Ace-Garageguy

This is the only photo of the bunch that gives an easily-interpreted idea of the front suspension layout. There appears to be a transverse torsion bar, probably anchored in the center of the lower transverse chassis cross-tube, that is connected via heavy-ish forward-facing bellcranks and drop-links welded solidly to the underside of the axle. There could be two parallel transverse torsion bars. This setup was fairly common on a lot of cars, including something quite similar on many Indy roadsters. The torsion bar links function to locate the axle side-to-side fairly well, and there also appears to be a normal hairpin (looks like, in some side shots...though I didn't spend any time carefully analyzing them) that would provide fore-and-aft location of the axle. Rather than having a full hairpin on each side, it's also possible there's only one top longitudinal link per side, as a hairpin would tend to jam the geometry of the torsion-bar linkage motion, whereas a single top link would not. A single top link would allow the torsion bar linkage below the axle to function as part of a parallelogram linkage that would fully control fore-aft motion of the axle. It doesn't take terrifically sophisticated or strong linkage bits, as there are no front brakes with heavy loads that would need to be resolved into the structure. Here's a somewhat similar setup that uses full hairpins on each side. Similar setup, but with only a single longitudinal top link.

As already noted, in many cases the body lines and proportions of old Johan kits are the best in the business...but the engines and chassis work leave something to be desired if you want full-detail. Not to worry. Many GM and Mopar chassis and engines from other kit manufacturers adapt quite easily into Johan bodies.

I own an '86 XJ-6 that I've modded with the John's Cars 700R4 gearbox swap, and I've done two of the same company's smallblock Chebby engine / gearbox swaps. The John's Cars kits are complete, straightforward bolt-ins with good instructions, though some of the engineering of the kits could be a little more 'elegant'. Replacing the aging electronic fuel-injection with a simple carburetted setup cures most of the reliability issues (the HVAC can still be troublesome), and the electrical interface between a carbed engine and the rest of the car is easy. The XJ is a uniboby, so severe floorpan rust (which can start inside the cars from leaky windshield, sunroof, or backlight seals, or stopped drainholes in the door shells, allowing the floors to stay wet underneath the carpets) often migrates into the structural rocker boxes on either side of the car, and into the suspension-attachment points in the rear. It's a big job to repair it correctly either way. I was going to do a 4-cam Ford Modular engine-gearbox swap into mine, but the engine and trans were stolen from a shop I had worked at, before I could pick them up. The smallblock Chebby-powered XJ makes a really nice car. The V8 weighs less than the Jag engine, but will most likely make at least 100HP more (the ol' Jag is only rated at 185). Acceleration is much improved, but the onboard fuel-consumption computer shows the mileage to be about the same. With a 700R4 (4-speed automatic with a lockup torque converter) you should be able to get around 22mpg highway, consistently. In-town fuel-consumption won't be great whatever you do. The car is just heavy.

Vacuum Metallization "Before the process can begin, the plastic component is washed and coated with a base coat, so that the metal layer is smooth and uniform. Next, a metal (typically aluminum) is evaporated in a vacuum chamber. The vapor then condenses onto the surface of the substrate, leaving a thin layer of metal coating. The entire process takes place within a vacuum chamber to prevent oxidation. This deposition process is also commonly called physical vapor deposition. Depending on the component’s application, a top coat may be applied after deposition to increase properties such as abrasion resistance. Metalized plastic components that receive their coats via this process are found in a range of applications, from automotive interior parts to certain types of foils." "Vacuum metalizing" comes under the heading pf "physical vapor deposition". Here's a general wiki article explaining the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_vapor_deposition The tricky bit is producing a metallic vapor, and getting it to go where you want it to go (the inside of the chamber and the fixture holding the part get "plated" too). I would think it's entirely possible to build a home unit with sufficient research, machining and fabrication capabilities and knowledge of electronics and electricity. This google search will give you many links to follow for additional information. https://www.google.com/search?q=physical+vapor+deposition&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=731&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pNiSVfT9PImvggTpxYLQBQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&dpr=1

Looking good Ray. That candy-cane driveshaft is pretty snazzy, too.

It was a big ol' horse of an airplane, the largest, heaviest single-engine aircraft of WW II if I remember correctly. And I believe the rated power of the experimental V-16 engine was about 2500, comparable to the last of the Griffon-powered Spitfires.

Gorgeous car. I believe the Revell Tommy Ivo Showboat kit has finned Weiand valve covers for a nailhead Buick. You might be able to modify them to fit a Chebby. Also 90% positive both big-block and smallblock Chebby Weiand valve covers are available in 1/25 resin. google image-search "1/25 scale Weiand valve covers" and follow the links. Good hunting. Here's a pair that got away...http://www.ebay.com/itm/Resin-Weiand-Small-Block-Chevy-Valve-Covers1-25-Scale-/350914940578

Yes sir.

Me too.

A WIP based on the Revell Chevy kit... And one on the AMT Challenger kit...

There's a Mustang Two-ish front end in the AMT Phantom Vickie kit. It's on an easily swapped separate front crossmember. This is it (crossmember is purple) under a '34 Ford.

All the Revell C5 and C6 Corvettes have a nice LS-1, but the gearbox is in the rear of course. These kits seem to be remarkably cheap everywhere. You can easily cut the flywheel housing and torque tube from the engine and substitute the '58 kit's gearbox. The Monogram Callaway Speedster has a nice twin-turbo, intercooled smallblock with a 6-speed. Though it's supposed to be 1/24, it measures out very close to 1/25. The AMT '39 Wagon Rod has a great DOHC Chevy LT-5 This AMT / Revell mashup of mine is getting LS-1 power on a full C5 chassis.

Believe it or not, not everyone has a scanner. Yes, I know it's difficult to grasp, but try. And...ummm...if the faxee has no land-line, he's probably not going to require a fax...right? Many MANY businesses still have land-lines and fax capability...including a large percentage of insurance offices and attorneys.

Happy B-day, and lots and lots more.

Yes, fax. Even in the civilized electronic world, some things have to be faxed...or snail-mailed... where the recipient doesn't allow e-sigs, or needs a hard-copy of a document with an actual human signature on it. If it's time-critical and e-sig won't fly, you fax it.

One flaw in that reasoning...the photo shows a test-shot produced in injection-molding tooling. IF this tooling is as astronomically expensive as many would have us believe, it's a sure thing Revell wouldn't have sprung for the cost if this isn't a pretty solid bet (like 100%) for production.

Oh REALLY??? How dare they discriminate that way???

Well, maybe if the hood is a scale 3" thick. Interesting that Revell was able to get a very accurate firewall and excellent hood fit on their 1/25 '31 Ford kit that has its roots in the '60s. If that's the excuse, it just doesn't fly.

I don't see it that way. If you really THINK about what I've been saying, I'm not criticizing the models themselves so much as the failures in the PROCESS that allow misshapen panels, windows, grilles and badly proportioned tops to creep into the products (not to mention two kits that have engines that should be identical, and are in fact several scale-inches different in length). I often say that I think the manufacturers are giving us a pretty good bit of excellent work, and anyone familiar with my own work can see I'm probably capable of correcting the issues that have been pointed out. I'll buy what looks like a generally good starting point for a '57 Ford wagon, and finish it up to my own satisfaction. It's a lot more cost- and time-effective for me to buy a model that's 90 or 95% there and bring it the rest of the way than it is to carve one from a chunk of wood. But the PROCESS of getting an idea for a kit into a box on the shelves could use some fine tuning. Reasonable accuracy of all the parts in each kit (not perfection, as so many try to interpret my words to mean), where every part is up to the excellent standards we know the manufacturers are CAPABLE of (because they deliver it frequently) requires more of a feedback loop BEFORE expensive injection-molding tools are machined and test-shots with immediately obvious errors are released for public scrutiny.

Several members do '50s style cars. SBK (Steve Boutte) does some of the finest anywhere:

And I never get tired of you guys constantly willfully missing the point entirely, and trying to make my comments seem like bragging rather than what I'm actually saying... MEASURING IS NOT DIFFICULT. IF I CAN DO IT, ANYBODY CAN DO IT.

Funny thing is, I function as a design-engineer day in, day out, every working day. Do you? Besides my designs having to look good, they also have fit in limited spaces, and to function as parts of REAL cars and aircraft, in a real-world environment. They're not copies of things that have been made before, either. Each thing I come up with AND make with my own two hands, is a unique solution to a particular functional and packaging problem. Somehow I manage to pull it all together. I'm obviously an ignorant no-talent idiot, so if I can do it, it shouldn't be too hard to find people who can measure something that ALREADY EXISTS and DOESN'T HAVE TO FUNCTION, and divide the measurements by whatever scale they're working in.

You guys act like measuring accurately is some kind of way-out-there technology, or magic skill, that's somehow cost-prohibitive. IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY MORE TIME OR MONEY TO MEASURE ACCURATELY, AND DO IT ONCE.

And MANUFACTURING the model kit is a JOB for the people involved. WHAT IS UNREASONABLE and self-righteous about expecting people to do the JOBS they're paid to do ???