Ace-Garageguy

Oh, sorry. It's just that I've actually done it, and was sharing first-hand experience as opposed to theory.

I've used Rub n Buff successfully to produce a finish almost identical to the one on my Challenger. The problem with R n B is to get it on evenly over a large area. I've found my fingertip to be the optimum application tool...but you'll have a silver finger for a while. it will also tarnish over time, and will show oxidized fingerprints if handled without gloves. The only hope for making a truly durable "brushed metal" surface is is applying a water-based clear (solvent clears ALL make the colors turn muddy metallic) after polishing. Rub n Buff is actually a wax-based product, and will likely cause fisheyes if sprayed with clear. Experimentation is key.

In '86, when I first contacted Jensen in the UK about parts for my Interceptor, I'd expected to be talking to several layers of bureaucracy and management before I finally got to someone to sell me something. It wasn't to be. The first fella I talked to asked me what I needed, and yelled away from the phone "hey Nigel, do we have any offside front wing and door skin stampings left?" No. The conversation developed into "how long to make one of each?", still with the first contact yelling over his shoulder at the parts / production shop foreman, apparently. Gotta love a company that operates that lean. This was one of the earlier design proposals, based on the original tooling (which I believe still exists). This is the clay of the proposed most recent design. While an attractive car, I think it misses the mark somehow. Am I seeing a lot of '65-'66 Mustang fastback in there? The illustration below was another proposed design, which I like a lot...primarily because it doesn't look like the designer was trying to copy every other car out there, and then disguise the fact he'd been copying.

If you carefully test fit everything before you do your final paint, and wear latex or cotton gloves as you assemble it after paint and polishing, you'll be fine. That's a very simple kit (the Club de Mer) with no guts, so you should be able to minimize post-paint handling anyway. To get the polished inserts, you most likely WILL have to go with Alclad, but you might be able to slide by with BMF. Like I said, experiment.

Some general info. If you want a POLISHED metal finish, you'll want the "buffing" metalizer. Do PERFECT prep, lay it down SLICK, and give it plenty of time to dry... then polish it with a very soft cloth. DO NOT USE CLEAR SEALER if you want a polished affect. The Testors (and any other clear) simply makes it look like silver paint. The buffing OR non-buffing are useful if you want an as-cast appearance. Shoot it dryer and grainy to get a surface texture. I've achieved a similar finish to what you're after on my bare-metal Challenger I model using metalizers over a surface carefully sanded with 400 or 600 grit paper. The metalizer won't hide scratches that deep, and when polished, it looks quite believable. YOU WILL HAVE TO EXPERIMENT. If you avoid handling the finished model with bare hands, you don't need a sealer anyway. If it dulls a bit over time, a careful, light rub with a soft cloth (in the direction of the grain) will bring it right back up. Under Glass http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/?showtopic=81398 WIP thread http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=65965

I hope they get off the ground this time. There have been several false starts over the years. The factory was still limping along in '86 when I bought some OEM sheetmetal parts to repair a heavy-hit '74 Interceptor 440 I'd bought cheap, and I was briefly involved with an investment group looking to purchase Jensen's assets back then. I'd expected the Jensens to appreciate well, like other European marques of the era, but the Interceptor prices remained pretty flat until long after I'd parted with mine. The Interceptor was remarkably agile for a big heavy car with a solid rear axle on leaf springs, and the power rack-and-pinion steering and 4-wheel power discs helped a lot. The massive engine would pin you back in the seat nicely, too. The Interceptor still rates highly in the "gentleman's express" category, and it will get you there rapidly in air-conditioned, leather-lined and real-burl-walnut-on-the-dash luxury. Just be sure to bring along plenty of money for gas.

Beautiful job on that, JC (AFX). The stock early 914-4 is great fun to drive because it's so light and handles so well, but the flared and hot-rodded six-cylinder powered cars are a whole 'nother ballgame. Company I worked for long ago had a ratty 3.0 RS-powered, flared 914 autocrosser, lowered and lightened as much as possible. Man, that was some car.

Bugger. I didn't have time to look for it til this AM. First thought it was a DKW Schnellaster (built from '49 and another claimant to the "first minivan" title). Finally found a pic of a '53 Lloyd woody sitting next to a DKW van in a European museum. I think the little Lloyd may have drawn heavily on the Schnellaster for inspiration...

Got my billing done for the last 30 day period. Might get paid in not too long.

One I started in 1995 is about 3/4 done. Lots from 2005-2011 or so, still in progress.

Not to be a downer, but the proportions of these models are pretty poor. I have owned several 914s and have a shell / project car now. Last time I took one of the kits down off the shelf and really looked at it, I put it back. No time to do that much rework right now. There IS a builder on this site who's done a remarkable build starting with the Revell kit, with some worthwhile corrections and even a very nice set of the signature 914 racer fender flares. I seem to remember the body was going to be offered in resin at some point.

Entirely possible in theory, and the physical and processing limitations of a human body and mind ARE limitations to maximum aircraft performance. Only little problem is that when you're flying a tight formation like in the OP photo, you get wingtip vortices, varying prop wash, and wind gusting that's not entirely predictable. That's where the parallel reasoning capabilities and being able to apply experience without really thinking make human pilots still kinda necessary in some roles. If something's not entirely predictable, it can be challenging to program for...though new approaches to machine "thought" are making impressive inroads.

I'm with Joe. These look really great.

Oops. Sorry. Stupid of me. Unintentional, I assure you. Still stupid though.

Maybe I should apply for the job.

10/10. Surprise surprise. I think this was taught in grade 6 science class when I was a lad.

If the lenses are painted, one of the paint-stripper options discussed at the link below should work for you without damaging the plastic. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83153 If the color is molded in, you're out of luck. However, there are also ways to make clear lenses from readily available materials if you should need to.

Might be an indicator of basic honesty. Could be a smokescreen too. I'm a frigging moron about a lot of things, but I know what I know (sorta).

I'll betcha anything that's p-shopped. Flying close formation with multiple aircraft relies on constant visual input to the pilots from the other aircraft's relative positions. I really don't believe you can do it on remote TV monitors and RC joysticks. Even flying loose formation with a single other aircraft is a challenge that really raises your blood pressure, and I doubt that, unless three of those drones are slaved to the lead ship (and that would only duplicate control inputs of the lead ship...not make the minuscule corrections necessary for each individual ship) it's real. I could be wrong.

Much better to trust folks who don't know much of anything at all.

Probably an element of showoff in there. If so, I apologize. But honestly, one of my primary concerns is about the state of this country's general scientific ignorance. You guys are doing well above average, and that's a good thing. That's why I posted the page results with the link to an important article about science and education. If you don't understand why the lights come on when you flip the switch, or the fact that overuse of antibiotic soaps is causing antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria to evolve and make people in hospitals sicker (sometimes die), or how the spinoffs from the space program have benefited mankind as a whole, or what the operational theories are on both sides of the global-warming controversy, or how various forms of energy are produced...if you don't have sufficient understanding of science to grasp these relatively simple concepts, you have no business voting. We live in an age where a well-informed science-savvy populace is a critical necessity for policies that make rational sense to be implemented by government, and for representatives who are themselves informed and rational to be elected. Topic disclaimer: I believe my remarks to be in the "civics" vein, not the forbidden "politics".

13 Science and Technology Knowledge Quiz Results You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly. This quiz is a joint effort between the Pew Research Center and Smithsonian magazine. See below how your results compare with the 1,006 randomly sampled adults that took part in our national survey and review how you responded to each question. For more findings from the survey, read "Public's Knowledge of Science and Technology." You scored better than 93% of the public and the same as 7%.