Art Anderson

"Ace" and Dale have it very right: Either the nail polish was too thick in consistency from the outset, or it was incompatible with the the thinner you used. Let's take a look at "consistency"; this is a "measure" (if you will) of how thick or thin the nail polish appeared in your airbrush jar after you added thinner to it. There can be one real problem, with enamels, water-borne acrylics, and certainly lacquers--including fingernail polish: Two bottles of the same paint may, or may not (!) be the exact same consistency--that can happen for any number of reasons that are not important here. Being as I am not an engineer, nor is my college degree in any of the physical sciences, and I know just enough math to get me into trouble--I don't use set formula's to thin paint by. OK, so a little observation here: Properly thinned lacquer (and almost all nail polish is a lacquer of one kind or another), when in a glass jar, such as your airbrush jar, will "sheet" down the side of the glass container, very much like 2% milk "sheets" down the inside surface of the glass as you drink it. Many of us have found that thinning lacquers to the point that when in the airbrush jar, if you turn the jar at an angle and then hold it straight up and down, the lacquer will "sheet" as it drains down the inner surface of the jar very close to the way 2% milk does, and the effect you see is very much like that. Given the possibility that different bottles of lacquers may well not be the same consistency (one could be thinner than the others, or thicker!), this becomes an "eyeball" sort of thing. If you get the lacquer too thin, that's not a problem, it just means that you will have to compensate by laying on lighter, thinner coats to avoid runs or sags. Second, and this relates to the consistency of your thinned lacquer--if the lacquer is properly thinned as I've laid out above (and BTW, if you spray rattle can lacquer into your airbrush jar, it will behave very much like 2% milk in a glass tumbler--that makes rattle can paint, decanted, a very good example of well thinned enamels or lacquers. You could, as Ace suggested, have a problem with the thinner you used being compatible with the nail polish (given that you say that the "sand-finish" started AFTER you had laid on some nail polish, leads me to wonder if that isn't the cause. To test for this, mix up a little bit of nail polish with your thinner in your color jar, then close it up tight, and allow it to sit for perhaps 15 minutes or so. If the thinner is not compatible, it should make the nail polish "curdle" like sour milk. If that is the problem, then you will need to get some different lacquer thinner. I'm using Kleen Strip medium temperature lacquer thinner that I got in the paint department at Walmart and that stuff has worked for me, with acrylic lacquer (IIRC, fingernail polish almost all the time is an acrylic lacquer), Testors enamels, Humbrol enamels, and even a bit of automotive acrylic lacquer. Last, if the problem is not the nail polish reacting with the thinner, even with ensuring that your nail polish is thinned out enough, you might try reducing the PSI on your airbrush, which will allow you to move in closer to the work (I do most of my airbrushing, be that body colors, or chassis-engne-interior parts, at less then 2" from the work, often as close as an inch!), and learn to move the airbrush more slowly, allowing the sprayed coats to be "wet" or shiny. Hope this helps! I know it has worked for me for a whole lot of years. Art

Hmmm, great moments? It's hard to pick just one, but I can think of several: While the first few model cars I built were, uh, OK, as they were a pastime for a very bored kid forced to spend a lot of quiet time recuperating from rheumatic fever...but things sort of took off when I was given my first 1/25 scale kits--merely knocked-down AMT promo's ('54 Pontiac Star Chief Catalina, '54 Ford Crestline Convertible and a '54 Studebaker Commander hardtop)--those were model cars that my 10yr old hands built, and they were sturdy enough for quiet play on the floor (nothing like revving up the flywheel--friction--motors and making black tire mark burnouts on Mom's freshly mopped and waxed kitchen floor! The coming of AMT 3in1 customizing kits in 1958--those were cool! By then, Testors' little square bottles of paint were in the variety store where I got my AMT kits, and life became even cooler! Summer of 1959: AMT's '32 Ford Roadster, the scion of that neat family of Trophy Series kits, along with the '40 Ford coupe, and the release by Pactra of their first Soft Spray 'Namel rattle cans--now I could (in my 15yr old mind anyway) do paint jobs on model cars to rival anything in a new car showroom (Oh well, at least I thought so!). Fall 1961, and the first kit I bought at built many of--the AMT '25 T Double Kit--now that was a model car kit! Labor Day weekend in 1962 and going to Indianapolis, to the Murat Shrine Temple to see the NHRA Hot Rod & Custom show (an event back then which piggybacked onto the NHRA National Drags out at Indianapolis Raceway Park), seeing and snagging the first of Revell's Challenger I, Roth's Outlaw and their '56 Ford F100 pickup. But the real highlight was meeting and getting to talk with THE KAT from AMT himself, Budd Anderson (same last name as me, but no relation)--now that was a happening any model car builder back then would have jumped at the chance to be a part of). In 1975, being asked to build "box art" models by AMT Corporation--that was hard work, but often a lot of fun, and certainly neat to show my wife and family the results of my work on store shelves around here. The "inside looks" at AMT and learning a lot about what it took to design and tool a model kit was fascinating. In the very early 1980's, sensing the rebirth (almost from what seemed to me in the waning years of the 70's the death and burial of this hobby) of model car building, with the coming of Scale Auto Enthusiast, and the renewed stream of very nicely done model car kits. A lot of milestones, a lot of "model car minutes" down through the past 60 or so years for me, to be sure! Art

The older rust gets, the darker brown it becomes, from my experience. Art

I remember being at an IPMS contest in the San Francisco Bay Area back in the 1990's, overhearing a conversation between a couple of judges and a contestant whose WW-II US Navy fighters were deemed to be painted in a too-dark USN Sea Blue. After a few minutes, the entrant excused himself for about 10 minutes, went out to his car and returned with a can of paint. The label? US Navy # whatever-it-should-be Glossy Sea Blue, and noting that the paint was the property of the US Navy, Alameda Naval Air Station. A swatch of the paint was still on the tin lid as well--END of story. Art

Yes, lighting can make all the difference in how a model appears to our eyes. Cars, of course, have colors created to be seen in natural light, as that is their natural environment (just as it is with military vehicles) but are done for appealing appearance, rather than for camouflage. Also, when new, or carefully maintained, an automobile won't show near the weathering that armored or "soft-skinned" military field vehicles undergo--after all, a close comparison can be made, I think, between military field vehicles and civilian construction equipment--other than a battlefield (with all that entails!) and a construction site aren't all that different--sunlight, rain, dust and dirt, mud and rust all come into play with them. Of course, even the best maintained automobiles, IF they are out in the elements, will have their paintwork suffer: UV fading, rain, even minute particles of dust or dirt that finds itself literally "ground" into even the finest of paint finishes with even the very best of care. For the above reasons, it seems to me that unless a scale model (be that a civilian car or truck, or a military vehicle) is presented as part of an outdoor-scene diorama, it's probably more likely that shown indoors (particularly a car), whatever finish it has is most realistic when it's done as if the model subject would appear outdoors--after all, very few model contests are held out in the bright sun, or even under a cloudy sky. Consider that a model contest room will be artificially lighted, even though there may well be natural light coming in through such windows as there might be--isn't that very much like viewing the actual car in a museum setting or even a dealer's showroom? Food for thought there, methinks. Generally speaking, we as car modelers do tend to do our models as pristine, generally striving to do them as showpieces (certainly street rods and customs fit this, as do models of factory stock antique cars), so I would submit that they generally come off better done as museum pieces, as opposed to worn, even slightly weathered subjects. That said, if one is doing a model of a weathered automotive subject, just as with a worn and battle-weary tank or military truck, the first step should be research--what does/did the real thing look like in that state. With civilian vehicles, that's really pretty easy to do--just being observant, even taking pics of vehicles in everyday service (for example, just how does dirty water in a rainstorm spray on a car's body panels, or splatter the underside?). It's pretty much the same with rust, even greasy, or more so, dirt-caked oily or greasy undercarriage components. Digital camera's make this research oh-so-very easy, and in the bargain, dirt (no pun intended!) cheap too. Of course, even with the best, most thorough of researching, and reference work, the end result is where true artistry comes into play--what looks "right" with regard to weathering, rusted out places, even rust stains, and certainly all those dirty, greasy bits may well look one way to you or me, but quite different in the eyes of others--so it can come to be very subjective. Is there a "right way" or a "wrong way" to paint, finish, even weather a scale model? IMO, beyond learning and understanding just how that appears on the real thing is the biggest thing, but the colors and even the techniques and end results may well appear differently to perhaps everybody who views the finished project. Art

They'll be ready when they are ready. Seriously, there is a lot that has to happen before steel tooling gets cut--IF you want a kit that's done well, done right. Rest assured, these kits will be coming out though. Art

On actual '32 Ford roadsters, as built by Ford (the same is also true of Model A's '28-'31, Model T's from the 'teens through '27, there is a row of snaps which are actually screwed to the body molding behind the seat/seats where the top material attaches to the body around the bottom of the rear panels. There is no top bow back there, at the bottom of the top framing itself on stock versions--the molding there (originally filled with wood inside/underneath the sheet metal body shell) serves that purpose. Starting in 1933 on most cars, with larger body shells, roadster tops (along with cabriolet tops) started being folded into a "well" behind the seat, which by 1935 allowed the folded top to stow almost completely below the beltline of the body--just like convertible tops of the 40's out through the 70's (European cars were an exception to this, due to the widespread, traditional use of padded folding tops which took a lot more space to fold). On the top fabric itself, the other half of those snaps isn't seen on roadster tops, and nor do they show on later phaetons--they are shielded by an overlying "flap" of fabric, which served to protect the snaps, and at least delay the deterioration of the underlying fabric holding the snap. You generally would not see those snaps on the body surface there either, as seldom did original owners completely remove the top from their cars, even though roadster and touring car/phaeton tops generally were easily removable from the body. AMT engraved those snaps on top of the body molding around the back of passenger compartment of their '29 Model A roadster. Top boots on cars such as the Deuce roadster were almost like slip covers on upholstery, very much a bag-like affair which didn't fasten to the body shell itself, but rather were slipped over the folded top, and snapped along their opening area around the base of the folded top AWAY from the surface of the body, or were "tied" snugly by leather or canvas belting, with an ordinary buckle, just like a belt buckle (not a Ford practice though). As roadsters got bodies with larger built-in trunks that approached and equaled the height of the tops of the doors, Ford installed "rails" on the tulip panel behind the top, looking for all the world as if they were "grab handles" to aid rumble seat passenger's entry into that cramped compartment. These started with the Model A roadster in 1928, and continued at least through 1932 on all roadsters, whether they had a rumble seat or simply a trunk compartment back there. Those "rails" were for the primary purpose of supporting the folded top OFF of the painted body surface--their use as grab handles was secondary. Those grab handles are on the chrome parts tree of the AMT '29 A Roadster, and have been on AMT '32 Ford roadster kit chrome trees as well. Another note: While modern street rod folding top frames generally work in the same way as those built by Ford, Ford's rearmost top bows were made from channel steel, with wood fillers added, to which the top material was attached by upholstery tacks. That wooden filler shows just below the edge of the top fabric at the upper rear corners of the side "window" openings on stock Model A's and '32 Fords. Art

It's a tooling/molding issue generally. If you think of a 1/25 scale of just about any modern, paper-filter air cleaner, they all have some sort of raised "lip" around both top and bottom plates. That of course would mean a two-piece aircleaner for your model, and more than likely it will also mean that the edge of whichever "plate" is the separate part (assuming you don't want to see seam across the texture of the filter element) almost assuredly will have to have a far thicker than scale "edge" to it. Given that not every model car kit will be opened up and built by the highest of skilled modelers, sometimes a model company just has to aim at the "average builder", sort of a middle ground common denominator. All that said, would it not be possible to take a sheet of say, .015" (or even .010" if you are brave enough) Evergreen sheet styrene, and cut a round undertray to get that bit of missing detail--it shouldn't be all that difficult to make and install, or so it seems to me. Art

I've had considerable experience with "ghosting", given that I started using automotive acrylic lacquers to paint model cars over 40 years ago; so here's my read: Styrene plastic is easily penetrated by so-called "hot" solvents such as liquid cement and lacquer thinners of all kinds--this is what causes solvent-based plastic cements to melt and "weld" two plastic parts together, but lacquer thinners (and even some of the solvents used in enamel paints as well) also do this, generally to a lesser extent. Complicating this is the process by which model car kits are molded--molten styrene plastic is forced into the molds for a model kit under tremendous pressure (generally 80-100 tons per square inch) which, as the plastic cools and solidifies, locks in a lot of stresses in the finished parts. When lacquers (be they automotive acrylics or even the so-called "non-penetrating" thinners in such as Tamiya or Modelmaster lacquers) are sprayed on a model kit body, they tend to "relieve" some of those stresses--notably around mold parting lines, but also in places where raised details have been removed. But, what to do about it? This is where a good primer comes in, in my experience. Lacquer primers will relieve those stresses, making parting lines tend to "ghost out", and certainly where any raised detailing has been sanded, carved or otherwise shaved off. A coat of a good lacquer primer (automotive IF the final finish is to be automotive, otherwise Tamiya lacquer primer) sprayed on, and allowed to dry thoroughly overnight, followed by a light sanding over the ghosted area will smooth it down. A second coat of primer will show whether or not the ghosting has been removed, and if not, repeat the process. Ultimately, you should be able to put the final finish color down with no further hits of ghosting. I submit as well that it goes without saying that this is one of those things for which an airbrush is ideal--as that allows one to correct ghosting which happens generally in relatively small areas without creating a thick buildup of the primer in areas where there isn't such a problem. Art

It's been reissued many times over the past 35 years or so. Art

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Ideal Toy Corporation (who did make a FEW very well-done model car kits back in the very early 60's) produced a 1:10 scale plastic kit of the 1929 Duesenberg Model J Roadster (body by the Walter Murphy Company of Pasadena CA) that was owned by Duesenberg Inc's single best customer, George Whittel, of Lake Tahoe and Woodland CA (Whittel bought 5 Duesenbergs, from 1929-33). A very rare kit today, but also a very nice one. Art

I'd be willing to bet that the supercharged version will surface sometime as a factory stock street automobile though. Art

And, to think that back in 1974, I happened on to a 300SL Gullwing that was solid as a rock, just needed an engine rebuild--for the then-to-me-unattainable price of $3,200! In addition to not having the money on hand, and unwilling to pay an astronomical interest rate (around here back then, if one wanted to finance a car that old in those days meant going to see "Friendly Bob Adams at Household Finance"--banks just didn't lend on that sort of thing unless you had a very nice financial statement. The second problem was what I saw as a very expensive, if not astronomical engine rebuild (Daimler Benz could have taken care of that for me with their legendary Centennial offer just a couple of years later!), so I passed on it. What a cool ride that would be today though! Art

It would involve tooling for a new body shell (what a surprise!), along with a new chrome tree, new taillights and a new interior tub and seat--'60 dash was the same as the '59 (could be that the CHEVROLET badge across the passenger side "cove" on the dash was different, but I dunno about that. Chassis and all the greasy parts would have been the same, I'm pretty sure. The bigger question would be IF the chrome tree can be revised from the original tooling or not though--It's my understanding that in a lot of cases, those parts, particularly if the chrome tree wasn't large, it was cut integral with the mold base as opposed to being a smaller tool "inserted" into the mold base. Only those who have access to the tooling could know that for sure. Art

For starters, here's the color chip for 1970 Opel Chartreuse, from Auto Color Library (incidently a very good "first source" for finding not only a color chip, but also the color name, as many colors had rather fanciful names assigned to them over the years, from almost every make of car) http://www.tcpglobal.com/aclchip.aspx?image=1970-Opel-pg06.jpg Now, of course, the image one sees depends on the color accuracy of the computer monitor it's shown on, but that at least gives a very good start! As for getting the actual color mixed--chances are if one were in Germany, it wouldn't be all that difficult--but 1970 Opels aren't exactly running down every Main Street in the US anymore, so the essential pigments and toners may not be readily available, which is becoming more and more true with acrylic lacquers. I would suggest trying Jameston Kroon at Scale Finishes ( scalefinishes.com ) as he works in acrylic enamel, which is a much more modern paint than any automotive lacquers. Chances are, Jameston can mix this up for you fairly quickly, and his line of paints is first rate stuff. Art

Almost every kit of an American pickup from their beginnings in the 1920's through at least the middle 1970's came with bias ply type tires originally, if for no other reason than American model car kit manufacturers tended to use the same tires in model kits for years. It might help if you could be more specific as to the kit(s) for which you are trying to locate stock-looking tires. Art

I think a lot depends on whether one is building this car as it existed when new in 1970, or as it might be "restored" today. As originally built, cast iron exhaust manifolds tended to burn off any engine paint that got on them very quickly, and then turn a nice rusty iron color. Modern restorers like using any of the various high temperature paints formulated for exhaust manifolds, and those do come in a variety of colors, do they not? Art

IIRC, That was a modified reissue of the original Revell Type 2 23-window "Microbus" (at least that's what I seem to remember Revell calling it). The original came out, I believe, in 1959, as a 23-window. Later on, the tooling was modified to the windowless version cargo van, during the craze over such vehicles. Art

The Olsonite Eagle kit was reissued about 10 years ago or so by AMT/Ertl in their "Buyer's Choice" series of kits. Art

There have been three Ford 255cid Indianapolis DOHC engines kitted: IMC (1965-66) in their Lotus 38 Indy car kit AMT (1965) in their kit of the Lotus 29/34 Powered By Ford Indy car MPC (1969) in their 1968 Gurney All American Racers "Olsonite Eagle" kit. All of these were done in 1/25 scale, the MPC is the best of the lot by a long way. Art

They didn't. The Studebaker proving grounds were on Indiana State Road 2, about 10 miles or so west of South Bend. It's a St Joseph County park now--easily spotted, as it's fenced, with the masonry fence columns decorated with the 1920's Studebaker badge, which was a wood-spoked wheel and tire. Bendix Corporation used some of the road "course" sections of the grounds for several decades--and in later years, Robert Bosch Inc. Art

Hmmm, Considering I was born in July 1944, my choices are pretty limited: Do I like a Willys MB or a Ford GP (actually, those Jeeps weren't truly cars, but rather they were classified as 1/4 ton light trucks. Art

Hugh, I'll work through this with you by PM over this coming weekend, when I have more time to devote to it. Art