(Mr Conklin, a sixth grade teacher to his most troublsome student:
"Carl, do you have your book report?"

"No, I spilled some enamel paint on it."

I don't want to throw a monkey ionto the wrench but as you do seem to be looking for ideas...

Since I don't build 1/32 I have no interest in a WNW build, and captured aircraft doesn't do much for me either. Have their been any group builds to celebrate the period covered after WW1? This section does extend to 1934 and there was quite a bit going on aviation wise 1919-1934, air racing, the development of real passenger air travel, air racing, record breaking flights etc etc.

With 2011 being the centennial of naval aviation perhaps a nautical theme would be appropriate (The US navy seems to be dominating this but no reason it couldn't include all naval aviation within the period covered here).

Just throwing out some ideas, I'll go crawl back under my rock now.

Now "someone" has said that we should have each build reviewed? I can see that being a good opportunity for everyone to get their feet wet. Each participant will submit in their build thread (in Early Aviation title) a blog with the content being bent toward its submission to Aeroscale for publishing on the front page. I may even have to get the "someone" on board to help keep track of things. . .now who was that? . . . . ._

Stephen, I will help if you can catch me buh bye.

Steve,

A very good point and one very well put. I think the idea of one person one kit, sounds good at fist thought but as Steve points out it limits some from building what they would wish to and would be detrimental.

So if we are doing builds and reviews as suggested, why not run it as a double, where the best build and best review can both be judged seperately? I see the argument against having several reviews of the same basic kit but saying that..Look at the different build logs for the Albie DVa for instance, every one highlights different aspect of the kit, some completely missed by others in their logs or kit reviews.

I know its getting more and more confusing already but as Steve points out and I have to agree not all of us can afford or have the luxury to buy or build something extra.

Another aspect is thet once all the choice plump kits are taken it leaves little choice or inspiration for anyone else to enter, not everyone wants to dissect and superdetail but would like to build a WNW or Roden kit. And on that point, how many Gotha builders will have their nose put out of joint if they arent the first and can't build this long anticipated monster as part of the GB.

Steve has raised a good valid point and it deserves serious consideration.

Keith

Ok here is the deal.

We are not going to make everyone happy. But we will press on anyway.

The reason we have a one manufacturer contests / GB annually is the manufacturer takes an interest in the GB and contributes. In the past we have had Eduard, Roden and WNW all participating singly.

Now we come to the next step multiple manufactures taking interest. This benefits all - but to do them justice (an encourage their interests) we have to have a large number of participants in each category.

To sticky GB topics we have to be fair to the other manufacturers (even the smaller ones). This year we are going to open the GB to all manufacturers all scales. All types (single or multiple seaters). I will approach each manufacturer and ask them to "vote" on their favorite company 's product in a build. This will include aftermarket parts & pieces. With the "best" being honoured with products from these companies.

I will open it to all builds - new , unfinished hangar queens, injection, resin metal. It will include all Early Aviation subject upto 1934. Final rules to be drafted and submitted in a day or so. Now, there are NO gaurantees as to a manufacturer's participation.

Now "someone" has said that we should have each build reviewed? I can see that being a good opportunity for everyone to get their feet wet. Each participant will submit in their build thread (in Early Aviation title) a blog with the content being bent toward its submission to Aeroscale for publishing on the front page. I may even have to get the "someone" on board to help keep track of things. . .now who was that? . . . . ._

You should pick a past published review and use it for a template when writing yours. NO plagerism please, minimal cut and paste. These have to be your submissions.

All I have to do is rattle an WNW Albatros kit in the box. You will be drawn to it like a fly to honey. Muuuhhaaahh! (doing my best Dr. Evil voice).

Hold on gentle folk that "one kit" idea was not mine or in my comments. It was a suggestion from a member. Just like you. I am weighing all the comments. As it stands I don't have a reason to change my original call.

Actually, if we are going to do build reviews, we should make sure we don't have multiple builds of the same kit. I would like to submit that when we enlist, we pick the kit we want to do, and that kit can't be done by another modeler, unless the modeler uses AM decals or PE etc., that make the kit or review different. I think there is more than enough kits to go around. That means we need to have a sign up thread when we enlist.

Stephen, I will help if you can catch me buh bye.

In order to do a build review, it is not written in stone that you need to use references. They are nice to check dimensions, but it was not my intention to have everybody run out and buy expensive books.