Ace-Garageguy

I saw lotsa water on the road, which at times can be a little unnerving in my old truck. Bald, BALD rear tires, and she does the hydroplane dance at anything over about 30 MPH in the wet. Just gotta get the new tires mounted one of these days.

Man's got a point. Lotsa the mile-high cars being billed as "gassers" these days would have to run as altereds anyway, due to the amount of engine setback and height. For instance, at one time, the engine setback in a gasser was limited to 10%, and the crank centerline at 24" high. Decide whether you want to build a wannabe look-at-me pretend car, or a real race car, and if it's the latter, look up the relevant rules for the time period you want your model to represent. There's a link to old gas-class and other NHRA rules somewhere on this board. Modified convertible Corvettes 'round '63 would have run in the MSP class with its own set of rules (modified sports for convertibles, but the '63 and later hardtop MAY have been legal to run as a straight gas-class car...look it up if you want to be accurate). By '68 or so, I'm pretty sure there were converts running as gassers. I believe the very famous Mazmanian car ran factory-type independent front suspension too, not the straight-axle favored by some real cars and all the wannabes. Here's a couple threads to get you started... http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/corvette-hot-rods-picture-thread.545759/ http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/corvette-gassers.573476/

I only asked because I did a very intentional wedge-channel on my (taking forever) '32 gluebomb build, and it took rather a lot of planning and fabrication. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/59708-32-ford-roadster-gluebomb-rework-sept-8-15-back-on-track/?page=1

Yes, Mr. Snake is spot-on with that idea...and even though the '63 and later Corvettes had independent rear suspension, a real gasser version most certainly would NOT (too fragile) so the Revell '62 guts are good all the way back. Also bear in mind that the C1 and C2 (first gen Stingray) Corvette frames are entirely different, but there's nothing to stop you from building a C2 Stingray gasser on a C1 Corvette frame, even in the real world.

I recently got it a couple of times, and then immediately the entire site became "down" for me, but when I checked several "site-down" testers, they all said it was up. Then about an hour later, it was accessible to me again. Very strange.

Really nice work on this. Love the parts choices and colors you used, and the stance and proportions are definitely a big improvement from OotB. The '32 grille shell is a big improvement too. If there was ever a textbook illustration as to why the '32 shell is SO popular on early Fords, this is it. I didn't follow the entire build thread. Is that a partial wedge-channel on this too? (looks like you've dropped the rear of the body shell more than the front, relative to the frame rails). Or is it an optical illusion from the camera angle?

Cool kit, for sure, but not without some serious scaling and proportion issues itself. It was a grail of mine too, like the old Aurora double '34 kit, and just as disappointing when I finally got one. For one thing, the grille-shell is WAY too large, even for 1/24.

DON'T bother with the "insert other media" box !!! After you get the "copied" yellow flash on Pbucket, place the cursor in the reply-box on the MCM page where you want the photo to appear. Use "Ctrl-v" on your keyboard instead of "paste". You should get the image code, and the photo will appear when you "post" or "save". This works every time for me, since 2012...several different computers, operating systems and browsers. NOTE: You have to hold down the"Ctrl" key and the "v" key simultaneously.

Now, I'm getting an occasional "ERROR 404" "we can't find the page you're looking for" when I try to respond to some threads. Interesting.

X2

It's not the same as what you said in your ORIGINAL post, which is what I went by. Precision in communication is important, especially when you're trying to get technical advice and information. In your ORIGINAL post, you say you used "bondo glazing & spot putty", which is this SINGLE-part product, #907. It's RED. Looks kinda like the same package, NOT AT ALL THE SAME. The product I recommended is Bondo Professional Glazing and Spot Putty #801, which is buff when mixed properly. Good luck.

Oh yeah...this is some cool stuff. I like your ideas and taste.

Search Ebay and the aftermarket resin manufacturers.

I would really be interested in researching the differing abilities of illustrators who first had the talent, and then developed it into what must be Harry's level of exceptional eye-hand coordination (what every good artist has to have in bucketloads) to work with traditional media and THEN made the switch to digital...as opposed to someone who's never developed the skills to use pencil, pens, paper, brush and the like, and has trained ONLY using digital media. I work with a man, Gary Overacre, who spent his career as a commercial illustrator using traditional media, and who never made the transition to digital...got out of the business actually, as it was coming in.

...and exactly the reason, very well stated, that I'm such a strong proponent of trying to get young people involved in model-building...or really anything that requires manual as well as intellectual skills and dexterity.

Good looking model, and I have to agree with both yours and Tim's opinions on this. Getting a hot-rod to have the initial "man, that's so right !! " factor takes somewhat more finesse than the designers of this kit had, but at the same time, the mere availability of all the cool parts and options in a single box makes this one a must-have for anyone who really wants to build hot-rod models based on early Fords.

Pretty good. You must be a train guy too. Betcha most people are not going to get the reference.

Yes sir. The 2-part Bondo "Professional Glazing and Spot Putty" is my primary go-to product now. It's the most fine-grained of all of the similar products I've ever used, which makes it ideal for model work. It's also rather thinner (lass viscous) and spreads easily, and tends to self-level. The thinness of the product makes it a little tricky to do heavy vertical fills, but if you use your brain and let gravity help, you're golden. It also adheres VERY well to styrene that's been sanded with 180 grit paper. The last, and possibly best, feature of the stuff is that besides coming in 1:1 shop-size containers, it also comes in modeler-friendly tubes (with the catalyst in a separate tube, included, as always with 2-part fillers). Available in most real-car-parts chain stores.

Ah, the truly awesome power of technology to propel us into a far, far better future is simply mind-boggling. Yes, when the marketing mavens get a hold of something, it's a sure sign it's arrived. A new mainstream opportunity to add cost to a product without adding any value whatsoever.

The people who said digital would never be for serious photographers simply didn't understand the technology's function enough to be able to envision how it would mature. I haven't kept up with the technical data, but at one time, I seem to remember that the highest resolution digital CCD can produce finer "grain" than the sharpest film. I'm fully aware of the amount of image manipulation that can be done in both analog work and digital, and I feel they both have their places. The difference comes with personalities...whether a man would prefer to do his "darkroom" work with chemicals, filters, enlargers, etc., and develop a very intimate relationship with the process (which admittedly doesn't offer anywhere near the breadth of options as digital manipulation does), or prefer to sit, mouse and click. "Process" is rapidly falling out of favor in every sphere. The desire for instant gratification and effortless ease of use applies equally to photography as to anything else. Of course, to work at Harry's level of proficiency in digital media, you have to really have your stuff together too. There's definitely a lot of "process" in what he does.

I do a lot of heavy mods and bodywork, and I have a few ideas and suggestions you may want to consider. 1) The shrinking of the lines in your filler under the primer is a common problem. It occurs because of the difference in solvent absorbency and sensitivity between different materials. As Tom suggests immediately above, sanding the entire bad areas and re-priming, perhaps repeatedly, will most likely kill the ghosting eventually. It depends on what type of primer you use too, how wet you shoot it, how long you let it flash, and how long you give it to dry thoroughly. 2) To minimize this kind of problem in the future, try to fit your inset panels very well. Tight seams require less filler. 3) When you have your inset or spliced panels glued together and the glue is THOROUGHLY dry, sculpt the seam surface BELOW the level of the surrounding panels. This will allow you to fill the seam with your 2-part automotive putty, without the seams showing as they do on this work before it was primered. You'll then have a more even substrate that will tend to shrink at closer to the same rate. 4) Try to do your bodywork as perfectly as you can BEFORE you primer. Don't hesitate to fill and sand multiple times to get the surface as good as possible. 5) You can do ALL your bodywork with the 2-part material. The single-part material is really pretty obsolete, is extremely sensitive to the solvents in primers and paints, and is well known to shrink and cause ghosting like you have here. Though some people still swear by it, to me, its ONLY use is for filling TINY pinholes and almost invisible flaws. 6) There's no easy guaranteed tricks to this stuff. Experiment to find techniques and materials that work for YOU every time. I've been doing custom bodywork on 1:1 vehicles and models for well over 40 years, and I could fill a book with tedious explanations of procedures most people aren't going to read and follow anyway. Practice and experiment, and DON'T TRY TO RUSH IT. PS: I do know a little about this stuff. Here's one of mine... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/65965-mickey-thompsons-challenger-one-still-alive-feb-8/?page=1

I think by "easy to assemble" all that was meant (at least on my part) is that the parts fit together reasonably well, even on my repops. If one simply wants t glue a kit together, it works pretty well, actually. The difficulties arise when one wants to go beyond just gluing things together.

Article here... http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/james-deans-porsche-550-spyder-location-rumor-reward/ and here... http://www.leftlanenews.com/james-deans-porsche-550-spyder-found-after-55-years-89822.html

I did some work for a company that was definitely going to be losing money on each copy of the product I'd developed for them if they insisted on selling it for the targeted price. The owner's response was "we'll make it up on volume".

This kit has been around since its Pyro release many many years back (late '50s). Though there are some scaling and proportion issues, I think your assessment of the kit as being in essence "easy to assemble, but challenging to get it to look good" is pretty much spot-on (I have several). There is a LOT of potential here, but it will take some effort to make a really outstanding model. Here's a nice one (NOT mine...)