62rebel

yep, saw it.

well; i SAID i wasn't a math genius...... you proved it! i always use the architect's scale i've been using since Drafting class....

i'm no math genius but going by my socket set, a 12mm socket roughly equals a 1/2" socket.... and a half inch in 1/25 equals a foot, more or less. so, 1mm actually matches a half-inch more so than a full inch in 1/25th. my advice? cut your losses and frustration and buy one of the scale conversion rulers. an architect's or engineer's scale for drafting is what i've been using for decades.

some say... that if you pour a bottle of Future into a kit box.... the kit will build and paint itself out of pure joy.

i've suspected several models i've seen posted of being "more than they are".... but if the poster is up front about it not being his own work, so be it. i'm not interested in how well a factory worker in China assembles a kit or applies decals.

"wasting" 3-4 hours on a computer requires something with pigs and birds.... spending 3-4 hours doing research is LEARNING.... we should try to do THAT every day. unless pigs and birds are more your "thing".

Chaaaarley.....

i think that Montes only came in two colors.... that orange and a maroon! at least, it seemed that way where i grew up. all the Montes i remember were one of those two colors.... that came out really nice, and looks spot on IMHO.

i even have a small hoard of 1/6th figures and weapons.... mostly GI Joe and Dragon.... wanting to make a diorama with them one of these days.....

which ONE? they used several filming Bullitt.... auto AND stick. btw; when watching the movie, you can tell when McQueen is driving because the rear view mirror will show his reflection... when the directors thought things were too hairy, they made Steve put the stunt driver in, and they folded the mirror down so you couldn't see him... it's a pretty good crime movie even without the iconic chase scene.

i think there's something of a challenge when you're given the opportunity to try something out of your comfort zone.... i picked up the habit of building stick-and-paper airplanes once, when i was bored with cars.... i don't build them now, but i do read up on them to keep tabs. used to build ships and tanks; still have a sailing ship on display..... found a box full of old Airfix military figures that i had painted about twenty years ago, still smell of "toy soldier" polyethylene! i pursue better techniques by experimenting on other genres... some things don't "translate" into model cars as well as in other styles, but finding a new/better/different way of doing things is the whole idea. this has been an interesting thread.... different mindsets; different interests. it's all good when the last piece is painted and glued on!

that's a darn pretty truck, built from what i consider a troublesome kit. good job all around!

wide-5 wheels might negate the '40 as well, although who could say what he used for repairs along the way.... cool old pic. does he still wear a pencil mustache?

i read the title, and my reaction was, "no, there's enough Eleanor models around..." .... and then i read the THREAD.... and the "unicorn" response. so, yep; i have a unicorn or two.... models that i built so poorly as a kid and then trashed... never to see another kit of. over the years, i've managed to bag a couple of them..... but a few still elude me. some were actually finished up rather nicely, and grew "old" on me, falling victim to ill-advised rebuilds which were anything but..... like a beauty of a JoHan Police Cruiser, done up to represent an Adam-12 unit when i was 16 or 17..... becoming who knows what after gracing a living room shelf for a year. ahh.... unicorns. so delicious.

well; we do have quite a number of coal-fired plants; the burning of, and mining of, which are potentially highly polluting.... but, coal is relatively cheap, we have quite a reserve of it, and once mined, it's easy to transport..... and, it provides hundreds of thousands with employment throughout the work force. there's no simple answer to electric power until there are solar cells that are both affordable and efficient.... wind power is nearly impossible to implement efficiently because no-one wants the towers nearby... same with nuclear, only more so; nobody wants to live in Springfield. the rich would buy this thing merely to appear ecologically responsible. and fool no one.

when i started off in the model building hobby, i actually got to pick and choose my kits very few times... and gladly built whatever it was that i DID get as gifts. i was lucky to have indulgent parents who supported my artistic side..... and relatives who did, also. so, my confusion arises when i read comments that a certain model "simply holds no interest to me"..... well; why not? it's a model; it's sole purpose is to be built and provide some entertainment and education..... of course, when a model is a GIFT, there is no financial weight applied to it; at least until you start painting or adding parts.... thus removing the possible regret of having SPENT any money on it. but, when you BUY a kit.... especially these days at 25 bucks a pop or more, i can see why builders don't expand their horizons or experiment outside their comfort zone. my wife, bless her, will grab ANY kit she finds at a thrift store/yard sale and bring it home for me..... and i BUILD them, whatever they happen to be........

over the past thirty-odd years i've seen a heck of a lot worse gaffes than these. some are outright unconscionable, and many are due to manufacturers working as fast as possible to get a new tool out before the competition, and not having the correct data from the 1:1 car builders..... and some decent tools and reissues have been utterly ROASTED for what i deem petty inaccuracies. it's been explained dozens of times before: scaling something down exactly by numbers does NOT always ensure proportional accuracy or scale fidelity, and with cars that have many compound curves, it's almost a GIVEN that SOMETHING is not going to look "right"... now; lettering that faces the wrong direction? oops. simulated air scoops facing the wrong way? ooops... molds that have already been shipped to China and put in use for months if not years? well... what does accounting say? so be it.

there were a couple of AMT releases that had "Coca-Cola" decals in red and white, but just the logo, no slogans. can't say what they scale out to, either.

i'd love to see them follow up with a '57 Dodge Coronet D-500 and a '60 DeSoto Adventurer. maybe a '66-'69 Rambler American, as well.... and a Jeep Wagoneer... with the Tornado six. even better; i'd like to see their take on a '61-67 F100 in several variants; short wheelbase, long, styleside and stepside, 2- and 4wd.... we already have some excellent mid-sixties Chevy trucks. how about a Dodge D100 with a poly318? the Studebaker pickup..... how about a '62 Lark R2? personally, i'd love to see them do a '60-'63 Falcon.... but, that's just me. If Moebius had done the '64 INSTEAD of Trumpeter..... well.

there used to be velour paper for art projects that has a fuzzy texture to it; Monogram used to include a piece of it as carpet in the Bad Actor variants. it seems kind of short for shag, but there's that option. you might even look at the fabric used for small stuffed animals like beanie babies; they came in dozens of colors and patterns. nobody will mind you skinning a beanie.

i ran into this issue with the new tool AMT '57 Chevy, since i love to section and customize fifties cars... every time you remove something from the body, you end up having to recalculate everything inside to keep things fitting properly. i've never rebuilt or modified a diecast, but working with some of the ones that Polar Lights and Revell have redone in plastic (GTO, Bullitt) tells me that they're not easy to make substantive changes to.

the Tucker is/was a fascinating car, and striking to look at. as an icon of the energy and imagination of the postwar US, it's surprising that so far no plastic kit has been done. that said, i don't see it being a shoe-in for the "next big thing".... there's the few diehard factory stock builders who'd snap up a handful, and the custom builders for half that number again. the rest would doubtless end up on the clearance shelf as a bad risk for the makers. the problem as i see it, is the same as for the 1:1 car; it's a highly specialized and unique machine, unlike any other car of it's time in almost every respect. tooling up a complete kit from which almost NO variants could be derived except phantoms would be laughed out of the boardroom. it would be a fabulous kit to build, though....

i've also seen that modifying a diecast that has opening features can create a pyramid of problems when it comes to having to make ever more changes to OTHER parts to get the car back together..... they rely on a LOT of "this part is held by this part, which is in turn held in by THIS part..."

almost the entire automotive performance aftermarket developed solely for and on the Ford four cylinders.... spreading out to other makes gradually. there was a market as well, in the improvement of TRACTOR engines, many of which were based on Ford designs. across the pond, Ford of England used the basic flathead four for decades after the US had abandoned it, and there are HUNDREDS of performance parts for them. not bad for what started out as a splash-oiled, flywheel magneto'd, thermosyphon cooled, babbit-bearinged wrist breaker.....

nice looking car.