Ace-Garageguy

What planet are you on? https://mcwfinishes.com/

No argument there. We've become a risk-averse culture, and a large part of what has been lost (that I referred to earlier) is the basic concept of "guts". It accounts for everything from bloated middle-management that's primarily concerned with blame-spreading if something goes awry, to the go-along-to-get-along-keep-your-head-down mentality embraced by so many, and includes the "happy wife, happy life" code of masculine conduct.

Think whatever you want, but words have new meanings attached to them as some people decide traditional definitions don't fit the ideas they want to convey, and that makes it difficult to understand their utterances sometimes, especially for those of us who prefer rationality to gibberish .

I can't imagine why anyone would use that for scale models. I would guess the solvents are particularly hot, to enhance adhesion to engine parts that haven't been cleaned as thoroughly as possible, or porous cast-iron that has absorbed some oil. But I don't KNOW, as I always shoot engine paint on real engines directly on bare metal just like the factory did. I WILL use primer under actual engine paint on models though, to fill minor imperfections on seams and to protect the plastic from hot solvents. These are the Duplicolor primers most modelers I'm aware of (including me) prefer (though some like the non-sanding sealer too): https://www.duplicolor.com/product/sandable-primer/

A deeper dive into the technical faults. I don't know if it's actually factual, or just yootoob clickbait.

One would certainly think that, as both vehicles are apparently capable of docking with the ISS, there would be across-the-board compatibility among primary life-support systems, the individual suit being the most primary. If there's not, mechanical adapters to hook one to the other shouldn't be all that hard to whip up, could be done Earthside and carried up with the SpaceX vehicle. I know nothing about the electrical requirement of the suits, but the same goes, I'd think. Then again, the way everything is done today, the suits probably have multiple layers of useless microprocessor complication making any kind of simple adaptation much more difficult. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: If you can get past the irritating AI/computer narration, there's a little info here on poor decision making.

I have to agree it looks kinda Asian, but those headlights are pure '60s Euro.

Lines in the sand and chips on shoulders have much in common, though that's not intuitive to a non-native-English-speaker, or most recent college graduates.

It depends on what specific Duplicolor primer it is. They're NOT all the same. In general, they're too hot for a lot of recent plastic kit formulations, they might craze the plastic badly, so TEST before you use the stuff on something you care about. On the other hand, they work very well on more solvent-resistant plastics, found mostly in much older kits. If you'll post what exact product it is, we can give you more useful advice. Links below cover a lot.

Experiences in life can alter the results of 1+1, according to deep thinkers in certain circles...which might be triangles (depending, of course, on your point of reference).

Life is a budgie.

Drink deep the gathering gloom.

Despair not grasshopper, for you are soon to be looked at as a food source for the entire world.

Until there's a return to common sense. In the interim, you still can't fix stupid. Besides that, there's a good chance that overly-complex vehicles will be the least of our worries.

Well, if you're too inept, incompetent, and spatially-challenged to parallel park, and too distracted by texting and/or yakking about nothing that can't wait (complete with much gesticulation) to maintain your own lane...well, yeah.

I could probably write a 100-page treatise on exactly why the newer car did so much better in the crash than the old '59, but it's complicated, and nobody would read it anyway. Suffice it to say that there wasn't any significant structure above the main frame in the '59, other than what was required to support the outer sheetmetal. Engineers were primarily concerned with building things that would go from point A to point B, rather than providing survivable cocoons for the lowest-common-denominator clueless or irresponsible driver. With the widespread adoption of monocoque construction and strut-type front suspension, significant structure ahead of the firewall had to be added to support the static and dynamic loads. Couple that with the availability of CAD/CAE and finite-element-analysis requiring lots of number-crunching power (largely a benefit of developing aerospace requirements) which made it possible to fairly accurately model and predict structural behavior in a crash, and "safer" vehicles resulted. It's entirely possible to re-engineer a '50s car (fairly easily, like adding a roll-cage) to behave the same way in a crash, but it's probably more effective at this point in time to just get off the phone and pay attention if you're driving one.

Snagged this absolutely mint ABA set of vintage HO-scale Athearn EMD F7 diesels in Rio Grande "Prospector" passenger livery (introduced in 1951 I think), for less than the typical cost of a tired A-unit alone. From the collection of a fella who apparently really took good care of his stuff, with no discernable wear on any of the wheels, and perfect paint, etc. I'd say from looking there's not more than 15 minutes of run time on the powered A-unit, and zero on the unpowered A and B. They've all been fitted with Kadee couplers, the wrong ones actually, mounted incorrectly, but it's no biggie to swap them out and mount the right ones correctly, and re-use these on something else. The A-unit has a stout motor with massive steel flywheels and all-wheel drive, and will crawl beautifully if fed from an old-school "pulsed" transistor throttle, of which I have several. Sorry, no DCC or sound, though it can be added, but running non-DCC locomotives with conventional DC works just ducky (and did for decades), and wiring a layout to accommodate both isn't hard if you think it through going in.

Yup. But here's the BIG thing. The ONLY system that NEEDS to be computer-managed in a vehicle is the engine/drivetrain. No argument from me that computer EFI/spark control and trans-shift management improve fuel economy, drivability, and available power. But all the "body-modules" and ECM-controlled subsystems like wipers, charging, lights, signals, power windows, locks, etc. are STUPID STUPID STUPID. It's been argued here that the "computer logic" it takes to run them is "cheaper" than mechanical logic. Really? You still have mechanical switches for driver input. You still have high-current relays controlled by the ECMs that direct output. And you have the bulbs or wiper motor or whatever at the end of the line. Mechanical logic = switch on, switch off (and perhaps intermediate/intermittent settings for wipers). NO COMPUTER REQUIRED. But no, they have to run everything through STUPID processors just because everyone else does. It accomplishes NOTHING other than add layers of useless complexity that are virtually guaranteed to fail, and usually take out more than a single system when they do. And they just can't use a simple cable to operate something like a heater valve, or an air door. Nope. Have to have a vast array of sensors and stepper motors and solenoids, and another module with complex programming to interface between the operator and the desired action. IF a vehicle buyer requires luxury add-ons like 50-way power seats with memory to accommodate 10 different drivers, SEPARATE, DISCREET ECMs to run them, cheap and easy to diagnose and quick to replace, make a whole helluva lot more sense than everything being interconnected as has become common practice. KISS is one of the wisest acronyms in the history of engineering, and the most widely ignored. KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. It's not just software development that works like this, kiddies.

Johnson rods and kiniffler pins and framislators are much more accurate, durable, and reliable since the advent of CAD/CAE/CAM, and squelch liquid for radios is much improved over what we had to use in the 1950s.

Mountains that live under water are sometimes called "islands".

The constant tinkering continues to destroy aspects of functionality that have been standard...and worked just fine...for many years, from search functions to display options. Best analogy I can think of is some clueless "mechanic" who has no idea of how a carburettor or EFI works in the first place, but beats on it and twists screws and changes settings mindlessly, actually believing he's making it "better" just by "working on it", and eventually gets to the point where the car won't go down the road without bucking, spitting, coughing, and stalling.

Finally just bit the bullet and bought another NOS one of these Walthers Blast Furnace kits in HO scale. Last one I bought cost about half what this one did, and in the meantime they were re-released and sold out again. Anyway, now I have two, to keep each other company. Even though they're very big kits, they're on the small side for blast-furnaces of the period I'll be modeling, so one of them will be getting kitbashed into a larger, newer version. They'll never get any cheaper than what I paid for this last one (identical to the one below), and if Walthers releases another run, they'll surely be more expensive. At this point I have just about everything I need to get a good start on modeling an integrated steel mill complex with two blast furnaces...except the blower house kit. It's very rare, and a fairly simple though large building, not too difficult to scratchbuild.

One of these, 'cause I need the wheel covers to pull molds from for a Duesenberg hot rod... ...and to hackbash into this: https://www.classicandsportscar.com/features/meet-unique-rolls-royce-phantom-ii-continental-thinks-its-hot-rod