Ace-Garageguy

Yup. And I've used 3M fine-line tape, which has a very good adhesive. Color it with a black sharpie. Betcha can't see it.

Bought one several years back, and it takes some hot-rodding (in my opinion) to get consistent results. Upgrades for these are available as kits, and common-sense mods will make it hotter and suck better. The size is a limiting factor too. Experimentation is critical to get a good part every time...for me, anyway. I don't have the patience to make 3 parts just to get one good one. I have both of these books, and recommend them to anyone who's serious about doing this stuff.

I could be wrong, but I tend to agree with Bill's (Longbox55) take on this thing. It looks to me as though someone has taken random parts from various sources, without really understanding their functions, and has combined them in a way that looks old-timey engine-ish...sorta. If you go to the link and click on the photo, an enlarged version opens. There is a line of what appear to be exposed valve springs facing the camera behind the manifold-looking thing. This would indicate all the valves are in-block, in a single-file line. In a real engine, this valve arrangement would necessitate both intake and exhaust ports and manifolding to be on the same side of the engine, as noted above. I see nothing on this model that's readily identifiable as either intake or exhaust manifold. The plumbing on top of the head does appear to be coolant-related, as does the horizontal chrome piping connected to what appears to be a coolant pump, driven from a horizontal jackshaft. I think it's a bogie., but I'm still hunting. Closest I've found so far is this old 2-stroke Roberts aircraft engine. Somewhat similar water piping on top, but this engine breathes through ports in the cylinder walls and would have no need for valves or springs indicative of poppet-valves as on the model shown in the OP.

Sometimes, yup. Dropped a pair of pliers on one once. In a rush. Dropped the whole model once...also in a rush to get it to a club meeting. Once turned over a bottle of liquid glue on the bench, didn't notice it until the chassis was stuck solid to the wood worktop. One of the reasons I obsessively test fit all through the build process is to avoid unpleasant surprises at the end, but I don't always catch everything. But see, I figured out how to eliminate the problem entirely. NEVER FINISH ANYTHING !

Nice !!

Damm.

Justin, I'm glad you took my input in the spirit I intended it. I've been under hoods and cars most of my life, and usually have a pretty good idea of what things should look like, which is a great advantage to a modeler. But the nice thing about today is that we have the internet. You can almost always find a photo of how something would look if it were real, and I use online research constantly. This is a shot from above of a Nissan S15 gutted, being prepped for something like you're building. You can see the junction between the firewall and inner fenders is not filled or radiused, but is a sharp crease where the panels are spot-welded together. Good shot of the strut tower, too. Here's the thread on this car, which has lotsa shots of the project you may find helpful. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=682434&mid=0&nmt=Nissan+Silvia+S15+-+Twin+Turbo+V8+Track/Drift+Car+Build

While the tutorial I posted was developed to do a flip-nose, the concept works equally well for a single panel, and the curved arms allow you to put the actual hinge-point just about anywhere. You can also reverse the concept, and put the hinge pin at the other end if necessary. One possible option on the '40 Ford might be to glue the grille to the hood, and hinge the hood-grille unit forward like the Fiat is done. EVERY hinge job is going to require different geometry, but the issues you have to overcome are the same. The hinge arms you make (whether you use the old faithful wire-and-tube style most guys go for or make plastic ones) have to be curved to clear something, and they have to be accurate enough to return the panel to exactly the same position EVERY time. You need to always keep in mind just exactly what will have to clear what as the hinge operates. Sometimes this can be difficult to visualize, so moving the parts relative to each other as you hold them (you become the temporary hinge), and / or making scale drawings works well. The pointed nose of the '40 presents a unique challenge, but close-together hinge arms could work, if they're accurate and have very little slop in the hinge joint. I made a reversed version of the hinges in the tutorial to do the decklid on this '32 Ford. As I said, the basic idea is adaptable to almost any situation.

Your thinking is right on the money. I've been building vac-bagged glass and carbon parts for years (for 1:1 aircraft and surface vehicles). Carbon HAS to be bagged, as it is so rigid it simply will not follow any tight curves otherwise. Vacuum-bagging COULD be used to advantage on model glass parts, but adds a level of complexity that's not necessary for scale parts with the techniques I've developed. My parts have gone from .030" down to .010", and are still tough and can be finished using conventional processes. Surface details are reproduced perfectly, every time. Notice the surface details present on these parts and molds.

Something I forgot to mention...After having a few horrible fish-eye experiences (one of which was on a full-size (real) airplane fuselage), I've got into the habit of doing a final wipe-down just prior to shooting paint with 70% isopropyl alcohol and clean, white recycled paper towels. Don't use 90% iso, as it MAY take off some primer. The recycled (and cheap) paper towels in my area seem to have nothing on or in them (like dyes for fancy printed flowers) that will leach out and spoil your work. If you let a model sit around for a week or two, to let the primer "shrink in" before final sanding (like I do), you'd be surprised what airborne contaminants can land on it...anything from pollen to fine droplets of household furniture polish can play merry hell with paint, causing fisheyes. The LAST time I didn't iso-wipe a model that had been sitting before paint, I ended up stripping the whole thing and starting over. But when I saw the fisheyes forming on one side, I stopped painting and allowed the paint to flash off. Then I iso-wiped the OTHER side and painted it. ZERO FISHEYES ! Lesson learned. Yeah, a lot of folks will tell you it's wasted effort and unnecessary. Your call. NOTE: TEST TEST TEST. 70% isopropyl MAY HARM SOME PRIMERS. I use Duplicolor, SEM and Plasticoat, and it has no effect on them. TRY IT ON THE PRIMER YOU USE (on a spoon or scrap part) BEFORE TRYING IT ON A MODEL ! NOTE 2: If you shoot your primer really slick (NO orange peel) a thorough (I mean THOROUGH) scrub with Comet, hot water and a toothbrush (gets into fine crevices) will give you enough tooth for good paint adhesion without the risk of slightly flattening / softening details you have with sandpaper.

I did a tutorial a while back on making flip-nose hinges. It's not a '40 Ford, but the basic idea can be modified to work on just about anything. Click here: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=70025

LDO (Lee)...using perf board for the stage is sheer genius. Great idea.

Not magic, for sure. But it definitely takes skill, paying attention to detail. precise temperature control, and some applied intelligence on an ongoing basis. Well, if you want consistently good results, anyway.

Vacuum forming has been a staple technique of the modeling community for many years. Though it has some advantages in allowing the fabrication of close-to-scale-thickness parts, it also has several disadvantages. The fact that details don't form crisply with most vacuum-forming processes (which usually form the part over a "positive" mold) is one major drawback. I've been experimenting with making close-to-scale-thickness fiberglass parts since 2005, and have the process pretty well worked out. It has several advantages over vacuum forming, chief being that it requires no heat, and as the parts are formed in "negative" molds, sharp details reproduce perfectly. My fiberglass parts that are .020" thick are at least as "strong" as injection-molded styrene parts, are of consistent thickness (if you do it right) and will take a great deal of handling and abuse during finishing. These early parts are about .030" thick, and will take very rough handling. In the mold...

Fine, fine, fine.

Excellent point.

Looks like a natural for a top-chop to me. I got an old Johan Pontiac in much the same shape not too long ago, and that's where she'll head.

I've always liked the lines of the car, and I've wondered why it wasn't MORE popular. It lends itself well to customizing in my opinion, and starts off with a slanted B-pillar that saves a lot of work when chopping the top. I still have this gasser gluebomb-save on the WIP shelf...just scored some missing parts, so she'll be coming back online in not too long.

I saw your "what's the point" thread and it seemed you want constructive input. First, I like what you're doing. Several of us here who are hard-core "traditional" hot-rodders are of the opinion that engine-swapped imports are some of today's real original-spirit hot-rods. What bothers me about this one, and remember...you asked for constructive feedback...is the Milliput at the firewall / inner fender juncture. I don't know what your plans are, but right now it looks like somebody emptied a couple of cans of Great Stuff urethane expanding foam in the crease, and hoped for the best. I find that careful fitting and shaping of sheet-styrene replacement parts that are going to show on the finished model gives better results than thick gobs of filler. The area you're working in at the junction will be very VERY hard to file and shape to produce anything remotely resembling a 1:1 assembly.

Thought I was gonna get another snow day today, but late last night the snow / ice turned to rain and the roads were clear this AM. Phooey.

Inspiring craftsmanship.

I build lotsa different genres and styles. Some of my work gets a lot of feedback, some of it gets very little. Big deal. Yes, a lot of people here like muscle cars. I don't do them very often. I'm not about to complain because a '69 Camaro gets more hits than one of my obscure old dry-lakes cars from before WW II. And I'm not going to change my own taste in cars to get more participation from the peanut gallery. People come here to look at and comment on what they like. Or not comment at all. That's just fine with me too. Harry's work...even his obscure (to most of the builders here probably) brass-era cars... usually gets a lot of interest for a simple reason: it's very high quality, and most of us can learn a lot from watching his threads. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Stay strong Jonathan. I'm sure there are several of us who can identify with what you go through, and we're all pulling for you.

Very interesting WIP of a type of race-car we rarely see on this forum. Looking good. I got a few of those frames built-up in a box of gluebomb bits, wondered what they came from. Thanks to you, now I know. Thanks for the tire info too. That skinnier Goodyear looks to be exactly what I need for something.