Bob Turner2

I am in no way trying to be rude, but if you're unable to set aside money to buy the airbrush & accessories for the reason you state, how can you afford the Preval sprayers, the paint for them, rattle cans or models, not to mention the other essentials required to build them? As to cleaning them, usually lacquer thinner works nicely on cleaning an airbrush of any/all different types of paint. The cheap stuff sold at Wal-Mart does the trick. Lacquer thinner also thins enamels for airbrushing as well as it does lacquer paints. I know, as I've used it for all the above in my airbrush. I've read that it can also be used with care to thin acrylics such as Tamiya for spraying, but you may be better off with their acrylic thinner in that case, as from what I've read using lacquer thinner with them can be tricky at first. In this case I haven't tried lacquer thinner with acrylics yet, so I can't fall back on my personal experience for that.

Good points & I too use both an airbrush or a rattle can. Most times the airbrush is my choice simply because of the fact that the color I need is only in a bottle, other times it's because I need/desire a finer spray than a rattle can affords. For the former, it turned out that Testors Model Master Duck Egg Blue enamel was the perfect shade for my Ohio George 33 Willys build, & it's only in the bottle, so the airbrush had to come out for that one. A note for anyone that wants to try that color, it dries flat so you'll need to apply a gloss clear coat over it. I also tend to use a lot of nail polishes on my models, which also requires an airbrush of course. For custom painting, (& not just as to mixing custom colors, but fades, fogging & other custom techniques), an airbrush is pretty much essential. Yes, you can achieve some of that with a rattle can, & turn out spectacular paint jobs, but those do have their limitations once you get to a certain point, & that's where you need the airbrush. I also decant a lot of rattle cans into my airbrush, for thinner coats & better control. Returning to the Ohio George cars for a moment, I found that Dupli-Color's Avignon Blue Metallic, (a Honda color), was the perfect match for the primary color of his Malco Mustang, & Dupli-Color's Intense Blue Pearl, (a Mopar color), was as exact a match as there was for the darker blue pearl fogged around the wheel arches, door handles & other areas to replicate the 1/1. Now, there was no way I was going to get a fine enough spray with the latter color to replicate that with the can, so it had to be decanted & applied using the finest tip of my airbrush. I also decanted & applied the primary color with my airbrush, simply for better control. Those Preval sprayers just don't look like they'll allow good enough control for more intricate work, & that's where the airbrush is essential. Again, over time the cost of using them is going to be wind up greater overall than the singular upfront cost of an airbrush & it's needed accessories, much like buying cans of propellant becomes higher than just buying the compressor. I understand the budgetary concerns expressed in the initial post, but sometimes it's better & smarter to save up for & budget for better equipment, rather than spend that same amount of money using what could be an inferior product & method.

Perhaps I didn't include the required amount of rainbows, butterflies, unicorns & puppy dog kisses in my comments........., but as that seems to vary from one poster to the next, since there is such bias here, I'm not sure what the required minimum is.

A double standard here!?! Why perish the thought!! And yes, I am being extremely sarcastic in this comment due to my experiences here over the years. But some snowflakes get their noses out of joint when confronted with a differing opinion or fact & get coddled, no matter their own antics.

I've never had as good results for this without the accelerator as I do with it. It might be simply because I know I have a limited time window to sand it once I apply the accelerator, so I don't let the part sit around too long. I've also had good results using superglue, baby powder & accelerator to fill larger voids in poorly cast resin parts. On one I used a dental pick to open it up more, backed the hole with masking tape, & applied an almost paste like mix of superglue, baby powder & accelerator to the void, let it set & then sanded it. Worked like a charm.

That's painfully obvious from your many egocentric posts, & not just in this thread. It seems that nobody can be as or more knowledgeable than you about any subject. Do tell, what are your thoughts on brain surgery, should someone develop a tumor & need advice?

Sigh, you do realize that my initial comment was in reference to all the praise this garbage was being given, not just your comments? I'm sorry, but perhaps you're not as important as you seem to presume you are, Since it was obvious I was addressing the overall topic in general, while citing specific examples. Therefore I was certainly aware of your comment that mine mirrored, just as I was aware of the inane comment made by another about layering that garbage. Do pardon me for not being an engineer/whatever other professional work you're referencing. I'm merely a retired teacher who builds models & tinkers with my 1/1 cars, including doing bodywork & paint, having taken a course in it, (graduating as well), at my local community college many years ago. With that said, I'd warrant that most people praising Squadron in this thread seem to have less experience vis-à-vis the subject as it relates to 1/1 vehicles at hand than you or I do. I do remember one of the two body shop teachers I had telling us first thing that all one part automotive putties were a waste or time. That was almost forty years ago, & he had been in the business since the 1930's. The shop he started is still family owned & operated even today. I'd warrant that his knowledge, background & & experience trumped both yours & mine combined.

I can understand the issue with sanding superglue, especially with the accelerator. I've learned the trick is to be ready to sand it within no more than 5-10 minutes after applying it. I literally swear by it for sink marks, (especially shallow ones & ejector pin marks, as I've literally filled & sanded 4-6 of them within 30-40 minutes & I mean finish sanding through every grit to where the part is ready for primer. No putty, be it one part or two part lets you do that type of work as fast. It did take me trying it more than once before i got the hang of it, but I am glad I tried it a second time. Until I discovered Tamiya 1 part putty, (as well as getting good with the superglue/accelerator method), I had gotten used to using 2 part putty for everything, as I was so disgusted with the Squadron. That stuff is a huge waste of time & money for all but the most shallow sanding scratches, & even then I'll use Tamiya putty first.

I've honestly never used Milliput's one part putty, so I can't say either way. I do like their epoxy putty, though in this case, I do prefer the one from Tamiya. Both are good however, in this case it actually is a matter of personal preference.

With what you'd invest over time in buying those one time use products, you would actually come out cheaper in the long run getting a decent single action airbrush by either Badger or Paasche. My Paasche single action has served me well for almost thirty years. Such things as those Preval sprayers are basically a waste of time & money most of the time.

Hmmmm, neither does a chorus of people telling him how "good" that junk is in the first place. That's why I mentioned the Tamiya one part putty as a viable option, as well as superglue with an accelerator, not to mention the absurdity of putting that Squadron on in layers over a time period of a week or so, when there are faster & more user friendly products out that that give a much better result.. You did take the time to read & digest my entire post, as well as fully comprehending it one hopes. Or did you merely focus on the one part to take umbrage at? Knee jerk reactions seldom make one look very good. I reiterate; with two part catalyzed putty, Tamiya putty, or superglue I don't have to worry about shrinkage. Ever. Hmmmm, perhaps George Costanza could have used one of those products in that episode of "Seinfeld",,,,, The only way Squadron putty is "worthwhile" is if you tape a quarter to the tube you toss out, so you can say you threw away something of value.

I haven't used that Squadron garbage in at least twenty years. Best thing you can do is throw that junk out & get either the Tamiya one part putty, or a good quality catalyzed two part putty. The small tube of Bondo pictured that includes the tube of hardener with it is excellent for the price & won't go bad before you can use it all like the larger, (& more expensive), containers of two part putty tend to do. Nothing against those larger containers, like Icing & the rest, it's just a lot of putty sitting around that can go bad, unless you also use it on 1/1 vehicles. You can also use superglue with an accelerator for filling. It works especially good on sink marks & ejector pin marks & sets up a lot faster than putty, so you can get to sanding faster. On any one part putty, (which is what that Squadron junk is, & it is junk), other than Tamiya, besides the fact that it can & will shrink as the solvents evaporate over time, sometimes showing up years later, who in their right mind wants to spend a week or more building that junk up in layers, so the solvents do have time to evaporate so it, (hopefully), won't shrink!?! By the time you do all that work, I've got the Tamiya or the catalyzed putty on, set up, sanded & the part I used it on is in primer at least by then, & I won't have to worry about shrinkage. Ever. It's 2017, not 1967, 1977, or 1987 anymore. Get into the 21st century & use something more advanced & better formulated! For those who might get offended by my calling Squadron putty the garbage & junk that it really is, get over it. You're not the only ones allowed to have a bias or express an opinion around here. BTW, other than the color difference, both the green & the white are the same, & both are indeed junk.

A lot of inaccurate misinformation on using the AMT 32 Ford frame for a Milner coupe has been tossed about in this thread. Let me clear things up. The AMT 32 Ford frames are indeed completely inaccurate for any 32 Ford highboy, & not just due to the lack of a molded in reveal on the frame sides. The frame is also too narrow to build an accurate highboy from, as it was deliberately designed & tooled up to be able to build a fenderless channeled lowboy rod from back years ago. In the early 90s, the late Ron Cash, once of the better resin casters of his era, took the time to cast up corrected 32 Ford frames based on the ancient AMT tooling. Besides adding the missing reveal, (which is also needed for a full fendered car to be accurate, as it follows the sweep of the front fenders), Ron also discovered he had to widen the frames to make then correct & accurate. Once Revell brought out their 32 3W coupe in 1996, such issues became moot, as the frame's dimensions were correct for an accurate 32 Ford street rod of the era, Plus, it's far, far easier to simply adapt a buggy spring crossmember, (or make one using styrene C channel), to the Revell frame, (along with using whatever buggy spring & rear end you choose), instead of grinding out reveals on the AMT frame. In the latter, you're merely creating more work for yourself than needed, you also run the risk of screwing up the frame, plus you still have to address the issue of the AMT frame being too narrow to be correct. Use a suitably modified Revell frame as your starting point, you'll find it much easier. The MPC kit does have mostly correct fenders, (though as suggested looking into the front cycle fenders from the AMT 25 T kit might be a better option there), & a properly sectioned grille shell, but the body of that kit leaves much to be desired in terms of accuracy, buildability, & overall looks once finished, given all of it's issues from the era it originated in. Yes the top section is chopped, but it's ill fitting to the lower body section at best, requiring a lot of adjusting, bending to fit, (as I recall, the back of the top section is flat, & where it attaches to the lower body is curved, which leaves a noticeable & not easily filled gap), & shimming to get things lined up correctly. Even with all that work, the body doesn't really capture the look of a 32 Ford all that well. The SAE article that was mentioned is full of great info on this, but with the easily available Revell kit, you would be better off using the MPC chopped roof part as a guide & chopping the top of the Revell body instead. On to the engine. Since it's based virtually 100% on the old Switchers kit, the intake & carbs are indeed wrong. In fact MPC's graphic artist of the time merelt air brushed the dual 4 BBL intake, carbs & air cleaners onto a photo of the 1/1 car! As mentioned the Revell Parts Pack Cadillac has a somewhat more accurate four carb intake in it, along with carbs that resemble the 1/1's Man-A-Fre carbs as closely as you'll find in scale.

Are you sure you're looking at the magazines correctly? The most recent issue of MCM I have, (#195 from last year), has around six or so pages with B&W pics in it, I can't recall the last issue of SA that had a B&W pic in it, & I have every issue from #50-current of that mag. I know it's been at least 15 years or so since SA had a B&W pic in it, it's certainly been all color since changing from Scale Auto Enthusiast to Scale Auto in 2002/2003, & I do think it was for several years before then as well, if memory serves it's been 100% from the first graphic update their publisher did around 1997 or so, except for an article on doing B&W photography from about that same time period, which of course used B&W pics for it. I can go through my binders of SA & pinpoint exactly when if I so choose. For the record, I have no problem if magazine pics are B&W or color, as long as they are reproduced crisply & sharply, so this isn't a knock on MCM, just setting the record straight.. Also both mags seem to run roughly 60 pages per issue, give or take a couple of pages, so I'm not sure what you're looking at or seeing there. MCM is printed on a thicker paper stock than SA is, so it can seem to have more pages, but that's not necessarily so, Nor is the thicker stock an improvement either. Because the cover is sometimes of thinner stock, I've had several covers of MCM rip on me, Also the thicker stock can make it harder to use the mag as reference at the workbench, because it tends to not lie as flat when open as a copy of SA does. None of this is a commentary on the content of MCM or SA, merely pointing out that someone either wasn't looking at the same magazines, or was merely blowing smoke for whatever reason. I find the content of both magazines equally average at best, a far cry from what each one used to be. If MCM were published on a steadier schedule & were available in more outlets, I'd still be buying every issue like i used to do when I lived in a bigger city. Both SA & FSM are available in the magazine section at the local grocery store in the small town where I live, while MCM, (when it's available), can only be found in a larger city at one of the two Hobbytown USA stores & a local hobby shop I sometimes go to, )I've never seen it at either of the two B&Ns in the city), all of which are 45 minutes or more away. That's what influences my buying decisions here.

Very interesting project here Harry. I might have to pick one up myself. On filling in the ejector pin marks, before you go sanding away, try this: Put a bead of CA on each one, hit that with a Microbrush filled with accelerator, let dry, & then sand flush. Much easier that way I found.

*Sigh* Where in my comments did I even say I wanted a "100% accurate, museum quality, exact reproduction of whatever subject they represented"? Are you unable to comprehend what I've plainly posted, or are you just attempting to put words in my mouth & spin my comments in order to make it look like I'm wanting a "perfect kit" or to justify Moebius' continued failure to get one single automotive kit out that's not deeply flawed in one area or another? All I want is an accurate representation of the 1/1 in scale, (I'm going to address the assembly foibles of this particular kit in a moment), not something with a pebbled texture, (F100), that's even pebbled under the chrome plating, or a rear end that sorta, kinda, somewhat resembles the 1/1, if you squint really, really hard, (Chrysler 300B). Other manufacturers manage to do this kit after kit. Stop making excuses for Moebius. Heck even Revell/Monogram has corrected some of their more gratuitous errors over the years. Witness the sloping DLO on the initial run of the 69 Charger kit that they corrected, & the reversed gas tank on their 69 Nova that they fixed. Too bad they neglected to correct the numerous body flaws in that kit, but at least they did fix one issue. Point two; we're discussing a currently tooled kit, not something from 15, 25, 35 or 50 years ago, so your argument there is completely invalid. There is simply no excuse, none, zero, zilch, nada for such an egregious fit problem in a kit designed & tooled up in this day & age, with all they have at their disposal. As a fan of their S/F & monster kits, I know from personal experience that they can do better than they have in the filed of automotive kits, which is why the garbage they crank out for the auto segment of our hobby is so damned frustrating, combined with how nice their Lonestar kit is in comparison. Gaffes such as I've listed in this thread on all of their auto kits are par for the course for them, & sadly not the exception. Part of the problem is this segment of the hobby is so notorious for accepting anything the manufacturers churn out if the subject matter appeals to them, that they'll accept inaccurate or flawed kits that builders in the other segments wouldn't waste their time with. But no, we get people saying "Tamiya like quality!" "Best kit ever!" "I don't care how inaccurate or bad these kits are I've waited so long for them that I'll re-engineer them completely if needed! I'll buy a case...., no two cas.....wait! I'll buy three cases of them!" Remember, it doesn't cost them one penny more to get the kits right the first time than it does to get them wrong. And with that said, I'm done with this conversation. It's time to put you on ignore, as you simply aren't worth my time in trying to get you to see the forest, & not only the trees. Have a nice life.

At around $600.00 pre tax, I might have to get this.

Actually no, my comments fit in here well, because it's the typical deal that Moebius does, as well as the first time I've been made aware of the flaws in this kit. Until now, this was going to be the first Moebius automotive kit I bought, (their excellent Lonestar kit aside), as it seemed they had worked out their accuracy issues for once. Now, with this additional info, even with the means to correct them, I've lost the desire to purchase this, simply because I tire of most everything that they do being flawed &/or otherwise so terribly compromised, & I shouldn't have to re-engineer a kit for what should be an OOB build. In every review post about Moebius kits, glaring errors & issues have been seen, only to have their apologists making every excuse for them that they can think of. I just found said apologists to be conspicuous by their absence overall in this thread, as if they couldn't find an excuse or a spin to justify this problem.

And that's an excuse for their constant accuracy & now it seems buildability problems? Again, as long as people are apologists for them there's no incentive for improvement on their part. I'm not asking for a "perfect kit", merely one that I don't have to re-engineer to build correctly out of the box or that fails to look like an accurate scale representation of the 1/1.

Sadly no, you don't get it. At no point in my comments did I mention subject matter, I was commenting on standards of accuracy & quality, which Tamiya has down pat, but which Moebius consistently falls short in. If you actually comprehended my plainly stated post, you would have seen that the subject matter Moebius turns out I do often desire, it's in the execution that keeps me from opening my wallet to purchase their automotive kits. But go ahead & be an apologist for them by grabbing up their often deeply flawed kits & defending them for making such flawed kits in an era when those problems should be a thing of the past. As long as they aren't held accountable by the customers, they'll never see the need to improve. Enjoy those diminishing returns until you do open a Moebius box & see nothing more than that block of wood, carving knife, & a note telling you to carve away until that 1966 Dizzmobile emerges.

Simple way to do that, (with both Tamiya stands), is to glue the top part to the bottom one. It'll still rotate properly & not come apart that way. Other than fixing that, I've yet to find a better paint stand, (homemade or otherwise), in nearly 50 years of model building, (off & on that is).

Where, oh where pray tell are all the apologists for Moebius that are always attacking those who can see that much of their product is sub par, (be it in accuracy or assembly issues), at in this post? Where are the comments comparing Moebius' quality to Tamiya? A ludicrous thought in & of itself that had to be from someone that's never built a Tamiya kit, (especially from the 90s on), as Tamiya kits don't require this level of re-engineering to make the parts fit correctly. Where are those that blindly & illogically praise every single thing that Moebius does, to the point where one feels they would accept a block of wood & a carving knife in a Moebius box, & being told in the instructions to carve the 1966 Dizzmobile from that as their next kit release? Sadly, this kind of issue is just the perfect example of their attitude that I got first hand when I contacted them about accuracy issues a couple of years ago: Please do not reply or email us ever again, we do not need to be harassed, especially since no one is forcing you to buy, look at or build our products. No worries whomever that person was who sent me that reply; I have no intentions of ever parting with my money for your products ever again, based on this kit, the problems with the pebbled surface texture, (especially under the chrome plating!), on the F-100 kit, the accuracy issues with the 65 Satellite, & that horrid back end on the 56 300B, a car that I'd desired a model of since the early 70s. In this day & age there's no excuse that can be made for these kind of continuous errors, flaws & gaffes from any manufacturer, especially one that is now past "start up" problems & has been around a while.

The MPC Super Stocker series consisted of the Dick Trickle Mustang, the Jegs Camaro, the Bob Larrivee Chevelle & a fictional GTO, fictional Cuda, & a fictional Monte Carlo. All but the Monte Carlo used a modified version of an annual kit body, with one partial exception to be seen. The Monte Carlo used the body tooled up for the Coo Coo Marlin #14 NASCAR Monte Carlo tooled up by MPC, as MPC never did a Monte Carlo as an annual kit at that time. The GTO is also only partially part of the MPC annual series, because in 1970, apparently they got a huge promo order for GTOs from Pontiac, & thus tooled up two different bodies. One went on to be the basis for the GTO annual kits from 1970-1972 & the other wound up as the body for the David Pearson driven NASCAR GTO he ran in a few races in 1971. That body then wound up as part of the Super Stocker series. Other than the Monte Carlo & the GTO, the bodies for all the rest were later retooled back to stock, & have been reissued in that form many times over the past thirty or so years. That's why when the Model King reissues were done, the GTO & the Monte Carlo were the only two that could be reissued. The chassis used in the kits are very close to what Ed Howe & Ray Dillon were producing for short track racing in the 70s, & thus were indeed able to be put together with differing wheelbases for use under different bodies, so those kit chassis are highly accurate for both the cars & the era. What isn't accurate, at least for the Mustang, Cuda & GTO is the big block Chevy engine used in all the kits. Here's a link to some Howe Racing Enterprises catalog pages from back in the day so you can see just how close MPC got the chassis on these cars: http://public.fotki.com/RodM/canadian_short_trac/howe_racing_enterprises/

Though I have disagreed with Mr. Gieger in the past, in the case of station wagons models in that other thread, he never said he was against them, he merely laid out from a business standpoint why the manufacturers don't waste precious tooling dollars on them, in a logical & very well thought out manner. He is also 100% right in that scenario, based on past sale performance of said models over the years. Most of the station wagon models tooled up in the past were annual kits, who's tooling costs had been at least partially paid for by the 1/1 manufactrers via the promos they ordered. In this case Revell, et al, would have to absorb the tooling costs themselves, & the desires of a small but vocal minority of model buyers isn't enough to convince them of the ROI on such a product. Are you really so obtuse as to fail to grasp the difference? And why pray tell are you dragging that subject into this thread if for no other reason than to start up another argument?

Thank you John! I started building in 1966, so I'm not far behind you. You made every point succinctly & perfectly.