Art Anderson

I've been using these CA gluing tips for about 30 yrs, never have a problem with too much CA coming out, I can manage the smallest drops imaginable! This is a Walmart online ad, but a lot of hobby shops carry them, as does Tower Hobbies. When the tip clogs, I simply use my Xacto knife to cut the tip back to get rid of the clog, and go forward. They really are not that expensive either! https://www.walmart.com/ip/Extra-Fine-Extender-Tips-for-the-BSI-CA-Glue-Bag-of-6-Extra-Fine-Extender-Tips-By-Bob-Smith-Ind-Glue/722037928?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=16076&adid=22222222227127534412&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=235414247755&wl4=pla-386436820310&wl5=9016721&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=120801945&wl11=online&wl12=722037928&wl13=&veh=sem Art

Bear in mind, that both Ecto-1 kits mirror actual practice with hearses of the era depicted by these kits--the rear of the hearse body is noticeably wider than a stock '59 Cadillac! Art

FWIW, so much depends on what method one is using to paint a body shell: As I have airbrushed model cars since the 1960's, I've been doing paint jobs with as minimum paint thickness as I can get away with--an airbrush gives as close to scale paint "thickness" as is possible in 1/25 scale. However, if one is using spray cans, bear in mind that paint comes out of those at almost a scale "fire-hose" intensity, so allowance for the paint thickness simply has to reflect this, when considering the clearance of say, a hood against the front quarter panels. Consider that with the real, 1:1 subject, a hood (especially after 1949, when virtually every American-made car went to a full "envelope" body, the hood and trunk lids could be as much as 3/4" narrower than the opening provided (done so that adjusting these panels could be a bit imprecise on an assembly line, particularly with cars such as Fords and Chevrolet's, which could (and were) made by the hundreds of thousands over their roughly 11-months of annual year mass production. In 1/25 scale, that translates to .075mm across the entire hood panel--divided by 2, that is within a gnat's pubic hair of .37mm. But, the real difference needed will depend on the method of painting: As my general rule, if the gap between hood and front fender panels is the same as the thickness of my Xacto razor saw, given that I never rattle-can paint a model, that always works. Were I painting with a spray can, it would have to be wider, at least the width of the more coarse Xacto razor saws. Your results may vary from mine, even if you use an airbrush, but that's the standard I use. Art PS: I've not painted a model car body with a spray can since early December 1961, when I was a Sr in High School: That year was my last year delivering the Indianapolis Star on a large route in my hometown of West Lafayette, with about 250 additional Sunday papers in 3 large residence halls at Purdue University. About December 27 that year, I walked boldly into my local hobby shop, and to the shock and dismay of Mr Leo Weber (for whom I went to work a couple of years later, to help fund my college education, and ordered my first airbrush, a Binks Wren, with compressor and water trap (the latter which I still use every time), all for the princely sum (in 1961 dollars!) of $95 and some change. I picked that up a few days later, and since then, I've never looked back!

I'll add my 2-cents worth here. Allow me, if you will, to reiterate my experiences, both in the hobby (almost 66 years), and in the industry (7yrs with semesters out for college--had to pay my own way for my last two years worth of classes--with the last three years as assistant manager of what was, in the 60's and most of the 70's, probably the largest, most complete hobby shop in Indiana), followed by several years as a prolific builder of box-art and trade show models for AMT Corporation, then owning my own hobby shop 1984-92, owner of a resin casting company 1988-1999, and since the beginnings of Moebius Models car & truck kits--fairly deeply involved: When Revell (also Aurora's) parts packs were released, beginning in early 1962, the excitement on the part of model car builders (back then, the principal age group was from about age 10 to age 15 or so (those early model car builders saw their enthusiasm wane about the time they got their first driver's licenses) was at best "lukewarm". At 75-cents to perhaps a dollar, most kids looked longingly at those parts packs, and decided to save up the extra dollar or so, get that next complete 3in1 kit, well you should be able to figure out why not many of those kids back then would spring for such offerings. In addition, where engines were concerned, to mount a Revell parts pack engine (any of them) in an AMT or Johan model kit was way beyond the level of the average model car builder back in those days. Wheels? Uh, those Revell kits had wheels which mounted on a plastic spindle, that was just enough oversized, compared to the wire axles that AMT, Johan and the fledgling MPC kit lines--and no easy way for a young teenager back then, to solve that problem. Revell's gorgeous US Royal Master tires? Those were the go-to tires used on many famous custom cars of the early-mid 1960's, but Revell did them oversized for 1:25 scale--a standard AMT, JoHan or MPC wheel would literally "fall right though" Revell's tires of the time. AMT's Bumpers & Grilles parts pack was gorgeous, but again, only a very small percentage of that much younger-age market had even the slightest clue as to how to work even the simplest items in that parts pack into any custom. Custom upholstery? Another dog, perhaps the worst sales dog of the entire bunch. Pretty much the only parts pack I can remember ever having to reorder in was Revell's parts pack decal set. (when I was opening up my own hobby shop in 1984, I could have laid in still-sealed, 20-yr old cartons of all those parts packs--but opted to (and I believe correctly) walk right past them. I did lay in an assortment of R&D Unique's excellent white metal accessories, along with the full assortment of Putty Thrower PE script sets, thinking that the adult modelers who were coming back to the hobby might bite on those, but I still have virtually all of the ones I laid in in 1984-86. Enter into the end of the 80's, when I got into resin casting on a commercial basis: I could make a full set of molds for a complete engine, and did perhaps half a dozen different ones--for starters, my total cost for making the masters and the 2-piece molds? Perhaps about $20 tops, most of that going into the RTV rubber used. In today's world, to design, develop, tool up a parts pack anything at all comparable in scope to those parts packs of the 1960's would probably cost upwards of $20,000 at minimum, likely more than that actually, and in order to make back that initial cost, in a reasonable time frame--very "iffy", considering the pretty large numbers of each pack. I would suspect that in order to come out ahead on such parts packs as were being done now almost 55 yrs ago, and keeping the MSRP down to what most modelers would expect, would mean upwards of 50,000 units sold, in the first two years--that's an incredible gamble--and apparently one that no model company seems willing to take those chances. Wheel and tire sets? I think Pegasus shows that those can be done, and they must be successful, as they keep pumping those out, as it all appears at Round2--but then, wheel & tire sets do have a much wider appeal, as apparently Round2 has seen. With the apparent reluctance on the part of local, brick & mortar hobby shops to stock even those. Mail or online selling of traditional parts packs, would seem to me to be difficult at best, with the reluctance on the part of the majority of today's model car builders to buy such off a photo or two. In this, scale model railroading began, literally, around the availability of molded (first in metal, then in plastic,anywhere from small detail parts, up to and including parts to scratchbuild one's desired freight or passenger car. In military modeling, that's truly a World-wide market, and with much of the "Parts Pack" concept, done for aircraft, armor and ships -- by smaller startup companies centered today largely in Eastern Europe--but catering to an international audience--which parts packs for model cars (particularly American cars) being miniscule by comparison. Art

On one of my numerous visits to AMT Corporation (back when they were at 1220 Maple Road in Troy, MI) I got to witness the injection-molding processes, and the most fascinating molders at work were those making tires. For starters, those mold bases were pretty much the same overall size as the ones used for injecting "ordinary" 1/25 scale model car kits in styrene: In the case of tires, ordinary PVC tires in 1:25 scale were molded 4-dozen (48) per mold cycle. With tractor/trailer tires, given their larger diameter, that number was reduced to 36 tires per mold base. In the case of the racing tires that are the subject of this thread, I'd guess (because I never got to see those tires in production) that each size tire had its own mold base, to cut down on what otherwise should have meant a fair amount of hand-work to separate out the two different size tires after molding. This is because those AMT tire tools didn't have sprues in the ordinary sense of the word--when those tire molds opened up at the end of a cycle, the tires literally were popped out of the tooling very much as you'd have seen them in a kit, or in a parts-pack. Also that would have meant that if say, a particular kit called for a set of 4 of the "front tire", someone would have had to pull out the front tires from a bin full of both sizes, and then what to do with the ones left over afterward?

Yes, those tires are replica's (sans FIRESTONE raised lettering) of the new-for-1963 Firestone wide oval tires that were specially developed for the Lotus-Ford team cars, built by Colin Chapman, driven by Jim Clark (green with yellow racing stripe) and Dan Gurney (white with dark blue racing stripe), that stood the USAC "Racing Fraternity" on their collective ears when they showed up for practice and qualification for the 1963 running of the Indianapolis 500 mile race. Made to fit 15" rims front and rear, those tires caused a real stir at the Speedway, with the Offy roadster owners and drivers demanding equal access to them. Halibrand went into a crash program to create, cast and machine 15" wheels to fit the standard front-engine Offenhauser-powered roadsters, with only a dozen or so roadster owners being able to get them in time for that year's 500 Mile Race. Parnelli Jones's Agajanian Willard Battery Special got them, along with the new Firestone tires, but barely half the field were able to obtain them in time for the 500. By the Milwaukee race about 10 days or so after Indy, every car, with the exception of the Novi supercharged V8 cars had them (the Novi's didn't run Milwaukee, IIRC); the old standard 16" front wheels and 18" rear wheels rears were consigned to the attics of virtually every USAC Championship race team. As an interesting sidebar here, the controversy inspired AJ Foyt to test (and scrub in) 15" Goodyear stock car tires at the 5/8 mile oval at Indianapolis Raceway Park (the site of the Labor Day Weekend National Drags), and showed off a stack of Goodyears outside his team garages in Gasoline Alley--which inspired Goodyear to make a run at Indianapolis for real, beginning in May 1965. Art

For starters, look for the manufacturer's logo on the box--if it reads "Playing Mantis" then that is the older issue of the kit (Playing Mantis was the original mfr of Polar Lights model kits, sold out to AMT/Ertl in the summer of 2004). I'm wondering if the kit you describe might have been molded in ABS plastic, rather than polystyrene. Art

RTV rubber molds die very quickly, whether in use, or just sitting on a shelf. Mastering is a completely different animal! I still own about 90% of my All American Models, but sold off nearly all of my Pre-WW-II subject mastering to RnD Unique in late 2000--and those have vanished into the ethersphere now. Art

It's definitely not an AAM (All American Models) resin product, as I NEVER did anything in resin based on the 90's Dodge Ram pickups. Art

Keep in mind, one very simple, and incontrovertible fact! For 1932, Ford's wheelbase was 106", but beginning with 1933, Ford wheelbase went out to 112" That's 1/4" in 1/24 scale, minutely less if 1:25 scale. Art

Truthfully, there is but one answer: Test fit the AMT glass into the Johan body! You are talking about two different basic kits, each tooled by a different company, drawn up by two different companies, and done in two different era's calendar-wise. Art

Bill, keep in mind, that in the "heyday" of promotional model cars, model companies (like AMT, JoHan, and PMC) had only the "sketchiest" of reference information, as those model companies were faced with designing and tooling up promotional model cars pretty much without any possibility of measuring the real thing! That was simply due to such as AMT, SMP JoHan and Product Miniatures (PMC) having to work with such photographs of styling mockups, and whatever renderings etc. that the Detroit Big Three etc. were willing to supply out of their styling and design studios, well before actual production of the real new cars began. That those early model designers were able to come up with what they did achieve, should be seen, today, as miracles, perhaps even rivaling Moses' parting of the Red Sea waters! I can still remember viewing the archival display, within AMT Corporation's headquarters on Maple Road in Troy MI, where there were assembled promo test shots, many having chrome trim detailing that NEVER saw the light of day at the end of a production line ('55 T-Bird with Fairlane-style "Checkmark" chrome side trim anybody?--yes, at least one does exist in 1:1 today, a preproduction version!). It must have been a frantic scene at both AMT and Johan back in the 50's, PMC in Milwaukee as well, as draftsmen and pattern-makers (back years ago, all model car kit/promo's evolved off the drawing boards to hand-carved 1:10 scale --for 1:25 scale models-- or over at Monogram, 1:12 scale (for 1:24 scale) model car kits and/or promo's. I had some limited face time with a couple of AMT pattern makers in the mid-late 1970's, got a real appreciation of their skills, and even some of their frustrations. Art

Kevin, Dave gets only a few sets of each test shot, and there's a small group of us who look over the test shots, noting things that we see as needing to be fixed. Dave does that as well, although he does assemble the shots too, to notice any problems with assembly. Once those us who are reviewing are done, Dave collects all the comments, lists them on an Excel spreadsheet and emails that to the factory. They then will make the corrects as requested, do another round of test shots, and forward them to Dave. Anymore, the communication has gotten better, to the point that usually, just a couple of rounds of test shots does the job, and the tooling is approved for polishing and hardening--then goes into production. As for those test shots, I don't send mine out to anyone--it's Dave's call on that. I generally keep mine as a "part of the history" of my assisting in Moebius Product Development. Art

Steve, as surely you have as well, I have that 4x4 version here in my test shot stash.

Santa Claus left me my first AMT model car, jammed into my stocking, on Christmas Day 1948 when I was just 4 1/2 yrs old, a diecast aluminum 1948 Ford Tudor Sedan! I played the heck out of that toy car, literally wore it out back then! Apparently, nobody ever thought that it would lead to an obsession! Art

And with correct dimensions!

Uh, I didn't catch the glass fit issue on the '61 Pontiac kit, but since then, I discovered that a quick, light filing or sanding of the edges cure that--the mold parting lines are in the middle of the edges, and that caused the problem. Art

Mike, WRONG! The model you saw (either in person at Detroit, or in pics) was NOT even a test shot--Dave Metzner displayed (at a bit of a risk, BTW) the tooling mockups, which were still under review at the time. Please be more careful in reading postings such as this, or if you see the actual display. Art

Uh Mike, in most all of the hundreds of photographs of 65-66 Ford F100's that Dave Metzner shot, I (or at least my hands!) are in the pictures--holding a carpenter's rule or a measuring tape! I assume you have sorta equal access to the real subject as well? (1/25 scale is VERY minutely close to 1mm=1 inch. FWIW) Art

Such as a busted windshield frame is NOT a freakin' tooling problem, but an assembly line (where kits are packaged) problem! Art

Uh Ben! I think I posted a few days ago, about having test shots of the next Moebius model vehicle kit--a series of 1965-66 Ford F-100 pickups? Art

Uh, why? The Cobra name, as used by Crosley, disappeared from commerce with the closing of Crosley's automotive production in the very early 1950's, meaning that the name "Cobra" was no longer "in commerce", and in fact, Crosley had, by 1962, gotten pretty much out of all their businesses by then. FWIW, "COBRA" as used by Crosley, referred to the original 4-cyl engine used in Crosley cars, which cylinder block was fabricated from heavy sheet steel, as opposed to being cast iron (as in later Crosleys), which was Copper Brazed, hence the name "COBRA" being a company acronym for that earlier, and rather unreliable sheet-metal unit, derived from a WW-II pilotless target drone for training anti-aircraft gunners. At any rate, by the time Shelby got going with his Cobra sports car, the term COBRA as used by Crosley, was long "out of commerce". Art

I'm sure I can relate this: The Moebius '65-'66 Ford F100 kit series is now in its initial test shot stage (have a full set right here, in a carton next to this desk). As with most any model kit test shot, there are necessary corrections/revisions that have to be made, so I will not photograph and share any pics of them--THAT is up to Dave, not my option to pursue. That said, when Dave Metzner decides, upon receiving corrected test shots, to release photo's of them (or teaser pics of parts), then who knows? That's his call to make. It's not going to be an interminable wait though. Art

Except that both Hudson and Chrysler, certainly in the 50's, had very strong high-performance creds, while Crosley's went to the crusher so quickly, that by 1960, it was pretty rare to see one rolling down the street.

Yup, and the build started immediately upon my receiving the first case of the kits in my hobby shop!