Ace-Garageguy

1 1/8" is 1.125" expressed as a decimal (tenths of an inch). Divide by 24 for 1/24 scale. You get .047" 1 9/16" is 1.5625" expressed as tenths. Divide by 24. You get .065" 11 7/8" is 11.875" as a decimal equivalent. Divide by 24. It's .495" in 1/24 scale.

X2. Beautiful paint. There are still three dead PhotoBucket links at the top of the first post, but 5 good ones below them.

You have my sympathy. I had to put down my own cat-friend of 14 years a while back.

Yes, it's a beauty for sure. I believe it was featured in the other mag...

What a DEAL !!! OMG !!! I'll take TWO !!!

It's certainly one of the best looking pole-buildings I've seen. 6' of set-in pole ought to keep it there.

Must be a regional thing. Most shop construction I've seen pours the footings and floors first, tied together with rebar, and with threaded fasteners sticking up. The walls get tied to those. Kinda helps keep the whole thing from blowing away when the weather gets hairy.

A '64 Pontiac isn't exactly my definition of "modern", but that's just me. If you have a full-frame car with the frame molded to the floor, I'd suggest some kind of liquid mask. There are many builders here who specialize in that era of cars. I don't, so somebody else who has the technique down needs to chime in.

There's this thing called perspective, but if you really think those small tires in the kit look right, by all means use them. That's an injected nailhead-powered car, and isn't going to need as much tire as a blown SBC-powered car anyway. Tire diameter can be used to augment gearing, as we all know...or should. Most of the cars I'm familiar with that appear to me to be what's represented in the Slingster kit run significantly larger rear tires. The box-art appears to show larger rear tires as well. There are other scaling and proportion issues, but maybe it's just not worth the effort to try to disseminate correct info. I'm beginning to find that to be the case. And besides...what do I know ?

A GREAT DEAL of how-to and reference info has simply disappeared, not just related to the model car hobby either. When my own account goes down in 30 days, thousands of my photos will go away...here and on real-car, engineering, design-and-styling and several other boards as well, and many hundreds of pages of useful technical information I've posted will become largely useless. This has happened to countless others already. A nail in the hobby's coffin? Probably not. A good kick in the head? Definitely.

Most "modern" chassis don't have separate "frames" but only "hat-section" frame rails that are spot-welded to the unibody. Everything is the same color on that type of construction. Typical hat-section stamping, would be welded through the flanges on the edges...

Interesting to see a Nimrod MR2 as well. I didn't realize any had been preserved. And last time I saw a Victor flying was during the Falklands conflict in the K2 tanker variation.

Great photos showing the rapid early evolution of slicks. We don't often see models representing dragsters as early as the upper one, and it's helpful to have a reference shot from the very early 1950s. Mickey Thompson originated the "slingshot" configuration in about '54 or '55 I believe (where the driver sits behind the diff rather than over it), so both the lower photo and the Slingster kit represent the later configuration. Though the lower photo shows a relatively large slick, much larger than what's represented in the kit, it's a front-blown car, and that configuration mostly pre-dates the Gilmer-belt-driven top blower on the car represented by the Slingster. The point being that the kit slick really is too small to correctly represent what would have been on most similar dragsters of the immediate period the kit represents.

Because their poorly thought out business plan depended almost entirely on ad revenue. If you were using the "free" plan without running an ad-blocker, fine. I, however, chose to run an ad-blocker early on, to spare me from having to put up with retarded and intrusive hysterical marketing, and to speed up using the site considerably. When I began running an ad-blocker, I realized that PB would no longer be generating any income from me, but I would still be benefitting from them. This did not strike me as fair, equitable, or morally acceptable (and I'm well aware these concepts are alien to most people now). Therefore, I voluntarily signed up for a paid plan, to offset the loss of income from my ad-blocker, in the apparently delusional hope that being a PAYING customer would guarantee continued access to my content...which it did for a few months even after the hammer fell. If you still can't understand, I cant help you. NOTE: PB could easily have made a NO AD-BLOCKER condition for using the free version. They also could have easily charged according to usage. They could have easily made a special plan for people on fixed income, with a limited amount of usage. They could have easily set up a reasonably priced tiered structure before just pulling the plug on millions of images. They didn't.

I also agree with this 100%.

I would gladly pay to access this site...I have said this multiple times...and what I'd be willing to pay would probably be far more than the fractional-cent-per-ad-blocked that I'm "costing" Gregg. Anything worth having is worth paying for. And anything you get free is usually worth exactly what you paid. It's just that in the case of PB, these truths didn't manifest themselves until late in the game. In the end, the free accounts are worth absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, now the voluntarily-paid accounts (voluntarily paid on my part anyway...to offset the loss of revenue I knew I incurred by running an adblocker) are also worth nothing. And please...don't really expect me to believe there's anyone capable of using a computer and engaging in a hobby who couldn't have afforded the $2.99 / month lowest tier fee.

I didn't.

The major part is thinking it out before doing anything.

The thing that chaps my backside is that if so many people hadn't thought they were somehow entitled to a free ride, those of us who thought we ought to PAY for what we were getting probably could have continued indefinitely. There would have been no incentive...other than just flat greediness...to raise the rates so exorbitantly. The cheap screws screwed it for the folks who paid their way. I'd like to send a hearty "thank you" to all the penny-pinching tightwads out there...thanks a lot.

Bimmillac? Chrysloghini? Porschonda?

Apparently there's no shortage of people who just bend over and take it...enough for PB to have remained in business this long, anyway.

Hmmmm....I bought one to use the fadeaways on another chopped job I had going and didn't think the roof looked as bad in the flesh as it does in most pix. That said...there is a pronounced hump where the top of the roof transitions into the rear window surround. It's subtle, but it spoils the line for me. There appears to be enough plastic to file the hump into a smoother, more pleasing radius. Also, leaning the B-pillars forward at the top would be a big improvement.

Yup. What was your screen name then? What was the name of the topic? Do a google search with those two terms and you just might find it. It works for me when I'm trying to find old threads of my own here.

The body now has a firewall, and plain hood sides from .030 styrene. I tacked on a head and found some short headers that clear the body, frame and hairpins. With the hood on... Still tinkering with the look, but the stance is dead-on-where-I-want-it. Stripped the green stuff back off the roof...what was I thinking? Found some different headers that turn down, and made clearance for them on the hood sides.

Thanks. Yeah, I've about got it figured out. I suggested doing an article on the technique for the mag, but haven't heard back as yet. There's been a fair amount of interest here on the board about this and some other fiberglass work I've done.