Ace-Garageguy

Floyd's probably the top of my list far as rock goes, but their work is so far beyond "rock" in scope and complexity that it's really a separate genre.

Great info, and thanks for the effort. It's always nice to have more options to get that just-right finish that can sometimes be elusive.

Oh man! i think the Seafires and the Mk XVI and later bubble-canopy Spitfires are the most beautiful prop fighters ever...and wildly menacing with the counter-rotating props and a full load of ordnance. Great model, sir.

The valley cover is just a cover that closes up the lifter gallery on those, and most engines. There is a hole in many aftermarket valley-covers over the distributor-drive opening, where MOST magnetos get their drive from. BUT, if memory serves correctly today, most 392 Chrysler valley covers have a notch that goes around the hole for the distributor drive, and the mag mounts to the original hole in the block, like this distributor is mounted... In the pic below, notice the blue tape to the REAR of the alloy valley cover. That is the hole in the block where the distributor or the mag will mount. Also notice how the cover is notched to clear it. This is a typical setup. (The round cap is just for oil-fill.)

Neither of those cars is a '32...but I get your point. But...I also think that, unless a company were to duplicate a well-known car, say like an AMBR winner, taste in hot-rods is so subjective that no two folks are probably going to want the same thing. Just like in building a real car, some will want a subtle 2" chop, and some will want a radical 6" chop...or a windshield laid-back, lakes-style. Same goes for the amount of channel. How much is just right? And there are lots of already-chopped resin '32 and other bodies out there if you don't want to do your own. I also tend to feel that muscle cars and '50s-'60s-'70s icons have a broader market appeal than '30s based hot-rods these days. This is just my opinion, however. Feel free to disagree or disregard.

Bing images is another excellent source. You don't get the exact same stuff you get on google, it loads faster on older computers because there's not quite so much data mining going on in the background, and it's not so heavily weighted towards advertisers...yet. Imaginative key-word use can be very useful too. Computers are still semantically challenged, and a lot of posters are spelling challenged. The search engine has no idea what you're looking for because AI doesn't really understand language...yet...(IBM's "Watson" the possible exception) and it doesn't understand that "door jam" means the same thing as "door jamb", or that "door open" has anything to do with anything. You have to try think about what the person who put the picture on the internet MIGHT have had in his mind when he posted it, and what possible keywords might be attached to the post. Sometimes to find the result you need, you have to think like an idiot.

Exactly...as explained in the first paragraph of post #7. You've got it.

Not the way it's used in the Mercedes modifications shown above. That usage of the foam is really only sufficient for show-cars and mockups. That particular foam itself has about as much 'strength' as beer cooler foam, though when employed in composite structures correctly, it can add significantly to a vehicle's overall rigidity. Expanding foam is commonly injected into door pillars by manufacturers these days to stiffen them. Expanding foam has also been used by manufacturers inside bumper covers to provide a measure of crush-resistance and initial crash-energy absorption. Several current small aircraft have skins made of carefully laminated fiberglass, carbon fiber or Kevlar, with a relatively thin (1/2 inch or so) urethane foam core of tightly controlled density. This provides a very light, rigid structure, similar in overall strength to an aluminum aircraft. This shot shows foam core correctly employed in an aircraft part, with thin carbon-fiber facings on either side. Parts manufactured this way are incredibly light for their rigidity and 'strength', but are not really suited to a civilian surface-vehicle environment where people routinely drive into each other's vehicles with little thought for the consequences of minor damage.

Congratulations on doing so well, Jason, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. America is facing a critical, looming shortage of competent hands-on diagnostic mechanical techs, and hands-on skills in general. This program is certainly a step in the right direction towards combating the problem. Here's a relevant article from a couple years back. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/story/2012-08-28/shortage-of-auto-mechanics-looms/57414464/1 And here's a link to the Ford / AAA Student Auto Skills Competition site https://autoskills.aaa.com/web/aaa/home

I don't currently use urethanes on models, but I've used them extensively on 1:1 cars and aircraft over the past 35 years or so. All I have to add is that they typically have higher build than hobby-specific 1-part clears, so fewer coats will be necessary for sanding and polishing, and many will flow out so well you may not need to sand and polish. Also, HEED Jim's ADVICE ABOUT PROTECTIVE GEAR. The hardeners typically contain isocyanates, which are damaging to lung tissue, eyes, may be absorbed through skin (and even latex gloves), are extreme allergens to some people, and can sensitize the user if proper safe handling precautions are ignored. They can also trigger lifelong asthma. Here's a good article dealing with the safety aspects of using the material. Don't think that just using them on little models is OK without adequate protection. It isn't. http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Article/2923/your_lungs_your_skin_your_life.aspx

I didn't realize the molded detail on that kit was so nice. The only AMT '57s I have in stock are the old-tool versions. Your work makes it look even better.

I don't know that many dead people. Maybe I could advertise "free wood for coffins" on craigslist.

Very interesting. I've never seen those ceramic plug terminals before. You see on this cap that #1 is in the same place relative to the hold-down screws (and the arrow that indicates rotation) as #1 on the black cap above, but that the subsequent numbering has been changed, again, to reflect the cylinder firing order, and eliminate confusion. The last shot is the perfect ref. for your particular engine, as, obviously, wires to cylinders 7,2,1 & 8 are in the right-hand group of 4 (looking forward from the flywheel end of the engine), and that wires to cylinders 4,3,6 & 5 are on the left group of 4...consistent with what you'd get following the numbering procedure in post 7. Again, remember that the mag can be installed with #1 on the cap in any position relative to the engine (as long as the other wires are in correct orientation to it) to allow for clearance for induction systems or blowers (as in the last shot in post 3) or firewalls, etc.

Post #1 states it calls out a specific Revell kit #, but says the kit is 1/25...when in fact that specific kit # is 1/24...as explained above.

Thanks. But, well, bugger. I hate to waste all that wood. Double bugger. EDIT: My research so far suggests that though it burns fast, if it's dry and well-seasoned (this tree has been standing, dead, for years and appears to be pretty dry) the resin buildup shouldn't be a problem if the flue is straight (which it is...the original kitchen had a wood or coal stove, and the chimney is still there, though it will need a new liner) and gets cleaned regularly. If I burn the house down, I'll post it in "what irked you today" next year.

It's a little confusing, I know. When the numbers on the cap are left as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (firing clockwise as on the black cap) 1 on the cap will go to #1 cylinder, both the first to fire in the mag and the first cylinder to fire. 2 on the cap, the second terminal to fire in the mag, will go to the second cylinder to fire, which is cylinder #8 (going by the 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2 firing order). 3 on the cap will go to the third cylinder to fire, cylinder #4, and so forth. On the large black cap shown, mag terminals 7, 8, 1 & 2 will be in the right-hand group of 4, and mag terminals 6,5,4 & 3 will be in the left hand group of 4 wires. NOTE: The blue cap has had the numbers replaced to correspond with the cylinder firing order. Some engine builders do this to eliminate a source of confusion. And on a real engine, the mag can be installed with 1 in any position, so long as the rotor internally is pointing to 1 when cylinder #1 is at TDC firing position, and the rest of the wires are oriented correctly to it. In reality, these mags can be installed on any V8 engine (and there are versions for 4 and 6 cylinder engines too) and there are several different firing orders for V8 engines (though 1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2 is the most common). That's why the caps came labeled as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8, instead of the specific firing order for a particular engine. The engine builder / mechanic was expected to figure it out, and wire it correctly for the particular application.

I'm thinking firewood. There's a lot of wood in a 40 foot trunk, 3 feet in diameter. Though this house doesn't have a fireplace, there's enough room in the kitchen to put in a smallish wood-burning stove. The only worry is that there's another, taller, dead trunk within 15 feet of the one that just fell, and apparently can go any time.

The 40 ft dead pine that fell this AM and damaged my '63 Olds and killed my wheel barrow also managed to miss the house and several other cars completely. Close one.

I was awakened at 6:10 this AM to the sound of a splintering loud crash WHUMP. A 40ft. dead pine tree had fallen in the back yard during a thunderstorm, and though I'd known about it earlier, I'd assumed it would be okay for another couple of years. The topmost branches did some damage to my '63 Olds awaiting restoration, but luckily missed the house, carport, and several other cars. It DID kill my wheelbarrow. Smashed it flat.

Just for clarity, this is 7647. It is marked 1/24. It is derived from the original '60s tooling 1/24 '34 Ford that Monogram brought out, before Revell and Monogram merged. As I said, ANY of the 1/24 Monogram or Revell '33 or '34 Ford kit frames should work for you, though you MAY have to modify the suspension slightly. I don't really see how the cabriolet interior is supposed to work in the "phantom delivery". I assume some scratch-building will be necessary there too. The exact kit that is recommended is currently available on ebay for $19.99 plus $8.99 shipping. There is also one starting at $8.95 plus $7.95 shipping. That's about as cheap as you're gonna get it.

You have numbers transposed in your kit ID. You mean 7 6 4 7 I think, not 7467. 7647 is the Thom Taylor 1/24 scale cabriolet version of the much older 1/24 Revell '34 Ford, which has been offered in many releases over the years. Any of the 1/24 Revell 1934 Fords should have a chassis that will work for you. Be SURE you look ONLY at 1/24 kits, as Revell has more '33/'34 Fords in 1/25. The ZZ Top version can often be found cheaper, as it came out in several issues and it's based on the same tooling as the cabrio. Here's a thread discussing some of the relative merits of '34 Ford kits. Unfortunately, the thread that had the most info on the kits you need seems to have disappeared. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/?showtopic=86751

Will it serve fish tacos and dispense Imodium?

Yes, you're right. The distributor is in the back on the 392 Hemi, but your illustration"big block and Hemi" shows it in the front. That's the 426 Hemi location.