unclescott58

It always looked a bit like the Rupp a neighbor of mine use to have. It's neat to know that others have thought the same thing. In my mind, unless someone proves differently, that basically confirms it. Scott

A couple of days ago I ordered a copy of Revell's USRRC 427 Cobra with Carrol Shelby and Ken Miles figures. Revell kit #4149, put out in 1999. Today I got it. Right after I ordered it, I started doing some research. At first the only info I could find on Cobras that Ken Miles drove in Guardsman Blue with the number 98 were all 289 Cobras. But farther research has turn out that Cobra CSX 3002 was the first 427 Cobra ever raced. And it was painted Guardsman Blue and numbered 98. This is basically car depicted in the above mentioned Revell kit. A few inaccuracies from the real car. But the kit is fairly close to the real CSX 3002. Interesting one of the decals with the above kit is a license plate that reads "CSX 3181". The second license plate decal reads "COBRA". Well for sure one of the cars Ken Miles raced was not CSX 3181. CSX 3181 was a 427 Cobra. Just not one Miles drove with stripe and the number 98. Very nice kit. And good to know it does basically depict a real car. Scott

Pretty cool! I'm not a big monster truck guy. But that's pretty darn cool. It's got take some thinking and talent to to perform that stunt successfully. Scott

Me too. I have more kits than I have display space. Must of models, after they're built, go back in their box and into storage. In someways sad but true. Yet I'm okay with it. I'm having fun. Scott

Too bad I had to work yesterday, and did not get to go to Back to the Fifties. It would have been fun to one of your models in the flesh, Steve. And Wayne is right. You should attend the NNL North sometime. It would be fun and interesting to your fantastic models. So please do show next year. Scott

Have tried tape and clamps. And no it did not work. With white glue. This is tricky kit to build. Is you do a search on line, I don't think you will find any pictures of a single of these kits in the clear form it was designed to be. I've seen one or two built, but painted. Scott

White glue will not hold the parts together until they dry. This is why we're having this discussion. Most models I build I've been using Testor's Model Master white glue for glueing in things like windows. It's good stuff over all. But its initially not tacky enough to hold two clear parts together in place. This can be a problem with glueing other clear parts in other circumstances. White is good for most things. But, not in this case. Scott

Other than nostalgic reasons, I can little to no reason to reverse engineer this kit. The more recent Revell/Mongram '55 Chev kits are so much kits. Now if all they had to do was open up some gates to bring the kit back, I'd say go for it. They were able bring back Monogram's '58 Thunderbird with all of its original parts. And the above '55 was a contemporary kit of that T-bird. What year was the above kit originally put out? Does anybody know more about the history of the kit? It's my understanding that the Badman tool was based on the above '55. Where the die/tool lost when the Badman kit came out? And is that reason for the old Monogram '55 Chev not coming back? If they ever reissue the kit, I'd buy one. It would be a fun kit to own, build, and stand next to the more modern '55 Chevrolet kit. Scott

I want a Newhart Olds. Very cool. Scott

Yes. Now tell us what you think of the model. Scott

Never mind. I found it on eBay. After seeing the price and reading the detailed information on the stuff, I decided to buy a tube. I'll be curious to try it out. Anything I need to watch out for? Scott

Does it come with a needle like applicator as it looks like it might on the box? And do you think I can find it on eBay? Scott

Last night, from Spotlight Hobbies I ordered the Revell USRRC 427 Cobra kit with the pre-painted resin figures of Ken Miles and Carrol Shelby. I do not need another Cobra kit. And I question about if this car should not have a 289 rather than a 427? At the same time I like the Revell Cobra kit and I will build it as Ken Miles car, but with the 427. How many people will know the difference? Scott

Oh I understood you Snake. I was more wondering about your thoughts on the "C" pillar of the original Monogram '55 Chevy kit, when built as a hardtop. This "C" pillar also appears on the Badman and Street Machine kits. Which I beleive were made from original Monogram '55 tool. The pillar has never looked quite right to me. Yet if I had the original kit I'd have a hard time not using that roof. It has also not stopped me admiring the Badman kit. I've never owned one. But, I've thought about it plenty of times. Odd "C" pillar or not. Scott

You maybe should explain. I know what it is (the custom clear roof piece). But others may not. Scott

Can you tell me more Snake? Like what type of liquid cement is used in building acrylic display cases? And me more about clear epoxy and non-fogging CAs. How much more are these options. And what are the drawbacks? If any? And anybody else with other good ideas, please chime in. Or if you agree or disagree with Snake's suggestions. I'm very curious about this watch crystal glue I've heard about. Does anybody out there know anything about this? Scott

By the way, an old '40(?) Ford parked next to the LeMans was also damaged in that incident. Sad in more ways than one. Scott

No. Just an early idea that came about the same time. It was not as good as 8-track, and never took off. Mad Man Muntz tried very hard to make 4 tracks popular in the mid-60's. For all of the problems with 8 track, it was slightly better than 4 track. And 8 track took off when Ford started offering it in their cars in 1966. Most other manufactures followed within the next year or two. Scott

Ohh... The Jeep Honcho is cool. Come on Revell. It's time to reissue that kit. Scott

This is not meant as a personal attack against you Snake, just an interesting observation. I agree with you, it would be cool to have an original unbuilt Monogram '55 Chevy for nostalgia sake. But, I find it interesting in reading your comments on the Polar Lights '64 GTO and others, about the problems with those kits. Again this is not meant to be a criticism. But, one of the things you dislike about PL GTO, the inaccurate design of the "C" pillar, is the same problem I have with the old Monogram '55 Chevys. And is something I'm okay with on the PL GTO. I find it interesting what we're willing to overlook problems on one kit, because we like it. But, can not tolerate them on another. And it's not just you Snake. I too have to same feels about certain models. I just ordered Revell's USRRC Cobra with the Ken Miles and Carrol Shelby figures. Car #98. It's my understanding that that car was power by a 289. Yet the kit comes with a 427. It maybe incorrect, but I plan on building it still with the 427. Because I think it's okay and cool that way. Other kits I would pass on because of such inaccuracies. Are we incorrect for feeling this way? Or having a difference of opinion? Of coarse not. I just find it interesting. Scott

The nose you see on the models here are the common one used on the Mk Is that were raced. There was a prototype nose on some of the earlier cars. But, the aerodynamics of that nose had some problems. The Fujimi kits of the different Mk Is are very accurate. If you want a kit with the earlier nose, you need to find the old Aurora kit. The Aurora kit in recent years has been put out under the Revell banner. So it can still be found fairly easily. Scott

Yea, it looks better in the photos of it at Bonneville. Scott

I still like the PL Goats. That "C" may not be right. But, over all the kit looks good to me. I'm happy with both of mine. Scott

Now for a hardtop, that is much better. Scott

Why do you say that? It's just a chance to express an opinion. Can't we have differing opinions without making it "personal attacks and drama"? I think we can. Even if I don't nessarily like the choices offered in some of these poles. Or agree with other's views of these choices. That's okay. It's fun to see what other are thinking about these subjects. Scott