Ace-Garageguy

There are some guys on here who've built wild "jet" and flying cars that have no basis in any Earth technology I'm aware of. And I like 'em a lot. A LOT. But they're not built the way they are because the builder just didn't know any better. They're intentionally outlandish, fancifully representing currently unknown or alien engineering. That's not the same mindset (or lack thereof) as building something that couldn't possibly work because you have no clue how things work.

I missed this one when it was then, but now, since it's now...very nice. Good rendition of the real car...

The Corvette looks great. Entirely possible.

I'm working at home this AM finishing up some billing and parts ordering, and was waiting for UPS. When he arrived, I went out to save him the walk to the door, and heard multiple radial engines overhead. Much to my surprise, there was a B-17 flying over the trees at about 500 feet...apparently setting up to land at McCollum. I was practically jumping up and down, pointing and shouting to the UPS guy "there's a WW II bomber!!!". He didn't even notice, just drove away. I looked it up online and found there's a bunch of warbirds over there through the 27th. Guess I won't be getting much more work done today...

I once read a clueless little chickie's rant online condemning hunters for needlessly killing animals for meat. Her finale: "If you HAVE to eat meat, why not just go get it at the grocery store WHERE IT'S MADE!!!"

NICE resto. It's always a treat to see some old bodged mess made into a fine looking model, rather than given up on and thrown out.

More tech reference books. Several times during my 50+ year love affair with machines, I've worked as an aviation A&P (airframe and powerplant) mechanic, doing everything from general maintenance (100 hour inspections, etc.) to pioneering composite structure repair techniques. I have a particular fondness for big air-cooled radial engines, so when I came across this 1943 issue gem, I had to have it. Picked this one up as well. Much of the stuff in here applies to race car fabrication too. And as I'll be building engines again in my upcoming "retirement", I've also updated some of that part of the library.

Nice save, nice build. I have one of those patiently waiting to be a club racer.

I agree entirely in general principle. The word "model" means a reasonably accurate representation of reality. On the other hand though, I've seen a few, let's say "styling exercises", that are completely impractical and / or technically impossible, but work as pure "art"...and some of those have provided me with inspiration for something that could work in reality. Nobody here dumps on somebody's work. We usually try to offer polite constructive criticism if we say anything "negative" at all. But speaking of "art", this is one of those areas where the "everyone's a winner" mentality does a disservice to the young. Many "artists" today have little or no grounding in art history, or traditional materials, techniques, skills, or principles of proportion and design. The resulting I-nailed-a-banana-to-the-wall-praise-me attitude does not produce anything in "art" that's worthwhile or lasting. You can argue until pigs fly that shock-value or "think pieces" where even the artist doesn't know what he's trying to get across is good "art", but I have to disagree. And building model cars with zero understanding of the functioning of their full-scale counterparts, while "fun" and "creative", is also devoid of teaching anything useful in the real world. But as long as the builder is at least somewhat aware that his creation is an impossible fantasy, then I say anything goes. EDIT: In the end though, it's a matter of personal philosophy. Anyone has the right to embrace ignorance, just as I have the right to try to avoid operating from ignorance as a baseline.

Looks like you didn't notice that I used the words "amid fears" rather than "because of fears", which transforms the meaning of the headline dramatically. And it also looks like you didn't notice the repeated references in the thread that the important takeaway from the video and press coverage isn't "look at those rubes", but rather that the woman making the outlandish claims that a PV solar array would interfere with photosynthesis of surrounding plants is a RETIRED SCIENCE TEACHER. The fact that an educator could be so unbelievably ignorant about the principles she would have been teaching makes one wonder how much gibberish and misinformation she pounded into the heads of the generation of kids she was responsible for "teaching". Look at the link I posted regarding scientific literacy among first-world citizenry (in the chocolate milk thread), and you can logically infer that this instance is by no means isolated. Again, the takeaway is NOT to deride the ignorant. It's to make people aware that education systems are failing...globally...to prepare citizens for responsible involvement in physical reality.

Jeez. I know you know...the truly pathetic part is that's not a joke. Those folks are really out there, and getting their misguided little noses into all sorts of things. I'm hesitant to suggest (in jest) a Bovine Lactation Workers Union, demanding $15 per hour for all producers. Somebody will probably run with it.

Excellent. That, sir, is one seriously cool airplane.

Exactly. Interesting aside...I've seen a couple of very light but high-horsepower STOL aircraft that were swinging big props take off apparently flying backwards (to the casual onlooker) while pointed into a stiff headwind. I've also flown an old Cub into a strong headwind, and at a few thousand feet, the apparent groundspeed seemed to be about zero. While cruise speed is around 70 MPH, they don't stall 'til down around 35 or 40, so it's easy to see that at a low power setting flying into a stiff breeze, you could look down and feel like you were getting nowhere.

Once when my workbench was way too crowded, I knocked over an open bottle of liquid cement too. Since then, I've put them in broad-based heavy coffee mugs...and tried to keep my bench a little less cluttered.

Nope. Anyone who thinks this question is "surprisingly complex" has zero understanding of why an aircraft flies and the elementary school physics involved. (Well...maybe it was elementary when there was still a functioning primary education system; I knew this by the sixth grade.) An aircraft's ground speed has absolutely no bearing on its ability to take off. The speed of air moving over its wing is the only factor that needs to be considered to answer this silly question, but the fact there's even a controversy clearly illustrates the appalling lack of basic scientific literacy among the general populace. EDIT: ...and what used to fall under the heading of "common knowledge". How many people mistakenly believe that "the sun is not a star"? How many can explain in simple terms how electricity is generated, or how an internal combustion engine works? How many know that water is endlessly recycled by nature? Again, these concepts (and dozens more) of the functioning of the world around us were imparted to me and my classmates by the sixth grade. Scientific Literacy: How Do Americans Stack Up? (as of 2007, and you can bet it's worse now) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.htm

Which is not at all unusual. I've remarked on similar apparent difficulties with measuring and dividing so many times over the years I can't remember them all. Which is also why I remarked above that if nobody's going to get carried away with putting micrometers to his parts, he can probably get away with anything in 1/25...except for the engine in Lindberg's '53 Ford.

Type this into google. site:modelcarsmag.com roll cages

Which is 1/24 scale. All the recommendations above are for 1/25 scale parts...which you can certainly get by with if nobody is going to go after your model with micrometers. If you want to be exhaust-port retentive about scale, about the only early speed parts in 1/24 come from Monogram's other offerings of the period. For instance, their old '40 Ford pickup has a three carb setup and finned aluminum high performance heads. As does the '36 Ford you asked about:

His younger brother 409 is still around...

I wonder if 409 showed up?

Excellent tool for block sanding.

Yup. Whoever built the model missed the hole in the floor it's supposed to go in, hence the bend. Looks like a very nice kit though.

How 'bout a "lick" button?

I'll never hold a part in the palm of my hand while I'm drilling a hole again. Backing that bit out of the bone and taking a plug of meat out with it...well, once was enough.