62rebel

in 1:1 there's more than enough differences to make you want to pull your hair out. the entire front clip on the '60-'61 is contoured differently from '62-'63's and none of it swaps over without a lot of work. the '60-'61's don't have front gravel "splash" shields behind the bumper that the later roundbodies do. the early series has different taillight concave contours as well; later taillights won't fit them and vice-versa. the instrument clusters change from year to year. Rancheros had unique transmission crossmembers that differed from the regular sedans, as well as rear floor pans. to get a really good overview of the Falcon, trot over to the Ford Falcon News forum and check out their ID guide. "TFFN.net" i've owned more than a dozen roundbodies and a few later ones including a "clone" Main Force Patrol '66 fordor V8 i built. love my Falcons.

don't the T rear springs locate on top of the axle tube, into slots on the backing plates? not behind them, as on later Fords.

i would suspect that epoxy or superglue would be the safest way to assemble these parts until there's been a good learning curve established. enamel ought to stick well; the resin doesn't seem "oily" like polyethylene (toy soldier plastic). cutting and carving will be part of that learning curve i mentioned. here's another question: are the parts "weighty"? i have often played with the idea of filling voids in kits with epoxy and bb's to give the model some "heft".... armor and aircraft modelers do it so that the model "sits" correctly... it might be a null and void concept, though, in automobile models. i will certainly follow news of this rapidly developing media closely.

that's pretty neat, and thanks for showing us some real results. the cost to get into 3D printing will eventually fall as the technology grows. it will be an adjunct to buying boxed kits for a while, but i don't think it will replace it for a very long time. the resin will always be the deciding factor in commercial success; if it has a good shelf life, meaning it could sit on store shelves for a while as well as stay workable after opening by the customer; if the stuff is inert enough for safe use by average idiots without creating a hazmat issue, and if the created article is dimensionally stable in the long run. even some traditional cast-resin kits suffer warpage and shrinking over extended time, just as traditional styrene kits do. i do see an ability to render, in scale, or as close as possible, accurate working hinge parts for doors as a possibility with this. the resin seems very tough and durable; able to handle the load of holding up a scale door. better representations of folding seats, as well, might be in the bargain, as well as being able to produce modified chassis without having to slice-and-dice styrene.

the people who had the money to buy Duesenbergs weren't affected by the Depression.

the aroma of enamel paint drying has been part of my modeling experience since i was nine or so.... and will not be replaced by the delicate fragrance of acrylic..... i'd rather hang a carp around my neck.

pretty neat build. "armor-scale" helos are fairly new to the arena and if you hadn't pointed out those differences i'd have been absolutely ignorant of them.

i've got a couple of acrylic picture frames, they trap the photo between two fairly thick flat plates using magnets, that i use for sanding plates. i simply lay the sandpaper on them and true up flat surfaces that way. nice, light, portable, easy to clean, and safer than glass (although i also have a 12"x12" glass tile i use for laying up frames, etc....) our Quality Assurance inspector at a previous job had a wonderful huge granite table..... some beautiful true square blocks, dial indicators.... i'd have carried that sucker home if i could lift it.

Tulio! again with an excellent build of my all-time favorite kit! you do better with scraps than i do with fresh parts. beautimous.

that's pretty darn cool. modifying diecasts is an overlooked and somewhat mysterious aspect of the hobby.... so many of them are just so toylike that it's hard to envision them as anything better. you've obviously worked past that!

you've carried the trim farther over the wheel opening than the car in the photo, which has made the openings look out of proportion (at least to me, anyway)... maybe the front section of trim would be better if it was cut out of sheet stock to duplicate the photo? just my 2c. adding trim to cars has never been my strong suit, i've done it successfully only once.

i don't do the "global" thing, as i can't afford a new car and they just don't interest me at all. i'd rather do without a hand grenade in the center of my steering wheel, thank you. that said, i've owned nearly 200 cars, from nearly every make available in the US.... predominately Fords, though there's been something from nearly every brand spotted in my driveway at any given time. right now, i'm hunting a plain-Jane Ford fullsize between '60 and '90, for a daily driver. hopefully one without power windows, etc.... the simpler, the better.

a former employer of mine bought a nearly-new Jag that had been totalled with insanely low miles; he had heard the engine running at the auction house. get the rolled-up, not one-usable-part hulk stripped down and find every engine mount pad sheared off the block....... yeah, he got it welded up, but had to disclose that fact when selling it..... knocked the value WAAAAAAAAAY down.

a clear case of more money than ability. i feel absolutely no sympathy.

again, thank you, Dave, for putting that out there. having suffered through the bad part of the "good old days" when all of the companies were churning out dross in the form of decontented kits, poorly retooled "theme" kits, and running tools until parts were buried in flash, i'm more than pleased to see the effort come to fruition where reissues get corrected, new tools get accurized, and best of all, customers get listened to. i'll be honest, Revell kits were my bane as a youth- fiddly fit issues, flaking chrome, they were tough to build WELL. getting 60's era kits to look good took supreme effort. the newer '70's kits went together well; didn't share fit issues, and made good shelf-sitters with moderate effort and looked GREAT if the builder had some skill. i've been working the new '57 Ford and the '50 Olds and they practically FALL together. GREAT kits.

i'm open to adapting techniques from military, rail, ANY kind of modeling when it allows the builder to portray details like that.... some colors could be darkened by shooting that contour in the color needed and letting it dry, then adding a coat, then adding a coat... slightly going beyond the edges of the preceding coat each time, then shooting the final color coat. the built up layers SHOULD appear darker/deeper than the surrounding area.... i do this with some builds to get multiple colors, rocker-to-roof....

as good as the Revell kit is, i'd rather build the AMT version as you're doing. matter of fact, i've never finished ANY of the several Revell versions that i've started.... but i've done a bunch of AMT's. BTW your version is quite convincing. deep shine....

first one i bought my own self... 1956 F-100 by Revell. 1978 or so. cost around 3 dollars..... the first purchase in a thirty-six and running year obsession with polystyrene representations of automobiles that has probably cost, in any given year, anywhere from a hundred bucks or so to several hundred..... most expensive one that comes to mind was the pair of Matadors i bought a few years back, i think they both ran about 60 bucks.

there's models of it... just not what we might find in the corner hobby shop!

very convincing!

as always, Tulio, excellence.

VW worked out a deal to power the entry-level 911 replacement in exchange for Porsche technology for their own cars, it's a Porsche in and out, even the 4cyl, which shares some structure with VW powerplants but not as much as you'd expect. they're really great handlers but unfortunately they rust at the same speed they run.... if you have one that's been wet, it's rusty.

i like this kit because it's so versatile. your build looks absolutely authentic, the colors look "dealer-brochure" almost.

"looksalike everything else" am i right?

nope; the Galaxie/LTD is a full perimeter frame car, those are unit bodies. you're in luck, though; the current '65 Ford hardtop can supply you with the basic frame in fairly good detail. it may need to be stretched, i'm not certain. the basic chassis was the same almost through from '65 to '91 with few changes. on the plus side, that frame has trunk floor detail you might choose to work into your '70. you can replace the '65 rear axle with one from a '68 Mustang to get a better looking 9" that you can slip a metal axle into. the Revell '70 Torino has a beautiful 429 that will look perfect in there, although i robbed a 390 from a Fairlane to put in mine.