Ace-Garageguy

Good stuff. "Dynamic Soaring" has been of interest in the full scale sailplane community for some time, and has been investigated for possible integration into performance-enhancement of military UAV applications. NASA has also looked at it from the standpoint of non-Earth planetary atmospheric "slingshotting" to gain free momentum for space vehicles under some circumstances. I was privileged to attend a presentation put on by Capt. Randy Gordon from Edwards (mentioned in the second video), sponsored by the Experimental Soaring Association (EDIT: oops Soaring Society of America) some years back, at their annual technical event in Tehachapi, Ca. Anyone really into the science of the concept can start here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229746401_Optimal_patterns_of_glider_dynamic_soaring

Well, it IS WikiPee, ya know? Kinda half-right sorta is usually close enough. EDIT: Pretty sure, kinda halfway, that later Phantom Weasels could carry the AGM-78 ARM.

There were a lot of people involved with a lot of aircraft from a lot of outfits. This from WikiPee (slightly different from my remembry, but close enough for a model car forum) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korat_Royal_Thai_Air_Force_Base "In February 1972, the 67th TFS returned on temporary duty to Korat from Kadena AB, this time being equipped with the EF-4C aircraft. The EF-4C was the initial Wild Weasel version of the Phantom. It was a modified version of the F-4C, designed in parallel with the F-105G Wild Weasel program. The EF-4Cs suffered from certain deficiencies which limited their combat effectiveness. For example, they were unable to carry the standard ARM. Consequently, the EF-4C was seen only as an interim Wild Weasel aircraft, pending the introduction of a more suitable type. In February 1973, after the end of combat operations in Vietnam, the 67th TFS with its EF-4C Wild Weasels were withdrawn and returned to Kadena." Far as I recall, nobody called 'em EF-4Cs. They were just Wild Weasel Phantoms or F4-C Wild Weasels. Deployment was delayed because of numerous development difficulties resulting from a lack of physical space in the aircraft with its 2 engines, and some electronic incompatibility issues I should remember but don't.

It's funny how many people have told me over the years that Phantoms never flew in the Wild Weasel role during the Vietnam war. Everybody seems to know about the Thuds and Super Sabres though. Never mind that I saw operational aircraft in theater, knew pilots and crew, became good friends with one of the pilots, and almost married his daughter. The way I remember it: The first operational Wild Weasel F4-C Phantom was delivered to the 67th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Kadena, on Okinawa, in October of 1969. 3 years later, late '72, the 67th TFS was sent to Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base, and flew point with Operation Linebacker II. Over 450 missions, if I recall correctly. Kinda broke my heart in the late 2000s, seeing Vietnam-era Phantoms being converted to target drones at BAE in Mojave, Ca.

Yup. Old friend of mine, now gone, was a Wild Weasel Phantom driver in SE Asia. In the late '70s, Phantoms were still operating from Dobbins in Marietta, Ga. My shop was across Hwy. 41 from the end of one runway. Often, just at dusk, pairs would launch in full AB, with the cones of purple-orange fire in the tails brilliantly visible against the darkening sky.

The downside to these is that there are proportion and line issues with all of them. Though they can all build up to be very attractive models, they're not extremely accurate. I bought a bunch of these really cheap back in about 2005 or so, when I'd been away from the hobby for decades. The box-art sold me. The beautiful illustrations look like the cars they represent. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the kits themselves, and heavy surgery with a very good eye is necessary to correct them (as the later box-art photos of the kits built up demonstrate). EDIT: The old Revell Jag E-type roadster, the one that was originally made by Revell, actually looks like a Jag.

Any competent radiator shop back in the '50s could have added brackets or even pins to a cut-down brass radiator, while cutting one down to size. Cut-down cores and custom tanks and radiator frames were not uncommon. Standard replacement cores, tanks, necks, and other parts were also available in a wide range of sizes, for collision work and maintenance. Again, it was not difficult for someone who was competent to build a custom or semi-custom brass/radiator using old-school materials and techniques. Replacement tanks and necks. Old brass radiator after being de-soldered, without core. Modifications at this point are simple and straightforward. Side and bottom frames are steel. Fabrication of mods is just like doing anything else.

Thanks for the additional info. Most helpful.

Yup...that's always my favorite day with an older car here. After 20 years, anything goes. Hot damm...

Back and forth for the time being. Probably won't be completely moved until the end of 2020.

Typically, the radiator will have brackets welded or soldered to it that allow mounting to the vehicle frame. These can be located virtually anywhere on the radiator frame that's sufficiently strong. And as tbill says, additional brackets mount the shell to the radiator. The photo below shows a common arrangement. You have a chopped radiator mounted ahead of the crossmember, so a custom rad will be required. One easy no-show way to mount it would be to have the radiator builder install pins on the bottom of the thing, like some late-model cars use. Then you use brackets with holes extending forward from the crossmember. The pins go in the holes, with a rubber donut between. See below. On the top of the radiator, you would have brackets to accept stiffining rods that run to the firewall, instead of mounting pins.

Definitely kool.

Well, that bites a big one. Lotsa aircraft modelers are miffed, I'd assume. Guess it's time to stock up on the bottle versions before they disappear too.

Soldering die-cast parts was the assembly method-of-necessity in the old model railroad days, before the advent of epoxies and CA. The exact composition of the base metal your kit is made of will have some bearing on its solderability, but there are specialty rods made that will stick just about anything to anything. As you've already surmised, experimentation is key. Here's an article on silver-soldering die-cast model cars. http://modeltech.tripod.com/soldering.htm

Hmmmmm...I usually end up going the hard way, and would probably solder the body parts together, fill, etc., and re-engineer the interior so it could be installed after. And that's why I rarely finish anything. The most enjoyable way to build this model will most likely be to accept it as what it is, fit the body parts together as well as you can, and assemble it after painting, as it's designed. Built with care, it will still be a very attractive little car.

FIRST NTSB REPORT

Looking out my home office window, watching the snow falling in big fat wet flakes, while the birds and feral cats take turns having breakfast at the feeders. My cat's asleep in front of the heater, and I'm having my second cup of coffee. Think some ham and eggs sounds about right. Some days, life is pretty fine.

1). Should be no problem whatsoever if it's painted...and you can use hot automotive rattle can paint, including self-etching primer, on the metal parts. 2) Model A engine color was a medium green/bluish/grayish. This is a good general interpretation. There was variation from the factory, so something reasonably close to this will be fine. Exhaust manifolds might have been painted with black "stove paint", but rusty is just as correct.

Yup. Not a lot of donor kits in 1/20, either. One possibility is finding a damaged die-cast in 1/20 with a decent engine. Depending on the damage, these can be had really cheap sometimes. Another option is looking at Shapeways offerings. Many of the engines there can be printed in virtually any scale.

Scale on these is 1/20, if my memory is accurate. To verify the scale, mock the thing up on its axles and measure the wheelbase. Stock Ford model A wheelbase is 103.5 inches. Simple math. Asking prices range from about $10 to over $100, depending on condition. They seem to be plentiful, and not in great demand. I would guess typical selling prices to be around $25, but an eBay search can get you a better number.

Frankly, I see proportion and line issues on both the red box-art car and the prototype-in-white. And they do not appear to me to be the same, either. I'm wondering now if someone in the design chain isn't sufficiently familiar with the real cars to realize there are two very different body shells, and has attempted to split-the-difference between conflicting data interpolated from photographs, rather than actually measuring one car. Though it's admittedly difficult to draw firm conclusions from the photos we have here, the roofline and window shapes appear to me to be different on the box-art car and what the white prototype represents. And neither of them look quite right for the early low-roofline car, which is the one preferred by just about everyone with any design sense. The A-pillars on the white car are heavier than they should be, too. We'll hope the white-model wheels are very early pre-production versions as well. Several manufacturers...years ago...demonstrated that it's quite possible to make very nice injection-molded wire wheels. Hopefully Revell will benefit from looking at how it was done in the past. The tires are another issue. The aspect ratio is too short, and they're way too square-shouldered for anything that would have been on the real cars in-period. During the course of my work, I see E-types constantly, literally, so I'm kinda familiar with the way they look from every conceivable angle. Revell USA demonstrated their then-ability to hit the shapes and curves pretty much dead on with their 3D-scanned Foose Caddy and Ford pickup. One would hope the reorganized Revell Europe has maintained that capability.

There's definitely some truth to all of this, and I mentioned that dealers don't always use OEM parts. But I made my assertion about relative quality of OEM as opposed to aftermarket based on hundreds of different items over many years in the business, not on one or two isolated instances. Here's some more truth: many "OEM" parts are not even made by the vehicle manufacturer. If a Chrysler bean counter can source cast iron brake rotors that may be porous and warp early, crapp like that can easily get in the OEM-boxed supply chain. And when OEMs run out of stock on some parts for older cars, they'll often substitute decent quality aftermarket. For instance, the power steering reservoirs for PTs now come from Dorman. And they're the functional and fit equivalent of OEM-design, but they look different. An aftermarket supplier, like NAPA, may elect to source better quality brake rotor castings that are initially more expensive, as parts stores don't need the insane markups dealers require to cover their huge overhead. A reasonable markup on a more expensive part can result in a selling price that's still significantly lower than what a dealer gets for garbage. So a higher quality part can sometimes be available from the aftermarket...but that is hardly the norm. The situation IS improving, however, as some parts chains are looking at the long-term business sense of selling crapp as opposed to quality. Here's one of dozens of real-world horror stories I can tell: a client wanted me to do lower control arm bushings on his 160,000 mile Ram truck, as even though he does some of his own work, he has no access to a press. I was going out of town, and couldn't get to it, so he decided to do the job himself. Complete arms are available both OEM and aftermarket. They're expensive, as they're aluminum FORGINGS. And there are "just as good" aftermarket parts for a fraction of the price. My guy bought the cheapos, did it himself, and saved a lot of money. When one of the cheapo CASTINGS failed, he was doing about 80 on the interstate. Could have easily killed him if the traffic had been heavier that morning, and it totalled the truck. The litigation is proceeding. Here's the bottom line: the more you know about how your vehicle works, and the more you know about the industry that keeps it running, the less likelihood that you'll get screwed.

That's what my comment said...the correct info is the graphic. Michael Jones said it was NOT..."I believe this method may be wrong", referring to the graphic.

Nice work. I like this kit a lot. Besides being loaded with extra parts, it actually looks considerably more like the car it represents than some others out there.

The odds of a general-service collision-repair shop even knowing what to do are staggeringly small. The car is a unibody, so structural rust issues need to be addressed by completely removing the affected elements on the factory spot-welds, and new panels and members built up as the factory intended. Doing this right can run into really serious money. And scabbing in slabs of steel plate and angle-iron, as is the common "repair" in situations like this, is patently unsafe if the damage is close to any suspension attachment points. HOWEVER...if the rust is just, say, some holes in the trunk floor from water ingress, and not in the primary load-bearing structure, then somebody ought to be able to do something for reasonable money.