 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / July 2007Williams Bros B-10 Please Refresh Our Memories
I know that when Wm Bros kits are mentioned, people get bit emotional..... I had the B-10 probably back in 1975. Never came close to finishing it. Can y'all refresh our memory on just what is wrong with their stuff? Craig > Can y'all refresh our memory on just what is wrong with their stuff? > I never heard really bad things about their kits; they weren't Revell or Monogram standard, but they were supposed to be a lot better to no worse than most "garage" injection molded ones. Here's the latest news on the company: http://www.williamsbrothersmodelproducts.com/ I can still remember when they issued the B-10 model. Here's a review of building one: http://modelingmadness.com/scotts/preww2/b10.htm And one of their P-35 in 1/32 scale: http://modelingmadness.com/reviews/preww2/mcleodp35.htm That article goes into some of the kit's shortcomings in detail, but he sure did a beautiful job on it. Did you see all the rivets he put on it?! Pat >I know that when Wm Bros kits are mentioned, people get bit >emotional..... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Craig some of it really sucked donkey dick. >I know that when Wm Bros kits are mentioned, people get bit > emotional..... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Craig They required a little extra work to bring them up to speed? It almost seems as if they aren't quite finished when they release a kit. I built the C-46, which is a curious mixture. Good basic shape, crisp molding (mostly), smooth surfaces, good decals. The prop hubs are too long. In fact the instructions tell you to trim them. Odd. The clear parts and cowlings are fiddly. But at the end I had a great looking C-46, and I'm going to build at least one more. The first is in the Travis AFB museum, BTW. I also built the Boeing 247 for the museum and similar comments apply. Never tackled the B-10; not much interest. I built the Gee Bee R many years ago. Don't remember much except that it went together well. They were supposed to do one of the Lockheed singles. Hope they follow through. The point is, they tackle subjects that no one else will. They may require a few more finishing skills but no major reworking of parts. Much better than some of the garage industry injection kits. Curt VPS Craig: The Williams B-10 might seem to be an "emotional" subject - but not to those of us who have haunted this newsgroup for the last 10-12 years. It has to do with the on-going saga of "Dan" and his pet Mon-key...... a truly hilarious scenario which went on for years. Call it an "ancient in-joke". The "Mon-Key" had a thirst for Banana Brew, rode a trike, and generally indulged in behavior that would leave you blushing. Somewhere along the line Dan attempted to build the B-10 and ended up throwing it against the wall, then stomping on it. It was all in fun, of course. But that incident led to many other threads - and became part of the RMS folklore....and that is where the B-10 became synonymous with an unbuildable project. Sadly, Dan disappeared and now we only hear about the mon-key once in a blue moon. (Although the Mon-Key has been known to do an occasional "guest appearance" on another site: "Aircraft Resource Center".) Watch for him around April First!! Now that I have started visiting the group again, I notice that there are very few of the "Old Folks" still posting. Back in the heyday of RMS there were up to 300 postings per day. Lots of good modeling info - many memorable trolls - and some truly great topics such as the thread on the Flying Wing and its subsequent developement and deployment in Taiwan, the Vietnam escapade, duty with the RCAF, etc. etc. There were really some creative, funny, whimmsical people that used to hang around here. Names like "Mad Matt", "The Old Sarge". Marv Howell and "Oxmoron" all come to mind. I see in today's postings that another one of our "Old Timers" is leaving the fold.......he will be missed and the group will be diminished - but there will always be others - and that's what makes RMS so special. With or without the Mon-Key or the B-10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Rick Fluke > Somewhere along the line Dan attempted to build the B-10 and ended up > throwing it against the wall, then stomping on it. > I did that with Heller's "HMS Victory". I built a six foot long model spaceship via kitbashing and scratchbuilding; this little thing here drove me bats to the point where it got stomped on: http://www.interq.or.jp/sun/mm-kas/tenji/guest/pkz201.JPG Pat Ahhh Happy Days... Wonder what became of ol' Dan and the Mon-key? The little varmint has been noticable by his absence for a while now... Too much banana brew methinks! Chris > Craig: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Rick Fluke > Ahhh Happy Days... > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dan still works in the hobby shop in Louisville. http://www.srihobbies.com/ I had a conversation about the Dan's Mon-Key stuff with him once. RobG > > Ahhh Happy Days... > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What did he do, cut off the Monkey's Banana beer?? :-) Bill Shuey On Jul 2, 4:35 pm, "c...@earthlink.net" <c...@earthlink.net> wrote: > I know that when Wm Bros kits are mentioned, people get bit > emotional..... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Craig They were close to Monogram and Revell. Not a Tamiya or Hasagawa, but certainly better than some of the stuff we get from Eastern Europe these days. Another legitimate criticism is that they continued odd scales long after other US firms. They did some really unique "golden age" subjects. Also, they were almost unique in their "aircraft engine" line. These were among their topmost quality. Their air-cooled radials are jewels. I sure hope they keep making those. I have not built the CW Whirlwind yet, but would like to. > They were close to Monogram and Revell. Not a Tamiya or Hasagawa, but > certainly better than some of the stuff we get from Eastern Europe > these days. Another legitimate criticism is that they continued odd > scales long after other US firms. They did some really unique "golden > age" subjects. > From what I've read, the descriptions sound closer to Lindberg, or later Aurora. > Also, they were almost unique in their "aircraft engine" line. These > were among their topmost quality. Their air-cooled radials are > jewels. I sure hope they keep making those. I have not built the CW > Whirlwind yet, but would like to. > I'd forgotten all about those. They always did look like a neat idea. Here's another interesting engine model kit, with a tad more horsepower than a Whirlwind: http://www.customreplicas.com/F1.htm Pat > > They were close to Monogram and Revell. Not a Tamiya or Hasagawa, but > > certainly better than some of the stuff we get from Eastern Europe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > From what I've read, the descriptions sound closer to Lindberg, or > later Aurora. Can't speak for their 1:72 line, the only one I tried (and quit in frustration) was the C-46, but the line of 1:48 civil aircraft kits were gems with much more plus than minus to them. I just wish that they would have made more of them, maybe a bunch of Goodyear and Thompson air racers to go with the Testors and Lindberg kits. > I just wish that > they would have made more of them, maybe a bunch of Goodyear and > Thompson air racers to go with the Testors and Lindberg kits. > Don't forget the Hawk ones; I had enough of their racers as kids. I still remember the GeeBee... I thought: "This needs machine guns on it, it would have scared the Germans and Japanese to death." Pat > > I just wish that > > they would have made more of them, maybe a bunch of Goodyear and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued (1946 or '47) it was the R3C-1 ~landplane~. I've been in contact with the guy that wants to restart the old Hawk line of kits and he informs me that the Curtiss will be offered as a landplane later this years or next. > Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one > different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > next. > I'm of the school of thought that if the kit gets made by one company, it stays that forever, no matter who gets the molds in later years. :-) Long time back, I had some fairly poorly done large scale model racing planes (1/32? 1/24th?) that had electric motors in them to spin the props and let then taxi around on the floor. But I can't remember who made them...Lindberg? It would be fun to see a complete list of all the Lindberg jet aircraft models, because they had a lot of them. I always remember the little Lindberg double aircraft kits http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/boxtops/lin429.jpg That, and their damned "you build it!" electric motors. Pat > > Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one > > different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pat Pyro. Maybe Life-Like as well (from Pyro molds). I had the Springfield- Hall Bulldog (built) and the Pesco Special kits (never started, later sold). These kits were little better than toys and very poor wing-to- fuselage relative sizes. The shapes were generally close, but not for a scale model. I have no idea who has the molds now. Maybe they're in Tokyo Bay with the Raiden molds. 8-P > Pyro. Maybe Life-Like as well (from Pyro molds). I had the Springfield- > Hall Bulldog (built) and the Pesco Special kits (never started, later > sold). These kits were little better than toys and very poor wing-to- > fuselage relative sizes. The shapes were generally close, but not for > a scale model. > That's the babies alright. They showed up at our local Tempo store sometime in the late 1970s. The biggest mistake I ever made was when Aurora dumped around a 150 model kits on our local TSC (Tractor Supply Company) store in the late 1970s for around $1.00 - $2.00 each. I could have been knee deep in T-37s, Buckeyes, Hiller X-18s, 2001 Moon Buses, Gotha Bombers, and all sorts of other goodies. God knows what those would all be worth nowadays. Pat > > Pyro. Maybe Life-Like as well (from Pyro molds). I had the Springfield- > > Hall Bulldog (built) and the Pesco Special kits (never started, later [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Pat Comfortably flush, I'd guess. Aurora is one of those manufacturers that have 'it' right now. Awhile back I sold a started Comet X-18 and received a nice compensation for it but I'd have made more had it come in an Aurora box. Funny since Comet was the originator of the mould. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Comfortably flush, I'd guess. Aurora is one of those manufacturers that > have 'it' right now. > Awhile back I sold a started Comet X-18 and received a nice compensation > for it but I'd have made more had it come in an Aurora box. Funny since > Comet was the originator of the mould. > That probably explains why it was better done than most of the Aurora kits. ;-) The one that threw me was the Aurora P-51 in 1/48 that had all the working parts on it. (most of which didn't work right when it was done, but it was a major change for them to even try to do something without a cockpit consisting of half a pilot's head molded into each fuselage half.) I wish I'd kept this kit from my childhood for nostalgia purposes: http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/AuroraMIG-19Page.htm I wish my older brother had kept this kit in a unbuilt form, so that he might meet an "accident" one of these days, and I could inherit it: http://fantastic-plastic.com/RMontgomerySpaceStationPage.htm I've seen a complete unbuilt one of those go on ebay for over $1,000. Pat > > Comfortably flush, I'd guess. Aurora is one of those manufacturers that > > have 'it' right now. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Pat I'm working on one right now. I got lucky and found one on ePay for just over $600.00 at a time when I actually HAD the money (8-D.). About six months later, I found a guy selling replacement decals for this and the XSL-01 (last year's Grail Kit build). I've been lucky, so far, I've only run across two parts missing, a cabinet in one of the labs and a ladder in the airlock ( was able to replicate both and have had a ball painting the model in a black/white roll pattern with silver and insignia red trim. I'd like to post photos, but can't call up alt.binaries.anything (Google doesn't support it) so I'll probably go over to Starship Modeler or Fantastic Plastic and leave some in their Galleries Section. I'll leave a note here when I'm done (it'll take a while - I'm savoring this build like it's a fine wine, one sip at a time). Oh, by the way, accoreding to a 1952 copy of Air Trails magazine, somebody at the Pentagon evidently thought that that Aurora design was for real, it was included in a listing of 3-view drawings (as a MiG-15bis) and on the same page was listed a "Russian Fighter" with a 3-view of the Tank Ta.183. > I found a guy selling replacement decals for > this and the XSL-01 (last year's Grail Kit build). > On that one, is there supposed to be anything inside the side pods or are they just engine/tank assemblies? > Oh, by the way, accoreding to a 1952 copy of Air Trails magazine, > somebody at the Pentagon evidently thought that that Aurora design was > for real, it was included in a listing of 3-view drawings (as a > MiG-15bis) and on the same page was listed a "Russian Fighter" with a > 3-view of the Tank Ta.183. > The Ta-183 did have an influence on its original design, and it would have looked even more like that if the British hadn't given the Soviets the Nene jet engine. Pat > > I found a guy selling replacement decals for > > this and the XSL-01 (last year's Grail Kit build). > On that one, is there supposed to be anything inside the side pods or > are they just engine/tank assemblies? For the most part, they were fuel tanks. On the top of the upper fuel tank (smaller diameter, offset cone over the dorsal fin) the cone had doors that were supposed to open to reveal some sort of "experiment" or mercury solar cells. At any rate, the locating pins on mine were broken off, so I built it closed and sanded it smooth. > > > Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one > > > different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I still have the 1/32 scale Roscoe Turner Special on the shelf. I would need drawings to check how accurate it is but many of these old racing types are very poorly documented. Bill Shuey > > > > Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one > > > > different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Bill Shuey There is a book (auther- Mendenhall or something like that comes to mind) about racing planes. Is basically a collection of three-views. There must be hundreds in there- consequently they are pretty small, but better than nothing. I'll see if I can find more on it. On Jul 7, 10:00 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote: > > > > > Ummm, the Testors kits ~were~ the Hawk ones via a buyout. The only one > > > > > different was the Curtiss R3C-2. Originally when it was first issued [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Have it; the drawings run between 1:72 and 1:48 scales and are pretty good. Another source (if you can find them) are the Paul Matt drawings. Larger scale and ~very~ detailed. On Jul 3, 8:59 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote: . > Also, they were almost unique in their "aircraft engine" line. These > were among their topmost quality. Their air-cooled radials are > jewels. I sure hope they keep making those. I have not built the CW > Whirlwind yet, but would like to. I visited the WB web site, and found a contact link. I wrote about my desire to see the engines back in production. I got a nice reply. The PW Wasp and the LeRhone are just about ready for release. They are working on the CW engine. They found some mold damage, and also found the fit of the intake manifold was not that good. They are correcting this. It will be out later than the others, but is indeed on the way. Great!! > I visited the WB web site, and found a contact link. I wrote about my > desire to see the engines back in production. I got a nice reply. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Great!! > I have never seen one of these BTW, but it's a neat looking old kit: http://www.cahood.com/renwwasp.jpg Pat On Jul 2, 5:35 pm, "c...@earthlink.net" <c...@earthlink.net> wrote: > I know that when Wm Bros kits are mentioned, people get bit > emotional..... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Craig FWIW There are vac-u-form clear parts for the B-10 in one of Falcon's sets, #30 I think. I have seen the kit built, and very nicely too. It isn't a shake the box and out falls a finished model a- la-hasegawa but it is buildable. I saw one built as a Netherland's East Indies aircraft at an IPMS thing some years ago and it was very nice. Bill Shuey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.