Aaronw

That actually looks pretty good. The fluff you are using looks synthetic and has shiny strands, I bet real cotton balls or cotton batting would look even better being more wispy and the dull color of the cotton would make the strands stand out less. I've always been impressed by the fire near the end of Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride. Amazing how realistic the effects are just using colored clear cellophane, crumpled aluminum foil and colored lights. Do those tealights flicker? Being photos there is no way to tell. Not having a solid light would really add to the flame effect.

It says in the ad that it is rated at 500cfm, but keep in mind that is with no ducting or restrictions. How a blower reacts to those things is important. At $59 I am positive that it is not "explosion proof". That looks like one of those blowers for drying wet carpets, not for venting gasses. If you really want to spring for an intrinsically safe aka "explosion proof fan" you are looking at a lot more than $50. Here is one of a similar size for a mere $719 http://www.industrialfansdirect.com/NFC-NHADB4-B-1E.html Personally I'd suggest one of the shaded pole blowers from Grainger. Less than $200 will get you enough fan for a big spray booth, less if you only need a small booth. Intrinsically safe fans are really intended for venting highly flammable vapors, gasoline, natural gas and such, not spray paint. None of the commercially available booths use an intrinsically safe fan, most use a shaded pole blower. This is the one I used on my booth, it is 485cfm. 2ft x 2ft x 16" tall booth, cross flow out the back with a heater filter and 6" ducting. It works great, no overspray or odor using full size spray cans. It is a very well made, heavy duty blower that will probably outlast me. http://www.grainger.com/product/DAYTON-Blower-12G801

Thanks, that makes more sense. I've only seen the later '60 kits. Nice to know about the Revell '64-65. I've got several of the GMC/Chevrolet kits and a few '60s, but the Revell kits are much easier to get being a current kit. I would much rather use one of those for a donor than one of the '60s, even better that they are a better place to start anyway.

Cool thanks, love these T kits but wasn't sure if I wanted to get this one or not. Good to know about WB on the fruit truck, I've got one of those but haven't done anything with it yet.

Awesome work Russell, I've been needing to make an "engine compartment thing". Sam nice shifters. Actually I have done a little bit of this after seeing someone mention it. Nothing so elaborate mostly just rounding off the end of a rod with sand paper. I hadn't thought about using an exacto blade to carve into it a bit, that gives me some ideas.

I'm confused by this. Surely you are talking about a much older 60-66 tooling? The current AMT '60 Chevy kit shares nothing with 67-72, and I understand it makes a decent donor for a more detailed 67-72. Gaute, maybe you've already seen this, but if not enjoy.

Interesting, in the US we have some CAT trucks built on the IH chassis, but they have a completely different hood. I haven't seen one that is basically just a rebadged Prostar. Nice work so far, the grill looks great.

Does this kit strictly build the box art or is it like the other T kits offering a multitude of options?

It depends on the truck. On the '41-47 Chevy trucks you can just open up the wheel wells. They just cut the fenders out to fit the larger wheels. If you look at a 1/2 ton and a larger 1 1/2 ton + side by side you can see this difference fairly easily. On the later 47-53 Chevy's they are longer, wider and taller although not by much so it isn't that noticeable. The fenders are 2" wider (individually each fender is 1" wider) and sit 2" higher, the headlights 2" further apart and 1 1/2" higher, the grill 1 3/4" higher. Overall length firewall to grill 3" longer. Broken down to scale you are looking at 2-3mm, so a lot of people just fake it and few notice. I've got a 50 Chevy I've been making the correct modifications to and it is a lot of work for little noticeable difference. The hardest part is the hood due to the angles. Everything else is a cut and splice in some styrene, but the hood requires a lot of reshaping because you get a step where you splice in the added length.

Yeah, they are becoming amazingly scarce. When I had to replace my truck I made a point of looking for early Capris and Celicas thinking they would be fairly cheap, but also more fun than most of the used cars in my price range. There are very few to be found these days.

Hot wheels tie ins seem like a no brainer. Get the little kids with the 1/64 diecasts, get the bigger kids with plastic models of their favorites. Since a lot of the unique Hot wheels are wild customs, there is probably an adult market there as well beyond nostalgia (but the nostalgia is what would get me with kits of some of those early 70s redline series cars).

I ran into an unusual 80s extra cab F-800 this summer which showed just how much that is true. The guy bought two salvaged trucks and combined them to make something the factory never offered. The cab firewall forward was F-800, firewall back F-250, well done conversion, it looked stock.

If I am not interested in it as a custom, does this offer anything over the Fruitwagon?

It sounds like you got a bad kit, it happens sometimes. I bought the same kit recently and had a good look at it after seeing your post. Mine has a normal flash (I hesitate to even call it flash, really just a little heavier than average mold lines). They crank out a bazillian kits at a time and sometimes one gets through that is not up to the standard of the others (often called a Friday 4pm kit ). Bummer but it sounds like maybe you got that kit this time. All of the AMT Model T kits that I've seen ('26 Tall T, 26' T roadster and '27 T police car) are quite nice, a bit on the simple side but still having decent detail, tons of options, and pretty easy to build. I haven't got to my Fruit Truck yet, but I expect it to be the same.

Stick a big gluey painty thumb on that windshield and you will not ask that question. I find Future does a great job making glass clearer, but you are correct buffing it out works well too. I usually do both, buff it out, then dip in Future. I like the extra safety margin, haven't had any issues with super glue fogging or clumsy fingers since I started doing that.

Future thins Future, so sometimes recoating will fix minor problems. I occasionally get fogging from decal solutions, and putting another coat of Future on always takes care of that problem. Worst case windex will remove the Future, then just reapply. I've removed paint and superglue on a windshield this way (a big thumbprint dead center), and is why I always start off by dipping my clear parts.

There is an old logging camp cafeteria that is now more of a tourist thing in Eureka, CA, They have a "working" (parts move but not actually steam powered) model steam donkey on display with all the parts carved from wood. I'm guessing 1/4 - 1/2 scale since it is about 5 feet tall. It was made by a logger around the turn of the century (1900s) in his spare time. This is a steam donkey for those who don't know.

I think a lot of the car games would be easy tie ins. Just a matter of lining up the existing tooling with the games that feature them. It's not like most video games feature a lot of family wagons and minivans. They go for a lot of the same cars, fast, exotic, expensive. The US companies would probably do better with the Need for Speed and Test Drive games (Corvettes, Ferraris, Muscle cars), the Japanese companies with the Dirt, WRC and Gran Turismo games. Cheap to do, just some new decal options in the kits and an in game tie in (special skin code only available with the model kit). Even if it didn't lead to more kids getting building models, lots of people like special skins (I don't get it, but it seems to be the case) so the kits would sell, even if they collected dust. Probably end up on ebay for the stash builders.

Actually I think it is a fair point but misdirected.

But you are still placing a requirement on a specific modeler (whomever that is) that they are not allowed to ever under any circumstance cut corners, even when building a model for themselves, granted possibly being seen in public. I equate a statement like that to suggesting that a MLB pitcher can't go out and play baseball with some kids in the park because he isn't putting his all into striking them out and OMG he is ruining baseball. You place these into a commercial situation and I can see your point, but even then it isn't really the builders fault as the editor who allowed subpar work into the magazine. Given a high enough stature that the magazine should have expected better, I can understand some blame going to the builder as well.

This should have been the question of your OP, and it seems to have been lost in the noise. No builder should feel an obligation to create a 100% model everytime. I'd like to think Gerald Wingrove could build a Revell Snap-tite and brush paint if that is what he felt like doing without being vilified for not creating another masterpiece. However if a model magazine featured such a snap-tite (out side of the April 1st edition) instead of one of his amazing creations they should fully expect the justified wrath of the readers. You are comparing two completely different things with a known modeler showing his work on a forum and a magazine publishing a model that is perhaps sub-par.

When the hobby starts paying NFL star quarterback wages.

Wow, that is kind of wild that a car maker is tying into the games that way.

Not car models, but I've seen many comment that the model companies should be targeting kids by tying kits to car themed video games. Italeri is doing just that but with tanks. http://www.italeri.com/news_scheda.asp?idNews=465

Wow, I just had a look at that link, some really neat stuff. Randy thank you for asking this question, and Bill thanks for the link. I may be busy poking around in there for a while.