Ace-Garageguy

And here's an entire thread about casting resin parts: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=74224&hl=video#entry936252

I haven't used Alumalite specifically, HOWEVER...ALL the common silicone-mold / urethane-part ("resin") casting products use similar chemistry and procedures. I have used a number of products made by Freeman Manufacturing for professional model building, prototyping, and mold-making / casting. If you need information, they have a FREE online series of instructional videos, here... http://www.freemansupply.com/video.htm Smooth-On also has a collection of how-to videos here... http://www.smooth-on.com/media.php

These are all solvent-type glues for styrene. The clear blister-pack (or soda-bottle) plastic is highly solvent-resistant, so the solvent glues don't work well. BTD's epoxy is a reliable way to go when adhering parts made from materials unaffected by solvents. You might also try CAA, or PVA-based glues, which have worked well for me where the clear parts fit well.

Yes, zenrat reminded me of the "knife-and-fork" arrangement in post #21, and I modified my statement to "any vee or opposed engine you're likely to encounter in a car"...

If this was the April 1 installment of Auto ID, it might make sense.

The proportions and lines of the old Revell kit (the kit on the left) are really quite nice too, though it takes extra effort to get everything to fit well. The Aurora kit on the right (later re-boxed as Revell / Monogram) has some proportion issues. The bonnet (hood) looks like it was wrecked, never pulled back into shape properly, and poorly sculpted with bondo...just not correct at all, and really spoils a beautiful design.

Nice to see one of these with a 390 FE T-bird engine swapped in. Sure would be quicker than the old faithful flathead.

I don't use a booth and I rarely have dust or hair problems. I make damm sure there's nothing loose on ME by blowing myself off with compressed air before I even pick the model up, then blowing it off too (along with my gloved hands and whatever I'm using to hold the model) just before shooting primer or paint. Pay attention to any air movement around you, and if the wind is blowing, don't spray.

Clear fuel line isn't going to be appropriate for an F1 car anyway. I've found some nicely textured black bead-stringing material that looks great for water hoses in 1/24, in various diameters; it should work for fuel line in 1/12 if you're doing car with black-fabric AN hoses. I've also found some smooth rubber stuff that again, makes great water hoses in 1/24. Should have applications in 1/12 as well. With the variety of beading wire diameters available, plug wire material ought to be a snap. Online electronics supply houses and ebay also have small-diameter wire. WAY cheaper than buying the packaged stuff. Craft stores also often have silvery-braided material that makes a really good looking representation for braided stainless Aeroquip hose.

As in other scales, if you know what diameter hose or wire you need to represent, the craft store or Radio Shack can be your best friend. If you know the diameter of a particular hose or wire in 1:1 (full size on the real car) just divide by 12 to get the correct diameter in 1/12 scale. And because 1/12 is twice as large as 1/24, you can just double the diameter of what you'd use for a 1/24 scale model.

This is serious performance.

Whoa...and it moves under its own power too. Pretty impressive. I wonder what wears out and pops first, the CV-joints in the drive axles, or the tire sidewalls.

A mini-tank for the masses...(basically, the same as the Mad Max Fury Road version)

It just seemed to match the quality of the vehicles so nicely...

Painting fat-fendered cars with the fenders attached can be an absolute bugger. I was getting so frustrated with a '40 Ford custom, I decided to re-do the build so that I could paint the body and fenders separately. Kind of a pain too, as the rear fenders were originally supposed to be molded-in. You'll get it.

Like it, lots. Looks like the fender extensions on the actual kit are more exaggerated than the box-art would lead you to believe. Is the kit engine the single-cam or the DOHC ?

I LIKE that. I'm getting interested in this genre. Most of the "tuner" cars around here are stock-sounding, auto-trans piles with fart-can exhausts, lowered to the point the fenders are scrubbing the tires, and a bunch of decals, or silly body kits flapping in the breeze. There is an old 240Z locally, running a turboed DOHC Toyo or Nissan six, and occasionally I see something else decent...but nothing like the well-turned-out cars I've become aware of recently due to guys like you on this site.

Ah Grasshopper...with patience, is possible to do damm well anything...

Gotta admit, when I was a kid, it took me a while to figure out that wasn't quite, shall we say, "prototypically correct".

Who are you using? I've had occasion to need technical documents translated from German, Italian Japanese and Chinese. I've usually paid about $50 for a full page of text (when no specialized technical knowledge was required of the translator) to around $75-$100 for a page of highly technical material. Once you get the translations, you just run off copies as-necessary and bind in-house, using salaried office employees. Not expensive at all...in my own experience, anyway. Seems like the translation costs for model car instructions, with relatively common words and not very many of them on a page, ought to be an insignificant expense.

The simple point, for the point-getting-challenged, was that it's simply NOT NECESSARY to have huge grilles to get enough airflow through a production-car radiator to cool its engine. It's nothing but styling...period...not based on aerodynamic or thermodynamic necessity. Look at the relative sizes of the cooling-air intakes on the cars Greg put up in post #90, and think about it. Where an intercooler is present, a larger air-intake is required, obviously. But by all means, everyone think and believe whatever you want, and compare anything you want, and refuse to see my point.

Yeah, the old muscle cars were heavy barges too, and the weight was one big reason I fell out of love with American iron in the early '70s...first time I drove a 911S, a roughly 2300 pound car, and realized that even with its 'wimpy' 190hp, as soon as the roads got a little twisty it would run away and hide from the V8 sleds. I know enough about strength of materials and engineering (rather a lot, actually) to be well aware that the Camaros, Mustangs and Challengers just don't have to be as heavy as they currently are to meet the crash standards, but they're probably overbuilt considerably to satisfy the lawyers...and the legions of potential owners who would rather have the feeling of being 'protected' by their vehicles in crashes than actually learn how to avoid them. Yeah, welcome to the present. PS. Just as an example, the EPA rates the current Challenger with the 5.7 and 6-speed at 15 city, 18 combined and 23 highway. Not all that impressive to me (and I tend to believe the EPA numbers are ALWAYS overly optimistic) because my 5.7 1989 GMC truck (which I converted back to a carb when the electronics failed, and is about as efficient aerodynamically as a barn) gets about the same fuel mileage as EPA lists for the Challenger...which costs a LOT more, and is vastly more complicated. Bottom line, there's no question that modern combustion chamber design and electronic engine management have added power and efficiency to engines worldwide, but overall, I'm just not seeing improvements that really justify the millions of man-hours and billions of dollars spent on vehicle R&D over the fairly recent past.

Beyond words. Way beyond.

Skylar, thanks again for taking the time to get this info to me. Very much appreciated.

Thanks Austin. Great stuff on that site. I'm really getting interested in these contemporary hot rods. Lots to learn.