336 replies to this topic

[azers]

I think you right. When I first looked at the test shot compared to the actual picture of the convert. It looked like the wheel lip was part of the problem. Trimming it made it look more 1 to 1. I hope revell takes all the suggestions that forum members make so they can build a nicer product than what they have made prior. I can't wait.

[futurattraction]

I can't speak too much to the proportions of the upper fender, but trimming the fender lips definitely make them more in the correct proportion to the 1:1.

[azers]

I think revell needs to tool up a convertible too. That would be awesome.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

What Scott said, re the fender arches.

 

Gentlemen, with all due respect, I'd really like to see what manufacturer has stopped making new model kits because of nitpicking - if anybody has an actual example, I'm all ears.

 

Now some manufacturers have been prodded to improve their products - like the Lindberg '61 Impala, or the Pro Modeler '69 Charger, or Revell doing a new-tool 1/25 '69 Camaro instead of recycling Monogram's old dog, or Moebius tweaking the '53 Hudson - but seriously, to stop developing the new products your business thrives on out of a hissy fit over nitpicking? Revell/Monogram hasn't done business well-nigh these 70 years by being that stupid.  The irony here is that this new 'Cuda is coming about in great part because Revell/Monogram's last two were so lambasted.

 

You guys are in this hobby with the expectation that you will have a miniature that looks as close to its prototype as possible.  There's no need to be cautious, circumspect or apologetic about that.

 

In fact, it's those who attack the nit-pickers who have a far more limiting and inhibiting effect on this hobby than the nit-pickers themselves.

[Casey]

I think revell needs to tool up a convertible too.

 

I was hoping nobody would bring that topic up.   

 

I'm sure there will eventually be a convertible version, much like Revell did with the '69 Camaro kits.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

The upper part of the front fender does appear a bit too tall, but it may be the oversized lip on the opening that's making it look bulky.  I've done a sloppy job on trimming them (lowering it in the process), but see what you think.

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, Stu. The top fender expanses still seem a wee bit broad, but those arches look a lot better.

[MrObsessive]

Yeah, I'm looking at a bunch of 1:1 pics on my hard disc of that car, and the test shots original wheelwell flares are a bit too much. Stu, your pic manipulation DOES make them look a lot better!

 

It's an easy fix if Revell doesn't address this, but still...........

[azers]

Sorry about the convertible. Lol.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

 

I was hoping nobody would bring that topic up.   

 

I'm sure there will eventually be a convertible version, much like Revell did with the '69 Camaro kits.

 

And then the version AFTER that release will have the up-top.

 

[azers]

Yup. Lol

[charlie8575]

I wonder if some of it could be those silly oversized wheels playing tricks on your vision? I'd want to see a painted sample compared to a real car, but anything off to my eye is slight enough that it wouldn't bother me.

 

For the shock factor, I might build one of these with a Ross Gibson Hyper-Pak Slant Six and 14-inch rims, painted metallic tan or something equally plain.

 

Charlie Larkin

[Casey]

 

For the shock factor, I might build one of these with a Ross Gibson Hyper-Pak Slant Six and 14-inch rims, painted metallic tan or something equally plain.

 

Don't forget the trunk mounted luggage rack and bench seat. 

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Mmm, I dunno - I think some of the problems actually get louder as the wheel diameter goes down:

 

 

Actually, the rear ain't lookin' so bad, but man, that front...

 

One of the photo manipulations I've wanted to try (brace yourself for the irony: I've been too busy on an ACTUAL BUILD) is to sneak the shadow of that mid-body crease up just a smidge, just marginally.

Edited by Chuck Kourouklis, 13 December 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Erik Smith]

I think the angle of the photos and the focal length may be playing a part in the look of the fender problem - maybe. The whole front of the car looks oversized - like a mild fisheye distortion. Hard to say without a good side profile shot.

[horsepower]

I think the angle of the photos and the focal length may be playing a part in the look of the fender problem - maybe. The whole front of the car looks oversized - like a mild fisheye distortion. Hard to say without a good side profile shot.

By George! I think we actually have a winner!!!

[Chuck Kourouklis]

You can account for the fisheye effect and still find those upper surfaces a bit broad.  This isn't the only angle which appears that way, and the obvious excess and flatness of the wheel arch lip stands no matter what the angle and lens distortion.

 

Which isn't to say that there isn't a whole lot about this body shell that's much, much closer than the last two attempts - the last AAR took those same areas and made them way narrower for scale than these are wide.  But as for "winners", my vote goes to Stu from page 9, who made a visual adjustment that resulted in an actual improvement.

[SteveG]

I think the angle of the photos and the focal length may be playing a part in the look of the fender problem - maybe. The whole front of the car looks oversized - like a mild fisheye distortion. Hard to say without a good side profile shot.

 

I have to agree, those photos were taken in a rush under less then ideal conditions, with an inexpensive point and shoot digital camera.  I know that because I took them.  I only posted the ones that were in focus enough to use here. Keep that it mind before you get to crtitical. You can go to my album to see some other views starting on page 5. http://public.fotki....-nationals--33/  

 

I saw it with my own two eyes standing next to a couple of die hard mopar guys who aren't known for holding back opinions and we all agreed while isn't perfect it looked pretty darn good, certainly Revell's best E-body to date. I know I'm looking foward to getting one or more, perfect or not .....

 

Steve 

[Erik Smith]

Thanks for that link Steve. I looked at pic 212 - one 'Cuda in the background looks good. This will be a great kit for Revell, no doubt.

[Chuck Kourouklis]

Okay, so you can take a more straight-on profile shot like this:

 

 

note that it's a bit elongated by the lens, and still correctly reckon that the upper surfaces look a bit disproportionate.  You don't really need to take measurements to note that the top surface seems close in height to the surface directly below it, as defined by the mid-body crease and the one just above the rocker panel.  Whereas in a side profile of the 1:1 - 

 

 

the difference between the upper and lower expanses is a little clearer.  

 

Though if you DID take measurements based on photographs - right at the midpoint between the fender and the front door line -  you'd find that the upper surface on the model is about 80% the height of the surface just below it, where the 1:1 hovers around 70% - not a huge difference, but noticeable.   Any number of factors can lead to this (is the center crease too low, is the rocker crease too high), you can point out that we won't know for sure until you take a tape to the car and the model, and you'd be right - but the two-dimensional analysis from photographs is close enough to start drawing conclusions.

 

Now if we were talking deviations of hundredths, the "perfect model" concept might enter the discussion. But no, we're talking tenths - subtle, but visible to the unassisted eye.  And nowhere is it in dispute that even with this deviation, it still blows the carp out of any 'Cuda Revell/Monogram has done before.

[1972coronet]

Thanks for the in-depth examination of the kit , Chuck .

 

One thing as a reminder to all -- myself included : in 1:1 , the wheel well arches are "generously-proportioned" ; a fact which is exasperated when normal 14x6" wheels with , say , F78 tyres ( the AAR pictured above has F60-15 and G60-15 tyres on 15x8 wheels) are seen inside those fenders !

 

Too bad that revell didn't mould the test shot with black interior and wheels , as that stupid grey doesn't look decent on film .

Makes the roof look too-low , just like the '70 AAR from a few years ago ...

 

On the good side , the lines look nice , crisp and very well-defined !