Ace-Garageguy

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.

Funny...I'm strangely disappointed they're doing a wagon. I have an ancient gluebomb 1st issue wagon that about the only usable parts on are the roof and tailgate area. I already had the parts boxed up with a '57 sedan kit to do a wagon, and now I won't have to. Lots less work for me, something else I wouldn't have got to in forever, and the kit version will probably be nicer than what I would have come up with anyway. Still, it's oddly a sort of letdown. I'm a very twisted individual, I guess.

Wow. Doesn't get much better than that. Just like building a real car, only a whole lot smaller. Inspiring, to say the least.

Is that an Elvis-on-a-Harley-mobile-wedding-chapel? I know just the girl that would appeal to.

I've seen the PO actually encourage folks to re-use shipping materials...as long as, like the guys above say...you cover every bit of prior information. The PO DOES frown on reusing specific PO-flat-rate items (like priority mail boxes) for NON-flat-rate posting. They will refuse a package in a Priority box for other rates.

I seriously doubt it. Because the CAD and CNC files exist for the 2-door sedan, it's relatively easy to go back into the CAD work to modify it into a wagon, and then translate that into CNC data to cut a new set of molds (assuming the CAD work was saved and formatted to be easily edited). In the days when steel injection molding tools were cut by hand by highly-skilled machinists, it probably made more economic sense to modify existing tooling, but cutting a new set of body molds, and whatever else is necessary to change to a wagon (these days, on CNC equipment) is not anywhere as difficult or expensive as you might think. It's the initial expense of developing the FIRST tool-set that eats up a ton of money.

I think you have to admit that a lot of entertainment appeals to the worst in human nature, and the lowest-common-denominator...because that's what sells...and the public has been trained to expect it. The news philosophy of "if it bleeds, it leads" doesn't help, and doesn't show any real signs of going away either. Negativity and disasters seem to be what the sheeple want to hear about. I hardly heard one word in the mainstream media about the successes of the privatization of space travel...until a launch vehicle blew up and an experimental passenger vehicle crashed.

If you mean this kit, the '29 Roadster Pickup, then no, it's an entirely different vehicle. The '29 is a "Model A", and a truck, while the kit being discussed here is a "T-bucket" (a Model T-based vehicle) with a shortened pickup bed (in the current issue, anyway). Though the current re-release looks good, I think the original kit was one of the best, most "right" looking of all the T's ever built. I'd really like to see a full restoration of the first version. Hopefully the current one will sell well enough to possibly justify doing an original at some point.