Ace-Garageguy

Yeah, that's the bast point in favor of not getting involved with one of these.

Interesting project... ...but, I think if I had had that baby, I would have just scribed clean panel lines in her and left her as a barn-find and reference. 'Course, you never know what you'll find under all the filler until after it comes off, and many's the time I've wished I'd left a real one alone after I saw how bad it really was.

Interesting conundrum for me...much as I despise the PB SOBs for their tactics, the $98/year new price is attractive when I consider how many hours it would take me to remove and replace all of my photographic content on the web. I imagine this was the idea from the beginning... Sometimes, one has to make a purely business decision, and $98 is a small fraction of what I could earn working those migrating / re-posting hours.

Thank you sir. I did not know that.

Re: Proportions On the real car in your reference pic, note the relationship between the front of the stamped reveal in the '32 rail, and the base of the firewall. This is the critical point that defines where everything else has to go to get this really great look. The rails have been stretched FORWARD of the firewall, and the rear of the rails have been bobbed, with the rear axle moved forward of its original location.

Hmmmmm...youse guys have me intrigued now. I have a bunch of oddly "scaled" wheels from diecasts that look like they might be a solution to at least that part of the problem, and 1/16 is large enough to make scratch-building suspension bits relatively straightforward...hmmmmm.

Yeah, I'd also really like to know how the theory stacked up to the actual repair required.

If I were you, I'd take Steve Guthmiller's recommendations. He consistently produces first-rate work. Paging Steve...

I believe you came up with it, and I think it has some excellent uses...particularly in looking at two-tone combinations, or interior colors next to paint, etc. I have a collection of test-spoons that was done by a fellow ACME member as a demonstration of all the various silvers and "chromes" on the market a few years back, and it's been most valuable for getting in the ballpark on certain effects. And surprisingly, when the guy who did it was giving it away, nobody but me even wanted it. AND...in years past, many models were made pf much harder "styrene" than what a lot of kits are made from today, and spoons, generally being relatively hard polystyrene, made a somewhat more relevant test medium than they do now. But to get a good indication of what something is really going to look like on a model, or in particular how aggressive solvents in a certain product may attack plastic, the best test is to shoot a part from the specific kit. And while we're at it, I also now advise people who want to improve their spray technique to practice on junk bodies if they have enough, prepped exactly as they'd prep a model, or in lieu of that, to use the smaller polycarbonate soft-drink bottles. These can be scuffed and primered and sanded just like a model, and as most of them have some surface details, they can be useful for learning how to turn the model as you shoot paint (for good overlap and maintaining a "wet edge"), avoiding dry-spray and orange-peel, and getting in that magic zone that lets paint "flow out" slick without running.

Good. Which takes us back to what I said earlier... " "Flexible" plastic is not styrene. If you MUST test on spoons, get the "harder" ones. "

Nice. Does making derogatory personal remarks make you feel better?

You're the one who started wizzing. I know more than you. Period.

Furthermore...lacquers commonly used to finish models commonly contain solvents like MEK, acetone, toluene, etc., to various degrees...including those marketed specifically for models. Many automotive products that were used successfully for YEARS on model work now cause problems with surface incompatibility as the quality of model POLYstyrene declines.

No. What is this "poly" you refer to" All commonly used plastics are polymers...polystyrene, polyester, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene...

Re-read my edited post. And you don't know much about epoxies, judging from the above post. And models ARE indeed POLYSTYRENE. You really might get your stuff together if you want to go head to head with me.

1) I spent years developing and implementing repair procedures for composite aircraft structures. 2) You can't get an accurate idea of a color by painting spoons. That's why we don't do color sprayouts for real cars on compound-curved panels 3) If you'd experimented as extensively as I have (and paid attention) you would have noticed that materials DON'T ALWAYS BEHAVE THE SAME WAY ON SPRUE AS THEY DO ON BROAD FLAT PANELS. The surface of the sprue is often noticeably harder and more chemical resistant than the adjoining panels. A primer that will lay down just lovely on sprue will often attack and craze the panel it's attached to.

No paczki around here (that I know of, anyway) but now I've got a powerful hankerin' for some jelly donuts. Just what I need.

No. The material the spoon is made of is IMPORTANT, and can be JUST AS IMPORTANT as INTERCOAT COMPATIBILITY. FOR INSTANCE: IF the FLEXIBLE spoon the OP mentioned is POLYPROPYLENE, no conventional paint will stick to it without a SPECIAL CHEMICAL ADHESION PROMOTER that most modelers have never heard of and wouldn't get anyway.. IF that's the case, a primer or topcoat MIGHT wrinkle, when it would be fine on styrene. A POORLY ADHERED BASECOAT OR PRIMER CAN CAUSE JUST EXACTLY THE SAME APPARENT EFFECT AS PAINT INCOMPATIBILITY. By the same token, MANY STYRENE SPOONS ARE MUCH HARDER AND MORE CHEMICAL RESISTANT THAN THE CRAPP MODELS ARE MADE FROM THESE DAYS. If that's the case with your "test", the primer and paint might work fine with spoons, but will craze a model horribly. I know these things from direct first had experience...including almost 50 years in the high-end automotive and aircraft industries, where there are MANY different materials to pay attention to, and where doing something wrong can cost many hundreds of dollars in wasted material and maybe thousands in labor. SO...if you want a MEANINGFUL test, do it on the backside of a part (that won't show) ON THE SPECIFIC MODEL YOU"RE WORKING ON.

"Flexible" plastic is not styrene. If you MUST test on spoons, get the "harder" ones. This points up the fallacy of testing on spoons I've been harping on for YEARS. Plastic spoons are ALMOST NEVER MADE OF THE SAME STUFF AS MODELS, so trying to determine chemical compatibility is impossible with spoons. ALL YOU CAN DO WITH SPOONS IS A COLOR TEST, and because of the spoons small area, you CAN NOT learn to spray paint on spoons.

Clean, clean, clean. Beautiful paint and foil work, everything fits right. It just doesn't get much better than this. Absolutely top marks.

Replicas and Miniatures of Maryland makes both DuVall and Hallock style windshields. There is also a good one in the AMT Phantom Vickie kit. Any of the above will fit a 1/24-1/25 scale '32 Ford with a little work.

If the kit had been made in 1/8 or 1/12, I'd have one...but I don't have much in 1/16 (well, I have the Entex SS100 and MG-TC, and if there was a '32 Ford in 1/16, I'd have to have a '34 as well...though I don't have any of the Model A kits either.) Does that make sense?

The engine is really pretty decent...just fine for a hot-rod. There are a couple of minor things that could be corrected, but it looks very much like a Jag engine...though side-draft Weber carbs would be a big improvement for a rod engine. NOT MY MODELS:

That one's got some warp problems, and the flange is faired into the edge... not like a real one...

Actually, that car does appear to have a clutch on the fan. It's the finned thing forward of the blades. The fan mounts to the rear of the clutch.