BinaryFalcon

Good to know, thanks. I tend to doubt I'll actually build it up though, as at that point I'd probably just keep it. I'm not really looking to sell the thing expecting I'll make a lot of money from it, but I was thinking of putting it up because it's not doing me any good as it is, and I figured someone else might like it and I could get something back on the purchase price. It's this or I likely shelve the thing for another decade before finally tossing it out. I'd like to just put it up as a "What do you think is fair" type thing, but since that's not allowed I was hoping to get a rough idea of what would be a reasonable asking price as is. Ah well, maybe I'll just pick a price and post it, but I truly have no idea where would be a good place to start.

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I've got a partially completed 1/100 Perfect Variable SHE YF-19 resin kit. I've had it for 8 or 9 years now, and the parts are all nice and clean with only a couple of minor holes that needed to be filled (which has been done). I've cut and cleaned all of the parts so far, drilled a good number of them, and have assembled the forward fuselage. It is at this point, largely a box of ready to go parts. Basically the reason I'm asking is because I doubt I'll ever actually get around to building this thing at this point, and "price check" or "make me an offer" posts in the For Sale/Trade section of the forums appear to be off limits. However, I've honestly no idea what would be a reasonable asking price for the kit and am looking to pass it along to someone who would appreciate it and enjoy building it. If this isn't an appropriate request here, please just ignore or lock it. EDIT: Given the number of people who have read this and not yet responded, perhaps a better question would be, Is there even any interest in this kit at this point?

Got mine today. A quick look over it (along with a single transformation) has it looking pretty good. Slight wing sag on the right side, but it can be managed. Left side looks good. The wing hinges also appear to be correct - that or they're both wrong in the same way. The only QC failure I've noticed so far was the the squares on the cover on the back of the left hand were not painted. The ones on the right were. Fortunately a single coat of Gunze Sangyo Clear Red (H90) is a perfect match for what they used on the SV-51. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they actually use (or more specifically, GS supplies the paint). As far as the engineering goes, I continue to be even more and more impressed with each Yamato release. I love it.

Close, but not quite correct. The "prototype" for the SR-71 (originally to be designated the RS-71) was the A-12. The YF-12A was an interceptor variant of the A-12/SR-71 of which three were built. YF-22 was the prototype for the F-22, however the YF-23 was an entirely different aircraft that lost the competition against the YF-22. The YF-17 was only loosely the prototype for the F/A-18, as it was originally designed to go up against the YF-16 for the light fighter contract, and lost out mainly because GD gambled and tooled up their production lines before winning the contract and was able to come to the table with "We can start building immediately". The YF-17 was essentially scrapped at that point, but was later resurrected as a possible basis for a Navy requirement and the design was further developed and refined into a true F-18 prototype. While it was used for a good bit of the early flight testing and training of the test pilots, the YF-17 wasn't strictly an F-18 prototype. The relationship between the two aircraft would be closer to that of the Hornet and Super Hornet. Very similar in design and characteristics, but not really the same plane. But, you've got the general idea. As for my vote, I've got to go with the Zero, simply because it's the most realistic. There's just something about that that makes it so much cooler than the impressive but clearly fictional technology behind the other VFs.

Nice videos, even though I'm a bit late to the party on seeing them. I always like looking at how other modelers work to see if I can pick up any ideas from them. The plastic tape (label making material) bit was new to me. In the past I've used extra stock or a ruler as a guide, but the self adhesive method looks easier. I was actually yelling at him when he was airbrushing solid colors though (inside of the cockpit and then the white basecoat). His technique there was horrible. Way too much paint flow and far too much time spent in one place. When he was base coating parts of the fuselage you could see the paint building up in thick pools and starting to run and drip. It can all be sanded and polished away of course, but why make extra work for yourself? As far as the paint for basecoat/panel lines was concerned, he was definitely using water based acrylics for the base colors, letting those fully cure, and then using oil based enamels for the panel lining. I discovered that method myself many years ago and the beauty of doing details in enamels over arcylic bases like that is that once it is cured, the acrylic paint can withstand mineral spirits, so washing the model with it won't screw up the base coats you've already put down. That allows you to wash freely like he did without worry, or worst case if you really screw up, go to town with the thinner to remove the enamel before it dries and start over from a clean slate. Nice use of polishing compounds as well. I discovered that I was able to siginificantly improve the look of my models when I learned to start thinking of colors and patterns in terms of both layers and "negative space" instead of just "put this on, then that on, then the next thing". Once you're able to think of things in that way, you suddenly starting thinking of all sorts of little "tricks" you can do to make applying the paint much easier and do a lot of subtle effects you otherwise couldn't manage. You also start to realize that paintjobs that look tremendously complex often aren't, so long as you think of and apply them the right way. It's amazing how simple it is to create a finished product that looks way more complex and deep than it really is. A couple of things I saw that could be improved (possibly not seen due to editing): 1. When airbrushing oil stains/flow lines from joints and panels, mask off the upstream panel so that it originates with a sharp line along the panel and then fades back. If you've got a fluid leak along an edge it's not likely to progress much in the upwind direction before being blown back and thinned out by the relative wind. Simple dirt buildup, however, can occur on both sides of the panel. You just need to think about where the stain came from and how it formed before you apply it. 2. Apply a clear gloss coat before applying the decals, no matter what your intended finish (gloss, semi-gloss or flat) and use a decal setting solution. I noticed a fair amount of "silvering" in his decals, which can be completely eliminated by laying down a glossy layer and using setting solution before applying the decals. Silvering is caused by air trapped between the decal and the model surface, and decals adhere best to a shiny surface. Setting solution helps soften them and get them to snuggle down into any panel lines or indentations and make them look like part of the model. Done carefully and properly, you can get decals to look painted on over some pretty severe changes in elevation by doing the above. The old Testors 1/48 SR-71 model is a great example of this, as much of the model is covered in deep grooves/slats to simulate the expansion joints in the skin. It's possible to get the decals on over that with no silvering at all if you gloss it first and then use setting solution and take your time with it. I will warn that setting solutions can be scary the first time you use them. There's usually a period of time in there where the decals look like they're melting and shrivelling up like a slug covered in salt, and it's hard not to freak out when you see it. It's normal, don't panic. Don't touch it and wait it out. It'll relax and settle down again into the grooves and all will be well. (But as always, check compatibility between the decals and the solution with some scraps first before comitting to the real work, just to be sure). 3. Another common step I've seen with respect to polishing the canopy is a coat of Future (just a quick dip) is usually done after all the polishing is complete. It should help even things out completely and make it crystal clear. Good stuff overall though, I enjoyed watching it.

Between the two, I'd suggest the P-51. The F-22 isn't going to look much like an F-22 or YF-21 even painted up the right way (and you'd have to strip it and re-cover it with new material to 'repaint' it anyway). Beyond that, and presumably most critical - the P-51 is going to fly better than the F-22. Neither will do quite as well as a purpose built RC aircraft (ie, not sport scaled down from a real design), but the Mustang should at least handle reasonably well owing to wing planform, etc. The F-22 wing just won't be as pleasent or easy to fly. When it comes down to it, it's an overall jet shape intended for high speed operation that's being crammed into the trainer role (where low speed handling qualities are most desirable). The adaptations to make it work in such a role are a huge compromise at best. If you're already an experienced RC pilot, get whichever one you want. But if you're just starting out (as suggested by the PTS), I'd strongly suggest the P-51 over the F-22, but more than that, I'd suggest that you look at some non-scale, purposed designed trainer instead. You'll be much happier in the long run.

Dunno, but it reminds me of a parachute I was supposed to get with a kit I bought in the early 1990s. They weren't available when the kit was released (36" chute, IIRC), so there was a form in the kit explaining you could request one and it'd be shipped (from China) as soon as they had them available. As I remember, it took on the order of 6-8 months for it to finally arrive. I'm fairly convinced they sent some guy walking across the US to the west coast, had them swim to China, squeeze a bunch of silkworms, knit it all into cloth, make the parachutes by hand and then had him swim and walk back to put it in my mailbox. At least that's what I'd like to imagine, as I can't think of any other justification for it taking so long. I just hope it's not a similar situation with BBTS. Although whenever I have something imported, I accept that it's likely going to take a while to arrive, so as far as I'm concerned, it gets here when it gets here. Sooner would be nice of course, but I can wait.

While I do take care when I transform them (slow down for the tricky bits and don't slam things into position), I never worried about it either until about the 3rd transformation of my VF-11. The leg just came straight off. I'd never moved it beyond the range it was designed to go, and it had spent most of its life in fighter mode. IIRC, I transformed it once when I got it, kept in it Battroid for a while and then went back to fighter mode, where it stayed for a few months, and then on the 3rd transformation to Battroid it broke. I felt rather ripped off by that. Later on the canopy on my -19v2 snapped off as well, which I also thought was odd because I pretty much never opened it. At least I was able to glue that back on without it making a significant difference to the functionality of the toy, but it still bothered me a bit. I could understand if it sheds parts if I pretend its flying by throwing it across a concrete room, but bits shouldn't be dropping off if I'm moving them in ways they're supposedly designed to go with the minimum amount of force required to get them to move. All in all, the 1/72 stuff I've owned has been slightly disappointing, tempered only by the fact that the -19 was the one I really loved and it failed in a less than catastrophic way several years after I bought it. The new stuff, however, seems to be significantly more durable, and while the Zeros seem to have a few scary spots on them, I feel like they're much more likely to withstand normal use than the 1/72 stuff was.

Even better than that, it appears that the concept for the anime (at least for battroid) was originally prototyped in Lego.

Much as I've been happy with HLJ in the past, that's why I ordered MP-03, MP-04 and my VF-0A as well as my YF-19 and Shin 0A from BBTS. The cost is basically a wash, and if I should ever happen to have any sort of problem with the item it's FAR less hassle to deal with a US based company simply due to shipping issues alone. The extra $10-$15 I might pay at BBTS is well worth the peace of mind to me. It also paid off well when my MP-03 was missing a thumb out of the box. BBTS were great and had a replacement thumb shipped out to me within a day and it was installed on my MP-03 within 5 days. I like HLJ, but for big items like this, I'd rather deal with someone more local.

They were called Jumpstarters. There were two of them, both Autobots - Top Spin and Twin Twist. To "transform" them into vehicle mode, you folded the spring loaded legs up over the body until one side of them locked with a little hook that protruded from the right side of the chest. Inside the body was a spring loaded motor that had small wheels sticking out of the back of the toy. Once it was in vehicle mode you could put it on its back and pull the toy backwards until the motor was fully wound (it clicked). Then you let it go and it would zoom off a short distance until the motor triggered the release of the hook. That caused the spring loaded legs to be thrown forward, which (ideally) flipped the entire toy forward and off the ground so that it could land on its feet. As I remember it worked surprisingly well, although they really weren't all that amazing as toys. Aside from the folding legs the only parts you could move were the one piece arms, which were limited to simple up and down movements. Ah, looks like youtube once again supplies the answer with a copy of the original commercial.

I must say that at first I wasn't all that excited about the 0A, since I found the gray scheme to be a bit too plain and bland. But once I saw some of the lined ones I started feeling a bit better about it. After lining/weathering mine a bit, putting on the decals and just looking at it on my shelf, I find I'm liking the look of it more than my 0S at this point, simply because it looks more realistic to me. Which is, to be honest, part of why the VF-0 in general appeals to me so much. It's a very real looking vehicle. Anyway, before I'd posted some shots of it plain right out of the box. Here it is with some mild lining/weathering on it. I was going for a used but well maintained look. Basically kept clean and in order, but goes a while between washings, especially under operational stress where there's just not the time to keep everything shiny. Sadly, my camera doesn't quite do it justice, but I hope it's good enough to convey the general idea and look of the thing.

Nice job! That looks really slick. I think there's a slight error however, relating to the (almost) vertical tails you have colored as part of the Ghost. They're not really part of the Ghost, and are instead the normal tails from the VF-0 that pass through gaps between the Ghost wings and and body to give the illusion that they're actually part of the Ghost when they're not. You can see it more clearly by looking at the side shots on the first page. Aside from that it looks amazing.

Agreed. But beyond that, based on what I read of the law reproduced on the BBTS site, I see nothing that would be illegal about importing only an unmodified barrel to replace the modified one that is included with the complete MP-05. The law only seems to prohibit making, transporting or selling 'replica firearms', but does not prohibit owning one. So worst case, it would appear there are legal ways around this if you don't want to risk customs seizing the order. Not that that's likely anyway.

True, but that's part of the work in progress bit. I'm trying to decide if I'm going to keep it or not. Mainly I think the HS looks a bit empty or plain without something there. Operationally, it could possibly explained as a hasty repair which required the replacement of a HS and the only one they had on hand was pulled off a trashed skull fighter. Happened all the time in WW2. There was even a B-17 that was assembled from the front and back halves of two different B-17s built by two seperate contractors, just because they needed an operational aircraft and had two half destroyed ones. (EDIT: It was "The Swoose", which started life as a B-17D flew several missions until being critically damaged and retired to Australia, where it was given a replacement back half from another B-17. It continued to serve until once again grounded due to spar cracking and corrosion, but was again saved with replacement parts and in the process, upgraded to a B-17E). Mostly it's just a test though. Decals are nice that way, since they can be removed later if needed.