Ace-Garageguy

Man, that's sad. Seems like ANYTHING will go away if offered for free on CraigsList...even a bucket of possum droppings.

He also said (over on the "girl's car" thread): "I don't think the Aztek is ugly." Gotta agree with Harry though... ...we hope

I like this one...

Is that working girls as in "working girls " ?? Around here, it's mostly fake-tanned, bleached-blonde balloon-bloobed real-estate agents in those.

Ya ever driven a Porsche 930? A TR-6, big Healey or E-type with Webers? How 'bout a 240Z with a turboed Toyo 2JZ-GTE? If you think these are girl's cars, you must know some big ol' hairy girls.

Oh really?

I mean, dude, that's like, only $200 million a piece. Like, what can you do with only $200 million anyway?

Worth more in the box, unstarted... Worth thousands when it's done...

So is reading.

If no air flows at the tip, paint doesn't flow either. It's the air flowing that draws the paint out with it. And this thing appears to be nothing more than a water trap and a pressure gauge. A regulator will have some kind of adjustment knob on it as well. There are also several types of small regulators that attach at the airbrush itself... ...but without a gauge, it's hard to get consistent results. Did it come with any instructions? If not, you probably ought to get some.

Good advice. Try collecting mountain oysters in the wild.

Now let's all sing Kumbaya.

Great idea! That's a vehicle I'd really love to have in 1:1.

Any compressed fluid system (air is a compressible fluid) will give a higher pressure reading on the regulator gauge when there's no fluid flow. The actual working pressure of the system is the reading you get on the gauge when there IS fluid flow (when you trigger the spray gun or airbrush). This holds for big-car 1:1 spray guns as well. And Joe is right. A larger tank may help. Make sure your airbrush is clean internally and properly assembled, and make sure your paint viscosity is correct. Too-thick paint, a dirty gun, or incorrect assembly can all cause spitting like you describe.

Anyone for mountain oysters?

There really aren't any. There are just varying degrees of institutionalized self-important delusion.

That is one hard-working and courageous little chair.

It's always a good idea to use the recommended reducer made by the same manufacturer who makes the paint, unless you've done sufficient testing to know exactly what will happen mixing non-spec materials, or, as Gabriel suggests, your paint jobber makes a specific recommendation for a substitute. If in ANY doubt, test first. There are way too many possible combinations for anyone here to know exactly what will work reliably together, especially with incomplete information. Some "thinners" will curdle some paints like sour milk. I've known a lot of cowboy-hotshot painters who seemed to think they could just slosh anything in anything, and they made a lot of messes that took a lot of stripping and reworking. Wear a respirator if you like your lungs.

Saw the assembled test-shot at the NNL today. Looks great. Appeared to be built up on the Tudor frame rails, but I'd wager the floor, fuel tank, and some other bits are new. I didn't get a good look at the interior.

I don't know how it is over there these days, but on the HAMB, they used to drill you a new one if you were obviously a newb /dweeb/ idiot. Kinda stupidly arrogant and cliquish, insecure mob macho, and I'm sure more than a few guys left to go crying to mommy. This place is all pink ponies and mermaids by comparison.

Damm. While I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge and experience, read what I said again, please Art. I will add extra words to further clarify my meaning, as it seems to be eluding you. I said: The CAD FILES were probably COPIED, and the COPY of the DIGITAL CAD FILE WAS MODIFIED AS NECESSARY TO CREATE THE WAGON CAD FILE. That would leave THE ORIGINAL CAD FILE FOR THE TUDOR INTACT. Then I said: The MODIFIED CAD FILE WOULD BE USED TO CUT AN ENTIRELY NEW TOOL FOR THE WAGON. That would LEAVE THE ORIGINAL TOOLING FOR THE TUDOR INTACT AS WELL. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT MODIFYING OR "RECUTTING" EXISTING TOOLING. In fact, I SAID JUST THE OPPOSITE. It would be idiotic to modify an existing STEEL tool just to have to cut another one to replace it. I'm not an idiot. Do you understand that a CAD file can be copied and modified, just like a document in Word, and that the saved original remains unchanged?? Do you understand that the CAD files are only digital representations of the real STEEL tools? If so, what could you possibly mean by "no need to go back to the CAD's and cut it all over again for another run of Tudor's."? Though I do NOT design injection molding tooling, I DO design other types of tooling, and WE DON'T WASTE EFFORT doing things twice, un-necessarily. In composite tooling, it is also NOT DESIRABLE TO MODIFY A TOOL, for much the same reasons as you touch on regarding plastic injection tooling. If we need a change or update, we'll make a NEW MASTER, using saved data from the original...modified as necessary for the revised design...and make an entirely NEW TOOL, leaving the original intact...to be used if we need more copies of the original design. Clear this time??

That's pretty much what I said...if the CAD files for the Tudor body and parts still exist, it shouldn't be hard at all to copy them, modify them in the computer as-necessary for the Del Rio wagon, and cut entirely NEW tools from the modified data, leaving the original Tudor CAD work AND dies intact. Guess I wasn't clear enough.