Ace-Garageguy

Isn't that the truth.

Lunchmeat that had shot up from $6 and change to closing on $10 per pound is back down to $7 and change...which feels like a sweet deal now. Maybe that's why the price increase in the first place...?

Just bought a few pieces of steel strip and rectangular stock that would have been under $10 not that long ago, now well over $30. I used to marvel at how cheap steel was, considering everything you could do with it. I guess the universe was listening to my thoughts. "We'll show him..."

I disagree. In my experience, an answering machine often triggers the scammers and robocallers to eventually give up on that number, perhaps scratch it off their lists (metaphorically speaking). Also in my experience, I get very few robocalls because 1) I never ever give out my numbers to stores or websites, etc., and 2) I never ever live-answer any call I don't recognize on caller ID. Give your numbers out, you're just begging to be deluged with scam-spam calls. Why do you think they REALLY want them? It's not to "make your customer experience better". They sell 'em. It's just another income stream to them, a constant rain of pennies. https://ocj.org/data/what-are-data-brokers

At that time, Thompson's goal was to get Pontiac's name on as many records as possible for publicity. Here's a nice overview of the two-cylinder cut down from the V8, and its place in the rest of the record runs...some of which I didn't know. https://macsmotorcitygarage.com/mickey-thompsons-crazy-pontiac-two-banger/

Built models in the form of gloobombs are a good source of rare old kits that might otherwise be prohibitively expensive .

Vacations involving long family trips in cars were a pleasant part of life in the 1950s and '60s, but that style of travel and recreation seems to have decreased more recently.

Remember the Maine.

"Grill" is where you cook your meat, but a "grille" might suffice if it's from an older car and isn't plastic.

Really? I'm just little ol' me.

If the paint was laying out nice and glossy previously, I'd suspect either you misjudged your thinner ratio on the coat in question (I've done it myself), leading to a dry-spray situation, or your tip clogged somewhat and you didn't notice until you started getting orange peel and cobwebs (which has also happened to me on occasion), again a dry-spray manifestation. If that was clear, it would have polished out with some effort...but with the chance of going through the high spots.

Followed rules are part of the challenge of the game, any game, and not following them just leads to mindless we'll-do-whatever-we-want...which defeats the entire purpose of "a game".

First E-type I bought was so badly rusted structurally (and subsequently covered over with something like thick tarpaper and bondo) that you actually had to put a floor jack under the center of the sill to open the passenger door (not convenient on dates), and when you went down the road you could feel it was somehow "different" from other similar cars...but it didn't wear tires oddly and the wheels were in the centers of all the arches and it didn't seem to be crabbing.

I've seen more than a few cars where the front control arms have been bent or displaced in "accidents" and not repaired correctly, with a resulting difference in wheelbase side-to-side...with attendant crabbing because you just can't align something like that, many more rusted out suspension mounts on the rear resulting in all manner of weird unintended dimensional changes and crabbing, a badly lozenged frame on a brandy-new big GM SUV (after hitting a bollard) that an "expert" body shop somehow missed, I'm familiar with the above-mentioned Renault with an engineered-in different wheelbase on each side, and I've recently seen a late-model Ford Bronco that hit a curb hard enough its wimpy rear axle housing came away with camber without bending a wheel (that all the estimators and "experts" also somehow missed), but I've never seen a solid-rear-axle American vehicle that came with some kind of offset wheelbase "with the differenct built in to the rear axle"...so I guess I'm just too stupid to get the joke.

Ah ha. I see...

I guess this is a joke, but 1) I don't know what a "differenct" is, and 2) never in over 50 years of working on real cars have I ever seen a staggered rear axle. And the 112 mm shown above is 4.4 inches...like I said.

"Enjoyment" ends a string of words above that's still not a sentence, as there are simple rules that define "sentence" that are ignored, and this isn't called the "one string-of-words game".

Noise abatement in anything aviation-related, particularly military, is an ongoing subject of development. Much of the noise coming from aircraft with propellers or rotors comes from them. Anyone familiar with the whomp-whomp-whomp of Vietnam-era UH-1 Hueys knows you (or the other side) could hear them coming long before you could see them. That was one reason the old Huey's two-bladed rotor system was replaced with a 4-bladed rotor on the UH-1Y. Back to the original topic: similar to the staggered fan blade spacing on car engines, "modulated blade spacing" on aircraft, including drones, works by varying the spacing between rotor blades, so the rotor's acoustic energy is spread over a wider range of frequencies. This makes the overall sound less intense and more difficult to distinguish from background noise.

"Movie" is the last word in the non-sentence (no verb) posted just above.

The real car's wheelbase is 111 inches. Divide by 25, as the MPC kit is 1/25 scale. Therefore the actual wheelbase of the kit should be 4.44 inches.

Years seem to pass more quickly the closer I get to the end, which doesn't seem fair at all.

Well, I thunk wrong and then impatiently did a reverse image search, so I'm out.

I cleared some message space.

Thanks for your interest and comment, and for that image. I have Thompson's Attempt kits that I'd like to display with all its different engine setups, and I didn't have that shot of the two-cylinder.

Thanks again for your interest and comments. Just one point I wanted to make after re-reading this: though difficult to fit and with adjacent panels of varying thicknesses that makes it even harder, the kit body shape is quite good for the supercharged version it represents, which is the version that clocked 406.6 at Bonneville in 1960. To further clarify, the bare metal body as first shown to the press was considerably different in a lot of areas, most noticeable being the absence of the scoops for the superchargers. The nose, tail, and fender contours were also quite different at that time, and that first version is what my model represents. The un-supercharged version was painted light blue and run on the salt, but didn't have the speed to set a new record. It went back to the shop where it got superchargers and a revised body intended to reduce drag...which increased dramatically with the addition of the superchargers sticking up in the air stream. The model is currently back on the bench, as the finish has deteriorated somewhat from being uncovered for years, and I'm looking at what it'll take to bring it back before I pull molds from it. My plan was always to eventually make molds so I could make a set of almost-scale-thickness fiberglass skins (actually closer to .35" scale thickness, but a lot thinner than kit parts), which will in turn require a new method for mounting the body to the frame.