HubertB

« Avant l’heure, c’est pas l’heure; après l’heure c’est plus l’heure » So now is time for a Happy B’day, Carl 🎂 🥂 🍾🥕 ! Hubert

Ok. I'm calling Ensign Doe done. I am still miles (read miles ...like in light-years) away from being a proficient figure painter, but this effort looks better than my previous "Sadi Lecointe", thanks, in a very very very - 99% - large part to the quality of the Reedoak base figure. Meet Ensign Doe : ... And in situ, after a successfull solo flight on his Ryan STM, patting his mount for bringing him back to Earth in one piece : Labouring on on the Fisher Cutlass in the meantime. Hubert

A lot to learn and take on on this . I personally liked the design with a bit of grass better, even though you were not satisfied with it (but I would have been happy to achieve something like aht myself) Hubert

When I think you were wondering whether there’d be an interest in your builds … The quality of your work and detailing is just AWESOME ! , Jeff … Hubert

Dang ! A pity we are not allowed multiple votes ! I voted for « Tallies », but could go for « Winning ! » or « Sandbox » (only I do not have THE kit in my stash to satisfy the latter - but would know which one to purchase 🙄) Hubert

+1 ! Hubert

Is it an hybrid ? I bought recently, to replace the company car (which I cannot keep when I sell the company), a BMW X1 PHEV. i just love the electric mode, which allows to do daily shopping without burning a single drop of gas. Of course it consumes electricity, but a reminder to all that an electric motor has an energy yield of 95 %, when a gas-burning one has at best 30/35 % yield, the rest being lost in heat … So basically, you use 1/3 of the energy of a gas-burning engine for the same mileage. Of course, it all depends on the way the electricity is produced, and how efficient the power grid is, to get the full picture … Great purchase, Peter. I’m sure you’re gonna love it. I would also not know nowadays how to do with all the electronic gimmicks that seem initially so futile 😏 Hubert

Right with you Ernie ! I tell you … those Canadians … sheeeshhh .. really … with their minds in their briefs … We, French, would not even know how to think this way 😂 ! Hubert 🙄

Go, Tom ! Go !😂 You have not come this far to be stopped by a goddammed cockpit ! Hubert (who knows a lot about procrastination 😂 )

A pity Archer are not any more in operation. I wonder what I’ll do when my stock is exhausted. This said, laying down their decals is tedious, but not necessarily more than stencils on a Phantom Hubert

It’s a really big gun for a really short turret. I wonder how they balance the overhang of the gun and yet keep some space for loading it in this small space … Keep it coming Hubert

Well, Scott, this is one is a special "drive me crazy" for you, my friend ... I am slowly progressing on the Cutlass, but it is some time two steps forward, and one step back, all of my doing by the way. I mentioned I wanted to reproduce the guide vanes for the boudary layer air between the front fuselage and the intakes. I mentioned earlier that they were S-shaped, to guide the air towars the top fuselage. THis was just too much to swallow for me: 1) There are 7 vanes at the "entrance" and only 4 on the top fuselage. This means that some guide vanes just merge into a single exit. So my rendition was only "figurative" any way ... 2) shaping the vanes to conform both to the intakes's sides and the front fuselage side proved a real too much of a challenge 3) I used thin Evergreen strips to simulate the vanes. The many trials to fit the front fuselage to the rear end, whilst shaping the guide vanes, proved too stressful for the thin plastic, which broke into shards. Moral : "Better is the enemy of good". I will simply show the 4 vanes on the top fuselage, and the 7 on the side of the intake, and will forget the S-shape in-between. Nothing is sufficiently visible anyway. Reality 1 : 0 Hubert's AMS. Having learned the lesson, I have decided not to detail the main landing gear wells. I just added a prominent pipe on the rear of each well, et voilà ! Hey, but the AMS is kicking back in ! Before mating the front and rear fuselage, I wanted to deal with some additional detailing of the rear end. When both the rear and front are mated together, the Cutlass will be too hefty and heavy to facilitate some works. The Cutlass rear end was festooned with raised rivets, when the rest of the airframe has countersunk rivets and sometimes glued panels. So, after a few hours and using most of an Archer rivets sheet, here is what the rear end of my Cutlass looks like: From the top : And from below : In the meantime I have added Airscale faces to the five dials which are in the front landing gear bay : ... and added some bits and stuff to the rear deck behind the cockpit's armoured plate ... There is a limit to how far you can push back my AMS, after all 🤣 😂 ! And, btw, using Scott's experience, I added a few grams of lead in the nose to be sure the Cutlass is not a tail sitter, here barely visible below the IP coaming ... I am now thinking about how the beef-up the liaison between the front and rear fuselage. The contact points on the lower fuselage look a bit too reduced, not to say flimsy, to my liking, when they will take all the bending loads applied to the front fuselage. TBC Hubert

More figures, with some interesting comparisons. I am trying to add a US pilot to my Fisher Ryan STM display. I have found some US Navy pilots, or re-found as I had forgotten I had a Reedoak US Navy pilot. The US Navy uniform may be a bit different from the US Army Air Corps one, but it has been difficult to find a period US AAC pilot figure. From left to right, a headless - for the time being - pilot which I think comes from the "Aces" ICM set, and is more likely 1/35, the Reedoak US Navy pilot, and a Red Dog US Navy pilot. Of first note is the difference in size. A male figure in 1/32 should be 54 mm high, that is roughly 1.70 meter tall, about average. The painted one is more likely 52 with its head, so that is 1.66 meter tall, the Reedoak is 55 mm with the head gear, so that is 1.76 meter tall, and the Red Dog one is 59 mm high, which puts in the higher end of the male population at 1.89 meter. Very possible variations in real life - I am myself as tall as the Red Dog pilot, but it is suprising to find 54mm/1:32 figures with such diffedrences. The difference in the level of detail is also very noticeable. Reedoak uses a unique technology of scanning real people in a real gear, and then Hi-res 3D-printing them. The finesse and realism of details is largely superior to the other two. The Red Dog pilot, as the ICM "Ace", have probably been 3D-designed, but ICM cut steel to produce an injection-molded kit, and Red Dog molded resin to produce their pilot. In this case, Reedoak wins hands down (provided I can do justice to the quality of the figure). The Reedoak pilot has been prepped by painting in black than spraying white in the direction of "sunlight" to enhance the relief. Altough a bit idiosyncratic in that it has a radio gear (when the STM had no radio) and is US Navy rather than US Army Air Corps, this is the one I will display next to my STM. Hubert

I’m not here to judge, but to commiserate: I know what it’s like Ernie. As we grow older, eye / hand coordination becomes a lot tougher, alas 🥴! Hubert, the stabbing-in-the-back friend 😇 !

My first ever kit was probably a Heller Cadet sailing ship … Near impossible to find, probably, and not sure I’d want to. This theme idea would probably lead to many 1/72 subjects as well. Even if LSM is pretty ecumenical, it’s probably a bit far from the site’s main focus. As for « records », I’d be in, but it is probably a bit restrictive (even if my stash has quite a number of record-holders, but then my stash is full of resin kits and obscure subjects 🤣) Hubert

Good to see you and your work. Great stuff ! Please post more of it. 3D design can be a great time-eater. I am very often caught between the « why not design and print this part ? » or « why not scratchbuilding it the old way ? » dilemma, knowing that the 3D design would always be better. But, for the time being, my hesitancy has always been about re-climbing the learning curve of 3D design. This said, I have recently finished setting-up my man-cave annex : all my machines, including the 3D printers are operational ! And what a pleasure to have the paint booth ready at any time ! So I may soon follow your path (again) Cheers Hubert

I absolutely LOVE the transparency effect you have achieved on the wings. That’s a real inspiration for when I dare to tackle some of my WWI kits. Hubert

Great pics and, visibly, great show. Thanks for posting. As a side note (to even an ongoing grudge 🤣 🙄) maybe there were few helos because they are (mostly) in the « wrong » scale ? Hubert

To cut tube and rods, I use a cutting disc in my drill (the one on the pedestal with a flexible shaft and foot control). Of course, they break easily under any kind of side load, but you can buy them by the dozen at a dirt-cheap price… Hubert

Needless to say I love the racers’ idea Hubert

Your MFH builds got me seriously tempted by their 917, either in their livery as your Fujimi kit, or as the spectacular Le Mans 71 long tails … The 917 vs 512 is the duel that got me sold to Posrche in my youth. (Apart from a 365 Daytona) I was never since a fan of Ferraris. But I am up to my 3d Porsche Hubert

It really depends on the jets … I’d say early jets, up the late 60s, are still manageable in 1/32. After that, they become really hefty for most. This said, I still regret selling off my F-105 D to Fran, some days, and I’d jump on a 1/32 B-58 in a (split) heartbeat Hubert

AMK kits are generally very good, and this one is no exception. It is, however, not without some shape issues, and to be fair, would have been considered a new standard, had not the Tamiya kit been released at the same time. Like with the Zoukei-mura 1/32 Mustang, the Tamiya kit has completely eclipsed the competition. The AMK MiG 31 is said to be the refernce for this airframe, in this scale. Hubert

Well, we had, courtesy of some uninspired advertising people, the Renault 14 « The Pear »

There are a number of different issues mentioned here : 1) Shipping costs. I own (for a few more weeks) a company, and what we charge to our customers for logistics is meant to cover the costs, which it barely does, when I look at our yearly balance sheets. Yet we charge about 15/16 € per shipment, for parcels which weigh between a few grams and a few kilograms (the smallest part we sell weighs 4 centigrams, yet it is a precision-machined part). We tend to forget the miraculous aspect of modern-day logistics, where a parcel can leave a point one day, and arrive a few thousand kilometers away the next day, having in-between made about three or four stops in different hubs and sub-hubs. All of this for the price of two (or one, in certain places) mojitos … Nothing really to complain about … 2) Postal costs : we enter a different issue here. In any country, it is part of the mission of a Post Office to be able to deliver a mail or parcel to ANY point of the said country. And we still expect the Post Office to live on its mission. Whereas this is a costly obligation, because it implies large staffing just to be able to cover the physically huge network of adresses. But physical mail has dwindled to very little in the last 30 years, thanks to new technologies. Whatever costs are not covered by stamps, is paid for by taxpayers, or by postage’s costs of parcels. These have frankly become outrageous nowadays, and the Post Offices are pricing themselves out of the logistics market, when they still HAVE to have the organization implied by their mission. A catch 22 situation, but I personally see no way out of it. Only the times when I bought kits on eBay in the US are gone … 3) Availability of items. The benefit of internet is that it has allowed access to items most of us would not have dreamt of a few decades ago. But it goes with an hyper-segmentation of the markets, and to a shift from a few mass-produced items to a multitude of small production runs. This is against the logic of improving production costs by spreading fixed costs and R&D costs over a large quantity of the same item. This pushes complexity costs, and induces potentially high stock costs, and a significant cash-out to finance those. Consequence: companies run small volumes of production to be certain to sell all of it quickly, and distributors will have to spread their bets on so many items that they will order minimum quantities as well, with the risk of not being able to satisfy all demands … It is a well-known rule that the margin requirement of a distributor are in direct relation to the number of references held in stock. Hence the low prices of the hard discounters, and the high ones of the big department stores … My conclusions: - we live a in a great time, that overall has proven an incredible benefit for modellers, by giving them access to items they could not dream of in their youth, and helping them to improve their skills, and achieve results once belonging to the great masters only. - this however goes with potential frustrations generated by the mismatch between our expectations and the availability of items to fulfill those expectations - but, there is always the last resort solution of scratchbuilding the improvements we let AM manufacturers offer us. This said, I will never be able to match the quality and scale fidelity of a Quinta set, for instance - considering all of the above, like Scott suggested, be on alert so that we do not miss the narrow window when a kit will still be in stock, and the AM producers have finished releasing the items for this kit, and then jump on everything without remorse End of the pontificating lecturing 🤪 Hubert