Harry P.

Where's all the glass???

Exactly! Stocks and bonds are for investing... model kits are for building!

So what's the big problem with a multi-piece body? Model kit engines are multi-piece, the chassis are multi-piece, same with the interiors. I don't see any downside to a model having a multi-piece body other than it takes a little more time and effort to build it.

Maybe someone ought to politely let Lindberg know that the Model T ended production in 1927...

If Bill Geary can't get it done... how is a mere mortal supposed to get it done??? Seriously, though... to build a 1/24-25 scale operating convertible top is incredibly difficult... especially if you want it to not only function but be anywhere even close to scale fidelity. The problem is functionality/strength vs. scale accuracy, which is nearly impossible to do. I've built a 1/8 scale operating top (Pocher kit), and even at that large size it's hard to do. At such a small scale (1/24-25) you'd need skills and patience that not many people possess. It's not impossible, but it's maybe a bigger job than you realize. Not that I'm trying to talk you out of it... but in my opinion if you're actually going to try it you're in for some headaches...

"Collector" kits only exist in the eyes of a kit collector. For a kit builder, there is no such thing as a "collector" kit. Good job on this one!

ok, I'm here!!! Much better this week, guys! You voted REAL, and that's what it is! Next ROM coming MODAY!

The smaller tube of Bondo is a good idea. Also, if you're talking about the traditional can of Bondo, try storing the can inside a slightly larger, airtight container... like a piece of Tupperware or similar. And make sure the lid on the can itself is tightly closed.

It is very pricey, that's for sure. Not my cup of tea, but if it was, I suppose I'd take the plunge.

That is one good looking car...

"Road Island"???

... ex-wives...

Nah... What you don't see in the photo is what I really wore to impress the boss man... my grass skirt!

The question of resolution vs. image size can be very confusing. Actually, digital cameras all shoot at the same resolution: 72 dpi (dots per inch) or ppi (pixels per inch). PPI and DPI are two different ways of saying the same thing. 72 dpi (or ppi) is the resolution that a computer monitor outputs its image. The standard resolution of the internet and computer images is 72 dpi. What 72 dpi (or ppi) means is that every square inch of the image is made up of 72 individual tiny dots of color across that inch, and 72 individual dots of color top to bottom... or 5,184 pixels in every square inch of image. Therefore, a photo taken at the "standard" or "normal" setting, let's say 600x800 pixels, at 72 dpi (the camera's resolution) would contain 600x800 pixels, or 480,000 pixels. One "megapixel" is 1,000,000 (one million) pixels... so an image that's 600x800 pixels in size would contain slightly less than .5 megapixels. Again, if we consider the camera's resolution of 72 dpi, an image sized at 600x800 pixels would be approx. 8"x11". What makes a digital photo either "standard" or "high resolution" is actually not a factor of resolution. Remember, the camera can only shoot at one resolution: 72 dpi. What makes the image "high resolution" is the physical size. For example, your camera may have a maximum quality setting that produces an image that's 2400x3200 pixels... at a resolution of 72 dpi that image is approx. 33" x 44"! The resolution is still 72 dpi, but the actual physical size of the image is much larger. At a physical size of 2400x3200 pixels, the image would contain (again, at a resolution of 72 dpi) 7,680,000 pixels; slightly more than 7.5 megapixels. So obviously a 5 megapixel camera could not produce an image at this size, you'd need at least an 8 megapixel camera to do it. What makes this larger image "high quality" is not the resolution (72 dpi) but the physical size. A larger image (3200x2400 pixels or approx. 33"x44"), when reduced in size to print to a standard size of 8x10 or 8.5x11 paper would appear much sharper than a smaller image (600x800 pixels) printed to that same size. And then there's the whole issue of screen resolution (72 dpi) vs. print or reproduction resolution (300 dpi). It can get very confusing! But in terms of posting photos on line, an image sized 800x600 pixels or so (the "standard" or "normal" setting on many digital cameras) is all you need. And in fact, if the image is much larger than that, the forum software automatically downsizes it anyway, and your photo will have a black bar across the top that says "click here" to see the image in full size. So really, for posting images here, anything bigger than 600x800 is unnecessary.

Number one: you need a good lens. That goes without saying. My Cybershot has a Zeiss lens... a good lens. But the more magapixel capability, the higher quality and larger an image your camera can record when shooting at the high-quality setting. If you're shooting photos that will be reproduced in print at a fairly large size, you need that megapixel "horsepower" to record an image of sufficient size and quality. Example: In Photoshop, an 8x10 image @300 dpi (standard print resolution) contains 7,200,000 pixels! That's a lot of pixels! But for shooting pix to post online (per the original question), it's all overkill. Even the cheapest digital camera will do the job in that case. But given the fact that megapixel capability keeps increasing while digital camera prices keep decreasing, it makes sense to get the biggest MP capability camera your budget will allow. You might not always need that extra "horsepower" but it's nice to have it if you do need it sometimes. These days cameras in the 8-10 MP range (plenty good enough for hi-quality shots) can be had for less than $200... in some cases a lot less.

Making use of the "ignore" feature is a good way to "ban" anyone from the site. In case any of you didn't realize that you have that option... you do!

Banning someone is only a last resort. If someone continues to push the limits after they've been warned, then they may get banned. But if someone who caused a problem behaves himself after being warned, then everything is fine.

Depends on whether that area would be sheetmetal (body color) or an interior panel of some sort (I wasn't sure)... But either way, gluing the roof to the body and treating it as one unit seems to be the better way to go (instead of following the instructions... but hey, who does that anyway? )

He meant "donk"...

I see your point on getting at the "package shelf" with paint. Yeah, this one sounds a little tricky. If I was building this kit as the coupe I'd paint that area first, mask it off, then attach the top and paint the body as a unit, just as if it had been molded that way...then simply remove the tape from the shelf area. Trying to glue the finished painted top to the finished painted body sounds like trouble just waiting to happen!

I know people have pointed out various "issues" with this kit... but I saw one built-up, on display at the Trumpeter booth at iHobby last week, and regardless of any accuracy issues this kit may have, it looks incredible when built and fully detailed.

If the seam between the top and the body runs along an existing body crease, then it should work pretty well. If not, a little filler and you're good to go. It's nice having the option, I give them credit for that!

Just curious... what is that thing on the penny???

Just let me know what you need...

Hmmmm....the option to build a closed car or a convertible! What a concept!