protrude past the leading edge... All those pics of supposed F4F-4's on the internet that show protruding gunbarrels also show the gun in the outer wing panel making a 6 machine gun variant, probably an F4F-3... They has blue tape they would put over the gunports during maintenance... Three pics of Wildcats, F4F-4's on Guadalcanal in '42, and one from the Grumman factory ramp... And a couple from the US Navy early in the war when the distinction was plain before they began modifying them wholesale... Aboard the USS Wasp, Atlantic '42 (mostly dash 3's) and aboard the Hornet at Midway.... (you can see both F4F-3's and -4's on the deck of the Hornet) Most of the pics clearly show the wing gunports taped... I would say the kit is fairly accurate for an early war -4 Wildcat...

Really digging that WWI tech on the center wheels... {chuckle} Looks like it drove right in off the battlefield... Well Done!

Beautiful, simply beautiful....

Actually Mark, it happened long before '63, more along the line of the late '20's... Looking at the history that is when you begin to see cars retired from the race for simple stuff like belts breaking & water leaks etc.etc.... Before that they would fix it and send the car back out for lap money, the amount of money you get for running the race increased the more laps you could complete... (we must remember that the Indy 500 is an endurance race not a speed sprint after all) The first rear engine car was run at Indy in '63, Colin Chapman of Lotus brought three Lotus 29's powered by Ford V8's across the pond to run at Indy... His #1 Driver was Dan Gurney, #2 was a Scotsman, Jim Clark... Dan qualified the #1 car for the race in the 12th position... He also tried to qualify the #2 car, but mechanical issues stopped that... Jim Clark qualified the #3 car in 5th position... They knew that they had to show well to get another shot... Dan finished the race in 7th position, Jim finished the race in second position behind Parnelli Jones who was driving one of the standard Watson/Offenhauser's that had dominated Indy for the last decade... Jim put up a very spirited challenge to Parnelli Jones and actually lead the race for 29 laps swapping back and forth over the last quarter of the race... It was a great showing for a rookie team, Lotus, and a rookie driver in his first 500...... In '64 Chapman brought the team back to Indy, (still the only rear engine cars running) and this time qualified three cars, two Lotus 34's, (Gurney & Clark) and a Lotus 29 (Bobby Marshman) Clark took the pole position with Marshman at #2, Gurney settled in at #6... Unfortunately all three cars retired early with mechanical issues, Marshman exited first on lap 39 after leading for 33 laps due to a lost oil plug finishing 24th... Clark exited right behind him on lap 47 after taking over the lead from Marshman due to a minor suspension issue finishing 23rd.... Gurney finished in 17th place after abnormal tire wear caused his retirement in the 110th lap... All of these issues could have been repaired relatively quickly in the past, but the race had gotten so fast that in the time it would have taken to fix them there would be no chance of completing the race... But what came from this was everyone else running cars at Indy realized that the rear engine cars were the future and were poised to dominate in the very near future... That's how dominant the Lotus's were in the short time they were on the track... And in '65, history was made.... Jim Clark took a Lotus 38 to a absolutely dominate victory leading 189 of the 200 laps, (with AJ Foyt leading the other 11 laps in a Lotus 34, AJ's car retired after 110 laps) and Parnelli Jones piloted a Lotus 34 to second place..... Lotus's dominated taking 3 of the top 4 final positions and 5 of the top ten... (the top 5 positions were the only cars on the lead lap at the finish) The 9th finishing position was taken by Al Unser driving a Lola T-80/Ford... The rear engine car was there to stay.... In '66, rear engine open wheel formula cars, from 4 different manufacturers, took nine of the top ten starting positions... (a Watson 66/Ford took the 8th starting position, the last time a roadster appeared in a top ten starting position at Indy) In two short years, decades of auto development at Indy went into the trash heap of history, it was a revolution in racing....

Gators Grip, only glue I would use for such....

Well it sure wasn't intentional.... I'm sorry...

Amen to this!!!! I would like to see how he does some of his effects as well.... Jörgen, You, like many here, have a special talent, please share it with the rest of us.... EG

Just a note, the engine in the pics is a '32 2.3L that was factory installed in an 8C Monza, chassis number 2111037, vintage 1932... It was acquired by and part of the Peter Giddings collection in 2011... Removed when the car was restored by Auto Restorations, it is said to have been rebuilt with a new crankshaft at that time and retained by Giddings as a spare... It sold at Sotheby's Monterey auction in 2021 for $90K... https://rmsothebys.com/en/auctions/mo21/monterey/lots/n0006-alfa-romeo-8c-engine/1118281#

Yves, That is actually a real engine in the photos sitting on a drop leaf table.... (in an auction house display) One good strong man could carry it as it was an alloy competition engine and very very light... Two men could easily handle it without breaking a sweat...

Amen brother, and this one would fit in any WWI landscape... dirty yes but not overpowering.... Well done....

Personally, if I was building this, I would give consideration to putting the engine on a stand by itself.... In it's day, it was considered a piece of engineering art, all by itself... Originally developed for Formula Racing in '31 the engine made the Grand Touring Spider one of the most desirable cars to own... The Alfa Romeo 8C engine.... (some pics) Besides, you leave the head off it would be technically inaccurate as it was a unified casting head/block as most racing roadster engines of the period were... You will lose that beautiful supercharger and intake manifold as well... Pretty isn't it...

Yep the petal cowling and scoops are always a problem, but there are ways to deal with them... Years back I remember paper modelers on some of the fora arguing about them not being true paper modeling though... Like any medium, it has it's absolutists....

WE strive to produce good models, what is better training for that than producing good food.... The process is the same... {chuckle}

The first levels were used by builders as far back as the Egyptians... (including water levels, although very cumbersome to build and use) Around the same time, builders used an A-frame level, on which a plumbline was suspended from the vertex of the A... When the feet of the A were set on the surface to be checked, if the plumb line bisected the crossbar of the A, the surface was horizontal. A variation of the A-frame level also was used. The frame of this instrument is an inverted T with a plumb line suspended from the top of the vertical stem. But in essence, this form of level had no real rival until the 17th century and was still commonly used in Europe until the middle of the 19th century.... Tubing and glass lights were first used as a basic water level in the 1600's, but they still never supplanted the frame level in common use until the spirit level was introduced in the late 1600's... Once the spirit level was perfected it was incorporated into the survey equipment of the day and supplanted all other forms of levels (including plumb bobs which the original levels were based off) for the building trades, eventually, by the mid 1800's becoming the common carpenters/builders bar level... In the 80's the water level and surveyer's transit was supplanted in the building trades by the electronic level for measuring level over distances... And today, GPS does the job on most civil engineering projects, establishing level by bouncing radar signals off a satellite in space... Although understood for over a millenium, waterlevels didn't become really practical until the mid 1600's... They didn't need clear flexible tubing to work... Besides, clear flexible tubing didn't appear until the early 1900's...