Ace-Garageguy

Straight ethanol has an equivalent octane rating of 109. Therefore, the percentage of ethanol mixed with gasoline can have a significant effect on the resultant octane rating of the blend. But, because ethanol has less energy than an equivalent volume of gasoline, as added-ethanol-induced octane in a blend goes up, power and mileage generally come down. As Joe mentioned, tuning can compensate for some of this. Because of ethanol's higher effective octane rating, an engine running on it can tolerate both more compression and more ignition advance, both ways to increase power...to a point...and the reason why an engine optimized for running ethanol may tend to knock on fuels with a higher gasoline content. For what it's worth, I worked as a greasy-hands consultant with a well known university on a pilot ethanol project back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and ran my personal Triumph GT6 on a variety of "gasohol" blends and ethanol fuels of various proofs. EDIT: Because of the design of the little car's SU carbs, it was quite easy to rough-tune them for different fuels by simply raising or lowering the needles in the pistons. Exhaust gas analysis would tell us where we were, mixture wise, when we'd established a decent running tune through trial and error. Then we'd machine new needles to deliver a modified fuel delivery curve, based on the previously altered positions of the needles. SU carbs vary the amount of fuel delivered based on manifold vacuum, a function of engine load and speed. We'd install 'em, and test more. Changing ignition timing is a simple matter of twisting the distributor, and changing the advance curve only requires substitution of springs, weights, and vacuum canister valving. The cylinder head comes off the GT6 engine in no-time-flat too, and juggling compression ratios with annealed copper head gaskets of various thicknesses was a cinch. A couple of days of tinkering like this could establish a workably accurate...and repeatable...tune for any blend. Actual science. EDIT: Suitably tuned, little car would run happily on Bacardi 151, and the exhaust smelled great. The one overriding problem on that series of tests was the reluctance of the engine to start on close-to-pure ethanol in cold weather, because of alcohol's vaporization characteristics, and a point-type ignition system (replaced with an electronic "multi-strike" system later on). With today's fuel injection nozzles delivering a nicely atomized mist, and very high-energy ignition systems, it's no longer an issue.

Material thickness is often cited as the "reason" for all sorts of things in the modeling world, when in fact it is only an excuse. The real reason? Incompetence, pure and simple. If "material thickness" really had anything to do with it, or if the reason was anything other than sloppy laziness on the part of the designers, ALL models would sit like 4X4s, and we lowly modelers wouldn't be able to so easily correct wonky stance by simple expedients like re-positioning stub axles on spindles, or lightly shaving material from leaf springs, would we?

I don't know why people get so offended by the word "ignorant". The definition of ignorant isn't the same as "stupid" "Ignorant" simply means "lacking knowledge". The vast majority of "news" watchers are largely lacking knowledge about aviation. That makes them "ignorant" concerning aviation. Sadly, much of what's presented as "fact" by mainstream news, more about sensationalism driving ratings than actual journalism...journalism that strives to get things right...is complete and utter BS. It's a case of the blind leading the blind, in effect, and why much of the country is so confused today. PS: One of the absolute best sources of factual information concerning all things aviation is the Juan Browne YouTube channel posted by Kurt, above. The guy is a high-time airline pilot, ex-military with combat experience, and heavily involved in general aviation (small airplanes) as well. He never goes off half-cocked, treats aircraft accidents with the gravity they deserve, and makes damm sure to get his facts straight before he opens his mouth. He thoroughly understands the physics and engineering that makes planes fly, all the systems inside and outside aircraft, and the functioning of the FAA, ground control, etc. In short, he is a real "expert", not some guy who once went to an airport and now pontificates from his vast pool of nonexistent knowledge for some idiot "news" channel.

Here's a shot of the rear axle in the Revell Anglia and Thames. Same design as in the Miss Deal kit, but smaller, though still the appropriate style housing for your application. This one looks to me to be more scale-correct, but I don't have time to research the real full-scale dimensions right now.

Here's an image of the parts tree with the axle from the Revell Miss Deal kit. With a little research and a little simple arithmetic, you can easily compare the dimensions with known dimensions on the 392 Hemi block to check it for scale accuracy.

That would be the Eaton HO-52 then. Here are 8-bolt wheels with center hubs from BNL Resin too. http://www.b-n-lresins.com/shoppingopencart/Aftermarket-resin-cast-1-24-1-25-scale-hobby-model--wheels/resin-cast-1-24-1-25-scale-model-8-Lug-4X4-Wheels

Not available in truck kits, but there are period heavier truck axles in several vintage drag car kits. One source of a six-bolt (wheel) rear end looking a lot like the Eaton is the Revell Stone Woods Cook Willys gasser. The Revell Anglia and Thames have similar rear axle housings. There's a bigger one, possibly over-scale, in the Revell Miss Deal Studebaker funny car. You can make the brake drums up from styrene tube, and the wheels and hubs to match your photo should be available from one of the dirt-track aftermarket resin sources.

Hey man...it probably is "just as good" if you're the typical DIY consumer, putting a runny, dust-filled layer of color over your bleached out rattan lawn furniture.

Most likely, and if the lowest bidder is Chinese, and quality control on this side of the Pacific is anything like it is in the car-parts biz, don't expect to get the same product every time. Reality can be a real bidge.

Like this old Eaton HO-52?

You're not going to get the same mileage or power from E85 as you'll get from gasoline, no matter how you drive. Yeah, it'll cost less to fill the tank, but you won't go as far on E85. If it's cheap enough, it might cost less over time to burn more fuel to go a shorter distance. You'll need to keep your own records and do the math to know for sure.

That's why in the car biz, we use masking tapes specifically developed for industrial solvents. There seems to be this idea that there is such a thing as "standard" masking tape. There isn't. As with most things in life, it's a little complicated, and those who don't do their own due-diligence risk unpleasant results.

In many ways, the ethanol craze was a giant knee-jerk boondoggle, based largely on ignorance and feel-good environmental policies that were fueled by faulty logic. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 Btu. Put another way, about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 Btu.Mar 6, 2009 https://www.organicconsumers.org/scientific/70-percent-more-energy-required-make-ethanol-actually-ethanol-cornell

I believe you mean ethanol. They're both alcohols, but have some significant differences. Most alcohol-gasoline blends for public consumption use ethanol, not methanol. E-10, E-15, and E-85 refer to the percentage of ethanol in the blend. If the fuel system is correctly designed, the vehicle "knows" exactly what fuel is in the injector rail at any given time, and adjusts operating parameters to best advantage. Mixing any available gasoline-based fuel should cause no problem whatsoever...again, assuming correct design and function.

100%.

I'd advise caution using "blue" tapes for model car work. They're generally not intended to be used with lacquer products, or automotive type paints. If the adhesive is in contact with the car body, and if the tape becomes saturated by solvents, you can get an ugly gooey mess when you try to remove the tape. Not always, but it is a distinct possibility.

Agreed. Plus, the AMT (nee MPC Switchers) kit has a stock-ish roof height, while the Revell version is mildly chopped. Just FYI: this AMT(MPC) kit has a too-short cowl, like the rest of the MPC '32 Fords, about halfway between the really too short cowls on the original AMT '32s, and the correct-ish Revell versions.

Yup. But here's a dose of truth: most aircraft crashes are the result of a chain of events leading up to the crash, and not a single solitary effup like some ditzy driver texting. Anyone in the aviation community is aware of this. Anyone in the aviation community who's responsible will refrain from speculation (outside the community), because once the wrong information has been spread by a desperate-for-ratings media, and swallowed whole by the ignorant and the gullible and fools in general, it's dammed hard to call it back.

It looks like one. As mentioned above, the 9" was introduced in 1957, and was a new design, but derived from ideas developed earlier. From either '49 or '51, Ford used a design that looked very much like it, but was in fact entirely different (and called a "banjo housing" rear end in the parts book). Even with the real car guys, there's a lot of confusion and misinformation surrounding the earlier axles that look like 9 inchers, but aren't. This is the pre-9 inch pumpkin. Looks a lot like a 9 inch, eh?

My own 30-second search turned up a set made by Fred Cady. Shown to be out-of-stock in several locations. Maybe you can find an old set somewhere I didn't get to in 30 seconds.

It's really kinda sad the amount of misunderstandings, confusion, ignorance, and outright lies going on around this tragedy, but that's SOP for the internet and mainstream media. There's even a 30-second video of a helo crash in the middle-east that's labeled as the Kobe Bryant incident. Please, out of respect for those involved, wait for the findings of the NTSB and FAA.

You're welcome.

By all means, continue thinking that if it makes you happy.

Thank you. Great info. Beautiful scallop work, too.

All the AMT fat-fendered Willys drag cars share the same engine, including the first version, that came in a double kit with a custom '32 Ford. I have 'em all.