Matt Bacon

So I have and Aoshima GT-R body nicely painted with Zero Rosso Fuoco and 2K clear. Irritatingly, there was one spot of dirt which must have been under the basecoat, because when It sanded it back, I got a white primer spot, and into the bargain sanded through to the primer on a nearby sharp edge. I've successfully repainted the 2 layer base coat so the colour matches the rest of the car. Now, I need to clear coat it. If I make up some 2K clear, and respray it, how should I blend it in? Should I try to mask an entire panel, or just try to "feather" the edge beyond the repainted patch and blend it into the existing clear coat with Scratch-X or something of that kind? bestest, M.

Thanks, Cliff. A couple more experimenting with the new lens: Steve McQueen's NART Spider modified from Revell kit, with more aggressive spoiler and Tony Nancy interior. I think this one demonstrates how much depth of field you can get with the new lens... Hasegawa's excellent Ferrari 250TR. I wanted to try a black background for the "Zumbrunn Effect". Not sure that a black car was the best one to try it with! bestest, M.

I wanted to try out the new photography setup on something with a black background, and this little chap came to hand: And then I thought "Since I have powerful lights on both sides, why not try a more moon-like lighting effect..?" It's a very nice 120mm resin figure. Just a tad difficult to get all the hoses like the real thing, so they have been messed around with a bit. Plus he got a proper watch. Sadly hard to get hold of these days (they used to make a wide variety, including Al Shepherd's "golf shot" and a fantastic SR-71 pilot figure. bestest, M.

As Jonathan says, it's not that complicated, and the BBC hasn't "backed down". There's a touring live show, in which May, Hammond and Clarkson do things with cars, "the news" and all the other shtick they do on the TV, plus some bits they CAN'T do on the TV (lads humour turned up to 11). Up until now, that's been done with the BBC's permission, and they have licensed and used the "Top Gear" brand, so it's been called "Top Gear Live" all around the world. Now, the BBC won't let them use the "Top Gear" name, so that live show, which has nothing to do with the BBC, is going ahead under the name "Clarkson, Hammond and May Live" (in tribute, I'm sure, to Anderson, Wakeman and Howe... or Crosby, Stills and Nash ;-P). This means that all the people who've already bought tickets can still go to see the show... In other news, the BBC has said that Top Gear, the TV programme, will continue. And that it's going to be hard to make it work. The only thing that's sure about THAT is that Clarkson will not be in it. As James May says in that interview, repeatedly, and remarkably politely, no one knows any more than that at the moment. bestest, M.

Thanks, guys... and another one: I invested in a used Canon 50mm F/2.5 macro lens (which also works well as a regular 50mm general purpose lens). It's highly recommended as the best Canon lens for "product photography" and has very sharp optics. On the evidence of this lot, I'm not going to disagree with the reviews. It's not as cheap as the regular lightweight 50mm F/1.8 lens which is also well liked, but since sharpness is what we're after, I think it will be a worth while investment... Anyway, it shows the dust, and the pixellation on the printed number plate, rather TOO well... bestest, M.

Now there's a thing... has anyone ever rodded a 2CV? ;-P Perhaps the less well-known "282CV"... bestest, M.

Depends on how big they are, obviously, but I have a multi-size hole punch bought from the craft store (used for leather punching), which I use to punch out discs of plastic card of the necessary size and thickness. They glue in place, and since they're the same material as the kit parts, they can be primed and sanded just like the rest of the part. I find it helps prevent the "dishing" that you sometimes get with filler, when the softer filler in the middle sands away faster than the surround, leaving a depression -- it's better than the pin mark but can still be visible. With various thicknesses of plastic card, you can deal with anything from the "barely there" pin mark, which is mostly a rim of flash around the edge, to some of the really deep impressions you find on older or badly tooled kits.... bestest, M.

I'm sorry to say that, in my experience, airbrushes are something where you get what you pay for. I've heard far too many tales of people buying cheap airbrushes, and ending up either buying a better one or being put off airbrushing completely by the performance. Either way, you end up wasting your money, It's less money, for sure, but that doesn't make much difference if you're throwing it away... I would stick to one of the brands that are know to produce good airbrushes -- this side of the pond Harder and Steenbeck and Iwata seem to be favored; I'm sure the various Badgers, Paasches and Azteks are equally good and better known in the US. Badger, IIRC, has a lifetime repair service and warranty... I have an Iwata Eclipse which has served me faithfully for a decade now, at the cost of one replacement nozzle tip. You are also going to need to consider your air supply. Running any airbrush off propellant cans is an expensive and not ideal solution. You won't want to order one of these sets from the UK, but they'll give you an idea of what your "starter" set-up should contain, and how much it's likely to cost: http://modellingtools.co.uk/airbrush--compressor-sets-196-c.asp The best advice I can give you on actually using an airbrush was given to me by the late, great, Ted Taylor: "Remember, use it like a brush, not a spray-gun..." All the best, Matt

...sure is. And you get to hear the engine sing: what a fantastic soundtrack. I'm finding it a little hard to stray from classic silver, but that candy red is cool, isn't it? bestest, M.

Really, Harry? I think that's really interesting, coming from someone with a design degree, and maybe another example of "two cultures divided by a common language". I did an engineering degree, but I've never doubted that "design" was a skill that great engineers should have. Dieter Rams is, I believe, someone that most people taught in design school will have come across, and who is highly regarded by many people who are very successful designers. I collect his work, when I can afford it (more the hair-dryers than the hi-fi...). But without any help from me, my daughter's Design and Technology class (age 15), were introduced to his "10 principles of good design" by their teacher. I'm not going to quote them all, but... "Good design makes a product useful" has always seemed to me to be the essential one. I don't think that design and function can be separated, and if they are, the end result is compromised, and could be better. For them's as are interested, the 10 principles are laid out here: https://www.vitsoe.com/gb/about/good-design Rams' work may not be to your taste (basically, he created Braun's design style, so if you don't like minimal, functional and stylish design, you may not like what he has produced). But I defy anyone to look at those ten principles and tell me one that they have a good reason for the rest of us to ignore... bestest, M.

Completely agree. The first point is what I was trying to say in the comparison between chair designers and car designers. Car designers have the _option_ of deciding that form doesn't follow function; chair designers don't. Exceptional functionality combined with visual appeal? Check. The GT-40 was never intended as daily transportation. What's great about it is that it combines kinetic sculpture with outstanding performance in its chosen niche. Ditto the 250 GTO. What's great about the 2005 Ford GT is that it (almost) pulls off a triple: aesthetically top-notch, class-equalling (if not beating) supercar, AND more or less usable as a daily driver. Now that's GREAT design: do the jobs you have to do, look beautiful, and do something else brilliantly as well... It's the "Jodie Kidd" factor: supermodel, girl next door TV presenter... and top class historic racing driver while she's at it. bestest, M.

Note that the Mail on Sunday absolutely fails to credit the origin of the story, an article in this month's Octane magazine. "The Mail on Sunday can reveal...?" Nope, the Mail on Sunday can steal... bestest, M.

Whatever those "icons to consider" are, they aren't "design"... Art, maybe... sculpture, possibly, but design, no. They're all about throwing together a bunch of car parts for visual effect, with little or no thought to function, efficiency, elegance or purpose. You may like how they look, others may not. Art is all about the effect the work has on the viewer; design is about doing a job well, and beautifully. If you want to have a discussion about whether the radiator on a hot rod looks better tilted forward or backwards, then fine. It's completely subjective, and everyone's opinion is a valid one. That's why it's art. If you want to argue about whether one is better designed than the others, then you have to first see how well it does the job of being a car. If it's just something that gets parked in a field or a hangar for lots of people to look at and have opinions about how cool or not it looks, then it's sculpture. And I know I'm in the minority here, but as art, for me, aesthetically, they're all equally disastrous... ;-P bestest, M.

I've got quite a few friends who went to design school at Glasgow and the RCA, and a couple who even did degrees in automotive design at prestigious schools. Get them in a room together with beer and ask "what is good design?", and the conversation quickly splits into two factions. They'd say, "there are two kinds of designer -- car designers and chair designers" Tio exaggerate for effect, car designers designers apply visually interesting "skins" to a package below that is designed by engineers to do the jobs it needs to do. Chair designers create a a visually appealing form that also does the job -- art and engineering in one. Good designers can make things that look nice; great designers make them look nice and work as well as they possibly can. I guess I come down more on the side of the chair designers. Good design is not just about how things look. Given two choices that work equally well, then choose the better looking one. But if making something look a particular way makes it work less well, that is never good design. The greatest designs I can think of are the Mk 1 Spitfire, the E-Type Jaguar, the iPhone, Concorde, a Zippo lighter, Ferrari 275 GTB, Eames Lounge Chair, Dino, McLaren F1, the DC-3... I hate cars with fake turbines, rocket exhausts, fins that do nothing. I hate "stanced" and lowered cars that are undriveable. I think the i8 is probably the standout car design of this decade... YMMV, obviously... bestest, M.

Hi, all... does anyone know if this "anime" Porsche 928 kit from Fujimi: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10304476 released in January, is the same as their standard 928S from a while back, which seems well-liked? If so, is it a better choice in 1/24 than the recently re-released Italeri kit, does anyone know? Many thanks. bestest, M.

Thanks, gentlemen! Helmut -- it is indeed the Gunze "Hi-Tech" kit, with almost everything except the body shell in metal. This one didn't have an engine -- I'm not sure there if there is a release that does, like the different 250 GTO boxings. I think it's a much better shape than the AMT -- it's just a shame that the deal for Revell to reissue the Italeri kit last year fell through, because the Gunze is pretty hard to find. (I jumped through some hoops to buy one on US eBay with a damaged box, so only useful to someone who wants to build it, which made the price a lot more reasonable). It's a bit of a cheat, because the Moss car was actually a right hand drive car despite the Italian number plates. But it's no easy job flipping the dash in this car, unlike some... bestest, M.

Lovely job! The seat belts are a "must" in this one, I reckon. Colour combo looks great -- and strangely familiar (it is the best one, after all). Whose Rosso Fuoco is it? Zero? Scalefinishes? Two things I learned on my build that may help (you may well know them already, of course...). The front left corner of the bonnet will not settle down properly OOB. I thinned down the pins on the hinges a bit, so they can move slightly as the bonnet opens and closes, and slightly bent the front left corner downward after heating the bonnet in some steam from the kettle for a few seconds. Now it will shut perfectly. You'll probably want to replace the 1" thick "armour glass" between and behind the headrests with some thin acetate for a better scale look. I'm not sure how it works: it may be some kind of movable wind deflector, because I've seen pictures of SA Apertas where it reaches the top of the roll hoops, and others where is comes only half way up. If you haven't seen it, this is well worth a watch: https://youtu.be/mCPk3oRdUV4 bestest, M.

That is simply lovely, Harry. Fantastic job... All the best, M.

Thanks, guys... Al... I suspect it's a rare model, but not such a rare kit! There's usually at least one on eBay UK whenever I look, often one in a "Gift Set" with paints, a brush and glue. I don't know whose idea it was to put such a hard kit to build in a gift set that's obviously meant for beginners, but it's crazy! I used everything I know about model-building, a fair variety of tools, and five different kinds of glue to get it together... bestest, M.

That's the boy! I'm thinking of cutting it at the line separating the "engine bay" from the floor under the tub... bestest, M.

Thanks, guys.. I will take some pics when I'm back at the workbench on Friday, I promise. I notice most of the EM series kits I've seen are the Targa-topped GTS. I wonder if that's more flexible than the solid-roofed version I have... bestest, M.

Thanks for the advice, guys. I think you must be talking about the "Enthusiast Model" version of the kit, because I've tried every which way with the kit I have and there is no way the chassis goes in intact. And that's just trying to get the single chassis piece into the body, without the tub or anything fitted to it. The front goes in deep but the chassis is about 1/4" wider at each side than the rectangular cut-out in the rear valance, and I can't twist it or bend it (both of which would be more difficult with the tub fixed in place) to go through that hole. However, there's an "obvious" cut line at the back of the tub, where the "curbside' lower part of the engine and rear suspension is. I think if I cut it there, after attaching some strip to the back of the tub to provide a solid fixing to rejoin the two parts, the rear end will go in after the front is in... Film at 11, when I get up the nerve to cut it... bestest, M.

...if only they'd removed that hideous script on the side while they were at it... bestest, M.

Couldn't resist adding some new pictures: ..that last one is a bit quirky, I know, but I really like the composition, somehow... bestest, M.

If anyone wants any more details of the set up I'm using, there's an explanation here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2305&p=1387674 bestest, M.