Ace-Garageguy

Aircraft modelers tend to be a little more quality-focused than the general herd. Here are some more recommendations... https://forum.largescaleplanes.com/index.php?/topic/29897-re-scribing-panel-lines-what-tools-do-you-use/

Far as re-scribing technique, I'll give my own insight. First, I'll assume you want to get lines that are supposed to be straight lines straight, and corners and curves with nice clean radii. Nothing detracts from a model like wonky scribing. For STRAIGHT lines, I'll use a self-adhesive tape product as a guide...something like Dymo label-making tape, or heavy 3M aluminum aircraft tape. I find the HARD edges afforded by these materials are vastly easier to follow than soft masking tape...unless you're really an old hand at scribing. The temptation for most folks is to use too much pressure initially, and that will surely get you into the real estate surrounding a masking tape guide. A HARD edge just works better. For curves, rounded corners, and other non-straight lines, there are lotsa scribing guides on the market. These are generally photo-etched rectangles of metal with various openings with a variety of curves. They look like draftsman's eraser-shields from long ago. You securely tape the guide to the work, and scribe through it. As stated elsewhere, start very lightly, and make as many passes as you need to to achieve the required depth. I also do NOT recommend the old "backside of a #11 blade". You want something made for the job, that will take a very thin "curl" out of the groove, rather than having the tendency to widen the scribe as you go deeper like the old #11 blade will. I HIGHLY recommend these scribing tools from Tamiya. My scribing work has improved to the point I'm very happy with it since purchasing and mastering them. Folks complain about the expense, but if you want to do quality work, there's no substitute for good tools.

Fine looking truck...from the days when trucks looked like trucks. Very nice work.

I have tried EVERY filler known to man. The ONLY thing that has worked is West epoxy 105 with 205 hardener, mixed into a stiff slurry using microballoon. See page three of this thread...and if you have any questions about getting the lines right again, just ask.

DOUBLE POST

You didn't sand enough, pure and simple. The idea is to LEVEL THE ORANGE PEEL FIRST. COMPLETELY. And 3600 just isn't coarse enough to level heavy peel like that. 800 or as Snake recommends, 1000, would be a better grit to start with. Then the successively finer grits remove the previous grit's sanding scratches. You need to understand the process, and look very carefully at the results of each successive sanding step. If you really look closely, you can see exactly what you've accomplished...or not...and how much more you need to do. Just rubbing the thing with a few swipes of sandpaper or pads and then moving to a finer grit won't get it. Far as Testors clear being garbage goes, I shot both of these with "wet look", and the Chevelle was sanded and polished. NOTE: The Chevelle pix are prior to a correct and full wetsand / polish. I was under an online contest deadline. The Olds hood is exactly as shot...no sanding or polishing at all. http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af320/fastoldcarz/Gearz 70 Chevelle/DSCN5584.jpg http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af320/fastoldcarz/Gearz 70 Chevelle/DSCN5573.jpg http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af320/fastoldcarz/50 Olds fastback chopped/AUG12014Caddy_Challenger_50olds079_zps80fcb570.jpg EDIT: The new improved website won't display my own pix copied from this very site, and I have neither the time nor interest to compensate for the changes. The links, however, appear to be clickable. EDIT 2: Developing your spray technique to minimize the amount of orange-peel you get would be very helpful as well. Orange-peel is not inevitable.

Nice. Looks like it could have been one of Chrysler Corp's factory concept cars way back in the wayback.

Not much better than mine, but my package was an expensive set of Ohaus scales I need to mix aircraft-spec epoxy next Monday. It was supposed to be here Friday, but got bumped to Saturday, apparently due to exceptionally heavy volume. And it wouldn't be much of an issue if I worked from home...but except for some fairly infrequent paperwork, research and design, and billing, I can't. Add to that that I'd slated this weekend to pick up three engines, an engine hoist, several bike fairings, a ton of tools, and a Jag from a friend's basement. MOST of these things HAVE to be moved during non-inclement weather, and there's simply not enough time tomorrow to get it all done before the forecast rains in the PM and Monday. Plus, I'm rapidly using up my remaining time here in the moldy, rusty, Swampeast prior to moving West. I just don't have hours to burn waiting around for anything. In the event, I DID get a lot accomplished, but not at all what I NEEDED to get done today. Life as an adult can be frustrating...

Yup. And the "S.C.o.T." blower was the only one available at the time (even though it's not great). The included side-draft carb setup for the blown engine was decent too. The 409 engine wasn't too bad either. I'm still using those engines occasionally.

...delivered 5:59 PM. Scheduled Delivery Date: Saturday, 05/08/2021 Estimated Delivery Time: 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Hello, your package has been delivered. Delivery Date: Saturday, 05/08/2021 Delivery Time: 05:58 PM Left At: MET CUST MAN

Not here yet. It's 5:16 PM and the updated "estimated delivery window" is now "by 7:00 PM".

Only if we get both options...anonymous, of course.

UPS apparently now operates on the cable-service-provider business model. Estimated delivery window: 10:00 AM-NOON. It's now 4:15 PM, and who knows when it'll get here. The shipment is too valuable to just let 'em leave it on the porch. So, as I had a few things to do around the house, I figgered I'd wait, and still be able to work a half day. Dumb move. Missing a full day's work costs me $300- $500, depending on exactly what I'm working on. I could have had the damm shipment dropped at the closest UPS store for "only" an extra $5.99, and picked it up at MY convenience. Next time...

Looks good. I've done it both ways, and I think the way you've done it looks best by far. Nice work on everything.

Much thanks from me too. I've been "needing" some '57 Chebbys to fill a gaping hole in my collection. I have several of the first-release AMT and Revell kits, which I like immensely for what they are, but now I know which more modern kits to go after,

Wow. That's a remarkable conversion from a '50 Chevy.

Agreed. Super clean, just enough detail.

Thank you. It'll be a kinda "freelanced" what-if scenario set in the late 1950s, in an alternative history line where steam was kept running side-by-side with diesels, with the layout focusing on heavy industry including construction and major repairs of locomotives. There was considerable research being done into vastly improving both the thermodynamic efficiency and reducing the ongoing maintenance requirements of steam locomotives when the diesels became dominant. But development of steam technology virtually ended with the widespread adoption of diesels for everything. With continued improvement, I'm quite sure steam could have remained a viable source of railroad motive power, especially in light of info like this: "The NYC ran a series of tests shortly after WWII. They were uniquely set up to do do since they had one of the better classes of modern steam engines (Niagaras), FT and E-7 diesels and straight electrics. The results of the test were, the straight electrics won hands down until the cost of establishing the infrastructure was considered. In comparisons between the diesels and the 4-8-4s it was pretty much a wash since the 3 unit passenger diesels were more powerful than the steam engine but the steam engine was (slightly) cheaper to run. Comparing the Niagara w/ a 2 unit passenger diesel, the steam engine out performed the diesel but at a higher cost to operate. The two things that decided the issue were the ability of the diesel to exert full horsepower at any speed while the steam engine had to get up into the 45MPH and higher range before it put out full HP and the really decisive factors, the terrific infrastructure costs of steam and far greater availability of the diesels." (quoted from cs.trains.com) The ACE 3000 project in the 1980s did a lot to seemingly prove that coal-fired steam locomotives could be operated efficiently in freight service, where a steam locomotive's unique operating characteristics were not a detriment, but it eventually died due to lack of funding when fuel oil prices began to drop somewhat. https://www.american-rails.com/ace-3000.html EDIT: Here's a great site for steam enthusiasts: http://steamlocomotive.com/ EDIT 2: Here's a very interesting document comparing operating costs of locomotives: https://www.american-rails.com/support-files/locomotive_operating_costs_comparison.pdf

Published top speed was about 110 MPH.

Unless the look you're going for is a backyard latex paint job done with a roller...

That's the plan. Since the new place has decent sized shop buildings for real cars separate from the house, at least part of the attached garage will house a train layout. In particular, I want to model a smokestack-America-era steel mill...

I agree. Early gasser rules allowed chopped tops anyway (though I don't know if it was still NHRA-legal in '65), so it's fine by me. For that matter, I'm pretty certain this kit is supposed to represent a "nostalgia" gasser and not a historical period-correct class runner, so why not?

Fine looking models. Especially appealing to me as I have a real '63 Dynamic 88 convertible (identical body style to yours, minus the Starfire side trim), the car I drove in high school, awaiting restomodding.

It's called a "centipede" tender. Like all tenders for steam locomotives, it carried the water and coal or oil fuel the engine ran on. NYC used the same general design of centipede tenders with the same wheel arrangement as Union Pacific (and other railroads) used for its Challengers and Big Boys (though only UP used Big Boys), but NYC's could scoop water from between the rails to give the locomotive more range between stops. Quoting from O Gauge Railroader Online Forum: "They could hold more weight in water or fuel or both and distribute that weight over more axles to maintain lower axle loadings. The New York Central tenders, which utilized water scoops for taking water on the fly, had very large coal bunkers to enable Harmon, NY to Chicago, IL or Harmon, NY to Mattoon, IN (St. Louis Line) with one stop for coal at Wayneport, NY near Rochester. Another advantage of the NYC tenders was their long rear overhang and shorter relative wheelbase allowed the locomotives equipped with them to be turned on 100 foot turntables. The UP tenders were more conventionally balanced between coal bunker and water cistern compartments." Quoting further from the same source: "With a rigid 5 axle wheelbase that was cast integral with the frame, it saved weight vs a similar size tender with swivel trucks and this weight savings translated into an increase in weight efficiency vs payload. The rigid wheelbase might have resulted in better tracking and ride at high speeds vs a swivel truck tender. (edit:...though it also made them more prone to derail on tight radius turns in yards...) With overflow control, water could be scooped from track pans at 80 mph. Previous 12 wheel tenders with water scoops were limited to 45 mph. When the Niagaras (a different locomotive than we're discussing here) were built, the use of this tender resulted in a loco and tender wheelbase of 97'-2-1/2", so the engine would fit on a 100 ft turntable, which were available at several locations on the NYC main line." Below is a non-streamlined Hudson pulling a "centipede" tender on the NYC. The tender behind my new streamlined Hudson isn't exactly correct for the NYC. It looks more like the tenders seen behind UP's Big Boys, below.

Far as I can tell so far, nobody's getting out of here alive anyway.