Art Anderson

Nailed this one!

Bill, I do very much the same thing, but I use what I think is an easier way: A piece of 1/4" plate glass (for absolutely a flat surface) at my bathroom vanity. I simply sprinkle some water on the glass, place a sheet of 400-grit Wet or Dry Sandpaper "grit side up" on the wet glass, then wet down the grit, hold my part to be trued up with the offending mating edge down on the water-soaked grit and "machine" away! Been doing that for a good 50 yrs or so now--it's never failed me! Art

Brian, also, doors hinged to the rear were a carryover from closed body horse drawn carriages--and many traditions that existed in horse & buggy days lasted for years with the automobile. Art

The original issue was, IIRC, available in either black, or red--and that was so indicated by the box art (black kit, black car in the box art, same way with the red kit). That is something that Monogram also did with their original '40 Ford Pickup--those came in red and turquoise, with the appropriately colored box art. Art

Christian, That Budweiser 8-horse hitch with the Beer Wagon lamp wasn't done by AMT--I have no idea who made it, but those were 1/25 scale, believe it or not! AMT Corporation actually tooled their model kit in 1977, several years after the advertising lamp you show was produced--I happened to be in the loop on that project, saw their reference pics, and drawings, then when the kit was released (late July 1977), I was handed a deal to build 6 of them as presentaton pieces for people at A-B, delivered 5 of them personally to AMT in Troy Michigan, and the 7th personally to Annheuser-Busch in St Louis that August. (Still have an unopened case of the kits (3 to the carton)! As for the '23 T kits from AMT, there were three versions: A roadster (why in all names did they decide to tool that one when they still had the tooling for their 1961-released '25 Roadster, which in real life is visually identical to most people, was then, and still is, a rather nicely done model kit)? There were two further releases off their '23 T--a Cantrell woodie station wagon (or Depot Hac--take your pick), and the delivery van. Not one of those three can hold a candle to their original '25 T Double Kit however. Art

I've got a pretty good stash of those "white-out" "Correct-Tape" applicators from work that are out of the tape--thinking they could make some cool streamlined remote fenders for a show rod, for that that matter, even a cool custom motorcycle! Art

I particularly like re-reading "A Century Of Style" by the late David Holls

Mebbe that mamifold has those little "whirligig" thingies below the carburetors that Warshawski/JC Whitney used to sell, that were sopposed to "beat" the gasolne vapors into molecues, to "supercharge" the engine? (All the gimmicks that that company used to sell!) Art

If that Duesenberg is the Danbury SSJ roadster, it has the EXACT engine for the Mormon Metero (2-stage supercharger, dual carburetors, "Ram's Horn" intake runners). I have 4 of those here that I've picked up at swap meets, and a nearly completed hand-carved Mormon Meteor body with all the Bonneville fairings and such, waiting for me to do the rest of the car. Art

I believe Hobby Lobby goes through at least 2 store "resets" a year--with the change of seasons that affects their craft business. It seems to me that they also reset their model kit "plan-o-gram" at the same time. Art

Give it a shot! The stuff is water-clear! Art

I plead guilty then, but sometimes, it's just not something that can be told in a 21st Century sound-bite phrase. Sorry!

1915 Model T horns were under the hood, mounted to the dashboard (what we call the firewall is, in fact, referred to internally in the industry as the dashboard--that thingie with all the gauges inside the body is the instrument panel!). This was pretty much at the end of the "Bulb Horn" air actuated horn, where the horn squawked when the driver squeezed a large rubber bulb located next to him inside the car. 1915 Model T horn, mounted where it was, on the dashboard:

Sadly though, save for perhaps a Corvette (or similar sports car subject), convertible kits sell just about the poorest of any version of the same car with a fixed top in model kit form. Dunno just why that is, but it's been a fact of model car kit history all the way back--from my experience. Art

Yup--I'e done a few test "welds" with the stuff, and found that it likes to have a bit of excess squeezed out around the joint so that UV light reaches that, but once it does, in a few seconds, the setting process reaches inward. After that, a bit of sanding, and all is good! Art

In deciding just what would be the best way to mount the windshield glass in my '61 Ventura, I decided to try Bondic, but a big question: Would the UV light cure the Bondic THROUGH the clear plastic windshield "glass". I know that ordinary glass does filter out a lot of UV light, but would the clear plastic? The answer is, NO. I was able to cure the Bondic adhesive THROUGH the clear plastic. Art

Something worth considering: Back in the 1950's and 60's, Lindberg, and Paul Lindberg the company President, was interested primarily in low budget model kits for low retail price--their products tended to be the stuff of dime stores, or low-price kits at hobby shops. As such, with only a couple of exceptions, Lindberg really did not do much in the way of reference and research on their model car kits. Art

Something to keep in mind when wondering about things such as "suicide doors": With few exceptions, the "styling" of automobiles, very much through the 1920's, was very much dominated by engineers who were charged with making the automobile and all of its features and components workable--with appearance being pretty much an afterthought. Much of that was due to the fairly limited range of materials available--sure there was steel, iron, aluminum, brass, copper and of course wood, but very little in the way of those original materials (certainly alloys of the various metals) come all that close to what became available by the early 1930's and beyond. Automobile body sheet steel, until the very late 1920's was carbon steel, which could not stand deep-draw stamping, which really didn't matter all that much, considering that the generally accepted auto body construction was wood (generally ash in the US), which in mass-produced body shells meant rather stiff, upright body shapes, the carbon steel used limiting such as fenders to the open, rather shallow contours seen in cars prior to the early 1930's. In addition, the capital investment requirements for producing what is known as "composite" auto body construction is a great deal less than that for all steel construction--mostly wood-working machinery, coupled with fairly small stamping presses for whatever sheet metal was to be used (in mass-production) or simple hardwood bucks if body panels and fenders were to be hand-hammered to shape (the custom body coachbuilders of the era). While enterprising companies such as Edward Budd did dabble in completely all-steel mass production body shells as early as the WW-I era, those really did not catch on, even though Dodge Brothers did adopt some body types from Budd (mostly touring cars). Rather, wooden framed bodies with sheet metal skins remained the norm in mass production until the early 1930's (for example, the ultra-rare ---today--- 1932 Chevrolet Roadster, used no less than 17 pieces of ash to frame up just the rumble seat/trunk lid!) Mild steel was around, but not until about 1930 did it become available in mass quantities, which would allow the deep-drawing of automobile body panels, thus eliminating the "need" for traditional wood framing--but the pressures that culminated in the Great Depression simply precluded immediate investment in the truly huge stamping presses (and their infrastructure) required, the entire automobile industry was focused simply on surviving the brewing economic storm. In addition, there was an "at least perceived" reluctance on the part of the general car-buying public, to embrace anything radically new (as Chrysler discovered with the Airflow in 1935-36), so in short, conservatism reigned. On another front, the rise of professional automobile styling departments was resisted by the engineering departments (Harley Earl's battles with the engineers at the various GM Divisions was legendary, Edsel Ford had to work with his ever intransigent father Henry when he wanted to establish a styling department). While GM and Ford both produced their own bodies, pretty much every other automaker relied on independent body suppliers, principally Briggs and Murray--both of whom were almost as hide-bound as the Big Two--and just as restricted by scarce investment capital at the time. In addition, the concepts we think of in this 21st Century regarding automobile safety were virtually unheard of, save for safety glass--today a "suicide" door design would likely not pass the scrutiny of regulators, and be a cash cow for tort lawyers. So, it's little wonder to me that engineering considerations on auto body design still tended to rule out to at least 1932-33 most styling advances., from my reading in my library of automotive histories, and the now almost countless accounts in my collection of such publications as the former "Special Interest Auto's" and my entirely complete collection of "Collectible Automobile" (I have every issue of CA going back to July 1984). In so many ways, it was what engineers decreed that made cars appear as they did, with artistic types limited to designing small or non-structural components, until more forceful personalities in the styling profession got the upper hand where overall appearance was concerned. Art

To add to this: Sprint cars run primarily on dirt tracks (at least here in the US), the primary length of tracks being 1/2 to 5/8 mile in length (oval tracks). Given the style of racing, and the dirt surfaces, there really has never been a lot of room for radical experimentation (at least that worked), so development over the years has been very incremental. Put a 1960's sprinter next to a brand-new car, and at quick glance most uninitiated spectators will see mostly the changes in bodywork, wheels and tires. Torsion bar suspension has been the preferred setup since the late 1960's, but of course, the linkage systems have evolved considerably. However, if one were to remove the roll cage and it's associated down-tube braces, the raw chassis, to the casual observer, would look very similar still, today compared to yesteryear. They have become ever more sophisticated, in ways that most people would never notice, unless they are true fans of the sport. Art

I second Scale Finishes! Jameston Kroon is very helpful, and he can mix any color you need--great paint, great service too! Art

My typo! I meant 61-69. Art

On the '60-'61 LIncoln Continentals, yes. That was a decision based on building that series of Continentals on what was essentially a shared, but stretched platform which was also shared with Thunderbird (the story has been written and published in numerous magazine articles over the past 20-25 years). In order to get an adequate sized opening for the rear doors, the only solution was to mount those suicide-style. Art

One thing to consider: Ford did not produce the 3-window coupe body--that was done by outside supplier Murray Body Company. The 5-window body, on the other hand, was built in Ford's own plant. From the Model A through the 1933-34 Model 40's, Ford cars were produced with bodies by three suppliers: Ford themselves, along with Briggs Body Company and Murray. Art

Consider, Harry, that the A-pillar of a car body goes all the way from the body sill to the roof, as do both B and C pillars. The '32 Ford Deluxe Coupe in your top picture shows a straight A pillar, placed at an angle backwards from sill to roof, where the '35 Ford 3-window coupe has an A pillar that is cured at an angle from the beltline to the roof--more modern, and a result of body engineering advances. The David Holls (noted GM stylist from the 50's through the 1980's) book "A Century Of Style" talks at length about the engineering advances in automobile body design and styling--worth the price, if you haven't got a copy. Art

Come to think about it, I seem to recall now that it was MPC that did the '40 Coupe, and rather poorly as well.