Matt Bacon

A few of my shots from the weekend messed around with in Photoshop! Enjoy! bestest, M.

Inspired by a recent edition of The Classic Car Show... This is the kerbside version of the Fujimi kit, not the "Enthusiast Model" with full engine and interior detail. The fit's a bit tricky here and there and looking at these pictures just emphasises that the transparent parts are not Fujimi's best. They don't look quite as cloudy in the flesh! bestest, M.

Really nice. I love the colour -- what manner of purple is it? And I presume they give you decals for the seat fabric -- if not, your jar of "tartan paint" is a good one. Is the number plate one that you have fond memories of, or one in the kit? Great build... bestest, M.

Thanks, Paul! On with the 250 Spider: The operation to transfer the door furniture was mostly successful, apart from one of the door closing handles which disappeared into oblivion, along with a small slice of skin from the end of my thumb. No blood on the paint, mind... that's what matters! A new one was fabricated after several tries, and now I think the door liners look the part. The exhausts (painted in Vallejo Model Air "Rust") are a bit of a pain to thread and get into position (and the instructions aren't so clear and well drawn...). To save anyone else the hassle, this is how they go. I used actual polystyrene cement for these, after cleaning up the mounting points. I wanted a REALLY strong bond when the time came to put the engine bay on (which is a very tight fit around the exhausts at the chassis level), but plenty of time to fettle the final positions of the pipes as I installed them. The interior is an "interesting" colour, but it's a very close match to the references I have -- I think it's called "Tobacco" by Ferrari. I think it will go well with the body colour, and it's much less boring than black (though that would have hidden the "cobbled together" door liners a bit better!) Another test fit of the chassis -- the engine bay does fit around the exhausts, after all. The seats are much modified from the ones in the "donor" 250 SWB, because the "buckets" in the California kit are completely wrong... The Dino will reappear shortly! bestest, M.

Thanks, Richard. I think what confused me is that in the commentary, she called said it was built as a response to the Mustang, and that only 600 of this model had been built. Someone briefed her right later, though, because she tweeted about being in a '68... Anyway, an AMT "2in1" 68 kit is now on the way, which seems to have both the spoiler and the Rally wheels. Which, if any, of the "tweaks" in your excellent tutorial would still apply to the '68? I really like the look of the sharpened up nose around the grille, so I hope that's one of them! And a Model Car Garage detail set is on the way, which should provide emblems, grilles etc... All I need now is a 1/24 Jody Kidd. Where's a Fujimi "Supermodel Driver Set" when you need it...? Thanks for your help. All the best, Matt

Hi, all... having seen the lovely Jodie belting around the desert in a '67 Camaro Z/28 on The Classic Car Show, I was wondering what my options for those early Z/28s were. In an ideal world, it'd be a 1/24 scale '67 model, in metallic blue with white stripes. But the world is probably not ideal, so what kits are there out there? And which one/s are any good? Many thanks for any pointers! All the best, Matt

What made you expect that? The 300SL seems to me to be fairly cheap for a Tamiya kit. I got mine for less than £25 shipped from Japan, and it's retailing here for under £30. That compares to more like £45 for the LaFerrari and LFA kits. I'm pretty pleased that they decided to go for "well detailed and affordable" rather than insane levels of Fujimi Enthusiast style detail and a £60 price tag... I can contemplate building two of them, which I certainly wouldn't with the LaFerrari... All the best, Matt

Thanks, guys! The Dino is on the home straight: Not a whole lot to report other than the "chrome" parts have their raised rubber inserts painted with Tamiya "Rubber Black", and she needs a good dust! The 250 Spider is making progress: As it happens, I have an (dreadful) AMT 250 SWB as a "donor kit", so I'm carefully slicing off the door furniture and attaching it to the Academy kit cockpit sidewalls. The seats are currently WiP.... bestest, M.

So here's an interesting question. If I were to set up a company dedicated to producing plastic model car kits to the same standards as Wingnut Wings does for WW1 aircraft, how many people do we reckon would be prepared to pay $129 for a kit? Would $99 be more palatable? Or is there no "middle ground" between Tamiya and Model Factory Hiro? The Tamiya 300SL is about £30 in the UK, but the LaFerrari and LFA were more like £45, so that's the bench mark for "top line" quality and price here. My hypothetical kits would be, say, a definitive E-Type Jaguar, with soft top and coupe options in the same box, a multiversion Aston Martin DB4 (with a separate option to buy short-chassis GT and Zagato bodies to convert the base kit) and an F-type with convertible and coupe options and both the V6 and V8 engines. The classics would be based on 3D scanned real cars, and the F-type would come from 3D CAD models provided by JLR. Pricing in the UK would be £79.99, say... Is there a market for 100,000, 10,000, or 1000 of these kits, do you reckon? bestest, M.

Amen to that. Thanks, Tom... A quick aside on the "translating 2D measurements and photographs into 3D objects" -- I've experienced several times over the years a situation with an aircraft model, where the three different views in the painting/markings guide all look fine when compared to available photographs, but when it comes to actually masking up the pattern on the model, it is literally impossible for the profile and plan views to both be correct, since they don't "meet at the joins..." bestest, M.

Because AMT had access to a real '64 Falcon or three, and Trumpeter only had pictures, or maybe a preserved or reworked example? I certainly heard tell that their DC-3 was closer to the Soviet "clone" (Lisunov something?) than anything Douglas built... bestest, M.

...continuing: Not a lot of parts in this interior, but it looks neat, I reckon. The front suspension has to be built before installing the chassis into the body, but the rear can be assembled afterwards (and probbaly needs to be, because it's the back end that needs to twist and flex most to get it inside). The familiar Ferrari 250 chassis coming together. And this is where I'm up to today. The eagle-eyed will spot that I've relocated the filler/breather caps on the 250 SWB engine back to around halfway along the block. That's where they are on the prototype, and if fitted further forward as instructed, they'll foul the wheel wells on the engine bay walls. The engine bay has been "jigged" on the chassis, and separated for painting and detailing. bestest, M.

These have been progressing speedily, and I haven't got round to posting until now... An Academy "Classic European Sports Car", better known as the Italeri Ferrari 250 SWB California, and a Fujimi Dino 246, inspired by seeing Keith Richards' beauty driven on The Classic Car Show. It's the simplified curbside Dino, not the full-on "Enthusiast Model" kit with the engine, detailed suspension, underbonnet details etc... Classic Ferrari 250ish engine -- I've built a fair number of these now. Distributors wired, and electrical "ferrules" to replace the hideous intake trumpets. NB: the kit has parts for several variants of this engine on the sprue, so make sure you've got the right ones! SWB body in "Vinaccia" (aka Aubergine). This has been around for a while in the stash, so I'm glad to get it under way. Beautiful curves! Dino body in Tamiya Gloss Aluminium. After seeking advice, and test fitting, it is possible to get the chassis inside the body with the lower front valance in place, which makes painting the body much easier. No engine, just some painting. Homebrew "rust/burnt iron" accentuated with Citadel coloured washes. Dino interior in multiple shades of black/grey. Keith's seats are very shiny leather! Dino dashboard comes up nicely with a bit of paint. I'm not sure whether Keith's is "factory finished" but it's got plenty of suede-y Alcantara today... bestest, M.

The tenor of the original post was "everything's going to h*ll in a handbasket because we can't do these things right any more"... and kids aren't educated properly and you can't fix your car any more, and everything digital is rubbish compared to vinyl... Well, by my reckoning 1982 was more than 30 years ago, so perhaps it's safest to conclude that people who care will do the job well, on the budget they have with the tools they have, whenever they were/are doing it; and that people who care less will make more mistakes and not correct them... ;-P bestest, M.

...and scale plastic models are a "labour of love" for Tamiya, too, because the founder wanted to do them, and do them right. They're subsidised by the R/C lines... bestest, M.

I think you're missing the point. My point was simply that it DOES cost more money, commercially, to get it 100% right. If I charged my research time at $100 an hour, creating the model with what I had at the beginning would have had a research budget of maybe $300. To amass the material I have now would have "cost" more like $10,000. People's time costs money, in a commercial enterprise. Put it another way -- imagine you're restoring a classic E-type. If you tell your restoration team that you have a budget of $50K, will they get everything perfect? No. On the other hand, if you're Ralph Lauren, you tell your restoration team to make it perfect, and then pay the bill. It'll be rather bigger. No model company is anything other than a business (That's why I posted the WNW link -- they at least have the support to take a road closer to the "perfect" than other purely commercially driven enterprises). There's a budget for every project. You could argue "do one perfect kit instead of three compromised ones", but they'll only do that if the one perfect kit will sell three times what the compromised one will. And as I said the VAST MAJORITY of people buying model kits neither know nor care how precisely accurate it is. bestest, M.

And watch your fingers! The edge of a cut can is pretty sharp. I expect you can guess how I know... All the best, Matt

Almost certainly not. The vast majority of kits are bought by people who aren't enthusiasts, but kinda know what the thing looks like. Make a "completely accurate kit" (like, say, the Fujimi Enthusiast Series) and the _average_ buyer is put off by the price and complexity. Revell don't make the wheels on their Ferraris the way they do just to annoy us Styrene Tifosi... they do it so the average 10-12 year old can end up with a car that has wheels that turn... Nope, I think you missed mine. If you have the budget to get it right, then of course you should get it right. But it IS more expensive to be _sure_ to get it right. With a limited budget you're less likely to get it right. My first carved balsa DH.91 might have lucked in and been correct, but the additional years of research and more sources make it much more likely that (when I get round to it) the version I build tomorrow will be correct. I'll still have to "guess" about the interior of the undercarriage bays, mind you... As for Johan and AMT didn't they get a lot of support from the car manufacturers? They were, after all, making models of the latest cars off the production lines. It's not as if Johan's kits were stellar accurate, either... they got the body shell bang on and well detailed, but I'm not sure the chassis, suspension and engine detailing stands up to much scrutiny... In the end, it all comes down to budget and return on investment. At the most basic level, give two guys two or three days with the real thing, with their cameras, measures, triangulation points etc, and you'll get a better result than with one guy looking at photos for half a day. But if the latter is all you can realistically afford, then your model is going to be less accurate. http://www.airfix.com/us-en/news/airfix-development-news-avro-shackleton-mr2-172/ The skills are still there -- it's just that not everyone wants to/can afford to use them. (Airfix are looking at a "payback time" for that mould that's ten years away, if it sells reasonably for all that time). This will be an interesting "case in point", because Revell are ALSO releasing a Shackleton this year, and they HAVEN'T had access to the preserved airframe or the original drawings that the Trust own. Let's see how the price and accuracy stack up in the Fall...) bestest, M.

Let me give you a "for instance". I'd like to build a model of a De Havilland DH.91 Albatross: A beautiful plane, I think you'll agree. I've had a few photos and some three-view plans from a standard book for about ten years. I could have carved something that would look pretty much like the DH.91 out of balsa, and vac-form the main parts, any time in that time. Would it have been 100% accurate? No, probably not. I've been collecting every picture, plan and reference I can find for the rest of that decade. I've been corresponding with the De Havilland museum to find out what drawings they have available for about five years (and this bearing in mind that the "general arrangement" drawings that manufacturers have which show the whole aircraft rather than the parts to be made are often not accurate scale plans themselves -- they were never intended to be). So, if I was actually charging my time, and costing it into a budget for a model, it most certainly _would_ cost more to "get it right" than get it more or less right... bestest, M.

It's hard to grasp because it's not true. It certainly does cost more if "getting it right" means sending people halfway round the world to photograph and measure a real 1:1 in a museum or collection somewhere. I've lost count of how many long-awaited new aircraft kits have turned out to be "utterly unbuildable" or a "caricature of the...", when what seems to have happened is that researchers and toolmakers have relied upon existing plans (in some cases many sets, each reproducing the errors of the earlier ones) and photos rather than looking at the real thing. Interpreting 2D photos into a 3D model is not an easy thing to do. And until recently, the laser scanning technology to capture a real prototype in 3D has been rare and unaffordable. I'm just hoping that the recent trend for collectors and restorers to 3D scan their precious metal so that bucks to make replacement panels and other parts can be kept in storage means that there will be a globally accessible archive of 100% accurate 3D models of some of the greatest cars ever made to help model companies do a bang-up job... bestest, M.

Well, I think we can all agree that the Moebius Chrysler 300C is a pretty good kit, made by enthusiasts. Yet even they didn't scale down by 1/25 every component on the car and reproduce it in plastic (not even a bonnet/hood hinge mechanism, I mean, I ask you...;-P). There are always going to be a host of compromises to achieve something that's moldable (no one has EVER made a car kit with panels 1/25th of the thickness of the real things...), that can be assembled by a wide range of skill levels, isn't insanely complex (no pistons, cams, crankshaft and con rods INSIDE the engine) and affordable at the same time. And I strongly suspect that the 300C was as much a "labour of love" as any car kit that's been produced recently. Someone could ask them how the economics stack up in terms of time, tooling costs, rework etc. I think you'll find that rather a lot of sales over rather a lot of years are required to break even on the small part of the margin on that product that finds its way back to the manufacturer... Because if you ask that one person how much they'd have to be paid to make it a job, rather than a hobby, you'd find the answer is too rich for most of our pockets; and because the multinational corporation has an obligation to their shareholders to make the best profit they can... and not sink vast sums into developing the perfect kit of a product that will sell to a few thousand enthusiasts. And another thing -- if I tool up the best 1/48 Spitfire IX ever seen, I can go on selling that to people for decades. If I tool up some obscure hot rod, or the 1957 model of a car that a few people's dad's had, the return on investment is going to look pretty creaky. I'd go as far as to say there is NO single car subject with the longevity and broad audience that you'd find for a Spitfire, Bf109 or Tiger tank. That's just the way the hobby is. Same's true for the ship guys, the figure builders, and the ten people in the world who think that the Dora rail gun is the coolest thing ever built (and before you remind me, I know that there have been two 1/35 kits of the beast -- I've seen them at shows, massively discounted. I don't think they'll be seen as a wise investment decision by either company!) bestest, M.

Because companies that make kits are in the business to make money. The maximum amount of money that can be spent on developing the kit is the amount of money it's going to generate over the years, and that leaves no profit. So the amount of time and effort that can be put in is strictly limited. However (and I urge you to take a look, even if WW1 airplanes are not your thing...), if you want to see something as close to perfection as you'll ever see in a kit, check this out: http://www.wingnutwings.com/ww/productdetail?productid=3117&cat=5 But then, it does cost $350... It's also worth clicking on the "instructions" link, to see how it _should_ be done by everybody! (And Wingnut is less driven by the profit motive than most, because it was set up and is supported by Sir Peter Jackson, who has a bob or two these days...) bestest, M.

Well, if you're using Tamiya acrylics (the water based paints in jars, not the "hot" acrylics in rattle cans), you can get their own "Flat Base", which is designed to mix into their gloss paints exactly so that you can vary the sheen. I also have an artists' "Winsor and Newton Galleria Flat varnish" which is intended for flatting the surface of acrylic paintings, but does a stellar job as a brush-paintable flat topcoat. Dilute it more or less with water to vary the "flatting" effect. With that and some Future/Klear/Pledge whatever it's called now, you can get pretty much any sheen you want. You can also try varying the colour itself a little to mimic the effect of different surfaces -- for example I use "German Grey" or "Panzer Grey" for black alcantara in exotics to replicate the effect of light scattering that the real thing does... bestest, M.

I was going to do McQueen's as well, but then the Octane issue with the reference photos came along, and it was too good an opportunity to miss. Just be aware that McQueen had Tony Nancy redo the interior, so you'd have to redo the seats and the trim to get the real deal -- which will be highly visible with it being open and all... bestest, M.

They are. Great kit of a great car... I don't recall any problems with this one at all. That box just in front of the windscreen on the middle of the engine bay has got a tiny but strong magnet in it, and there's a thin steel plate on the underside of the bonnet so that it's held firmly down in place when closed. I built a new "open" grille using stretched sprue for a bit more realism. I also filled the original location of the fuel filler behind the tonneau cover, and scribed in a new one on the rear wing, to match the reference images of John Surtees' car that I had. I think there's a similar vintage XK120 to complete the set with the 507 and XKSS, which is an equally good base to work with. bestest, M.