"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.
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 more 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.
Exactly. Anyone looking at the photos of the real car and the model...anyone who has an eye for proportion and line, that is...will immediately be struck by the very obvious deviations from reality this "interpretation" makes. The result is a model that loses much of the graceful, clean look of Starbird's actual lower-body design. I always wondered just why the model looked so stupid compared to the real car. Now I know. Though I've never been involved in the hallowed and mythical "model car" tooling business, I HAVE been involved in depth with pre-production and prototype scale-model development of real vehicles and other items. Accuracy to the original design, in the real world, is critical. There is no room for "creative" interpretation on the part of model-makers, and I've fired people on the spot who seemed to be too "artistic" to get the dammed measuring right.
There are some modelers here who can do a truly remarkable job of paint-detailing the old blobular chassis plates. Not me. I'd just paint it black and concentrate on the topside. I hope some of the guys who are really good at it will post photos of their work on this thread.
My nearest window ledge is only 4 feet off the ground. My luck, I'd just break a leg, wouldn't be able to work, and end up homeless. And speaking of Area 51 toxic waste...fact is, some folks involved in the B2 and other stealth programs developed some apparently fatal health problems after exposure to certain chemicals used in and on the aircraft. Cool airplane though.
Old credit cards (cut up) work even better. You can even cut custom shapes or curves that will make building character lines, etc. MUCH easier. The little plastic clip-tabs that bread wrappers are sometimes sealed with work well for one or two uses, too.
The "seam" between the rear wheel-well fillers to the body, only visible from underneath the car, would very likely be present on a real '29 that had that wheelwell treatment. The "seam" you can see from the side is the mating line between the chassis and the body. The rear rails are pinched in to allow a narrower rear track, with wider tires. The "seam" would be gasketed on a real car built like this, and quite visible. Though I've been critical of some things on this kit, Revell got this detail dead-nuts on. PS. I've been getting around to starting this one, the Eddie Dye roadster (upper left, obviously) for several years. The Revell kit is gonna be it.
Revell '29 A...2 of them really. I have a very special '29 I've been putting off building for several years, and now that the Revell kit is out, I think it's gonna be the basis. Gots to have some of those other parts parts parts too.