Art Anderson

Believe it or not, a hand crank was a feature of all Ford cars and trucks through at least 1940--ever notice the crank hole in the lower area of the grille on any 30's Ford? Mike's got it right, while all Ford cars, beginning with the Model A (Model T's had electric start as an option by the 20's) had electric starters, a removable hand crank was included, "just in case". 1928-31 Model A's did have, however, a swing-away cover plate over the hole in the radiator shell to hide the crank hole, or at least minimize it's visibilty, but on many unrestored cars, those went missing over the years. As an aside, I used to hand-crank my '29 A Tudor, just to show that I could--it took perhaps 2 turns of the crank for a cold start, but if the engine was warmed up, first time-every time! Art

No, not really. On the 4dr sedans and wagons, the front door is 6" shorter front-to-B post than the doors on a 2dr sedan or wagon. Of course you would need to make a C-pillar too. It would not be a terribly difficult conversion though. Art

Saw the test shots at NNL--the radiator shell looks too egg-shaped to me, and I know what that should look like, considering I restored a '29 Tudor back 45-50 yrs ago.

I think I can safely show this pic of corrections I made to an early test shot of the Ventura. This was done to help further illustrate what would be said to the folks in China needed to be corrected on the body shell, a visual aid if you will. Dave gave me the dimensional information needed--the bottom of the rear window, which also forms the "landing point" for the C-pillars and the alteration required to the quarter window sills came from Dave who diligently photographed and measured an actual restoration for reference. The project meant filing down the bottom edge of the back glass, as well as re-cutting the seam between C-post and quarter panel, then leveling out the window sills on both sides. That also meant filing away the lower ends of the drain moldings and rear window moldings, and ultimately replacing those areas with strip styrene. Last, I had to put a fillet in the corner where the window sill curves upward to meet the C-pillar, then replace the chrome molding atop those sills. The rear window glass had to be "stretched" downward from its original bottom edge. After that, a few swipes of putty, some sanding and shaping, and finally a shot of grey primer to further show the shapes and contours. This took about a week and a half at an hour here, an hour there. It got sent to China by David, and I like to think that it helped expedite the process a bit, as yes, the tool shop did nail it. At any rate, I now know I can correct the same problems that appeared on the first test shots of the Pontiac that also appear on the AMT '62 Chevy Bel Air "Bubbletop" and the Lindberg '61 Impala hardtop! So, I learned something too, eh?

I started out in this hobby having to sneak new model car kits in when Mom wasn't looking (even set some down in the window of the coal bin room of our old house, then carefully tiptoed in there to retrieve them when nobody was looking--then had to find ways of slipping them past a now ex-wife for 19 years. Added to the fun of the hobby I think! Art

In retrospect to my previous comments, in a very real way this is one of those "damned if I do damned if I don't" kind of things. That said, at many of the contests I've attended/entered over the years, judging has been done from the viewpoint of the model itself, not nearly as much "He nailed that wiring harness" or "there's a bolt missing, and I see it" from judges. After all, saved for someone's self-opinion of themselves, a contest judge who's completely knowledgeable about each and every year, make and model of car more than likely is non-existent. Art

Also, if I've written out what I've done to accomplish a particular build (I don't do that very often), it's as much for the spectator as the judging--frankly I put the model out there on a contest table, up or down as far as judging goes. Art

And why? Ask yourself: Whom do you know that is expertly knowledgeable about each and every automotive subject that might be presented for judging at a model car contest? That would be a very tall, and I believe, an impossible order. Art

An awful lot gets said about this, unfortunately by modelers who've never been involved in the process. With any manufactured product (model car kit in this case), whether it's a new injection-molded styrene kit, or a resin aftermarket kit/transkit, there are, and will always be, limitations--beginning with the very start of research (been there, done that, got the T-shirt!): Take for example the entire body of a real car (from front bumper to rear bumper, from side to side, from rocker panel to the top of the roof: For starters, the surfaces of that real car body were assembled from a number of real sheet metal stampings that are separate parts. Compare that now to a model car kit body: We expect a one-piece body shell, with a separate hood, with often the front and rear valances (or bumper splash pans) necessarily having to be separate parts. But, in all of that, there are injection molding limitations. A mold for injection molding has to have some draft angle, meaning that the plastic part simply has to "pull away" from the steel mold surface without sliding, as that will mar the surface of the plastic in most cases, and in any event, will cause wear on even the hardest steel over time (Considering that polystyrene will dull your razor saw teeth, even needle files over time, it's no different with steel molding dies.) So, with all this in mind, there may well be some inaccuracies that will be necessary IF the modeler/customer expectation of a one piece body shell is to be met at a price point that won't scare most of them away. In all this, making a one piece model car kit body means taking a shape that was made up of more than a dozen INDIVIDUAL panels on the real car, and reducing that to a 6-piece, sliding cavity injection molding tool--there will necessarily be some at-least-small compromises necessary (model car builders voted, with their $$, overwhelmingly against multipiece body shells some 55 years ago!). Model companies today, in many if not most cases, no longer have the fairly large design/development staffs that they once did (it was a lot easier for AMT Corporation to have such a large staff back 50 years ago when they were producing upwards of 15,000,000 model car kits every year!). In today's world, it's just not financially feasible to have a large staff of people given the much smaller production runs of today's model car kits. And, just as would have been the case back in the day of much larger staffs, money AND time will be major considerations--just as it goes with each and every one of us, model companies ultimately have to keep in mind that "If their outgo exceeds their income, their upkeep is their downfall"! It's all too easy to make a small fortune developing and manufacturing model kits--IF you start with a large one. Tim Boyd explained, in brief detail, what it takes to get a laser scan of a real car or pickup truck. Lasers being light, light reflects at all sorts of odd angles from the curved shapes and surfaces of a nice, shiny new car, certainly a highly polished restoration--requiring "dusting" that car with non-reflective powders of one sort or another which will allow the laser beam to be reflected straight back at the scanner. Now that's OK if you're scanning that real car for your employer who happens to be a 1:1 automaker--but ask yourself just how many owners of a pristine older car would allow that? Not many, I would venture. In fact, I found, when I was doing my masters for resin casting, that the best, and easiest cars to photograph for reference weren't restorations, but cars whose body surfaces were faded paint, even some surface rust--those showed me far more than a nice shiny show-winning car. Next is measurements: This is something that simply has to be done very carefully--I cannot believe that many owners of a really perfect example are particularly willing to have measuring tapes and carpenter's rules slapped all over a multi-thousand dollar paint job, even though generally that is how some measurements have to be taken (again, been there, done that). Measure an engine? Even that can be difficult to do--not very often are those readily available without all the wiring and plumbing, so that can be difficult as well. It's ideal to be able to be able to photograph the underside of a car or truck, but almost always, that requires a lift--and not very often is that possible to achieve--again not many owners of cars being researched are willing to drive them to some garage to put the car up on a lift (I was able to photograph an H2 Hummer at the AM General plant, up on a lift in their engineering and testing area--and even at that, I couldn't easily measure all the details--that was for the Johnny Lightning 1/64 scale diecast--and GM was adamant that it be as correct as possible in that small scale!). And then, considering the allusions here in this thread to aircraft models, those subjects present the same kinds of difficulties: Only a small percentage of modelers will ever have even seen the thing in question--even P-51 Mustangs aren't sitting at every airport! The same is true with such as '55-'56 Chrysler 300's--only a few hundred of each of those years were produced, and only a percentage still exist, even less within an affordable driving distance from wherever the person is that has to do the model development work. As late as the early 1980's, most of the pictures that were taken of WW-II aircraft were unknown--still stuffed in albums owned by people who had seen and taken pictures that could be invaluable--or in some aircraft company's, even government filing cabinets, with nobody available to go dig them out. That's often the case with automobiles as well. And, given that computer technology comes into this sort of thread EVERY time one gets started, the first maxim I heard in a computer science class was "GIGO",meaning "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Computers simply regurgitate information that is compiled from information fed to them, end of statement. That is never more true than when dealing with CAD and 3D files. That's not meant to imply a lack of skills or commitment on the part of the operator either--but it sure does help if the specialist involved has that "eye" for realism, a passion for the actual automotive subject--otherwise it seems to be as much a clinical operation as anything. And then, there's always going to be the human factor involved here: Our eyes see the real car somewhat differently than they do the model, for reasons I'm not going to reiterate. That goes just as much for the people doing the product development as it does for those of us who build the model kit. The smaller the scale of the model, the more difficult that makes things. With that in mind, it's far too easy, and rather disingenuous as well, to throw out the comment/question about "modelers VS kit assemblers", all the while forgetting that the product development human beings have to face the same issues. In 1985, Tamiya made available a rather revealing videotape of their product development and production processes, to hobby shops all over the place (narrated by an American, BTW!), showing the processes they used to create a Porsche 911. One statement in the midst of the tooling mockup phase (back then, tooling mockups were all carved by hand from blocks of wood!) that said a lot, and I can still quote it verbatim: "It is possible to make a model car kit perfectly accurate numerically, and yet it may not look right"! The video then when on to show designers and pattern makers deciding just how to adjust the contours of that Porsche body to make it "look right". The technology may have changed, advanced far beyond hand carved patterns, but the process of making even digitally created automotive shapes still presents the same issues much of the time. No matter how perfectly the model has been scaled, down to say a 1/25 scale fraction of an inch--all the difficulties and nuances still remain--make the thing look right to the vast majority of human eyes with their brains translating that vision into each individual's concept of realism. Art

Other than the rear of the roof, the '87-'88 Thunderbird was simply a facelift--combine the front fascia w/ grille and headlights to the '87, do the same with the rear fascia/taillights, and then replace the '87 back window area with that from the '85. You can use the '85 hood as well. I did that perhaps 25 years ago, for a resin casting master, and it worked quite well. IIRC, even the interior didn't change all that much from 85-86 to '87. Art

The thin aluminum from a soda can would actually work better than foil, due to its being a harder aluminum alloy. Just cut a can apart, then use fine grit sandpaper to strip off the printed graphics, and either leave it a brushed finish, or polish it before you shape it into the shields you want to make, perhaps. That stuff is very thin, but will hold a shape far better than Reynolds Wrap, in my experience. Art

The '53 Hudson engines, at least the Twin H-Power 7X high performance engines were painted (IIRC from memory--as my Dad had one!) with the same type of gold paint as Testors #1144 Gold--and they were fairly bright when new, but turned a somewhat grey.brown shade in use. You might do a spoon test with #1144 Gold, then try dulling that down with a very thinned Testors Rust, airbrushed ever so lightly, just to take the brilliance off if it for a used engine appearance. Art

Luc, Just buy half a dozen of them, WALK right in your front door, "Big and Bold as Brass" --for you and your son to work on! That should do it! (?) Art

It can also be done by combining the old Monogram '85 Tbird prostock body shell with Monogram's street stock '87 Turbo Coupe. Actually, pretty easy to do, not much serious modifying to do. Art

Correct. Monogram did a modified reissue of their long-running 1/24 scale "Li'l Duece" (a full fendered 32 roadster kit based on the 1/8 scale Big Deuce first seen back about 1965) in the middle 1980's as a 3-window coupe. Trouble was, they (probably for budget reasons) based the body on the roadster, which is completely wrong (while a '32 roadster shares some common body panels with the 5-window, the 3-window Deluxe Coupe was completely different even wider through the passenger compartment!) as the "Little Deuce Coupe" inspired by The Beach Boys' 60's hit song. That body shell is pretty inaccurate, seriously. The more modern, 90's to present day-era Revell '32 Ford street rod kits are far, far better, and the bodies are pretty accurately done, including the 3-window. Art

For the day and age, an ARDUN OHV conversion was pretty expensive, compared to a fairly simple engine swap for say, a Cadillac V8 (to make a Fordillac). ARDUN heads were readily available, just not that many were sold, particularly to people of more "ordinary" means. Art

No, not a 26-27, much earlier than that. I believe that the lower, narrower hood ID this as no newer than a 1923. (Eric McLeod would know for sure, I think) Art

Well, if I don't run into any snags, it will be finished in time for NNL East.

I can see where gravity feed could cause that problem! Art

Well, considering that an injection molding machine can pop out a complete kit in mere minutes, and even resin cast bodies can be demolded in 30-45 minutes, it'll take some time for 3D printing to catch up. But I would agree, 3D printing has come a long way,and likely will continue to advance, perhaps exponentially. Art

IIRC, if there had not been any slot racing craze back 50-some years ago, we'd probably never have gotten the rear engined Scarab at all. Monogram first did this model as a body shell for a slot car kit, and once that hobby (in 1/24 scale) died, tooled up the few parts needed to make a curbside shelf model of it. A little-known thing about Monogram back in the day is, that several people who worked there were into sports car racing--Elkhart Lake is a rather short trip northwest from Morton Grove IL, where Monogram was originally based. some of their front office people actually worked on weekends as corner marshalls at Road America. One problem with any Scarab after the Mk 1 front engine car of the late 50's is that Lance Reventlow (heir to the Revlon Cosmetics fortune) died in an airplane crash just as he was developing the Mk 4 AND a Formula I Scarab (my books on Offenhauser racing engines have considerable information on that failed project!). One of the most common problems with trying to truly model most any race car that was built primarily by an owner-driver is that their evolution was quite rapid--more often than not, many of those cars changed considerably from race to race, at least with bodywork and such as cockpit features--the basic chassis probably not so much. Chances are there are historic pictures out there, in a book someplace, however--more than likely out of print, and certainly in private collections of old photographs shot by racing fans--stored in dusty attics in old photo albums--which of course don't help at all if nobody knows about them, where they might be. When I was building Indy car models, back in the late-60's to early 80's, I had the very same problem--how to find reference information beyond what few pics were generally available at the time--again, most of the history of Indianapolis at that time revolved around owner built or owner-modified speedway cars, cars which ran for several seasons, and changed at least a little bit from race to race. Researching such cars can be frustrating, disappointing, even anger-generating--but something that if one pursues it with great patience and perseverance, often can be pretty satisfying, and certainly fun when that little gem of info is finally found. Art

Or, painting in humid conditions. I've seen, and had that happen many years ago when all I had was rattle cans, and used the stuff in high humidity. Humidity can cause otherwise wet paint to "skin over" before the propellant has had time to "gas out", so the propellant (which used to be FREON, now butane or propane in a lot of cases) had no place to go but to collect into tiny bubbles. One of the reasons I bought my first airbrush in early 1962. Art

In my almost 50 years of decanting spray cans into airbrushes, I've never experienced what you mention, UNLESS the vent hole in the color jar is clogged. Art

Of course, it would be wise to remember that over the past 130 years or so of automobile production--there have been nearly 2000 manufacturers of automobiles, and yet today only a handful exist. Only time will tell if Tesla is going to survive--so far, it appears they've not made a dime, perhaps barely broken even, all on the hopes of investors that at some point, they will. But with larger, more established automakers doing more than mere dabbling with electric cars, the longer it takes for a company such as Tesla to figure out just how to reach a larger customer base, the less likely it is that they (or any other maker of electric cars solely) will survive to succeed in the long run. Art

I'm going to have to agree with Harry's basic premise here (and in the print magazine as well). Frankly, there's not a single model building genre that truly can support a single model building subject area (if one peruses the flying model aircraft magazines, as an example--those pubs are primarily catalogs for the handful of mail/online distributors of RC equipment, with a few articles thrown in for good measure--something that simply doesn't exist in our hobby to an extent large enough to support a single-theme magazine!). Even the model railroading magazines are more advertising than articles anymore--bear in mind, it's advertising that pays the bills for just about every modeling magazine out there--compared to that, subscriptions and and the cover price only help out. But, on a larger note, while I don't build model trucks, F1, prototype sports racers, tuners, outrageous customs--I can appreciate them, and I've picked up more than my share of building/detailing ideas from articles about those. Further, I suspect more model car builders than not would probably admit to the same thing. "Model Cars" as a title doesn't really say it all, but it is a catching phrase--easy to remember. Of course, real truth in printing would be a magazine title such as "Model Motorized Internal Combustion Vehicles", but who really would be attracted to such an "academic" title? Not many, I'll bet. When one considers it, this magazine (and that other one) have carried on for now some 35 years--longer than any other model car/truck/"whatever runs on rubber tires with an internal combustion engine" ever did, even collectively--and that's due in a large part to it's being pretty inclusive of models (and modelers) of all manner of road-going and off-road vehicles. And to those who would complain about there being subject matter in this magazine that doesn't interest them--ask yourselves if "half a steak isn't better than no steak at all?" Food for thought, I think. Art