Ace-Garageguy

My guess would be for reasons of noise isolation on their top-of-the-line luxo ride. They already pretty well knew how to control noise on a full-frame vehicle, but the early unibodies could be pretty bad about telegraphing road noise and high-frequency vibrations into the passengers' posteriors. Using a body-shell as a stressed chassis member requires the front subframes and rear springs to be mounted with less forgiving rubber bushings than you'd have between a body and a full frame, so the body shell tends to become subject to drumming if any kind of handling precision is retained. And of course, with a full frame, the suspension is mounted in rubber bushings on the FRAME, and then there's another set of rubber bushings to isolate the frame from the body.

Since it looks like I'm going to have a little more build time in the near future, I sprung for some PE bits, and an Iwata Eclipse HP-CS. It was down to either the Iwata or the Talon TG-3F, but after reading all the reviews and actually holding them in my hands, I went for the Iwata. I've been hesitant to get into BMF because of the uncertainty of always being able to slick my paint out with rattlecans, and sanding out orange-peel in "chrome" trim is something I just didn't want to have to face. BMF over peely paint looks like Fido's posterior to me. I'm used to using a wide variety of 1:1 paint-spray equipment (I've been using some "big" guns on model cars), so I figure getting dialed-in with a decent airbrush shouldn't be too difficult.

So...do you still have the one you "screwed up" ??

The CH-47A would be the most common variant in the Vietnam theater. Trumpeter has one in 1/35 scale, nice and big. Click here for a review... http://kits.kitreview.com/trump05104reviewbg_1.htm

Unless you're wanting to save the 300C body intact, it should be relatively easy to cut the inner front fenders out of it, and use the 300 firewall too. Than everything would fit your chassis, and all you'd have to do is trim / fit the tops of the inner structure to the Imperial shell.

The AMT '57 Chrysler 300 chassis will get you pretty close visually, but remember that for '57, the Imperial got it's own frame / platform, with a heavy X-member in the center on the convertibles...if I remember correctly. The new-for-'57 Imperial platform lasted until '66, I think, well after the rest of the Mopar line had gone to unibody. This shot shows the '57 Imperial convertible frame. The very heavy, boxed rails and the X-member are readily apparent. Here's an overhead shot of the AMT '57 Chrysler 300 frame for comparison... ...and the underside, assembled... The '58 AMT Imperial underside shows the body mount outriggers arranged correctly for the Imperial chassis shown above, if that kind of stuff matters to you.

Very very nice, and just the right amount of gloss on the under-hood parts to look new-car real.

Great looking car. Wheels an excellent choice for it too.

What he said.

Click here... http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/04/11/little-known-fact-no-134-when-harley-earl-was-done-with-the-lesabre/

Much, MUCH better look than you get with this kit built OOB.

Got some good modifications going here. Drilled front axle is a nice touch, adds realism.

Looking good. Nice clean work, bed rails line up well with and continue the line of the beltline moldings, proportions are good...very good.

One of the MOST realistic model-weathering jobs I've ever seen. Beautiful work. The stance, wheels and everything else are just right too.

Man, you do nice work on these subjects. All your textures and accents look absolutely real. Did you paint the tool handles, or is that real wood? Either way, that's pretty impressive, just a little thing like that.

I think they call that "digression" and it seems to be a fairly common aspect of human conversation. And how many times can you say "be safe" anyway? Maybe we need on-topic-police for the Off-Topic Lounge.

While I agree entirely with the rest of your position, i have to disagree adamantly with the part highlighted in red. The "majority of the general public" have no clue as to how one makes an informed decision, and most of them lack the general knowledge to be considered remotely "informed" anyway.

Well, the thing is that there's no apparent obvious reason, no apparent cause-and-effect relationship that SEEMS to be a likely cause for the apparent atmospheric warming, other than the apparent impact of ever-rising and measurable levels of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial revolution. It's as simple as that. It's the only obviously apparent reason. That's not to say it IS the reason. And as we know, hysteria makes media copy, fodder for political agendas, and opportunities for research-grant funding. It really has nothing to do with finding the TRUTH...except to the scientists who are primarily concerned with truth.

I could be wrong, but I THINK this is basically the same kit as the "Pro Shop" version. Close enough to get you going, anyway. http://public.fotki.com/drasticplasticsmcc/mkiba-build-under-c/amt-instructions/automotive-cars--pi/chevrolet/1951-1960/amt-57-chevy-bel-ai/ Yup. Apparently the Pro Shop version is the newer tool kit with the opening decklid.

Again, agreed. But science has been long trying to establish a cause-and-effect relationship that could explain this see-sawing of global mean temperatures. The "nuclear winter" supposedly caused by a meteorite impact on the Yucatan Peninsula 66 million years back is widely thought to be the cause of the massive global cooling "ice age" and the extinction of the dinosaurs. Not proven, but the theory seems to hold up pretty well if looked at from a variety of perspectives...including the presence of a very fine layer of iridium all over the globe, consistent with a huge explosion of a meteorite at the right time in history. (Ref: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asteroid-killed-dinosaurs/ ) The "mini ice age" you refer to above is thought to be the result or particulate matter, spewed from several volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight. From Wikipee... "In a 2012 paper, Miller et al. link the Little Ice Age to an "unusual 50-year-long episode with four large sulfur-rich explosive eruptions, each with global sulfate loading >60 Tg" and notes that "large changes in solar irradiance are not required."[6] Throughout the Little Ice Age, the world experienced heightened volcanic activity.[73] When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole earth. The ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur, in the form of sulfur dioxide gas. When it reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun's rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth's surface. A recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani, followed by three smaller eruptions in 1268, 1275, and 1284 did not allow the climate to recover. This may have caused the initial cooling, and the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[6][14] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed." The apparent atmospheric warming trend over the last hundred years or so was being investigated by scientists..."long before the first self-proclaimed Hollywood celeb or politician "expert" on climate change ever came along" who were simply trying to UNDERSTAND WHY it was doing what it seemed to be doing. Science is supposed to work by trying to understand, by looking at all the available evidence, and trying to piece together a rational explanation, hopefully one that can be proven experimentally. When one UN-PROVEN OPINION or another is politicized and exploited, nobody wins. This is the case with climate change, global warming, whatever you want to label it. Though there appear to be GOOD REASONS for the climate changes of the past, the real cause of this current apparent fluctuation is still a matter of conjecture and theory...not fact.

Agreed. And MY point, which I should have stated clearly, is that there's simply not enough data available yet, and the data that we have isn't well enough understood, to make any sweeping statements as to whether the weather really IS being influenced by a long-term rise in atmospheric temperature, and if so, what the cause is. The question has been politicized and over-simplified to the point of absurdity.

I'm pleased I can get it up to 52 degrees in my house. It's much better than the 27 degrees it is outside.

Sucks her car got towed, but I would surmise the no-parking rule is there to ease the work of the plows that most likely keep the "snow emergency" route open for ambulances, firetrucks, police cars and the like...so the plow drivers can plow without having to watch out for parked cars and keep from plowing over them. Seems to make sense to heed the rules in this case.

Some theories say global warming, putting more heat into the atmosphere, in turn creates more active weather systems...both hot weather systems and cold weather systems. More heat in the atmosphere, they posit, allows it to hold more moisture, and since there's more moisture in suspension, when it precipitates out, there's more of it. More rain, more snow in SOME areas, but a measurable increase in mean atmospheric temperature worldwide. Just because it's real cold and snowy SOMEWHERE doesn't disprove OR prove the case for climate change (AKA global warming). And WEATHER and CLIMATE are two entirely different (but related) concepts.

Well, maybe that's a worthwhile comment. I got into this by trying to help a fellow modeler, a newer guy on the forum. The fact is, modelers ask on THIS forum CONSTANTLY how to use various Testors products. Why? Because Testors doesn't seem to feel the need to supply any in-depth information as to HOW to use their crapp. If YOU ever feel the need to go to a source, like the manufacturer of a particular product, for factual information rather than endlessly regurgitated and mostly wrong opinions, you might feel some frustration when it's just not available. Anybody want to point me to a Testors page that I missed, that includes instructions, recommended practices, OTHER THAN THE FAQs etc., PLEASE DO SO and I'll humbly apologize for my dumbity. EDIT: THIS is the original question thread that got me looking for online info about this particular Testors product. I'll send ANYONE $10 who can find an answer as to how you use the thing on any Testors web page. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/110171-testors-ez-clip-airbrush/