tim boyd

Here's a link to an on-line preview of the Revell '48 Ford Chopped Custom Coupe I did when the kit first came out ONLINE REVIEW This was one of my favorite kits of the last few years....not only in terms of all the building options (three grilles, fadeaway fenders or not, 2 tailamps, 2 wheel cover designs, etc.) but also because of the engine ( a terrific rodded flathead) and the dropped chassis suspension, which was so desperately needed but omitted from earlier releases of this kit (the woody and convertible). Most everything swaps easily between the three kits. Highly, highly recommended. TIM - (photos of projects based on this kit directly below) 100% box stock kit build with fadeaway option and Cadillac grille/Cadillac Sombreros/ rear bumper guard tailamps Kitbashed '48 Ford Woody with the Chopped Coupe suspension and drivetrain... . The stock convertible body can be kitbashed with the chopped coupe top.. . The kit can also be kitbashed into a wicked Gasser....

JB - yes it did! Super Sharp! TIM

Count me in - big time - on a '26T/'27T Turtledeck hot rod kit. TIM

Here's #12. Since we don't really know any of the hard facts behind this yet-to-be-announced kit (no, Revell has NOT announced it), let us suppose...: * ,,,that the much-maligned blower shape accurately replicates a specific brand-name aftermarket blower, and the same tooling master for this part was previously used for a different Revell kit which has already been on the market for nearly two years with not a single complaint I can find on this Forum about its accuracy * ...that the roof opening shape was specifically chosen by the Revell design team over the 1/1 scale restored stock roof opening configuration, both to showcase yet-to-be-known interior features and to deliver a robust/quality part using proven injection molding techniques. * ...the firewall shape is indeed designed to accommodate a hood (either in this kit version, or a future derivative), but as every modeler who has actually built the 1960's-tooled Revell Model A kits knows, the very design that allows that thin hood cross section of those hoods is made possible by a hood hinging mechanism that is grossly out of scale, prone to assembly problems, and would never be accepted in a newly-tooled model kit today. * ...and oh - almost forgot - that this kit turns out to be one of the best-ever 1/25th scale hot rod kits in the history of our hobby. Of course, this #12 is all supposition, just like much/most of the rest of this thread. But if/when this kit finally comes out, let's all go back to this thread and revisit what turns out to be the actual fact vs. inaccurate supposition. Just sayin'...TB

Don is exactly correct. The Three Window came first (early fall, 1996?), followed by the Speedwagon (late fall, 1996) and the Roadster (early 1997). All three versions were tooled at the same time and the tooling was completed by summer, 1996. Cheers....TIm

Agreed, Steve's jet drive boat castings are outstanding....they are sized for the AMT Hull Raiser kit, but I presume they would adapt well for the Revell Hot Rod Hydro. Steve also makes a revised seating unit, ,again sized for the Hull Raiser, that might be too narrow to adapt to the Hot Rod Hydro's much wider hull. Steve did an article on his ski boat model using his conversion pieces in MCM several years ago. Cheers....TIM

Yes...the conversion set is pictured and described in detail in my on-line review in the link of the original post. Original box art, too, in case anyone has not yet looked at the link. Cheers..>TIM .

If any of you do decide to build or finish your models based on this kit, I'd love to see pictures of them. Thanks in advance...TIM

Greg....interesting about that Hemi. It is listed as throughout the years as a 341 (which I don't believe was ever a stock Chrysler Hemi engine displacement) and a 413 (which of course was the top displacement for the completely different, "Raised B-Block" wedge engine at the time the kit was first introduced). In reality, the engine could probably replicate either a 354 or 392 Hemi....as the differences between these two in scale are difficult to discern. But if anyone can add clarity on this question, please step forward (and make sure to reference source of your info, preferably from a recognized reliable source!) ******************** As to the steering wheel question, all the 1/25th scale boat kits I am aware of, placed the steering wheel on the left side (driver's side???), just as in cars driven in North America. While I think it's safe to assume this is correct for the V-Drive ski and boat kits that were offered over the years, I'm not an authority on pleasure boats (although the original AMT Trophy Series boat kit, which replicates a Chris Craft boat which in one version would be considered a pleasure craft, also placed the steering wheel on the left side). Anyone else have any info on this? Cheers...TIM

Good to hear I'm not the only one who enjoys building this type of model. Most of you all have probably already seen this, but for those that have not, here is a link to my Fotki album with 14 past Boyd 1/25th scale drag and ski boat builds. Regular readers of Model Cars magazine may recognize a few of these as well. LINKY to Boyd 1/25th scale SKI AND DRAG BOAT ALBUM Cheers...TIM

For anyone who was around in the 1960's, ski and drag boats were an important and integral part of the car hobby. Hot Rod magazine regularly featured ski and drag boats from the very late 1950's to the 1970's, with countless articles, many full color features, a monthly column, and even a few magazine covers. Anyone who ventured to a hot rod show was sure to see at least 1 or 2 ski/drag boats for every 10 cars at the show. So? Well summertime 2015 is finally here, and is always the case at this time of year, I feel the urge to build a 1/25th scale drag or ski boat model. Maybe you too? Fortunately, Revell has just reissued their seemingly timeless "Hemi Hydro" ski and drag boat model, with new box art, an expansive new decal sheet (with three different graphics schemes, including one designed by Jairus), and improved quality vs. some of the 1990's "Selected Subjects" reissues of this kit. Let's take a closer look at what's new, along with a kit history (did you know that the original version of this kit dates to 1963 and included some different parts, as well as a real wood veneer applique for the hull deck?) Not only that, I'll suggest some simple kitbashing ideas, AND hopefully definitively resolve the rumors that the Revell kit is really 1/20th scale instead of 1/25th (I'll provide visual proof this rumor is wrong). Please click on this link and then use the "Roll" button a directly below left so that you can view the 28 photos as well as the captions that go with each image. Thanks for looking...and what do you say we hook up the Hot Rod Hydro to one of those new car or truck kits (Moebius '71 Ranger XLT, I'm thinking of you), head out to the lake, launch it and then bring up the revs on that 1/25th Hemi and send some echoes across the lake! Cheers....TIM ************************ PS - for those of you who dislike Revell kits full stop, there's little here that would change your opinion, so probably best just to move on to the next forum topic. Cheers! TB

Chuck....figure I owe you a bit of a response on some of the points you've raised....so here goes. 1. As a whole, the hobby has strongly benefited from critiques of test shots on this and other boards. We've seen improvements in a number of kits between the early test shot phase and the final result. However, when one "cherry picks" relatively small (e.g., the firewall on the possible '30 A Coupe kit) and possible (e.g. the blower in this same kit) inaccuracies, or decisions by the kit designer to render a kit in one way vs. another (e.g. the design of the roof opening), and does so without the knowledge of the entire kit as a reference point (these "issues" might - just might - be more than offset by other features of the kit which have yet to be known)....and then, goes on to suggest that these very same items should be corrected before the kit comes out, or the manufacturer doesn't care about their work or the hobby...that is where I have a concern. While many readers of this forum do not buy or subscribe to model car magazines, it may be instructive to point out that I did an article on creating a 1/25th scale chopped '30 Model A Coupe traditional hot rod in the other model car magazine (October, 2014 issue). It took eight pages, and substantial aftermarket resources to create a reasonably accurate replica. (One person who posts here and on other message forums chided me publicly that it would take over $200 in aftermarket expenditures to replicate the model the way I did - he's wrong about the amount but he has a correct/valid point that my approach required an expenditure well beyond one, or even two kits, just for parts alone - not to mention the time - probably nearing 100 hours - it took to build the model). Now, just maybe (if these images including the one you captured above can be believed) modelers will be able to recreate not just one but two hot rod Model A Coupes by buying a single, self contained kit, and in a fraction of the time it presently requires to build a replica of this build genre. To even delay such a kit two months (or more likely, multiple months given the reality of the model kit tooling scheduling challenges I mentioned above) over three parts that might - emphasize might (for two of the three "indiscretions") be incorrect, is robbing the vast majority of the modeling public the timely joy of digging into this future might-be model kit. As I said earlier, any model builder who is reasonably experienced can "correct" two (the blower and the firewall) of these three items in a matter of minutes. (As for the roof opening, maybe the kit was designed that way on purpose to show off something we don't yet know about the interior, or maybe there was an issue with molding the part in a way that is sturdy and of high quality that we as laymen do not fully understand.) 2. I thought we had closed the argument about comparing miniatures to photographs during the "brou-ha-ha that wasn't" regarding the rear quarter panel lengths in a soon to market kit from Moebius. But apparently not. So let me add a professional insight here. By way of background, about 2/3rds of my way through my career with one of the leading automotive companies, I was promoted and transferred to the Design Department where I reported directly to the Group Vice President, Design (the highest ranking Design executive in the company), and where I was assigned to oversee business development/strategy and function in some ways as a Chief of Staff. For the last five years of my career, I was additionally assigned lead management responsibility and oversight of the company's three Advanced Design Studios around the world. While I hasten to add that I was not a professionally trained Designer, I learned a great deal during that time working alongside some of the industry's top automotive design professionals. From this experience, I can say without reservation that the only way to have a truly meaningful and fully accurate discussion/design review of properties, when it came to evaluating proportions and overall design integrity, was to either review the properties (scale and/or full size) in person, or to have them photographed in exactly the same camera angles using exactly the same camera equipment and settings. Thus, I can say with professional experience that comparing photos of model car test shots with photos of 1/1 scale cars and coming to 100% accurate conclusions about the basic shapes and proportions of a body is difficult at best, and fraught with inaccurate conclusions at the worst. I do agree with you that these comparisons can yield accurate conclusions about discrete design elements - such as the overdone fender flares on the '70 'cuda - but even with well-intentioned grid comparisons, when it comes to overall body proportions, such comparisons can and sometimes do lead to false conclusions. 3. I also am concerned that there seems to be developing a "sport" or sorts, or even a contest among this and other Board Forum members, to see how quickly one can identify and report "mistakes" with new and upcoming kits. Objective reporting on this topic can be a big plus - as I noted above - but when inaccurate conclusions are drawn (as often happens), and/or it descends into a diatribe of "the model companies don't care"/arguments that the kit "must be fixed"/it will "only take a couple of hours to make such a fix"/and similar trains of thought, AND when it begins to create a sense of disappointment and reduced purchase intent within the larger Forum community, then I have a problem. This goes back my original point above, which IS valid and highly applicable to this forum thread. The confidence of posters to make these claims comes from two things - knowing everything there is to know about a subject (which is impossible unless you are a staff member at the company that is developing the kit), or not knowing what you do not know. And the latter is very much the case here in these posts about what is wrong with future kits. 4. When I read threads like this one (and the blower shape thread that is also current in this forum), I sometimes think that maybe I am too close to the subject due to my past/current involvement (paid, and mostly unpaid) with the model companies over the last 40 (yikes) years. Knowing just enough about the challenges of developing and producing a kit....maybe it has made me "soft" on this subject. On the other hand, I keep hoping that maybe if I, and others Forum members who have also been involved supporting the model companies, can add a bit of our insight, it might help other members of this Forum better understand why things are the way the are with this hobby we love. 5. Would I have designed the kit exactly the way it appears? Not completely. You all know very well my position about SBC's in Ford hot rods. The firewall does appear undersized. As stated earlier (and assuming this one repeats the chassis in the Model A Roadster kit), I would have gone with a transverse rear leaf spring and Halibrand Quick Change. But these are decisions that are not mine to make. It's not my money on the line here. Revell and their kit designer made those decisions. And just like the landmark Revell '32 Ford Hot Rod series (and the front suspension changes we all had to make to lower the ride height just so), we'll apply our own personal tweaks there and there to make our models more in line with our own design sensibilities. And we'll generally have a helluva good time doing so. 6. Picking up on a point in a different response above, I agree that at one point model car building was not assigned the professionalism and respect that other forms of scale modeling enjoyed. I also believe that for the most part, this is no longer the case. And I strongly disagree that an acceptance of these three '30A Coupe kit "inaccuracies" would further reinforce that once-relevant belief. What I DO believe is that we as model car builders seem less inclined to invest our personal resources in our hobby - whether it comes to the many members of this and other forums who refuse to buy the model car magazines that are a key and vital source for our hobby, to a very vocal willingness to complain about model car kit prices (which are mostly well below those of other scale kits) and an unwillingness to buy more expensive, complex model car kits and aftermarket offerings that more closely approximate those of the military/armor/aircraft/fuure/shipbuilding categories of modeling. I suspect these habits, much more than minor inaccuracies in a yet-to-be introduced kit, still undermine the small remaining gap between model car builders and other scale model hobbyists. 7. Finally, back to the original subject of this thread, my preliminary thoughts are that this "kit which has not been announced" could possibly be one of the best hot rod kits the hobby has ever seen. If that indeed turns out to be the case, the many posts of this thread bemoaning the "inaccuracies" may - just may - turn out to be six pages of a Forum thread that are mostly inconsequential to those who will eventually buy and build this kit. But even I don't know everything there is to know about this subject and possible future kit, so I can only suppose this may be the outcome, I can not say it with confidence. I've said more than enough here so I am going to back out of the discussion now and let it carry on going forward without any further comments on my part. Cheers...TIM

Chris...it was not my intent to chastise you or any other person posting in this thread, only to suggest that we wait until we know the whole story before taking definitive stands on a future kit's worthiness. Best Regards...TIM

Bill...while my comments above were not specifically directed at you or any other single person, I do have some comments on your response. 1. I and many others respect your quest for perfection, and it is great that you have a business/career that lets you achieve that. The model car kit business is, like many industries, extremely complex and much more involved than it appears to outsiders like us. It is also conducted these days with a very small, skeleton staff at each of the model companies. Yes, pure perfection could be achieved, but not in a commercially acceptable and timely manner. Every successful business involves tradeoffs, and any one in business knows that at some point, you have to "publish or perish". Making those difficult decisions is what we as managers and leaders are paid for. As such, I doubt we'll ever see a 100% "perfect" model kit. While I don't know the whole story, from what I do know, the Revell Model A project in its entirety is among the most complex 1/25th scale model kit tools I have ever seen. It has been in development for years, and it is time for it to go into production and generate some revenue for its maker. 2. You/we have not seen this potential kit and built it, and until then, you/we simply cannot adequately evaluate any "errors" in the context of how much is right for a given kit. If/when this kit is released, I predict that its many, many "rights" will far outweigh the "wrongs" cited in this thread. 3. I don't know what you are paid, but I do know that kit designers these days are not well paid. This is presently a very small, niche hobby business. It doesn't support salaries and commissions commensurate with most business endeavors these days, It's my understanding that kit designer involved here is retired and works on a project by project basis. 4. People who build models DO correct kit mistakes, and it is perfectly acceptable to suggest that this is the case. As someone has said elsewhere on this Forum, that's what makes us modelers rather than kit assemblers. 5. I didn't suggest that you don't know your subject, and I didn't suggest that the kit firewall is 100% correct. I did suggest that it would likely be a quick and easy fix for a moderately experienced modeler. We'll have to wait for this potential kit, though, to find out if I'm correct or wrong on this point. Cheers....TIM PS - that's a gorgeous Model A Coupe from your shop. Nicely done! TB

I've stayed out of this discussion because Revell has not officially announced a '30/'31 Model A coupe kit, and I am not authorized to share with you what I know (or don't know) about this subject. But I've been folliwing the thread with great interest. For those few of you here making definitive statements about what is "wrong" and "needs to be fixed" with this potential future kit, might I offer a bit of advice? It came to me from a former boss of mine at Ford. He was a brilliant engineering executive, but carried a reputation for being difficult to work for (I got along with him fine, though). His advice? "Confidence comes from two things. Knowing everything there is to know, or not knowing what you do not know." This is something you may want to consider.... Just a series of observations and what-ifs. - Suppose the entire Revell Model A kit series was designed by a model kit engineer who is among the most respected of his trade in the entire kit development industry. .And/or suppose he built his own 1/1 scale street rod in his very own garage - and it is a rod that looks great - any of us would be happy to have it move to our garages. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he knows his subject matter? - While there are several different aftermarket shapes for Roots blower cases, I would suggest that if the shape offends you, any model builder who is experienced enough to post in this Forum probably has a more likable blower in his parts stash. Would you really delay a kit's entry to the marketplace my months - possibly many months - on the basis of a blower case you didn't like? - Speaking of the engine, while blower cases are easy to replace, suppose this engine also has a brilliantly conceived and tooled version of another part that is NOT in your parts box, and is virtually never provided in blown SBC street engines provided in previous 1/25th scale kits. Would that change the tonality of your blower case concerns? - Likewise, someone will offer a revised firewall in the aftermarket within months of the potential kit's debut. Or if you want to build yours right away, and you guys are as accomplished as I think you are, you'll simply slice off the firewall from any of the Revell '31 A Tudor/Woody/faux Sedan Delivery kits in your stash and glue them in place. - As for the roof, might it just be possible that the kit engineer designed it that way because he saw a 1/1 scale rod built that way and liked the treatment? Or maybe, just maybe, there might be some groundbreaking type of interior treatment that he wanted to be fully visible in the finished model? And guys, I gotta tell you, I myself don't know everything, or even much about the kit business, but I CAN tell you that it can take months - sometimes many months - to make corrections to a kit tool once it has been initially cut in metal. Such corrections have to go back in the supply base, be re-sequenced into the kit development calendar, run through test shots, and dealt/scheduled accordingly. And keep in mind that hot rod kits are not at the top of Revell's kit development priorities right now. Accordingly, I have advised my pals at Revell that they should go ahead with future versions of the Model A, whatever they may be, without making any of the "refinements" you guys have suggested here. Let's get the kit out first, build it for ourselves, and THEN lobby Revell (and/or the kit aftermarket) for any changes we think would improve the kit. You can blame me if they take my advice. I hope they do. So until we get this possible future kit in our own hands, learn the full and complete story, and we then build it for ourselves, let us refer back to the statement from my old boss above. Otherwise there may be some very definitive comments made here that may - just may - turn out to be way off the mark when the day finally comes. Cheers...>TIM

Smile! Thanks Mike....TIM

At this link you'll find 34 pictures and captions summarizing the entire kit contents and the latest round of refinements to the Moebius '61 Ventura kit tooling. I am advised that other than a couple of very minor fit interior fit refinements, final polishing of the tool, and completion of the decals, assembly instructions, and box art, this one is just about ready to go into production. As before, due to differences in camera lenses, focal lengths, photography angles and the like, I caution you against making any final determinations of the body accuracy by attempting to compare these photos to 1/1 scale photos of '61 Ventura. Also, I have started a new thread since this is a look at the actual future kit contents, but if the Forum Moderators what to move this to the previous thread discussing the future kit, please do so. Thanks to Dave Metzner at Moebius for providing us the test shot...and now...take a look at what we found by clicking the highlighted blue link in the first sentence above. Cheers...>TIM

Just to reiterate, I did do an article with this conversion a number of years ago in the other model magazine. The major change is the cylinder head configuration (particularly on the intake side) which is completely different than a Ford Y-Block. If someone needs the specific issue, send me a PM and I'll look it up. IIRC I used the Revell '56 Ford Pickup block for my conversion, but the other Ford Y-blocks mentioned above would work. I used the valve covers from the AMT Chris Craft Drag/Ski Boat 3 in 1 Trophy Series kit, first released in 1960 and reissued several times in the 1990's under the Buyer's Choice program. The AMT Trophy Series Lincoln engine most closely approximates the MEL V8 first introduced by Ford in 1958 (which like the Chevy W-Block, places the combuistion chamber in the engine block rather than the cylinder head, meaning that the cylinder heads attache to the engine block at less than the normal 45 degree angle seen in nearly all other V8 engines). The valve covers on that engine replicate (IIRC) the Lincoln Mark II Y-Block units rather than the normal Lincoln Y-Block, but don't quote me on that as being solid fact. BTW, we nearly got an all-new Lincoln Y-Block in one of the kits issued in the last several years, but even with a number of people (including myself) providing documentation, it apparently was not enough to make sure the final result was a quality product, so the idea was dropped during kit development. TIM

Somewhat surprisingly to me, the 348 engine in the Revell '58 Chevy Impala is one of the (maybe even "the") nicest "W" block motors in scale. Highly recommended, both for stock builds and period//traditional hot rod models....yes....use it instead of a bloody SBC for a change! TB

Here's a link to a summary from AutoBlog,com, and a copy of the official Ford press release (viewable if you scan down the post by AutoBlog). The press release I scanned said that the Ford GT, Raptor, and ST models were 1/32nd scale, but scalable by the user to other scales including 1/25th. TB http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/12/ford-3d-printing-models/

Not to mention the '64 Dodge and '64 Plymouth versions, which were (for the Fury) 116" wb....TB

Gregg and Harry already know what I think of the "Bent Road Incident" (I sent them a congratulatory note as soon as the issue arrived last week), but for the record, I tremendously enjoy reading Bill Borgen's articles, both for the entertaining "setups" as well as his outstanding modeling skills in creating antique "might have been" models. Great job, guys. TIM

A couple of comments 1) The Monogram Uncertain T was actually a pretty cool kit, other than the body casting which was compromised in its execution. 2) I did an article on this kit for Model Cars a number of years back....unfortunately about 1/2 the article and photos/captions were not printed in the mag at the time. 3) The coolest part of the kit was the fuel injected Buick Nailhead, but the new Nailhead in the upcoming Revell '29! blows the Uncertain T kit Nailhead outa the water! 4) Roger Harney personally told me a number of years back that the tooling for the Uncertain T was scrapped at some point in the past. Best Regards...TIM

A third vote to add to Richard's and Mark's - JoHan's was the best first/second gen Logghe chassis in scale until the fairly recent Revell new tooled chassis of a few years ago. It also served, I was told, as a rough basis for the Polar Lights chassis, although that one was not as well detailed and had some build issues. It was also included in a circa 1968 JoHan '64 Dodge Funny Car/Super Stock kit and a '64 Plymouth Nascar/Super Stock kit, both derivatives of their earlier annual kits. The funny car chassis was dropped from later issues of these two kits. TIM

It's intended to be the 394 cubic inch (factory displacement) Olds V8. Though not shown above, another very cool feature of this kit's engine is that it includes a water pump, pulley, and fan belt, so that the engine with its supercharger can be used for models intended for street applications (hot rods, street gassers, et al.). Very few supercharged engines in 1/25th scale kits include the water pump/fan belt elements. TIM