Ace-Garageguy

I have the photo on another machine I rarely put online, not this one. Copy/paste of a photo uploaded to the forum in an old thread (or a photo hosted elsewhere) into a new thread on the forum used to be a click-click no-brainer. Alas, those days seem to be behind us.

OK. And I *NEVER* had any problems relying on the ol' "black magic" until it got "fixed' and "made better". I didn't need to know how to take it apart and put it back together just to use it...kinda like most people who use cars, ya know? Not for a few decades, anyway. (PS: I know enough workarounds to get pix from just about anywhere to post 99.99% of the time; the note from 89AKurt saying he couldn't see photos that I COULD was the FIRST time I've run aground...so I thought the boss here might like to know there was a little glitch) But hey...if you can't make something that works well, ruin something that works just fine by adding complication until it fails regularly. That's becoming the standard operating model everywhere I turn. Things are going to get really interesting when 4th-rate emoji-designers-turned-whatever do most of what passes for work...and their bosses all have doctorates in studies-studies.

Thanks, but whew. Sounds like somebody missed the KISS class. All I've usually had to do (until recently) is right-click any image and select "copy" from the drop-down, then Ctrl V to paste it into the body of whatever I'm writing...anywhere.

Great project, definitely worth doing. And building it along the lines of the real one is always smart.

The Bondo product shown above is just another one-part lacquer putty, pretty similar to the Tamiya stuff, but not as fine-grained. It is ONLY good for relatively thin surfacing and pinhole work. EDIT: Can you use the one-part stuff for heavy fills and major restyling? Yes, people have been using it forever. BUT...it can only be used successfully in heavy work if you apply thin coats, let each one dry thoroughly, sand smooth, and repeat until you have the shape you want. Obsolete tech, slow, prone to cracking if you rush it, and in my opinion, a royal PITA. For anything heavy, you really need a TWO-PART catalyzed product that cures chemically instead of drying by evaporation of solvents. One good choice is Bondo PROFESSIONAL Glazing and Spot Putty, #801 It comes with its own little tube of catalyst, and is available at most car-parts stores in modeler-friendly small packages. There is a short learning curve, but the possible results are worth the effort (see the reference thread below). EDIT: To see what you can do with it, start at page two of this thread:

If you're using it right, that should not happen. The surface you're applying it over has to be CLEAN, DRY, and well sanded...no gloss.

Over the past decade, quite a few people have asked about using LEDs to get working lights in their cars. Here's a good basic introductory overview, a great opportunity to start learning something new as a spinoff from building models. EDIT: My own introduction to electronics came way back in the late 1950s, in the pages of Model Railroader. It kindled an interest I've expanded on since then, one that has allowed me to do lotsa cool stuff and make not-a-few bucks.

Man. Time flies when you're not having any fun at all.

The engine in Monogram's 1/24 scale '53 Bel Air kit would be easier to backdate to appear as a '39 engine, if that's what you want to do, as it has a single carb as stock (the Corvette has three side-drafts). There were many releases in different boxings, and it's still common. EDIT: Here's a reference page on those engines: https://www.enginelabs.com/news/mighty-chevrolet-stovebolt-six/

And therein lies another rub. A whole lot of people regard the mainstream media as a "reliable source", but they're often as guilty of mindlessly rebleating misinformation as the most egregious lazy individual re-poster.

Yup. And they often fail to display...so I try to which is when I get the error message. EDIT: I can generally get it to work one way or another, at least to display on MY computer. But in a thread recently I got a message from 89AKurt saying HE couldn't see an image that displays fine on MY machine. This thread:

Getting this message frequently when trying to get a copy of a photo previously posted on MCM to show up in a new thread on MCM: 502 ERROR The request could not be satisfied. CloudFront wasn't able to resolve the origin domain name. We can't connect to the server for this app or website at this time. There might be too much traffic or a configuration error. Try again later, or contact the app or website owner.If you provide content to customers through CloudFront, you can find steps to troubleshoot and help prevent this error by reviewing the CloudFront documentation. Generated by cloudfront (CloudFront) Request ID: S3MTXv9UI1GEjV8OdIcWnT5YUTSEeZPZCnPbNaUxNpA_Q-KIqnO5UA==

It shows up for me, but thanks for letting me know. I've notified the bosses.

I thought we already did this. Must be the groundhog-day syndrome. First up, and already on the bench in Az. is this one...cause I need it finished to build the real one. Building the real one is one of my primary goals as soon as I'm finished moving. Concurrently, I'll be finishing the full-scale version of this (90% of the engineering and design is done): The only model I'm going to make a concerted effort to finish during that time is a die-cast bullet-nose Stude conversion for the Peking to Paris community build here.

Agreed, but all too often, users mindlessly regurgitate whatever Google vomits up first, and IF any cross-checking is done, it's usually simply reading the identical WRONG information that's been reposted across the web by "experts" more intent on appearing knowledgeable than actually knowing what they're blathering on about. It's very common to find tens of sites repeating incorrect info and data that's been obviously copy-pasted from one wrong source, where nobody in the chain has bothered to check the veracity with primary sources. The mainstream media is at least as guilty of falling into this trap as any one individual, and for them it's inexcusable. EDIT: By primary sources, I simply mean somebody who was actually there, or an unedited video of the event, or the guy who did the original research, design, or whatever. Yeah, it takes more effort than just believing and rebleating whatever baloney some moron posted that's not right...but isn't it worth it to know the truth?

Probably not surprisingly. Marcello Gandini at Bertone did the BX, and there was a lot of cross-pollination among design houses. The BX was already in production when the Ghia Quicksilver hit the show circuit, and it's likely that the former influenced the latter, at least somewhat...and I find the Quicksilver to be cleaner overall. To me, the most remarkable thing about the Quicksilver is the fact that it's a mid-engined 4-door...a very unusual configuration.

That's not exactly correct. The car shown above was referred to as the AC Ghia. It was a Ford-backed re-skin of the AC 3000ME that had been in limited production since 1979, shown below, and built through 1985. AC supplied Ghia with two AC 3000ME platforms, including one complete car which was de-skinned, and on which the AC Ghia prototype was built...but the AC Ghia, the subject of this thread, was never series produced (EDIT: though it appeared in at least two different paint schemes). The bare AC 3000ME chassis shipped to Ghia by AC was stretched to become the basis of another Ghia prototype for Ford, the 1982 Quicksilver. https://www.carscoops.com/2020/04/how-awesome-would-it-have-been-if-lincoln-produced-its-1983-quicksilver-ghia-concept/

Misinformed certainty is a hallmark of the interdwerbs in general and Facebark, YT, et al in particular. There has always been an unfortunate tendency, due to the intellectual laziness of most humans, to accept a lie as truth if it's repeated often enough...but the threshold has dropped precipitously in recent years. Hearing a single pontification of some "expert" or "insider" (whether real, self-appointed, or paid shill) seems to be all it takes now for facts and reality to be completely disregarded, and the incessant rebleating to begin.

I believe it's a poorly represented water neck / thermostat housing.

The Johnny Lightning diecast will be the basis for my entry. Little car has some scaling and proportion issues, but should make a fun conversion to a relatively simple rally car. Already asked Pete for decals, so I guess I'm committed. As restrictive as the rules regarding modifications are, it's not likely I'll go off the deep end (as usual) with micro-engineering.

Have you flown a Cirrus? I don't really like the side-stick setup and its lack of feel. https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/12/cirrus-aircraft/steve-wilson-the-cirrus-airplane-has-serious-problems/

Most excellent.

A few days back I got one of these jewels, a 1/24 Leo model, as a much appreciated gift. Back in the dim recesses of time I worked for an Alfa wizard, and this beautiful little car takes my mind back to a much better era. Thanks.

Tell ya what. You guys build yours the way you want. While I appreciate the input, I've also already done rather a lot of this kind of work over the last few decades...quite successfully.