GROUP BUILD TOPICS

Everyone feels different but I seem to gravitate towards a more type specific gb.

Both types have their advatanges, namely the ones you mention. I will happly go for either type, this year for example i have been in the Fw 190 GB, now thats very specfic, and i have my own Gift GB which is very wide rangeing. As long as i have a kit that will fit, i will happly join in most GB.

But i am now a bit more careful about commting to GB's. There were a few in the past that i couldn't complete my build for. Now i am a bit more selective and have more building time, i am happy to commit to more GB's, as loing as the time frame's allow.

I'm like Bish, in that I will commit to either type. I see advantages for both. I'm hosting the Hollywood GB. This type of group build has endless (I mean that literally) possibilities. But I also liked th Big Beautiful Jugs GB. I really liked building the P 47,and seeing what everyone came up with.

I think having something semi-specific is the best route, personally.That way you have a commonality, but still a good variety of builds. For example, there have been several GB's made around a specific country. So in these you can see a cross section of technological/political development in that country, but still have people building several different things. Another example (and this will sound really self serving, but it's not!) is the 1942/43 GB's that I have hosted. Because WW2 was such a broad war, it makes for lots of subjects, but using the year as a basis ties them all together and gives a sense of what was going on all over the world at that given time.

More than anything though, I think the people in the GB make the biggest difference. I have really enjoyed the 42/43 GBs because most of the builders have included detailed stories about their build subjects, effectively teaching everyone (including me) about historic subjects that we did not know about before. On the other side, I have really enjoyed the Sweedish and French GB's that Vance hosted, just because the folks involved with those enjoy friendly small talk in between build posts, giving the build a much more social feel.

That's my thoughts, sorry it's a little long!

Budd

Budd, i am with you on your last paragraph. The GB's on this sit tend to be very relaxed, and the guys often end up chatting about other things, which often leads to other GB's. And like you i like the historic background to the builds. In my 8th AAF GB i asked people to put in some background to the unit and the base of the aircraft they are building.

And just to vear off slightly, i have seen GB's on other forums, but i much prefer how they are run on FSM. I prefer haveing all the builds in one thread, rather than spread over a number of different threads, so of which are active and otehrs not. The GB's here are much more relaxed and because they are run by the members, theres always plenty running, so most of us, those with military interests especially, always have a GB to join. But theres also nothing stopping anyone who builds things that are not so well covered, like trains for example, starting one. Ad even if only 2 or 3 people join it, as loing as they are dedicated, it can be a success.

What would you guys say to a "Radial Engine" GB?

You could build everything as long as it has at least one radial engine and is able to fly.

Cheers, Clemens

SchattenSpartan

What would you guys say to a "Radial Engine" GB?

You could build everything as long as it has at least one radial engine and is able to fly.

Cheers, Clemens

That sounds like an interesting idea. I believe some tanks also had radials, so maybe include those.

I do think we need to stir up more interest in GB's. A few of the GB addicts are not as active, or have left the site completly. There has been a lot of new blood this year, which is great, so i think we need to spread the word a bit about the builds.

I have had a few of the newbies hop into the 1943 GB with good success. The only thing is they have no idea "how" to do a GB! It's almost amusing, kind of like when new guys show up to the sub.

The idea of including tanks is great, Bish.

I believe the shermans had radials for example.

I'll open a GB as soon as I can decide whilat model I will build. It doesn't look good, when the host of the GB has nothing to build, does it?

I'll think of a good badge too (you can help me out if you want)

Cheers, Clemens

I'm one of those newbies too lol

early SHERMANs did have radfial engines as did M-3 STUARTs and GRANTs/LEEs. i like the idea of crossovers too. if i can do a model in 2 GBs it can be more insentive

i have an H-34 helo i need to get started on for a project  (as if i don't have enough going)

didn't that soviet airplane engined armed ski mobile have a radial engine? could, though not i, scratchbuild a swamp boat. i think there is a 1/6 ww1 radial eng1ne kit out there too.

I think you are talking about something like this, Wayne:

rusian+atack

I was thinking about them too, after i read your post about including other radial powered stuff too. I just wasn't sure if there were any sleds with radial engines.

Cheers, Clemens

Strange, seems like the pic isn't working

Just click on the link.

Clemens

sub revolution

I think having something semi-specific is the best route, personally.That way you have a commonality, but still a good variety of builds. For example, there have been several GB's made around a specific country. So in these you can see a cross section of technological/political development in that country, but still have people building several different things. Another example (and this will sound really self serving, but it's not!) is the 1942/43 GB's that I have hosted. Because WW2 was such a broad war, it makes for lots of subjects, but using the year as a basis ties them all together and gives a sense of what was going on all over the world at that given time.

More than anything though, I think the people in the GB make the biggest difference. I have really enjoyed the 42/43 GBs because most of the builders have included detailed stories about their build subjects, effectively teaching everyone (including me) about historic subjects that we did not know about before. On the other side, I have really enjoyed the Sweedish and French GB's that Vance hosted, just because the folks involved with those enjoy friendly small talk in between build posts, giving the build a much more social feel.

That's my thoughts, sorry it's a little long!

Budd

I too like the GB's that are hosted here. If I have a question, there is usually someone who can answer it and just talking with other members is a way to make friends. I refer to them as "the best friends I never met" LOL I am also a member of the "CTEMBC". I like it there, but, like the letters stand for (Commercial Transportation and Equipment Builders Model Club), they deal with Trucks and Heavy Equipment. I would have  become a long haul trucker, but I hurt my back when I was younger. Anyhow, One GB they put on over there was a Cab Over Engine GB. I did a Chevy Titan COE Dump Truck for it. While that was pretty varied, it still put limits on it. But like I've mentioned here, I grew up building WW2 Aircraft. So, When I found this site, it was like coming home again.

When I found the history of Gabby Gabreski's Jug, It piqued my interest because he was from here in this little town where I live and thought others would be interested as well.

BTW Budd, Yours wasn't long. Mine is almost as long as yours. Yours has only 21 more words than mine!  With this last paragraph, it adds  up to 3 less words than you LOL

to be honest when i first started out on this forum and others i loved group builds.  joined a bunch and even hosted some.  for me i love builds that are focused on specific subjects.  if given too many choices i get confused and it becomes more of a chore to try to finish.  i try hard not to join too many either.  i really dont like having too many builds going at once.  i do prefer one at a time but there are times....................

i also prefer ones that have a specified end date.  makes the goal to finish much more real.

joe