Ace-Garageguy

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.

I just pulled the kit to double double check. Yes, it has that. Yes, it is an Olds. No question.

The biggest and most obvious difference between the Poncho and Olds is the heavy cast iron flywheel housing extension on the rear of the Olds block. Pontiacs don't have it. The kit represents an Oldsmobile.

It's been a while, but if memory serves... While the ('49?) 51-'56 Ford rear ends look "nine-inchy", they're entirely different units. Having a removable pumpkin, they're visually similar enough to pass for most modelers, however. Nine-inch rear end housings came in a variety of configurations and at many widths for different applications. Heavy duty and hi-po Fords in '55-'56 (T-bird, wagons and sedan deliveries, police interceptors, and some light trucks) were equipped with the Dana 44. The factory manual also shows what looks a lot like a Dana 41 for '49-'50 cars, but I don't remember exactly what came in what, and when. It looks like this, with an integral pinion housing, and a removable round cover on the back.

Most likely, it's supposed to be 394-based. That was the last factory displacement for the first generation Olds OHV V8. Introduced in 1949, the engines came in 303-324-371 flavors also. Only built through 1964. Probably because you're used to looking at post-1964 Olds engines. The first-generation postwar Olds OHV V8 engines are superficially visually similar to the Pontiacs and Cadillacs of like vintage.

Guess I'm just lucky. Over six decades worth (my father started taking me up when I was quite young).

1) He was flying quite slow, and sure as hell wasn't flying at over 180MPH, 'cause that bird won't even go that fast. Top speed is 178. And don't believe what the mainstream media, largely ignorant of just about everything, tells you. SEE EYEWITNESS VIDEO LINKED BELOW 2) You can certainly hover...BUT...the altimeter is calibrated to sea level, using atmospheric pressure for its reference. Flying into mountainous terrain, the altimeter does NOT adjust to tell you how high you are over the ground. That's why a fair number of pilots fly their little planes into the sides of mountains. And that is why this flight, and most like it, operate under VFR, Visual Flight Rules. VFR includes things like absolute minimums for "ceiling" (how high the bottom of the clouds is) and general horizontal visibility. 3) When hovering in a whiteout, you have zero reference for much of your spatial orientation. Yes, you have an altimeter, but as I explained above, it does not compensate for rising terrain. You also have an instrument called an "artificial horizon" that tells you if your nose is up or down, and if your wings (rotors in this case) are level. BUT...there are no instruments that tell you if you're sliding backwards, or off to one side. 4) Without extremely sophisticated ground-mapping radar, there's just no way to tell where the hell you are in whiteout conditions. 5) It will be at least 6 months before the NTSB make even their interim investigation results public. Until then though, countless media morons and non-flying armchair experts will be all over this event with their stupid comments and theories.

Very nice, especially the lines and proportions. Crazy show-cars can get to look really stupid. A lot of 'em do. But your design works well, much better than most, for an over-the-top custom rod.

If you're going 3M, be sure you specify the green stretchable plastic stuff. It's thinner and more flexible than the purple, and will make a razor-sharp line.

Generally good advice. SEM is very hot. HOWEVER...my own testing has shown that it works fine on some kit plastics, but causes grief on others. This is black self-etching SEM on a very solvent-resistant early ('61) Johan Dodge. No crazing, excellent adhesion, and flowed out very well.

No, they are not. They never were, either. PlastiKote was the go-to primer for over 20 years specifically because it was different from anything else available...not as hot as Duplicolor, but just as good a barrier, and easy-sanding. It's been reformulated at least twice fairly recently, and the "new, better" stuff is just cheap garbage, the result of bean-counters meddling with something they didn't understand and nothing at all like the product that veteran builders came to love.

Yes, it uses an external coil. You can mount it anywhere, just like most coils of its type, but the factory mounts it to the front of the RH cylinder head .

Very carefully. I'll generally correct something like that cold, just bending slightly past where I want to go, but I have years of experience. Even then, I get the occasional 'snap'. Safest way is to fix the frame sides to a flat board, and pour just boiling water over them. OR...if you jig the parts together square, and wick liquid cement into the joints, the crossmembers MIGHT hold the whole mess straight when you un-jig it.

Oh, the humanity.