whale392
-
Posts
2,263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by whale392
-
-
Pans were painted Gray, same as the blocks and heads. They were assembled and painted as a unit. My 91 5.0l engine is all-Gray, and it has been that way for 274,000 miles.
-
One of my favorite B-bodies right here! Love the 64 Plymouths, 63 Plymouths, 65 Dodges, and the 66-67 Dodge and Plymouths.
Do her justice, Mike. These cars have beautiful lines just aching for a good build!
-
No matter the conflict, I honor our dead as they honored their Country and Constitution. Thank the families and friends of the laid to rest, as they need to hear that their loved one DID make a difference.
-
The Hatch has a smoothness to it that helps the overall design of the car flow. It just looks goofy with a trunk, and is either a love-or-hate style of Fox. Personally, I like all of the styles it was offered in.
-
If the front seats do look just like the backs, you did a great job on them!
-
Eric, is that just camera/flash/light issues or did you wash/drybrush the rear seats? If it is wash/drybrush, they look GOOD!
-
Ben does have a legitimate point in that a lot of this kits interest does come from the more-than-Average-Joe modeler and kids. Most guys I have talked to who will be buying this kit are either Fox guys, Mustang guys in general, or (believe it or not) Chevy guys who have raced against these cars and know what they should look like. Kids today don't care about this subject matter, and the aging-in-the-hobby don't either (as it isn't a 57 Chevy or a 32 Ford). This car is a 'Tween, a car that has yet to reach collector status yet is seen daily. There are a million out there, and most of their owners see it as either basic transportation or worse. Then there is the other side who thinks this is the best 90% car Ford ever built. Guess who's dollar will start to run this hobby when all of the baby-boomers and gray-hairs die off? That would be us, the guys who are in our 30s now and remember these types of cars fondly. I already spend a good bit of my income on (either plastic or 1:1) these subjects. So for us, close won't do, especially in an age where technology rules the day. Paper and slide-rule drafting; I can see errors in that (as I have 4yrs High School drafting and 1.5yrs architectural engineering training), but there is no need for that today. With digital imaging, 3D scanning, and the abundance of reference sources available, there is no excuse for kit inaccuracies like there are (not limited to just this kit).
All work for the drawings starts here, but the product is 100% Chinese manufactured
-
Darin,
When I say the greenhouse is wrong, I am taking into consideration everything from the beltline up. The roof, when measured from the top of the door to the roof-skin kick-over is rather close, but (as you stated and I can confirm with the measurements) the entire side window proportions are off. The area of roof visible above the drip molding is too much (.040" by measuring my 1:1 car), as well as the drip molding itself being too thick (it to needs to be reduced by roughly .015"). These two are over half of the discrepency we are seeing. Add .040" to the overall height from the top of the door up and you will make up that extra distance of roof failure.
As to your querry of the wheel well arches; yes they are WAY off in height (and in the rears, length by them being too long by .080". Again, this is a rough measure from my car and all of these cars had slight variances). But .040" is still a scale inch, and on either side of the arch, making it appear too long and flat. The body crease itself is also a bit low and inconsistant across the body, lending an odd look to the rear quarters and wheel well openings. I am working on getting all of these measurements together and comparing them to the kit, that way we (and Revell, if they decide to fix it) will have them handy and to work from.
Part of the reason I take it personally is I had a hand (ever so small) in this kits development, and had multuiple conversations with Ed about the car through its process. Granted, I was brought back in a bit too late in the game to correct the flawed body, but I was still with it for a bit. I feel partly responsible for this kit, and because it is wrong I feel I take some of the blame. For me, this kit IS personal. I have never had this much attachment/involvement in a kit before. I was one of the biggest cheerleaders for this kit when i got wind of it being developed. Sadly, after finally seeing it in my hands, I am also one of its biggest detractors. That is why I held off judging this kit until I had one, so that I could make informed observations versus just what I had seen on the 'net. I feel like I failed Ed and his group, and that somehow they also failed to get the shape right even with my help.
Do I expect it to be 100% perfect? Absolutely not. But I did expect better than this.
-
That will work, Eric. And thanks, Jim. Looks like i may have to contribute some shots to it and the LX thread!
-
To be perfectly honest, Brett, I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the DESIGNER of this kit (the person responsible for its bad body proportions in your example) were to lose their job AND be replaced by someone who does NOT make the same 'artistic license' design choices. Illustrations are one thing, Brett. Tangible product is something else completely. You can chherlead all you want, but no matter how you cut it (or try to skew it) this body is wrong. I don't care whos' fault it is, the fact that it is wrong proves someone doesn't do their job well.
Terry, I spent 4 years as a Naval Airdale (VAW-120 NAS Norfolk), working engined (AD3). Attention to detail (as you well know) is something that you end up living. It isn't an on-off thing, it becomes a part of you. You can see things that just aren't right. Being as i own these cars (and a 1965 Dodge Coronet500, which irrelevent here, will go nicely with your Charger), I am even more atenuated to their shape/proportions.
Now, on to that 50 Olds everyone likes to drag up (since we have beaten that poor Pro-Modeler Charger to death). Yup, roof is chopped there too. Again, a case of someone not properly doing their job. I see a trend here, and a trend of the mediocrophiles/accurophobes jumping all over the 'rivet counters' who want accurate subjects. If you are willing to settle for 'close enough', maybe we should start paying you 2/3rds of what you currently get paid. Hey, it's 'close enough' to what you normally get paid. (now, before any of you tongue-waggers want to bump your gums about "It isn't the same thing as one is just expendable time/money while the other is life", the concept behind both is the same.)
The 50 Olds does not look as out of scale because of the fluid, flowing lines of the subject. It is hard for the human eye to discern the scale issues when it has no real flat surface to draw a mental 'rule' from. On an angular subject, the eye/brain can quickly compute the 'scale rule' as it has many surfaces from which to measure. A top chop on a square vehicle will be much more dramatic than on a flowing vehicle (given the chop is the same height).
Then again, why argue the obvious points with those who have no dog in this hunt nor plan on having one in it? To the vast majority, it really doesn't matter. Just like alzheimers or autism, it doesn't affect you and you keep right on living until IT DOES AFFECT YOU! Then it becomes a focal point for you. So, since you aren't affected by this kit being wrong, let those who are affected by it try to do something about it. You can go on living your lives as normal, nothing to see here.
-
I can see that being moved to the LX Reference Pictures thread in the reference section, as i am sure others could use it as well!
-
^^That is an excellent diagram. Is that from MustangGT.org? (I see it was taken from CJ Pony Parts, and I wonder where they got it from. Bookmark it for reference.
-
Memorial Day is set aside to honor the memories of those who have fallen in the name of freedom and in service to Country. Let us not forget the blood cost for what we take for granted. My brothers, sisters, and forbearers laid down their lives for a principle they believed in, for a Constitution worth fighting for. I honor the memory of our fallen on this day, and pray for the families they have left behind.
-
that is a notion, Jason!
-
Twilight and Titanium.
-
Thank you, Harry. I believe Revell will have an earful (both sides I can attest to) come Tuesday when they head back into the office!
And all we can do is HOPE (with a large dose of persuasion) that Revell WILL cut a body. If they don't, well we tried. If they do, Ok. Nothing says that body will be correct either. But fixing the greenhouse (and maybe the door locks and trunk trailing edge) will go a LONG way in allowing the 'rivet counter' to getting it as close as they can.
-
Now see, Caseys forward thinking is yet another reason for this kit to be correct. Even though a lot of people here won't agree, the 80's subjects really did bring us into the second age of Muscle Cars and deserve a place among properly kitted subjects. I would LOVE to see my shelf full of 1/25th scale Fox Mustangs/Capris (be it LX 5.0s, GTs, SVOs 4eyes, Turbo4s), G-Body terrors, F-Body land sharks, the emergence of European and Japanese supercars............................................
If it all goes well and a CORRECT LX sells like hotcakes, maybe we have a chance at seeing some subjects that excite MY generation (who, by the way, will be taking over as the current generation starts passing away).
-
The only glaring flaw is the greenhouse (or at least the one that is noticeable right off the bat, even by someone casually acquainted with these cars). While I may agree that they likely won't cut a new body, they may hear that outcry and go ahead and fix it. To me, it is worth the chance (after all, they did with the 'Pro Modeler' 69 Charger).
-
I understood your point, Darin, and even admitted to the kit being a good seller for the 'Average Joe'. But even the Average Joe deserves better, whether it be a car or palne. We spend our money just the same, and we expect to get what we pay for.
Working on the E2-C and C2-A airframes for 4 years, I got quite close to them. Even though the Kinetic kits are flawed, they are the only game (and likely to be) in town for them in 1/48th (which is what I build my aircraft in). I will spend $100s more in correcting detail that I shouldn't have to because I have a passion for this plane (something I am sure you understand). With that passion comes wanting to see it done right (something else we can agree on). If there is a chance that you can get the flaws corrected, is it not worth the chance? That really is what the heart of this matter is, the chance to have the obvious flaws corrected. Do we the modeler and 'Joe Average' not deserve that at least; the chance?
-
White interior will pop in that Green car. Best luck when the tape comes off!
-
You originally had the seats painted Green, didn't you?
-
For the first time tonight, Darin, we agree. I am already compiling all of my measurements (from my car,and tomorrow from a friends car). You are correct in that the body itself has flaws. The major visual oops though is the greenhouse height. The fact that the drip molding is oversized does not help the bulky look of the roof in any way. There is also a bit too much space above the door drip molding and the roof skin itself, which also makes the windows look too short.
-
You should see the can of R12, Jason! Those pics were taken at mom and dads, in St.Cloud, Florida 5 years ago.
-
Yes I am, as 86GT2go. I haven't posted much lately though, as I have been working on my 91GT primarily.
Andre, I hope the Black trim comes out ok, as I like the Green/Black/Red pinstripe combo.
Wow. I'm glad I don't have a dog in the '90 Mustang LX fight.
in The Off-Topic Lounge
Posted · Edited by whale392
Considering the Fairmont, Mercury Zephyr, and the Mustang twins (Mustang/Capri) were all designed at the same time and ride on the same chassis (the Fox platform), the resemblences are definately there! Yes, the Fairmont and Zephyr made it out one year before the Mustang did. Have you ever seen a Hatch without the spoiler of some sort? Goofy and truncated is the only way to describe it.
The Mustang has never had its own unique chassis; it has always been a dirivative of some other chassis. 1964.5-73 was based on the Falcon Chassis, the MustangII was based off the Pinto, the FOX was based off the Fairmont, the SNs were based on the Fox, the s197s were based off the DEW98 (Lincoln)......................................