HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano)
Subject: Re: Shelf life of engines?
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:23:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.095805.1@azcc.arizona.edu> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:

>A quick question! What is the shelf life of Estes rocket engines? Can they
>NOT be safely flown after a certain number of years?

A quick answer! It depends!

If you've stored the engines (woosh generators) under favorable conditions,
they can last a long, long time. I've had no problems with 20 year old engines,
and problems with ones right from the store. It depends on how they've been
stored.

Thermal cycling, such as we get from the seasons, is bad. The propellant
grain expands when it's hot, then contracts when it's cold, moreso than the
casing. (There is a difference in the coefficients of thermal expansion, in
other words.) If this happens enough times (sometimes once is enough), the
grain separates from the casing, providing a nice extra "port", resulting
in a spectacular pyrotechnic display ("cato").

Humidity is another villan. It causes nozzles to soften, which is bad.

In general, if you've treated the engines as if they were very picky human
beings, at least with regard to their storage enviroment, keeping the
temperature between 18 and 22 degrees Celsius, or thereabouts, and the
relative humidity below 60 percent, they should do very nicely. But when
taking a pack of those old Prodynes out of the time capsule, make sure
to static test one or two, just to make sure.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tec
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:30:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.181524.23031@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>: 
>: >Rule 5.5 - Momentum
>: >
>: >A launcher must not impart to the model any velocity or change of momemtum
>: >except that caused by the model rocket motor(s) contained in the model.
>: .....................
>: Then, .... that makes it sound like 'linear' momentum and not
>: angular momentum. Anyway one could not gain any advantage by
>: imparting angular momentum about the roll axis, except stability.
>: Would there be less drag on a spinning finless rocket?
>
>Yep. Much less than on a rocket with fins. 

And much, _much_, less drag than a _spinning_ rocket with fins.


thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimalized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
From: biedron@tab00.larc.nasa.gov (Robert Biedron)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Exhaust Deflector Material Question
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:31:40 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: tab00.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec14.081911.1@travis.llnl.gov> massey@travis.llnl.gov writes:
>Greetings,
>
>	I'm looking for someone who has had first-hand experience, either good
>	or bad, with using 1/8-inch aluminum plate (6061) as a launch-stand 
>	exhaust deflector. For the launchers that I'm building, the planned 
>	deflectors are about 10 inches square and perpendicular to the launch
>	rod. Will there be a problem with burn-through or melting? At what 
>	engine size does this begin to be a problem?
>
>	Remember, I'm looking for first-hand experiences, not opinions.
>
>Thanks
>
>Warren N. Massey                                      Massey@Travis.LLNL.Gov
>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory                   P.O. Box 808, L-495
>Livermore, Calif. 94550  <<<My opinions are mine alone>>>      (510)422-1958

I have used an aluminum blast deflector for a while now. I'm not 
sure if it's 6061 or some other alloy, and it's 3/16 inch thick 
rather than 1/8, but it has held up well for me. The plate is about
6x6 inches, and I mount it about 60 degrees from horizontal. The 
surface has become slightly rough from the corrosive effects of the 
exhaust, but there are no burn-throughs or surface cratering. I've 
used the deflector for engines up to F30 size.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tec
Organization: UofM Hospitals
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:41:00 GMT

In Article <1345@taniwha.UUCP> "paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)" says:
> In article <19921207132909.Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (Roger Wilfong) writes:
> - CDT> I've always though of doing a scale model of a WESTAR launched
> -    > from a spin table.  Of course you could get mission points for the WESTAR
> -    > if you didn't ignite the motor. :-)
> -
> -  A launcher must not impart to the model any velocity or 
> -  change of momentum except that caused by the model rocket 
> -  motor(s) contained in the model.
> 
> OK - here's how you do it, you use one motor, you tie it to the spin-table
> like a catherine-wheel - when you ignite it it spins up the WESTAR which then
> flies off the table - not having a motor to ignite it gets mission points
> by failing from then on :-)
> 
 
Great idea!  Only thing is you would need scale data on the spin-table and 
the dog house cover.  You'd have to enter these components as part of the 
model to fill the "contained in the model" requirement.
 
You could just use a big spring between the spin table and the WESTAR to get 
the satellite airborne.  That should get you even more mission points, 
because that's the way NASA gets the satellite out of the shuttle.  You 
could rig the spring release to a burn-thread or similar arrangement so it 
would be triggered off of the ejection charge of the spin motor.
 
If the WESTAR was big and light enough, it could use feather weight recovery 
(that should be atleast Widwest Qualified) so you don't have to worry about 
parachute deployment.
From: mlm@arreaux.East.Sun.COM (Mike McMullen-Sun Cary-NC SE)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: HPR Launch Pad Recommendations
Date: 15 Dec 1992 14:42:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mlm@arreaux.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: arreaux.east.sun.com

Hi. I would be interested in people's experiences and recommendations for
HPR launch pads. What commercial kits do people use? What pads have 
people built? What would you want for the "ideal" pad?

Thanks,

Mike
---

    /\        Mike McMullen
   \\ \       Systems Engineer
  \ \\ /      Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation
 / \/ / /     125 Edinburgh South, Suite 105
/ /   \//\    Cary, NC 27511
\//\   / /    
 / / /\ /     Phone:    (919) 460-2924 
  / \\ \      Email:    mike.mcmullen@East.Sun.Com
   \ \\       NAR#      56252
    \/        Tripoli#  1966


Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: j.cook@primerd.prime.com (C. James Cook)
Subject: Re: Exhaust Deflector Material Question
Organization: Prime Computer R&D
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:06:51 GMT

The problem with using metal blast deflectors is that the rocket flame
impinging on the metal deflector is a strong oxidizing jet.  This is akin
to an oxygen-acetylene cutting torch in which extra oxygen is introduced
to literally burn away to cut it instead of merely melting it.

For a long lasting deflector look for something ceramic. You can optionally
cover a metal deflector with large ceramic tiles.  At worst, get a hunk of
"miracle board" - the concrete board now used in place of plaster board or
blue board in bathroom tub and shower surround areas.

Good luck,
Jim
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: Exhaust Deflector Material Question
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.174355.13823@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes...
>Anybody know a manfacturer of high power rocketry 
>adjustable launch towers? Would like a metal one
>ajustable 1 to 4 inchs in diameter.

I don't know of a commercial one, but a member of our club constructed
a large tower for high power models. It will take up to an 8" dia tube and
a fin span of 12". Basically, he scaled up a standard model rocket tower to
about 6 feet tall, has it switchable for either three or four rails, and
uses an old CMR ceramic cone-type blast deflector. For outside rings he
used 12" I.D. PVC pipe.

If you can't come up with a commercial tower, maybe I could get him to put
together some plans, etc.

------
Tim Harincar				Millions long for immortality			
Central Minnesota 			who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry			themselves on a rainy Sunday 
soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu			afternoon. -Susan Ertz
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Other reloadables besides Aerotech? (Re: Info. about solid rocket-
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:51:38 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept


 In Article <15DEC199208171538@vx.cis.umn.edu> "soc1070" says:
|>
|> I hope they do some sort of additional labeling instead of just slapping
|> an aerotech logo on the old ISP casings. I think doing this will create
|> a lot of confusion over which reloads will fit in which case. I know that
|> when I was buying my first reloadable (RMS 3-in-1), I was confused at the
|> fact that ISP reloads wouldn't fit in the Aerotech casing. I figured all
|> the casings would be the same, just marketed different (we do the same with
|> our products all the time - different brand loyality and recognition)
|> 
|> I think it will create tons of confusion over reloads if there are two
|> compleatly different systems both with the Aerotech brand on them - I
|> would drop the ISP cases (labeled aerotech) under H or drop the RMS 40/240
|> (not likely) so there isn't any crossover. 

All of this is a bit of a mute point, right now.  My understanding (talking
to several different RMS distributors over the past week) is that Aerotech/ISP
is not making ANY more reloads, or RMS casings, until the DOT issues are
resolved. For a good update on the regulatory issues, read the article by
Pat Miller in the latest 'mini AmSpam' issue.  You probably won't see any
'Aerotech' high power casings for a while. (although I hope this is not
the case).

I and several others have found out over the past week or 10 days that casings/
motors for RMS systems are now rare.  There seems to be a good supply of 
reloads but limited ways to get access to them.  If the DOT situation isn't
cleared up soon I bet reloads will become very scarce before the end of 
winter.

Well, rocketeers, it's time to get back to work on your clustering skills!
With the current availability of G motors for $7/ea and under, a 3xG cluster
is a cost effective way to get in the equivalent of a 38/360 reload flight.


BTW...3xG80's make GREAT noise, fire & smoke!!  

================================================================================
= Buzz McDermott                Disclaimer: I speak for no one but myself, and =
= buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com                       anyone who listens to anything I   =
= NAR   13559                               have to say deserves whatever they =
= TRA    1785                               get!!                              =
================================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: rab@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Bickford)
Subject: Re: Club Projects
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:10:17 GMT


Why does this entire discussion remind me of the historical debates
about whether a human being could survive being in a vehicle which
travelled greater than ten miles an hour?  Those debates made some
sort of fundamental mistake about the way air pressure works around
moving vehicles, and I have this nagging feeling that the same error
is being made here......
--
 Robert Bickford      "A Hacker is any person who derives joy from
 rab@well.sf.ca.us    discovering ways to circumvent limitations." rab'86
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I recognize that a class of criminals and juvenile delinquents has
taken to calling themselves 'hackers', but I consider them irrelevant
to the true meaning of the word; just as the Mafia calls themselves
'businessmen' but nobody pays that fact any attention."            rab'90
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: My Two Cents
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:48:42 GMT
Reply-To: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Organization: Robotic Midwives, Ltd.

In article <gf6vFny00WBKA4zUsn@andrew.cmu.edu> lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>The implication that one cannot learn anything from model 
>rocketry is preposterous.
...
>If you can't buy a launch system to specification today, it must be
>that you don't HAVE specifications. If that's the case, don't
>polarize in the other direction about imagined educational value of
>lack of it, because you must be laboring in near-total ignorance.

[etc.]

Bravo, Larry!

- Jack

=============================================================================
||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd.                 jack@rml.com        ||
||Livermore, CA		           NOTE! New, improved address! ^^^        ||
||(510) 455-1143	            (old ones will still work)             ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
|| October 31, 1992 - Halloween                                            ||
|| November 1, 1992 - First Xmas Tree lot set up                           ||
||    [This isn't just cynicism, I saw it this morning on my bike ride]    ||
=============================================================================
From: coryc@sequent.com (Cory Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Piston Ejection
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:06:13 GMT

In article <BzExrz.Etn@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.013110.17594@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>>Only problem I have had is with phenolic, they just dont take      
>>stress normal to the airfraOnly air frame IDynacom fibreglass
>>Blackwidow, but its a heavy dude. Will be trying the carbon
>>fibre composites soon.
>
>Just wondering. Some time ago there was a thread about kevlar
>rockets and I mentioned vacuum bagging. Anyone try it yet?

I know someone who was planning to try it, but his hangup was obtaining
a suitable vacuum source.  I haven't talked to him since LDRS-XI though,
so he may have been able to give it a go.

-coryc

-- 
|     >> Disclaimer: I speak for Sequent only in our hardware manuals <<     |
| Cory R. Carpenter, Tech Writer |  The world hadn't ever had so many moving |
| Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. |  parts or so few labels.                  |
|  coryc@sequent.com             |   --William Gibson, `Mona Lisa Overdrive' |
From: msjohnso@donald.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tec
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:27:59 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS

donald.wendel@yob.sccsi.com (Donald Wendel) writes:

>You mean Piston lauchers are no longer allowed? Geez! I been gone too
>long also!
>                                        Don

No...piston launchers are still fine. 

The full phrasing is (getting out his trusty Pink Book)

Rule 5.5 - Momentum

A launcher must not impart to the model any velocity or change of momemtum
except that caused by the model rocket motor(s) contained in the model.


So - Piston launchers - Da.

Rubber bands, springs, or 'igniter helper' in a piston launcher - Nyet.

However, the FAI rules were evidently not clear on this at one point, as
I remember at least one Internats where the US team was using a piston,
and a protest was filed. (It was, however, denied) Year would have been
somewhere 1980-1985, I don't remember exactly.
-- 
Mark Johnson                          USnail: NCR Peripheral Products Division
E-mail:  Mark.Johnson@WichitaKS.NCR.COM       3718 N. Rock Rd.
Voice: (316) 636-8189 [V+ 654-8189]           Wichita, KS  67226
[Non-business email: 76670.1775@compuserve.com]
From: barrett@add.itg.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: RE: Barometric Altimeters
Date: 11 Dec 1992 20:02:18 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Incorporated, Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: powder.add.itg.ti.com

  I was talking to the guy at Adept Rocketry about the venturi effect on
their altimeters.

  He said that it is not a problem until the speed gets well above Mach
1. He said that the only thing you need to do is make sure the chamber
is not effected by the vacuum created by the rear of the rocket and the
chamber is vented with a ~1/4" hole.

  Bill, I don't see how, if the venturi effect was a factor, that an
altimiter would accurately record apogee.  The venturi effect might
cause the lowest pressure to occur at max velocity rather than max
altitude.

  All that being said, I would welcome any empirical data to support
these positions.

Stu Barrett  barrett@add.itg.ti.com
TRA#1277  NAR#4341
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Hello and finless tech!
Reply-To: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Organization, City, State, etc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:29:05 GMT

Speaking of motors. Did you all out there see the plea from
Tripoli about the need for a legal fund to straighten things out
with the DOT, CPSC, BATF and lord-knows-what-other agency?
Maybe someone should post the plea. 
Anyway the legal fund needs money:
Send to:
Tripoli Rocketry Association
c/o Scott Dingman
P.O. Box 339
Kenner, La.
70063-0339
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: What's a good scale model of a U-238 atom?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:56:17 GMT


>choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.) writes:

>>How do I make a 10 000 000 000 000 : 1 model that captures the beauty of
>>the U-238 atom 1 picosecond after being struck by a neutron?


Depends on whether you visualize the nuclides as particles or as 
probablility distributions. Also depends on whether the electron
cloud is important to you.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Query: Greek Air Force [EVA]
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:25:41 GMT


Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
From: alavigne@bmerh930.bnr.ca (Andrew Lavigne)
Subject: 1977 Mustang Model...
Organization: Bell Northern Research
Distribution: na
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:16:26


Anyone know of a 1977 Mustang Hatchback kit in 1/24 scale?  I haven't
been able to find anything in that time frame for the mustang.

My friend used to have one, and I thought I'd rebuild his car in miniature
for memories' sake.

Any info appreciated,

Andrew Lavigne
alavigne@bnr.ca
Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Pzl P-24 Kit?
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:37:48 GMT


Does anyone know whether there are kits available of the
Pzl P-24?  I'd prefer injection molded since I've never
built vac-u-form.

--Peter Scotto
From: 3808@b30.ingr.com (Barry Wilson)
Subject: ELTON WHITE
Keywords: corvette models
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:49:43 GMT

Elton,

I have been unable to send mail back to you regarding
the Corvette models with the misprinted boxes.  All mail
is being returned.  If you desire to have one of these items,
please call me at 205-730-3384, my work number 8-5 CST

thanks

Barry Wilson


Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
From: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch (Peter Nyffeler ,x4399)
Subject: Re: Sailplanes in 1/72 or 1/48
Reply-To: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch
Organization: ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry-Lab. - Switzerland
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:47:59 GMT

A colegue of mine toold me that:

	PMC (Plastik-Modellbau-Center)
	Kurt Aeberhardt
	Hammerstrasse 183
	CH-4005 Basel
	Switerland 
	Tel ..44 61 691 96 06
	Fax ..41 61 691 96 18

sells sailplane kits (as far as he knows are there made in France)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
						  __________
Peter Nyffeler					 / ___  ___ \
ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry-Lab.		/     \/     \ 
Switzerland					|  ___  ___  | Soaring
e-mail:peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch			|     \/     | Club
fax: ..41 1 252 34 02				|  ___  ___  | Zuerich 
tel: ..41 1 256 43 99				\     \/     /  
						 \__________/ 
					     + Control-line modell enthusiast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ss@wpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter)
Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
Subject: Re: Glues, fillers, etc.
Date: 14 Dec 92 08:09:49
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: dmonroe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 13 Dec 92 21:08:36 GMT


PS>  I realize thereare about as many differenet opinions as there are
PS>  plastic cements (or other glues) but the reason I am posting this
PS>  is to see what the "general public" prefers and more importantly
PS>  why?

PS>  Answer this simple question:

PS>  How do YOU join seems and fill gaps?  What are the benefits and
PS>  the downfalls of your particular favorite "stuff" and why?

Super glue works real goo for small gaps, and it sands down smooth.
For big gaps, I find Squadron Green Putty to work great. I used to use
Testor's contor putty, but found Squadron to be far superior.
--
 Scott Streeter                             Visit the Star Wars Archive at
 ss@wpi.wpi.edu                             wpi.wpi.edu       130.215.24.1
From: dmonroe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Darrel Monroe)
Newsgroups: rec.models.scale
Subject: F-14 models in 1/32
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:09:31 GMT
Reply-To: dmonroe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Darrel Monroe)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: dmonroe@huey.cc.utexas.edu

Finney replies to Glenn Graham concerning 1/32 F-14 models:

> In article <Bz04JE.5w6@analogy.com>, glenng@analogy.com (Glenn Graham) writes:
> |> I would like to invest some time and effort into a large scale
> |> F-14 model, something around 1:48 or 1:32 or so. Can anybody
> |> offer thier opinion as to which is the best in terms of detail?
> |> lso, any recommendations on an F-15? I have seen what appears to
> |> be a real nice 1:32 kit put out by Revel I believe which provides
> |> an extremely detailed cockpit.

> |> Thanks!

> |> Glenn Graham, MEEE                glenng@analogy.com

>  The best candidate for 1/32 scale is Tamiya's F-14, about $68.00, combined
>  with Model Technology's detail set. The major problem for Tamiya's F-14
>  is the raised panel lines. You may need spend some time engrave them to
>  recessed panel lines. The mold is old, there are some correctness problems.

I have to somewhat disagree about the Tamiya kit.  I would recommend the 
Revell kit in 1/32.  The last I saw, the Tamiya kit through a discount mail 
order place was $75.00.  Retail, I've seen it topping 100.  Revell's kit in 
1/32 is only $24.00, and is equal to, and superior to the Tamiya kit in many 
ways.  The Tamiya kit has almost no cockpit detailing, whereas the Revell kit 
has a very detailed cockpit tub.  There is no molded in detail in the Tamiya 
kit, which is inexcusable for a kit costing 75-100 dollars, especially when 
Revell has an excellent interior at 1/3 to 1/4 the cost. The surface of the 
plane has engraved panels on both, but the Tamiya has panels that protrude and 
look like armor plate.  Quite unrealistic.  The Tamiya decals are poor, with 
stenciling like "NO STEP" being written "NOSTEP".  It's not one word.  Tamiya 
does top Revell in the seats, being very good.  Revells are just 2 piecers.  
For the difference in price, the Tamiya kit is just not worth it.

Happy Modelling,
Darrel Monroe
dmonroe@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu