peteski

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.

That was a bit before my modeling years. But what's old is new again.

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.

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.

. . . 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".

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:

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.

In 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!

The last line in my post (below the SATCO ad), explains the situation.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's because if that spring was accurately scaled, the wire diameter used to make the spring would have to be thinner than human hair and the spring would be too fragile to handle. And yes, even scratchbuilt models made by master modeler Gerald Wingrove don't have *EVERY* part scaled correctly. There are always some compromises to be made, but more we strive for accuracy (within physical limitation of the materials used) the more realistic the model will look. Also worth mentioning that models viewed in person look a bit different than in photographs. Something that doesn't look "off" viewed in person might look out of scale in a photograph or the other way around too.

I used detail Master 0.012" OD wire in my 1:43 scale Cobra. It comes in a bit oversize (0.51") for even fat high-performance wires, but I really liked that yellow color.

32AWG wire itself has a diameter of 0.008" But that is the wire itself, not to OD of the insulation. That can vary depending on the type of wire and the material used for insulation. Unfortunately the OD of the insulation is not a parameter usually included in wire specs. So it is a guess. It might be 0.012" or 0.015", or something else? One has to have the wire at hand and actually measure it. Again, if one is going for accuracy. Then there are multiple diameters of 1:1 ignition wires. Then again is the question of what scale is the model? Yes, I'm being anal, but if accuracy is important, it all has to be considered, no?

I totally missed this one. How could I give you simple answer? Dude, don't you realize that heater hose come in multiple sizes? Then the question what scale is your model. 1:8, 1:12, 1:16, 1:18, 1:20, 1:24, 1:25, 1:32, 1:43 are the common automotive model scales. There is no single answer. You specifically mentioned you are striving for accuracy, and now you wanted a simple answer? I'm not going to even address the rest of your reply to me.