Ace-Garageguy

You're absolutely right in what you said in post 111...the louvered deck from the 5-window won't fit a 3-window. But it does fit the roadster. I should have been more careful to clarify that. And thanks for your continuing interest in my mashed-up mess.

There's also the very real possibility it was a long-term strategic marketing decision to not include the QC and buggy spring rear end bits in the first offering. Get the sales this one generates, and when it starts to slow down a bit, hopefully after thoroughly replenishing the tooling $$ coffers, introduce a more-old-goody-containing follow-on. I'll buy multiples of this one anyway...assuming the first one I open looks right to my jaundiced old hypercritical eyes. While I agree with Bernard that, in principle, a quick-change rear IS jewelry if the car isn't actually raced, from my own perspective inside the 1:1 hot rod industry, the QC rear end is hardly a rare piece...even on mid-$ cars that ARE intended to be street driven. We recently finished a period-perfect but relatively inexpensive A-V8 (flathead) full-fender car...authentic down to the kinda not-great black enamel paint job...and it got a Halibrand rear end under it. The man who commissioned it died shortly before completion, sadly, but his wife, past 70, routinely drives the thing (!!). The only real concession to modernity was a 5-speed OD gearbox for highway cruising and a split master cylinder for safety. We've got another traditional car just about to go to paint...again, NOT a hyper-expensive build. A mildly-chopped fenderless '32 sedan 2-dr, it runs a Chevy smallblock equipped with 3 Strombergs and rams-horn exhaust manifolds. Again built to be driven, it has a 5-speed OD manual trans, but peeking out from under the rear of the car is another Halibrand. The car simply wouldn't look right without it. The most period-correct car we're currently doing (and the most expensive, by far) IS all pre-'49 genuine "unobtanium". The car will use a Columbia 2-speed rear...but that's already available in one of Revell's '40 Fords.

I think my favorite is the last of the single-headlight cars like this '57 series 62 droptop.

This is very well said. The point of getting kids involved with building models is about a lot more than simply passing our interests on to another generation. It's about giving young people a leg up in a world that may be becoming increasingly difficult to really prosper in. Point-and-click is never going to fully replace the importance of physical, hands-on involvement with reality.

Metal, in this particular car's case steel rather than light alloy, I believe. It would have been necessary to build an entire accurate full scale model of the body, in order to make molds, in order to make a fiberglass body with any sort of professionalism. You can't make a decent 'glass part without a mold, and you can't create a mold without having a full-scale model, or "plug" to start from. As this was a one-only project, the additional costs of building the car essentially twice would have been prohibitive. Pininfarina built the one and only body the traditional way, with sheetmetal panels hand shaped over a set of "stations" assembled into a buck, as illustrated below. After the body panels are welded together, they are removed and the buck is discarded (or reused if the car is to be series produced), and the body is reassembled on the bare chassis. A lot of highly skilled work. GM's intent with the f'glass production Corvette was to save a portion of the massive capital outlay required for matched steel dies for pressed metal panels on conventional cars, and fiberglass tooling is significantly cheaper than steel for a limited production run where the tooling costs can still be amortized over many copies. For a one-only project, it's still very expensive. I'm pretty sure the Corvette Rondine, though built by and credited to Pininfarina, was actually designed by the American Tom Tjaarda while he was working for PF. He's also the designer of the Fiat 124 Spider (that echoes the door character line), and the DeTomaso Pantera (which has a similar rising character line on the rear quarter panels).

I really hope this kit is a big and ongoing success for Revell, because I'd love to see justification for putting together a spinoff kit with a Model A rear crossmember (which you'll probably need to do a quick-change rear end in a '32 Ford...real or model...,a well-tooled quick-change or maybe two different styles, accurate axle bells and an assortment of buggy springs and radius-rods / wishbones. To build a truly "traditional" or "period" car, all those parts still will need to be sourced from the stash, or the aftermarket. How cool would it be to get all those goodies, a new-tool '26-'27 roadster body (NEVER done in styrene) and throw in the nice Ardun-headed flathead in a follow-on kit?

Cool cool cool. Fine looking machine work, sir.

I tend to think of things as they would work in the real world, and be cost-effective. Stance is everything, and getting it right takes a little effort. Removing spring leaves on the real truck would reduce the spring rate and tend to let the vehicle sag and dive into potholes. Sanding them off the model could leave you with weak and sagging springs too. Buying and bolting in (or gluing in) a dropped axle is the most expedient course of action...if you've got the money and if exactly what you want is available. Relocating the rear spring hangers (or just filing some material off of them on the model) makes the most sense for someone with the skills and no money, as you don't have to buy anything and you keep the stock spring rate the same (and you still have springs on the model that are plenty strong). If that doesn't get you low enough, relocating the springs to the bottom of the axle will give you major drop. It's common practice in the real world, costs almost nothing if you have the skills, and again, keeps the spring rate the same. It also avoids having the extreme twisting loads that a dropped axle puts on springs under braking. On a model, it's quick, easy, avoids fiddly measuring of the rear spring hangers...but you need to know exactly how much drop that will give you, and how much room you have to work with between the frame and axle. This is one of those instances where understanding how the parts interrelate, and measuring and mocking-up carefully BEFORE you start cutting and modifying...on a real one OR a model...is necessary to get the results you want.

Thanks again for all the interest. Still a long way to go, but it is nice to see the vague outlines of the finished project in the far off distant future...

Love that shop diorama. Man, I'd like to be a 1/25 scale rod builder working there. Great stuff. Your rusty scalloped body shell is very convincing too.

It's great to have an industry insider like Tim Boyd who knows what's going on with this stuff, and who takes a very pro-active part in getting the information out to us. I'm thinking this upcoming release has the potential to up the demand for all of Revell's existing (and excellent) '32 Ford and Model A kits. because it provides so many new build options for these old favorites. I'll certainly be looking for more Revell '32 roadsters, as I've put off building several of them because it's taken bits from so many different kits to get all the parts needed to do one. Having things like correct '40 brake backing plates, a good beam axle, finned Buick drums and a well done pinched-rear '32 frame plus a zeed Model A frame in one box changes the game. Did I read somewhere the engine is separate from the gearbox ? If so, it's an excellent move on Revell's part too. One of the things that made the parts-pack engines so appealing to me was the ease with which different engine / trans combos could be worked out. There's a shortage of well-tooled automatics out there too, at least that don't require an entire kit to source and skillful surgery with a razor saw to liberate.

Saw this back in October probably, before the leaves had fallen. Forgot about it until I was going thru some shop / build photos.

Jimmy Varacalli built the car, called the "Studester". Here's more pix with the top off. Click "About" for info on the build, the mods and the builder. http://www.hubgarage.com/mygarage/jasch/vehicles/25322

I always get a big smile from your chrome-covered big-fin boats, and this one looks great...especially so as you started with a gluebomb. Nice work, beautiful restoration.

Nice piece of "necessity is a mother" scale engineering. Looks great.

Been taking Yoda classes you have?

It hit 59 here today, but it's supposed to drop 40 or so degrees (yes, to 18) tonight and sleet / snow late Monday. 18 degrees is pretty much springtime compared to the 40-below in DaveM's post above, but I live in wimpland where an inch of frozen precipitation paralyzes the state for 3 days.

Nice to see an unusual engine swap. Stance looks good. Keep it coming.

Yes. In the real world, some manufacturers list the '63-'65 windshield as being a different part from the '60-'62, but it's been my experience that they all interchange, like zo (from Glassrack.net): "This is a BRAND NEW WINDSHIELD GLASS fitting: FORD FALCON 2 DOOR COUPE 1961-1965 FORD FALCON 2 DOOR SEDAN 1961-1965 FORD FALCON 2 DOOR STATION WAGON 1961-1965 FORD FALCON 4 DOOR SEDAN 1961-1965 FORD FALCON 4 DOOR STATON WAGON 1961-1965" As all the first-generation Falcon kits are based on the AMT '60, you should be good to go, though thickness of the resin may be an issue.

Just gorgeous. I'll have to go read thru the build log, for sure.

The 5-window deck fits the Revell '32 roadster body (just as it does in real-life) if you open the deck on it. Black part on right is one of my fiberglass copies.

Material thickness is always a consideration whenever any tooling is made for working in any material. A way to make press dies that you may not be familiar with involves sculpting your master to the exact finished dimensions you want, making a reinforced mold from a specialty toughened-epoxy tooling material, lining the inside of the mold with sheet-wax of the thickness of the sheet metal you wish to form, and making a matching mold, again with the specialty resin. This method produces a press-die in which you can accurately form metal parts, repeatedly. There's rather more to it than that (you also have to design for material "springback") but it's an interesting process. The specialty resin I've used for this purpose was manufactured by Magnolia Plastics, and was proven to be able to press 1/8 inch thick steel wheel centers for a military vehicle. We also used it to successfully reproduce an experimental copy of a Beechcraft (airplane) landing gear inner door skin, a very complex shape, in aluminum sheet, using only hand-operated presses. Here's a patent document that discusses the process in more depth, if you're interested. http://www.google.com/patents/US4601867

Beautiful work.

Opened the rear deck for access to the water tank. Some cars like this of the period didn't run radiators, choosing to block off the grille for cleaner aerodynamics (as will this car). Some kind of cooling system was still necessary, so the solution was to run a water tank somewhere, often in the rear, with the water pumps circulating cool water from the tank through the engine. Even Mickey Thompson's 406 MPH 4-engined LSR streamliner used this system. Made up a louvered decklid from a Revell 5-window '32 part. No, it doesn't fit. Had to change the curvature, widen it, and shorten it at the top and bottom. The bomber seat will show through the hole in the hard tonneau. Made a match for the other side of the rear bellypan. I'm really getting to like the overall look of this thing, and it's coming out pretty much exactly as I'd envisioned it in the beginning. The old Ford wheels from Joker and vintage AMT tires are perfect for the front.

Only 5 digits, and only base 10 (though the software to run it is still pretty impressive, even in a petabyte world). And actually, that IS the lefthanded version. I apply the paint with my left hand.