Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

mumbles

Members
  • Content count

    349
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

295 Excellent

About mumbles

  • Rank
    Established Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wellington, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

1,457 profile views
  1. mumbles

    Hyperscale??

    Gosh, really? I gave up on hyperscale years ago due to its forum design being stuck somewhere in 1995. Nice to hear it has been upgraded finally.
  2. mumbles

    Model shows and competitions

    I used to do elaborate things with foam, but now just transport my models in cardboard boxes with towels lining the bottom. For small aircraft models it keeps them still while keeping fragile bits clear of interference. Someone else I know with more fragile subjects uses the plastic bag method, including placing the model inside a bag of its own. As far as judging goes having done it a few times (gaining in experience each time) the key thing is being able to objectively justify your decisions. Where I've judged the judges work in pairs to clearly agreed guidelines. The builder is not identified on the table and no-one can judge a category they are competing in and it seems to work okay. And for showing and competing - I never used to, thinking anything worthy of being in a show would automatically be better than anything I could have produced. Then I realised that actually that wasn't a given, so started putting models on tables. Win or lose it's still generally an enjoyable experience seeing people (who for the most part won't notice or care about perceived flaws) admiring your work, and answering questions about it (like "is it for sale?" ).
  3. mumbles

    Music collecting, do you buy 'Live' etc. albums?

    Isn't that one not quite "live"? I don't really see live albums as being much different from studio ones - there are good ones and bad ones, with some acts being better in one setting or the other. A good live recording captures the atmosphere of the gig, sometimes a better version of the song, or a great cover that was never on a studio album. Sometimes the definitive or most well known version of a song was recorded live, and there are several tracks I can think of where I prefer the live version to the studio one. I have a bunch bunch of live albums in my collection, sometimes from concerts I was at. It's warm fuzzy nostalgia yes, but I like being able to say "I was there", or wish I was Scream in Blue by Midnight Oil is my favourite. Pretty much straight from the mixing desk (including bum notes and mic malfunctions) and captures the intensity of a a band known for the strength of its live performances.
  4. mumbles

    Trying to like Italeri kits. Honest!

    It does, apart from where the engine pylons meet the leading edge being a bit tricky (and mounting the engines in general). That and the unfixable fuselage length error that distorts the whole shape. Still looks good when built though.
  5. mumbles

    Trying to like Italeri kits. Honest!

    Speaking of which, does anyone know why the 1/72 F-19 doesn't seem to have been re-issued much when it's peer the "MiG-37" has?
  6. mumbles

    The cynic in me.

    Just a theory based on years of cricket watching regarding caught-behind and walking. When a caught behind is claimed and the batsman was looking back they usually hit it. When they remain looking down the pitch they usually didn't.
  7. mumbles

    The cynic in me.

    Given the reaction in Australia in particular I thoroughly disagree. Meanwhile however, there are plenty of worse things going on in australian sport: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/06/the-case-of-matthew-lodge-when-a-line-in-the-sand-must-be-drawn
  8. mumbles

    Weathering heresy

    I don't indulge in it much because it seldom matches the real-life subject, and that's my issue with the style. It's become fashionable however, and a standard of "good" modelling - I've seen realistically finished models dismissed as "bland" at contests in favour of unrealistic models that look like they have been in a scrapyard for years. What it means though is that many modellers are now very skilfully recreating other models rather than anything resembling the real-life subject. I also think some of it comes out of modellers simply not using appropriate references and understanding that yeah it looks really cool, but doesn't look like the real thing.
  9. Moebius 1/32 BSG raider with a Tyridium Models lighting kit. Painted mostly with Tamiya rattlecans and a bit of artistic license.
  10. I found not having the "bin" (for empty ammunition magazines?) installed at the rear of the cockpit enabled it to flex a bit more. It was a snug fit but eventually it popped into place more or less (meaning I'm not totally sure of how I sorted it!).
  11. Yes, I came across it a few times while researching this build. Thanks, I'm not the most prolific builder but I'll do my best
  12. Thanks Marc. Note that while the aerial wire is fixed in these pics, if you look closely you can see where I reattached the forward part of the pitot tube after breaking it during the photo shoot . . .
  13. Reminds me of a slightly under-equipped NZ Army unit in Vietnam that was supposely nicknamed "the hydraulics", because they would 'lift' anything they could
  14. Thank you Here is a pic of the original machine just to prove I'm not making it up .When I say "stolen" in the OP it's because it wasn't captured so much as deliberately appropriated. Apparently it was spotted on the ground in no-mans land by 73 Sqn RAF (Hurricanes) pilots after force landing due to fuel starvation. Having ascertained it was unattended they loaded a truck with fuel and went out and acquired themselves a Stuka.
  15. New tool Airfix 1/48 Stuka B-1 finished as an Italian R-2 captured/stolen by the RAF in 1941. The B-2/R-2 propellor, exhausts, and bomb rack are all in the B-1 box. The B-2 engine cowls though are not, which is why they aren't on the model The guns were removed from the captured aircraft, so the wing gun fairings were drilled out to remove the barrels, and the mount and ammunition cans left out of the rear cockpit. Decals by LF Models (which turned out to be a little too thin, I'd probably paint the white cross on the tail if I did this again), and some of the more prominent piping added to the engine with solder. The kit is mostly brilliantly engineered (there are poorly placed sprue gates and ejector pin marks in a couple of places, and a few sink marks) and is one of the best fitting kits I've ever built. There are a couple of missing instructions though. There is no instruction to add the rear gunners back support strap despite it being included as a part and shown fitted, and there is no guidance at all on fitting the bomb cradle with the cowls off. Aside from those minor criticisms it was a really enjoyable build.
×