• Announcements

    • General Usage   05/10/2017

      If someone is acting badly, either in a forum or a private message, please report it. There are conveniently located buttons for sending the post to the moderators. 

2002p51

Members
  • Content count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About 2002p51

  • Rank
    MCM Ohana
  • Birthday 05/31/1947

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.motorsportsphoto.com
  • Yahoo dhierwarter@yahoo.com

Previous Fields

  • Scale I Build 1/24, 1/25, 1/8

Profile Information

  • Location Kingsport, TN
  • Full Name Drew

Recent Profile Visitors


7,925 profile views

2002p51's Activity

  1. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Almost close.  
  2. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Ha ha!  
  3. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    And I agree with you; " And as far as being a stickler for detail I don't have a problem having to go that extra mile to make a build just a bit more accurate than how it comes straight out of the box." I don't either. The key word there is a bit. This kit requires a lot more than just a bit of work to make it accurate.
    i.e. You're going to throw out the tires, "stretch the chassis along with the body panels to make a more accurate wheelbase. I'm torn about messing with correcting the taper on the wedge body" That's more than just a bit of work. While you're at it you might as well use most of an engine from a Revell early funny car or dragster because the valve covers, blower, and injector look better than those old MPC originated ones. 
    So what have you got left from the original $30.00 kit? I mean, knock yourself out if that's what you like to do. I just expect to get more for my hobby dollar than a kit that needs to be completely reworked to make it a passable replica of what's on the outside of the box.
  4. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    I'm not "upset" just real disappointed. I paid nearly $30.00 for this kit and so far the chassis is wrong and has to "fixed", and the body is wrong and also must be "fixed".. To make this model accurate I need some other frame and many other chassis parts, and I need to make so many changes to the body that it would probably just be easier to start from scratch. So what did I pay 30 bucks for? I can only use about 10% of the parts from the box! I'm sorry, but I expect more than that from a $30.00 kit. I also bought the Moebious/Model King '61 Pontiac Catalina and I also paid nearly $30.00. This kit not only has a much higher part count but the detail and accuracy are far beyond what's in the Prudhomme kit.  So if Moebious/Model King can turn out a kit like that, why can't AMT? I know the days of $1.25 kits are long gone and I understand all the economic forces that are in play here. But for that much money we, as customers of the model companies, should be demanding much more and not accept kits like the Prudhomme dragster. 
  5. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Well, as a recovering rivet counter I'm willing to forgive a lot more inaccuracies than I used to. But on this one I have to say, close, but no cigar. I seriously doubt I'll finish building it.
     
  6. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    The Car Craft article shows the headers both ways. In the black and white photos and in the cutaway illustration, the headers are the funny car style. 
    Also the "Hot Wheels" logo and other markings are different on the museum car than they are in the Car Craft photos.
  7. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Ford 63 Lightweight "Lively One" Finished   

    I like that, nice job.
  8. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Oh, I totally agree. It comes down to how much work are you willing to do to get an accurate replica.
    This particular car is one that I've wanted in my collection for years and I've looked at modifying each of the generic wedge cars that we've seen over the years with no result.
    That's the reason I fired off an order as soon as I saw that this one was available. I did have what I now see was an unrealistic expectation that this one would be better.
    At this point in my modeling, I'm just not in the mood to completely rework a kit to get a reasonable result.
     
     
  9. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Well, that's always a possibility.  However, MPC's DNA is all over this kit and can be seen in the seat, roll bars, the rear support for the non-existing wing, etc. etc.
    The bottom line is this frame is all wrong for the Prudhomme car and to make matters worse it scales out to a 209" wheelbase while the real car was 220".
    That would be easy enough to fix wwhere it not for the full body. Stretching that is a whole other deal. 
    I'm not as excited about this kit as I was when it first arrived on my doorstep.
  10. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster   

    Just now comparing the kit body to the Car Craft cover photo and I think the kit wedge doesn't taper from rear to front as it appears on the actual car. May or may not be able to fix that effectively.
    After measuring it, the body is 4/16" narrower at the front than the rear although, visually, that doesn't seem like enough. 
  11. 2002p51 added a topic in Drag Racing Models   

    Don Prudhomme Wedge Dragster
    I did a search and didn't find anything on this new kit so I hope I'm not going over covered ground.
     
    I got my hands on this kit yesterday and have been digging in to it. The frame, engine, etc are all from the original MPC Garlits mid-engined Swamp Rat 1R. That makes the frame incorrect as Prodhomme's car was built by Lil' John Buttera and didn't use a Garlits' frame. I don't see this as any problem however on a full body car like this because the only part of the frame that really shows is the roll cage. It's different from the kit but that difference is easy enough to correct with some Evergreen rod.
     
    The body, which on the 1:1 car was built by Nye Frank, appears to be an all new piece. It's very close in my initial inspection although the coming around the cockpit may be a little too high, but we'll see.
    The engine is typical for MPC and would probably best be replaced by one from the early Revell funny car and dragster series kits. The valve covers and injector from Revell are much closer to correct than what's in this kit.
    Anyway, that's just my first impressions upon opening the box, so here are some reference photos so you can decide for yourself.
     
     
     




    • 61 replies
    • 2,928 views
  12. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Tenax 7r   

    I've been a Tenax junkie since I first discovered the stuff years ago. So I was heartbroken and battled severe depression when it became so hard to get recently. (Okay, that's a little overly dramatic, but I did miss it) So you can imagine my excitement when I learned that Micro Mark has a product just like Tenax. In fact it's so much like Tenax that they named it the "Same Stuff"! 
    So I ordered some and it arrived today and after a few quick tests I can tell you with confidence and great joy that it really is the same stuff! 

    It comes in 2 oz. bottle (twice the size of Tenax) for $5.95 plus shipping.
    And no I don't work for Micro Mark and I don't get a kick back on every bottle, I'm just glad I found the stuff and wanted to share.
    That's all.  
     
     
     
  13. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Yesterdays dashboards   

    It's a common thing on the local TV news around here. You hear things like this: "A 25 year old man was killed yesterday when his car went out of control and ran off the road. 
    And I can't help thinking; what was he driving, Christine? No, the driver ran out of skills and crashed all by himself. 
  14. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Yesterdays dashboards   

    All these modern amenities and electronic gimmicks on new cars is the main reason why I prefer old cars. The last new car I bought is my 2002 Mustang and I have no plans, or desire, for anything newer. Last year I had reason to drive my sister's brand new GMC SUV and I hated it. That blind spot warning thing in the mirror was actually more of a distraction than a help. (And I'm a mirror watcher) 
    Of the six vehicles we own four don't even have a radio. And in fact I don't always listen to the radio in the ones that do. It's just another distraction. (Plus the music stations around here suck!   )
    I normally carry my cell phone in the pocket of my jeans which means, when driving and belted in, I can't get to it anyway. So if it rings, it rings, I'll listen to the voice mail later. 
    And yea, I'm an old guy. Got my first license in 1964 and the driver's ed program in my high school was really good and actually taught us how to drive defensively.
    So I agree, no such thing as a traffic "accident" and cars don't "go out of control" all by themselves. The only reason cars crash into each other, as previously stated, is due to incompetence (low skills), inattention, or both.
    Stay safe out there folks. 
     
  15. 2002p51 added a post in a topic Did I miss something?   

    Thanks for the link to the earlier thread. Surprised I did a search before posting this and it didn't come up.  Thanks again.