Ace-Garageguy

Great looking model, Dave. Like I said, guys have built some really attractive pieces using the Revell snapper, and this one is a perfect illustration of why this kit is the best 1/25 3-window '34 out there.

Yeah, I'm either cursed or blessed (depending on your point of view) with a micrometer eyeball. I see flaws of just a couple thou on models, and break out the calipers and yup, it's off. I once walked into an aircraft hangar where there was a brand new (at the time) Cirrus SR 22 G3. I'd been around the G2 for several years, and I remarked to the owner of the shop that Cirrus had lengthened the cowl. He swore up and down that the cowl was exactly the same on the G2 and G3, so I asked if we could measure it, just for grins. Sure enough, the cowl on the G3 was 3/8 of an inch longer than the G2 parked in the same hangar. Note: I instantly saw a 3/8 inch change on an airplane that is 26 feet long. This comes in handy for building 1:1 hot-rods and models, as more than a few folks over the years have remarked on the nice stance and proportions of some of the things I've done. But it's probably why I get so riled up about errors that most of the world is content with. I don't try to be a perfectionist, hyper-critical jerk...I just can't help seeing whatever is wrong or different.

duh...huh?

I've picked up a few closeout models really cheap on occasion, but the craft stuff they have that can be used for detailing materials is where they really shine. I've found all kinds of bits there that will eventually appear on some of my builds.

Cartpix's idea of building a McLaren M6 GT from it really has me thinking. I have zero interest in a Coyote model (just bought it real cheap for parts, basically) but an M6GT...hmmmmm.....

The Revell / Monogram snapper kit is about 2 scale-inches or so too short (length) in the hood. To me it looks wrongly proportioned instantly, but then I look at real ones daily in my chosen profession. FYI: I HAVE measured the real cars, and posted the confirmed actual and true results on several occasions. on multiple forums (including this one...but the repetition of corrections gets tiring). Still, it looks fine to some folks, and some just don't care long as it's kinda in the ballpark. Fine by me. In fairness, I'll say that lotsa guys have built very good looking models from it with no changes to the hood, but it drives me buggy. It DOES make an excellent base for just about any chopped 3-window '34 you could think of. The itty bitty Revell '34 coupe on the tube frame is about the right size for a '30s Fiat, which is what mine will become. The tube chassis IS quite nice (perfect size for the accurately-scaled T it was designed for originally, or any '25 or so T hot-rod model...they ALL will work on that frame...or for smaller race-cars) but the engine / trans is also undersized significantly. 1934 Fiat 508 There's also this old AMT '34 3-window, that again has some proportion problems (and everything in the box is garbage except the body shell). Bad as it is, it too can be the basis of a cool old rod, with some work...

Main reason I pretty much insist on e-mail confirmation of every conversation I have regarding work. It's almost unbelievable after almost 45 years of the stuff, how poorly people remember, in general, the specifics of any given conversation, and they ALWAYS remember it incorrectly in a way that favors their position. It's handy to be able to send them their own written words to remind them of just exactly what was agreed to. Still, I've had folks say back "but that wasn't what I meant, or wasn't what I thought the agreement was". HUH?? Reading and writing comprehension as a required business skill might be good.

Welcome welcome. What part of England are you in? And what part of Ireland are you from?

...with a very interesting but fragile alloy honeycomb chassis that had nothing in common with previous GT40 iterations.

I believe that little beauty is from Death Race 2000. Kinda looks more like a bizarro carnival ride than a gnarly-bad-ass street fighter.

Good to know. A really cost-effective way to get a good clear, and if tightly sealed, it will last virtually forever in the can.

Now you just need a Ferrari 308 and a mustache.

For larger work on 1:1 jobs, I still prefer USC Icing, but for smaller jobs and models, the Bondo Professional can't be beat. It's thinner bodied than Icing and self-levels better, which is especially helpful on a model where you can keep the filled area parallel with the floor until it kicks. It's also the finest-grained of any spot-putty I've seen yet, except for maybe U-POL Dolphin Glaze. The fact that it's a little on the runny side initially is good for modelers too, because as it drys out from sitting on the shelf after it's opened, it's still usable (though thicker) a year after first being unsealed. Many other glazing putties will really be too stiff to use on a model after having been opened for that long. (Once opened, even if tightly capped, they ALL will dry out and get stiff).

Found a new copy of Ray Kurtzweil's 2012 book "How to Create a Mind" on the 70% off table. Also got a clean paperback copy of Larry Niven's "Ringworld Engineers" for a buck. Found this too.

I'd bet you're closer to the mark than you think. Those were the days when cost-controlling was a little more practical and imaginative, and a bunch of surplus shoebox backlights and some retired stamping dies could go a long way towards making a relatively low-production vehicle based on a standard platform a profitable enterprise.

Tony, welcome to the forum. I didn't know back issues of PM were available, so thanks for the heads-up. Lots of fascinating stuff there. I'm heartily impressed, in general, with the amount of old and historic information that has been made available on the web. To get good results, of course, it's still necessary to know something about your chosen topic beforehand, but that goes for any kind of research...as you would well know. Critical-thinking skills and broad general knowledge are also very helpful in winnowing out the kernels of fact from the tons of garbage, and I believe they're more important now than ever. The ability of anyone, no matter how misguided, to upload "information" to the net (as opposed to the old days when it took effort and bucks to publish hard-copy material) makes it necessary to keep the BS sensor updated. I'd love to see all the old car mags available in their entirety too, as I try to make my models historically accurate and representative technically of a particular time in history. My own hard-copy library is good, but there's a lot more info I'd like to have access to than I'll ever possibly own. Maybe someday. Once again, welcome.

Or an opinion. Just kidding, good naturedly...couldn't resist.

Multi-disc clutches look more or less like this. All you need is a big. deep bellhousing, and a pedal with a hydraulic master cylinder, with a hydraulic line running into the rearish part of the bellhousing...to be completely believable. You can do a hydraulic clutch pedal a jillion ways. Here's one. Hydraulic clutch release bearings live inside the bellhousing behind the clutch pack, and eliminate any need for linkage to show on a model. One pressure line from the clutch master cylinder is sufficient to be technically correct. The second line is for an external bleed, which is not entirely necessary, though it would be helpful on a real car.

This is from a n article in Hemmings Daily http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2012/01/18/rip-jim-lytle-a-power-crazed-genius/ about the original Big Al: " In his first run, the clutch incinerated before he was halfway down the strip. Lytle was undeterred and crafted his own replacement, now believed to be the first multi-disc clutch ever made specifically for drag application."

Nice project. I love Bonneville cars, lakes cars, etc. Important part of hot-rodding history, and kinda the last bastion of the hard-core-individualist racers.

It's an actual screen shot from Gone in 60.

Well, Mr. 4X4 made a good point about something that needs clarifying. The Hardcastle car wasn't actually a Montage (which I implied in those photos) but was based on molds pulled from a McLaren M6GT, while the Montage was a kit car also based on the design of the McLaren M6GT (which is pretty much what I said originally) and they all 3 look rather alike. Then there's the Marauder McLaren, which is an exact copy (appearance wise) of a McLaren M6 GT. Confused yet?

I think it's a Europa...roof's too low and wide for an Elite...or a 246 Dino. Small lights wrong for Europa. Nope. Not 246. But I don't think Lotus Elite either...

OK, my bad implying the Coyote was a Manta Montage, which was a later development kinda based on the M6 GT as well. BUT the phony Montage and the phony Coyote and the phony Marauder McLaren are all obviously based on a REAL Mclaren M6GT design, and the Manta is based on the real M8. Also, Mike Fennell, not the ubiquitous Barris, is credited with the Coyote X. WikiPee entry: "The car that McCormick drove, the Coyote X, was built from custom molds based on the McLaren M6GT.[1] The original Coyote X was molded, modified and assembled by Mike Fennel. The nose, windshield doors and lower body (minus the ventral intakes) are faithful representations of the McLaren; the cut down rear deck, however, was a custom component that became a feature on many Manta Montage kits with damaged or removed rear windows. The most noticeable differences between the Coyotes and Mantas are the wheel wells, roll pan height and shape, and the fact that the Coyote has a one piece front clip that terminates about an inch before and surrounding the windshield. Most of the cars made for the show were molded and assembled by either Mike Fennel or Unique Movie Cars. Like many kit cars of the time, the car uses a chassis from a Volkswagen Beetle and its engine from aPorsche 914."

Have you got a normal funny car bellhousing in your parts stash mayhaps? Look at post #4 again. All you really need is a big bellhousing and some kind of output-shaft-looking thingy.