Ace-Garageguy

That should probably be my new motto.

Yeah, I've wadded up a few. It can get pretty expensive and pretty frustrating. I have two broken ARFs that I rescued out of a dumpster (with engines and receivers / servos!) that are slowly nearing flying condition again, and somebody gave me a couple of transmitters. Last time I looked, the field we used to fly from was a subdivision, but I'm sure there's still somewhere fairly close. We'll see.

Pretty slick.

In web-speak, I always took it to be a kind of non-confrontational post-modifier or suffix, added to help ease the friction sometimes caused by informing a poster of something they might not know, or may have forgotten, especially when the post seems to be in error because of misinterpretation of facts, or missing relevant facts altogether. In other words...

DON'T SAND METALLIC unless you've tested that particular paint on something else. Sanding metallics and pearls CAN (not always) RUIN the metallic effect, and leave blotches.

Pictures please, please...

1/8 makes a pretty spectacular model, and if done well, they photograph like the real thing. (That reminds me...I need to get payment sent off for a 1/8 '32 Ford) You rarely see 1/4 for anything other than flying model planes, to the best of my knowledge. I have a 1/4 Spitfire kit that's too big to build in the house. Frankly, I've often wondered why so many aircraft kits are 1/32 while most armor is 1/35. I'd buy more of both if the scales were the same. Then there's the question of why 1/25 and 1/24 exist, being so close together. 1/25 is more of an 'engineering' scale, as many engineering drawings were done in 1/10 scale (dimensioned in tenths of inches rather than in common 'ruler' fractions), so conversion to 1/25 was simple. 1/24 is more a common household 'ruler' scale using inches...so why 1/24 is popular for European and Asian models beats me. And why is railroad G-scale a 1:22.5 ratio? Very curious. 1/12, 1/16 and 1/20 don't have much in the way of subject matter, and again, I've often wondered why bother with designing in scales that aren't very popular. And as Greg said about the engine kits: "why 1/6 when there are so many vehicle kits in 1/8 that they would fit in ? ". They DO make impressive desk models, but it kinda seems they'd sell more if they DID fit in the 1/8 kits. Who really knows? There doesn't seem to be much logic to any of it.

Couple points regarding your couple points...there's some confusion about the "implement tires" on old rods. Though those straight-tread tires LOOK like implement tires, they're actually purpose-built dirt-track tires. They were popular on the lakes cars, where actual "implement" tires would have disintegrated at speed. See below. Far as the whitewalls go, some of the old race-car tires were recaps built on used carcasses, so it actually might have been possible to see both the ribbed fronts and the block-tread rears with 'factory' whitewalls. That's why you see a lot of vintage photos showing early "piecrust" slicks with whitewalls. There were (and still are) also things called "Portawalls" (see above) that let you put whitewalls on just about anything. Another full-scale option was / is rubber "whitewall paint". Really.

SEM self-etching primer ought to do you. It's pretty hot and will really craze some plastics, has a thin film, adheres well, actually somewhat transparent if you only shoot one or 2 coats. Comes in a kinda chromate-looking green, black and gray. It's hotter than the other hardware store or parts-store self-etchers.

Good looking model, great subject.

http://mbworld.org/articles/audi-q5-flies-off-4th-floor-of-parking-garage/?newsletter?utm_source=jan16&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=content

Yeah, there's a LOT of that too, but this particular guy kinda has a 'following' . There's real stupid on both sides of the ebay buying / selling line.

NICE LINES! I was kinda apprehensive that you might have gone too low there in the beginning, but this looks great, flows really well and the slope of the B-pillar works just right.

Yes sir.

That's what bothers me about the whole idea. I'm certainly not against "progress" and the forward march of technology, but electronic and mechanical systems DO fail, and the more complex they are, the more likely they are to fail at some point. Thinking of an 80,000 pound truck being piloted by Microsoft kinda makes me want to stay home. As you note, signal interruption is a very valid concern too, whether it's simple RF from towers or a GPS signal from a satellite. Maybe the developers of the tech have run the numbers, and find that the failure rate of these systems looks to be lower than the stupidity rate of human operators, so the possible "losses" are considered acceptable, because they show an improvement. Just a thought.

If you read the whole listing, he goes on and on and on about how rear this particular piece from a one-year-only kit is, and he's looking for some stupid money for it. Not 10 grand, but not 10 bucks either.

Very interesting what comes up when you google "solar station". I could sure live happily in this world...

Trust me...if it's JUST lacquer blushing, it will disappear if you clear coat it with clear lacquer. If, on the other hand, it's "mottling" from the particles in a metallic paint being uneven and pooling in some areas, it WILL NOT go away with clearing. Painting with any product is best done at temperatures above 70 F (many products say 60 F on the label) and at low humidity. High humidity, even on a very warm day, may STILL cause severe blushing.

Lacquer for me, all the way. It's just so easy and forgiving to use, I can't personally see the point of messing around trying to reinvent the wheel with anything else. I occasionally use Testors spray-can enamels, as they can make a really nice glossy finish on smaller parts, but they take a long time to dry and can be difficult to use on larger parts like bodies for a wide variety of reasons. There is a popular method, originated by Donn Yost, that involves using enamels reduced with lacquer thinner, air-brushed. He produces consistently outstanding results, so it's definitely worth looking in to.

Things run in cycles. What fell out of coolness can easily become cool and hip and happening again. Just look at the resurgence in vinyl record sales and who's buying them. It's not mostly locked-in-the-past () old audiophiles like me anymore... Why millennials are buying more vinyl records http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/why-millennials-are-buying-more-vinyl-records.html

Nice clean little model. Fits together better than a lot of these I've seen built over the years too.

Seems it's a tough problem, well known in the printing industry. From the limited research I've done, it seems apparently the blue coating is "insolubilized polyvinyl alcohol" , which can become very hard even when stored away from light. According to this brief excerpt, "mechanical abrasion" (sanding) is one way of getting it off ... " improvements in the photoengraving process have been efiected by using dichromated polyvinyl alcohol as the resist layer, for zinc as well as for copper printing plates. An important drawback to the use of such resist material has been the difliculty of removing the insolubilized and hardened polyvinyl alcohol complex from the metal plate and generally it has been found necessary to resort to mechanical abrasion for such removal, with consequent danger of obliterating sharp lines at the borders of the incised areas. Certain chemical treatments proposed, such as with caustic soda, present problems due to their corrosive action on the metal." Here are two patented CHEMICAL processes that appear to address your particular problem. https://www.google.com/patents/US3796603 Method of removing insolubilized light sensitized poly(vinyl alcohol) from a surface utilizing periodate ions https://www.google.com/patents/US3175907 Stripping resists from printing plates

Very nice.

They're out there. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Models.html

Good idea. Too bad we can't get a few more thousand folks to do the same thing.