Ace-Garageguy

Tim Boyd's pix brought up a very important point about model-A hot rods. While many were / are built on model-A frame rails with a 103.5" wheelbase (or channel or rectangular-tube facsimiles), it was / is extremely popular to build an A on the 106" wheelbase '32 rails as in Tim's pix. The distinctive 1932 Ford frame is longer, much stronger, and has a one-year-only styling device. The side of the '32 frame rails is stamped with this "reveal" or sculptural detail that follows the front and rear fender lines when the stock car is assembled. The frame is exposed on the '32...the only year Ford did it that way. Because of the difference in length between the '32 body shells and the A body shells, when a non-channeled fenderless A is built on '32 rails, it's necessary to pay attention to where the stamped details in the rails are in relation to the body. This is the stamped "reveal" in the '32 Ford frame. This is a stock '32 Ford frame complete. It's fairly beefy compared to an A frame. Hot-rodders would typically substitute front, center K-member, and rear crossmembers to fit different suspension or to lower the car. This is the skinnier, shorter, weaker model-A frame.

To clarify somewhat, 1928-1931 Fords were model As, but the '28--29 were almost visually identical, and the '30-'31 were almost visually identical. They're all on essentially the same frame and running gear. Instant recognition: '28-'29 cars have this distinctive, slightly rounded radiator shell, and the coachline sweep in the side of the cowl. 30-'31 cars have this taller, more "formal" looking, slightly more square grille and no side coachline detail on the cowl. Also compare the front fenders. The earlier cars are rounder and come down more in front, while the later A has fenders with a leading edge pointing more forward, much more like the '32. The '30-'31 is indeed wider through the "hips" than the '28-'29, and is taller at the cowl...larger in most outside dimensions than the earlier A, but not quite as big as a '32. Swapping a '32 radiator shell on to any of them was / is one of the most common mods. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Revell kit is so far said to include BOTH a zeed model-A frame, and a "pinched" '32 frame.

Ummm...no. I believe you'll find, if you look at the '34 truck grille shell carefully, that it's NOT the same as the '32 Truck shell. The '32 truck shell has exactly the same overall shape as the '32 car shell. They interchange...bolt on. The '34 truck shell has a different overall shape...similar but different, and is designed to lean back at the top slightly. '34 Ford truck rad shell... '32 Ford truck rad shell...it is an altogether different part...same shape as a '32 car, but with trim differences as noted above...

Nobody said it's junk. Even those who've criticized it think it's a nice kit. It is a nice kit with some flaws. Not junk.

Well, they all look good enuf to me. I can't see any differences whatsoever and they are absolutely identical to my eye. Why oh why would anyone notice or care about completely invisible "innacuracies" like these? You all want perfect kits and you'll see...the model companies will all stop making models and go sulk in the corner. Dang rivet counters.

Et tu, Brute?

danke schön There was a customized Box in the old sci-fi series Ark II. And there was this... The "Boonie Bug" was a homebuilt using fiberglassed urethane foam planks on a VW type-3 chassis. Plans were in Popular Mechanics. One showed up in "Total Recall".

WOW !

I'm so glad that someone who's experienced this problem in the workplace has chimed in. I've seen it countless times, and having a pretty little certificate on the wall saying you've got this training or that training doesn't mean squat when the rubber hits the road. To be a truly effective project manager, it's necessary to have a grasp of the work your team members do...a full understanding...in order to select the right personnel for the jobs and to set realistic deadlines for project markers...AND to be able to critique the product as it develops to make sure it meets specs. There's an unfortunate belief held these days by a lot of business "experts" that a good manager can manage ANY project in ANY business setting. Bull. A team expected to develop a 3-dimensional product for manufacture MUST be led by someone who can do the work of each and every team member if necessary, AND be a good overall manager with a grasp of the big picture. This is especially critical if the operating budget is tight, and there's not money for multiple layers of management and project oversight.

Man, if I lived in Arizona, and if I could find a cool old not-too-rusty cab out there, and if I had the bucks, I'd love to build something like this in full scale. Very interesting. Your engine detailing and finish look very realistic, too.

But wait...there's more !!!

You're one of those "rivet counters" we've been warned about, aren't you?

Teacher, teacher !!! I know the answer. You remember all those Chinese kit-tooling designers that are always being blamed for flaws in the models because they've "never seen a real one"? Well, this is a warbird-influenced hot-rod built by guys who've never seen a real hot-rod or a real warbird. Maybe Revell will kit it. Our Asian brothers shouldn't have any problem getting this one "good enuf". PS. At least if you pull the silly nose off of Foose's thing, you still have a pretty nice car. All you've got with the OP vehicle is scrapmetal.

Interesting how times change. Many many many many moons ago, lotsa trucking companies insurance would pay for glass damage to a following car. Happened to my father several times when he was on the road. Now most trucks have a disclaimer in lawyer-speak on the tailgate.

I've seen that one. It's definitely among the best of that build style.

Like they say...one man's cheese is another man's rotten milk. The orange Nova and the black Willys are in launch mode, and they look pretty much right. You can have all the rest (though I could possibly find a use for the redhead).

And the fish on the hood signifies the bass-boat he shot down to get the aluminum to build it, right?

Yeppir. That Riv was a real puketurd.

Beautiful job. Though I'm not much of a NASCAR fan any more, I always liked this particular car specifically because of the colors. I kinda like Spam too.

An absolutely excellent point, which will, I hope, go some way to make those who don't notice these discrepancies feel less persecuted. But at the risk of offending some of them, I firmly believe the ability to instantly notice flaws in a 3-dimensional object is also a matter of hard-wired talent. Just as some people don't notice when a musical performance is full of minor but still jarring sharps or flats, and there are others who cringe when they hear them...and not all of the ones who notice are trained musicians...there are those of us who see a model and immediately know something's wrong. We may not always know exactly what it is until we measure, but we see there's something off enough to distort the initial impact of a design. Not everyone who notices flaws in scale representations of vehicles is a trained artist, car designer or engineer either. Nor are they necessarily people who live to find fault. They simply see and comment on what the majority may overlook for any number of reasons. And that's why, when I said I think we should be able to expect models that are free from significant flaws...I included the caveat...that are instantly recognizable to people who are particularly familiar with a particular vehicle. It's not unreasonable to expect that the people who design kit tooling for a living, and get paid to do it...paid well as professionals...should have the ability to spot flaws before the kits are too far along in the development process to correct economically.

I just ran across Stan Getz "Voyage". Apparently not a well known disc, but just about as cool as it gets if you like melodic jazz that's not trying to out-screech-and-out-hip the next guy.

Thank you. I forgot. I needed an excuse to get a cherry pie, and you've just furnished it.

And that's a very personal issue. Seems some new builders get easily discouraged when they discover that first-rate, shiny models don't quite fall together. So either they walk away from a hobby that does require some effort (what some of us call "fun") to produce good results, or they coast along gluing things together with a minimum of "difficulty", and they don't get any better. That's OK. It's all about choices. Choices. Some guys stay at it and develop outstanding skills necessary to build box-stock models that are almost indistinguishable from the real thing in photos. Some guys go spinning off into making wild and fanciful (and also very much fun) creations that could never exist in reality...as we currently know it, anyway. And everything in between. But like in any artistic and creative endeavor, it really IS necessary to master (or at least get a good grasp of) the several important skills that, when combined, will ultimately allow a modeler to create a satisfying 3-dimensional expression of his vision, whatever that vision might happen to be.

There's not really a lot of choice in 1/24 engines, especially old US iron...as everyone knows. One that is very simple but looks good built and detailed is the nailhead Buick / Dynaflow trans combo in the old Monogram Orange Hauler kit.