peteski

Steven, you should find the thread below useful. Whenever possible, I prefer to use the PC-board (PCB) Tungsten-Carbide (TC) drill bits. They are super hard, super sharp (split-point sharpened), and have 1/8" shanks (easily held in any pin vise). But they are very brittle, so the smaller sizes require very steady hand and gentle touch.

I'm surprised that nobody yet mentioned the tweezers-style sprue cutter. I have couple pairs and they give you much cleaner flush cut (and closer to the part) than any of the other plier-style cutters. I own both kinds and for most small parts attached to the runner with small gates the tweezers-type cutter works really well. For the larger parts where the gates are thicker, I use the plier-style cutter.

I'll repeat: try spraying the clear over bare plastic spoon to see what the "real" sheen is. X-22 will not be as glossy as Testors Wet Look clear, but it shoudl be pretty glossy. You migth not be spraying it on wet enough (after few lighter coats). In my experience (with any paint) you can't get shine from light coats. Also, as your photos show, Ceramcoat appears to be a flat paint. Paint is flat because its surface has microscopic roughens. The clear coat has to fill that roughness, and the clear itself has to levell-off to produce smooth glossy finish. As far as the bottle being mislabeled - that is easy to verify. Just look through the jar's bottom. If the paint is water-clear, it is glossy. Satin or flat paints have flattening agent in them, which makes the paint in the jar look milky, and the flattening agent also settles on the bottom.

Those photos look very good.

I don't use craft paints, and the info you posted still doesn't show whether the finish is gloss, satin, or matte. But I have used X-22 and it has a glossy finish. Maybe not as glossy as Testors Wet-Look clear, or those 2K lacquers, but is is glossy. I would still be curious if X-22 applied to some smooth surface (like plastic spoon) would dry glossy or have the same sheen as it has on your model.

Also I think elevating the lights few inches from the surface might make it even better, but even as-is, the photos look decent.

X-22 is supposed to be glossy clear. What surface finish did the underlying paint have? Maybe you need to apply another layer of X-22? Try applying X-22 directly onto a plastic spoon to see what it will look like.

There was another recent thread where I proposed using acrylic powder instead of baking soda or microballons with CA glue (as a filler). Someone tried it but they said that acrylic-powder/CA resulted in a very hard filler (too hard to be useful.

I'm not surprised since it is a water-based acrylic resin product.

Yes, this stuff is useful. I have it, and occasionally use it. There have been few recent mentions of using that resin, but we have had related threads going back 10 years ago. I also get mine at Sally's (but originally I got it from a dental supply company).

Deodorant spray usually has alcohol in it - that will surely dissolve the adhesive, but might attack the paint (modelers use alcohol to strip paint off their models).

As I was scrolling through the photos in the first post I thought the photos were of the 1:1 car - not the model. It is amazing how a clean build and realistic background can fool the eyes. Only when I came to the photo of the rear end I realized that it was a model! The defroster lines molded in the rear window made me realize it was a model.

Any product containing petroleum distillates should dissolve the BMF adhesive. Car polishes and waxes usually contain those, and are mild enough not to affect the paint finish (like other solvents could). All this assumes that the paint is glossy. If the adhesive is on flat or satin paint surfaces, then pretty much any of the mentioned products will likely affect the paint finish.

Best way to avoid this problem in the future is to apply some (lo tack) masking tape close to the area to be foiled. The tape can even be used as cutting guide for the knife. The extra foil will be on the tape which then can be peeled of the model.

Or test on cheap polystyrene plastic spoons.

If you made the reflector concave (or even parabolic) shape and mirror-finish, like the real headlight, these would look as realistic as possible. Many models have realistic clear lenses, but what is behind it lacks that very bright silvery sparkle that headlights have. The reflector can't be flat - the concave shape along with the striations on the lens is what reflects the light just the right way. Kind of like uncut diamond is dull looking, but properly cut facets make a diamond sparkle.

Yes, Tim, having been my model club's photographer for the last 20 or so years I also take and submit photos to the model magazines. For SAE (later SA), I designed my own "fact sheet" that I asked modelers to fill out to go with the photographs. Model Cars Mag. provided me with their fact-sheet/release-form for the modelers to fill out. Scale Auto Contest Annual (later Contest Cars) always published a large portion of the photos we submitted. Unfortunately most of the photos we submitted to Model Cars over the years went unpublished due to the problems they have been experiencing for quite some time. With the demise of SA Mag., and probably of Contest Cars, I sure hope that Model Cars will now publish the photos we submit (next time we can actually hold our annual contest). But as you said, with many contests taking place online, it makes sense that the online submitted photos would end up getting published in some magazine. In this example, since Steve wasn't really involved in the process (other than submitting his photos to the online contest), and since the NNL was not mentioned in the photo's caption, things were a bit mysterious until I posted a scan of the photo and caption. That gave Steve a clue as to how those photos got published. I also agree that Steve's models are superb. And factory stock is my favorite kind of model.

That is a very nice kit (in small scale). You did a great job building it. Some years ago I have built that one, and the Corvette. Too bad Monogram did not continue that series, but I guess that 1:43 scale did not appeal to most modelers.

Wow,, the striations left by the file came out really good - looks like a nice headlight lens! And files come in different coarseness, so different patterns can be achieved.

That one with the lady looks more like 1:4 scale!

You could press them against a flat heated surface and hold them until they melt enough for that "weighted" look. An old clothes iron works for that. Just don't use your or spouse's "good" clothes iron. You can often find clothes irons in thrift stores or flea markets for just couple of dollars.

Who says they are no fun?! While they don't go as far or as fast as the pullback motors, they are still fun in their own way. They have more "scale speed".

You might still be able to edit your initial post and correct the subject line. I think we have 2 days before the post is locked for editing. Sill, it is funny. Um, I meant "Still"

And keep the solution warm - it increases its stripping potency).

Yes, friction motors are not like the pull-back (to wind the spring) toys. Friction motors have no springs and work exactly like Gareth describes.