62rebel

that resin kit actually looks more like a real t than speedway's glass body does..... not often the kit is more "realistic" than the real thing! looks well worth the 20 bucks for a startoff point.

is there a kit of the Speedway style "track T" roadster? i realize that their 1:1 car is their own design and protected, but has anyone come close to replicating it?

i had the same issue with mine.... neither set of headlights wanted to stay put. major stumbling point in an otherwise astoundingly detailed kit, to have imprecise mounting points for the headlights.... granted, there are as many differing methods for mounting them as there are builders, but this ONE point had me stumped finishing mine. i'm conflicted about the modern era tires Revell furnished, as well as the small block Ford with AOD trans... marvelous stuff to replicate a late '80's to present day build, but not so much for doing a '50's era rod. luckily Revell makes several versions fo this basic kit and there's plenty of room to play.

granted, the A's Dad had weren't woodies, so... no harm no foul! i had four different reference guides almost memorized so i could scout out cars for him. he was partial to '30-'31 coupes, and two of the complete cars he had were these. he had accumulated nearly enough sheetmetal to build a '29 closed cab pickup, but all of this went missing when we moved and couldn't move the cars...... i've had the Revell and MPC kits and both have their better points and failings. IMHO the main disadvantage to the Revell kit is the chromed suspension. if you want to build it stock, you need to remove the chrome, and the assembly is fiddly at best. the Revell has a better banger, and finer detail in the woodwork. still, the MPC goes together easier and withstands handling better when finished. i never have been able to do justice to Revell's folding multi-piece hood, or opening doors. not getting any easier with time, either!

it probably was, but hot enough enamel would do it as well. i THINK i first heard of this technique when a was watching a furniture restorer "age" finish on a show on TV years ago..... remember Homer Formby? might have been a guest on his show....

i discovered this by accident some time ago, when i was trying to replicate an oxblood red interior for a '63 Galaxie i was rebuilding as the Jack Sears race car.... the interior had been painted once already with standard Testors light blue spray and had cured.... absolutely no solvent scent left at all, so the enamel was thoroughly dry. i had picked a can of Engine Color in Buick Engine Red to simulate the color of the actual car's interior, and gave the tub/seats/dash a few passes...... OOOOHHHH NOOOOO... the new paint was wrinkling up the OLD paint...... disaster? nope. once it dried, the wrinkles smoothed out ALMOST completely.... ALMOST. i was left with what looked like the actual texture of 50 year old upholstery and, once in a while, i use it again for that same reason. not every accident leaves victims.....

those aren't patches, per se, but stock reinforcing brackets. they were probably painted black in real life 1:1, but i don't remember from my A restoration days at my Dad's elbow. i liked the MPC woody better than Revell's because it was simpler and fit together better... today, i'd gladly take either one.

i meant the 70 version, but i've done some fiddling and found that removing the bottom tab from the front and rear glass helps the assembly fit better. i've collected the kit pieces and taped them together for a future project.... not really concerned with finishing it now. that kind of reworking is not something i'd expect a novice to tackle without forewarning and lots of trial fitting before gluing. just venting a little, i suppose...

Aurora caught heck for these kits, and they did cancel some proposed ones that would have been creepy cool. i was a kid then and MY parents wouldn't buy them.... odd, though, that they'd buy me WW2 armor kits without a second thought...............

i am in awe. that is fantastic.

my wife picked this up at the thrift store a couple of years ago; it was originally purplish maroon (IIRC) and i repainted it black. i left it alone for a LONG time and finally went to finish it... for some reason, the interior tub would NOT fit into the shell, with or without the glass, and the frame seemed to have the same problem fitting into the front clip properly..... ah well.. i'm saving the shell and trim for later and relegating the rest to the parts box. i've already sliced and diced the interior parts to go in a custom. point is... i've been building for thirty years and usually can fit a model together easy enough..... if i ran into this degree of trouble with this kit's fit issues, how would a beginner have fared? being a predecorated kit, it's aimed at younger modelers who might not have the patience or experience to work it out. i ran out of patience and parted it out..... no big loss to ME, but a kid with a 12 buck parts donor might lose faith. (not the first or last time i've bought a model to use it for parts in the end)

those ubiquitous AMT tires skewed my recognition of what "real" '30's wheels and tires looked like in 1/25th... when realistically scaled tires and wheels showed up, to ME they looked "off"! i never really examined the scale differential in the trophy series '32's... honestly, i took it for granted and was fooled.

the recent rerelease of the phaeton had them as well, IIRC. dual sidemounts only seem to work well on stock builds, visually, imho. they deserve really nice tires to complete the effect, and those old firestone jobbies aren't up to snuff.... whitewall insert tires look nice on cars with sidemounts.

i saw these at the LHS today, snap version, they look pretty darn cool and i might grab one myself.... the Futura Batmobile is among the many TV/Movie cars i want for my collection..... along with a companion Black Beauty.

after puzzling long and hard over how to best replicate those hand-formed taillight housings, i was digging through one of my spares boxes and there was the answer... of all things, the cinderblocks from the AMT '50 Ford Convertible! i cut one up into two blocks with a single hole through the middle, determined the best angle to cut them and sliced one into two pieces (saving the second uncut block in case i screwed this up) and carved/sanded them to approximate shape, glued them on, added filler and let set up. i kept comparing what i had in my hands to the pictures of the car i printed off the computer, and slowly they took shape. as for the taillight lenses, i'm going to use the '56 Merc taillight lenses from the AMT '56 Ford Crown Victoria Hardtop. the custom backup light and exhaust tip i'm using the custom taillights from the AMT '49 Ford kit, modified. the grille is still under research, but i have the top bar from a stock Lindberg '53 Ford and one from the AMT '56 to work with. once i'm satisfied that what i have looks right, there'll be pics.

where would they have sold this car? it was safety regulations and epa requirements that drove the cost of building a type 1 beetle past the break even point and with no real point in bringing BACK a car that sold only as a taxicab in Mexico due to THEIR "stringent" safety regs was implausibly stupid. no car buyer today (except ME, possibly) is willing to pay for a car with no a/c, no power steering, no automatic trans, no power brakes, no cupholders, no airbags, and a design dating all the way back to the thirties. VW saw an opportunity to revive an iconic NAME and based it on the existing Golf platform. Audi monkey-see/monkey-do'd with the 1st gen TT, using the same lame underpinnings and powertrain. and guess what... they sold like proverbial hotcakes. they brought customers back to VW that had been siphoned off to Honda and Toyota and their .... offspring brands. who are "longshoremen and steelworkers"? they don't buy VW's.... they buy Toyota Tundras and Nissan Titans.

following their model succession, they logically ought to have called it the Super Beetle, since the Super was the first MAJOR revision of the type 1.... it's not just "smooshed". it has true hardtop configuration, not a sedan, the windshield is flatter, less "bubble-car" looking, and the haunches look more aggressive in profile than the girly-car NB it replaces. we're looking forward to seeing them in the metal soon...... they'll have plenty of bodykit additions to doll them up, i'm sure. the NB had them from the git-go.

i'm trying to duplicate as best i can the first version of the Ron Dunn '50 Ford, and while i haven't actually searched much, i don't see a resin version out there.... once i get the contours where i want them, i'll post pics and see if a caster would like to use my model for a master. i've had to do a ton of cutting to the body, chassis, and interior tub to satisfy my inner geek about correctness and structural integrity of the finished model. i'd like to see it done where it would not necessarily NEED a donor kit to finish, but i understand the limitations of resin. anyways; when i get the bodyshell to my satisfaction, i'll post some pics and you can judge for yourselves.

i dropped my wife off at the thrift store while i went to the pic-n-pull for parts for the 1:1 Cherokee.... she calls me to ask if i'd want a '69 Plymouth GTX kit, for 8 bucks..... hmmmm... what brand, dear? monogram.... it's blue metallic plastic and looks complete. yep, snag it, if nothing else, more for the parts box. so... when i pick her up, i check the box and instructions: 1986 issue...... two sets of tires that actually have logos! and it really is in good condition, and complete.... another project for later on! she's snagged a monogram '55 f100 among several others over the past few years..... what a gal!

i seldom use straight red tube Testors for anything anymore; i mix it with MEK and put it in a clear jar... good for laminating strips where i need extended working time and quick sticking, but not the semi-permanent bond of ACC. i don't buy small bottles of cement, either, quart cans of MEK would equal out to several hundred dollars in Testor's money...

the insulation is a nice touch but Ford never put any on the hoods of this type of car. all in all, however, for a kit most builders despise, you've done a fine job on!

good point, Harry; folks could either refer them to the thread they need or answer them directly.

still amazing me. part of me screams "get it finished!" and the rest screams " slow down, i can't see how you did that!"

i was going to rebut this thread but i was busy texting my friends about how great the reception on my in-dash TV is. i was able to watch Dancing with the stars and eat dinner while my tailor fitted me for a three piece suit on the way to the office. bwuhahahahahahahaha! i hate over-technology. i tolerate this computer.... because it's like heroin to me.

missed that part of the article when i read it... wow. so... i'm open to put any engine i want into my "tribute" model.... well; circa 1953-57 era, no newer.