Ace-Garageguy

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 ???

Once again, the relatively small problems this kit may possibly have are not going to keep me from buying several. But there's a principle here...one that is important. The companies that produce these things are capable of excellence. They give us excellence more often than not, and it's appreciated by modelers everywhere. But anyone who has the audacity to point out something that could have been done better on ANY kit, whether it's a glaring error (like a gross mistake in the height of a roof) or something relatively small, is attacked by the "good-enough" contingent of hobby "defenders", called names, and generally vilified. What, exactly, is the problem many of you have with expecting paid professionals to do their jobs correctly, consistently?

...Just as you don't bother to conform to accepted standards of capitalization when writing. Details don't matter in your world, obviously. Lucky for you that the guys who keep the lights on, keep the airplanes flying, and keep all the other myriad things you take for granted functioning don't share your attitude.

What, exactly?

And ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ Edmund Burke

Pop psychology? Thank you Dr. Charles. Some of us, in technical fields, HAVE to focus on minutiae as well as the overall big picture, because, believe it or not, DETAILS MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the real-world. People whose existences don't demand excellence, on a daily basis, for making a living...and people who don't actually create anything tangible that has to function, well and reliably...those folks just don't seem able to grasp that a JOB that requires measuring and producing data, accurately recording that data, using that data correctly, and communicating that data needs to be done carefully on a continuing basis. Without some people who constantly strive to get the details right, your world would soon grind to a halt. Manufacturing model cars (or any scale-models of anything) is a technical JOB for the people who are involved in it. It requires accuracy in measuring, interpreting data and communicating that data, and knowledge of the subject. Every time WE buy a model, WE pay the salaries of the people whose JOBS it is to get it right. Expecting people who are doing a technical JOB that has as part of its definition "attention to detail" to get it right Is not a pathetic need for "control" by people who feel powerless over other aspects of their lives. It's a perfectly reasonable demand that people who are paid to do a JOB do it correctly. We have a right to expect that the overall proportions of model cars we buy and the major dimensions and body details, at least, will be accurate.

Yes, welcome, Alec. Tell us more about yourself. I've only been to Glasgow once, back in the early 1970s. Thought it was a fascinating city, and always hoped to make it beck someday.

People explaining that they're very familiar with a particular subject, possibly have owned or own one now...and they can go look at in in the garage and see the issues... maybe have restored one, or maybe even make a substantial living building real cars as a profession (or in some cases have a strong background in tooling design and production engineering, and know excuses when they hear them)...is that what you mean? Well, when they're constantly barraged by guys who don't identify themselves as "scale modelers", but rather as "grown men playing with toys", and who insist that accuracy just isn't important, but if the "anal retentive rivet counters" think it is they can just go fix things they see wrong themselves...well, you know, it all gets a little tiring to those of us whose professional approach to our work demands a little caring and double-checking. Have a nice day. And remember, mediocrity will never be the same as excellence, no matter how much people try to say they're equal.

^ Sounds great, Richard. Keep it up. Client on the '47 Caddy came in yesterday, loved everything and paid his monthly billing. Though I'm building the car on my own, I'm working as a subcontractor to the shop that the client was referred to...hence, I don't get paid 'til the shop gets paid. Today I got paid. Yippee.

Looks good. Clever way to get a chopped 5-window without having to chop the Revell body.

The woman who leased the house I'm currently renovating (while I live in it) was a stripper, stayed out all night rather a lot, and had 3 young kids (by as many fathers, I'd expect). The "men" who hung out here were in and out of prison or jail, and probably just came around to trade her crack for services. The neighbors filled me in on all this as I was clearing the urine-and-feces soaked carpets out of the house, after she'd abandoned it, and the "men" in her life came back and stole all of the copper wiring out of the walls, and the copper plumbing from under it. The neighbors also said the kids were really beautiful (apparently the mother had been at one point), were as sweet as could be, but were always filthy with snot running down their faces. While cleaning, I also found multiple letters from the local elementary school advising this "mother" that one of her children was habitually absent. Interesting world we live in, right here in the good 'ol US.

It's a converted P-47 fighter, re-designed as an experimental hot-rod upgrade for the P-47, and as a test bed for Chrysler's inverted V-16 hemi...their first hemi engine...towards the end of WW II. With the usual production radial engine, the aircraft looks like this. Compare it to Snake's photo above.

Well, by that logic, did anyone mention the Revell '50 Ford truck with the Ardun-equipped flathead? Ardun heads had hemispherical combustion chambers too.

Well see, this is where we start getting into problems. Calling people insulting names because they think kits should have a degree of visual accuracy that's sometimes missing is how these things usually go off of the rails. You won't find many of the proponents of reasonable accuracy throwing insults at the people who don't particularly care...not until the blind idiot brown-nosed hacker side starts it, anyway.

It was better then...really...

Probably not the best possible choice of words to get a civil response, you know?

Straight rolls, curved tape? How does it work?

Actually, the OP lists 3 different and distinct first-generation Mopar Hemi engine families. The AMT '32 Ford roadster has the familiar Chrysler FirePower engine that was available in displacements of 331, 354, and 392 cubic inches. These are the most common, and the ones usually identified as "vintage Hemi". These engines were built between 1951 and 1958, with the 354 being an essentially one-year engine (in cars, three years in trucks). The AMT Ala Kart, listed by the OP, has a Dodge Red Ram Hemi, similar in design to the Chrysler engine, but different. Displacements were 241, 270, 315 and 325, between '53 and '57. The AMT '53 Ford pickup the OP mentions has a DeSoto FireDome Hemi, another similar but different engine family. Introduced in 1952 with 276 cubic inches, it grew through 291, 330, 341 and 345, and was built through 1957. The AMT Wynn's Jammer kit would represent the Chrysler FirePower engine, as would the engine in the AMT parts packs.

The $200 short springs I bought to drop the front of the '47 Caddy (G-body front frame clip) were supposed to drop the car an additional 1" over the 2" I got with the Belltech spindles. Well...no. They dropped it another 2.5". Looked really really good, but not what the client wants. Had to take 'em back out and cut the springs that were in it. Took one full coil off, and lost almost 1.5", though I thought I'd only get about 1". Sooooo...we'll see what she looks like after final buildup. I have a feeling I'll be at least running a 1/2" spacer to get the right ride height. Oh well. If swapping springs once is fun, doling it 3 or 4 times must be great, right?

I'll be buying several of these. Frankly, I appreciate Revell doing a longroof version of this car, and even with it's minor shortcomings, it's worth having, building, and modifying to look a little better. Wagons are few and far between, so if you like 'em, buy one. The more we buy, the more likely it is that somebody will do another one.