Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Beermonster1958's Achievements

Obsessed Member

Obsessed Member (4/9)



  1. Most, if not all of the replies here are entirely predicable. And yet, I cannot but wonder at the fact that this (one man operation?) is still in business and, the kits are obviously selling. So, Mach 2 must clearly be doing something right? For myself, I am not interested in whining about the contents of the box. I'd rather just concentrate on working with what I have. Having not long since completed the A W Argosy, all I will say is thank you for providing a model of same in a scale I prefer working in. For sure, it was a challenging build but, I'd rather tackle that than a vacform or , hugely expensive resin kit. At the end of the day, nobody is compelled to buy them and, if they produce a kit of a subhect I want and, that nobody else will do, then I will have a go. John
  2. . I will. In fact, I intend to build as a post war military transport. One of a small fleet built with EU/NATO funding and, intended to support UN/NATO operations! Maybe I should have posted on the "what if" page!! John
  3. A sad loss to the aviation world but, I believe it likely that, in time, a similar type might appear. Meanwhile, I can at least content myself with the knowledge that I have seen and photographed the 225 and, I have the Revell kit which I have now removed from the stash!
  4. I'm definitely interested in larger scale airliners. A lot of them (eg Airbus A320 series, Boeing 737 series, Dc-9/MD-80 series) are if relatively modest size and in 1/72 scale at least would be about size equivalent to existing kits like a C-130. The silly, small scales (mostly 1/144 & 1/200) actually put me off building more of them. It has been suggested earlier that a scale of 1/100 might be a good compromise scale. I agree. Not too big and , not too small. I'm actually surprised more companies haven't adopted this scale but, that's another topic I reckon!, John
  5. In a sense Jamie, I'm inclined to agree with you but, I'd prefer it if the option was actually included in the kits themselves so that we wouldn't have to incur additional expense. Zvezda showed the way with their A320 /321 kits which could be built in "dirty" configuration. Of course, there were the inevitable whines about increasing "complexity" of the kits etc but, those complaining could simply build the flaps etc in retracted configuration so, I didn't see the problem. One of the main reasons I don't build airliners is because they look so bland so, I certainly agree with you on that aspect as well. There's obviously a market for these accessories and, I commend the manufacturer for its initiative. However, I'm one of those who simply won't pay extra for items which could quite feasibly be included in the basic kits. Would it increase cost? Possibly but, given the economies of scale in mass production, probably not nearly as much as having to buy separate items. I do think aircraft generally look more interesting with all the dangly bits hanging off them and, having just laboriously built a set of of extended flaps for my Airfix B-29, I'd rather not have to do this myself John (currently building the Airfix Trident with things hanging off wings!
  6. A fair point but, I think a lot of people generally failed to get the point that the Alf Garnett character in Till Death Us Do Part was actually intended as a parody of such people. That was the whole idea, taking the mince out of them! I used to work beside someone just like Alf Garnett! He was a bad joke and , he was treated as such. I'm genuinely sorry though that the TV show you mention brought back bad memories? All in the Family wasn't it? I can totally see though how it might upset you personally. To be honest, I didn't find it remotely funny but, I think that's largely because humour doesn't always translate well. I thought Till Death was hilarious! John
  7. I had the privilege of meeting Col Halvorsen at Prestwick in 1997. He and his crew had just flown a C-54 from Berlin for a night stop. He was then a sprightly 76 year old! He and his crew very generously allowed us and the other enthusiasts there aboard the aircraft. I still have his signature in my log book John
  8. . That's brilliant! And absolutely spot on! It's depressing to think there might be more of this on the way! John
  9. For a variety of reasons we can't discuss here, may I respectfully suggest that any such increase in general military expenditure within NATO is, in fact, anything BUT certain. I don't think that any NATO member either can actually be coerced into increasing such expenditure. John
  10. The film was a bit of a mess but, I'd agree with you at least on it being faster paced. Out of the two films, I have to admit that despite my reservations, I'd watch the 1984 version again. I particularly liked Kenneth McMillan's portrayal of Vladimir Harkonnen! Deliciously nasty and, gleefully psychotic all at the same time! John
  11. Once you got used to the recoil, I'd agree with you! . But then, was a hefty recoil not actually common to all rifles using the powerful 7.62mm round? Mine also had the wooden furniture. It was certainly a SERIOUS rifle and, I'm glad it didn't have the option for fully automatic fire!! I had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to fire the AK-47. Thats a rifle I'd have been quite happy to use John
  12. Fair comment. I found the original book(s) quite difficult to read. I was also (and, this is purely a personal view) a bit disappointed that Paul, who seemed to be a fairly decent chap to begin with actually went about a holy war throughout the galaxy that killed billions! Even the Harkonnens didn't do that!! John
  13. I hadn't seen that Emirates video but, I had seen this one! Talk about a hairy landing!
  • Create New...