We also offer wall mounts and you can have a model made with a clear cockpit and mounted on it's landing gear. Reach out to us through the contact form on the web site and we can guide you through the process!
Sunday, August 25, 2019
New Aircraft Models In The Store.
Recently added over 20 models back into the store and things are looking good for the holidays. We hope you had a great summer! We have been busy with our move and now we have a lot more space to spread out our shop and hobbies. This RC-135U is a fine example Although our smaller desktop models are going away. Our new builder does an awesome job on the mid size models. Remember there is a variety of ways you can display your aircraft model, including hanging from fishing line in it's native work zone.
We also offer wall mounts and you can have a model made with a clear cockpit and mounted on it's landing gear. Reach out to us through the contact form on the web site and we can guide you through the process!
We also offer wall mounts and you can have a model made with a clear cockpit and mounted on it's landing gear. Reach out to us through the contact form on the web site and we can guide you through the process!
Monday, September 3, 2018
Whimsical Model Planes?
One of our builders is dabbling in building metal #AirplaneModels kind of cool looking and not an easy build I am sure. I put a few in our store to see how customers would react to them and you can take a look here. In the column on the left down low you will see a few listed. I think they are unique and they are priced very reasonable for the size. Take a look and stock up if you like them as we only have a few to offer.Home Page
I found some more #militaryshipmodels and also put them on the site. These models are very economical for the size. To have one custom built would cost 4 times more than we are selling them for so take a look here. Military Ship Models The quality is good and they are priced to sell out quickly.
I have almost sold out of the vintage kits I bought from my builder in Brooklyn New York. Vintage Model Link I have a Testors metal kit of a Ferrari and I am not sure if I should keep it and build it or sell it. It is super awesome and it appears to use screws and bolts to hold it together. It's new sealed in plastic and will be an awesome project if I ever get a chance to tackle it.
Enjoying my day off and catching up! Have a good one you all.
I found some more #militaryshipmodels and also put them on the site. These models are very economical for the size. To have one custom built would cost 4 times more than we are selling them for so take a look here. Military Ship Models The quality is good and they are priced to sell out quickly.
I have almost sold out of the vintage kits I bought from my builder in Brooklyn New York. Vintage Model Link I have a Testors metal kit of a Ferrari and I am not sure if I should keep it and build it or sell it. It is super awesome and it appears to use screws and bolts to hold it together. It's new sealed in plastic and will be an awesome project if I ever get a chance to tackle it.
Enjoying my day off and catching up! Have a good one you all.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Selling A Magnificent Collection of Models From A Hobby Shop In Brooklyn
Got a call from a model builder friend of mine that he had sold his house and shop and had to move. He had spent 50 years in this home and man what a collection of model kits did he have! I hauled tail to Brooklyn from North Carolina.
My wife and I came back with about 50 of his best models. Some are model kits and some are already built for customers that never picked up their finished models. All are very high quality and we put them up for sale on our E-Bay Store. Take a minute and have a look at what we have. Ten sold within the first week so if you see something you like better get your bid in!
Here is the link to the page Reds Collectibles E-Bay Store I don't think anyone will be disappointed.
I hope you all have a great holiday and don't forget our web sites are stocked and ready for the holidays! Military Models Online and Ship Model Super Store
My wife and I came back with about 50 of his best models. Some are model kits and some are already built for customers that never picked up their finished models. All are very high quality and we put them up for sale on our E-Bay Store. Take a minute and have a look at what we have. Ten sold within the first week so if you see something you like better get your bid in!
Here is the link to the page Reds Collectibles E-Bay Store I don't think anyone will be disappointed.
I hope you all have a great holiday and don't forget our web sites are stocked and ready for the holidays! Military Models Online and Ship Model Super Store
Friday, December 23, 2016
Too Much Money For The F-35?
Trump is doing right by some issues, pre-presidency some cost overuns and mistakes on the development of the F-35 and Airforce One. This story from ABC news is based on a Tweet.
"President-elect Donald Trump has taken to Twitter again to express his displeasure about the price tag of an aircraft.
"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!" he tweeted Thursday.
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
In recent weeks Trump has tweeted about the high costs of the new Air Force One and the F-35 that is intended to become the main fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
On Wednesday Trump met separately with the CEOs of both Boeing and Lockheed Martin at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Florida to discuss both programs. Those meetings were followed by a separate meeting with senior military officials involved with the development of both aircraft.
The Pentagon is in the process of purchasing 2,443 F-35 fighters that will become the standard fighter aircraft for the military. The F-35 has stealth capability and is one of the most highly computerized aircraft to ever fly.
Each F-35 costs about $112 million to produce, but Lockheed Martin estimates that costs will go down as more aircraft are produced so that by 2019 each F-35 will cost $85 million.
The F/A-18 is a fighter aircraft that went into use in the 1980s by the Navy and Marine Corps as a carrier-based aircraft. It is not flown by the Air Force.
The Navy and Marine Corps are in the process of modernizing their F/A-18 aircraft until they are all eventually replaced by the F-35.
"I had a productive meeting with President-elect Trump this afternoon," Marillyn Hewson, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, said in a statement following her meeting Wednesday with Trump. "I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we've made in bringing costs down. The F-35 is a critical program to our national security, and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our U.S. military and our allies."
Trump later met with Air Force generals and Navy admirals involved with both programs.
He told reporters the meeting was focused on "trying to get costs down cost primarily the F-35 trying to get the costs down cause it's a program that's very very expensive."
"We are going to get the costs down and get it done beautifully," he added. He described the senior military officials he met with as "great people, amazing people, I'm very impressed with them and very good negotiators."
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg described his meeting with Trump about the new Air Force One as a "very productive" discussion. Muilenberg said that they could produce the new Air Force One "affordably" for less than the $4 billion price tag that Trump has described for the aircraft that will go into service in 2024.
"We will get it done for less than that," Muilenberg told reporters.
The Air Force has projected that over the next five years the new Air Force One could cost $2.78 billion, but there is no full contract with Boeing yet. For now, the Air Force has spent almost $170 million on three small contracts with Boeing related to the project."
Saving money is one thing and wasted money never comes back to you.
The story that scares me is the one about nuclear weapons: China watching Trump
I hope things turn out for the best and I worry about Nuclear proliferation. Share your opinions on this subject here on the blog!
Bob Winfrey
"President-elect Donald Trump has taken to Twitter again to express his displeasure about the price tag of an aircraft.
"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!" he tweeted Thursday.
Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!
In recent weeks Trump has tweeted about the high costs of the new Air Force One and the F-35 that is intended to become the main fighter aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
On Wednesday Trump met separately with the CEOs of both Boeing and Lockheed Martin at his Mar-A-Lago estate in Florida to discuss both programs. Those meetings were followed by a separate meeting with senior military officials involved with the development of both aircraft.
The Pentagon is in the process of purchasing 2,443 F-35 fighters that will become the standard fighter aircraft for the military. The F-35 has stealth capability and is one of the most highly computerized aircraft to ever fly.
Each F-35 costs about $112 million to produce, but Lockheed Martin estimates that costs will go down as more aircraft are produced so that by 2019 each F-35 will cost $85 million.
The F/A-18 is a fighter aircraft that went into use in the 1980s by the Navy and Marine Corps as a carrier-based aircraft. It is not flown by the Air Force.
The Navy and Marine Corps are in the process of modernizing their F/A-18 aircraft until they are all eventually replaced by the F-35.
"I had a productive meeting with President-elect Trump this afternoon," Marillyn Hewson, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, said in a statement following her meeting Wednesday with Trump. "I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we've made in bringing costs down. The F-35 is a critical program to our national security, and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our U.S. military and our allies."
Trump later met with Air Force generals and Navy admirals involved with both programs.
He told reporters the meeting was focused on "trying to get costs down cost primarily the F-35 trying to get the costs down cause it's a program that's very very expensive."
"We are going to get the costs down and get it done beautifully," he added. He described the senior military officials he met with as "great people, amazing people, I'm very impressed with them and very good negotiators."
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenberg described his meeting with Trump about the new Air Force One as a "very productive" discussion. Muilenberg said that they could produce the new Air Force One "affordably" for less than the $4 billion price tag that Trump has described for the aircraft that will go into service in 2024.
"We will get it done for less than that," Muilenberg told reporters.
The Air Force has projected that over the next five years the new Air Force One could cost $2.78 billion, but there is no full contract with Boeing yet. For now, the Air Force has spent almost $170 million on three small contracts with Boeing related to the project."
Saving money is one thing and wasted money never comes back to you.
The story that scares me is the one about nuclear weapons: China watching Trump
I hope things turn out for the best and I worry about Nuclear proliferation. Share your opinions on this subject here on the blog!
Bob Winfrey
Sunday, September 13, 2015
A Flying Aircraft Carrier
In Marvel comics and movies, the mobile headquarters of the fictional intelligence/defense agency S.H.I.E.L.D. is a flying aircraft carrier, referred to as a “Helicarrier.” In the comic books, the flying aircraft carrier first appeared in 1965, which raises the obvious question — why was Marvel so far behind the times?
The US Navy had two flying aircraft carriers in the 1930s. The two sister rigid airships, USS Macon (ZRS-5) and USS Akron (ZRS-4), each carried five single-seat Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk for scouting or two-seat Fleet N2Y-1 for training. The airships were designed to serve as long range scouts to locate and report on enemy ships, using onboard scout planes, which the airships could both launch and recover. The were intended to be the high-tech early-20th-century version of 18th century frigates, which also served as the “eyes of the fleet.”
Just slightly smaller than the Hindenberg, the USS Macon and USS Akron were among the largest rigid airships ever built. Unlike the Hindenberg, which was filled with hydrogen gas, the two American airships were filled with non-flammable helium. The Hindenberg was destroyed by fire in 1937, with the loss of thirty-six. Despite using the notionally safer helium, the USS Akron was destroyed in a thunderstorm off the coast of New Jersey in 1933, killing 73 of the 76 crewmen and passengers, the greatest loss of life in any known airship crash.
Only two years later, the USS Macon was also destroyed in a storm. It crashed off the coast of California’s Big Sur. Unlike the USS Akron, only two of the 76 crew members were lost, due at least in part to safety measures instituted after the tragedy of the crash of the USS Akron. USS Macon was the last rigigd airship ever built by the US Navy.
in 1991, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) located the wreck of USS Macon. An additional survey was performed in 2006. On August 18th, the team of E/V Nautilus released video of their recent exploration of the wreck in which they found parts of the ship as well as the Sparrowhawk biplanes it carried.
Thanks Old Salt Blog!
Friday, November 28, 2014
NTSB Steps Into The Drone Controversy
Now anything that fly's is a definite stretch for our government but that is the case now. Don't get caught with a camera on your model airplane! How about having to be careful where you toss a paper airplane? I would not call a paper Airplane a remote controlled craft.
That paper airplane is technically an aircraft and subject to federal aircraft regulations? Huh?
Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board, a U.S. agency better known for investigating aircraft accidents, overturned an early decision in a much-publicized case involving drone operator Raphael Pirker. The previous ruling threw out the US $10,000 fine the Federal Aviation Administration imposed on Pirker for operating his camera-equipped drone in what the FAA considered a careless and reckless manner. In its recent deliberations, the NTSB didn’t weigh whether Pirker had been careless or reckless. But it affirmed that the operator of a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)—or indeed of any aerial device used carelessly or recklessly—was subject to FAA fines.
Wait. Any device?
That’s indeed what the recent NTSB decision argues. “An aircraft is ‘any’ ‘device’ that is ‘used for flight.’ We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless,” says the NTSB.
Model aircraft enthusiasts and supporters of commercial small UAV technology found the decision puzzling. Helen Greiner, founder and CEO of CyPhy Works, in Danvers, Mass., tweeted:
Yet the FAA has never fined someone for recklessly throwing a Frisbee or other kind of flying disc, which have genuinely injured people. Just last year a woman lost most of the sight in one eye when she was struck at a park in Manhattan Beach, Calif. No doubt, the thrower was careless, and unlike Pirker, caused a significant injury. But the NTSB and FAA never acted. Why not?
After all, the statute governing the NTSB’s responsibilities is as broad as it is clear: “The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate – (A) each accident involving a civil aircraft.” I’m no lawyer, but I can read plain English. That statement comes from Title 49, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Subchapter 3, Section 1132 of the U.S. Code. Title 49 defines “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” You don’t find a lot of people playing with Frisbees without flying them through the air, so logically they must be included if you want to follow the letter rather than spirit of the law.
Clearly the NTSB is doing some selective interpretation of federal statutes here. When it comes to the FAA’s authority to issue fines, it says, “Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air,” interprets that language literally, and seeks to include model aircraft of all types. Yet when it comes to its own responsibility to investigate aircraft incidents, the same word, defined in the law similarly (“ ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air”) is afforded a much narrower, and more sensible, interpretation.
When he overturned the fine against Pirker, NTSB administrative law judge Patrick Geraghty referred to the “risable argument” that the FAA should be in the business of policing folks flying “a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider.” Yet NTSB has embraced that very position, while accepting that “certain” aircraft regulations “may not be logically applicable” to all flying devices.
I’d say most aircraft regulations are not logically applicable. For example, the very same part of the law the FAA is using to fine Pirker (Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter F, Part 91) holds that “aircraft” must maintain certain minimum altitudes—either 500 feet or 1000 feet, depending on whether the area is congested. Such a law can’t possibly apply to model aircraft (or Frisbees). Indeed, since 1981, the FAA has specifically urged modelers to voluntarily fly below 400 feet. So defining “aircraft” to include model aircraft creates a great muddle.
What to do is obvious: Keep your models below 400 feet. Stay clear of full-scale aircraft. And operate your model plane or helicopter as safely as you know how. But also be on notice now with the NTSB’s recent decision that no matter how responsibly you fly—even if it’s a paper airplane or balsa-wood glider—you are, technically, violating the law.
Courtesy of IEEE Spectrum
That paper airplane is technically an aircraft and subject to federal aircraft regulations? Huh?
Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board, a U.S. agency better known for investigating aircraft accidents, overturned an early decision in a much-publicized case involving drone operator Raphael Pirker. The previous ruling threw out the US $10,000 fine the Federal Aviation Administration imposed on Pirker for operating his camera-equipped drone in what the FAA considered a careless and reckless manner. In its recent deliberations, the NTSB didn’t weigh whether Pirker had been careless or reckless. But it affirmed that the operator of a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)—or indeed of any aerial device used carelessly or recklessly—was subject to FAA fines.
Wait. Any device?
That’s indeed what the recent NTSB decision argues. “An aircraft is ‘any’ ‘device’ that is ‘used for flight.’ We acknowledge the definitions are as broad as they are clear, but they are clear nonetheless,” says the NTSB.
Model aircraft enthusiasts and supporters of commercial small UAV technology found the decision puzzling. Helen Greiner, founder and CEO of CyPhy Works, in Danvers, Mass., tweeted:
Yet the FAA has never fined someone for recklessly throwing a Frisbee or other kind of flying disc, which have genuinely injured people. Just last year a woman lost most of the sight in one eye when she was struck at a park in Manhattan Beach, Calif. No doubt, the thrower was careless, and unlike Pirker, caused a significant injury. But the NTSB and FAA never acted. Why not?
After all, the statute governing the NTSB’s responsibilities is as broad as it is clear: “The National Transportation Safety Board shall investigate – (A) each accident involving a civil aircraft.” I’m no lawyer, but I can read plain English. That statement comes from Title 49, Subtitle II, Chapter 11, Subchapter 3, Section 1132 of the U.S. Code. Title 49 defines “aircraft” as “any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.” You don’t find a lot of people playing with Frisbees without flying them through the air, so logically they must be included if you want to follow the letter rather than spirit of the law.
Clearly the NTSB is doing some selective interpretation of federal statutes here. When it comes to the FAA’s authority to issue fines, it says, “Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air,” interprets that language literally, and seeks to include model aircraft of all types. Yet when it comes to its own responsibility to investigate aircraft incidents, the same word, defined in the law similarly (“ ‘aircraft’ means any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air”) is afforded a much narrower, and more sensible, interpretation.
When he overturned the fine against Pirker, NTSB administrative law judge Patrick Geraghty referred to the “risable argument” that the FAA should be in the business of policing folks flying “a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider.” Yet NTSB has embraced that very position, while accepting that “certain” aircraft regulations “may not be logically applicable” to all flying devices.
I’d say most aircraft regulations are not logically applicable. For example, the very same part of the law the FAA is using to fine Pirker (Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter F, Part 91) holds that “aircraft” must maintain certain minimum altitudes—either 500 feet or 1000 feet, depending on whether the area is congested. Such a law can’t possibly apply to model aircraft (or Frisbees). Indeed, since 1981, the FAA has specifically urged modelers to voluntarily fly below 400 feet. So defining “aircraft” to include model aircraft creates a great muddle.
What to do is obvious: Keep your models below 400 feet. Stay clear of full-scale aircraft. And operate your model plane or helicopter as safely as you know how. But also be on notice now with the NTSB’s recent decision that no matter how responsibly you fly—even if it’s a paper airplane or balsa-wood glider—you are, technically, violating the law.
Courtesy of IEEE Spectrum
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Airplane Models with LED Lighting Delivered and Admired
Finally made some room in the workshop and the 5 Airplane Models with LED Lighting are delivered to their new home! The wingspan on these models was four feet, yep that's right four feet wide. These Model Planes will be used for lighting in a lounge area in an airplane hanger. I can't wait to see them in their new home!
We also just shipped out a new model of the F4-E Phantom. We custom painted it and added the extra weapons you see hanging from the belly.
If you have any model aircraft you want constructed please take a look around our web site and there are hundreds of model planes for sale. If you can't find one that you like contact us and we can build any model you like right here in the USA!
Bob Winfrey
Custom Airplane Models
We also just shipped out a new model of the F4-E Phantom. We custom painted it and added the extra weapons you see hanging from the belly.
If you have any model aircraft you want constructed please take a look around our web site and there are hundreds of model planes for sale. If you can't find one that you like contact us and we can build any model you like right here in the USA!
Bob Winfrey
Custom Airplane Models
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)