Pete J.

I build to a very simple standard. To push my skills and abilities to the limit on each build. In other words, to make each model better than the last. Frankly, if I am not making and fixing mistakes, I am not learning. If you do this then the pride of skill will overtake any frustrations of error. Let the accolades and complements take care of themselves. Those things you toss or cost you money are the tuition for learning. Feel the pride of mastering a new skill no matter how small and the other irritations will disappear.

Erik - Glad to see you are back at it. I know this kit has very tight tolerances and Tamiya did not account for paint. Any moving parts such as the doors need to be trimmed. Also be careful with the marker lights. I chipped my paint the first time I put them in.

Till they are done! Seriously, use a toothbrush and give them a scrub after overnight and it all the paint doesn't come off, back in. The answer to this really depands on the type and brand of paint. There is no specific answer.

For those using the Tamiya acrylics, if you look on their web site, they suggest that you can thin them with lacquer thinner for faster drying and a harder finish. I've used lacquer thinner for years and it is a good way to go.

Well, thats embarassing! Oh well, his loss.

Erik - great build so far. I like the ingenuity in fixing the warp. A helpful hint - Recheck the fit of your doors. You have added a lay of decal and they probably won't fit properly any more. Tamiya designed the kit to fit perfectly in the raw. Once you start adding such things as paint and decals the tolerances get too tight. You might want to take just a little off the edges of the doors before you paint it. That seam is super tight.

Same here. Only thing is I have well over 400 I intend to build. I am not a collector, I am not a collector, I just have wide interests!

A good stash in big enough so that you complete the last one, you drop dead in your modeling chair. Any less is not enough and any more is a waste. :D

I too was expecting to hear a report of flash. I have a large number of Tamiya models(over 200 at last count) and have never seen flash on any of them. It is just the halmark of a passionate company doing what they love.

Some of the early Alclad bottles came with glass beads for mixing. Lighter weight, less likely to crack the glass.

The classic desription is that when you run it down the side of a jar, it should look about the same as milk. So get a glass of milk and swirl it around so it goes up the side of the glass and watch it carefully. Thin your paint until you get that consistancy when you swirl it around the jar. When you spray, it should take 2 or 3 coats to get comlete coverage, especially if you are doing light colors over dark.

Great first try. I am only trying to help, not be critical. You have some paint spattering(large spots). This tells me the paint is not being atomized properly out of the brush. Thin your paint a little more. Close the orifice(don't open the needle as much) and increase your pressure a bit. Ideally you can get within a 1/2" and get a fine edge without getting too much over spray, but it will take several passes. Keep playing with it and you will get a technique that will be very pleasing to you.

For those who are into polishing such things, here is the Mythbuster episode on polishing fecies. :lol:

Mark, Thanks for ruining my day! That is just hidious on any car, much less a 3 series!

IMHO Flash says something about the time and effort that the company took is creating their molds. Flash is simply a result of the missmatch of the two halves of the mold and excess plastic seeping between the halfs. The fit of these molds has a direct impact on the fit of the parts. If the molds are waring out or warped, then the parts they make are fractionally off and will not fit as well. In todays world of CAD/CAM mold making they should fit togeather very well. If they don't the designer or the mold cutter didn't do their job properly. It is a bit like looking at the panel fit on a real car as an indicator of the manufacturers commitment to a quality build. Can you have a quality well fitting model with a little flash? Sure, I suppose it is possible, but a sloppy fitting mold is likely to produce sloppy fitting parts.

There is a conversion chart on the Micro-Mesh web site. https://micro-surface.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=16 It will give you a cross referance to compare grits.

Watches! Watches! We don't need no stinkin' Watches!

Yea, this is exactly what happened. I found the photo on the original GM site and this is either early production or prototype. The seams on the fenders are way to tight and have no bevel on the edge like a production stamping would have had. Also the body gaps are way to good. Very nice Harry!

I agree.

Drew - Good to hear from you again! I absolutely agree with you about the megapixel trap. I have a early Nikon digital camera that is now about 10 years old. The optics are typical of Nikon. In short great. It has far fewer pixels than the average cell phone but still takes exceptional photos. Clear and sharp. I replaced my Minolta SLR with it way back when. The thing that the newer cameras do that this one doesn't is work well at the extreams of photography i.e. high shutter speeds and low light situations. None of which have anything to do with the lack of a mirror/SLR mechanism. In addition to the small display on the back, this one has a "view finder" style display that you look through like a standard SLR but without the machinery. When I use it, I am looking at a very small video screen. I will continue to use it for studio shots because it works. My question and point is still why do you need the mirror mechanism. If a Pro digital camera can be built with the speed and light sensativity required to shoot all situations then the only thing the SLR provides is a view reflected by a mirror. If an internal electronic view finder is provided instead of a mirror, what differance would it make? I just find the mirror mechanism to be a bit like an appendix. Everybody has one and it really doesn't provide any improvement. I have told may of my friends that megapixels are similar to the old style grain count in film. The finer the grain/pixels the more detail the film/ccd can capture. The problem is that to take advantage of a fine grained film/high pixel ccd you need great optics. High mega pixels with ###### optics is like puting expensive film in a Kodak Brownie(only the old guys will get that one ).

Art - Thanks. I was hoping to meet some non-left coast model builders from this board there. Doesn't look like that is going to happen though.

Jeff- Thanks for the response, but I still don't see any advantage to having an SLR mechanism on any digital camera. If you build a camera body with a professional CMOS and bayonets to fit the current crop of optics, why do you need the SLR mechanism? Even the cheapest digital camera is giving you the same "through the lens" view that the SLR is. In point of fact the digital is doing a better job because you are actually seeing the image that will be recorded. The flip up mirror to the view finder adds nothing to the equation as far as I can see. SLR's were orignally created to correct the variance of what you saw in a range finder type viewfinder and what the film was recording through the lens. Since the question was where are digital camera going, would it not make sense to get rid of this relic of the film era or am I missing something?

If it is real it has been modified. No original had panel fit like this, or the seams on the bumpers.

Jeff - I have a question for you, and this is done with all seriousness. What is the purpose of and SLR in the digital age? I shot 35mm for many years and in the days of film it was important to see through the lens to see exactly what you were going to get for exposures, depth of fields etc. In my mind, the advent to digital photography made the mechanical bits of an SLR unnessesary What you see on the output screen or the viewfinder on a digital camera is what you are going to get. My thought on digital SLR is that this was a way of making high end photographers comforable. The main thing that I see that is an advange to the Digital SLR are the interchangable lenses. In my mind, where Sony is going with their NEX series of cameras makes far more sence. Combine the high end optics and digital imaging and dump the SLR mechanicals. You still have through the lens viewing and focus, exposure and depth of field without the expense and weight of the SLR mechanism. Am I missing something here?

Is there anyone but me going to Dallas this weekend for Eagle Quest? I wouldn't want to be the only car builder on the table! Here is the info if you don't have it.