Models and money

Last week the Sprue Cutters Union's topic had to do with our spending habits. I'm coming into the conversation a little late, but reading others' thoughts on the subject got me thinking about how I spend my money. Of course this kind of self-reflection, especially when it comes to money, can be painful, but looking over the responses by the Union's participants gives me hope that most of us are fairly careful.

I can haz a Su-24?

One of the recurring themes when it comes to money is our working with a limited budget. In that respect, I'm lucky. I'm not wealthy, mind you; I don't drive the Aston Martin Vanquish that I'd love to have, nor can I afford to pave my short, gravel driveway, but being single and having a decent job allows me the privilege of being able to afford most of the plastic thingees that catch my eye. My modeling budget is constrained only by the other necessities of any home budget, such as building and maintaining an emergency fund, paying for heating costs, the rising price of gas, etc.

I know, it's a good problem to have, right? But when I sit amid my stash of a few hundred unbuilt models (it could be 150,000, I've lost count) and realize that I'm in my mid-forties, I'm forced to acknowledge that when I die most of these models will still be unbuilt. That makes me very sad; not that I'll die (well, that kinda sucks, too), but that so many projects -- and I have a vision for each model that I own, as I'm sure you do as well -- will not come to fruition. There's a chance I may never build that Kinetic F-16D in MiG killer markings of the 56th FW! What will my friends say? "That Steve. He never fulfilled his destiny. How sad." And then they'll fight over the model and the related aftermarket.

These days I find myself being very selective in what I buy. It's tempting to buy every cool new release, but just how high is my enthusiasm for that new Wolfpack 1/48 T-38? Sure, I'd like to build it, but there are so many more models in the pipeline that I'm much more excited about. Maybe that's the trick in managing our money. Before you buy a model, ask yourself, does this model get me more excited than the "top 20" models already in my stash? If the answer is no, you can probably skip it.
Here's what I've learned about buying models these last few years.

1. If you don't buy a model when it's first released, odds are good that you'll be able to find it on eBay or from another modeler 5, 10, 15 years from now. True, the price may be higher, but that will determine just how much you want the model.

Real life example: When Hasegawa released their 1/72 series of F-111s I was spending my time building armor. Fast-forward ten years and I'm back to aircraft, but alas, I ain't got an F-111 in my stash! It took a few years, but I've since acquired one each from the series, which makes me one step closer to what Maslow referred to as "self-actualization." Or something like that.

2. To point #1, even if you never buy that one rare model you've been looking for, aren't there at least ten others that you own that will provide just as much satisfaction?

Real life example: I'd like to have the old Otaki C-5 Galaxy. I'm not sure it's rare, but it generally sells for around $120. I will probably never get one, but I'm pretty sure a few dozen of the other kits in my stash will keep me very happy over the next 40 years of my life.

3. If there's an expensive kit you want, wait for it. There's a good chance you'll find it at a good price in the future. It may not be this year or even next year, but eventually you'll find it on sale via Squadron, Sprue Brothers, or at a contest.

Real life example: I've wanted the Trumpeter 1/48 Su-24 since I saw it at a contest several years ago, but the $130 price tag put me off. I just couldn't justify that much money for a model. But then Squadron had it on sale for about half that, and I took the bait. Add in a couple of other models for friends and I got their free shipping deal as well.

I've ranted long enough. Time to log off of SMS and go check the classified on ARC and Hyperscale.

A visit to Penncon 2013

I had the pleasure today of attending a local IPMS contest that I've never been to before, Penncon in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, sponsored by Central Pennsylvania IPMS. By "local" I mean, a local contest, as opposed to a regional contest. It wasn't local in terms of my three-hour drive. I'm not complaining; I love me a good road trip every now and then. Making it more enticing was its being held at The United States Army Heritage & Education Center. (More on that later.) And even more enticing when a friend agreed to meet me there.

Penncon was a nice contest. It wasn't large -- the contest and vendors were in one room -- but the quality of the contest entries was high, and the people extremely friendly. You can't beat the location, so I can hope the contest grows over the next several years.

Here's a selection of some of my favorite entries in the contest.

Sharp little resin Selbstfahrlette fur 7.5cm Pak40 Auf Somua.

Tasca M4A3E2 Jumbo Sherman. Nice to see armor that's not over-weathered.

Perfectly weathered 1958 Plymouth Belvedere.

My favorite in the contest, a 1/32 Special Hobby X-15-A2.

Check out the crisply executed plumbing on the X-15's external tanks!

A Pit Road 1/144 Vulcan. Cripes, that's a nice kit for the scale!

Stunning Trumpeter 1/32 Me262 B-1/U1.

Perfectly executed conversion of a Czech Model F-80C to a B,
with camouflage typically seen on 56th Fighter Group P-47s.

Beautiful Revell 1/144 Airbus A321 by my friend Joe Volz.

Nicely painted and weathered RSO Radschlepper Ost.

A final thought on the Army Center. If you're ever in the area you should stop by. The focus of the museum is on the American soldier, and you'll find a variety of nice displays explaining the role and life of the soldier from the Civil War through Afghanistan. Each display has a good deal of explanatory placards, so you'll be sure to leave smarter than when you came. There are a few pieces of armor on the grounds if heavy metal is your thing, but the real value will be found inside.

National Geographic Channel's combat shows

With the IPMS Nats two weeks behind us, it's time to look for new ideas and inspiration. I've been wanting to write about the various "reality" shows about soldiers that have been airing this year. Three of the best are on the National Geographic Channel  -- Inside Combat Rescue, Battleground Afghanistan, and Eyewitness War.

Each show embeds you with a combat unit thanks to the portability of digital video recorders such as the GoPro. There's no narrator. There are no scripts. It's just the camera mounted on a soldier's helmet as he goes into battle. You've probably seen these shows; the live action captured by the cameras is explained through a series of integrated interviews with the participants who survived the action.
This is television at its best. Most of us have never experienced combat, so our impressions are based on what we see in movies, and even well researched movies like Saving Private Ryan may fail to capture what it's like. With that in mind, several aspects of the combat shown on these TV shows struck me, and I share them with you.

More often than not, you can't see the enemy you're shooting at. When the bullets start flying, the best you can do is aim in the general direction that you think they're coming from until someone can get a fix on the enemy's specific position. I can only imagine how frustrating that must be.
Most firefights are fought at a great distance from the enemy, often 200-300 meters or more. This makes locating the enemy extremely difficult, much less hitting him. That our soldiers can do so, is incredible to me.

Some of the engagements shown on these shows can be very lengthy, and the possibility of running out of ammunition is a frightening reality. So much ammo is spent just to pin the enemy down that in time you have very little left with the hope of actually taking him out.

The capabilities that UAVs bring to the battlefield has revolutionized the way war our soldiers conduct war. Although the screens are blurred in the show for security reasons, it's clear that battlefield commanders have an incredibly clear image of the enemy's activities thanks to the Predator and similar aircraft. This real-time data allows soldiers to engage the enemy in ways their predecessors could only dream of 60 years ago. Or even 15 years ago!

Air assets end pretty much every firefight. When the troops on the ground can't get a foothold, it's impressive to see how quickly a single machine gun burst from an Apache or LGB from an F-16 can give our troops the upper hand.

As quickly as allied forces can act on a situation, it seems to me that most battles are relatively indecisive. Unlike earlier wars, we're not advancing in a single direction and taking control of land and towns as we go. The entire exercise looks very hit or miss, and our soldiers are making the best of the small victories along the way. I can't help but feel bad for them when "winning" this war is such an unclear goal.

You can find these shows on Amazon Instant Video.

Missed opportunities

We modelers are a selfish bunch. Linger on any discussion forum longer than a fortnight and you'll be sure to find a hijacked thread where someone starts listing their personal wish list of kits they'd like to see produced. It's safe to say that everyone wants everything.

But that's just one side of the coin. If you haven't thought about it (and you really should), the manufacturers need to make the best decisions possible when it comes to selecting a new model to tool and produce. They're in the business of making money; two or three bad choices and they could go the way of the Caribbean Ground Sloth, taking the prominent rivets, misshapen noses, and missing access panels with them. We'll build what we have until all that's left is a pile of bagged Frog kit, and nobody wants that.

That got me thinking about the aircraft that are sorely under-represented in the hobby on this day in 2013, the aircraft that could have earned the manufacturers a lot of money over the last 10 or 15 years had they made better decisions. I call these "missed opportunities," because while I could easily name three aircraft I'd like to see in model form (a 1/48 L-17 Navion being at the top of the list), they wouldn't necessarily be a wise business investment. Clearly, there are aircraft that we all would have purchased years ago had Special Trupegawa Boss produced them.

So here are five aircraft where I think the market has missed out. Note, these are not necessarily my favorite aircraft, just those that meet the following criteria in my cursory analysis:

The airplane must be historically significant.
The airplane must not be available beyond a first- or second-generation kit.
The model must have wide market appeal.

Here we go.

A U-2 in 1/48 scale. If one aircraft epitomizes the Cold War, it's the U-2 (and probably the B-52). That we don't have a new-tool kit is an embarrassment to the hobby and an insult to everyone who designed, built, and flew the airplane, not to mention all of the civilians who unknowingly benefited from its capabilities.

A 1/48 UH-1B/C/H in 1/48 scale. The Huey is the most popular helicopter ever and the best we have is the old Monogram kit. Yea, Hobby Boss just release a new tool kit, but I'm not sure it really represents the best that the industry can offer.

An A-1E in 1/72 scale. Sure, there's the Monogram kit, but have you seen what it takes to make it accurate? I bet you'd go through at least a hundred No. 11 blades to get it right! Hasegawa's A-1s are beautiful kits, and they missed the mark when they failed to leverage the molds to produce an E. I could say the same for their 1/48 kits as well.

A Boeing C-135 series in 1/144 scale. The airplane entered service in 1957 and has served the U.S. Air Force in many capacities since then. It's easy to envision an expansive line of the more prominent variants beyond the KC-135, such as the RC-135 Rivet Joint, EC-135 Aria, and VC-137.

I'm not sure about this last one, so I'll look to my expat friends and readers across the Atlantic to set me straight. Why haven't we seen a new-tool Blackburn Buccaneer? For crying out loud, we have a Gloster Meteor Prone (whatever that is) and the fugly de Havilland Sea Vixen, but not a good kit of an aircraft that saw service in the Gulf War and with the South African Air Force? What has this bloody world come to?

Is there any hope for humanity?

My 2013 Nats favorites

I've spent some time looking through the pictures I took at the Nats. As is the case every year, there were some stunning models to be sure, but a few will be memorable to me in the coming years. Everyone has been talking about the Farmall tractor that won the Judges Grand Award, but here are a few of my favorites selected, by the way, before the awards were announced at the banquet.

My favorite aircraft was this 1/48 Hs-129 by Bob Windus. It took first place in its category. If I'd had the opportunity to compliment him in person I probably would've embarrassed him by bowing down before his skill and achievement. It was my favorite because of the paint scheme and weathering. Everything about it was perfect. Subtlety was the key to this model's success.

I know I talk a lot about aircraft on this blog, but I build armor as well. So I took as much interest in the armor entries as I did the aircraft. My favorite tank was this Stug IIIB from Bryan Kreuger. That it took first place in its category was no surprise. It was absolutely stunning. The detailing was excellent, the painting not overdone, and the weathering perfectly balanced. I had the privilege of complimenting Bryan personally, as he happened to sit in front of me during the awards ceremony.

 

 I'm a car guy -- in real life, not modeling. I love automotive aesthetics and the performance incorporated into a sweet design. Sometimes form follows function, sometimes the opposite. My favorite automotive entry was a model of a car that's all about function over form, a 1/25 NASCAR Modified. My friends, this was spectacular. It was converted from (IIRC), a 1975 Ford Mustang, just as the real car was. The detail was excellent, and although I think I may have preferred seeing a worn and beaten race car, the factory-fresh finish was just as well executed. Like the other models I've mentioned so far, this took first place in its category.

 The rumors are true, I have built ships in the past, so I appreciate the skill that goes into their construction and painting as well. My favorite ship entry was this 1/700 Japanese aircraft carrier, though I don't recall which one it was. Working in this small scale is incredibly challenging, and the modeler executed everything perfectly, from the photoetch to the painting to the weathering. It had to be the best 1/700 scale ship I've ever seen in person.

Last but by no means least, the winner of the the category we here at Scale Model Soup, a bust of a Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep. I've seen a few busts of animals, primarily at figure contests, so it was great to see this one (appropriate) in Denver, and to see it win. My congratulations to the modeler, Craig Pierce, whom I looked for after the awards banquet but didn't catch.

You can see photos of all the winners here, on the Silicon Valley Scale Modelers web site.

What were your favorites?

The weird and bizarre - 2013

Last year I shared the weird and bizarre from the 2012 Nats, so as will be my annual tradition, here's a look at the weird and bizarre from this year's Nats.

I'm guessing that most of you are conservative, so you'll appreciate the humor of this entry.

I've never seen the show, but I hear Robot Chicken is popular. Seeing him in model form has to bring a smile to your face.

Steampunk has been all the rage these last few years in Europe and the United States, so it's just been a matter of time until it found its way into the modeling community. Three entries caught my attention.

 

The steampunk car was built using the fuselage of a fighter. The 1/220 scale Martian Tripod was built by Derek Brown, one of the most talented guys in the hobby. Everything was scratchbuilt, using even watch parts. Its delicacy was sublime!

Last but not least, given my advice to vendors last week, I greatly appreciated this sign.

P.S. My apologies. I tried to get a picture of the guy who wore slippers while judging, but it didn't come out clearly. You'll have to use your imagination. Or look for him with me next year.

Two reasons your model didn't win

I had the privilege of judging at the Nats last weekend, and I thought I'd share my experience. It's actually the second time I've judged at a national convention, but the last time was back in the mid 90s, so I found myself with the "OJT" label again, which means I had to fetch coffee, pick up the head judge's dry cleaning, and serve as the all-around piss boy for the team. Was it worth it? Yes.

In all seriousness, judging is learning experience not to be passed up, and my team of Art, Marty, and Kendall made it enjoyable as well. If you haven't judged, you really should. It forces you to scrutinize every model in a number of categories to a degree that you wouldn't have otherwise. And in addition to the obvious benefit of helping the sponsoring club, your investment of time will show you ways to improve your own models.

In a post leading up to the Nats I spoke about the sore loser. I didn't run across any while everyone was packing up their models after the banquet, but I'm sure a few guys are wondering why their respective masterpieces didn't win. Here are the two most likely reasons that I saw.

1. There is a seam. I'll be the first to admit that making a seam perfect is damn hard, so a quick glance at the prominent seams on the 15-20 models in a category allows the judges to set aside a good number of the models. It may not seem fair that a barely perceptible error means your model won't place, but IPMS considers the process of filling a seam to be a fundamental skill that we should all master. The most overlooked area that I found on a large number of models was the leading edge of the wings. Several stunning models suffered from this simple oversight, so you can be sure I'll spend a little extra time making sure I address my wings going forward.

2. Something is misaligned. Many otherwise great models had wings, stabilizers, landing gear, or weapons that were not properly aligned. This is the area I struggle with myself. I don't know what the solution is short of building a custom jig for every model I build, but maybe that's what it takes to win at the national (or even, local) level. I mean, if winning is your thing!

Of course there were other errors among the models I judged. Some had painting flaws. Canopies were applied without the necessary level of care. Formation lights protruded beyond the wingtips. Truth be told, there are so many things that can go wrong during a build that it's incredibly challenging to build a nearly flawless model. The guys who can truly deserve the accolades they receive.

In most cases the model that would win first place was evident from the get-go. Determining second and third place were often the real challenge in the judging process. I want you and the modeling world to know that the judges I worked with agonized over every decision. We truly wanted the results to be fair. We studied five models in one category for nearly 45 minutes to determine the second and third place finishes. I think we got it right, but another team of judges might have decided differently. All of the "finalists" in that category were outstanding. It pains me that guys who came so close to winning will go home without that knowledge. (This is why we need Honorable Mentions, but I'll address that some other time.)

On a personal note, I have a few personal pet peeves, which I assure you had no effect on my judging.

• Photoetch seat belts don't look convincing. At all. They look stiff and tinny. A lot of the entries had them. I've used them myself -- even in my current B-26 build -- but I've decided to use tape or paper going forward.

• If you use static grass on your base, for the sake of all that is holy in this world, please paint it! Left unpainted it looks fake and detracts from even the best model.

• Don't use printed flightline surfaces. They're glossy. They look artificial. Creating a reasonable representation of a flightline is incredibly easy. If you can apply a reasonably nice finish to your model, you can airbrush a grey color to a rectangular piece of plastic and draw some expansion joints.