peteski
-
Posts
8,908 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by peteski
-
-
Actually more detailed info is now on their website:
https://www.spotlighthobbies.com/chrome-plating-service/
I also could have sworn that someone on this forum recently posted that they were not happy with the way the "plating" came out. but I can't find that thread. -
6 hours ago, Bill Anderson said:
I should have added in my original post..... I'm currently working on a Ford 427 Cobra, and this Ford GT is next in line.
Have to say, the kit components (i.e. many body shell parts, suspension and motor) are different from what I'm used to in the typical Revell/AMT/Monogram American car kits.
Relax Bill, I think you'll do just fine. And even if something goes wrong, it is only a toy car.
1 hour ago, Chris V said:Not in over my head, but I’m still working up the courage to start building the McLaren Can Am racers from Accurate Miniatures…
Funny that you mentioned that kit. I read all the horror stories and I actually bought one on eBay to see what the buzz is all about. I like a challenge!
I expected to have a hard time finding that kit since it has been out of production for some years, yet when I first looked on eBay there were several available and they didn't have outrageous prices. I chose a sealed example. I did open it and looked over the parts and instructions. It is a complex kit but the instructions seem pretty thorough with very helpful hints about handling more difficult assembly steps.
-
5 hours ago, ranma said:
No I haven't nor do really care to! The more they add to a cars/pickups and SUV's the more junk to go wrong, and the way some of it is designed makes it even worse when those things fail! And for what ever its worth They also stop a car at Cemeteries as they can detect people or animals that aren't see able by us Human's! Can you say Spirits or souls??? And yes I know it's a concept idea, But then so was the Cyber truck!
Not that I disagree with you (I also think that modern vehicles are over-bloated with unnecessary electronic junk), but unfortunately the large majority of the car buying population loves all those gadgets.
-
On 4/12/2025 at 1:28 PM, ranma said:
It's a strong No for me! GM -Corvette learned that the split window in the rear wasn't that good of an Idea, that's why it was a one year design.... Before '63 and after never had that rear split for a good reason. It made a blind spot and not in a good way!
RIck,
Have you driven any modern cars lately? With a 360 degree camera view around the car nobody looks a the rear view mirror. There are no blind spots. Some rear view mirrors are even computer displays showing the rear camera's view. That split rear window is basically decorative element. I think it looks cool. As for blind spots, that car is chock full of them, and again the modern technology takes care of that problem.But the front and rear treatments look just weird. Seems that the designers are just going to the extremes (just to outdo each other). Tone it down a bit! But as with the outrageous concept cars from the '50s, the production version (if it is produced) will like not look as ridiculous.
-
22 hours ago, stavanzer said:
I think the term "Styling Model" dates back to the Fischer Body Guild Contests from the 1950s-1960s.
That was a bit before my modeling years. But what's old is new again.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, rattle can man said:
But what does one use now that Pledge with Future is no longer available? I would think products from other MFG might have different formulas, different levels of gloss, etc.
There is a mega-thread sticky on the forum about this floor finish, and if you look at the most recent pages there should be some alternatives mentioned.
-
Nope.
I believe a kit with highest part count was my Pocher 1936 Mercedes 500 K/AK. It had over 2000 parts (individual spokes and nipples are included in the parts count) but it also had seats with springs and which had to be upholstered, windows which roll up and down, operational convertible top made of cloth, working suspension and steering, and working lights. The parts fit wasn't all that good either. It took a long time to build but to me it was just another kit.
Like others have mentioned, Tamiya kits basically fall together (parts fit is as good as any manufacturer can get it) and to me the most frustrating part of building a kit are fit issues. That is why it is best to test-fit all the parts before painting it or using permanent adhesive. Basically building a full mock-up of the parts before actually building it.
What about that Ford GT kits makes you worried that it is too much for you? Remember, each subassembly of a complex model is like a kit in itself. If you look at it that way, it might look less scary.
-
2
-
-
Yes, nothing specific but there are some clues. Copyright 2000. Made/Printed in USA. I think that in the year 2000 many domestic kits manufacturers had their kits molded in China. But this one is fully produced in USA. Which model companies were still manufacturing kits in USA at that time?
Another possibility (if no other manufacturer ever sold these kits under their name) that these kits might have been contracted out to some domestic plastic injection molding company for mold design and parts molding. That would (despite what is said about Testors) mean they actually produced their own plastic kits.
I also wonder if anybody on this forum knows the noted model kit designer Dave Carlock or the box art model builder Carl Thurow. Maybe they could recall some info about these kits origins.
@Tom Geiger and @tim boyd do you guys know the above mentioned modelers or even some history of these kits?
-
I guess the question would then be: does anybody know under what other name the kits mentioned here were ever sold? I suppose they could have been made by another company exclusively for Testors. Are there any clues in the way the kits are designed, parts laid out or in the way they are molded? Some companies for example use certain way (or specific lettering style) of molding part number tags on the trees.
Does the box state where the parts were made?
-
I used to buy tools from them, but I haven't for a while. They had some decent and not-so-good-quality stuff, but prices were good and things like tweezers could be made better with slight modifications. The prices were always good.
-
4 hours ago, jagxjr15 said:
A "styling" model, on the other hand would be a model without any opening body panels and without an interior, with the windows painted over (opaque).
. . . and without any details on the underside (a piece of flat plastic with wheels glued to it is ok). I never heard it being described as a "styling model". In this part of the country we call these models "slammers".
-
1 hour ago, stavanzer said:
I've had a set of similar tires in a Testor's Repop of a Johan AMX with special Cast Metal rims.
The tires started to crumble after it had been in my stash a few years. I eventually traded the kit, so I don't know how the issues was resolved.
I do know that I do not trust Testor's Tires.
This beings out a question: I have seen multiple mentions in online forums (so it must be true
) That Testors as a company never made molds or prduced any kits on their own. They are all supposed to be repackaging of other company's kits (like Fujimi, Otaki, Italeri or others). If that's true, who made the kits we are discussing here for Testors?
-
Glass, chrome trim . . . I should have been more specific. The front roof area (which consists of the roof itself, chrome trim, and the glass) is not well modeled. We have discussed this in depth on this forum when the kit was first released. I own the kit and I'm planning on building it some day, but I still don't like they way Revell handled that area.
If you don't recall, the "real" discussion about the kit's accuracy starts with the following post:
-
On 4/8/2025 at 8:06 PM, Radretireddad said:
I’ll grant that the kit body roofline isn’t quite right especially in the area of the top edge of the windshield
Actually your photos show just how drastically wrong it is. The front edge of the roof seems to extend way too far forward and it is also flat where your car's windshield curves up into the roofline.
Since your car is black, it is also very difficult to compare the shape of the wheel openings on your car with the ones on the model.
-
4 hours ago, robdebie said:
Building on Peteski's comments, maybe you can scrape the resin parts, to release the original smell.
RobIn my example the resin stinks without need to scrape it. Some of the items I haven't used (or painted over) still stink after 30+ years!
-
5 hours ago, Exotics_Builder said:
You're showing SATCO. Are they still in business? I thought they shut down years ago. I bought quite a few aftermarket tires from them.
The last line in my post (below the SATCO ad), explains the situation.
-
11 hours ago, Exotics_Builder said:
I checked the Coupster kit, and the tires are smaller than the rims which means they would be stretched out to go over the rim. The Coupster is a parts kit and I did not get a chance to mail off the Midnite Cowboy today. I could open the box and put the tires inside with the Cowboy kit if you would like? I'll then get it mailed tomorrow.
I wonder if those tires shrunk?
I have never built or owned any of those kits, but what strikes me in the photos is how aggressive the tread pattern is. They almost look like off-road tires rather than street tires.
SATCO had a wide range of nice replacement tires available. Check the dimensions - maybe one of those would fit the rims of this kit?
SATCO is long gone, but the tires often show up on eBay.
-
Do those resin-cast items have noticeable odor? I have not experienced any shrinkage of automotive model kits (made using polyurethane resin with no odor), but I have some other model RR castings which I believe were made from polyester resin, which has a strong mothball-like odor, and those have shrunk over time.
-
Excellent job!
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, BDSchindler said:
No it wasn't partially used foil...I removed it from the package and used the portion that you see missing. I placed those 2 together for the shot AFTER I used it. I wouldn't go making blind statements based on assumptions, Pete.
Well Brian, you specifically stated that this foil was made by "TF1" from Japan. Doesn't that clearly indicate that you thought TF1 was the manufacturer? I simply explained that TF1 was the part number of the foil made by Hasegawa, and offered photographic proof of that. I simply wanted others to be aware that the info you presented initially in this thread was an error. Is that wrong to do? I mentioned that you might have been fooled by the lack of Hasegawa name, so you attributed this product to non-existing company TF1. That to me seems clear. You are getting mad at me for your own mistake, which I corrected? I guess I apologize but I really don't know what for.
You also asked if anybody has used that TF1 foil. If you look at older forum posts for the Hasegawa Mirror Finish foil you should see some mentions of how people liked using it.
I looked it up for you, Here is a 2022 comparison with other foils:
And another one from 2020:
There are more topics abut this foil but I thought this was a good start. You can search for the other ones.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, StevenGuthmiller said:
Is this stuff really the same material as the window tint?
If so, I’m a complete pass!
I’ll stick with BMF.
Steve
No it isn't. It is a very thin stretchy plastic film. Nothing like automotive window tint which is thick and not stretchy at all. I only mentioned the transparent blue material because I bough it (for depicting the top tinted band on tinted windshields). While the film is stretchy and has a strong adhesive, when it is burnished over certain types of recessed areas does not permanently deform (stretch) like BMF does, and after some time (days or weeks) the film will unstick in the bottom of the recessed area and start going back to its original relaxed state. BMF is also capable of compressing slightly so small creases can be smoothed out. The film is compressible slightly, but not as compressible as the BMF.
I'm a big fan of BMF (they are using photo of my '57 BelAir on the BMF envelopes). I bought the Hasegawa Mirror Finish to try it out after seeing it discussed here couple of years ago. I'm not abandoning BMF by any means. The Hasegawa stuff will have its applications, but I'll be continuing using BMF. Hasegawa film is just another item in my stash of modeling materials.
-
2
-
-
if that's the case then this stuff after some time will raise from any small recessed areas, because the plastic film stays elastic and the adhesive will not be able to hold it down when it wants to return to its natural relaxed state. Similar to Hasegawa chrome "foil". This material is good for smooth flat applications. BMF, since it is a soft pliable metal will actually permanently stretch and stay in the recessed areas.
EDIT: I just looked at my Hasegawa foil and this stuff *IS* Hasegawa's. TF1 is not a company name but a part number for that foil. My Hasegawa foil has TF1 in the same spot on the identical label. The Hasegawa Trytool logo and name are on the bottom end of the cardboard package and it was all enclosed in a transparent plastic box. I also have their gold foil (part number) TF5, and blue window tint material TF21.
Looks like Brian got a hold of partially used foil with the bottom of the package (and plastic box) missing.
Nothing new here - move along . . .
-
Seat belts in real cars come in different width. Passenger var belts are narrower than racing belt harnesses. Sometimes racing harnesses uses multiple width belts. I'm sure you know that already.
But in this case I suspect that the photoetched hardware is either designed for a larger scale model, or the belt material is the wrong size (I know, the packaging shows 1:24/25 SCALE). But clearly, something's off. Even the included instructions show the buckles and other hardware fitting tighter to the belts.
Racing belts are usually 3" wide. That scales out to 3/25=0.12" in 1:25 scale or smidge smaller than 1/8". How wide is the belt material? If it is 1/8", then the photoetched metal pieces are designed for larger scale models.
-
1
-
-
The wheel sizes in that chart are incorrect, which is a common mistake made by modelers. Since model wheels and tires aren't made like 1:1 counterparts, the actual visible rim diameter on most automotive wheels (which is what most model wheels depict) is about 1.5" larger than the wheel diameter (or bead diameter) as specified by the 1:1 wheel manufacturer. So a 15" wheel will have visible diameter of 16.5", which scales out to 0.66" (not 0.60"). Small but noticeable difference. But wheels and tires are often incorrectly sized even by manufacturers, however the proper size is worth mentioning for those who design and 3D print their own wheels and tires.
-
1
-
1
-
Have you ever bought a kit that you later felt was "over your head"?
in Model Building Questions and Answers
Posted · Edited by peteski
Meh! You need to try 1:160 scale! Parts count is not too high (for most models) but they are very small. High magnification is required.
This one has custom printed decals, photoetched side mirrors and working lights. The antenna over the windshield is a piece of 0.002" wire.
There are many custom made parts in this one.
I also fully service N scale (1:160) locomotives. This just the loco (I disassembled the tender too). And yes, when I reassembled it there were no parts leftover.