Snake45

It might just peel right off. If you're afraid to try that, hold it under some warm running water in the kitchen sink and I'll bet it softens right up.

Not bad. But here's a REAL badass.

Dunno. I'll ask him. BTW, here he is at his alma mater, 3 weeks ago (November 4).

That's a WWII-era North American T-6. I'm talking about the modern Beechcraft T-6A Texan II. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beechcraft_T-6_Texan_II

Texan II isn't that small. When he told me he was flying it, I looked up the specs on T-6A and found that size, weight, and horsepower were remarkably similar to P-51s. When I mentioned this to him, he said, "Yeah, they told us pretty much the same thing on Day One." Texan II won't do 400 mph, though. At least not in anything resembling level flight. It IS full aerobatic, though.

They had to mold it in color, because it's so ugly it would repel paint.

"Professionally built" Philippine mahogany "desk model" of a T-6A Texan II for my son, for his birthday, next week. It's the airplane he trained on. If he likes it, I'll get him the C-17 he's flying now for Christmas. Paid $155, topping my previous high of $130 paid for a mint unbuilt AMT '66 Barracuda kit in the early '90s. I could have bought a kit of the T-6A for about $40 or so, and built it myself, but it would have taken me at least 40 hours, including the intricate paint job, spread out over weeks or months (I know how I am). $155 for it was a bargain. If anyone's interested, I'll post a pic of the thing after he opens it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! It had been so long since the OP's question had been discussed, I thought it necessary to preface my post, lest I be accused of "going off topic."

Cool! Are these all Monogram kits? I think I see the early-type suspension on the Sherman (same as the M3 suspension).

Nice! Didn't Monogram themselves do those themselves in the '70s, or was that some other type of PIV based AA gun? I know they got quite a bit of mileage out of that chassis.

The photo's not bad. What was bad was the judgement of whoever thought that thing would sell enough kits to make back its tooling and distribution costs. Of course, nowadays, it's a valuable collectible....

Back to the actual question: This MIGHT work: Fill the dent with several layers of superglue, letting each cure completely. When you get the superglue built up to just above surface level, sand and polish it smooth. I've noticed that when I use superglue to fill a scratch or small dent, when I polish it out flush, it magically seems to take on the color of the plastic around it and simply vanish. I do NOT know if this would work with your clear red. If it doesn't, I guess you could then just paint the taillights as you would if they were made out of regular plastic, or "chromed."

I used to be active in a local (though fairly large) IPMS chapter that had monthly theme contests in addition to the regular classes. It was primarily an aircraft chapter, with secondary interest in tanks and some interest in ships. I was about the only car modeler, or regular car modeler, in the joint. Cars were relegated to the "other" class along with figures, sci-fi, and other bricabrack. I loved seeing if I could work a car into the monthly themes, even though most of the themes were suggested by airplane guys. One month the theme was "General Motors Products." GM built a LOT of stuff during WWII, and I took great pride in entering GM products in not just the Theme and Other classes, but in both Large and Small scale Aircraft and Large and Small scale Armor--Six GM models in all, and I believe I won several ribbons that night. Once I suggested "Ladies Night"--the model had to have something to do with females. The theme table had several airplanes with pin-up nose art. I entered the 1969 PMOY car, a pink '69 Shelby 500, displayed with the actual June 1969 issue of the magazine. Another theme was something to do with music. I put a "Little Deuce Coupe" on the table. And so on. Themes are cool with me!

Well, I now have a new name to call really bad kits, along with my standard "wretched backbirth."

Is that real or somebody's photoshop? If real, it's hilarious!

This picture proves Snake's Law: ANYTHING looks better sitting on American Torq-Thrusts.

I'm pretty sure I have a '65 Riv called "Che Riviera." I am not making this up.

I'm gonna look for some of that stuff on your recommendation. Tell me, is the mixing ratio easy or critical? That's been keeping me from the 2-part products, except for J-B Weld which mixes at a handy 1:1.

In my case, Out of sight? Back in the box.

I'm no Cobra expert like you, but that sure looks like a 427 to me. With some kind of thyroid condition on the hood.

As I mentioned, overall size and shape are very comparable to the old Monogram '71 kit. Here it is compared to a bare Monogram body and a finished build.

Here's the New-Ray '70 Cuda I bought at Hobby Lobby last week (retail $19.99). It has an AAR-ish side stripe (without badge) and blackout hood treatment, but it's actually a Hemi with shaker. It's 1/24 and very close in shape and size to the Monogram '71 model. (It's MUCH better than EITHER of Revell's first two tries at the AAR.) Although it looks SubLime in the photos, color is closer to Sassy Grass Green and has a slight pearl/metallic look to it, which might be a topcoat. Paint quality on mine is pretty poor (and the hood black is glossy, not matte as it should be). Even worse is the fit of the driver's side door (not visible in the package), which I might end up grinding loose and just gluing solid, it's so bad. Grille area is pretty well done except for the too-small headlight lenses. Gonna see if I can replace them with something. The rear end is just flat featureless chrome--they didn't even try. I wonder if mine is missing an insert piece of some sort? I'll have to address THAT in some way. The Rallye wheels aren't too bad. I'll probably hit it with some standard Snake-Fu and put it on my shelf. But later on, I can see myself stripping the bad AAR paint job off it and repainting it as a regular Hemi car. (There's actually a Hemi-shaped lump of plastic under the hood.) Overall, although it's not perfect, I think I like it at least as much as my Johnny Lightning '70 Cuda.

You buy a kit "just to have for a spare," get home a put it on the pile and discover you already have 3 "spares." Building curbside gets more and more attractive because you hate fooling with fiddly little engine bits. You get way more anal about certain "factory correct" colors, details, etc.--while simultaneously quitting caring altogether about others. You look for a magazine for reference you could swear you just read "a couple months ago," and when you find it, discover it was published in the last century.

But in the Sad Seventies and Ehhh Eighties, that--and the backbirth MPC--were all we had to work with for a '69 Camaro. It's debatable as to which is worse. (I've built three of one and five of the other.) Thank You God for the Revell '69 Camaro.

Very interesting and ambitious project. I'll be following along. I have one of those JF '72 Elky bodies. Main reason I haven't built it is the typical JF thickness in the windshield area. Looks like it will be a chore fitting glass in there. Will be interesting to see how you handle this.