Ace-Garageguy

Wrong. "Double hump" heads were the "fuel injection" heads on 327 and 350 engines, and first appeared in 1962. Other than casting numbers and the "humps" on the ends, they look just like other smallblock Chevy heads, especially in 1/25 scale.

I'll have to look up all the conversion factors, do the math, and check yours. It won't be any time soon. But suffice it to say for now...IC engines can be powered from rooftop-solar-powered hydrogen plants, adsorptive onboard storage makes for longer range at lower pressures, and the IC engine sound and feel doesn't need to be a thing of the past. Frankly, that's all I really care about at this point as far as the energy debate goes. This is from 2010, all that I could easily find that was closely related to Honda's late 1990's work... https://www.alternative-energy-news.info/honda-solar-hydrogen-station/ As of 2014, Honda also had a demo home with a solar array directly charging a DC-powered Fit, while running the rest of the house, with some power left over to dump on to the grid... https://newatlas.com/honda-smart-home-energy-producing/31380/

Hmmm. I just read through your posts in this thread and didn't see those numbers...but I can tell you for a fact that in the late 1990s Honda did a practical study using commercially available solar panels of a size compatible with the "average" suburban American residence, and they were able to produce enough hydrogen daily to fuel an efficient 4-passenger car for an "average" daily commute. NOTE: I don't have the study readily available as I'm in the process of moving my home, office, studio and shop 2000 miles west, but at the time my engineering consulting company was a dues-paying corporate member of the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. I was heavily involved, and stayed current on every facet of alt-fuels, alternative and "green" energy, the power distribution grid and infrastructure, adsorptive onboard storage of both compressed natural gas and hydrogen, etc. At the time I was appalled at the amount of hot air expended in the field versus the amount of constructive action...one of the reasons I withdrew my support from the group. Nothing much has changed. The rebleaters rebleat, politicians posture and pontificate, and the major corporations and the media get most everything wrong. Solar panels have become significantly more efficient since then, and optimization of IC engines to burn hydrogen has also made significant improvements in mileage/power output, which is fuel efficiency. So I'll go with Honda's results, thanks. And from my perspective and experience, I'd say that in a "typical city", a dense urban environment (like, ummm, NYC...where a lot of residents don't own vehicles anyway, and rely on public or hired transport), the amount of space for rooftop-hydrogen is a non-issue anyway. EDIT: But don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to electric vehicles in principle. There's plenty of room for a rational mix of technologies to provide transportation. What I AM opposed to, however, is the ignorant insistence that electrics will solve everything and make the world all puppies and rainbows and unicorns.

Well, not really, and it depends. Most of the arguments for electric vehicles simply overlook a lot of basic physics, but numbers are apparently just too boring for the vast majority of proponents to bother with. The BEST gas-fired generating plants can achieve about a 50% conversion efficiency for the transformation of chemical energy (the energy contained in a combustible fuel) to-electrical energy. Oil and coal-fired plants are worse. Transmission losses at high voltage over long distances are about 2%. Lower voltage transmission losses over short distances are around 4%. So let's take a generous 3% transmission-loss-average and say we're at 47% efficiency by the time the electricity is at the plug where you recharge your batteries. That's before you charge your batteries and lose more energy in the process (you're converting the electricity at the plug back to chemical energy in a storage battery), and then there's more loss because the efficiency of transforming the electrical energy drawn from the battery into motion (mechanical) is hardly 100%. REMEMBER: EVERY TIME the FORM of energy changes, there are net losses. When all is said and done, and every erg is accounted for, the total net energy conversion from burning fossil fuel at a generating plant into making an electric car go down the road is going to be something on the order of 40%, or probably less. On the other hand, the BEST IC engines can currently get about 50% thermal efficiency, but the typical car on the road is only getting 25-30% useful work out of the fuel it burns. HOWEVER...direct-injection (available in cars since 2008) can raise this number to 35%. Add newer tech like engine stop-start, and make a concerted research effort to recover energy normally lost through cooling and exhaust system waste heat, and the potential for roadgoing IC engines to significantly better their electric counterparts in terms of energy efficiency should be obvious. NOTE: The huge MAN S80ME-C7 engine has achieved an overall energy conversion efficiency of 54.4%, which is the highest conversion of fuel into power by any internal-combustion engine to date (that I know of). Really want to save the planet? Make the fuel of choice hydrogen. It works just dandy in IC engines, and can now achieve thermal efficiencies as good as conventional diesels. Burning hydrogen in air produces nothing but water and relatively easily controlled oxides of nitrogen. It also works just dandy for fuel-cells for those who won't miss their engine noises, and in that case, the only "emissions" is water. Add in the fact that hydrogen can be easily made from filtered domestic wastewater by rooftop solar cell-powered electrolysis (Honda has already done most of the research long ago), and the optimum long-term zero-carbon transportation solution becomes apparent to anyone sufficiently versed in the REAL science to see the big picture. PS: In the interim, the carbon dioxide currently being pumped into the atmosphere by coal and natural-gas fired generating plants can be captured, fed to algae, and turned into bio-diesel and bio-jet fuel. This could have a significant impact towards achieving a carbon-neutral position. The tech exists. PPS: The much-touted "renewable" generating capacity, pure solar and wind, isn't there yet and is currently a pipe-dream. For the most part, "renewable" electricity is only available when the wind blows or the sun is shining, because storage of energy produced this way is difficult. One very expensive solar demo plant in Nevada using liquid sodium never did better than 50% of its design goals, couldn't pay back the costs associated with building it, and has been essentially abandoned.

Same place as all the bumf ?

ONLY $29.79 plus tax!!!

Exactly.

I tend to agree with ya. All the real military surplus seats I've seen (and I have a pair here) lack the "lightening" holes. It's not hard, however, to press nice round lipped holes in sheet aluminum with a set of matched dies that anyone with a lathe can make. Just for youse guys information, there were lotsa plywood surplus seats too...with no holes for the belts, 'cause when you're sitting on a 'chute, you sit high enough that the belts go over the seat rails. The wooden ones are much easier for an amateur to upholster, too. EDIT: The pix are hot-linked and may disappear shortly. If they do, I can post them from my own drives.

Unemployable 3rd-rate emoji designers hired to design cars?

Lotsa great looking machinery on this thread. Kinda makes me wonder if the folks who designed this horrible mess had ever actually SEEN a car before...

Maybe you should start a thread on "the Zen of blowing things up".

That's one I've never seen. Pretty crazy...and dig that wicked chain drive.

Probably the best build of that particular kit I've ever seen. You (and a few others on here over the years) have definitely inspired me to do a few simple box-art jobs.

Except hydrogen. No carbon dioxide...but some oxides of nitrogen as a function of combustion with air. And they can be minimized with cats just like carbon-burning engines use. Almost unbelievably from my standpoint (having been studying alternative energy technologies since I was 11, and having been heavily involved with some over the years), there's a mix of technologies that have been available for decades that could have already had us at carbon-neutral, but there's nobody driving the energy-bus who has a clue as to what's possible, or who grasps the big picture. It's almost all platitudes, posturing, politics, sound bites, and virtue-signaling.

Ditto. Mindless destruction just never had any appeal for me. None whatsoever.

If I had unlimited funds, but could have only one "special" vehicle, the Ford GT40 Mk I would be my choice. Even a good replica would be fine (though I prefer the wider hips of the slightly later Mk I, as shown in the two upper photos).

There are several photo-etched generic throttle-linkage sets that contain parts that can be used effectively, and filaments from incandescent bulbs can make very realistic springs. To make your own, as with everything in modeling, look carefully at photos of the real deal, study the shapes and functions of the parts, and copy what you see in scale. Perfect little throttle linkage bellcranks, levers, and brackets can be fabricated from .010" to .030" brass sheet stock, but the parts will be very small. Sharp scissors, jeweler's files, miniature pliers, and micro drills in a pin-vise will be necessary...and most likely some form of magnification.

1) They were used in post-war race cars predominantly, because they were light...and cheap. They were used in post-war "street" rods occasionally, but usually only temporarily until the owner could afford something better (nicer, more finished looking, more luxurious, etc). EDIT: You would sometimes see a car that had "bomber" seats padded with custom foam cushions and upholstered, but their origins were obscured by the upholstery. With the advent of little "ferrin" cars coming into the US after the war though, rodders who wanted light-weight individual seating often scoured the junkyards for early "bucket" seats from MGs and the like. They came with cushions and upholstery already done, obviously. The combat-aviation origin of "bomber" seats, and surplus military aircraft seats in general, usually designed to accommodate a parachute pack (or 2) as the cushion, makes them not as easy to convert to comfortable automotive use as you might think. A lot of other military-surplus parts showed up on post-war hot rods, things like electric pumps, switches, instruments, AN fittings and hose, small tanks for fuel and other fluids, and even the venerable GMC 4-71 supercharger. 2) I didn't notice them making a comeback until sometime in the late '90s.