Harry P.

Those are great, thanks!

Fantastic photos! Do you have any more? I'm going to save these...

Same here.

Since when do slaves get paid?

He's laughing on the inside...

Which is why you should never subscribe to Taco Bell...

Golden Bell will send you a replacement if you ever get a damaged issue.

Because we're easily amused? Hey Skip, you'll be thrilled to see that someone just started another thread on this same exact subject!

There's already a thread going on this same subject.

It's actually a lot cheaper per issue if you subscribe. And it comes to you, you don't have to go and hunt it down. Given the fact that the magazine is kinda hard to find on a retail basis, I don't understand why everyone doesn't subscribe instead of hunting down each issue.

I hear they work pretty well to fix a wobbly table...

Ewe guise are reel humerus.

Don't you mean "wear?"

A lot of you guys got this one right... sort of. Most of you got either the name wrong, or the model year(s) wrong, but you were "close enough" so I gave you credit. Only a couple of you actually were 100% correct... it's a 1951-53 Holden Model 50-2106. Many of you called it an "FX" or a "ute," both of which are not the correct name (but seems to be widely used). And many of you got the model year wrong. The Holden sedan debuted in 1948, but this truck, which was based on that sedan (the Holden 48), didn't come along until January 1951. Who got it right (more or less): mark taylor MIKE THE MANIAC carsntrucks4you Badluck 13 Draggon Chris R Nitro Neil customsrus modelmartin Joe Handley my66s55 Corvair Jim Junkman mr chips Drgon63 trogdor maltsr Ryan S prostockmaniac

No, silly... there over their.

So what? That's not even accurate anyway, the glass didn't come that way from the factory. Don't let a cracked window stop you from finishing this model when it's so easy to make a replacement.

Nice job detail painting the engine, Dave!

Actually, for all my carping about the lack of detail and parts count on this kit (which I am serious about), I suppose the kit plus a reasonably well done detail set (that makes up for where Revell obviously cut corners) could still come in south of $100 if I can find a deal on the kit. Aside from the fact that I'll have to do a lot of stuff myself that I think Revell should have done in the first place, not a bad deal overall. If the detail set lives up to my expectations I just may give this kit a shot.

I hope the detail kit includes valve stems... I know, I know... I'm being picky and had "unrealistic" expectations of this kit...

She looks like Carrie Underwood...

The front windshield should work. Use 5 minute epoxy to glue it in along one edge, let cure, then you can use small spring clamps to hold the glass in place while you carefully add some more epoxy to the unglued side. Where you glue first will be determined by how the glass is warped (in what direction it's twisted). The rear glass should be easy enough to make with clear acetate sheet.

Which model is the better "bargain" is open to debate, and you're comparing apples to oranges. The Mustang is very simplified. It's basically nothing more than a double-sized 1/24 scale kit, with no extra features or details I would expect from a large scale kit, but selling for more than twice the price of a 1/24 scale kit. The Falcon is an entirely different issue. Yeah, it's inaccurate and overpriced, but saying the Mustang is a better bargain than the Falcon is like saying a pair of jeans at $40 is a better bargain than a shirt at $25. There are two completely different sets of parameters at work.

You're making a comparison that's irrelevant. What Trumpeter did or didn't do with their Falcon has nothing to do with what Revell did or didn't do with this kit. If you think the Revell Mustang is a good kit and you like it, then fine... but I reserve my right to think otherwise.

All the Pocher Mercedes models have the same identical chassis and engine, only the bodywork and interiors are different.