Ace-Garageguy

Classic response. Concise, factual, addresses the issue at hand, well thought out, and to the point.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The dimensions of the port-spacing are in the photos of the real engine posted previously, I did the math on the OLD Revell engine, WHICH IS CORRECT, and some of us work on this REAL vintage stuff daily. Dimensions don't magically warp and move just because something's old. Sometimes having some factual knowledge can be a BIG help in forming an opinion.

Gee Rob...port spacing is port spacing is port spacing. It doesn't change just because it's in a hot-rod. Ever built an engine in anything?

Fine looking model. Really takes me back. I have the Monogram 1/24 kit that I've borrowed the turbine from for an LSR thing. I really should build the Huey. Sure wish there was a Cobra in 1/24 too. I live under an approach to a regional airport where one company still flies two Hueys. Can't mistake that rotor sound, coming in over the treeline, for anything else.

How dare you allude to my peccadillos?

Yeah, and this looks like a Corvette too. I mean, it's obviously a Corvette. Who could possibly deny that? Close enough for some, I guess.

Same group...

Cool stuff. I always thought the real car was a little better proportioned and sleeker than the kit version. Maybe I'll build an 'accurized' one someday. Project 20028.

Ignore the "Insert other media" entirely. It's pretty well useless for now. if you were posting successfully from Photobucket before, it works the same way now. The way I do it (not everyone apparently) is to simply use the IMG selection for the photo you want to post. 1) To refresh, select an album in Pbucket and open it. 2) Hover your cursor over the 3 little horizontal lines that appear at the top left of the thumbnails. 3) A drop-down menu will appear. 4) Click the "share links" choice. 5) You will get a white overlay that says "Share the photo". 6) Look at the right hand side of the overlay. 7) Click the IMG choice. It will flash yellow to indicate the photo has been copied. 8) On the MCM page, position your cursor in the answer box where you want the photo to appear. 9) Hit ctrl-v. The code string for the photo location will appear in the box. 10) When you click "submit reply" in the black box at the lower right corner of the answer, the photo will appear. This sounds complicated but actually takes maybe 5 to 10 seconds.

1) I don't have the "new" engine in hand to measure...yet. I will. 2) The visual discrepancy between the "old" and "new" Revell engines is instantly visible in the photos Tim Boyd posted, to anyone who has a discerning eye. 3) The poster who put up the photos of the REAL nailhead obviously knows how to measure from port-centerline to port centerline accurately, as do I. His measurements are fine, easily understood by anyone who is used to measuring mechanical things, and there are no "liberal interpretations" being taken whatsoever...but believe what you like. The only possible error that could be introduced here is the placement of the END of the poster's tape relative to the not-visible port centerline. With only a 1/4 inch discrepancy coming out in my calculations, I'll go with my interpretation of the measurements. They're all too consistently close to be coincidental. 4) I don't mean to be harsh, but the way you interpreted his measurements (and suggesting measuring from outside pipe-edge to outside pipe-edge) is meaningless gibberish, and assumes ALL exhaust headers will be portrayed in correct-scale diameter, and all the SAME diameter. That assumption allows for a considerable possible error to be introduced that would invalidate any statement made as to accuracy. If someone from Revell DID in fact measure a nailhead during the design process, measuring as you suggest could very possibly be the source of the error. The only VALID and USEFUL measurement is port-centerline to port centerline.

Were you doing acid at the time, or have you been treated for PTSD? If so, rock on, brother.

One big problem with making scale-model cages in tubing is the tendency for it to collapse during bending. Most of the commercially available bending tools for modelers are junk, don't work, or get stuck on the bent tubes. Soldering of brass is a learned skill, and joining aluminum tube in small diameters is best done with super-glue or epoxy products...which don't stick all that well to aluminum anyway. When you're in the larger scales, 1/12, 1/8 etc, you'll need the strength of metal tube to prevent sagging over time, but not in the smaller scales. Polystyrene ROD is the material of choice, in the smaller scales particularly (1/24-1/25). It's easy to work, cheap, and looks great when you master it. It also glues easily, and difficult joints may be drilled and pinned for extra strength. I scratch-built much of this cage from styrene rod...

We have a winner, folks !! Measuring and simple math are NOT subjective and up for interpretation. That's why people USE measuring and math. Meanings are absolute, everywhere, by everyone, every day, every hour, in every time zone and every language. The photos above show the overall dimension between the second and third (center) ports on a real nailhead to be 8 1/8 inches, or 8.125". Divide by 25. You get .325". The OLD Revell parts-pack engine measures .333. Multiply by 25, you get 8.325". 8.325" minus 8.125" equals .2 inches, less than 1/4 inch off, in 1/25 scale. That's quite GOOD ENOUGH. Are you with me so far? Spacing between the centers of the first and last ports is shown to be 17". Divide by 25. You get .68". The OLD Revell parts-pack engine measures .67". Multiply that by 25. You get 16.75", same as 16 3/4 inches. Again, a 1/4 scale inch discrepancy in 1/25. Close enough. Still there? The port-spacing between centers on the paired end ports looks like 4 9/16" to me. that's 4.5625". Divide by 25. You get .1825". The OLD Revell parts-pack engine measures .17". Multiply by 25. You get 4.25". 4.5625" minus 4.25" equals .3125" or just a tick over...again...1/4 inch discrepancy in 1/25 scale. Really, really "close enough". No wonder the OLD Revell parts pack engine looks right. It IS right. Ergo...the NEW Revell engine must be pretty far off (like a full inch or two) to be so instantly noticeable. See how easy that was to measure and figure things out? Didn't cost $100,000 like some folks would like to lead you to believe. PS. Please excuse any possible typos in the above. It's late, I'm tired, and I'm not getting paid for accuracy.

Hmmm...interesting...but I'm not thinking the "peel like dead skin" look is exactly what I'm after.

I'd pay a hundred bucks to see that.

Interesting. I have a fast connection and a fast machine. It's instant for me. Either way, the image isn't actually on the MCM server...only instructions as to how the server can find and display it...because it disappears if the source site goes down. And there are still images that won't copy directly, where some sleight-of-hand is required to get them to post.

Great looking old trucks, Ross. The Dodge wrecker is about a '33 I believe. Love your tag lines too. My sentiments, exactly.

One more point...when you do the transition from 400 to 600 grit, you need to use some kind of guide-coat to make sure you don't leave any random 400-grit scratches on the surface. For my guide-coat on this one, I used a fine-bodied rattlecan flat black, just barely misted over the surface. And if you want to do a surface that looks like it's been sanded with a DA, think about doing your final sanding with 600 in very small circular motions. A metal surface that's been sanded with a DA (dual-action) sander will have a more random system of scratches than a custom aluminum body like the Challenger, which had the final surface scratches running in straight lines. DA-sanded surface ... It's rare to see in-progress alloy bodywork that looks this perfect, but it does happen when wizards do the work. Check photos of real cars in progress to judge the realism of the effect you end up with. The shine here (below) can be replicated with Testors metalizers over absolutely perfect bodywork, sanded to about 2000 grit or so, and polished carefully.

You're very welcome. I just posted the answer on that thread, just now this very minute.

I forgot the XJ-13 too...

Sorry. It took a while for me to find my notes on exactly what finally worked for this. 1) I got the bodywork as close to perfect as I could, and then shot the whole thing in a 2-component primer to give a very stable and solvent-resistant base for the surface finish. The 2K primer did require some sanding to get it even 'perfecter'. 2) When I was satisfied with the surface, taken down to 400 grit, I primered the whole thing again with Duplicolor Scratch Filler (high-build) gray primer. I let it dry thoroughly, and found that if I sanded it VERY carefully with 600-grit paper, wet, IN ONE DIRECTION, LIKE A RAW ALUMINUM BODY MIGHT BE DONE, checking frequently, that 3) either Testors buffing metalizer OR Rub-n-Buff could be applied and buffed, and the very fine surface sanding-scratches would show through the silver finish, looking exactly as you see here. It's a double-barreled bugger to do it with Rub-n-Buff (which this is, mostly) because its not easy to get even coverage, and it fingerprints during handling and application to areas you do after the first area. I applied the Rub-n-Buff with my fingertip and worked it in and spread it as evenly as possible, then polished it up with old fleece sweatshirt material...the inside, soft side. I had to wear a cotton glove on the non-silver-finger hand to keep from getting fingerprints all over it too. Experiment to see what works best for you. This is only a description of what I found worked on this particular model. PS. Two years later, it looks just the same.

As I've explained numerous times, the one part is basically very thick lacquer primer that dries by evaporation of the solvents in it, and it SHRINKS noticeably as it dries. If you use ONE-PART for THICK fills in one application, it's almost guaranteed to crack. If you don't mind doing multiple thin coats with a ton of sanding in between, use the one part stuff and good luck. That was the only way we had to do things in the past, and some guys still swear by it. Fine. But for the kind of heavy mods I do, the one-part stuff is completely useless to me. I simply will NOT do multiple thin fills with one-part, wait a day for them to dry, sand them, and re-fill over and over and over (and then see my perfect bodywork get all wavy and sand-scratched over time as the stuff continues to shrink). The TWO-PART stuff 'dries' by a catalytic reaction. There's almost NO SOLVENT in it, so it doesn't shrink to any perceivable degree. You can fill 1/4 inch thick in one application and it will be dry to sand in 20 minutes if you mix it right. This is very handy if you're sculpting radical body modifications. You DO have to learn how to use the two-part...there's a learning curve...because you can make a bad mess if it's not mixed correctly, and applied during its spreadable-window. Learn how to use the two-part for heavy mods and deep fills, and save the one-part for small flaws and very thin surface skim coats. My opinion is based on long experience. This model could not have been done using one-part filler for the major work. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/81398-mickey-thompsons-challenger-1-1959-press-intro-version-in-bare-metal/ Build thread here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/65965-mickey-thompsons-challenger-one-still-alive-feb-8/

Good to know, but why do the extra steps when it's just two clicks the "copy image" way?

I should have been more specific, but you guys figured it out anyway. I edited the relevant post to correct my oversight. As Slusher and Mr.Obsessive said, it only works if you left-click "Copy image" on the menu that appears over the photo you want to copy. DO NOT USE "Copy image URL". IGNORE "Insert other media" at the bottom right of the MCM text box. Both are next to useless for posting images here. NOTE: Because the images you copy this way are not stored on the MCM server, IF the original image is deleted on the site you copied it from, or if the other site goes down, the image will disappear here too.

A single-car crash being cleared. Light traffic, clear weather, 4-lane divided highway, good road. Late-model SUV, rolled multiple times and not readily identifiable. And pointed in the wrong direction. Two ambulances on the scene not seeming to be in any particular hurry; you know what that usually means. And a kids big brown teddy-bear lying on the pavement next to the vehicle. Please pay attention. Don't text and drive. Wear your belts. Use good child-seats.