Brett Barrow

Was originally listed as a late March release, then got bumped up to late February , then when the latest schedule came out it was back to late March.

I (and others) said to expect the price to be around $70. Their military kits are expensive, too, but I have yet to hear anyone say they aren't worth it. Maybe it's expensive compared to Moebius' Pro/LoneStar, but it's still less than a new Tamiya full-detail car kit...

LoneStar and ProStar MSRP is $79.95. Of course "street" price is lower, and I'm sure other places will be selling the F-350 for cheaper, we've never made the claim we're the cheapest...

Late April or May.

We're now taking pre-orders - US MSRP is $74.95, we're 10% off that at $67.46. http://www.megahobby.com/fordf3504x4meng.aspx

Several pics on here of racing Corvettes with the lights duct taped and un-taped: http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/photo/Chevrolet/Corvette.html?page=6

It looks pretty rough. You can't really tell what's supposed to be going on under there. I'm sure the 1:1 covers were made from thinner plastic than the 1/25 parts. This is what it's supposed to look like: If you sand the base of the kit's covers down and do the duct tape treatment it looks pretty decent.

The bad news is the "lights" are just decals under the light covers. The good news is they kept the light covers covered in duct tape until they were needed. The Revell Greenwood kit has optional "duct tape" decals to replicate this. Somebody made a resin body with the proper lights, but I can't remember who for sure. Dare I say it might have been [cue ominous music] Reliable Resin!?!?! edit - should have read the earlier replies (I skimmed), and noticed the date of the OP....

I don't think "build" is interchangeable with "model", but rather it encompasses the construction of the model. You can say "This is going to be a tough build" or "That was a fun build". I don't look at a table full of models and say "look at all those builds!" That does sound idiotic... But if you follow along with a project in On The Workbench and when it reaches the conclusion, you can say "Thanks for taking the time to document this build".

"The model was a recent build" - what part of that is grammatically unacceptable or any different from those other examples? Don't like it? Don't use it. But "build" is a noun and one would not be incorrect to use it in this manner.

Umm, it's also a noun. build- noun 1. the physical structure, especially of a person; physique; figure: He had a strong build. 2. the manner or form of construction: The house was of modern build. #2 sounds perfectly acceptable to me - "the manner or form of construction".

Shoot, back in the 60's there were a few cars that used factory body parts and still didn't look that much like the real things. Junior Johnson's "Yellow Banana" 66 Galaxie immediately comes to mind :

This is the only Saturn faster than that -

Moebius Hudson:

FIA is lowering the nose to prevent the cars from launching up and over the car in front after a rear-end crash. But the teams still want the aerodynamic benifits of the high nose which has been around since the Benneton B192 in 1992, so they've come up with these strange designs. I think they're better than the stepped nose of the past couple years, but they are still ugly. But then again, the last time I checked they don't give out points and prize money for "best looking car"...

Tons of folks thought the 2013 replay during the rain delay was the live race. Social Media hilarity ensued (and Fox News congratulated Jimmie Johnson for winning...) http://deadspin.com/scores-of-idiots-dont-realize-fox-is-airing-last-year-1529242573

Based on looks?: Ferrari Sharknose - Honorable mention goes to Jordan F191 which I think is the best looking car of the modern "covered in sponsor decals" era: My favorite based on performance and my level of fandom at the time - Williams FW14B, but i never though it was that good looking.

True. But there are plently of half arsed models out there that sold a heckuva lot better.

Yes. 1/25th scale plastic models are drastically overweight, a 3,000 pound 1:1 car would only weigh 3.2 ounces in 1/25. It's the same reason why plastic model airplanes don't fly (unless you strap 'em to a bottle rocket...)

I'd flip my lid if a new-tool dedicated- NASCAR Superbird or Charger Daytona came out. Polar Lights has already done an early 70's Petty Charger, but it's not the exact one pictured. Since NASCAR owns the rights to the shape of the newer cars, you can't get around the licensing. With the older cars, you just have to leave the NASCAR decals off.

AMT gave the COT a shot and it was a total flop. By the time the kits came out, NASCAR had abandoned the GT-style wing for the traditional spoiler. So AMT had to go back and re-do them with the spoiler. With NASCAR kits you're always chasing your tail, Driver X changes sponsors, changes teams, teams change makes, etc... and those kits are now pretty much worthless. Does anybody want a #20 Tony Stewart Home Depot Pontiac today? Too risky in today's market.

The simple answer: Humans. As long as humans are involved in the design and manufacturing of model kits, there will be mistakes. They're human, what do you expect? As for the military and aircraft modelers getting better and more accurate kits, believe me, for the most part, they're not. Take a look at HobbyBoss' horribly misshapen new 1/48 P-80 and you won't think the 90 Mustang is so bad. Or Dragon's new M103A1 Heavy Tank which has none of the modifications (canvas mantlet cover, exhaust deflectors, etc...) which were fitted to the tanks during trials. So you can't build an actual in-service tank with what's in the box. As was mentioned before there is an aftermarket for military/aircraft kits, a lot of which is devoted to fixing mistakes in the kits. The difference is there really isn't a correction-based aftermarket for car models.

The Charger shares a transmission between the two (manual), but the engines are complete and there is a stand included so you can display the engine you don't install in the car. The Dart has the transmissions molded on the blocks, the Hemi has a manual and the 440 has an automatic.

Since you already have the art, you can use a photo editor like Photoshop (there's a similar freeware program called GIMP that works well and can be downloaded here: http://www.gimp.org/). You can make decals smaller by scanning and resizing, but if you enlarge them, you'll lose resolution, and that's where a vector drawing program would come in handy, since they don't lose resolution by being resized. Really a combination of both types of software (photo editing and vector drawing) is ideal for decal art because you can use the photo editor to straighten and remove distortion from perspective then trace over the photo in the vector program. Here's an example of airplane decals I'm currently working on. That's how I did the name, I straightened the photo and traced it in Inkscape. I also increased the contrast so I could more clearly see the color difference in the red drop shadow. I still have to do the cartoon duck and it's giving me some problems, I think I might be better off drawing it on paper and scanning it rather than do it all on the computer. I'm not a graphic designer nor do I have any formal training in it.