Ace-Garageguy

I counted up my works-in-progress last night, and I've got 16 in regular rotation ....actually getting worked on fairly regularly (2 of which are getting close to completion), and another 62 that are being worked occasionally, or are getting parts-collected (all of which have been mocked-up, and have a definite direction), and that sometimes come out and replace one of the regular-rotation builds when I get stuck for more than a week or two. I'm a little hesitant to start anything new at this point, but I keep getting so many ideas, and if I don't at least mock-up something with notes, I'll forget it. I kind of like being able to jump around on these hobby projects as a relief from having to focus very narrowly on real-life projects until completion. Any other perspectives?

Over the past 5 or so years that I've been completely back in the hobby, I've found I enjoy rebuilding gluebombs probably more than building from virgin kits. Some of this derives, I'm sure, from a lot of my real-life work having been done in restoration or crash repair, and correcting other people's messes. I just seem to be wired to want to fix things. There is also the attraction of being able to get subject matter to re-build that would be rare, expensive, and a shame to cut up if complete and nice. Because I tend to modify things heavily, I'd just sometimes rather start with a piece of cast-off junk. Kind of just like building customs and rods in reality. Here are three of my ongoing rebuilds from trash, or kits started by someone else.... http://www.modelcars...opic=58538&st=0 http://www.modelcars...showtopic=59708 http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=58969&hl=%2Borange+%2Bhauler+%2Bradical

Personally, I'd recommend scrubbing thouroughly with Comet and an old toothbrush after stripping. Sanding can round-off details and is hard to get in all the little crevices. Comet, on the other hand, besides being gentle on the details while still getting into all the little places where old paint tends to stick, also does a better job, in my humble opinion, than soapy water of removing all of the residue from whatever stripper you used. Because Comet is a light abrasive, kind of like very fine liquid sandpapar, it also gives the surface enough tooth so that further sanding is un-necessary for good primer adhesion. Again, just my opinion, but very well tested and found to be an excellent procedure.

Okay, I'm a dumb guy. Duh. You mean that big 1/16 on the box actually means something and I should have noticed it? Duh. Duh.

Hey boys and girls, check this out.....looks like they DID make one............. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Model-Kit-57-Chevy-Bel-Air-Convertible-/220944388968?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33714fd368#ht_500wt_1413

I do, because I usually do heavy mods and a lot of bodywork. If you're just sanding mold lines off of an otherwise good body (with 400 or 600 wet), then sandable primer is all you need. It simply depends on the degree of filling you want the primer to do.

In my humble experience, they're both "sandable"..........(as opposed to some enamel primers and primer-sealers which need to be left unsanded to insure an unbroken surface film which will impede penetration of the solvents from subsequent coats). "Filler primer" is generally thought of as "high-build-primer", and often labeled as such. A thin coat will dramatically highlight flaws in raw bodywork you might have trouble seeing otherwise. It builds quick with successive coats, covers fast, and fills small irregularities, course sanding scratches, etc. in bodywork. In high humidity or when using multiple coats, it can take a few days to shrink in fully, and to be ready to sand. I will usually prime bodywork with Duplicolor Gray Filler Primer, allow it to fully dry, then sand the worked area and primer again, and repeat as necessary until I have the surface finished to my satisfaction, sanded up to 400 or 600 grit wet. Because it is high-build, it will also tend to obliterate details if used excessively. "Sandable primer" is just that....it can be sanded to remove very minor imperfections, slight orange peel, or dust nibs. It is NOT a high-build product and is intended to fill maybe 400 grit sanding scratches in your work, to provide a tooth or adhesion coat for paint, or to change the color of the substrate and so effect the final color. I often use Duplicolor Sandable White Primer as the last coat of primer under translucent colors, like the lighter Testors one-coat metallic lacquers (gold, orange, etc). It does a nice job of brightening the color, and fills the 400 or 600 grit scratches left from the final sanding of the Filler Primer. I usually final-sand the sandable primer with 1000 to 1500 grit wet, again, to remove any slight orange peel or dust nibs, prior to shooting color.

I've been thinking of doing a Renault Dauphine gasser-style for a while. Definitely a "what if", as I don't think the body shell would have been legal as anything but an altered, or maybe competition coupe. This CB might light the fire.

I've bought several Showboats over the years for parts. There are 4 injected Buick nailheads, two big quick-change rear ends, and 4 M&H Racemaster slicks plus a bunch of other stuff for modifying. The exhaust stacks don't have to be a problem....there is a fixture that comes in the kit to help with the assembly and alignment. The kit is challenging but will build up beautifully with careful fitting.

There was a Monogram "Metalflake Corvette Roadster", I assume 1/24....no specific year on the box. I don't know if this counts as a separate issue.....seems like it would.

Thank you AK_Invader. I've heard only good things about R&M. Must be time for me to give him a try. Thanks again....that could really get this project steaming along.

Only time I got burned was when I sent some Revell '31 Woody wheels, tires and a hood assembly to a guy in England. Seems the people at the postal orifice / customs office there misunderstood the value I'd placed on the parts ( $.50) and interpreted it as $50. They charged him a pretty hefty import tax, so he stiffed me instead of taking the problem up with them. Ach well.

Very VERY nice. It is indeed one of the most challenging kits, and you've done a fine job. I recently bought 5 of these as gluebombs from one builder who just kept trying and trying and couldn't quite hit it.

I've been looking into this for some time, trying to get some to finish my '32 wedge-channeled roadster. The brushes I had in stock that seemed to have the best variety and no seam are labeled Aleene's. Though they DO have 2 ribs on the big end, a careful razor saw cut and cleanup would fix it. They don't look like expensive brushes, so a visit to Michaels or Hobby Lobby would most likely turn up something usable. I've also read of guys using the tapered nozzle from the super-glue tubes, though nothing much will stick to that particular plastic, and it's difficult to cut and shape clean. I've also thought of putting some aluminum tube in the lathe, and seeing if I could gently force a taper into it using a tapered mandrel, well lubed up.

That sounds like some great advice Art, obviously the product of much experience and experimentation. I'm not always happy with my own airbrush results and resort to rattle-cans much of the time, which I've pretty well mastered. I'm going to try your approach and really pay attention to the results. Thanks.

Thin-film photovoltaics are being used on some electric sport-aircraft, and have been incorporated into a few concept cars. The drawbacks to using them on production vehicles are currently 1) fragility....they won't last long enough in an environment that includes car-washes and people throwing briefcases and purses on the roof; and 2) they don't lend themselves easily to forming compound-curves. Though a car roof isn't heavily sculpted, it's curvy enough to preclude being easily covered by a material that is normally formed in very flat sheets. Some of the thin-films will happily flex in one dimension, but not 2 simultaneously. Here's a quick overview. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell The technology is developing rapidly however, with paint-on solar cell material becoming a reality. Once the durability issues are solved, we will see it becoming common.

Pretty slick work, all around. I like subtle, and clean, and quality. This one has it all. Very nice. That red & black car by Scalemaster is really interesting too.

So, the rational, reasoned answer would be that there is some specific difference between the paint that works, and the paint that doesn't, right? Even though "Zero paints is specifically for the airbrush and thin enough, so that's not the problem" as you say, the viscosity of the paint may be simply too high to work correctly in your particular airbrush.They are NOT all exactly the same. If you haven't tried thinning it further, then I suggest you try that. Also make certain that the vent for the paint container isn't clogged. Are you using a gravity or siphon feed airbrush? Though Chuck's answer may seem a little harsh, there's truth in it, as it's your problem, with your materials and setup, and only you, with experimentation and practice can solve it. I have found that many hobby materials didn't perform to my satisfaction immediately, and it was my own error or lack or experience with the PARTICULAR material that was the actual problem. I wish you luck as to finding the cause, and bringing the enjoyment back.

PS. By the late '50s, dropped tubular front axles were becoming available and some guys made their own, so the '32 kit front axle can stay but the 4-link has to go. "Split wishbones" (or else "hairpins" like the option in the 5-window kit WHICH ARE ON BERNARD'S BLUE CAR) were common on cars with dropped axles, to correct the caster of the front end. Your '31 kit has acceptable wishbones, and to "split" them, you simply cut them apart in the center and mount them to the frame rails instead of under the engine, with ball-joints on the cut ends. Look it up on the HAMB. Bernard's first photo above has, I believe, a shot of the Revell '31 rear end under a fabbed rear crossmember for a Revell '32, and the I-beam front axle we've been yammering about. PPS. I still LOVE your little blue belly-panned roadster, Bernard. Now THAT's a hot rod !!!

This should be a good one. Like your screen name too....one of my personal favorites.

Front wheels are American Racing (nee Palamides) magnesium spindle-mount 12-spokes, from the AMT double dragster kit, with badly painted whitewalls on generic old AMT kit tires. Rears are Halibrand slots from I-don't-know-where, with M&H slicks from the first issue SWC Revell Willys. The slicks came in a lot of Revell drag-car kits.

Thanks for all the interest and comments, guys. I'm really leaning towards the big Offy, but as Offies came in several displacements and outside sizes, and as I have several, I'm having to do some research as to which one would would be most appropriate. The one in the 1/25 AMT Watson Indy roadster looks tiny, and the one in the 1/24 Monogram Indy Kurtis roadster looks too big. In 1:1, the normally-aspirated engine from the Kurtis should have plenty of grunt, with a little less cam and a six-speed, to give decent acceleration in a very light car, so I'm looking for correct outside dimensions for that engine. It may get Indy-roadster style front torsion-bar suspension too, just to be different and to tie in the Indy-car thing a little tighter.

Yes, we touched on that earlier....and this car is having something of an identity crisis. I had considered just changing the cut lines on the doors to deal with all the clearance issues, or lengthening the fronts to make it a 2-door, and even doing scissors doors ala Lambo for something different, and to mix genres. I'm really beginning to enjoy mixing elements from different periods and styles in an effort to come up with fresh looks.

Great reference pix. I will certainly save these. Many thanks. Also notice the Ford alternator, and remember that the "polished guard" on the plug wires is electro-magnetic RF (radio frequency) radiation-shielding to prevent radio interference, similar to what is on the same period Corvettes and un-necessary on a steel-bodied car. Casey, it sure looks like you're right in thinking the hood bulge is there to clear the brake unit, but there's really no good engineering reason (or obvious one, anyway) why the unit couldn't have been located lower. Interesting question.

Because they can get it. Pricing consumer goods can be complex in it's explanations and rationalizations. Limited production things cost more because they have to make more jack on each one. High quality things cost more because you get more quality, or content. New things cost more because some people are willing to pay stupid money to be cool and hip. Things made by inefficient companies with too much overhead, middle management and other expenses cost more because idiots have to eat too.