Bernard Kron

"Master body", huh? So how does one obtain one (or more) of these little gems? Brilliant to make a stock height roof. too.

Please excuse me for being somewhat off subject. I'm interested in the '34 Ford 3-window in your last picture. Is that the old Monogram 1/24th scale version? If so there is a significant need for reproductions of this relatibely rare out of production model, in chopped and unchopped versions in resin with and without fenders.

Beautifully executed model. Gorgeous. It looks like a period advertising photo. It has that "ideal representation" vibe to it. What do you use as your background and reflective base in your black background shots?

Quite likely, especially as they are such a pure rendering of the original Malcolm Sayer design. And I agree, these are great pics. But the Low-Drag Fixed-Head Coupe variants based on the Lightweight would definitely give it a run for its money. The original Malcolm Sayer designed thin-steel "lightweight" Low-Drag Coupe prototype from 1961 sold to Dick Protheroe: The Sayer-penned factory Fixed-Head Coupe conversion from an all-aluminum Lightweight, the Lindner-Nocker Low-Drag Coupe which was nearly destroyed at Montlehery in 1964: The third Low Drag coupe, a private conversion of a Lightweight designed by Prof. Samir Klat and Frank Costin, the Lumsden-Seageant "Long Nose":

Duly noted...

A how-to-in-the-making on undoing the Rat-Roaster specific "damage" and backdating this erstwhile "replacement" for the venerable Highboy kit. Keep it coming. Those flathead mounts are very cool. Did you fab them?

It continues to delight me how inventive builders are in approaching this kit in such completely different ways. This is essentially an out-of-the-box build but with superbly crisp detailing and the whole-chassis chroming approach. It looks like a show-piece Monogram would/should have done for trade display. Exceptional and a feast for the eyes! Big thumbzup!

Thanx Bill. Under artificial light the flake doesn't quite pop as much. To get the monster flake look I would probably go with a true clear paint or darker Duplicolor metallic and limit myself to one coat and then immediately go to clear. The same line of Metal Specks comes in Red, Blue, Green and Copper and I'm thinking of doing a drag car using some sort of multi-colored Metalflake scheme....

Very nicely turned out. Super sanitary! Are the MAS front wheels/tires a recent purchase. If so where can I hunt them down?

I don't use an airbrush, because of problems finding a workspace with proper ventilation to the outside. Instead I use rattle cans which allow me to shoot simply outdoors without being tied to a compressor. Over the past couple of years I've begun experimenting with candy and metalflake effects. I thought I would share some of my experiences. First off I think Ruben Arrendondo's (montecarlo1980) comment regarding Gary Seed's advice to mist coat transparents is important and worth noting. The key to great transparent effects is control over the depth and hue of the final color and light mist coats is an excellent way to get there. I agree that paint loading up around the edges and reveals of bodywork is a sure sign of getting the paint down too heavily. One reason I used to do that was to develop a gloss coat. I finally abandoned it because of this problem. My solution now is to focus on the depth and color aspects and leave it to my clear coats to handle the final gloss. I've found that the best approach to creating good transparent effects is to treat all the layers as system, starting with the primer and working your way out. The color of your primer can have as important an influence on the final effect as the color and flake of your metallic base or your transparent color coat. Last week ago I experimented with a metalflake effect that is a good example of this. This will repeat some material from a post I did a few days ago in the Workbench section so I apologize in advance for the repeat. In this case I was using a Duplicolor metallic paint as my color coat. Regardless if they’re solids or metallics, Duplicolor paints are fairly transparent and very sensitive to the color and texture of your undercoat. It's probably because their rattle can paints are sold mainly as touch up paints and this characteristic makes feathering them in easier. I have done several candy-like paints jobs using Duplicolor metallics over a gold or silver base coat. Duplicolor makes a range of heavily flaked transparent paints called Metal Specks. I used Metal Specks Silver as the base coat for my flake paint job. The Metal Specks paint is also quite transparent with no toner in it, just metal flakes in a clear base. So it shows a bit of the primer color to it. Fortunately there is plenty of silver flake to it so it reveals the color coat very effectively. The Metal Specks is quite coarse so I buried it in three coats of clear before moving on to the color coat. This is important because you can polish the clear without disturbing the flake if you need to, and the smooth finish allows you to control how much color you put down. You can spray your color very thinly and stop at any point that you get the effect you are looking for. Then seal it and develop the gloss you want when you move on to your clear. The color coat is Duplicolor Medium Quasar Metallic. A bright medium blue. If you shoot it over a white base coat it is a very rich but brilliant medium blue, only a couple of shades darker than a French racing blue. But it’s so transparent that if you shoot it over a dark primer like a red oxide, or even a bright gold metallic, it will totally change color. Over red oxide it changes to a muddy dark olive blue green, and over gold it will show as a dark emerald blue-green metallic. What I was looking for was a rich, deep medium blue with a visible flake and strong metallic highlights. After experimenting with various combinations I settled on red oxide primer, followed by a base metallic coat of Metal Specks silver. Here are some photos taken in bright direct sunlight showing the progression of layers. I almost stopped after the first coat, except the shade was a bit too light and the metalflake had that super-aggressive coarse "sparkle" popular on speedboats and certain especially tacky styles of Naugahyde. Oh, and cheap aftermarket steering wheels, too! It took 3 light coats to get me where I wanted. Under artificial light the effect is a little more subdued.

Thanks for all the kind words about my T Altered. I'm certain I'll build another early 60's altered roadster based on this body now that it's being re-issued. Here are some comments about doing the first one. From a performance perspective it's best to set the motor back the maximum the rules will allow to enhance traction. But I had no idea of what the rules allowed so I just eyeballed it. The AMT Double Dragster Walt's Puffer Fiat is the first version constructed in late 1958 or early 1959. It was based on the stock 1939 Fiat steel body with its a separate hood and longer cowl length. The longer cowl and the drive line parts determined the kit layout. As I mentioned, swapping motors removed any temptation to go with the kit spacing. As it happens the T-bucket was the first of 4 models I extracted from the Tin Box version of the AMT Double Dragster kit. The second model was based on the Fiat body but without the chassis or front suspension I dove into the parts box for the suspension and I scratch built a tubular frame. Dimensionally it's the same as the kit to the front of the motor but I lengthened the front end slightly to establish a setback similar to the roadster. So I guess I took the opposite tack to that of shortening the frame. For what it's worth (since in modeling we can do anything we want based on our creative goals), a shorter frame is generally less stable. Here are some pics:

Thanx Wayne. Yes, probably Oxford White.

Thanks to everyone for the continued interest. While I’m waiting for my 4” chop p/e grille and shell to arrive from Model Car Garage I thought I would start on the paint. I’m going for an early 60’s show car vibe (the Barris influence in the project) so I thought I’d try my hand at a metalflake. I’ve experimented in this area before but this is the first time I’ve taken it all the way to an active project. I often use Duplicolor paints and one characteristic they all share, regardless if they’re solids or metallics, is that they are fairly transparent and very sensitive to the color and texture of your undercoat. I actually have done candy-like paints jobs using Duplicolor metallics over a gold or silver base coat. Duplicolor makes a range of heavily flaked transparent paints for the system called Metal Specks. I used Metal Specks Silver as the base coat for my flake paint job. The color coat is Duplicolor Medium Quasar Metallic. A bright medium blue. If you shoot it over a white base coat it is a very rich but brilliant medium blue, only a couple of shades darker than a French racing blue. But it’s so transparent that if you shoot it over a dark primer like a red oxide, or even a bright gold metallic, it will totally change color. Over red oxide it changes to a muddy dark olive blue green, and over gold it will show as a dark emerald blue-green metallic. What I was looking for was a rich, deep medium blue with a visible flake and strong metallic highlights. After experimenting with various combinations I settled on red oxide primer, followed by a base metallic coat of Metal Specks silver. The Metal Specks paint is also quite transparent with no toner in it, just metal flakes in a clear base. So it shows a bit of the red oxide to it. Fortunately there is plenty of silver flake to it so it gave me the color I was going after. Here are some photos taken in bright direct sunlight showing the progression of layers. The Metal Specks is quite coarse so I buried it in clear before moving on to the color coat. The base coat shot is the Metal Specks and three coats of Duplicolor Clear. Under artificial light the effect is a little more subdued. Next up is detailing and painting the chassis which will be body color with a white undertray and body color rear axle. Thanx for lookin’, B.

Hiya Curt! Nice to here from you!

I still like it, Dennis. I think the only thing that saved my bacon was using a different motor which forced me to pay attention!

It's always a delight to read your insights, Art. In particular I have been fascinated by the unusual phenomenon of the least-produced Ford of the initial era of the brand becoming the definitive hot rod icon. This is particular so when you add in the fact that the model was rushed into development and introduced in the throws of the greatest financial collapse of the industrial age. Your comments offer a clue to solving this mystery. The Tony Thacker book (book copies shown above are essentially the same book with the 75th anniversary being a somewhat expanded version of the original release), despite its somewhat Euro-British perspective, does an excellent job of capturing the pressure-cooker environment that gave birth to this enduring symbol of the Ford brand. Expanding somewhat on the points you make, here are some thoughts on why so many hot rodders adopted this model on either side of WWII. Firstly one can argue it's the last of the "vertical" era of Ford models with the '33-'34 model introducing the earliest elements of streamline to the marque. So it's an "old" car but without the cachet of early-era "brass" history to it. In a sense not old or historic enough. But more recent models would look too much like current models to be the overt junk yard fodder that guaranteed cheap prices, a key aspect for hot rodders looking for something to hop up. In that sense, "old enough". Additionally, as you point out, it lacked the development it required and was rushed to market full of serious problems. So more likely to make it onto the used car market as the edge came off the Depression in the mid 30's. Thacker does a very good job of documenting these issues. I think that as time progressed hot rodders realized the relatively rarity of this one-model-year Ford, especially so for the cheap and light but lower-production roadster, and thus was created a modern hot rod icon. To my eye the Deuce, as the last of the "verticals", is the most appealing, with a nice flow to its lines, a pleasing bulk, and well conceived detailing throughout the main body and extending to the hood and grill. In general it's more substantial looking than even the Model A, let alone the various evolutions of the T. I can understand why, good looking as well as relatively scarce, it would be the top candidate to be The Icon.

Isn't the "lake" the coast at Pebble Beach? I went with Real. If it's a model I will just sigh with admiration...

Mondo bizarro combo But who would have imagined the Japanese would become the curators of Dean Moon's legacy, anyway? A wonderfully integrated exercise in brand consistency. Immaculate execution and delightful little sub-projects don't hurt either... Bravo! Big thumbzupz

Hi Tim. Thanks for the question. I neglected to give the details in my earlier post regarding the chassis. I cut out the floor panel from the Revell chassis but left the front cossmember in place to allow for the Deuce grill I'll be using. I then clamped the chassis rails to the body, locating the firewall at the upsweep in the reveal on the frame rail, and narrowed the floor panel to fit, gluing it back into place. The shape is slightly different but measured at the doorline the '27 is about .1" = 2.5 scale inches narrower. I then shortened the rear of the frame to bring the rear axle centerline back to the proper location, resulting in a .4" = 10 scale inches shorter wheelbase. The frame has been z'd the height of the frame rails or .25" = 6.25 scale inches, and narrowed the thickness of the frame rails to tuck up into the turtle deck. For this project I'm attempting to keep the frame as dimensionally similar to the Deuce as makes sense to minimize adapting issues with other parts. It's one reason I scratched together the fake-o Y-block rather than messing with the AMT piece. Throughout this project I'm reminded of what Dennis Lacy said about his 1:1 when he was working on it. He was constantly coming up against just how small the '27 is when compared to any later Roadster. In my case the Y-block will just barely make it with the exhaust headers just clearing the leading edge of the bodywork.

Here here!!! (there there...)

You're right. The AMT #3004 Custom-Competition Hot Rod Frame is a completely different beast. But it's interesting that the actual instructions that came with the T-Bucket altered body clearly showed the Double Dragster's Altered frame, implying that the body was marketed as an alternative to the Fiat. Here are some pics including the instructions showing what I referring to (thanx to Dave Fletcher for his excellent pics of the Hot Rod Frame posted here in 2009 - see http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25164 ). The T-bucket instructions are my scan of the re-print from the Stevens International Competition Parts Pack re-issue.

Judging by the instructions that come with the Parts Pack T-Altered I believe the AMT Walt's Puffer chassis in the double dragster kit is the Parts Pack chassis. If so then the body fits perfectly. Here's one I built in 2010. The motor is the Parts Pack Pontiac.

An update at last! With no basic kit to draw on everything needs to be kit-bashed or scratch built so progress is slow with lots of “two steps forward and one step back”. Thanks for all the interest. I have built the motor. I decided to go the “Ford in a Ford” route, something I virtually never do. I like the look of the Y-block Ford V8s with their well-defined valve covers, especially the look of a full-dress ’57 T-Bird 312 4-barrel. I was going to use the AMT version but didn’t care for the typically “soft” AMT molded-in detailing on the block, so, instead I made a fake-o Y-block using one of the countless small-block Fords I have left over from an equally countless number of Revell Deuce kits I’ve used. I added material to the block below the pan-line to create the Y-block’s characteristic shape, squared up the heads to fit the T-Bird valve covers and detailed the ignition and accessories based on research done on the internet. All the chrome bits except the headers are from the AMT ’57 T-Bird. But I just couldn’t go with the trademark “up-and-over” Y-block headers. Instead I used a set of “limefire” headers from the Revell Roth Tweedy Pie kit. They may have been for a small-block Chevy, but they have the correct paired center ports and they line up perfectly. Huge extra special THANX to Dale Verts for his generosity in supplying them! Also receiving attention was the bodywork. I’ve added a rolled pan at the rear to complement the line defined by the chassis rails. It was built up from styrene strip and quarter-round . I also fabricated a firewall using the inset part of a Revell Deuce firewall. Next up is bodywork and paint, wheel choice, exhaust system, steering gear, and… Hopefully I’ll have an update sooner than last time. Thanx for lookin’, B.

Nicely done and I especially appreciate the review items. I did a "My Version" project too and my take was completely different from yours so my likes and dislikes were also completely different. Being more of a traditionalist, there were plenty of details I didn't like and they were changed, while your approach was to personalize a car whose look you admired. Perhaps it's the unique (and successful) color choice, but the portholes on the hood, which I dislike and omitted on my own build, look more "right" on yours. One thing we share is we both drilled out the holes in the interior. As you pointed out in your W.I.P., those "upholstered" dimples just don't make it at all, IMHO. Anyway, get the black wash out so the grill pops a little and maybe hit some of the other chrome bits with it while you're at it. You have a real sweetheart already and it will only make it better! I dig the color and overall approach...

Hi Tim, I'm collecting parts to begin the next phase. I think I've decided to use the AMT '57 Thunderbird V8 because I like the valve covers better than the various Revell versions I've seen (and I have one to spare in my stash...). Bill "Ace-Garageguy" Engwer sent me an AMT '27 T Touring (Laurel & Hardy, Vintage Police Car, etc.) windshield which Dennis Lacy had theorized would fit. Dennis was right, it fits perfectly. I plan to cut it down but I also dropped a line to Chuck Meier about it (Chuck probably already new about it, I bet) in the hope that he includes a version of it in some sort of street rod transkit along with an interior. In addition, Dale Verts from this forum is sending me a pair of exhaust headers from the Revell Tweedy Pie that I'm hoping will fit the T-Bird mill without compromising the kit chrome. Huge THANX!!!! to both Bill and Dale for helping me out. I still need to order a cut down grill shell from MCG but I'm less concerned about that since there's quite a bit of other work to do before I get there. The windshield and headers were critical Go/No-Go items to attain the look I'm after. I hope to get back to construction over the weekend. Thanks for the interest, B.