Biscuitbuilder

Guys, it's certainly OK to be skeptical of this, or any other thing that comes up in our hobby lives, but I do think we ought to all remember, we are talking about our "toys" in life, not the staples of life itself. There is a huge difference, I believe. It's also wise to keep in mind that every model car kit or promo you have ever seen, the good, the bad, the otherwise or the indifferent, is the product of someone's imagination, skills, and their hard work. Now, I would submit that there is nobody, so far appearing on this thread, who's got the capabilities of creating the tooling masters, going through the hoops of cutting steel dies for injection molding a model kit--all that stuff. Most of us could probably understand one of the various steps, but not all of them. Each and every one of us has our own set of eyes, which see the lines, shapes and contours involved in a model car kit body uniquely--no two of us see those things in exactly the same way--very much like the story of the "Blind men and the elephant" some of us had read to us as little kids. While I can gnash my teeth with the best of you here, when something isn't right on a particular kit, or doesn't fit as it should, or simply isn't as advertised, I hope I've learned to not make a federal case out of it, but move on, correct it to the best of my ability. If I can, then I feel I've achieved something--and to me, achievement is what model car building has been all about, and that goes back, for me, decades. Another thing that bugs me about what I'm seeing raise its ugly head here, and that is the personal bickering--that's not the model car building family I've come to know over the years, guys. Sure, we do disagree, that's human. But to come to blows, at least digitally, isn't what I would expect to see or hear when I sign on to a great message board, nor experience at a model car contest or NNL. OK, I've said enough, except to extend my Kudo's to Tom Lowe, and John G., for being willing to step up to a huge plate, and take a big swing at a big project. Go for it, guys! Biscuitbuilder

I give up! When Gregg fixes this forum, I will post more pics, until then, I will have to use the other magazine forum. Biscuitbuilder

This was posted on another message forum a little bit ago: Auto World licenses tooling for AMT, MPC & Polar Lights model kits. Thomas E. Lowe, President and Owner of Round 2, is now assembling a team of knowledgeable plastic model and die-cast specialists who are excited about this license opportunity and passionate about reintroducing these brands to their respective communities. Lowe states, “Our goal is to bring back many sought after vintage kits of all types from the AMT and MPC tooling banks, some that haven’t been available for decades. We've recruited model kit expert and creative designer John Greczula from Retro Hobby, Inc. to work with us. Best news all year! Tom"

Mr? Does that mean I have to wear a necktie, shave every day? No Way!!!!!! Biscuitbuilder

Bud, Most of the chassis work to this point has been done with Goldberg SuperJet (medium viscosity CA glue) used with Bob Smith Accelerator. I like using this sort of glue where there is filling to be done that isn't in a large enough area to warrant any sort of putty, such as down the outsides of the frame rails (the rails are made from .040" by .125" styrene -- the web of the channel section -- and .020" by .080" for the flanges of the channel stock -- ready made channel styrene doesn't have flanges near wide enough, and the stuff is way to flexible to suit me), and all the joints for the rear kickup. Note in the pics that I used some brass rod to secure the rear crossmember at the ends--drilling a joint like this after it's been glued, then packing some CA into the drilled hole, followed by pushing the brass rod into the hole (then clipping away the excess, filing and sanding it smooth) makes for an extremely sturdy butt joint in a place like this. Beyond that, WeldOn #3 gets the call for most of my assembly and detail work. Biscuitbuilder

Ala Kart's cab, however, isn't completely '27 T. It's a Model A Ford roadster back to the B-posts, with a back panel adapted from a '27 T Touring car. I did, as my very first resin body shell, a '27 T roadster, with trunk section, by reworking an AMT '27 T touring, with a scratchbuilt trunk section. However, that one was done from line drawings, which while decent, were only as good as they went. Perhaps now that I have a lot more pictures and references for this body shell, I might have to revisit that body shell again, but this time it would be just for my own use. Biscuitbuilder

To say that the original Lindberg company (BTW, they were the oldest model kit company in continuous business in the US (started back in 1933 by Paul K. Lindberg, a noted model airplane flyer and designer). Some of the brands that wound up in Lindberg packaging over the years: Lindberg, MARX (Yes, the toy company--tooled the two large scale Chris-Craft cabin cruisers that Lindberg altered into model kits, then provided an excellent electric drive system for), IMC, Hawk, Pyro, Testors, Palmer, plus one odd-ball outfit who tooled the 1/16 scale Stutz and Mercer racecars. Biscuitbuilder

Not sure what it is you are looking for, but a quick description might work: The shackles of the Ford transverse spring are those angled bits on the Revell Model A spring that point upward from the ends of the spring leaves at about a 45-degree angle. The kit axle has the spring molded as a part of it, with the front spring perches being those curved bits that reach to the upper ends of the spring shackles. The spring perch needs to be cut away from the spring shackles, and then that area of the shackles filed and sanded smooth (the top of each spring shackle on the kit spring is rounded--think of it as being like a half-round shape) and smoothed, to get rid of any file marks. If you look at the spring from either front or rear, you can see small round ejector pin marks at the top of each shackle. This area is what I drilled into, as in front to rear when looking at the spring from the top, with a .016" numbered drill in the pin vise (not all the way through, a 32nd of an inch deep into the plastic is deep enough!). Then, use some .015" brass rod (available in the model RR section of a good LHS, or from Walthers, perhaps also Micro Mark Tools) to make locating pins which can be set into the drilled holes with CA glue (gap-filling, please). These need to be longer than necessary when installed, they can be clipped off shorter later--but are very hard to stretch if too short to start with. Make sure that the brass pins are perpendicular to the front surface of the spring in all planes. The next step on this one was to mark the axle itself to show where the locating holes in the I-beam section needed to be drilled (don't worry, the channel of the I-beam is longer than the length of this spring, including the shackles) I then CA'd a length of .030" Evergreen styrene rod stock into the channel of the I-beam section of the axle, on the back side, and once hardened, simply trimmed and filed this down to just above the flanges of this section. Center these bits of styrene rod on the marks made showing the centers of the tops of the shackles. From there, it was a simple matter to drill a .016" hole in the center of each stub of .030" rod stock, and if you've been careful along the way, the locating pins will slip right into the modified axle--and once CA glue is used to attach the spring to the axle, you are there. To get a better understanding of how this looks, just take a look at the front axle/spring assembly in say, Revell's '40 or '48 Ford kits--that's where the idea came from. Biscuitbuilder

Part II! I like the dropped front axle from Revell's '29 and '31 Model A Ford kits, for their accuracy and overall look, but man are they both delicate, and fiddly to assemble! I removed the front spring from atop the dropped axle, and repositioned it behind the I-beam section, as is the standard mounting for a '36-'48 Ford. This meant making brass locating pins from .015" brass rod, set into .016" holes drilled with pinvise and numbered twist drill (hold your breath time, look angrily at one of those drills, it snaps!). As nearly always, in my experience, the kit tie rod is either broken upon opening the box, or will break easily with handling, I replaced it with one made from 1/64th inch brass rod, set into appropriately drilled holes in the plastic tie rod ends. Here's the results to date: Biscuitbuilder

I started this project a couple of weeks back, by making my own channel section frame rails from styrene (none of the commercially available channel stock has the right dimensions, and even so, Evergreen and Plastruct styrene channel's just too weak and flexible to suit me). Last weekend, I laid up a chassis jig, made from heavy sheet styrene with locating blocks of Evergreen strip styrene for positively locating, and holding the frame rails in exact position for installing the crossmembers. Jig with completed chassis set in place: Completed frame with roughed in '27 T Touring body, cut down to a "Bobtail": Biscuitbuilder

(Note to self: NEVER reply to a message board before 6am, and NEVER without having at least a full pot of coffee!) Biscuitbuilder

Earlier than that!!! I still have parts of the Santa stuck in my stocking on Christmas 1955, when I was the ripe old age of 11. I thought the kit was cool as h*ll (no, I didn't say that out loud then--never much cared for soap as a Christmas breakfast entre') back then, neat as all get out. The kit dates from the very earliest of plastic model car kits--and while the science of engineering injection molds was pretty much where it is to this day, the "artistry" of creating an accurate scale model of just about anything was barely ready for solid food. By the way, the Pyro/Lifelike/Lindberg Auburn is more nearly 1/28 scale, perhaps even a bit smaller--that was NOT a small car, as anyone who's seen the 1:1 can attest--those were a car designed to compete with the likes of Buick, itself no slouch for size either. One of the persistent rumors from the 60's is that JoHan was ready to cut tooling for an Auburn 812 Speedster--would that have been cool or what? I think it would have been. Biscuitbuilder

Also, if one does decide to build this truck "factory stock", be sure to carefully sand away the wood grain between the skid strips, as on the real trucks, from the factory, there wasn't any exposed wood. Ford, in their pickup beds 1928-52, used a sheet metal floor OVER the oak planking, having "skid strips" stamped into that--with one inch drain holes at each front corner of the bed floor. Since very few restorers either know, or care about this detail, most of these trucks get restored with piano-finished wood planking. Biscuitbuilder

It should fit the Deuce with no problem, as the flathead in the '50 pickups was the 239cid unit (bored out 221cid), just a later variety of the same basic engine that appeared in 1932. Be advised though, that the Ardun heads will not fit inside the frame rails, so they won't fit inside hood side panels either, unless those are "bubbled" out quite a bit (which would make for a very tasty street rod, BTW!). Biscuitbuilder

I wondered when someone was gonna make mention of the gap between the front fenders and cowling on this one. I seem to recall, from when I was researching a panel delivery for a resin conversion (which I did cast up, BTW, years ago) that there was a fairly large rubber "gasket" or welting that went between fender and cab, and have surmized that this must have been missing on the particular truck that Revell-Monogram referenced in pictures when doing their research on this truck. Welting was used, and widely so, to provide a dust and water tight seal between separate fenders and the body shell itself on cars and trucks of the "fat fendered" era, and often times is missing on "restored" or rodded vehicles for whatever reason (only the builders know for sure why!). Welting also served to eliminate rattles and squeaks in those areas, given the relative flexibility of sheet metal fenders, along with the often oblong bolt holes in their inner flanges, put there that way for ease of adjustment. I think, if you research '48 to '52 "Bonus Built" Ford F-series trucks, and find a clear, rear 3/4 shot of one, you will see what I am referring to. Biscuitbuilder

Now, lessee here: If I spray a hood with the Carbon Fiber paint, then clear it with Clearvision 2000, can I come up with a new discovery? Clear, almost invisible carbon fiber anyone? Biscuitbuilder

Steve, Only problem with your rebuttal is that the AMT/Ertl '67 GTO is in fact, an old MPC tool--it was reissued in 1985 by MPC/Fundimensions, for example. I suspect those tires may well be left over in the tool from the body shell's funny car days--MPC did that a lot back in the late 60's. Biscuitbuilder

Westley's Bleche White is little more than a liquid trisodium phosphate solution (TSP). TSP is a phosphate detergent, used a lot in furniture refinishing, as well as household cleaners. Check your local supermarket for "Spic and Span", an old-line powdered cleaning detergent--this is almost pure TSP, and a strong solution of it should do the trick for you as well. Another option is Naptha, which is a paint thinner (also cigarette lighter fluid!), that just about any paint store, or paint department of a home improvement store (or even Walmart!) carries. It degreases resin like "RIGHT NOW", and short dunks of resin into it won't hurt the resin either. This does need to be used in an area AWAY from open flame, preferably outdoors. Biscuitbuilder

Lee, Those hood sides are unique to one Model J, the Fernandez & Darrin drophead victoria built for the actress Greta Garbo. They have three additional curved louvers added at the rear of the side panels, to compensate for that car giving up its standard side-mounted spares in favor of double rearmounted spare tires. To return those hood sides to the way they were as supplied by Duesenberg Inc., simply carve away the rear three louvers, then fill the access/cooling door panel lines at the rear of the hood sides (ordinary Model J's didn't have those). Remember, Duesenberg Incorporated's standard package, as supplied from there factory, in addition to the completed running chassis, included fenders, running boards, splash aprons, complete hood, radiator shell, headlights, taillight (either one for the left side, or a pair according to the customer's demand), and bumpers. Most coachbuilders didn't modify those "identifying" parts, unless the customer wanted something different, until fairly late in the game, when several attempts were made to update the aging styling toward the end of Model J production (Model J was designed in 1928, first produced in 1929, and the last one not completed until 1940 (Rudolph Bauer's convertible berline). Of course, over time, as these cars changed hands, several got restyling, ranging from new bodies to simpler stuff such as "skirting" the fenders, smaller more streamlined headlights, that sort of thing. Biscuitbuilder

Knowing the car as I do (I built the original master for this one, Bandit used, with my OK, one of my castings to create the new resins of it), the only differences between a Biscayne and Delray for 1958 were trim items. The Delray doesn't have the second, lower chrome spear that runs from the front fender back to just behind the doors, and the interior is much different, very, VERY plainly trimmed. Of course, there would be a Delray script instead of "Biscayne". Biscuitbuilder

If you can find a copy of "Standard Catalog Of American Cars" covering this era, I think you will find there are wheelbase and overall length differences between the Mark VII and the corresponding Thunderbird/Cougar. I researched the car years ago for a resin transkit, and found this to be true. The length differences are in two places in the body shell--between the doors and the C-post/sail panel, and in the rear deck. While the differences are not huge, they do make for completely different proportions, and aren't at all difficult to achieve. One problem with mixing the Monogram '87 Tbird (1/24th scale) and the Revell "Hot Rod Lincoln" (1/25th scale) is that in addition to the approximately 4% scale difference, Revell foreshortened the Mark VII body shell to fit the Matt & Debbie Hayes Tbird Prostock, thus eliminating the length and wheelbase differences I mentioned above. Biscuitbuilder

I'm sorry, but I will have to agree wholeheartedly with Junkman, and with CanAm Garage here: There is nothing whatsoever at all wrong, or worthy of criticism in debating the merits of, the construction and detailing of, a replica of a real car--just as there is little if any room to criticise the particular model car passions of someone else who chooses to follow a different path. This hobby has been one of pretty much wide-open freedom to build as one chooses, what one chooses, and how one chooses, and that includes you, me, and the other guy too. This part of the modelbuilding hobby has always transcended the sort of bickering over which way is best, which theme of modeling is best, which genre is best--frankly something that other areas of scale modeling miss out on. So, why not give this one a rest for awhile? Biscuitbuilder

Only slightly worse than a bunch of builders debating what is correct, and what is not, on any factory stock build of a muscle car. Biscuitbuilder

Actually, For the day and age, not at all that "tacky"! One need only to look at ordinary home furnishings of the 20's to see similar fabrics, similar "over decorative" patterns. A car such as the Royale was aimed at the super wealthy, who in those days, lived like that, with very opulent home furnishings, particularly where fabrics used in upholstery and drapery were concerned--I've got a lot of memories of even middle class folks in their 60's back circa 1950 who had housefulls of upholstered furniture like what is seen on those two Royales--it was the style once upon a time. Their tastes in luxury car interiors reflected that taste from home, particularly in a formal car, such as these two Royales were. It wasn't confined to formal bodied Bugatti's either--a perusal of late 20's and early 30's Rolls Royce, Cadillac, Packard and Duesenberg town car and Berline (the most formal of sedan bodies) will show the same thing as well, particularly if the car was built for a client in New York, Boston, Philadelphia. Might not be our cup of tea, but that is how many of the formal, custom-bodied cars of that era were finished, very much in fashion then, but looked on with at least some disdain by a lot of folks today. Biscuitbuilder

Bob, International Association of Automotive Modelers, or IAAM. LA is the last bastion of that organization. Incidently, IAAM started out as the Chicago Association of Automotive Modelers, about 1951 or so, and still lives on--name change to Lake Michigan Model Car Club (LMMCC). It's believed to be the oldest continuous model car club in the US, perhaps the entire World. Biscuitbuilder