Ace-Garageguy

The AMT chassis will physically go under the Revell body, but it's somewhat narrower and doesn't represent the stamped detail on the side of the frame rails that is a very visible and signature characteristic of '32 Fords. The side of the frame shows on a real '32, just as it does on Revell's version. The AMT '32 coupe, as shown, the '32 Vicky, and the '32 Phaeton all share the same chassis with separate rear suspension. The roadster kit has a blobular, molded-in rear end. The AMT running gear CAN be adapted to the Revell chassis so you retain the correct frame rail sides, which is a requirement if you want a decent model, but the AMT bits are kinda primitive and heavy handed. In short, there's really no easy way to do a good, accurate stock '32 without jumping through some hoops, or doing a lot of fiddly fitting and fabrication. There was a metal aftermarket chassis available at one time that's an option if you can find one, and I believe Replicas and Miniatures made something for the conversion too.

Yup. About the only real-car primer that stops that and can be left exposed indefinitely is epoxy. Naturally, the best of the best was a Sherwin Williams concoction from the 1980s that's no longer made. Far as the baking soda / CA goes, the deciding factor, as with the deterioration of many man-made materials like some vinyls, cellulose-based acetate promos, rubber, and lycra, will be how high the average relative humidity was and for how long.

Yup. Bondo applied to real cars will absorb moisture and allow rust to form under it on the surface of the metal that's been repaired if it's left exposed and unsealed with primer and paint. Most likely, you got a good coat of paint that sealed the surface of your banking soda-superglue mix.

Exactly. Baby powder is talc (hydrated magnesium silicate) and usually, cornstarch. Though not as hygroscopic as baking soda (which swells and turns to a solid block in the box as it absorbs moisture), and though talc is used as an industrial filler in things like tires and paper, and was the original filler added to polyester resin to make "bondo", I'd still respectfully suggest you use the real catalyzed polyester or epoxy fillers available, if you want your work to look good in 10 or 20 years.

Beautiful, beautiful work. I meant to comment on it earlier and got sidetracked. Incredibly fine stuff going on here. Impressive and inspirational.

I had a cat a few decades back that wasn't so lucky. He musta thought he was a dog, 'cause he liked to chase cars. Really. One day he caught one, and got a broken front leg. Poor Kat hobbled around the house on a splint/cast for weeks. The day I brought him back from the vet after having the cast removed, stupid cat got out and chased another car. This time, flat Kat.

I've experienced the issue dozens of times. This time it was one sentence and a link. In the past, I've almost always found a way to post the information anyway, but I'm not going to bother trying workarounds anymore when there are problems. I've got enough to deal with in my own life without bending over backwards compensating for other stuff that's not my responsibility. Took me decades to realize there's just no point.

I'm getting constant 404s and "can't edit comment" warnings when I try to add more material. Sorry...not my dog.

Whoa...NICE. That's some serious rebuilding right there. Impressive and inspiring.

Depending on what material and process you're working with, there are several options. Here's a list from one VERY reputable and reliable supplier I've used frequently in the past. https://www.polytek.com/product-type/release-agents-sealers As SfanGoch says, PVA can be removed with water. It's a semi-universal release agent, but it has shortcomings in some applications. Some of the other release-agents are silicone based, and your parts will need to be thoroughly cleaned PRIOR to painting if you use one of them (isopropyl alcohol usually works).

Just buy the right stuff. The home-brews are marginal at best, and they don't work with everything anyway. Talcum powder, when it works at all, leaves a gritty surface. Vaseline has to be removed from crevices and indentations, and in the process it's easy to buff through it on high spots, leading to poor release. I've been making composite and "resin" parts for 50 years, and there's just no percentage in using something that's not designed for the job.

60F here, six mile hike. Spring? Maybe.

Yup, real cool. I'd forgotten just HOW cool this thing was. Nice work.

I, for one, understand that completely, and not bothering to update long threads until the vulnerability is resolved is certainly working "within the new time constraints". I may update a couple anyway, just to see what kind of readership they generate, but if past experience is anything to go by, at this point in time, it won't be much. If no long-term edit becomes the necessarily accepted norm, and headers cannot be updated, eventually board members will become aware that a very old thread popping up on the WIP section isn't necessarily an already-been-read ghost.

Multiply by 25. .020 X 25 = .5 (or 1/2) etc.

I tend to use rather precise measuring, and engineering practices crossed-over from the real world. I almost always push myself well beyond my comfort zone, and I also enjoy the hobby.

As discussed above, some of us who actually post long-term build threads need to be able to update the headers so the updated posts including new material will actually be read. As it stands now, it's unlikely I'll update any long-term threads. If they're not going to be presented as "updated with new info", and likely get read as a result, it's too much effort to expend for nothing. As I've stated before, there's NO rational reason to post a build on a forum other than to have it seen by other people. Also, occasionally, while researching a particularly involved build, I'll unearth additional information I didn't have at the time of the first post, sometimes factually contradicting information I'd already posted. In the interest of only presenting FACTUAL information (I know, this is rarely a consideration on the internet), I need to be able to edit indefinitely. This isn't "for the convenience of a few" in my opinion. It serves to bring value to the forum.

OK...I see how you could read it that way. I mistook his meaning of "actual size" to be "real size" or "full scale size". That's all I got.

My take on his question was what size, in reality, are the kit tires he gave SPECIFIC (model) dimensions for. He did NOT mention any specific REAL CAR tires, like a Goodyear Blue Streak with a particular size imprinted on the sidewall. If he HAD asked for the rolling diameter and width of any specific REAL CAR tire, I'd agree with you. And I'm very well aware that correct scaling often...isn't. But what possible difference would it make to somebody building a model what the REAL diameters and widths were if they were INCORRECTLY scaled? Yup, I guess I'm just too logical to get the sense here.

Not bad. Really not bad at all. Pretty decent, actually. Flows well, proportions are good. Yup, overall pretty nice.

AMT kits are manufactured in 1/25 scale. That means that the dimensions of the parts are 1/25 the REAL dimensions. The inverse is that if you multiply any measurement you take off a 1/25 scale part, you get the measurement the REAL part would be. 1.31" X 25 = 32.75", and so forth.

Thanks. It's all rattlecan. I've sanded and polished to a higher gloss since the photos were taken, and it still looks good 7(?) years later...though some sanding scratches have shrunk in the decklid, which opens, because I rushed the finishing to make the deadline, not allowing the primers to harden up completely. I just wish I'd scribed the door lines.

Testors Inca Gold is one of their "one coat" lacquers. I've used the system extensively over the years, and as far as being "one coat", it ain't. I shot this car with Flaming Orange over a white primer (which was in turn shot over a gray surfacing primer). It took 5 COATS to get full hiding. Yup...five full coats (and the darker orange covers better than gold). AND...after the car was done, I buggered the decklid. I had a contest deadline, no more white primer, so I shot it over gray primer, thinking enough coats would get me to a match. Nope. The decklid is noticeably darker than the rest of the car...which you can just barely see even in this shot (though the reflections make it harder to spot here). For Inca Gold, a white primer will get you the best "pop" with the brightest color. A red primer will shift it to orange. Dark gray primer will most likely just make it look kinda muddy. Light gray would be close to white, but still just not as bright. And you'll need at least two coats of clear to be able to colorsand and polish safely (assuming you have almost no orange-peel).

Maybe depends on your definition of "dog"?