Jump to content


Moebius 1956 Chrysler 300B


  • You cannot reply to this topic
196 replies to this topic

#41 Luc Janssens

Luc Janssens

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 21 February 2013 - 09:06 AM

Think I'm gonna break my son's piggy bank

He's 5 what does he know LOL

 

Bad dad


Edited by Luc Janssens, 21 February 2013 - 09:07 AM.


#42 Rob Hall

Rob Hall

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,028 posts
  • Location:Phoenix, Arizona
  • Full Name:Robert Hall

Posted 21 February 2013 - 10:34 AM

Definitely looking forward to this...'56 was the better looking of the two years, IMO..    as far as other years, I'd love to see a '60 and a '65 300...

 

Chrysler.1956.300B-Coupe.jpg


Edited by Rob Hall, 21 February 2013 - 10:37 AM.


#43 Cesar Bossolani

Cesar Bossolani

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Location:Brazil
  • Full Name:Cesar Bossolani

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:07 AM

I can't waiting for get mine!



#44 carsntrucks4you

carsntrucks4you

    MCM Avid Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts
  • Location:Bruehl/Germany

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:38 AM

Here the first pictures of Moebius new 1956 Chrysler 300B http://dmetzner.smug...04141&k=H6cSMBd



#45 Gluhead

Gluhead

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,159 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Full Name:It really is Gluhead

Posted 01 March 2013 - 04:45 AM

Thanks for posting the link, Michael. I can't wait for it to come out.

 

I'm curious about the roof in the test shot...it looks squashed in the front half. I know the '55 doesn't have that issue, so I'm hoping it's a fluke on this one. Otherwise, it looks fantastic.



#46 azers

azers

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 504 posts
  • Location:sultan
  • Full Name:Joe l. Spitzer

Posted 01 March 2013 - 01:37 PM

I want. Can't wait for this one.

#47 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,846 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 01 March 2013 - 01:40 PM

Definitely looking forward to this...'56 was the better looking of the two years, IMO..    as far as other years, I'd love to see a '60 and a '65 300...

 

Chrysler.1956.300B-Coupe.jpg

 

Dang! That is one beee-yoo-tiful car!  :wub:



#48 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,238 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 01 March 2013 - 03:02 PM

Thanks for posting the link, Michael. I can't wait for it to come out.

 

I'm curious about the roof in the test shot...it looks squashed in the front half. I know the '55 doesn't have that issue, so I'm hoping it's a fluke on this one. Otherwise, it looks fantastic.

Nah, 55 has it too.  Only shows up in certain angles, like from a dead-on side profile. I don't think it detracts from the finished model too much.  Early mockups of the 55 were even worse, they got it better, but never got it perfect.



#49 Gluhead

Gluhead

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,159 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Full Name:It really is Gluhead

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:01 PM

Yep, you're right. I went back and looked over the test shots for the '55 and it's on that one, too. I never noticed it on a build, so it'll probably be fine.



#50 niteowl7710

niteowl7710

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,640 posts
  • Location:FayCoPA
  • Full Name:Daddy Day Care Now Open!

Posted 01 March 2013 - 10:11 PM

For some reason (perhaps hobby black magik) the roof's taller in the back aspect is a great deal less notable in the kit when it's built than in raw styrene.

#51 Cato

Cato

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Location:Eastern East Coast
  • Full Name:See below:

Posted 02 March 2013 - 06:41 AM

Dave,

A wonderful job of tooling and the test mock-up looks great. However, in the interest of constructive criticism, I'd like to raise a question.

 

To my eye, the front fender top seems to dive a bit to the headlamp. This begins at the leading edge of the front wheel well and the slope seems steeper than the black 1:1 car pictured in post #1. It may be placing the headlamp too low, crowding the parking light. Clearly seen on the conceptcarz.com web site, the white car featured makes this very apparent.

 

In contrast, the roof concern mentioned earlier does not strike me as a flaw.

 

Anyone else think this or am I off-base?


Edited by Cato, 02 March 2013 - 06:51 AM.


#52 Cato

Cato

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Location:Eastern East Coast
  • Full Name:See below:

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

Hello-Dave?

Any comment to my observation?? ^^^



#53 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,846 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:01 PM

ok... since Moebius actually does take feedback into consideration, here are my observations...

 

Untitled-1-7_zps00b5a973.jpg

 

I lined up the model with the real car based on the wheelbase, and took several reference points off the real car and transferred those points up to the model via the red lines. When we line up the two cars by wheelbase, you can clearly see the differences between the model and the real car. On the model,

 

1. The front bumper and the headlight bezels stick out too far forward. On the real car, the distance between the vertical end of the front fender and the leading edge of the front wheelwell is much shorter.

2. The position of the A pillar looks good, and the vent window divider (the third line from the left) lines up perfectly.

3. However, you can see that the door is a bit too long on the model (fourth line from the left).

4. On the model, the intersection of the lower edge of the rear glass and the horizontal body surface happens at a point directly above the center of the rear wheel. On the real car, that intersection point happens much further back, almost in line with the rear of the rear tire.

5. The model's rear overhang is much too short, and the angle of the taillight/fin is too vertical... it should be slanted more.

 

To my eye, the single biggest mistake is #5... the sleekness of the real car is missing



#54 Casey

Casey

    MCM Ohana

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,901 posts
  • Location:Men. Falls, WI
  • Full Name:Casey Littmann

Posted 04 March 2013 - 07:50 PM

What's really interesting is the difference in position between the tip of the right rear fin in both pics Harry posted. Not sure if this is due to perspective, scale, parallax view, or something else, but it's very noticeable. 



#55 Cato

Cato

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Location:Eastern East Coast
  • Full Name:See below:

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:18 AM

Well done Harry. A perfect visual analysis using graphic tools.

Strange if model companies don't analyze like this during the design phase.

We may have set the release date back a few months...



#56 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,238 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:01 AM

Well done Harry. A perfect visual analysis using graphic tools.

Strange if model companies don't analyze like this during the design phase.

We may have set the release date back a few months...

They don't do it this way.  You'd be constantly chasing your tail doing it this way.  You need to know specifics of how each photograph was shot, focal length of lens, distance from subject, point of focus, etc...   Then you need a way to replicate that same camera set up on the model and "scale" it down to 25th scale.  It's nearly impossible.  You need a set of orthographic photographs, or an orthographic drawing.  Something that is free from parallax (and our own eyes aren't even immune to parallax). About the only way to do it with one photograph is to get as far away from the subject as you can and shoot it with the longest camera lens you can, that makes about as distortion-free a photograph as you can make in a single exposure.  Orthographic photographs are done with a rig that keeps the camera's focal plane (the film or digital sensor) exactly square and equidistant from the subject and the camera's focal length and focus point are kept constant throughout the series of photographs.  You then move the camera into different positions, creating a distortion-free "mosaic" that you can then use to base measurements and make drawings from.  

 

Lost yet?  Here's a little primer that hopefully explains it better through photos than I can with words...  http://smallartworks...ints/Ortho.html


Edited by Brett Barrow, 05 March 2013 - 05:02 AM.


#57 Brett Barrow

Brett Barrow

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,238 posts
  • Location:Deep in the swamps of Jersey
  • Full Name:Genius billionaire playboy philanthropist Brett M. Barrow, Esq.

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:15 AM

ok... since Moebius actually does take feedback into consideration, here are my observations...

 

Untitled-1-7_zps00b5a973.jpg

 

I can tell from these two photographs that the front of the model is closer to the camera (this shot appears to be very close to square-on), while the rear of the real car is closer to the camera.  Any comparison is moot, these aren't anywhere close to being shot from the same perspective.  

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the model is correct.  These just aren't a good pair of photographs to use for comparison.  


Edited by Brett Barrow, 05 March 2013 - 05:18 AM.


#58 Harry P.

Harry P.

    MCM Ohana

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,846 posts
  • Location:NW suburban Chicago
  • Full Name:A mere layman...

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:54 AM

I can tell from these two photographs that the front of the model is closer to the camera (this shot appears to be very close to square-on), while the rear of the real car is closer to the camera.  Any comparison is moot, these aren't anywhere close to being shot from the same perspective.  

 

And I'm not saying you're wrong, or that the model is correct.  These just aren't a good pair of photographs to use for comparison.  

 

The point where the rear glass hits the body may be due to the photos, but regardless of the "correctness" of using the photos as a comparison, the fact that the model's headlight bezels stick out too far, the rear overhang is way too short, and the angle of the taillights/fins is off, is obvious.

 

Also, it's apparent that the C pillar on the model is too thin (distance between the side glass and the back glass).



#59 gtx6970

gtx6970

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts
  • Location:Northern Ky
  • Full Name:Bill Allphin

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:58 AM

Interesting that the tail light angle is just now brought up.

I know the tail lights are different , but aren't the quarter panels the same between a 55 and a 56 ?

 

edit, I do not have a parts book to go back that far. But a fiend of mine does and he has a 1/1 1955 C300 in the garage 

 

Actually I think all the sheetmetal is the same. With  just a few different nameplate, emblems, door handles and tail lights being the major differences between the 2 years


Edited by gtx6970, 05 March 2013 - 07:24 AM.


#60 sjordan2

sjordan2

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,639 posts
  • Location:Knoxville, TN
  • Full Name:Skip Jordan

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:23 AM

I wonder if there are enough similarities between this 1955 Imperial and the 300B to make a valid comparison? Wouldn't the roof be more like the Moebius 300 C? In any case, photographs of the real car and this drawing indicate to me that the Moebius roofline and window opening aren't there yet.

 

chrysler-imperial-2-door-hardtop-1955_zp


Edited by sjordan2, 05 March 2013 - 06:56 AM.