Art Anderson

While the '49-'50 Oldsmobile 88 used the same A body shells as Chevrolet, it was a longer wheelbase car; all the added length being in the front clip (doghouse), as it was with Pontiac. In addition, there were differences in the shape of the hood between Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile 88's, as GM Styling worked to create a different, but still family, look to their cars. Chevrolet hoods tended to be more pointed, while Olds (obviously emphasizing their V8 power as opposed to Chevy and Pontiac's reliance on inline engines still) had a much more square, blockish shape to the hood, particularly toward the front, something that GM Vice President of Styling Harley Earl liked to call "Powerdome". Art

I've been using BMF since 1970, when Eldred Mason, founder of the company, sent a sample sheet to the hobby shop where I was managing the plastic model and HO railroading departments. I was hooked almost immediately on the stuff. "Adhesion" of Bare Metal Foil has almost always been a bit of an issue: Either the stuff didn't stick well, or it stuck too tight, at times. I must admit, though, that I've seldom ever had a problem with the adhesive leaving any residue on a paint job. I know others have reported it, but for me I simply can't remember when the last time it was that I experienced the issue. However, I've always been able to simply polish any traces of the adhesive away with a bit of soft cloth. Art

Not to mention that, in the eyes of an awful lot of people, no less than those in the financial industry, Preston Tucker had a considerable reputation as a fast-talking huckster. Interestingly enough, one of his siblings was a pretty straight-forward businessman--founded the largest and I believe the oldest real estate company in Indiana, FC Tucker. Art

Harry, I was a guest of the Tucker Club at their 2003 National Convention at the Gilmore Classic Car Club Museum @ Hickory Corners MI--to unveil the Johnny Lightning 1:64 scale '48 Tucker (which was the very first JL diecast project I developed when I started at Playing Mantis (owned by Tom Lowe who now owns Round2 Corp). After all the festivities, I was invited to go along on a short ride on local roads, including the state highway which runs along the west side of The Gilmore--perhaps about 25 miles total. It was, to put it mildly, a BLAST! Art

The book "Tucker, A Man And His Dream" touches on this toward the end. The author points out that Tucker, regardless of all the hooplah and mystique, was sorely lacking in the capital needed in order to sustain the company--that even without all the legal troubles. He notes that while Tucker had raised over $20,000,000 to start up, he was up against some rather formidible competitors, starting with GM who spent over $100,000,000 simply to revamp Chevrolet into postwar cars. Of course, Tucker Corporation was banking on the post-WWII "sellers' market" going on perhaps indefinitely, but history does show that those conditions faded away by 1951, turning the US car market back to more normal times--actually a bit of a "buyer's market", as the tremendous demand for new cars in 1946 had finally been satiated (I've read a statistic that the average age of America's automobile fleet was at a record 13 years after 10 years of the Great Depression and its aftermath, followed by almost 4 years of NO new cars available due to the war effort). I've had the opportunity to actually ride in a Tucker. It's a large, very spacious car, much wider inside and out than any other 1948 car, with a tremendous ride, and apparently more than adequate power (from inside, it sounded very much like a Corvair on steroids, and the riding qualities were actually quite similar to Chevrolet's rear engined wonder. Was it the "car of the future" as Preston Tucker would have people believe? In some ways yes, in other ways, probably not. It's Franklin-designed flat-6 engine had to have been fairly thirsty, given that it was originally built as an aircooled aircraft engine, the significant modification for Tucker being water-cooled cylinder blocks and heads, Another question mark would have been the transaxle: I believe all the production prototype Tuckers (which is what all the existing Tuckers are, BTW) used a rebuilt Cord 810/812 unit, which in itself was not entirely trouble free, due to its reliance on an electric solenoid shifting mechanism (a couple of independent automakers--Hudson for one--used the "Electro-Shift" system in their conventional transmissions in the late 30's, and abandoned that system after just a year or so). To have designed and tooled up for a new, proprietary transaxle would have been a considerable hurdle, given that this would have meant "plowing new and unknown ground"--a tough act for a fledgling startup company. So, who knows for sure? One thing is for sure it seems to me, and that is that Tucker very likely would have run into trouble financially once the public tired of the original design and styling, given what I've managed to read on the subject. Art

I think there are dimensional inaccuracies with both cars, frankly. Art

While it would be cool to see the chassis again, its sales history was always dismal. Back in the 60's, the engine outsold the chassis by a factor of several to 1, mostly due to the price of the chassis, which was about 4X the price of the engine, and lacking the excitement of seeing working internals. Would that it had been otherwise though. Art

More of the story: Renwal actually began as a housewares manufacturer in the late 1930's (http://www.boomerbookofchristmas.com/renwal-company-not-renewal/), one of their first products being a glass knife. During WW-II they moved into plastic products (like a lot of consumer products manufacturers) and concentrated on plastic toys. One of their signature product lines was a series of toy dollhouse furniture that I remember as being 1/24 scale, my two sisters having had virtually the entire series. Another of their plastic toy products was a hand cranked plastic toy wringer washing machine which one of my sisters got for Christmas about 1954-55 (it held water, used laundry detergent, the hand crank oscillating the agitator very realistically. Even the wringer would squeeze the rinse water out of my sister Katie's doll clothes. Model kits were something Renwal (the company name was actually the founder's last name, Lawner, spelled backward) got into in the late 1950's, with their line of "Authentic Scale Models" of military vehicles, including such things as the US Army's 90mm "Skysweeper" anti-aircraft gun, some howitzers, an M-47 Patton Tank, the Walker Bulldog tank, USMC's "Ontos" tracked 105mm recoilless rifle carrier, and the ultimate: The experimental US Army "Atomic Cannon". In 1959, Renwal released a line of US Navy ships, including the Battle Ship USS North Carolina, which featured turrets which not only rotated, but with guns that elevated individually as well, along with relatively accurate below-the-waterline shapes (which Revell always "fudged" back then). These were followed by an amazing set of George Washington Class Polaris submarines, which turned out to be their first "visible" models, their second release having the fold-down hull side (done originally so one could see inside the sub and its missile silos (these were larger, and much more accurately done than the very similar but smaller scale Revell Polaris submarines, Renwal's coming out with the correct EIGHT Polaris launching silos, while the first release of Revell's kits had just four (!). Those were followed by their longest running, and most popular series, the "Visible Models" such as the Visible Man, Visible Woman, Visible Horse, Visible Cow, Visible Dog, and of course for us car enthusiasts the iconic Visible V8 engine and a Visible Chassis to go with it--both of those being absolute staples in the piles of Christmas presents for boys from their introduction all the way out to today. Their model car kits were rather eclectic, the most visible and best remembered being their set of 7 "Revival" versions of famous Classic Cars, stemming from a set of styling renderings by retired Chrysler Styling Chief, Virgil "Father Of The Forward Look" Exner for Esquire Magazine in 1964: #101 '66 Mercer, #102 Stutz, #103 Duesenberg, #104 Packard, #105 Jordan Playboy, #106 Bugatti, and #107 Pierce Arrow. Of those 7 designs, two were actually recreated in real life, the Mercer (on a stretched 289 Cobra chassis for the American Copper & Brass Institute as a promotion for the use of copper, brass and bronze trim on cars), and the Bugatti, on an actual Bugatti Type 101C that Exner himself had purchased from Ettore Bugatti shortly after WW-II. Both these cars reside in concours condition, in the vast collection of General William Lyon, USAF ret. in California. Renwal did the two 1/12 scale kits mentioned above, as well as a line of very simple, cheaply made 1/48 scale antique and classic cars which were never very well received and which tended to be sold mostly as promotional premiums by one of the oil companies. Art

In addition, Yat Ming also produced two predecessors of X-100: The 1950 Lincoln stretched Presidential convertible limousine, complete with its clear plastic "bubble top" (the car used by Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, and the first presidential limousine ridden in by Kennedy when he accompanied Eisenhower to his inauguration on January 20, 1961. The other presidential car produced by Yat Ming (also in 1/24 scale) was the 1956 Cadillac stretched convertible limousine, which had its body sides between the A and C posts narrowed in to provide room for Secret Service agents to ride on slide-out platform "steps". This latter car is the one which followed Kennedy's car in Dallas on 11/22.63, carrying Secret Service agents. Art

Of course, any reissue of an older kit is going to have the same plastic thickness (or thin-new) as the original release, simply because the reissue will come from the original tooling (the thickness of a plastic body shell is determined by the steel molds, nothing else). Art

No science on my part--just observation and thinking it through years ago. As a teenager, I got a very large room in our newly expanded basement, and living in Indiana, our relative humidity can be almost tropical at times. My learning of what I described came from decanting rattle can paint for use in my airbrush (which I had the good fortune of being able to afford just after Christmas 1961 (thanks to customers on my morning paper route and their generous tips!). I noticed that the Pactra 'Namel spray paints foamed up just like soda pop when I sprayed them into my color jar, and having already learned how enamel paints dried (from the outside in) in Jr Hi and HS shop classes--I was able to simply put two and two together. As soon as the AMT Lacquers came out, whenever possible for color, I changed to those, and with those lacquers (in their behavior almost identical to today's Tamiya and Modelmaster lacquer sprays) the problem ended. Just one of the earliest real learning experiences in model building for me. Art

I'm surprised, given that this has been discussed several times on this and other model car forums. This is a problem that I've experienced with spray-can enamels from more than 50 years ago (I first used hobby enamel sprays more than 50 years ago--started with Pactra's spray 'Namel paints). It's also the principal reason I went to airbrushing nearly half a century ago, and try to avoid enamel spray cans altogether. Lacquer sprays can do this, but in my experience--pretty rarely. Unlike lacquers, which dry entirely from the evaporation of the solvent (thinners), enamel paints tend to dry by first "skinning over", and then dry much more slowly after that. Humidity appears to accelerate that "skinning over" of enamel paints, which can trap the propellant (compressed gas that pushes the paint out of the can through the spray nozzle) before it's had time to evaporate completely out of the paint. Those minute gas bubbles can tend to collect together (ever notice how the bubbles in a glass of beer or soda start out small, then grow larger as they "collect together"?), but if they are prevented from popping or otherwise evaporating out of the still liquid paint by even a very thin membrane of somewhat drying paint across the surface--they simply get larger to the point they become very visible to the naked eye. It's not a fault of the spray can or its nozzle, nor is it a surface contamination issue (which causes fisheye, where the paint actually "runs away" from a speck of silicone or greasy contaminant) but a matter of both temperature and humidity. Lower temperature can exacerbate the problem by slowing the process of "outgassing" enough to prevent the propellant gasses from dissipating before the enamel paint starts to "skin over" as the drying process starts. Hot humid summer air can cause the very same problem as well, by accelerating the skinning over of the paint surface before the gas has sufficient chance to evaporate out of the paint (bear in mind, the propellant gas in spray paint is, in part, dissolved into the paint in the can--much like carbon dioxide in a can of soda or beer). Solution? Try for at least room/shirtsleeve temperatures, either indoors or outside, and low humidity. Art

"Panther Pink" was called "Moulin Rouge" at Plymouth. Art

I've washed body shells off with ordinary DIAL handsoap and a toothbrush for years, before painting, and also use my airbrush (without paint, of course) to blow dry the body shell. Never have a problem with paint issues using this method. Art

I've entered my share of contests, going all the way back to 1959 or so. However, not since those hobby shop contests back more than fifty years ago have I built anything specifically for a contest. If I think a model is good enough to enter, it goes. If not, then not. NNL's are another matter--those are fun to just put my models out on the table and then enjoy the camaraderie. Art

Wait 'til you see the Moebius '56 Chrysler 300B! Beautifully captures the look of the real car, very well laid out, assembly precision rivaling the best of "Tamigawa", and the box art? Awesome. Art

I used to recommend two adhesives for working with resin kits (back when I was casting): 5-minute epoxy if one is a bit timid with regard to CA glues, but gap-filling CA if you want a permanent bond! Gap-filling CA is slower setting than the thin, very runny CA we all came to know as "super glue", however. CA glues do not dry, but rather they go from liquid to crystallized by the application of pressure, moisture, or some chemical which "kicks" that crystallizing solidification. I prefer the last one, frankly. While Pacer (the maker of ZAP CA glues) offers a setting spray (ZAP-a-Gap), be advised that their setting solution may attack the surface of styrene, and certainly painted surfaces. By far and away the best CA "kicker" that I have found (and the ONLY one I use!) is BSI (Bob Smith Industries) Insta-Set, which comes in a "push pump" spray bottle (large bottles for refilling the push-pump are available). Insta-Set absolutely does not attack styrene, nor will it attack or mar any of the paints, decals, chrome or clear parts (in fact, it always completely eliminates any tendency of CA glues to "fog up" clear or chrome parts--I have used the stuff for nearly 30 years for attaching glass and chrome!). BSI also makes a small "needle tip" which will slip right onto the nozzle of Goldberg's series of "Jet" CA glues, making fine and accurate applications of CA as easy as pie. Goldberg's brand of medium viscosity CA is labeled "SuperJet", and as with InstaSet, is the only CA glue I've used since it came out about 1986. Both InstaSet and the Goldberg line of "Jet" CA glues are available in many hobby shops carrying extensive lines of RC products, and are also available online from Tower Hobbies (and their shipping is quite fast)--not a commercial for Tower, but just for information. As Bill points out, medium viscosity CA glues also make excellent fillers, particulary for small areas such as a locating hole you want to fill, even joints between body panels that you want to smooth over. Just apply it to the hole or joint, spritz with InstaSet, wait a few minutes, then dress down with needle files and fine sandpaper--repeat as necessary to complete the filling of such areas. Oh, and it accepts paint very well, and once set hard, it doesn't shrink! As a last thought here: Virtually all brands of CA are the same--the stuff made in large quantities, tank loads get shipped to whomever packages and brands it. I stay with Goldberg simply because in my experience, it has always been the freshest product, no matter where I buy it. Art

Bill has a very good suggestion! I find myself using Google a lot: Go to Google "Advanced Search", and type in the year and make of the car you are building (you can be specific as to the model, but sometimes opening your search to just the make can give you more general information (engine, chassis and so on). When you get the Google Advanced Search, click on "Images" at the top of the page, and go from there! While pics of restored cars can show body and interior colors, for accuracy try to seek out images of original cars (often "restored" cars don't have correct interiors in them, particularly if the car you are modeling isn't one that sees a lot of restoration. (not every make and model of car will have restoration materials for interiors, for example). Sometimes you will find scans of pages from "dealer brochures"--while those can show interior upholstery patterns, they generally will have correct colors--but artist's renderings of the "greasy parts", particularly engines may be shown in very fanciful colors meant more for advertising than color accuracy. It just takes perseverance to find the correct colors for these--and that is where true restorers generally excel. Good luck! Art

Beyond the difference in scale between the Monogram Citation and an MPC Cavalier--check me if I'm wrong here, but in real life, is not the Cavalier a smaller, narrower car than the Citation? Art

Monogram's March Indy Car kits represent the 1987 March, IIRC, which were CART cars that ran Indianapolis as well as the CART Championship series. I'm pretty sure that Monogram Models, based as they were back then in Morton Grove, Illinois, sent product development people to Indianapolis to photograph and measure a March chassis and engines for their model kit, augmented by information and pictures obtained from perhaps several race teams, even March Cars and Cosworth. Unfortunately, the Quaker State Porsche really didn't run at Indianapolis in May that year (again, IIRC) although it did make appearances at several CART races that season. Having built approximately 200 1/24 and 1/25 scale Indy car models in the years 1967-83, I can say that every model kit of such cars at best represented a "snapshot" of each particular car at some point in time--but race cars tended to (and probably still do!) change from race track to race track, due to the differences in race courses, certainly oval tracks. In addition, a model kit manufacturer working to a specific price point (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price), as certainly Monogram did back in the 1980's, live with limitations as to the variants they can achieve from any model kit tooling. So, while the engine in a particular version of such a race car might be an option as for creating a different version of a kit, often it was not possible to change every last little detail, even something as visible as the instrument panel and/or steering wheel. That would have been particularly true in the cockpit area of a model kit of just about any Indy car from the beginnings of rear engined race cars in US openwheel championship series race cars--simply because beginning with the Lotus 29 of 1963, the chassis "tub" almost always had to be "fitted" to the driver (for example, the 1963 Lotus 29 Powered by Ford chassis were different between the car built for Jim Clark--who stood about 5' 6" tall or thereabouts, and Dan Gurney, who towered over Clark at over 6' tall!). In addition, certainly back even as late as the 1980's, practice and qualifications at Indianapolis lasted for as much as 2 weeks prior to the start of qualifications--lots and lots of practice laps, and lots of changes/modifications happened in a race team's "search for speed". Couple the changes wrought on cars working up for the Indianapolis 500 back then, along with further modifications between races, and a model of any Indy car could (and probably still can be) simply a "snapshot" of a particular car, on a particular day, at a particular racetrack. But, that's what makes building models of race cars running long seasons challenging, fun and sometimes frustrating. Joseph gives some excellent advice above: Since you are sort of just "starting out", build up this car as it is, practice your skills and hopefully advance them with each build. And, along the way, do all the research you can--there's nothing at all wrong with revisiting a race car subject you've built before, and adding into that new build of that particular car all those things you've learned both from reseach and reference along with new-found skills and techniques. After all, that's one of the things that makes this hobby the fun that it is. Art

A fascinating shot of the 1952 Cummins Diesel Special! That's one of the largest cars ever to run at Indianapolis--it weighed in at just under 4000lbs (an AAA Championship Car back then generally tipped the scales at around 1500lbs, with the NOVI front drive cars at perhaps 2100lbs). Driver Freddie Agabashian, in practice, never really cut a hot lap, pretty much testing the car out one turn at a time, so nobody really knew what the car could do for a full lap. This film (poor quality on Youtube) courtesy of Cummins Engine Company) shows the car, with Agabashian up, qualifying at over 138mph to take the pole at Indy in 1952: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOBslrnXzF4 Note the considerable smoke coming off the tires in Turn One on each lap! Agabashian literally shredded the Firestone tire treads. In the race however, after running away from the field early on, the Cummins Spl dropped out, due to a clogged turbocharger. Builder Frank Kurtis mounted the turbo down low, in the nose of the car, where it was subjected to track debris (back then, racing tires ground off their rubber as powder, which would literally "cake" on the nose of a race car, sometimes clogging up radiators as well as building up on drivers' shirts, helmets and goggles) in order to give the car a smooth, clean, streamlined appearance. Here's a pic of the car itself, in the pits during practice at Indianapolis in '52: http://ims.cdn.racersites.com/prod/photos/342417/FULL.jpg But, it wasn't the first Cummins Diesel to run at Indianapolis: That honor goes to the 1931 Cummins Special, which was an early 4-cylinder Cummins diesel truck engine, mounted in a Duesenberg Model A passenger car frame, with a Duesenberg Model J radiator and hood panels. Driver Dave Evans achieved something nobody else has ever done in an Indianapolis 500-mile race--run the entire 500 miles NON STOP!. http://files.conceptcarz.com/img/Duesenberg/31-Cummins_Diesel_DV-08_AI_01.jpg Both cars still exist--and were run on the track in pre-race festivities, together, on May 30, 1969. It was quite the sight--two race cars, running down the frontstretch and into Turn One, each trailing black diesel exhaust from their tailpipes. Art

FNP, or fingernail polish, can certainly be thinned and sprayed through an airbrush--regardless of the "type" (some are called "nail enamels"). For thinning, use lacquer thinner (Kleen Strip should work, available in quarts and gallons just about everywhere). Thin it to approximately the consistency of 2% milk for ease in airbrushing. As for masking for a second color, simply make sure that your first color of FNP is not only dry to the touch, but also hard. That will keep masking tape from leaving marks on the surface. Art

Testors (and Modelmaster) "chrome silver" paint is good, old-fashioned "aluminum paint", which goes back perhaps 85-90 years. I've always been told, given to understand that it's fish-oil based (not unlike classic Rustoleum), and as such, it almost never "dries" hard and solid. Basically, of all the paints we use, it's meant to allow the aluminum pigment to "float" to the surface of the paint itself (just as it does in the bottle) to have a bright, smooth brilliant appearance. Trouble is, it doesn't withstand a lot of handling, even when dried for seemingly a long time (or for that matter, even when dried in a food dehydrator for even a couple of hours), so the pigment on the surface, that "brilliant" surface, tends to rub off quite easily. Unfortunately, for us modelers, that can make say, a Chrysler engine (from the 1930's to the late 1950's) difficult to paint correctly (Chrysler used aluminum paint on their engines for those decades) and still withstand the necessary handling when assembling, detailing, even installing in a model car chassis. Testors #1144 Gold has the very same problem, even though its pigment is either powdered brass or gold anodized aluminum--it can still have the very same difficulties. Art

Having built up one already, from 2nd round test shots, I can only say WOW! Granted, a test shot model kit will have a niggle or two, here and there--that's what test shots are for, to find those minor problems, so they can be fixed before the kit goes into production. Simply put--I've built my share of model car kits over the years, and this one, to me, sets a standard for a precisely molded and laid out model car kit. Sure, there are a few mold parting lines on the body shell, but in examining the body--none are at all obtrusive--a quick wipe with 400-grit, and this body is ready to paint. Art

Gonna be factory stock--more than likely with a level of detailing as I did on my '50 Olds. As for color, red, white and black were standard, but my research suggests there were a few painted, on special order, in other Chrysler factory colors---so some revisiting of that might happen. Art