In all fairness, it would seem that many old farts are also homonym-challenged, but they don't have the ready-made excuse of being conditioned to quickie thumb-spelling on the ol' texter thingie. "HOMONYMS are words that sound alike but have different meanings.Homophones are a type of homonym that also sound alike and have different meanings, but have different spellings. HOMOGRAPHS are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.Heteronyms are a type of homograph that are also spelled the same and have different meanings, but sound different. WORDS THAT BOTH SOUND THE SAME AND ARE SPELLED THE SAME are both homonyms (same sound) and homographs (same spelling). Example: lie (untruth) and lie (prone); fair (county fair), fair (reasonable)." OMG, OMG...couldn't we just measure some header-spacing nits instead? Accuracy in ANYTHING is so hard !!!
1) What's a map? 2) I texted all my friends, and the only one who'd ever heard of the Revolutionary War said Germany won, in 1975. Tribal knowledge is powerful. 3) We should all be trying to conserve synaptic resources (whatever they are).
And if you have a life where you can be a couple inches off in your measuring, you have it pretty damm easy. The guys at the car model companies WANT to build good models without instantly visible flaws. Otherwise, we'd get Palmer-quality every time. QED In general, today's kits are VERY good overall, simply because the people doing the work care enough to make it so. Just a little more care in evaluating the work before it's committed to final tooling is all any of us are asking. Quite reasonable. Adult business men don't take their marbles and go home in a snit like babies because someone had the audacity to point out something that could be better with a product. They try a little harder next time, or carefully evaluate and correct the flaw if it's caught early enough.
Thanks for the good illustration of the contrail phenomenon, Greg. Many of the photos on the web purporting to be "chemtrails" and portraying the differences between them and contrails are obviously doctored or outright fakes, and surely no one who's spent their lives looking at the sky would believe the hysteria hook-line-and-sinker. They often fail to take into consideration the very low temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and the stratification of layers of the atmosphere...with temps and wind velocities and direction varying with altitude, often unpredictably. While I certainly don't doubt the government's ability to do stupid, often destructive things, sometimes on a massive scale, I don't believe these trails are some kind of nefarious secret project.
I realize you work in the hobby industry and actually know what you're talking about, and who your customers are. It's simply that from my own perspective, painting the inside of a clear Lexan body and bolting together some small mechanical bits to get a model that actually RUNS, for not a lot of effort, would be vastly more enjoyable a pursuit to most "kids" than putting together a lot of tiny, sometimes fiddly bits, having to wait for LOTS of things to dry, and having all of your work existing solely to LOOK at. If my OWN mother hadn't been afraid I'd "cut my fingers off" with the props on the gasoline-powered model planes my dad built and flew, I probably would not have become so involved with static models.
Please oh please don't get started on the "chemtrail" thing. It's been common knowledge since the advent of high-altitude aircraft (common knowledge to anyone who pays attention to reality and doesn't buy into every idiotic conspiracy theory that comes along...Jade Helm, anyone?) that what we're seeing here is nothing more than condensed atmospheric moisture, cooled rapidly after being expelled from aircraft engines in the hot exhaust gasses. They are called contrails. WW II, B-17 contrails. These aircraft didn't have enough of a payload capacity to carry a bomb load AND chemicals for making "chemtrails". It's atmospheric water. Period.
Some real studies have suggested that if you get enough of these artificial 'clouds', they can have a cooling effect on the atmosphere below by partially blocking sunlight, and so MAY have an impact on weather patterns. End of story.
Are US model companies actually targeting "kids" anyway? I could be way off the mark here, but it seems to me that many kids have no money and it's doubtful the majority of them have the patience, eye-hand-coordination and fine-motor-skills (other than those acquired by scrolling through iPod screens and texting) required to build models. And people are horribly afraid of anything even remotely toxic today...paints, adhesives, etc.; doubtful mommy will let a lot of 'em have "bad chemicals" in a country that's become obsessed with safety and washing every few minutes with anti-microbial soap. Add to that the idea that physical skill isn't the desirable thing it once was, and kids don't really figure into the demographic of the model-car target market. I'm pretty sure American model companies are going after the last few years of disposable income they can squeeze out of us old farts with models of older vehicles, and hoping the enthusiasm we still have for old cars will trickle down to successive generations, bringing enough of them into the hobby to make it a viable business for the future. There does seem to be a growing number of younger builders and enthusiasts in the full-scale hot-rod (I mean traditional rods, not rats or tuners) market, but they're not "kids".
"If the artist-as-agent in Greenberg's paradigm of medium actively transforms material in a unidirectional fashion, then the artist-as-agent in McLuhan's paradigm is but one point in a matrix of interacting and crossing vectors." Holy Moley. The author of that line is probably a man who's never done anything worthwhile or intelligible in his entire life. I wonder if HE knows what he's talking about. I sure as jell don't.
Yes, the coatings were a primary issue. It is also my understanding that on the B2 particularly, some of the structural epoxies were more toxic than had been anticipated. Some epoxies in general civilian use can cause "sensitization" of some individuals, with symptoms including but not limited to bleeding from the pores of the skin. Some of the B2 stuff was worse, by a fair margin. And as you say, toxic materials were generated and disposed of at 51 (in open "burn pits" or trenches) from the early days the facility operated.
I build real hot-rods and customs for a living, primarily these days as a subcontractor to this company. http://millscustoms.com/ The answer to your question depends mainly on how far apart the front mounting points for the radius arms are, how the front mounts are bushed, and how heavy and stiff the bars themselves are. In general, the farther apart the front mounts are, and the stiffer the bushings and bars, the less necessary it is to run a Panhard bar. This simple rear end setup can get by without one, though it would still be a good idea. (Actually, a Panhard bar introduces its own small lateral motion in the rear axle due to the geometry of the swinging link; it would be better, particularly in view of these very stiff links, to use a Watts-type linkage to help control lateral movement, for reduced 'bind' and more precise tracking)
As the front pivot points get closer together (with coil springs) the axle can tend to pivot around the mounting points, twisting and breaking things as Dennis mentions, and very importantly, allowing the car to handle erratically and unpredictably as the rear-end tries to steer the vehicle. With the old familiar "split wishbone" geometry and a transverse leaf spring (the stock un-split geometry had both wishbones attached to each other at the front of the torque tube), you could get away without running a Panhard bar, for the reasons Dennis cited. The torque tube and the wishbones located the axle fore-and-aft, while the transverse spring located it side-to-side. But when guys lowered their cars by running long shackles, the axle could (and did) move sideways in an uncontrolled manner, making the car unstable to the point of being un-drivable. The first "anti-sway" bars (the term now has come to mean "anti-roll' bar, a different animal entirely) were early hot-rod applications of Panhard bars that limited and controlled side-to-side movement of the rear axle, and resulting self-steering. The "triangulated" rear bars in favor now go back closer to the original geometry of the un-split wishbones attached to each other in front. Coil springs do very little to limit side-to-side movement of the axle (like the old transverse spring did), or the tendency of it to pivot around the mounts, which lets the rear axle steer the vehicle in an undesirable manner. You need a Panhard bar with a rear-end setup like this...assuming you want to do things right. I've seen plenty of hot-rods built by guys with absolutely zero regard for or understanding of suspension geometry and correct design, so if you build your model lacking the right setup, it'll still be accurate somewhere.