the MRH Forum

MRH 2024-01 - January 2024 Magazine feedback
Reply
MRH Media 2,999 posts MRH MRH Media 2,999 posts
MRH

                   MRH: January 2024

January-2024-MRH

Read online ►

►Get the bonus extras for this issue

Problems accessing the issue?
Follow these troubleshooting steps ...

In this issue: 

Want more issues like this one? Give us a like on the lower right thumbs-up.png
Reply 5
NCR-Boomer Frequent poster 504 posts
NCR-Boomer
Bravo, nice issue!
 
Last pages, last push to get it out the virtual door?   Two typos:  center of MRH "Next Month" photo lineup, 'decodeer', and lower right of RE "Next Month", 'availabler'.  I believe that's all I've seen so far (nearly 38 hours on my feet).  The 'lorem ipsum' in the RH cover art doesn't count.  😁  
 
Tim B.
Reply 2
Yaron Bandell ybandell Prolific poster 1,552 posts
Yaron Bandell ybandell
Typo: Publisher's Musings, Page 2, midway in 3rd paragraph:
"Goo-gone works great at first, but you will find the thin Goo-Gone reside on the track or wheels quickly...."
 
The word "reside" likely should be "residue"

-Yaron.
Susquehanna Bridge Build | My Personal Website | Capitol Free-mo
Reply 2
AzBaja Prolific poster 2,048 posts
AzBaja
Page 101/111  photo caption is wrong.  Those are "Thuds" aka Republic F-105 Thunderchief.  1st Flight 1955,  Retired in 1984.  Those are not F-4 Phantoms.  or I 'm just missing what is going on...
 
Screenshot 2024-01-17 234504.jpg

AzBaja
---------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy the smell of melting plastic in the morning.  The Fake Model Railroader, subpar at best.
Reply 3
joef MRH Founder 17,434 posts
joef
Those are not F-4 Phantoms.  or I 'm just missing what is going on...
We never said they were F-4 Phantoms. We simply called them modern fighters, read the caption carefully.Bernie said F-4 photos on the forum reminded him of a time an F-4 buzzed him, so he put together the photo shown of a train getting buzzed by fighter jets. Bernie simply said the F-4s gave him the idea to do the photo, but he never said they were F-4s, just modern fighter jets (non-descript).
 
We called them modern fighters precisely because we knew they were not F-4s.

Joe Fugate​
Publisher, Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine

[siskiyouBtn]

Read my blog
Reply 3
AzBaja Prolific poster 2,048 posts
AzBaja
to be fair modern is not true either as the were mostly retired in the very early 70's and replaced by the F-4 Phantoms.  From that point on tell the 80's the were flown by the nation guard.  The F-105 did have a production run from around 1955 to 1964, (60 to 69 year old plane is not modern)  they were considered old and obsolete by the 1970s. 
 
I feel it would be the same as calling a EMD E9 a modern diesel... 

AzBaja
---------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy the smell of melting plastic in the morning.  The Fake Model Railroader, subpar at best.
Reply 3
joef MRH Founder 17,434 posts
joef
… to be fair modern is not true either as the were mostly retired in the very early 70's
It’s relative to the trains in the picture. They’re more modern than the trains, are they not? Get it?
 
Ironically, those trains lasted into the early 70s as well. Wait — what? Oh, the early 1870s … yeh, that’s relative too.

Joe Fugate​
Publisher, Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine

[siskiyouBtn]

Read my blog
Reply 3
Reply