RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR and other FEATURES
fl...@airplane.org
conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
kits?
I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
have such an important feature. Presently, I start out from my unbuilt
collection with modern fighter jets (F/A-18, F-14, YF-22) and get them
built right up to where it's time to add -- or leave off, the landing
gear. That's when I just get discouraged and quit at that point --
because I don't want to get STUCK with the choice of EITHER gear-up OR
gear-down configurations, particularly since the landing gear position
does indeed greatly change the appearance of the model. With all the
conversion and upgrade kits around, one would think that at least SOME
retractables would be available but alas, I have yet to find a single
one!
It's beginning to look as though I'll just have to build ONLY those
models of aircraft with FIXED landing gear -- OR -- design and make my
own retractable landing gear upgrades, in which case, I'll definitely
need some detailed drawings, diagrams, and specifications so that I
may construct an accurate WORKING replica.
Can anyone out here possibly help out with sources for either
retractable lg upgrade kits -- or sources for specifications and
particularly PLANS for building them?
I'm tired of aircraft models and modelers always having to take a back
seat to other kinds of modeling -- like model railroading for
instance. How would model railroaders like it if their trains wouldn't
move and everything was STATIC -- or more accurately FROZEN -- like
model aircraft kits are now? I don't think they'd much appreciate the
absence of animating FEATURES of THEIR favorite kinds of models being
DENIED them because some 'hobby snobs' considered it to be 'toy-like'
as there's NOTHING WRONG with having toys that just happen to be
highly accurate and detailed scale models! The model railroaders know
it -- and so do I! HOW ABOUT YOU?
IN THREE DIMENSIONS, REALISM IS NOT LIMITED MERELY TO A FROZEN
APPEARANCE!
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
laning gear is that, especially in smaller scales, getting the sometimes
very complicated actions to go at all, and then doing so without breaking
almost immediately, is next to impossible.
I don't know of anyone doing retracts or other moving options, though
scale model cars are getting into functiional features, like low-rider
suspentions that actually work, and such like that.
As for planes, most modelers I know of don't even have the propellors
spinnable, even less working gear. the major issue has less to do with
matters of "toy" than it does the practicle matter of keeping the model's
finish intact. Moving parts suggest handling the model, and some paint
jobs simply are not up to the abuse.
NaB25J
>laning gear is that, especially in smaller scales, getting the sometimes
>very complicated actions to go at all, and then doing so without breaking
>almost immediately, is next to impossible.
>I don't know of anyone doing retracts or other moving options, though
Take a look at the book "Scratchbuilt!". One of the authors, George Lee, built
a scale, working replica of a Wildcat's landing gear- in 1/72 scale! That must
have taken nerves of steel, and a patience to match. It's beyond impressive.
-Tony
NaB...@aol.com
Junior editor at Internet Modeler: http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn/
"For I was speaking to myself. A habit of the old; they tend to choose the
wisest person present to speak to." -Gandalf
Keith
from back when I was a kid, they could break if you weren't too careful.
Now some companies are selling aftermarket lost wax brass castings, and they
are sturdy enough. But even then they would have to be drilled for the
pivot connections and heaven help you if you have gear like a Corsair or
P-40 that turns as it retracts....
All in all, it sounds too expensive, but I would love to give it a shot if
only there was something available...
Keith Walker
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci wrote in message ...
>I would suppose that one one major obsticle to accurate retractable
>laning gear is that, especially in smaller scales, getting the sometimes
>very complicated actions to go at all, and then doing so without breaking
>almost immediately, is next to impossible.
>I don't know of anyone doing retracts or other moving options, though
Frank C. Crenshaw
says...
> >I would suppose that one one major obsticle to accurate retractable
> >laning gear is that, especially in smaller scales, getting the sometimes
> >very complicated actions to go at all, and then doing so without breaking
> >almost immediately, is next to impossible.
> >I don't know of anyone doing retracts or other moving options, though
>
> a scale, working replica of a Wildcat's landing gear- in 1/72 scale! That must
> have taken nerves of steel, and a patience to match. It's beyond impressive.
>
> -Tony
> NaB...@aol.com
> Junior editor at Internet Modeler: http://www.avsim.com/mike/awn/
>
> "For I was speaking to myself. A habit of the old; they tend to choose the
> wisest person present to speak to." -Gandalf
>
don't remember which kind- it was back in the early 80s) made by the
Watki brothers from Salt Lake City Ut. It had a working suspension and
the wings folded! The word was that it was made of nothing but plastic!
It was pretty hard to imagine how they did that.. I got to see a 1/72
scale SH-60 Seahawk (I think it was by Derek Brown) that was pretty darn
amazing as well. If a person could figure out how to mass market a scale
1/72 landing gear for the Fw-200 I would be interested ;).
--Frank
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Crenshaw fccr...@usgs.gov
Computer Specialist
USGS Grand Junction, CO (970) 245-5257 ext. 3018
"If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you"
BucholtzC
"Take a look at the book "Scratchbuilt!". One of the authors, George Lee, built
a scale, working replica of a Wildcat's landing gear- in 1/72 scale! That must
have taken nerves of steel, and a patience to match. It's beyond impressive."
Actually, that was built by Matt Matsushita. It IS impressive, but I don't
think the model was ever finished, and if it was, I doubt Matt would be eager
to frequently work the gear for fear of breaking an assembly he can no longer
get at!
--Chris Bucholtz
NaB25J
>think the model was ever finished, and if it was, I doubt Matt would be eager
>to frequently work the gear for fear of breaking an assembly he can no longer
>get at!
>
>--Chris Bucholtz
>
>
My mistake. I haven't looked at the book in a month or two now, but Mr. Lee's
name seemed to stick in my mind as the builder. Quite a piece of work, though.
-Tony
Brooks Moses
>
> Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
> conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
> kits?
>
> I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
> have such an important feature.
You know, you should be careful what you wish for, or you might get it.
In 1/25 scale model car kits, for instance, there are some kits which
have working features -- specifically: opening hoods, doors, and/or
trunks; posable front steering; and rolling wheels. In each case, there
are some very significant tradeoffs that come about as a result of
trying to implement these in plastic:
Opening hoods: The hinges are unsightly and look nothing like actual car
hood hinges, and usually result in quite unrealistic slots in the
firewall or inner fenders.
Opening doors and trunks: Again, the hinges are unsightly and look
nothing like actual car hinges. Moreover, on opening doors, often the
door opens to an incorrect location, with the front end of the door
outside the body instead of tucked inside where it should be. Also,
when closed, the doors and trunk rarely fit properly (without a _lot_ of
work) and leave unsightly gaps.
Poseable front steering: A good idea, except that the front spindles and
steering linkage must sacrifice all semblances of accuracy in trade for
durability, and thus look far beyond clunky.
Rolling wheels: Almost always the brake drum rolls with the wheel
(preventing the addition of brake linkages, and the most common
implementation with metal axles usually results in a big hole in the
engine block. The implememtations with plastic stub axles in the front
avoid this, but the result is that the wheels are wobbly and don't sit
right without a lot of extra fitting work.
So, anyway, my point is that including simple moving details in 1/25
scale results in a notable amount of inaccuracy and clunkiness. And you
are asking for quite complicated moving details in 1/72 scale? I
imagine that for anything approaching a reasonable level of accuracy and
durability, you would need to use some sort of high-quality lost-wax
brass casting, and would have to spend a lot of time smoothing and
fitting the gear doors to get them to close properly with something
resembling a scale gap. If a model company were to try to model this in
plastic, I would think that it would look much clunkier than you'd want,
and the doors would not really close right.... It's a case of "be
careful what you ask for, you just might get it."
But that's just my opinion. If someone wants to go to the trouble and
expense of tooling up a nice cast-metal working landing gear set, and
figures out how to get the doors to stay closed on the underneath of the
aircraft, I think it would get around a lot of the clunkiness. But it
would also cost $50 at least.
- Brooks
Greas
Greas
Jeff Rankin-Lowe
quickly enough or to flip back and forth as they change direction.
At least now I can get the toilet in the back of the CP-140 Aurura to
flush, so maybe I cab get the coffee pot to live up to its name.
<huge grin>
Jeff
Frank McCurdy
> I remember seeing a 1/72 scale Japanese carrier based bomber (sorry
> don't remember which kind- it was back in the early 80s) made by the
> Watki brothers from Salt Lake City Ut. It had a working suspension and
> the wings folded! The word was that it was made of nothing but plastic!
> It was pretty hard to imagine how they did that.. I got to see a 1/72
> scale SH-60 Seahawk (I think it was by Derek Brown) that was pretty darn
> amazing as well. If a person could figure out how to mass market a scale
> 1/72 landing gear for the Fw-200 I would be interested ;).
>
> --Frank
One year at the Nationals, one of the Wakis, I don't remember which, did
an F-15 Streak Eagle in 1/72nd with retracts that extended when you held
it upright and retracted when turned upside down. It even stood up OK.
It can be done, but at what price and as was mentioned above can the
paint take the abuse. I don't think the weathering, if any, could. As
far as trains go, I have worked in my share of hobby shops and what
appears as great detail to the untrained is many times grossly out of
scale. So what are you willing to trade off?
If subject matter is not important, years ago several model companies
including Airfix, Lindberg, Monogram, and Revell made kits with all
sorts of moving parts. It was the modelers who ask that these be
removed, not the companies.
Frank McCurdy
IPMS USA 10660
AHorv43767
Two that come to MIND are THE old Revell B-17 and B-24, still available.
There WAS A TIME when many modelers and model MANUFACTURERS thought the way YOU
do. In the 1960s SEVERAL makers especially OF 1/48 kits had retracts ON THEM.
I have a BOOK on scale aircraft modeling PUBLISHED, I think, BY Almark AT THAT
TIME which details how to do working-parts CONVERSIONS on kits of any SCALE.
Detailed DRAWINGS should really not BE necessary if you understand how THE
original worked. The work is really PRETTY straightforward if you have
patience, rudimentary MECHANICAL skills, and PROMISE youself not to operate the
finished parts TOO much, and risk BREAKAGE.
Nowadays most MODELERS and KIT manufacturers hold the view THAT operating parts
ARE NOT really necessary to realism and INDEED may lend a TOY-LIKE aspect to
the model. However, WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND and one can never rule out
another VOGUE for working parts at some FUTURE time.
AUGUST
mgba...@my-dejanews.com
my finnished models out of the display case and hang them up. If the gear
were operational, they would look a lot better while hanging.
I think the problem is acurate working features verses durability. When I
was a kid, I used to build a lot of kits with working features like
operational dive flaps, landing gear, bombs, etc. (for instance, Monograms
1/48 Navy line). The problem was that most of those features were broken by
the second or third day after the kit was completed.
I have seen some nice scratch built models in magazine articles that have
accurate and detailed working features. Most of them are 1/24 scale or
larger. I guess one needs to decide if one has the patience to do all that.
Matt
In article <7afcrh$10$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
fl...@airplane.org wrote:
> Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
> conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
> kits?
>
> I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
fl...@airplane.org
>One year at the Nationals, one of the Wakis, I don't remember which, did
>an F-15 Streak Eagle in 1/72nd with retracts that extended when you held
>it upright and retracted when turned upside down. It even stood up OK.
Now, that sounds really cool! I wonder if I could get my hands on one
today.
>It can be done, but at what price and as was mentioned above can the
>paint take the abuse. I don't think the weathering, if any, could.
I've never had handling problems with paint before but if you know of
a paint that can't take it, just let me know wich one it is and I'll
stay as far away from it as possible. And I don't weather planes
either -- I much prefer them pristine -- like their first painting
after rolling off the assembly line.
>As
>far as trains go, I have worked in my share of hobby shops and what
>appears as great detail to the untrained is many times grossly out of
>scale. So what are you willing to trade off?
With the INSANE prices of kits today, I see no reason to trade off
anything! Aren't we being RIPPED-OFF enough already? It's LOOONG past
enough time we started actually GETTING SOMETHING FOR ALL OUR
HARD-EARNED MONEY FOR A CHANGE!
I've seen other parts that are out of scale being generally tolerated
-- so why should something as important as retracts get singled out --
for REMOVAL rather than for IMPROVEMENT as they SHOULD have been?
>If subject matter is not important, years ago several model companies
>including Airfix, Lindberg, Monogram, and Revell made kits with all
>sorts of moving parts.
Yep, and the prices were MUCH better too!
>It was the modelers who ask that these be
>removed, not the companies.
Probably the yuppies -- who have too much money and are looking to
part with more of it -- just as it was the case with a pair of jeans
that used to cost $4 now going for $60 -- like I said before, INSANE!
Finn Jorgensen
In addition, as soon as you have moving pars in any small scale,
the appearance will suffer. Either you get fixed, nice looking
details or moving details that will not look like the original.
The only option I can think of is building yourself. I did this
with a car model (Bugatti Royale from some japanese company
thirty years ago). It was rather large (like 1:12 or some such)
so I made real springs from sheet metal, front axle made out of
chromed brass tube and so on.
Finn
--
Finn Bo Jorgensen, E-Mail : Finn.jo...@irisa.fr
IFSIC, bureau D268, Universite de Rennes I, Campus de Beaulieu
35042 RENNES CEDEX, FRANCE Tel : (33) 2 99 84 72 01
fl...@airplane.org
>Retractable gear would have to be strong too. I remember the monogram kits
>from back when I was a kid, they could break if you weren't too careful.
Yes, I remember that well -- so I learned to be careful. On the other
hand, polystyrene is a very CHEAP plastic which, particularly in view
of today's not-so-cheap prices, should indicate that it's time to
start using more durable material(s) if not for the entire model, then
at least for such parts as hinges and landing gear. I don't think
that's asking too much -- we're already PAYING for it!
>Now some companies are selling aftermarket lost wax brass castings, and they
>are sturdy enough.
If you have any information about them, I'd REALLY appreciate it!
>But even then they would have to be drilled for the
>pivot connections and heaven help you if you have gear like a Corsair or
>P-40 that turns as it retracts....
I've noticed that most of the landing gear of the retractable variety
have parts that telescope -- and hinges. I see no reason why small
metal tubes can't be used for this -- not only for their superior
strength, but also to easily facilitate the main gear axle rotation
such as is found on the P-40.
>All in all, it sounds too expensive, but I would love to give it a shot if
>only there was something available...
I actually INTEND to give it a shot! I'm sick and tired of OVERpaying
for CRAP kits with parts that don't even line up, are distorted, and
leave huge gaps requiring putty. I PAID for a QUALITY kit, not
something I have to waste my time compensating for the inadequacy of
-- namely, the Minicraft (or is that really MiniCRAP) kit of the Blue
Angels F/A-18 Hornet. When you overpay for a kit and then have to
spend your valuable time (and time is money) fixing its shortcomings,
just how much is that finished kit really worth? How much should it be
worth? I'd venture to say a LOT less than it ends up actually costing!
And that's why it's time to DEMAND the quality already OVERpaid for --
ad that most definitely includes FEATURES like retractable landing
gear!
fl...@airplane.org
>You Sir, are a mad dog. I have a hard enough time getting intricate static
>parts on right, I cannot imagine trying to get a correct landing gear,
>and it would have to be correct in this crowd, to even go together straight,
>let alone function.
Try a clip-on eyeglass loupe -- works great -- I wouldn't work details
any other way. And if I wanted static, FROZEN models, I'd invest in
aircraft ART instead.
>It would have to be like a $500 conversion set, made
>by a machinist!
Only for those who'd demand to OVERpay that much -- just like they did
for the kits themselves!
And all the machinist would have to do is to insert the workpiece(s)
and run the program on on CNC laser mill or lathe.
fl...@airplane.org
>So, anyway, my point is that including simple moving details in 1/25
>scale results in a notable amount of inaccuracy and clunkiness. And you
>are asking for quite complicated moving details in 1/72 scale?
I'm NOT saying that I want EVERY single part INSIDE as well as outside
of the gear to be an exact replica of the real thing, not that I'd
ever object if it was. I AM saying that I want the outside landing
gear parts to have the scale dimensions as those of the full scale
aircraft -- and to be able to be retracted AND extended -- by hand is
just fine. I'd even settle for a plug-in module with the landing gear
extended that could be unplugged and replaced by a gear-up module so
that the SAME model could, whenever desired, by made to appear with
either gear-up or gear-down. That's all I'm looking for.
fl...@airplane.org
How about if we start with the retractable landing gear first -- then
move on to other working details as technology improves and modelers
get used to learning to enjoy more features?
fl...@airplane.org
>I think you have a pretty good point. Sometimes I feel like taking some of
>my finnished models out of the display case and hang them up. If the gear
>were operational, they would look a lot better while hanging.
When I was a little baby, my father had lots of model airplanes
hanging up all over the bedroom. It's a great way to display them if
you don't mind removing the dust from time to time.
>I think the problem is acurate working features verses durability.
And with today's new, stronger plastics, or even metal, there
shouldn't be much of a problem there anymore.
>When I
>was a kid, I used to build a lot of kits with working features like
>operational dive flaps, landing gear, bombs, etc. (for instance, Monograms
>1/48 Navy line). The problem was that most of those features were broken by
>the second or third day after the kit was completed.
Me too. Then I learned to be a LOT more careful around polystyrene.
>I have seen some nice scratch built models in magazine articles that have
>accurate and detailed working features. Most of them are 1/24 scale or
>larger. I guess one needs to decide if one has the patience to do all that.
I was seriously considering the possibility of going to larger scales
to get the features I seek. But I prefer 1/72 scale because it
contains by far the greatest variety.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
The price of slave labor and splashy advertising has to be covered somewhere.
But in the "good old days", very low prices fitted in very well with very
low wages. I can remember a lot of plastic for a buck, and an hour's work to
make that buck.
Modern kits are priced up in no small part because they are relativley
limited production items to a niche market, so don't enjoy the economics
of scale that they might otherwise have.
As for moving gadgets, that may be your pet subject, but the bulk of the
crowd could care less and such features would be more a nuscance than asset.
It ain't the '50s or '60s anymore, sport.
Frank McCurdy
> Probably the yuppies -- who have too much money and are looking to
> part with more of it -- just as it was the case with a pair of jeans
> that used to cost $4 now going for $60 -- like I said before, INSANE!
A little off-subject here, but when jeans were only $4, I was making
$1.40/hr. Now I've exceeded $25/hr. Those jeans haven't gone up a bit,
have they?
Frank Not-A-Yuppie McCurdy
E McCann
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 fl...@airplane.org wrote:
> Now, that sounds really cool! I wonder if I could get my hands on one
> today.
>
> >It can be done, but at what price and as was mentioned above can the
> >paint take the abuse. I don't think the weathering, if any, could.
>
> I've never had handling problems with paint before but if you know of
> a paint that can't take it, just let me know wich one it is and I'll
> stay as far away from it as possible. And I don't weather planes
> either -- I much prefer them pristine -- like their first painting
> after rolling off the assembly line.
>
> >As
> >far as trains go, I have worked in my share of hobby shops and what
> >appears as great detail to the untrained is many times grossly out of
> >scale. So what are you willing to trade off?
>
> With the INSANE prices of kits today, I see no reason to trade off
> anything! Aren't we being RIPPED-OFF enough already? It's LOOONG past
> enough time we started actually GETTING SOMETHING FOR ALL OUR
> HARD-EARNED MONEY FOR A CHANGE!
Strange. I've been getting nicely detailed kits. What have you been
buying?
> I've seen other parts that are out of scale being generally tolerated
> -- so why should something as important as retracts get singled out --
> for REMOVAL rather than for IMPROVEMENT as they SHOULD have been?
Because it would make it more EXPENSIVE, not just for the MANUFACTURER but
for the CUSTOMER? (And YES, this alternating CAPS thing is really ANNOYING
to try to READ.)
> >If subject matter is not important, years ago several model companies
> >including Airfix, Lindberg, Monogram, and Revell made kits with all
> >sorts of moving parts.
>
> Yep, and the prices were MUCH better too!
And the quality and accuracy was much worse. Which would you rather have?
And yes, the accuracy *was* much worse. Just look at an old Monogram
Hellcat, SBD, SB2C, etc.
>
> >It was the modelers who ask that these be
> >removed, not the companies.
>
> Probably the yuppies -- who have too much money and are looking to
> part with more of it -- just as it was the case with a pair of jeans
> that used to cost $4 now going for $60 -- like I said before, INSANE!
And with retracts like you're looking for, do you think the prices won't
go up more? I don't particularly *want* to spend 20 hours working on
"retracts" (that I don't want to have retract, btw- I know, just fix them
"down," but then why should *I* pay the extra money for something I don't
want?) just to have some thin brass bend and screw it up, or otherwise
generally be annoying.
Something such as the B-17 or JU-88, which just would move back and forth,
is one thing. (Even there, though, you'll have to worry about detail, and
the actuators, not to mention the door actuators on some a/c - and how
will you get those doors open afterward?) Look at the retract mechanism
on, say, an F-14. The wheel's folding in one way, the gear's moving
another... not something I'd personally want to deal with in 1/48 or 1/72,
nor something I'd want to pay an extra $30 for.
If you think you're going to get, say, an SB2C with the sort of details PM
put out, then add "authentic" retracting gear, folding wings, what have
you - and then get it for the $10 you spent on the toy version years ago,
you're living in a fantasy world. it's just not going to happen.
First off, look at the engineering the kit manufacturer would have to do.
Yes, it's possible, but more effort, more detailed molds, etc. would
already bump the cost up.
OK, it's engineered, the molds are ready... but wait, do we want to put
them in plastic, plastic and metal, metal, resin??? Plastic *will* break
after a very few usages, face it. So will resin. Plastic and metal might
work, letting you keep some (easier to mold) detail while using metal for
the moving surfaces. Or we can go for resin/metal. Using metal all around
with little plastic/"multimedia" details would probably be the most
durable, but also the most expensive.
No matter which way you go with it, it *is* going to be more expensive,
more time consuming to build, and more finicky while being built. Either
way, it's *not* going to be a $10-$20 kit. And I, for one, wouldn't spend
the money on it. I don't want to hang it from the ceiling, I don't want a
toy airplane, and I definately don't want to spend $50-$60 on a 1/48 A6M,
F-16, etc. for a "feature" that would only annoy me and never see use.
Yes, I know they're used in R/C aircraft. Those are also not "scale"
(completely) and the aircraft themselves are *much* larger. And..
drumroll please... more expensive.
If you want retracts so badly, don't try pushing the bigger manufacturers
who would only lose money on it (either from being perfectly detailed but
insanely expensive, or much less detailed and toylike) but look to the
aftermarket. Someone'd want to take the risk.
Or you can do what several people here do. Scratchbuild 'em.
-Eric
emc...@iag.net
Frank McCurdy
> polystyrene is a very CHEAP plastic which, particularly in view
> of today's not-so-cheap prices, should indicate that it's time to
> start using more durable material(s) if not for the entire model, then
> at least for such parts as hinges and landing gear. I don't think
> that's asking too much -- we're already PAYING for it!
> for CRAP kits with parts that don't even line up, are distorted, and
> leave huge gaps requiring putty. I PAID for a QUALITY kit, not
> something I have to waste my time compensating for the inadequacy of
> -- namely, the Minicraft (or is that really MiniCRAP) kit of the Blue
> Angels F/A-18 Hornet. When you overpay for a kit and then have to
> spend your valuable time (and time is money) fixing its shortcomings,
> just how much is that finished kit really worth? How much should it be
> worth? I'd venture to say a LOT less than it ends up actually costing!
> And that's why it's time to DEMAND the quality already OVERpaid for --
> ad that most definitely includes FEATURES like retractable landing
> gear!
Sounds to me like you don't need moving parts, but another hobby. If
your time is money, maybe you're in the wrong hobby. We do this to
relax, not get rich. If all these kits are such crap quit buying them.
There are plenty of people on here who constantly give reviews along
with other sources like FSM. Ask before you buy. Like I've said before,
kits are static because the modelers prefer them that way.
Frank McCurdy
BlackCatNV
cartridges together in 1/72. additionally, the guns themselves tend to foul
too easily and have posed a danger to household pets.
Lee Coll
the damn manufacturers won’t put in SCALE SCHRADER VALVES in the wheel
hubs! This would allow modelers to deflate their models tires to just the
RIGHT PROFILE so we wouldn’t have to pay for those OUTRAGEOUS True Detail
wheels! The damn things WON’T TURN anyway!
Mark Schynert
black...@aol.com (BlackCatNV) wrote:
What? Fleas? Personally, I would never try to scratch-build any working
weapon smaller than a BK 5 in 1/72, or a Oldsmobile 37mm in 1/48, And then
there's the time I tried to simulate Tiny Tim rockets with fire
crackers...oh, never mind...
Mark Schynert
--
Å‚I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.Ë›
Oliver Cromwell, to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1650
cco...@us.hsanet.net
wrote:
>fl...@airplane.org wrote:
>
>> Probably the yuppies -- who have too much money and are looking to
>> part with more of it -- just as it was the case with a pair of jeans
>> that used to cost $4 now going for $60 -- like I said before, INSANE!
>
>A little off-subject here, but when jeans were only $4, I was making
>$1.40/hr. Now I've exceeded $25/hr. Those jeans haven't gone up a bit,
>have they?
>
>Frank Not-A-Yuppie McCurdy
I remeber pulling up to the gas pump with my '64 beetle and paying for
the gas with the change in my pocket.
Regards
Chuck C.
Kurt Laughlin
who had worked on some parts for the F-111 main gear, literally shaking his
head and thoroughly going over the kit. He made some statement like "The
gear on the real thing is one of the most complex mechanisms I've ever seen.
Why would they try to put it on a model for kids to build?"
Of course, you can bet that it worked real well after this 7-year-old took
the testors tube glue to it. . .
KL
Joe Hegedus
E McCann wrote:
> > With the INSANE prices of kits today, I see no reason to trade off
> > anything! Aren't we being RIPPED-OFF enough already? It's LOOONG past
> > enough time we started actually GETTING SOMETHING FOR ALL OUR
> > HARD-EARNED MONEY FOR A CHANGE!
>
> Strange. I've been getting nicely detailed kits. What have you been
> buying?
>
> > I've seen other parts that are out of scale being generally tolerated
> > -- so why should something as important as retracts get singled out --
> > for REMOVAL rather than for IMPROVEMENT as they SHOULD have been?
>
> Because it would make it more EXPENSIVE, not just for the MANUFACTURER but
> for the CUSTOMER? (And YES, this alternating CAPS thing is really ANNOYING
> to try to READ.)
> And with retracts like you're looking for, do you think the prices won't
> go up more? I don't particularly *want* to spend 20 hours working on
> "retracts" (that I don't want to have retract, btw- I know, just fix them
> "down," but then why should *I* pay the extra money for something I don't
> want?) just to have some thin brass bend and screw it up, or otherwise
> generally be annoying.
>
> Something such as the B-17 or JU-88, which just would move back and forth,
> is one thing. (Even there, though, you'll have to worry about detail, and
> the actuators, not to mention the door actuators on some a/c - and how
> will you get those doors open afterward?) Look at the retract mechanism
> on, say, an F-14. The wheel's folding in one way, the gear's moving
> another... not something I'd personally want to deal with in 1/48 or 1/72,
> nor something I'd want to pay an extra $30 for.
>
Personally, I don't think you'd be able to even think about getting a
1/72 kit, with accurate, workable retracting landing gear (I'm just
going to deal with the landing gear, the wingfolds are a similar
argument, though), for less that 3 figures. For a single engine
fighter. People have touched on the manufacturer's needing to do more
to make the landing gear workable, but I don't think the original poster
realizes the magnitude of the task he's asking of the manufactures.
We're talking about making high-precision moving parts that are on the
order of hundredths of inches in diameter, which also have to fit into
scale wheel wells. Workable parts of that size would likely have
tolerances on the order of ten-thousandths of an inch. You'll need a
very precise fit, or the model will wobble. Making parts with such
tolerances on full-scale items is expensive, it will only get more so on
miniature parts. This doesn't even consider whether or not the landing
gear will come assembled, or if the modeler would have to assemble it
himself. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't have the
skills or tools to assemble moving linkages that have parts 1/4 inch
long, and hold them together with fasteners that make the stuff inside a
mechanical wristwatch look big. If it comes pre-assembled, will it be
painted, too, because with tolerances that tight, a coat of paint will
cause it all to bind up. Plus, if it's assembled, the cost will go up
to cover that, too. Oh, then you must consider that the wheel well has
to be deep enough to hold the gear, which basically means scale skin
thickness on the wings (assuming the gear retracts into the wing). Yes,
it can be done, but at a price both monetary and in durability. You'll
likely end up with a model that is too delicate to handle, so what's
the point of making the gear work?
> If you think you're going to get, say, an SB2C with the sort of details PM
> put out, then add "authentic" retracting gear, folding wings, what have
> you - and then get it for the $10 you spent on the toy version years ago,
> you're living in a fantasy world. it's just not going to happen.
Darn straight!
>
> First off, look at the engineering the kit manufacturer would have to do.
> Yes, it's possible, but more effort, more detailed molds, etc. would
> already bump the cost up.
You bet it would.
>
> OK, it's engineered, the molds are ready... but wait, do we want to put
> them in plastic, plastic and metal, metal, resin??? Plastic *will* break
> after a very few usages, face it. So will resin. Plastic and metal might
> work, letting you keep some (easier to mold) detail while using metal for
> the moving surfaces. Or we can go for resin/metal. Using metal all around
> with little plastic/"multimedia" details would probably be the most
> durable, but also the most expensive.
I think, just to be able to have even the remotest HOPE of any sort of
durability, it would have to be all-metal.
> If you want retracts so badly, don't try pushing the bigger manufacturers
> who would only lose money on it (either from being perfectly detailed but
> insanely expensive, or much less detailed and toylike) but look to the
> aftermarket. Someone'd want to take the risk.
>
> Or you can do what several people here do. Scratchbuild 'em.
>
> -Eric
> emc...@iag.net
If he can do this, my hat's off to him. I'd like to see photos when it's
done.
Joe
Kurt Laughlin
>and run the program on on CNC laser mill or lathe.
Har-de-har-har. You sound like the designers where I work. Their world is
full of "All they have to do. . ." and "Just do this. . ." Listen: it
doesn't work that way on 1:1 parts, and certainly not on 1:72 replicas.
True story: In the process of tooling up for the production of the Trident
II missile, we were running out of time because the designers couldn't
decide where in the 82 to 83 diameter range the stage connections should be.
When informed that the entire manufacturing start was in jeopardy because we
had no tooling, and we had no tooling because we had no stage connection
deign, one of the designers said, "Can't you just pick a number for the
diameter, put it in your CAD system, and scale it up to the right diameter
when you machine it?" Fortunately, our supervisor had the self-restraint
not to beat the brains out of the guy, and replied," You guys have the same
CAD system we do. It would probably be better if you scaled up YOUR design
too. Why don't you ask your boss if he can help us out?"
Never heard back from that guy. . .
KL
Kurt Laughlin
>anything! Aren't we being RIPPED-OFF enough already? It's LOOONG past
>enough time we started actually GETTING SOMETHING FOR ALL OUR
>HARD-EARNED MONEY FOR A CHANGE!
>
>-- so why should something as important as retracts get singled out --
>for REMOVAL rather than for IMPROVEMENT as they SHOULD have been?
Buddy, I think the best thing for everyone involved is for you to find
another hobby. You are never going to be happy with this one, and at that
point it ceases to be a hobby. You are also never likely to shut your
freakin' yap about this either, and somebody will probably end up hunting
you down like a rabid 'coon and pulling your eyes out with pliers. Bad
scene.
Like I said, probably a good idea to look into stamp collecting.
KL
Kurt Laughlin
Brooks Moses
>
> Frank McCurdy <big...@flash.net> wrote:
> >far as trains go, I have worked in my share of hobby shops and what
> >appears as great detail to the untrained is many times grossly out of
> >scale. So what are you willing to trade off?
>
> anything! Aren't we being RIPPED-OFF enough already? It's LOOONG past
> enough time we started actually GETTING SOMETHING FOR ALL OUR
> HARD-EARNED MONEY FOR A CHANGE!
Well, all the prices in the world, insane or otherwise, can't change the
properties of styrene plastic. Simple as that. You will note that this
newsgroup has only been able to bring up _one_ example of working
in-scale plastic retracts in 1/72 scale -- from which I think it is fair
to conclude that in the hands of less than supermodelers, styrene
plastic simply isn't strong enough to be made into working in-scale
retracts.
Next, you'll be wanting jet engines that run, too.... :)
- Brooks
Brooks Moses
>
> Methinks I smell a *really big* (and successful) troll. Please stop
> feeding it, guys.......
Why? If he's trolling, I'm having just as much fun as he is.
Someone wanna tell me why I the latest '48 Ford Woody kit from
Revellogram doesn't have in-scale door hinges? :) (After all, the old
Revell '31 Ford woody does!)
- Brooks
Brooks Moses
> I'd even settle for a plug-in module with the landing gear
> extended that could be unplugged and replaced by a gear-up module so
> that the SAME model could, whenever desired, by made to appear with
> either gear-up or gear-down. That's all I'm looking for.
*boggle* You're being reasonable? :)
That _would_, I admit, be a doable suggestion. Only problem would be --
how do you get the gear-up module out? It would be pretty darn hard to
grip it....
- Brooks
Shane Weier
> The REST of us, the VAST majority
> of the model-buying PUBLIC, are PERFECTLY happy to build a MODEL with
> gear UP or DOWN (ALWAYS UP FOR ME).
> REALLY? How DO you DO that on WW1 aircraft?
ShAnE
BXGCR
>fighter kit, the missus and I can just have a decent meal at the
>Kensington Pub here in town, with a few pints of Big Rock Traditional
>and a decent tip thrown in.
Bravo DA !
It's great that you think of your local INDEPENDANT RESTAURANT. Also not
forgetting your server who is local also. He/she won't forget you. Anyway after
a few pints of brew you won't be in any shape to build a COMPLETELY RETRACTABLE
LANDING GEAR. The model can wait till tomorrow, please your wife tonight.
Brian X. Godwin
IPMS 36750
Dave Tsui
he was a troll or some 14 year old kid. Someone who doesn't
understand the difficulties involved (1/72 working landing gear!?) or
economics/inflation.
But this guy is serious! If that weren't amazing enough, he's
apparently an adult!
My hats off to all that have taken the time to post logical,
well-reasoned replies to his rant.
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:38:05 GMT, fl...@airplane.org wrote:
>Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
>conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
>kits?
>
>I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
>have such an important feature. Presently, I start out from my unbuilt
>collection with modern fighter jets (F/A-18, F-14, YF-22) and get them
>built right up to where it's time to add -- or leave off, the landing
>gear. That's when I just get discouraged and quit at that point --
>because I don't want to get STUCK with the choice of EITHER gear-up OR
>gear-down configurations, particularly since the landing gear position
>does indeed greatly change the appearance of the model. With all the
>conversion and upgrade kits around, one would think that at least SOME
>retractables would be available but alas, I have yet to find a single
>one!
<ranting removed>
Dave
To reply, remove "nospam" from address.
fl...@airplane.org
>Get two kits and build one of each, sheesh........
I've actually considered that but decided that even if the kits were 2
for the price of 1, I really wouldn't be interested in THAT much
building of the same kit -- particularly when retracts would solve the
problem.
Maiesm72
The style and rantings are quite similar. The general tone of the original
piece is silly, but not absurd. Having seen a few working parts on 1/72 scale
models there is the possibility there for AN INDIVIDUAL TO DO THE WORK! (Sorry,
that was just in case he was reading this).
I remember a KP Avia S.199 that a visiting Czech modeler, Jiri Silhanek, brough
by years ago. When you reached into the cockpit with a needle probe and moved
the stick or depressed either pedal the appropriate surface control moved in
the right direction.
Another modeler many years ago, Larry Templeton, used to do things like the
Hasegawa Neptune or the Rareplanes C-54 with cowlings removed, the top removed
with everything properly lighted, motors to turn the props, etc. I remember a
1/72 scale Coke machine in the corner of one diorama that dispensed little
scale Coke bottles.
This kind of thing is done by very few modelers. George Lee was probably the
very best of them all. Never used a kit, never used a decal, everythng from
scratch, hand painted, etc.
I George was still with us he would be ROTFLHAO, or hoever that goes. Ditto for
Dave Boksanski, Mike Dario, and several other master modelers that we have lost
over the decades.
My advise to the original poster would be to work on your modeling skills, have
your keyboard repaired, learn how to research the details you need and learn
how to scratchbuild very tiny things. You might want to start with writing
things on the head of a pin.
Whatever you do, have a good time building models.
Tom Young
IPMS #3406
fl...@airplane.org
>I agree with Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci.
>In addition, as soon as you have moving pars in any small scale,
>the appearance will suffer. Either you get fixed, nice looking
>details or moving details that will not look like the original.
And that same mentality, had it prevailed, would have seen us all
using the abacus instead of the computer!
So far, we've had nothing but HIGH PRICE -- now it's time for HIGH
TECH!
>The only option I can think of is building yourself.
It's certainly beginning to look that way, I'm afraid.
>I did this
>with a car model (Bugatti Royale from some japanese company
>thirty years ago). It was rather large (like 1:12 or some such)
>so I made real springs from sheet metal, front axle made out of
>chromed brass tube and so on.
Sounds cool. But 1/12 is huge compared to 1/72 -- which will be a
challenge -- but definitely not impossible.
fl...@airplane.org
>The price of slave labor and splashy advertising has to be covered somewhere.
'Slave' labor? I guess this must mean that the ROBOTS are finally
demanding equality with humans, huh?
'Splashy' advertising? I can't remember EVER having seen model kits
advertised ANYWHERE. One simply goes to the local hobby shop or other
sources and INQUIRES and LOOKS AROUND for the kits that interest them.
>But in the "good old days", very low prices fitted in very well with very
>low wages.
Yeah -- and MUCH HIGHER DISPOSABLE INCOME -- the TRUE measure of the
standard of living -- which today is rapidly approaching an ALL TIME
LOW!!!!!
>I can remember a lot of plastic for a buck, and an hour's work to
>make that buck.
Yep -- and you didn't need TWO or MORE family members working just to
make the ends meet either!!!!!
I remember when a typical WWII single engine fighter model in 1/72
scale and a gallon of gasoline cost virtually the same.
Care to pay from $6 to $30 or MORE for a gallon of gas too?
>Modern kits are priced up in no small part because they are relativley
>limited production items to a niche market, so don't enjoy the economics
>of scale that they might otherwise have.
Otherwise is right -- if their prices were more affordable.
The model industry -- or RACKET, is pricing itself right out of
existence. It's so sad. Back when I was a kid, model kits were
everywhere and kids -- and adults, bought them because they could
AFFORD them. And that niche keeps getting smaller and smaller as the
prices get bigger and bigger.
>As for moving gadgets, that may be your pet subject, but the bulk of the
>crowd could care less and such features would be more a nuscance than asset.
Sure -- and there's also quite a crowd that's into even more frozen
renditions of aircraft. They collect paintings of aircraft and pay
horrendous amounts of money for them too. As for myself, I prefer
ANIMATION in my models and retractable lg is a good place to start.
>It ain't the '50s or '60s anymore, sport.
Which is EXACTLY why there's really NO EXCUSE for not having MORE and
BETTER FEATURES on today's models!
ModelerAl
Methinks I smell a *really big* (and successful) troll. Please stop
feeding it, guys.......
Al Superczynski, MFE
IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968
Check out my want and disposal lists at "Al's Place":
http://users.aol.com/modeleral
"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
and the critics will flame you every time."
fl...@airplane.org
>fl...@airplane.org wrote:
>> Probably the yuppies -- who have too much money and are looking to
>> part with more of it -- just as it was the case with a pair of jeans
>> that used to cost $4 now going for $60 -- like I said before, INSANE!
>A little off-subject here, but when jeans were only $4, I was making
>$1.40/hr. Now I've exceeded $25/hr. Those jeans haven't gone up a bit,
>have they?
You think that just because YOU were able to got a high-paying job
that everyone else has too? How I wish that were true.
And yes, the jeans -- and food -- and rent -- and everything else has
gone waaaaaay up -- far out of proportion with what is consistent with
a high standard of living -- which has declined to the point where the
entire family must work just to pay the bills!
Like I said before -- yuppies.
Frank McCurdy
It has nothing to do with me having a good-paying job, it has to do with
the fact that you don't have a friggin' clue about anything and if you
have read any of the posts, you'll realize that in one day you have
become the laughing stock of RMS.
By the way, troll, do you have a name?
fl...@airplane.org
>Strange. I've been getting nicely detailed kits. What have you been
>buying?
Revell, Minicraft, and Airfix, to name a few. And the big problem is
not so much the lack of detail as it is how poorly parts fit, are
distorted, and don't line up.
>Because it would make it more EXPENSIVE, not just for the MANUFACTURER but
>for the CUSTOMER?
Only if being RIPPED OFF is what you're willing to settle for -- just
as was the case with the exorbitant prices now.
>(And YES, this alternating CAPS thing is really ANNOYING
>to try to READ.)
And the HIGH PRICES are even MORE ANNOYING to try to AFFORD!
>And the quality and accuracy was much worse.
Depended on the kit.
>Which would you rather have?
Well, let's see. First, I chose an electronic pocket calculator over
the hand crank variety. Then I chose a computer over a pocket
calculator. So naturally, with today's high-tech capabilities, I
choose features like accurately scaled, detailed, AND functional
retractable landing gear over non-animated frozen kits for all my
hard-earned money, thank you very much.
>And yes, the accuracy *was* much worse. Just look at an old Monogram
>Hellcat, SBD, SB2C, etc.
Overaccentuated rivets can always be sanded down -- and missing
cowling flaps can always be added -- so tell me, how can I so easily
add retractable landing gear?
>And with retracts like you're looking for, do you think the prices won't
>go up more?
For what the frozen kits already cost, what's the difference?
>I don't particularly *want* to spend 20 hours working on
>"retracts" (that I don't want to have retract, btw- I know, just fix them
>"down," but then why should *I* pay the extra money for something I don't
>want?) just to have some thin brass bend and screw it up, or otherwise
>generally be annoying.
Seems to me that the ideal solution is a modification kit upgrade
option.
>Something such as the B-17 or JU-88, which just would move back and forth,
>is one thing.
Those and the Avro Lancaster and DC-3/C-47 too.
>(Even there, though, you'll have to worry about detail, and
>the actuators, not to mention the door actuators on some a/c - and how
>will you get those doors open afterward?)
Just peel them back open. The right amount of resistance in the hinges
and/or a snug fit should do it.
>Look at the retract mechanism
>on, say, an F-14. The wheel's folding in one way, the gear's moving
>another... not something I'd personally want to deal with in 1/48 or 1/72,
>nor something I'd want to pay an extra $30 for.
But since the F-14 does retract the gear, I'd certainly love to have
that -- sure beats pretending the F-14 is a fixed gear aircraft -- I'd
sure hate to make little wheel fairings for the fixed gear F-14 :)
>If you think you're going to get, say, an SB2C with the sort of details PM
>put out, then add "authentic" retracting gear, folding wings, what have
>you - and then get it for the $10 you spent on the toy version years ago,
>you're living in a fantasy world. it's just not going to happen.
Why not? Ever hear of a thing called PROGRESS? It's something who's
time has certainly come, particularly with regard to models.
>First off, look at the engineering the kit manufacturer would have to do.
How about that? They can make a Pentium III but can't put affordable,
accurate, detailed, functional landing gear on a model airplane!
I JUST DON'T BUY THAT!
>Yes, it's possible, but more effort, more detailed molds, etc. would
>already bump the cost up.
Perhaps but at least, this time, they might actually be able to
justify a higher price.
>OK, it's engineered, the molds are ready... but wait, do we want to put
>them in plastic, plastic and metal, metal, resin??? Plastic *will* break
>after a very few usages, face it. So will resin. Plastic and metal might
>work, letting you keep some (easier to mold) detail while using metal for
>the moving surfaces. Or we can go for resin/metal. Using metal all around
>with little plastic/"multimedia" details would probably be the most
>durable, but also the most expensive.
I was thinking more along the lines of carbon fiber -- very
plastic-like, stronger than steel, yet able to be worked to detailed
shapes.
>No matter which way you go with it, it *is* going to be more expensive,
>more time consuming to build, and more finicky while being built.
And it will be well worth it so long as the profiteers don't have
their greeeeeeeedy way again.
>Either
>way, it's *not* going to be a $10-$20 kit.
I'll go $10 to have the feature of retractable landing gear.
>And I, for one, wouldn't spend
>the money on it.
Okay. Then there should at least be an option for those who would.
>I don't want to hang it from the ceiling, I don't want a
>toy airplane, and I definately don't want to spend $50-$60 on a 1/48 A6M,
>F-16, etc. for a "feature" that would only annoy me and never see use.
I'd like my preferences accomodated that I may enjoy them just as you
apparently already enjoy yours. I don't think that's asking so much.
>Yes, I know they're used in R/C aircraft. Those are also not "scale"
>(completely) and the aircraft themselves are *much* larger. And..
>drumroll please... more expensive.
That's for sure.
>If you want retracts so badly, don't try pushing the bigger manufacturers
>who would only lose money on it (either from being perfectly detailed but
>insanely expensive, or much less detailed and toylike)
Model aircraft have been my favorite toys since before I had even
learned to talk, right up to the present. In fact, playing with models
was how I got into the hobby in the first place. I learned to enjoy
and appreciate realism, detail, and relative scale from a very early
age. I really don't understand what you mean by the term 'toylike' as
there are no aircraft toys that even begin to approach the realism of
even a poor quality plastic model. Therefore, the only attribute, as
far as I'm concerned, that would make a model toylike would be, in
addition to realism, detail, and accuracy, -- durability -- something
I don't imagine any serious modeler would complain about.
>but look to the
>aftermarket. Someone'd want to take the risk.
I may have no choice but to undertake such a venture myself as I have
yet been unable to find what I'm looking for and out here in this ng,
the arguments and criticism is far outweighing the constructive
suggestions and information which I seek.
>Or you can do what several people here do. Scratchbuild 'em.
If that is the only way, then so be it and that is exactly what I will
do -- but I'll still need detailed landing gear drawings and
specifications.
Kurt Laughlin
>
One can only hope.
fl...@airplane.org
>Sounds to me like you don't need moving parts, but another hobby. If
>your time is money, maybe you're in the wrong hobby.
It often seems that way, mostly because things have gone to hell in a
handbasket even though such was not always the case and the hobby was
fun -- when models were affordable and had features.
>We do this to relax, not get rich.
Relax? I don't know how anyone could ever even begin to relax with
something so tedious. While I could never relax that way, I do
nonetheless thoroughly enjoy tedious, delicate, and precision work --
but because I find it an exciting challenge, not relaxing!
However, I'd much rather have my models already assembled and ready to
go withoug any building on my part just as I much prefer to simply sit
down and start eating when I'm hungry rather than having to cook the
food. The only reason I cook is so I can eat and likewise, the only
reason I build models is so I can have the scale icons of my most
favorite vehicles near at hand, flying machines. I love flying and
flying machines and that is the only reason why I build models of them
-- because it's the only way I know of to have them.
>If all these kits are such crap quit buying them.
I have -- but I received some as gifts for Christmas.
>There are plenty of people on here who constantly give reviews along
>with other sources like FSM. Ask before you buy. Like I've said before,
>kits are static because the modelers prefer them that way.
I've read many of those reviews but very few of them applied to the
kits I have. And I know that I probably relate to aircraft and their
scale replicas somewhat differently than the model building public at
large. Seeing a gutted shell of an airplane in a museum is probably
okay for the majority of people but it makes me sick. Flying is a
spiritual experience for those with the passion for it and to those of
us who so thoroughly enjoy it, aircraft are MUCH MORE than STATIC --
and that simply is the way it is, and I'm tired of arguing my point to
those who don't understand it. I'm simply looking to move positively
in the direction of adding the feature of retractable landing gear to
my models. That, and not discouragement, is the only reason for my
original posting in the first place.
Maiesm72
I think I have an answer to this most interesting (it IS about models, after
all) troll.
Toko, a Ukranian company, produces a quickly growing range of 1/72 scale WWI
aircraft. Their detail is superb and, the most important feature of all for our
un-named troller, FIXED GEAR.
There are hundreds of 1/72 scale kits in every medium of fixed gear aircraft.
Subscribe to ESM 72 and just try to find, buy, trade and then build, even a
tiny percentage in your lifetime.
You drop me an e-mail with YOUR NAME on it and I'll personally find you a
superb 1/72 scale kit at a very good price. If you don't use your name just
forget it. You have been rude and insulting to the very industry that we enjoy.
What's more, your SHOUTING insults that have very little, if any, basis in
fact, makes you look the fool. Just in case you don't know what I mean, all
caps is net procedure for shouting.
OK, end of conversation unless you can show some class and discuss this in a
friendly manner.
Al, as I mentioned to you before, at least his rants are about modeling. After
the Jesus crap this kind of troll is refreshing.
Tom Young
Burkhard Domke
>Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
>conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
>kits?
>
>I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
>have such an important feature.
Hey, you missed both the "CAPS LOCK" and the "less than brilliant
ideas" threads, didn't you?
No offense intended, but fully-functional undercarriages in most cases
would be rendered impossible by non-authentic depth of wheel-wells to
begin with. And this can't be overcome due to engineering necessities
(e.g.minimum wall/sheet thickness).
Burkhard
Rama Lama Hoop da la Wee
Hauptstadt Tempel
Berlin, Germany
Shane Weier
> While I could never relax that way, I do
> nonetheless thoroughly enjoy tedious, delicate, and precision work --
> but because I find it an exciting challenge, not relaxing!
>
> However, I'd much rather have my models already assembled and ready to
> go withoug any building on my part
...an exciting challenge, but you'd rather not take it?
This is boring. Most trolls that come here trying to stir up trouble at least make a
little sense, but this is so internally inconsistent and obvious that it seems most of
the r.m.s denizens have lost interest.
Lessee. You've posted *once* to rec.models.scale, a message obviously intended to start
an argument. No other history on rec.models.scale whatsoever, so i guess we can't assume
you're actually interested in modelling.
No activity in any other newsgroup either, so we get to assume you have no interest in
any other subject. Or maybe, that your email address has been chosen to hide who you are
and similar silly antics elsewhere.
Why don't you get back under the bridge.
>Flying is a
>spiritual experience for those with the passion
>for it and to those of us who so thoroughly enjoy
>it, aircraft are MUCH MORE than STATIC --
>and that simply is the way it is, and I'm tired
>of arguing my point to those who don't understand it.
People who make this sort of precious statement in my
country get called "wankers". Not because of anything
physical they might be doing, but because the only one
they're impressing is themself. The rest of us just laugh
Shane
(my real name)
Joe Hegedus
>
snip
> 'Splashy' advertising? I can't remember EVER having seen model kits
> advertised ANYWHERE. One simply goes to the local hobby shop or other
> sources and INQUIRES and LOOKS AROUND for the kits that interest them.
>
I guess you've never seen a magazine such as "Finescale Modeler", or
"Scale Models International", et.al. Pity, you could probably learn a
lot from them if you could get your head out of your a$$ long enough to
read them.
snip.
> >Modern kits are priced up in no small part because they are relativley
> >limited production items to a niche market, so don't enjoy the economics
> >of scale that they might otherwise have.
>
Also, they have much finer detail, and more of it, which increases the
manufacturing costs.
> Otherwise is right -- if their prices were more affordable.
> The model industry -- or RACKET, is pricing itself right out of
> existence. It's so sad. Back when I was a kid, model kits were
> everywhere and kids -- and adults, bought them because they could
> AFFORD them. And that niche keeps getting smaller and smaller as the
> prices get bigger and bigger.
Gee, I always thought that someone purchased something because it was
either a necessity (food, clothes, shelter, etc.) or because they
wanted it. Silly me, evidently they buy things just because they can
afford it? And, what exactly did the models compete with for the kid's
attention? GI Joe and Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks. Now, there are
many more diversions to compete with for the same attention, which one
would expect would reduce the demand for any one diversion.
>
> >As for moving gadgets, that may be your pet subject, but the bulk of the
> >crowd could care less and such features would be more a nuscance than asset.
>
> Sure -- and there's also quite a crowd that's into even more frozen
> renditions of aircraft. They collect paintings of aircraft and pay
> horrendous amounts of money for them too. As for myself, I prefer
> ANIMATION in my models and retractable lg is a good place to start.
>
Back off, Jerk. What exactly is wrong with collecting Aviation Art? I
happen to like it, it is a nice complement to my interest in aircraft
models, which in turn is a nice complement to my interest in flying real
aircraft (I've been a licensed pilot for 17 years) which in turn is a
nice complement to my job in flight test. (Gee, maybe I CAN have it
all?) If animation is that big of a deal for you, either:
1. Learn how to scratchbuild,
2. Build a real airplane that has all these features in 1:1 scale,
3. Do your animation on a computer screen,
4. Pay someone who IS good enough to make what you want an astronomical
amount of money to make it for you.
Whichever you choose, please go away and leave us alone.
Joe
Who isn't afraid to use his name on his posts.
E McCann
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 fl...@airplane.org wrote:
> You think that just because YOU were able to got a high-paying job
> that everyone else has too? How I wish that were true.
>
> And yes, the jeans -- and food -- and rent -- and everything else has
> gone waaaaaay up -- far out of proportion with what is consistent with
> a high standard of living -- which has declined to the point where the
> entire family must work just to pay the bills!
>
> Like I said before -- yuppies.
No, troll-boy, we got educations and decent jobs, and got out of
McDonalds.
-Eric the Non-Yuppie
emc...@iag.net
E McCann
> Then what the #&*%$ are you building scale models for in the first
> place? You clearly have no interest in them, and have even less
> understanding of how they're made the way they are, and cost as they
> do. In all honesty, it seems to be the case that you are not in any
> way cut out for scale modelling, and should in fact be in radio
> controlled modelling. I have met R/Cers who say the same thing: they
> have little to no interest in building models, but regard
> model-building as an evil necessary to attaining their goal, which is
> having models they can fly. R/C modelling is something I want to try
> myself one day. It has, I'm sure, a lot to offer someone like
> yourself. And please don't tell us you can't afford it. If you can
> afford this Pentium III you're on about (again, you want to talk about
> a REAL racket...), then you can certainly afford R/C modelling.
>
> >and that simply is the way it is, and I'm tired of arguing my point to
> >those who don't understand it.
>
> who is clearly beyond all understanding.
>
> >I'm simply looking to move positively
> >in the direction of adding the feature of retractable landing gear to
> >my models. That, and not discouragement, is the only reason for my
> >original posting in the first place.
>
> you've been getting the response you've had. This is a good group, and
> there's always someone here who will help out with _reasonable_
> requests. But whiny rants get the response they merit.
>
> And you were doing no such thing as "moving positively in the
> direction of adding...retractable landing gear" to your models. No
> such thing. You indulged, as I said, in a whiny rant about how those
> evil, gouging model companies just won't give you what you want, even
> though you are practically the ONLY man alive who wants these things.
>
> If you REALLY want to add these features to your models, then listen
> up:
>
> A) Given market economics--though I can see this reality is giving you
> a lot of trouble--model manufacturers are NEVER EVER AGAIN going to
> add these features, and mostly because the OVERWHELMING majority of
> their customer base has ABSOLUTELY no interest in it.
>
> B) Corollary to A. If no one is going to give you the features you ask
> for, and you really want them, then the answer is to do it yourself.
> This is what modellers do all along anyway. Many of us, in fact, find
> that kit manufacturers don't give us quite what we want, so we buy new
> decals (or even make our own sometimes), or we detail cockpits,
> engines, and landing gear bays, correct inaccurate shapes and
> dimensions, convert to versions not yet offered, etc. And it can be
> done with moving parts.
>
> C) It's not easy. Some of us have mentioned modellers who actually
> *have* added working features to their 1/72 models. And that's the
> point. The modellers named are (or were, if they've now passed on)
> MASTERS of their craft. Their skills are far beyond what the bulk of
> modellers (and I am talking about skilled, contest-winning modellers)
> can hope to equal. And the work they've done is intricate and
> painstaking, requiring great patience, and an immense love of the
> craft itself (and not just as a means to an end). You indicated that
> you are not very patient with tasks like these, but if you want
> something badly enough maybe you can learn. Most important of all, if
> you actually learned to do this, and learned to work with metal stock,
> and machined and turned your own parts, you would acquire a healthy
> appreciation for the difficulty involved, and would FINALLY understand
> why mass-market scale model companies cannot offer this, at least for
> no price modellers would find acceptable.
>
>
>
> DA
>
After all that, all I can say is - bravo.
Yes, if I'd seen the 1/72 retracts, to scale, etc. I'd be most impressed.
It's the people who *can* do these things - and do them well - who are the
other source of inspiration in this hobby. No, I don't think I'll ever be
at *that* level, mostly because some of these things are just in areas
that don't interest me and my skills there, therefore, won't develop to
that point. But inspiration definately counts for something in *any*
endeavour.
-Eric
emc...@iag.net
Lee Coll
I think the momentum is finally winding down on this one.
The original post, bordering on seriousness, served as the bait to fuel this troll's
fun(ny) little romp through our newsgroup. Follow his pattern - an irritating delivery
that pushes a lot of our buttons just right, followed by shrugging off the inevitable
sarcasm that it deserves with more rants. My guess is that his he's seeing how long the
exercise can go on; it's really nothing more than that.
Lee
Burl Burlingame
running the model around on the carpet, making engine-revving noises
with your lips.
Gregory Johnston
works so you have the model flying about the room? Cats would love it.
fl...@airplane.org
>"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
>and the critics will flame you every time."
I've noticed that -- particularly since I was only looking for some
help, not vitriol.
fl...@airplane.org
Not at all. Just slide fingernail or similar object under seam and pry
gently.
fl...@airplane.org
>No, you've made me see the LIGHT, and I've HEARD the word of the LORD!
>Why stop at something as trivial as working, scale 1/72 landing gear
>(I assume, of course, that you're really serious, and not just yanking
>all our chains, right? and so you are also talking about scale
>hydraulics, no?)?
I'm NOT talking about scale hydraulics or electrical systems, just
scale model landing gear which may be retracted and extended -- or
even, through the use of plug-in modules, be made to appear fully
retracted and fully extended.
>Now, what I WANT TO SEE is a working, in-scale, 1/72 scale engine for
>my Harrier GR.7! I mean, how cool would that BE?!? Just imagine the
>look on your friends' faces (I mean the non-modelling kind of friends,
>for those of you that still have any), when, after you wave your hand
>in a funny way (some sort of advanced circuitry activated by the air
>molecules distrubed by your hand's motion), that boring old model you
>just built actually TAKES OFF AND HOVERS OVER THE TABLE! WOWEE!
>And since model kit manufacturers are making such criminal profits
>from their sales, they won't really have to charge us a dime extra for
>this.
I'm more interested in seeing the micro rc planes the size of some
insects -- including a helicopter the size of a peanut -- which
already exists. Good thing those who conceived, invented, and
ultimately constructed and FLEW them didn't come to this ng for help,
huh?
>And THEN, the PLANS I have for the bomb bay of my 1/72 B-36!!!
I hope you're not saying that someting as huge as a 1/72 scale model
of the B-36 doesn't have a working bomb bay -- there's just no excuse
for that.
Brooks Moses
1/4" scale seam in 1/72 scale = 0.003", which is about the thickness of
a sheet of paper. A seam big enough to get your fingernail in would be
about a 3-inch canyon in scale. Also, you would very quickly
wear/shatter off the paint on the edges of the gear door where you were
gripping it.
- Brooks
Brooks Moses
> I'm more interested in seeing the micro rc planes the size of some
> insects -- including a helicopter the size of a peanut -- which
> already exists. Good thing those who conceived, invented, and
> ultimately constructed and FLEW them didn't come to this ng for help,
> huh?
I would be very interested in seeing those as well, since the currect
aerospace engineering journals indicate that the smallest RC aircraft
being developed is a little larger than palm-sized.... Even allowing
for a difference between unclassified and classified materials, I find
it very hard to believe that anything the size of a tangerine, much less
a peanut, has been flown under radio control -- particularly with rotary
wings. If you could provide a magazine article, web page, or other
source for how you know this helicopter exists, I would very much
appreciate it. And, if you can't provide such, I regret that I shall
have to dismiss your claim as yet another wild urban legend.
- Brooks
Brooks Moses
Uh, yeah. It wasn't all that apparent from your original message.
Let me repost your original message, sentence by sentence, and keep
score:
> Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
> conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
> kits?
(request for help)
> I'm sick and tired for paying horrendous prices for kits that don't
> have such an important feature.
(vitriol)
> Presently, I start out from my unbuilt
> collection with modern fighter jets (F/A-18, F-14, YF-22) and get them
> built right up to where it's time to add -- or leave off, the landing
> gear.
(commentary)
> That's when I just get discouraged and quit at that point --
> because I don't want to get STUCK with the choice of EITHER gear-up OR
> gear-down configurations, particularly since the landing gear position
> does indeed greatly change the appearance of the model.
(commentary tending towards vitriol, given the shouting/caps-lock)
> With all the
> conversion and upgrade kits around, one would think that at least SOME
> retractables would be available but alas, I have yet to find a single
> one!
(commentary)
> It's beginning to look as though I'll just have to build ONLY those
> models of aircraft with FIXED landing gear -- OR -- design and make my
> own retractable landing gear upgrades, in which case, I'll definitely
> need some detailed drawings, diagrams, and specifications so that I
> may construct an accurate WORKING replica.
(commentary)
> Can anyone out here possibly help out with sources for either
> retractable lg upgrade kits -- or sources for specifications and
> particularly PLANS for building them?
(request for help)
> I'm tired of aircraft models and modelers always having to take a back
> seat to other kinds of modeling -- like model railroading for
> instance.
(vitriol)
> How would model railroaders like it if their trains wouldn't
> move and everything was STATIC -- or more accurately FROZEN -- like
> model aircraft kits are now?
(vitriol)
> I don't think they'd much appreciate the
> absence of animating FEATURES of THEIR favorite kinds of models being
> DENIED them because some 'hobby snobs' considered it to be 'toy-like'
> as there's NOTHING WRONG with having toys that just happen to be
> highly accurate and detailed scale models!
(vitriol)
> The model railroaders know
> it -- and so do I! HOW ABOUT YOU?
(vitriol)
> IN THREE DIMENSIONS, REALISM IS NOT LIMITED MERELY TO A FROZEN
> APPEARANCE!
(vitriol and/or an unsupported assertion combined with "proof by
yelling")
I count two short requests for help, three relevant commentaries, and
five (mostly long) sentences of vitriol. Most of the vitriol is at the
end, and this it is what leaves the most lasting impression in your
readers. In light of this, the vitriolic responses seem very much
replies-in-kind to your message....
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"
- Brooks
William Just
In a previous article, fl...@airplane.org () says:
>Brooks Moses <bmo...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>fl...@airplane.org wrote:
>>> I'd even settle for a plug-in module with the landing gear
>>> extended that could be unplugged and replaced by a gear-up module so
>>> that the SAME model could, whenever desired, by made to appear with
>>> either gear-up or gear-down. That's all I'm looking for.
>
>>*boggle* You're being reasonable? :)
>
>>That _would_, I admit, be a doable suggestion. Only problem would be --
>>how do you get the gear-up module out? It would be pretty darn hard to
>>grip it....
>
>Not at all. Just slide fingernail or similar object under seam and pry
>gently.
ah yes, but at that scale, the seam would be far too small to fit a
fingernail into. we *are* concerned about scale fidelity, arent we?
:)
--
one love
rasta4I
jah bill
fl...@airplane.org
>...an exciting challenge, but you'd rather not take it?
Not if I don't have to but I will if it's the only way.
>This is boring. Most trolls that come here trying to stir up trouble at least make a
>little sense, but this is so internally inconsistent and obvious that it seems most of
>the r.m.s denizens have lost interest.
If you check the other messages, you'll find that they really are not
limited to the issue of adding retractable landing gear to 1/72 scale
models -- exaggeration to the contrary notwithstanding.
>Lessee. You've posted *once* to rec.models.scale, a message obviously intended to start
>an argument.
It was intended for the mature, not belligerent little children
looking for an argument.
>No other history on rec.models.scale whatsoever, so i guess we can't assume
>you're actually interested in modelling.
I'm interested in obtaining 1/72 scale model replicas of various
aircraft and I'm looking for features, namely retractable landing gear
on those models of planes that actually have retractable landing gear.
It's really not all that complicated to comprehend.
>No activity in any other newsgroup either, so we get to assume you have no interest in
>any other subject.
Is that some big revelation? Or is there another scale model ng that
I've overlooked?
>Or maybe, that your email address has been chosen to hide who you are
>and similar silly antics elsewhere.
I don't like spam. When I post in a public forum, I do it to
communicate with the public and the public with me. I've long since
learned the hard way from posting my spam channel (real name) in the
past that vitriol from children in a public forum is one thing -- but
an overflowing e-mailbox is quite something else -- to be avoided.
>Why don't you get back under the bridge.
I posted to get information that would help me in my quest for
retractable landing gear, not to make it easy to get spammed, even if
I get called names for practicing a little internet security. I have
an unpublished telephone number too. Terrible, isn't it?
>People who make this sort of precious statement in my
>country get called "wankers". Not because of anything
>physical they might be doing, but because the only one
>they're impressing is themself. The rest of us just laugh
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
>Shane
>(my real name)
Okay, so?
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>mode...@aol.com (ModelerAl) wrote:
>
>>"Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to,
>>and the critics will flame you every time."
>
>I've noticed that -- particularly since I was only looking for some
>help, not vitriol.
No you didn't. You came on with an alternately whiney and pissy post and
have been nothing but nasty to everyone who hasn't given you the ansewers
you want. You want the whole damn world to spin your way and cry how
unfair everyone and everything is that doesn't give you your spoilt brat way.
Jeez, i know the temptation to get into irrational rant-fests, but you
are jsut embarrasing in your self-absorbed "my way or no way" tantrum.
fl...@airplane.org
>I guess you've never seen a magazine such as "Finescale Modeler", or
>"Scale Models International", et.al.
<childish personal insult deleted>
Yes, I have read fsm and unfortunately, I can never seem to find all
that much related to my interest. There are car model mags, train
model mags, but how about aircraft model mags? Nooooo! The aircraft
models get lumped in with monsters, dinosaurs, and fantasy models. If
only there was a mag devoted entirely to scale model aircraft -- with
articles about such things as retractable landing gear -- which I have
yet to see in fsm although I do keep looking.
>Also, they have much finer detail, and more of it, which increases the
>manufacturing costs.
Perhaps, but increasing the purchase price at least 10 fold?
>Gee, I always thought that someone purchased something because it was
>either a necessity (food, clothes, shelter, etc.) or because they
>wanted it.
If they can't afford it, it doesn't matter very much whether they need
or merely want it -- if they can't get it.
>Silly me, evidently they buy things just because they can
>afford it?
They can only buy it if they can afford it.
Can't buy it without the money.
>And, what exactly did the models compete with for the kid's
>attention? GI Joe and Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks.
In that perspective, they compete with anything that's for sale.
However, if it's detail, accuracy, and realism that's being sought,
there really isn't much of anything to compete with models, except of
course, other models.
>Now, there are
>many more diversions to compete with for the same attention, which one
>would expect would reduce the demand for any one diversion.
Unless one wants the kind of detail and realism that so far, only
scale models can provide.
>Back off, Jerk.
How 'mature' of you -- NOT!
>What exactly is wrong with collecting Aviation Art?
NOTHING is WRONG with collection aviation art and I never said that
there was. I just find 2-dimensional renditions inadequate compared to
the 3-d models -- as I also find frozen 3-d models inadequate compared
to 3-d models with animated features.
>I
>happen to like it, it is a nice complement to my interest in aircraft
>models, which in turn is a nice complement to my interest in flying real
>aircraft (I've been a licensed pilot for 17 years) which in turn is a
>nice complement to my job in flight test. (Gee, maybe I CAN have it
>all?) If animation is that big of a deal for you, either:
Who wouldn't like, nay, LOVE a situation such as that? Perhaps you can
have it all but unfortunately, many cannot.
>1. Learn how to scratchbuild,
I'd love to. However, although I was supplied with the title:
"Scratchbuilt", I was unable to find the book and am still looking for
something on that subject.
>2. Build a real airplane that has all these features in 1:1 scale,
As soon as I can afford to, I'll either do that or buy a used
ultralight.
>3. Do your animation on a computer screen,
Which software?
>4. Pay someone who IS good enough to make what you want an astronomical
>amount of money to make it for you.
I'd much rather learn how to and do it myself than pay an astronomical
amount of money as I'm struggling for every penny.
>Whichever you choose, please go away and leave us alone.
Only when you can prove that you are the lawful OWNER of this ng!
>Joe
>Who isn't afraid to use his name on his posts.
Big deal.
fl...@airplane.org
>If you are going for realism, how about a minature engine that really
>works so you have the model flying about the room? Cats would love it.
And how about some scale air density so that those planes fly more
realistically? Better yet, how about just working out the retractable
landing gear first, then work up from there?
Maiesm72
You, whoever you are hiding behind a no name post, just mentioned that what
attracts you to modeling is the wonderful detailing, etc, contrary to your
original troll, which denigerated the industry for manufacturing horrible
garbage.
Which is it?
Magazines strictly about scale model aircraft without all the car, etc. junk
seem to have evaded you. You are right in one respect, FSM, ESM 72, Repliphile
are the only American magazines dedicated to scale model aircraft. Oops, that's
not right. ESM 72 covers all phases of small scale models, only about 75% of
each issue covers aircraft. You could subscribe, but of course you would have
to reveal who you are and you seem to have a identity problem.
OK, so off to England. Scale Aircraft Modelling, Scale Aviation Modeller,
Plastic Kit Constructor, the new combined 1/72-1/48 model magazine. France has
Replic and others.
Maybe if you asked nicely people on this ng would give you a hand in finding
some of these superb publications that you seem to be ignorant of. That is the
major thrust of rms, to help each other out.
Ignorance of the subject that you have trolled into this ng with does not sit
well with people who do their best to help other people. Your rude, loud
mouthed attitude has cost you a great many possible sources of information.
That is only the case if you are anything except a deformed creature living
under a bridge playing LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME, PAY ATTENTION TO ME.
Your are always welcomed to post on any newsgroup. People who are here to help
and/or find information are welcomed to do what I am about to do.
PLONK!
Tom
Maiesm72
Care to join in on plonking this troll?
Tom
Maiesm72
With all of his rantings available for anyone interested to look over he
insists that he was just looking for help.
He needs help all right.
Two words: kill file.
Bye bye .
Plonk!
Tom
BXGCR
>or merely want it -- if they can't get it.
If poor people are what you really care about go do something about them like
employ them.
Many on this ng do but we don't post it.>as I also find frozen 3-d models
inadequate compared
>to 3-d models with animated features.
>
What is animated about a movable landing gear? It's either up or down. Nobody
else will know unless you make it electric and remote control.
As for drawings or plans go to the library.
Basicly you just like stirring up stuff and then act indignant when people
disagree with you. You are the type that will argue that water is not wet .
Come to this ng anytime but please leave your bad manners out.
Brian X. Godwin
BucholtzC
">but look to the
>aftermarket. Someone'd want to take the risk.
I may have no choice but to undertake such a venture myself as I have
yet been unable to find what I'm looking for and out here in this ng,
the arguments and criticism is far outweighing the constructive
suggestions and information which I seek."
Attention, Bruce Beamish! Your long-lost twin has been sighted...
--Chris Bucholtz
Maiesm72
At least Bruce Beamish wrote letters that were believable.
This guy can't even keep his story straight.
Plonk!
Tom
Joe Hegedus
>
> Joe Hegedus <heg...@mail.us.hsanet.net> wrote:
>
> >I guess you've never seen a magazine such as "Finescale Modeler", or
> >"Scale Models International", et.al.
>
> <childish personal insult deleted>
>
> Yes, I have read fsm and unfortunately, I can never seem to find all
> that much related to my interest. There are car model mags, train
> model mags, but how about aircraft model mags? Nooooo! The aircraft
> models get lumped in with monsters, dinosaurs, and fantasy models. If
> only there was a mag devoted entirely to scale model aircraft -- with
> articles about such things as retractable landing gear -- which I have
> yet to see in fsm although I do keep looking.
>
Maybe that should give you a small clue that no one else is interested
in working landing gear? That maybe you're the only one out there who
sees this as some sort of problem? How big of a crowbar do you need to
be hit with to understand this?
> >Also, they have much finer detail, and more of it, which increases the
> >manufacturing costs.
>
> Perhaps, but increasing the purchase price at least 10 fold?
>
> >Gee, I always thought that someone purchased something because it was
> >either a necessity (food, clothes, shelter, etc.) or because they
> >wanted it.
>
> If they can't afford it, it doesn't matter very much whether they need
> or merely want it -- if they can't get it.
>
> >Silly me, evidently they buy things just because they can
> >afford it?
>
> They can only buy it if they can afford it.
> Can't buy it without the money.
I guess that's why, as a nation, we're how many TRILLION dollars in
debt, and as individuals we have how many thousands of dollars per
person credit card debt? Try again.
>
> >And, what exactly did the models compete with for the kid's
> >attention? GI Joe and Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks.
>
> In that perspective, they compete with anything that's for sale.
> However, if it's detail, accuracy, and realism that's being sought,
> there really isn't much of anything to compete with models, except of
> course, other models.
>
No, in that perspective models are competing only with other toys.
Kid's toys are what are expected to have things that move. Scale
models, on the other hand, are (by everyone except you, it seems)
expected to have fine detail, which by the nature of the size of the
objects in question generally precludes scale, detailed, accurate
operating parts. If you didn't catch it from several other posts, it is
extremely difficult and expensive to make very small, very precise
parts. If you're whining and crying about prices now, you would have no
hope in a thousand years of affording it.
> >Now, there are
> >many more diversions to compete with for the same attention, which one
> >would expect would reduce the demand for any one diversion.
>
> >Back off, Jerk.
>
> How 'mature' of you -- NOT!
>
Your comment was an insult. What exactly did you expect in return?
> >I
> >happen to like it, it is a nice complement to my interest in aircraft
> >models, which in turn is a nice complement to my interest in flying real
> >aircraft (I've been a licensed pilot for 17 years) which in turn is a
> >nice complement to my job in flight test. (Gee, maybe I CAN have it
> >all?) If animation is that big of a deal for you, either:
>
> Who wouldn't like, nay, LOVE a situation such as that? Perhaps you can
> have it all but unfortunately, many cannot.
Tell you what. Go to school, get a decent engineering education, and
maybe you too can have it someday. But along the way, I think you might
finally understand why what you desire is so impractical on a
mass-market scale.
> >3. Do your animation on a computer screen,
>
> Which software?
>
I don't know, and I really don't care. Not my area of interest.
> >4. Pay someone who IS good enough to make what you want an astronomical
> >amount of money to make it for you.
>
> I'd much rather learn how to and do it myself than pay an astronomical
> amount of money as I'm struggling for every penny.
>
Then go do it, and quit whining.
> >Whichever you choose, please go away and leave us alone.
>
> Only when you can prove that you are the lawful OWNER of this ng!
>
Don't have to. Many others share my sentiments on that one, judging
from other responses.
> >Joe
> >Who isn't afraid to use his name on his posts.
>
> Big deal.
Yes, actually, it IS a big deal. I'm willing to stand by my words,
unlike you, hiding cowardly behind anonymity. And your name was, again?
Joe
Who STILL isn't afraid to use his name on his posts.
My final word on this.
Peter Nebelung
>Would anyone know of a source for RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR
>conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
>kits?
Delete a whole bunch of crap
>It's beginning to look as though I'll just have to build ONLY those
>models of aircraft with FIXED landing gear -- OR -- design and make my
>own retractable landing gear upgrades, in which case, I'll definitely
>need some detailed drawings, diagrams, and specifications so that I
>may construct an accurate WORKING replica.
>
>Can anyone out here possibly help out with sources for either
>retractable lg upgrade kits -- or sources for specifications and
>particularly PLANS for building them?
>
Delete some more crap
Ok Heres how you go about doing this.
1. Join the nearest restoration group working on the aircraft of your
choice.
2. Take apart the gear, and make accurate drawings of same.
3. Take a course in CADCAM and write the program
4. Spend about 125,000.oo USd on a numerical control milling machine
and another 60,000.oo on a lathe.
5. Insert aluminum or steel blanks.
6. Press button marked start.
7. Repete 5 and 6 until all parts are done
8. Take all the parts and assemble them.
9. Test for function.
10. Call CUST NUM (1)and He'll take one set for say 20.00
11. Repeat 10 for CUST NUM (1)+1
12. GOTO 11
13. IF CUST NUM X = (TOTAL (4) Plus material)/$20.00 THEN build one
for yourself and break even
Have a NICE DAY!
Peter
985 Engineering CO.
"We Do Weird"
PS. I would be happy to do the above for you for Cost plus 10%
Kurt Laughlin
>bomb.
Unfortunately, we run into the immutable laws of physics here. Mass would
be reduced by the cube root of the scale, reducing our yield
proportionately. We'd only get a 67 ton yield. . . good idea though.
KL
Subpine
>conversion/upgrades for ANY 1/72nd scale aircraft plastic scale model
>kits?
Flyby,
It is with great trepidation that I post this response, but in event that your
request for assistance is sincere, I respond:
I am the builder of the 1/72 F4F Wildcat landing gear in "Scratchbuilt". I
cannot provide you with a "drop in" conversion/upgrade package but If you are
interested in scratchbuilding your own, e-mail me direct (that goes for anyone
else seriously interested). As you can see by the general newsgroup response,
there is a great number of modelers who are not interested in the subject for
many various and valid reasons. I see no need to bother them w/ unwanted
postings. I want to make it clear to you up front that I am serious about
model building. Be advised that you will be into metal working and working to
near zero-tolerance precision to achieve your goal. Your DESIRE to achieve
that goal is the most important factor as only it will see you past the many
trials & errors which precede each successful step - I started in 1989 after
the Nationals...the gears have been done for years...but the firewall... & the
wingfolds...ya really gotta wanna do this stuff...
Matt Matsushita
IPMS 23326
Maiesm72
ROTFLMAO!
Matt
You are a true gentleman as well as a spectacular modeler.
Unfortunately, judging by "Flyby"'s rantings and desire to keep anyone from
knowing who he is, I think that you are dealing with a troll who is only here
to mess with people.
If he does contact you in a serious and meaningful vein would you let us all
know, please? Since the subject matter is at least sticking to modeling it
would be nice if he learned his manners and turned out to really want the
information.
Happy modeling
Tom
Maiesm72
Let's all plonk this carpet wetting puppy.
Tom
Mike Gilbert
tires that inflate too along with the set of tools to balance them!!LOL
Cheers, Mike
D. Anderson <28148...@home.com> wrote in message <36cc98cc.911737@news>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:36:42 -0600, Lee Coll <lee...@eatel.net>
>wrote:
>
>>What’s REALLY wrong with this thread is that NO ONE mentions the fact that
>>the damn manufacturers won’t put in SCALE SCHRADER VALVES in the wheel
>>hubs! This would allow modelers to deflate their models tires to just the
>>RIGHT PROFILE so we wouldn’t have to pay for those OUTRAGEOUS True Detail
>>wheels! The damn things WON’T TURN anyway!
>>
>>
>>
>
>Whut he SAID!
Brooks Moses
>
> everything is a nail" -- or in your case, every message is an attempt
> to knock the chip off of your shoulder.
Yup, guys, you're right. I apologise for the bandwidth taken up by my
apparently ineffective and misguided efforts.
*plonk*
- Brooks
fl...@airplane.org
>Unfortunately, I find retractable gear rather fragile when you're
>running the model around on the carpet, making engine-revving noises
>with your lips.
That's why you should play with them on a cleared table instead --
much easier to avoid breakage and also allows a close-to-the-surface
view. You mean to say that you've never played airport?
fl...@airplane.org
>Uh, yeah. It wasn't all that apparent from your original message.
Not surprising as there's an old saying that goes: "to a hammer,
everything is a nail" -- or in your case, every message is an attempt
to knock the chip off of your shoulder.
>Let me repost your original message, sentence by sentence, and keep
>score:
I'm sure there's plenty of sports ngs to keep 'score' on -- this isn't
one of them, by the way.
>(request for help)
The only correct observation in the whole bunch. And what 'help'?
Personal attacks, that's what.
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol)
(personal opinion)
>(commentary)
(personal opinion)
>(commentary tending towards vitriol, given the shouting/caps-lock)
(personal opinion)
>(commentary)
(personal opinion)
>(commentary)
(personal opinion)
>(request for help)
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol)
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol)
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol)
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol)
(personal opinion)
>(vitriol and/or an unsupported assertion combined with "proof by
>yelling")
>"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"
They are also attracted by FECES -- enough said?
fl...@airplane.org
>No you didn't.
I most certainly sincerely ask for help with adding retractable
landing gear to models.
>You came on with an alternately whiney and pissy post
Maybe overpaying for what's available out there is okay with you but I
want better -- and I don't mind voicing my disappointment at the
sickening status quo.
>and
>have been nothing but nasty to everyone who hasn't given you the ansewers
>you want.
WRONG! I was attacked for voicing what I wanted to do, namely add
retractable landing gear to 1/72 scale planes. All anyone could have
done is tell me that they weren't able to help -- or they could have
simply not replied at all and that would have been the end of it but
NOOOOOOO!!!! -- some children just couldn't resist personal attacks.
>You want the whole damn world to spin your way and cry how
>unfair everyone and everything is that doesn't give you your spoilt brat way.
The spoiled brats are the ones who attacked me and continue to do so.
And I'm not asking the world to spin my way -- ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS
RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR ON 1/72 SCALE AIRCRAFT!
>Jeez, i know the temptation to get into irrational rant-fests, but you
>are jsut embarrasing in your self-absorbed "my way or no way" tantrum.
If your thinking is so drastically limited, then at least try to think
of it as customizing!
fl...@airplane.org
>1/4" scale seam in 1/72 scale = 0.003", which is about the thickness of
>a sheet of paper. A seam big enough to get your fingernail in would be
>about a 3-inch canyon in scale. Also, you would very quickly
>wear/shatter off the paint on the edges of the gear door where you were
>gripping it.
While that certainly is true, I have yet to see 1/4" details of any
kind represented on any 1/72 scale kit. But I'd love to see that kind
of precision.
Perhaps someone with a decent dial/digital caliper and/or a micrometer
should, just for fun, measure the dimensions of all the parts of a
1/72 scale (or other scale) kit and then multiply their readings by
the scale and then compare the figures with the dimensions of the full
size aircraft. I'll bet that would be an eye-opener to say the very
least.
PNMoss
> ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS RETRACTABLE LANDING GEAR ON 1/72 SCALE
> AIRCRAFT!
Mr. f: Have you ever looked at the kits in 1/48 scale that had retractable
landing gear? I'm thinking mainly of various Monogram kits of the 60s like the
Spitfire IX, the Corsair, the Avenger, etc. Now granted, these were not current
state-of-the-art kits. Even so, it should be clear that significant compromises
with accuracy were necessary to achieve working gear. Now, how about doing it
in 1/72 scale? Not even close.
The bottom line: I don't think anyone on this ng has any help to offer, and
it's damn sure the kit manufacturers are not about to offer that feature you're
hoping for. Sorry for your loss. Nuff said. Cheers. Pip Moss
fl...@airplane.org
>ah yes, but at that scale, the seam would be far too small to fit a
>fingernail into. we *are* concerned about scale fidelity, arent we?
Yes, of course -- but to what degree of perfection?
When I worked in electroacoustics, I observed a very interesting
phenomenon which I dubbed "the psychology of sensation". It has to do
not so much with that which is measured but rather that which is
perceived -- and particularly, the state of mind of the one perceiving
it. It applies to sound and it most certainly also applies to sight --
along with all the other senses as well -- which is why I ask; to what
degree of perfection should a model be made to convince your senses,
and your psyche of its realism?
Or another approach; if you suddenly found yourself reduced to 1/72 of
your current size -- and then were to inspect a 1/72 scale model, even
one of the so-called 'high-tech' variety, how satisfied do you suppose
you'd actually be?
Something everyone should seriously think about.
fl...@airplane.org
>Flyby,
>It is with great trepidation that I post this response, but in event that your
>request for assistance is sincere, I respond:
My request for assistance is indeed sincere and I thank you for the
information.
>I am the builder of the 1/72 F4F Wildcat landing gear in "Scratchbuilt".
Is "Scratchbuilt" a book or an article? I looked for the title on the
www but couldn't find anything.
>I
>cannot provide you with a "drop in" conversion/upgrade package but If you are
>interested in scratchbuilding your own, e-mail me direct (that goes for anyone
>else seriously interested).
I'd love to get into scratchbuilding. I'm not sure what most
scratchbuilders are into -- making small parts, kit modifications,
entire models, any or all of the above?
>As you can see by the general newsgroup response,
>there is a great number of modelers who are not interested in the subject for
>many various and valid reasons.
If they really weren't interested, they wouldn't have responded in the
first place -- unless of course, all they were really interested in
was personally attacking me. All the time, I see many posts here that
don't interest me, but I don't attack the poster -- I just don't
respond.
>I see no need to bother them w/ unwanted
>postings.
I never posted my original message to bother anyone. This is a large
newsgroup -- and I surmised that it was large enough to include those
who like myself, wanted retractable landing gear on their models too.
>I want to make it clear to you up front that I am serious about
>model building.
No problem understanding that here as anyone who'd go to the trouble
of adding retractable landing gear couldn't be anything but a serious
modeler.
>Be advised that you will be into metal working and working to
>near zero-tolerance precision to achieve your goal.
Have you actually measured the tolerances? I've done work within .001"
and later, down to .0005" -- so I'm neither afraid of, nor a stranger
to close tolerances.
>Your DESIRE to achieve
>that goal is the most important factor as only it will see you past the many
>trials & errors which precede each successful step - I started in 1989 after
>the Nationals...the gears have been done for years...but the firewall... & the
>wingfolds...ya really gotta wanna do this stuff...
Sounds great. I don't know if I want to do the folding wings -- YET --
but definitely the landing gear. And I'd really appreciate more
information about "Scratchbuilt" so I might get a copy.
>Matt Matsushita
>IPMS 23326
fl...@airplane.org
>Mr. f: Have you ever looked at the kits in 1/48 scale that had retractable
>landing gear?
I haven't considered the larger sizes as yet but I'll certainly check
them out if I can find more rg undercarriages in larger scales. I was
wondering if anyone had some kind of listing of aircraft kits in any
scale, that have retracts.
>I'm thinking mainly of various Monogram kits of the 60s like the
>Spitfire IX, the Corsair, the Avenger, etc. Now granted, these were not current
>state-of-the-art kits. Even so, it should be clear that significant compromises
>with accuracy were necessary to achieve working gear.
I'd actually have to get a look at them first. I don't know if the
model companies would be able to help me to locate their products with
rg but it's worth a shot.
>Now, how about doing it
>in 1/72 scale? Not even close.
I actually had some of them -- a B-17, Lancaster (and the bombers had
working bomb bay doors too), DC-3/C-47, Rotodyne (also had working
rear clamshell doors), AH-56 Cheyenne, and an Albatross amphibian --
all of which were in 1/72 scale and all of which had retractable
landing gear.
>The bottom line: I don't think anyone on this ng has any help to offer, and
>it's damn sure the kit manufacturers are not about to offer that feature you're
>hoping for. Sorry for your loss. Nuff said. Cheers. Pip Moss
I can only try -- and I'll never truly know unless I do.
Semjase
>From: 28148...@home.com (D. Anderson)
>Date: 2/23/99 10:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <36d2f147.33747525@news>
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>I actually had some of them -- a B-17, Lancaster (and the bombers had
>>working bomb bay doors too), DC-3/C-47, Rotodyne (also had working
>>rear clamshell doors), AH-56 Cheyenne, and an Albatross amphibian --
>>all of which were in 1/72 scale and all of which had retractable
>>landing gear.
>
>understand that, can you? Today's modellers are not interested in
>"features" that destroy the scale appearance of their finely detailed
>plastic models, which is what happens to when you try to include
>retractable landing gear on a plastic scale model. Given that,
>manufacturers, not interested in going broke to meet the demand of a
>market of one (you), don't include these features anymore.
>
>
Boy are you WRONG! I am sick of flat tires, props that don't turn, wheels
that don't turn and ailerons that are just scribed lines. Also why all this
photo etch and crappy little resin pieces that get stuck in places you won't
ever see. Yes manufacturers if you are reading this I would welcome details
that actually worked because this IS authenticity also.
S.
D. Anderson
>>FEATURES
>>From: 28148...@home.com (D. Anderson)
>>Date: 2/23/99 10:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <36d2f147.33747525@news>
>>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>>
>>>I actually had some of them -- a B-17, Lancaster (and the bombers had
>>>working bomb bay doors too), DC-3/C-47, Rotodyne (also had working
>>>rear clamshell doors), AH-56 Cheyenne, and an Albatross amphibian --
>>>all of which were in 1/72 scale and all of which had retractable
>>>landing gear.
>>
>>None of which were even close to scale in appearance. You just can't
>>understand that, can you? Today's modellers are not interested in
>>"features" that destroy the scale appearance of their finely detailed
>>plastic models, which is what happens to when you try to include
>>retractable landing gear on a plastic scale model. Given that,
>>manufacturers, not interested in going broke to meet the demand of a
>>market of one (you), don't include these features anymore.
>>
>>
>Boy are you WRONG!
Uh, no boy, I'm right. The fact that you and flyweight want these
features in your models doesn't mean that enormous numbers of other
modellers do. Just the opposite. You two are exceptions, and by
yourselves simply do not constitute a market. Or have you no
conception of economics and how markets work?
>I am sick of flat tires, props that don't turn, wheels
>that don't turn and ailerons that are just scribed lines. Also why all this
>photo etch and crappy little resin pieces that get stuck in places you won't
>ever see. Yes manufacturers if you are reading this I would welcome details
>that actually worked because this IS authenticity also.
No it isn't. I will have to assume you didn't just jump into this
thread, but actually have been following it, and are informed of its
content. That being the case, you must now be aware of the reasons why
moving parts can't be authentic on plastic scale models. Put simply,
models made in the most popular scales, 1/72 & 1/48, are TOO SMALL to
be able to include working parts that have an acceptable, scale
appearance and work like the originals work. Take the landing gear
retraction sequences of any modern jet, say the F-14, the F-16, and,
one of flyweight's examples, the F/A-18. The gear on these aircraft
don't just simply tuck in. They go through all sorts of movements in
order to fold in to fit in the wells. The movements are complex and
are a feat of engineering on the prototype; they are simply beyond the
scope of plastic scale models.
In short, if you really want these features, you will have to learn
the techniques of scratchbuilding and do it yourselves.
DA
>S.
Dwomby
In article <36d2f147.33747525@news>, 28148...@home.com (D. Anderson) writes:
>with the exception of the AH-56 (which I'm pretty
>sure was in 1/48,
No, it was 1/72 - I just bought an unmade one yesterday in a batch of old kits.
David Womby,
Ottawa. Canada
AHorv43767
>>>market of one (you), don't include these features anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>Boy are you WRONG!
>
>Uh, no boy, I'm right. The fact that you and flyweight want these
>features in your models doesn't mean that enormous numbers of other
>modellers do. Just the opposite. You two are exceptions, and by
>yourselves simply do not constitute a market. Or have you no
>conception of economics and how markets work?
Uh, D.A. -- besides being a bit unnecessarily insulting here, and yes I have
read the whole thread so I do realize that a moderate level of insulting is
appropriate, you do have to admit that S is right and you are wrong. You said
there's a "market of one" (meaning flyby); S piped up in agreement with flyby,
meaning there's at least a market of two, or twice the size of market that you
posited. You said nothing about enormous numbers of modelers originally. Who
knows how big the silent or latent market for working parts models is.
More to the point, nobody is arguing that enormous numbers of modelers must
want working parts to make them economically viable. Surely it would be enough
if a decent number wanted them and the rest were willing to tolerate them.
That is the real question and it is not an open-and-shut one.
Several people have been attacking flyby with absolutist statements that make
me think there are some short memories here. Working parts were common not
that long ago. True, they're out of fashion at the moment. But what happens
when Tamiya and Hasegawa reach just about the finest level of detail that
styrene is able to resolve and everyone else then catches up to them? They
will have to find new areas to assert superiority and it's quite plausible that
working parts will be one of them. Recall also that Tamiya's main business is
not static models but working model cars so they know how to add a few pieces
of brass and make little mechanisms work if they want to. I'm not saying it
will happen for sure or that there won't be limitations imposed by the
materials and builders' skills, but some of you guys sound awfully darn sure of
yourselves.
>>ever see. Yes manufacturers if you are reading this I would welcome details
>>that actually worked because this IS authenticity also.
>
>No it isn't. I will have to assume you didn't just jump into this
>thread, but actually have been following it, and are informed of its
>content. That being the case, you must now be aware of the reasons why
>moving parts can't be authentic on plastic scale models. Put simply,
>models made in the most popular scales, 1/72 & 1/48, are TOO SMALL to
>be able to include working parts that have an acceptable, scale
>appearance and work like the originals work. Take the landing gear
Here also you miss the point a bit. S's point was not necessarily that working
parts always will look as authentic as static ones but that the working itself
is a type of authenticity irrespective of whether the parts look as accurate in
the static sense. We may ridicule the point with talk of scale engines or
hydraulics that actually work, but it's a valid one. Of course it would be
ideal to combine the two types of authenticity and have working parts that were
both statically and dynamically authentic, and it is true that this appears to
be flyby's ultimate goal, but in the absence of being able to achieve this
there is no reason, other than ingrained convention and prejudice, to choose
one over the other as truly "authentic" by favoring static over dynamic
accuracy.
Obviously it is also true that the ingrained convention and prejudice is not
unreasonable given that this is a NG primarily of static modelers and that a
desire for working parts is much more easily satisfied by moving up to larger
scales or even to R/C. But, I would like to see us be pluralistic in our views
of what constitutes a good model or a good model kit. We agree that it is
silly for flyby to expect that these intricate mechanisms be provided to him
ready-made by kit manufacturers at no extra charge. But to hope and lobby for
them to come into vogue, albeit at a premium or as aftermarket sets, seems
reasonable if that's your bent, and to attempt to fabricate them oneself would
be downright admirable, as others have said.
August
SVanaken
>
>Uh, no boy, I'm right. The fact that you and flyweight want these
>features in your models doesn't mean that enormous numbers of other
>modellers do. Just the opposite. You two are exceptions, and by
>yourselves simply do not constitute a market. Or have you no
>conception of economics and how markets work?
>
>>that don't turn and ailerons that are just scribed lines. Also why all this
>>photo etch and crappy little resin pieces that get stuck in places you won't
>>that actually worked because this IS authenticity also.
>
Hating to break this up, but it is obvious that you two have diametrically
opposed viewpoints on this subject. A recommendation would be to take this out
of the newsgroup into private e-mail as when two opposing sides are convinced
that they are correct, nothing gets accomplished other than to make each other
mad.
As much as I like having all these operating features, the market has changed
over the years. If you wish, you can convert current accurate kits into having
retracting gear, rotating props and the like. I have seen them in all scales
at contests and they are superb. It takes a great deal of skill and work to
get these to work but the results are well worth the efforts.
If moving parts are what you wish, then you need to do some research and start
converting.
Have Fun!
---- Scott Van Aken IPMS Canada 5729 ----
---- Modeling Madness Webzine ----
---- http://www.geocities.com/~scottvanaken ----
---- Fly by Nite Productions ----
D. Anderson
>>>>manufacturers, not interested in going broke to meet the demand of a
>>>>market of one (you), don't include these features anymore.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Boy are you WRONG!
>>
>>Uh, no boy, I'm right. The fact that you and flyweight want these
>>features in your models doesn't mean that enormous numbers of other
>>modellers do. Just the opposite. You two are exceptions, and by
>>yourselves simply do not constitute a market. Or have you no
>>conception of economics and how markets work?
>
>Uh, D.A. -- besides being a bit unnecessarily insulting here, and yes I have
>read the whole thread so I do realize that a moderate level of insulting is
>appropriate, you do have to admit that S is right and you are wrong. You said
>there's a "market of one" (meaning flyby); S piped up in agreement with flyby,
>meaning there's at least a market of two, or twice the size of market that you
>posited.
Touche. However, to be exact, my point is rhetorical, not rigorously
logical. As I say below, based on decades of anecdotal evidence, the
desire for working features among adult modellers is non-existent.
Even many of the child modellers I've come across through the years
don't seem to regard this as very important (computer and video games
offer far more dynamism to children than the most feature-laden
plastic model). So I do not concede myself wrong.
>You said nothing about enormous numbers of modelers originally. Who
>knows how big the silent or latent market for working parts models is.
Nobody does. Until someone can devise a good, scientific study that
can tap into this "silent or latent" market segment, all one can do is
go by anecdotal evidence (until this thread, never met an adult who
wanted these features, because they typically know that you can't have
both; you have to trade of scale fidelity for working parts, or vice
versa) and by the simple market fact that manufacturers long ceased to
market these "features" (the very essence of the whiny complaint that
started off this sorry thread). And such a study would be, as you
doubtless realize, very difficult to implement, given that you can't
just randomly start calling a sample up, because 99% of your
respondents would not be scale modellers (assuming they were adults).
So, manufacturers have a tough job trying to determine what the market
is and what it wants (this is very closely related to the other thread
on the proportions of youngsters and adults in scale modelling).
Modellers calling or writing in their preferences is necessarily
skewed, so all manufacturers can do is see what sells. Given that, as
a proportion, fewer children build models than 30 years ago, the adult
modellers have more say, and what they want--as I ascertain by
anecdotal evidence, which is admittedly limited--is scale fidelity
over working features. In nearly 3 decades of plastic modelling, I can
recall no adult who desired these features, yet have met legions who
decry those few moving features that have survived over the years.
Just ask a tankie what he thinks of those motorization features old
Tamiya kits have.
>More to the point, nobody is arguing that enormous numbers of modelers must
>want working parts to make them economically viable. Surely it would be enough
>if a decent number wanted them and the rest were willing to tolerate them.
>That is the real question and it is not an open-and-shut one.
Possibly. But I suspect the problem is much more difficult than you
are here admitting. Again, I maintain, and even Matt Matsushita the
scratchbuilder seems to agree, that there can't be a simple compromise
between working features and scale fidelity. Therefore, one excludes
the other to a varying degree. Make the flyboys of the world happy,
and you will annoy the scale types; having currently made the scale
types as happy as you can realistically make them (a hard bunch to
please, admittedly), you have made the flyboys miserable.
In other words, to combine moving features with scale fidelity
requires skilled craftsmanship, and is not going to work with
mass-market plastic kits. You will therefore necessarily make one or
another market segment unhappy; the fact that the scale types have had
their way for about a quarter century or so is, in my view, strong
evidence that they make up by far the bigger market segment.
>Several people have been attacking flyby with absolutist statements that make
>me think there are some short memories here. Working parts were common not
>that long ago.
Different people look at time differently. Granted, I too seem to
think that 1975 JUST happened, but most people, especially those born
after, disagree. And it was roughly about 1975 that I think you stop
seeing the widespread inclusion of working features in the vast
majority of scale models (spinning propellors accepted). Before that
date, it was very common to find tank models with provision for
motorization; after that, very rare. I think the heyday of moving
features was in the '50s, 60s, and possibly early '70s, when models
were regarded universally as toys.
>True, they're out of fashion at the moment. But what happens
>when Tamiya and Hasegawa reach just about the finest level of detail that
>styrene is able to resolve and everyone else then catches up to them? They
>will have to find new areas to assert superiority and it's quite plausible that
>working parts will be one of them.
Possble, but certainly I can't agree to plausible. More likely is that
before this stage is reached and the model manufacturers are faced
with such a dilemma, the current plastic modelling "boom" will have
petered out and we'll be faced with a situation comparable to the
drought of the '80s. The problem then will be whether any new kits of
any level detail are released.
>Recall also that Tamiya's main business is
>not static models but working model cars so they know how to add a few pieces
>of brass and make little mechanisms work if they want to. I'm not saying it
>will happen for sure or that there won't be limitations imposed by the
>materials and builders' skills, but some of you guys sound awfully darn sure of
>yourselves.
I am entirely aware of Tamiya's "main business," and appreciate the
extent to which it underwrites Tamiya's static models (and even there
I assume that the civilian autos help support the military and
aviation models). I still don't think that will influence the
provision of working features in fine scale models. What is
interesting, and very welcome too, is how Tamiya has used techniques
of assembly from its R/C models for some of its new static models,
such as die-cast landing gear for the Phantom and the use of screws to
aid assembly. Great idea.
>>>ever see. Yes manufacturers if you are reading this I would welcome details
>>>that actually worked because this IS authenticity also.
>>
>>No it isn't. I will have to assume you didn't just jump into this
>>thread, but actually have been following it, and are informed of its
>>content. That being the case, you must now be aware of the reasons why
>>moving parts can't be authentic on plastic scale models. Put simply,
>>models made in the most popular scales, 1/72 & 1/48, are TOO SMALL to
>>be able to include working parts that have an acceptable, scale
>>appearance and work like the originals work. Take the landing gear
>
>Here also you miss the point a bit. S's point was not necessarily that working
>parts always will look as authentic as static ones but that the working itself
>is a type of authenticity irrespective of whether the parts look as accurate in
>the static sense.
That certainly _may_ have been his point, but he didn't specify, and
your own inference is just that, your own inference. For myself, all I
can say is I don't agree. Working features that necessarily violate
scale fidelity, and which will rarely "work" anything like the
original anyway (recall that one of the models rantboy was crying
about was the F/A-18), is not authentic. If you want the authenticity
of dynamism and movement, scale modelling is the WRONG hobby for you.
There's a wonderful world out there waiting for you in R/C modelling.
Unfortunately, that's an expensive world, and our original poster
seems to be on a welfare-type budget.
>We may ridicule the point with talk of scale engines or
>hydraulics that actually work, but it's a valid one.
Careful what you're saying here. I am aware that such things
***could*** be made to work, but NOT in mass-market plastic kits. Such
would be the province--as I keep saying--of the master scratchbuilder,
or of kits only the Malcom Forbes-type hobbyist could afford (yes,
he's dead and his hobby was figures, but the point prevails).
>Of course it would be
>ideal to combine the two types of authenticity and have working parts that were
>both statically and dynamically authentic, and it is true that this appears to
>be flyby's ultimate goal,
I disagree. I think flyboy's ultimate goal was nothing more elevated
than to use this forum for a whiny rant against, against.... ? I don't
know. Does it matter? Again, were he really serious, he would already
know much of what has patiently--or impatiently--been explained to
him. And be saving his pennies for a nice R/C model.
>but in the absence of being able to achieve this
>there is no reason, other than ingrained convention and prejudice, to choose
>one over the other as truly "authentic" by favoring static over dynamic
>accuracy.
True to a point. That's why there is small-scale static display
modelling and R/C modelling (would you believe some amazing person did
an R/C Bf-109/Glider combo? I think it was at least 1/6 scale, or
maybe 1/4 scale; just blots the hobbyshop ceiling right out). Plastic
scale modelling satisfies the desire for accuracy and fidelity of
scale, while R/C modelling satisfies the desire for dynamism, even
down to modelling flight. The models are also really big, which may be
the most attractive thing about it for me; I just like big models.
>Obviously it is also true that the ingrained convention and prejudice is not
>unreasonable given that this is a NG primarily of static modelers and that a
>desire for working parts is much more easily satisfied by moving up to larger
>scales or even to R/C.
And several times I pointed flyboy to R/C modelling. Look, there is
nothing _inherently_ wrong with the simple, non-whiny quest for more
action and dynamism in models. And if this is what he really wants, I
sincerely believe he is in the wrong hobby. R/C modelling is fabulous,
and probably has a great deal more prestige in the public's eye than
our nonsense (though that is damning with faint praise indeed).
>But, I would like to see us be pluralistic in our views
>of what constitutes a good model or a good model kit. We agree that it is
>silly for flyby to expect that these intricate mechanisms be provided to him
>ready-made by kit manufacturers at no extra charge.
And without damaging the scale fidelity of the model. Unless
manufacturers resort to very expensive multimedia kits, with
finely-machined metal parts, this can't be done. There's only so much
you can do with styrene. And how many modellers have replaced styrene
parts with metal ones, not so they can move but simply because they
have a better scale appearance?
>But to hope and lobby for
>them to come into vogue, albeit at a premium or as aftermarket sets, seems
>reasonable if that's your bent,
"Whiny jeremiad" does not equal "hopeful" plea.
>and to attempt to fabricate them oneself would
>be downright admirable, as others have said.
I'm in no disagreement with the last statement. As I already said, M.
Matsuhita's Wildcat is an amazing thing to behold, even just a picture
of the unfinished product in a book. And other scratcbuilders have
done similar things (gees, August, I am repeating myself for the third
or fourth time here; are you sure you've been following along?), all
of which, in my view goes to prove that combining scale fidelity with
properly-working features is impossible in mass-market plastic kits,
as I and others have been saying over and over.
>August
>
BucholtzC
"I actually had some of them -- a B-17, Lancaster (and the bombers had
working bomb bay doors too), DC-3/C-47, Rotodyne (also had working
rear clamshell doors), AH-56 Cheyenne, and an Albatross amphibian --
all of which were in 1/72 scale and all of which had retractable
landing gear."
I'm building the HU-16B Albatross, and while the landing gear is made to work,
it is VERY simplified from the real aircraft's gear. This is going to cause me
a lot of headaches, since I'll have to scratchbuild the gear to get any
semblance of the real item.
--Chris Bucholtz
Maiesm72
You just MUST get a subscription to ESM 72.
Not only was the AH-56 1/72, but the Revell Rotodyne wasn't 1/72 and there were
two others that are correct scale.
Revell Fairey Rotodyne was/is 1/78. Within range, but only if displayed by
itself.
Frog Rotodyne was 1/72 as was Airfix Rotodyne.
ESM 72 subscription is $25 per volume, $30 outside the U.S. We'll watch for
your order.
BTW, with a second voice piping in for fully functioning landing gear on 1/72
scale aircraft the per customer cost of manufacturing and marketing is now down
to $200,000.
Save those pennies, guys. :-)
Tom
fl...@airplane.org
>None of which were even close to scale in appearance. You just can't
>understand that, can you?
Let's just say that it's very difficult to understand how that's
possible without access to the actual dimensions to compare them to.
Or does this imply that there are those out here who actually have
specs on the landing gear of the full scale versions?
>Today's modellers are not interested in
>"features" that destroy the scale appearance of their finely detailed
>plastic models, which is what happens to when you try to include
>retractable landing gear on a plastic scale model.
I still expect more from technology than that.
>Given that,
>manufacturers, not interested in going broke to meet the demand of a
>market of one (you), don't include these features anymore.
I'm not about to believe that I'm the only one interested in this
aspect of modeling -- there certainly must be others.
>Anyway, the models you mention should still all be available if you
>look hard enough,
I've been looking but so far, to no avail.
>with the exception of the AH-56 (which I'm pretty
>sure was in 1/48, if we are talking about the ancient Aurora kit).
Yes, it was an Aurora kit -- and I have one, and it is 1/72. Now there
I lucked out and was able to get a hold of one before the kits
disappeared.
>Airfix just released the only Rotodyne kit ever marketed just a year
>or two ago, although that kit needs buckets and buckets of work just
>to make it competitive with current releases, let alone adding crude,
>out-of-scale "features" you describe.
Current releases -- of the Rotodyne in 1/72 scale? There are OTHER
releases of it? I had the Airfix version and was not aware of any othe
-- and it was certainly older than a year or two. I have recently seen
an Airfix 1/72 scale Rotodyne kit at a local hobby shop. The artwork
on the box was slightly different than I recall on the kit which I
had. Is there a newer version of it? And if so, what are the
differences?
>By the way, did you look at that other thread about the cost for 1/48
>scale molds? Molds for new kits cost from $3-400,00 and up to make,
>which means manufacturers have to a) sell millions of kits to make up
>for their investment and b) the relatively small model-buying market
>has to pay a lot of money for these kits. Again, no one, but no one,
>is gouging anybody or getting rich off the sale of plastic model kits.
If they'd lower their prices, they would attract more modelers rather
than alienating those who don't have tons of money for a little kit.
I believe that the high prices is what is killing the industry -- by
driving customers and potential customers away.
If the prices were more affordable, they'd easily sell millions and
paying for dies wouldn't be such a problem. With today's prices, I
don't know why the model companies even dare to take such a risk as to
gamble on new dies. There are plenty of classic, old ones out there --
if only they were put back into operation.