johnbuzzed

"You couldn't fit all this stuff in an old musclecar..." I have seen more than one example in current Mopar magazines. One was a B-body, with a three-inch shorter Charger "chassis" and all the guts, another (in a currently available mag; maybe Mopar Action?) is a Dart. It can be done, and it can be made to look like it belongs there (seemingly) without too much drama.

Really, really neat. I would be happy to have that on my shelf.

No engine??? No problem- it's cool as it is .

And, a couple more... ">http:// ">http://[url=http://s889.photobucket.com/user/jbuzz710/media/Oldies%20but%20goodies/CAM00271.jpg.html][/ The '39 is only about 9 years old, the others are over twenty. Comments and critiques are welcome.

Getting some old builds ready for the "Hope it Don't Snow" show this weekend...http:// http:// http:// http://

NOT ships- aircraft, that were catapulted from carrier decks in all kinds of weather, flown at speeds close to, if not over, 300 knots IAS, put through aerial combat, sustained battle damage, then successfully returned to land aboard a moving aircraft carrier- really, a controlled crash, the aircraft being brought to a stop via an arresting hook, which was secured to the framework of the aircraft. The hook caught a heavy, woven steel cable, that was securely attached to the ship. Then, the battle damage was repaired, and the aircraft flown again, often the same day, to do the same thing, by the same people. Keep in mind that those aircraft usually took off with a full load of fuel in internal tanks, thousands of rounds of .30 and .50 caliber ammunition, drop tanks full of fuel, 500+ lbs of HE or AP bombs carried at hard points or internally, and in some cases, rockets or torpedoes- depending on the aircraft and the mission. Also, many of those aircraft hand folding wings for carrier storage. That compromised the structural integrity; some aviators did not like them, but it and they got the job done. You're right, no trails or trees there there ...

The finest naval carrier aircraft of WWII were made out of aluminum. Lotsa stress there, no real problems with fatigue. And, that was 70+ years ago. Times have changed, so has metallurgy.

Our society has evolved to the point where we desire to be comfortable at all times; there must be no discomfort in our vehicles- neither hot nor cold, no background noise, we must be able to communicate with anyone at anytime about anything, listen to music at a quality far beyond the needs and comprehension of most of the general public, obtain directions at the touch of a finger, open and close windows and lock doors the same way- and adjust those nice, heated seats, too- and we need to have the bling. I would bet that a majority of people would not sacrifice any of that in their cars, and I'm not talking about "car guys" who have nostalgic sentiments for old Detroit iron. Think about a road trip in an early '60's whatever family sedan, with common factory options of that time, v the same trip in a 2015 family sedan, with contemporary common standard equipment. Which would be more comfortable? Be realistic and honest; I'm not asking about cool factor or neat cruising or any semantics- I'm talking about practical reality. Funny thing is, all of those components that make current cars so comfortable add a lot of weight. Even the stuff that doesn't add to comfort, such as all those goofy service covers or 20-inch wheels. Maybe the wheels allow for bigger brakes, ergo, better stopping power- but with the just-about-rubber band tires necessary for those wheels, some comfort is lost- less sidewall=less cushioning= stiffer ride= more bumps. And the service covers- "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain"- what's the point of them? Granted, they might be lightweight plastic, but WTF is the purpose? They even stick them UNDER cars. Why do we need lanyards on gas caps- hey, if you forget it once, you'll learn. That might be a small weight saving, but a lot of small ones add up to one big one. Big-@$$ chrome exhaust tips- most contemporary systems are stainless steel; which can be highly polished- do we really need that chrome? Things like that "4MATIC" emblem. Make it a decal, it's cheaper and lighter. Dual-pane glass- come on, really? Floor mats- carpet cleaning is almost a science today. Does a trunk really need to be carpeted? I don't have time to go into this further, but I think many of you will be able to understand what I'm getting at.

One can always compare apples v oranges. Do things need to be exactly alike or even just very similar to be able to make a comparison?

More natural sound from those analog recording methods. It's as nature intended!

The Soviets learned well from their experience in WWII. The Germans had far more sophisticated weaponry, but it was difficult to maintain in those combat conditions. The people in Washington didn't learn from history- our dalliances with multi-role-combat-aircraft were pretty much limited to the F4 Phantom and F111 Ardvark. Both were compromised; neither lived up to it's potential; neither was able to do it's intended jobS without major modifications during production along the way. Not minor mods for better performance, but such things as adding an internal gun to the Phantom to better it's intended use as a fighter. And the F-111, although looked upon as a naval aircraft, was not really suited for carrier use. And now, we have the F-35, which has a version for every branch but the Coast Guard. It costs zillions of dollars, and leaves much to be desired. Smartphones are great little toys, but as they get smaller and smaller, and are given so many more tasks, all those gazillions of tiny little, moving parts (our friends, the electrons) don't always flow as well as hoped with the heat and tighter tolerances ("Your results may vary"). The word "glitch" actually does have a technical definition. Any and all electronics behave that same way. The simpler, the better. But, all those electronics in today's cars are giving the buying public better performance, mileage, safety and security, so it's unlikely that they'll ever disappear. However- at some point, they will be incorporated into plug-and-play packages or modules that will be easily available and just as easy to replace by anyone with a modicum of technical skills: i.e., can you read instructions and use a screwdriver? Even those of us who have any kind of ability to work on cars were not born with those abilities. We watched, we read, we learned. They might have been far simpler way back when, but how many of us knew how to rebuild a carb before high school, or even for some time after? Most kids today have a better grip of how to deal with cantankerous electronics at a relatively young age- from hands-on experience- than previous generation's mechanical abilities at the same ages. And, those skills that they do have will be useful for servicing all those automotive electronic gizmos. If I ever hit Lotto, one of the cars that I will buy will be a Tesla. They are working on one that will have two 470 HP motors. Sure, it may be quiet, but it is the future. I'll also get a Hellcat Challenger, because there's nothing like a good old, pushrod V8.

And today's muscle will pretty much beat all of yesterdays' muscle in just about every category- acceleration, top end, handling/G's, etc. All the while, the A/C is on, great tunes are eminating from sound systems that put many home audio systems to shame, the GPS will tell the driver the nest way to get there, and the gas mileage will be better on the trip than those old musclecars ever even hoped to get- often using regular gas, always unleaded. Detonation? Not on your life. Overheating problems? "Not anymore, man." Bodies and interior components last longer, warranties for 100/000 miles are not unusual. To me, this is like the "golden days of modeling" debate. Were they actually 50 years ago, or are we there now? Either way, I miss my old V8's.

Yeah, and the Mustang was once gonna be FWD, too- instead, Ford presented the Probe. And, musclecars were gonna disappear after the fuel crises in the '70s, too. I'm more than a bit skeptical about this, but that's just my humble opinion.

We'll see ya there, with some old stuff.

Recycle.

It looks like your light coats might have been not as light as you think.. Also, it's not a good idea to sand a heavier metalflake such as the Testors One Coat lacquers. It can smooth out the finely ground particles that are in the paint to yield the sparkly, glittery 'flake look. You might be able to give it another light coat or two to bring back the 'flake look on the roof. If it were mine, I would probably strip it and start again. Time consuming, but no harm done. Testors also makes clear finishes in the form of Dullcote, Glosscote and a semi-gloss, too. You might want to experiment with them to see if one of them would yield the satin finish that you want. Many people here will use disposable, white plastic spoons as test surfaces. Spray the color, allow to dry, then spray one of the clear finishes; let it dry and check the results. I have two questions: Did you wash the body prior to painting? Also, did you have the body on a stand of some sort when you painted, or as it is, on that flat surface?

Keep in mind that Erik's first language is not English. As he did point out, things can get lost in translation and syntax and grammar. Even those of us for whom English is our primary language have our difficulties. I'd like to see you translate your post into Erik's primary language and have it come out exactly how you meant it..

I have intentions of building every kit that I have as well as finishing every project that I have started. My kit purchases have slowed down a lot in the past couple of years, for a couple of reasons; I'll go with what floats my boat and pass on the kit that ..."is the greatest since (fill in the blank) and we have to buy them or the manufacturers won't make anymore kits!" Ergo, my collection slowly builds as I build slowly. I think my driving force is the need to create and this is my way of doing so; it also keeps me in touch with the 10-year-old in this 59-year-old container. It's a continuum; a feeling that, as long as I build, I'll keep going.

In a nutshell, that's why I build. Bill, this is really coming along great. I look forward to seeing it done, but please, take your time... this one is too cool to rush.

Very cool work, Ira. You have a great imagination and some fantastic skills. I hope we see a lot more in the future.

Thank you for the info, Niko.

Nope. My wife and I have been married for more than 37 years. I have been building for more than 54 years. I once told her, before we were married, that if I couldn't build I would go nuts. And she's still with me. A whole bunch of- most likely, the majority of- those modelers who I know are married and have been for many years. You just gotta find the right "chick". Heck, they even attend shows, contests and swap meets.

I'll be getting at least one of these, but I'm wondering what's with the circles on the rear of the chassis, outboard of the springs? What are they supposed to represent?

I agree, but it's called marketing (or advertising?). Like just about anything else that we consumers purchase, the packaging is always made to be impressive, no matter the contents.

But, we all know how well an airbrush can be wielded to "touch up" a picture, whether the subject is a real car or a finished model. Leave us not forget Photoshop, too.