Ace-Garageguy

This is far FAR better than the earlier drawing. I know these cars very well, and this actually looks like a Mangusta.

Don't get your feelings hurt. Trying to be helpful is fine. So is saying the information is bad. Which it is. Truth.

Sheer genius.

One thing I'd really like to know...and if I ran Revell I damm sure would...is how the apparently very accurate scanned bodies of both the Foose pickup and the custom Caddy compare in cost and development time, as opposed to earlier models not made using that tech. And how many tooling changes were required, as in : how close were the first BODY test shots to the final product? Having hard data to look at in this context would make all the difference as to determining best-process for getting a kit to market as cheaply as possible while maintaining exceptional quality.

In case some of you guys don't know who Pico is, or why it's particularly exciting that he is doing a Goose, he's the guy who did this one...

You are correct, sir. Definitely inaccurate...by a large margin. I always wonder why there is so much dog-vomit stuff like this floating around. No access to the real car? No factory drawings? Just can't measure? Then please, don't put garbage like this on the web. If nobody else has it, I'll get it to you at the Feb. meeting.

pool-boy's cat's

Tiny Tim's toupee

I have both of them, but they're already packed. 90% sure the R&T article has the profile drawing. It will take me a little time to dig them out, and it probably won't happen by the Feb. ACME meeting, but it will by the one in March.

Nicely done build of a kit that leaves a lot to be desired. Though I love the real ones, I've put off buying this kit because of all the horrible reviews. I can see from your model that the lines and proportions really aren't too bad. Thanks for posting it here. Think I'll have to get one.

with the girls

Attempt I ran single Pontiac 4-cylinders of various displacements to set multiple world records...several of which still stand (IIRC).

but uncle Ernie

There will be almost-scale-thickness fiberglass copies at some point, mainly because I want to finish the guts of the injected version and be able to remove the body panels to show it all off. The body now is really just a plug for the molds, but it came out so nice, I'm a little hesitant to bugger the finish to make molds. I finished the plug for a show here, but it didn't get as much attention as I thought it would. I overheard a couple of folks saying "ah, that's nothing...just a diecast that's been sanded on". Pretty effective finish though, if people up-close thought it was really metal.

worth millions of

Deleted

with newt eyes

and possum innards

with denatured alcohol

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. But the kit is, obviously, almost there. Just a body, maybe an interior insert...which wouldn't have to be terribly elaborate. Of course, after seeing the mess that was made of the re-tool of the chopped top in the '36 Ford 3W kit, much as I appreciate the new wheels and tires, they probably don't have anyone capable of rendering a Hawk body even close to right. I'm so tired of the "it can't be done" attitude that seems to be more pervasive with every passing day.

How 'bout R2 facelifting the '53 Stude? Kinda makes more sense.

Squirrels, chipmunks, or gerbils?

You can build one easy enough. Revell '50 Olds roof on the AMT body...

in hydrochloric acid

Pretty much agreed on all points...HOWEVER... I believe the reason we've been seeing all manner of dimensional and proportion errors in bodies, mechanical parts that are clunky blobs bearing little resemblance to anything real, large klugey alignment pins that belong on toys rather than precision scale models (look at what's standard quality in the HO scale model RR stuff today, and compare it to the typical car model), the same parts (like engines) from the same manufacturers in the same scale, but in different kits, that are somehow magically of different dimensions after having been scaled down to 1/25, stupidly designed wheel and tire retention systems, front and rear "glass" that doesn't even come close to fitting the openings correctly, bumpers that droop, grilles that don't fit, cylinder heads that are WAY too short for the engines they go with...and on and on...is because there are simply too many fingers in every kit development pie belonging to people WHO DON'T APPARENTLY KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT CARS...OR BUILDING MODELS...to get things right. Scanning a real car and developing CAD data from that is just dandy if you've got mostly computer-jock clean-hands-never-held-a-tool mouse-clickers on salary to manipulate a bunch of data, misinterpret some of it, and you want to pay for multiple tooling changes and test shots and corrections because the whiz-bang tech wizards fouled up, and, of course, translating everything into Chinese, we're told, is difficult. Costs skyrocket. Endless meetings addressing unnecessary problems, while making sure nobody is actually responsible for any decision, add thousands of dollars to projects. Time passes, no product, re-do after re-do. So instead, you get a tiny team of a FEW guys who understand cars intimately and are world-class modelers...at least one on the team, anyway. Add some practical engineering knowledge, and require everyone to be fully cognizant of how injection molding works, what the goals are, what the tolerances are, and get it done without spreading responsibility all over the planet. One guy is the ultimate decision maker, period. No meetings, no discussion. And find an American company to cut the tooling. They're out there. You start with basic measurements like width, length, height. wheelbase, distance across door sills and door tops etc. Bring the body into spec...really only one side is necessary. Scan it. Mirror it. Do a rough tool design, close enough to know your material thicknesses on the body shell within a millimeter. Develop ALL the other parts from the dimensions you have from the body engineering. Check everything multiple times. Everything fits, no baloney, no excuses. This ain't going to the moon...and the REASON we don't go BACK to the moon is because middle-management spread and 100% reliance on tech and distributed blame rather than a core team of people WHO REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING just makes it too damm expensive.