Ace-Garageguy

This is Testors Wet-Look over Duplicolor lacquer, both shot from their respective rattlecans, with no sanding or polishing: ...and this is Wet-Look over Testors huge flake "One-Coat" lacquer, again both shot from the cans, very minimal polishing at this point (I really wish I'd known how to scribe door lines here; looking at this thing makes me cringe) :

I'd like to see what would happen if somebody parked a supercharged 500 HP '32 Ford hot rod running on pure hydrogen made using 100% solar electricity and wastewater in that space. You can't get much greener than that.

The first engine, molded in red, with the auto gearbox, looks at first glance like a Chrysler hemi. The trans looks like a 727 with a short tailshaft housing, and the shape of the heads also indicates hemi. It looks to me like the early FirePower hemi, which came in 331, 354, and 392 cubic inch displacements. The distributor drive hole would be in the rear. HOWEVER...early Chrysler big hemis often mount the starter on the driver's side, unlike your model. To the best of my recollectory, the 727 doesn't bolt up to an early hemi without an adapter, either. That MIGHT indicate your engine represents a 426 second-generation hemi, which would have the distributor drive hole in front. But the starter would most likely be on the driver's side on a 426 as well. BUT WAIT...I'm checking oil pan shapes on the trans. The pan doesn't look right for a 727, even though the top of the case looks like one. The other two engines appear to be Fords due to the forward sump configuration, but I wouldn't really care to speculate as to what Ford they represent, due to the lack of cylinder heads and other sure-fire identifying details. EDIT: The oil pan shape on the trans, from what I can see in your photos, matches a 727 Chrysler Torqueflite the best. Maybe somebody will actually recognize which kits these are from, 'cause I'm kinda stumped.

My understanding is that there are some issues with Win10. Support ends for Win7 in November, I believe...but I'm not going to make the change on my current machines. I'm purchasing a refurbed laptop with Win10 installed, to be used specifically for web work, and will network it as necessary on an intermittent basis with the older machines for file-sharing, etc. A decent refurbed laptop is only about $300 from my guys, worth the price to me to avoid the hassles of changing everything else...like legacy programs that won't run under Win10. If you have a really good AV program and decent firewall, you're probably reasonably safe staying with Win7 indefinitely anyway. The only "support" of any real value that Tinylimp is terminating is the occasional "security" patches for the numerous holes and vulnerabilities they always seem to leave in every new OS. But unfortunately, once Tinylimp terminates "security" support for Win7, the bad guys will be looking for deficiencies that TL hasn't uncovered yet to exploit.

1) All turbine engines are not the same, and there are hundreds 2) The turbine model shown above is the ancient Revell parts-pack version, and does NOT represent any turbine engine that ever actually existed. 3) The Howmet cars ran Continental TS-325-1powerplants, derivations of the T-51, and were never put into real production. 4) For that reason, it's highly doubtful there's another model of the correct engine floating around. 5) The AMT kit provides decent bare-bones that would respond well to detailing based on the multitude of photos and info available on the engine. More info here:

Great story, beautiful model. I'm sure your uncle would be very pleased. Not too long ago, I saw an interview given by one of the surviving pilots who had gone on to rise to Colonel, retired, and then worked his way up to CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Just more proof of what an exceptional group of men they were. Everyone involved with the Tuskegee Airmen deserves a hearty round of applause.

That D is a beauty. Thanks for the link.

One huge difference between a '32 truck and '33-'34 trucks is the frame. The '32 truck uses the '32 passenger car frame which has a shorter wheelbase than the '33-'34 passenger car frame the '33-'34 trucks are built on (to which Danno alluded). The front axle is also different. The hood is absolutely positively different on the ''33-'34 (from a '32), as it accommodates the sloping radiator shell, unlike the '32. As Mark and Danno mention, the '33-'34 cab is very similar to a '32, and is easily backdated to correctly represent a '32. Model A trucks, 1928-1931, again as already stated, are entirely different animals from the '32-'34 trucks...except for similarities between the 4-cylinder engines. They're all ('28-'31) on the same model A passenger car frame, but the '28-'29 bodies are entirely different from the '30-'31 bodies too...though they too share front sheetmetal from their respective year passenger car brothers. Wheels got mixed and matched a lot on trucks, so your best bet is to do your due-diligence research if you want to model a particular rig. There are also some subtle differences between '33 and '34 trucks, so again, research multiple sources.

Thanks, Pico. That looks far better shape-wise than the Flintstone version, and has the more common tail treatment.

Supremely cool. It takes some serious effort to get the full-length seam this body is blessed with gone and straight enough for black. Always great to see somebody take a simple old kit and build something really special out of it.

You'll notice Ladd took his section out exactly where I recommended. And unless you're just a glutton for completely unnecessary punishment, using half-round stock to raise the fender arch is definitely the way to go with a model.

The best way (easiest by far) to section a '32 is to take the cut out just below the lower door hinge. You can easily reduce the height without getting into complex curves on the tail and rear deck. Be very careful with your proportions. People tend to get carried away, and often end up spoiling the lines of the cars with a squashed looking mess. Then, simply move the fender arches up to match your photo by forming a raised roll with half-round stock and blending it in with filler. Cut enough off of the rear pan to get a pleasing look, or if you want to get carried away, re-scribe the lower rear decklid opening line higher, to match your sectioning cut. The AMT body shells are not sectioned full length. Rather, they're wedge-sectioned, short at the cowl, but run to almost stock height by the time they get to the rear fender arch. The pink shell is an AMT Victoria body being modified back to stock body height (though with a chopped top) to fit on a set of Revell fenders and frame. This will give you a clear idea of how much the AMT body is sectioned.

For styrene-to-styrene bonds, I'd strongly recommend a solvent-type adhesive like Plasticweld.

Like other fellas have said, you hit the look dead on. I always liked the take-no-prisoners attitude of cars like these.

Thanks for the heads-up. Are you referring to the one from the Netherlands?

Big thumbs-up for this one.

Exactly. The entire 737 Max-8 fleet is now expected to be grounded until the end of 2019, at the earliest. https://interestingengineering.com/boeing-737-max-8-likely-grounded-for-rest-of-2019-after-new-concerns-raised I guess the people pushing for autonomous vehicles live in that magical parallel universe where computers never lock up for no apparent reason, where all software is perfect and absolutely invulnerable to hacking, where radio signals can't be jammed or interfered with in any other way, where sensors never fail, and where non-redundant safety systems can always react in a split second to any emergency....no matter how complex. In reality, "any engineering project must assume a certain threshold for risk, knowing that you cannot build anything that is guaranteed never to fail". And frankly, the MCAS system that's keeping Boeing's 737 Max-8 grounded is one hell of a lot dumber than a system expected to be able to drive a vehicle on public highways and streets. We are looking at one of those scenarios that begs to paraphrase a line from Jurassic Park...maybe we CAN do this, but SHOULD WE??

OK. Tin snips, sharp high-quality ones, used correctly, should do just fine. You may have to very lightly work a slight curl out of the metal after cutting. http://www.durodyne.com/ToolsSnipsScissors.php Or, you can repeatedly score your material with a sharp hard blade, then snap it. Other than a "machine", that's about the extent of your options. Quality snips, used correctly:

The "best" way is just like in the full-scale world...with a shear.

Looking good. Nice to see somebody putting in the effort to correct some of the fit issues this kit has, instead of just scabbing it together or complaining but doing nothing about it.

Thanks. Great info.

THANK YOU !!

Very nice.

Technology is often deployed before it's fully mature, or even fully understood. But there's no stopping the "progress" of the legions of marching morons who are always in a hurry to implement "new and better" when it's actually not. Ultimately, machines, or augmented humans, will be vastly superior to the garden-variety driver we have today. But not yet.

Yeah, but you can put on more clothes and stay warm. I still haven't been able to take off enough to stay cool.