Ace-Garageguy

You did a beautiful job on it too. I think Mr. Foose needs a little praise here as well, for a very fine job of subtle restyling and updating. As I believe this one was digitally scanned and scaled (like the Caddy), the great proportions and lines of the model should be a very accurate portrayal of the real thing.

A couple of thoughts to follow Art's... Old timers (like me) will probably remember seeing the phrase "molded from high-impact styrene" or something similar. As knowledge of plastic chemistry grew, the initial problems with brittleness were worked out. But many of the earlier formulations are SUPERIOR to what we're getting today in terms of chemical resistance. Some of the early styrene kits from Johan (I speak from experience here, having late '50s kits in stock) are so resistant to solvents that it's difficult to glue them together with today's liquid cements. This has an upside, however, in that they DON'T CRAZE when sprayed with a very wet coat of "hot" automotive primer like SEM or recent Duplicolor formulations. Unfortunately, much of plastic engineering peaked some time ago as to "better", and the focus of much reformulation now is towards "cheaper", which is why observant and long-seasoned modelers are noticing problems using "hot" primers that worked exceptionally well for many, many years. As far as the shrinking and warping of old acetate models goes, it does indeed appear to be random, but as Art mentions, models stored in very low humidity conditions are far less likely to be adversely affected, and this is also true of other early synthetic materials and fibers. I would suspect...though I cannot claim to have done any experimentation to verify this...that if acetate parts are coated both inside and out with a vapor barrier like paint (or epoxy on the backside) they will most likely be immune to atmospherically-induced degradation.

Agreed. I really like the cropping of the image to take it out of context somewhat. These become almost abstract studies as a result, but they also work as representational pieces. I'd certainly buy the Pontiac if I saw it in a gallery. Watercolor is a tough medium to work in. You handle it well.

VAST IMPROVEMENT! Nice work.

I find a small flat file is the best tool for the job. You can control it very accurately, and only take off 'just-enough' material. I STRONGLY recommend against using sandpaper to start. Sandpaper removes material from other areas, not just the ridge of the drip-rail...and can cause problems in the shape of the roof that may be difficult to correct. Once you have the rail removed fully and evenly, THEN go with sandpaper to round out your curves and finish smooth. Use a block, as Leslie suggests above, to make sure you're straight, but use the paper without a block to get nice even curves.

I'm an engineer myself. Many of my friends are engineers and "master technicians". Nothing I've EVER said was intended to denigrate either profession as a whole. Engineers and skilled technical people ARE widely respected in the US as well. At the same time, and unfortunately, over here, many professions that require rigorous study, in-depth-knowledge-and-skill, and unvarying commitment to doing quality work are viewed by much of the populace as the province of nerds and geeks with their noses in books (or in the air), and lacking all social skills. AND...when engineers don't stand up for what they know is RIGHT, in the face of bean-counters and marketers and management lacking a technical background, and when technicians do sloppy, uncaring work...and there's a LOT of both in this country...both professions suffer great damage as to how they're perceived.

"Pseudo engineer...low self-esteem...grasping at things to rationalize their own shortcomings"? Really? Here we go again with the personal insults and name calling. Gotta love it. Never fails. When you see fiascoes like GM's little ignition switch disaster (initially 800,000 recalls, possibly as many as 30 MILLION ultimately; $35 MILLION fine paid to the NHTSA; untold MILLIONS of $ in legal fees and judgments; $900 MILLION paid to the DOJ...wouldn't it have been cheaper to get the damm switch design right IN THE FIRST PLACE?) you just have to wonder about the "group competence" of some engineering / management.staffs. (source: https://www.consumersafety.org/products/gm-ignition-switches/) AND PLEASE NOTE: I said SOME. Many engineers are wizards and have my undying respect and admiration. Many are CYA fools. And since your comprehension as to what the video is about seems to miss the mark somewhat, here's some free help to understand. It's about the frustration that engineers feel when having to deal with unreasonable, logic-free non-engineers and others lacking any technical knowledge or skill...and people who THINK they have it and don't.

No time to work on models, period, for several months. I usually only log on here when I'm taking a short work-break, or in the evening when I just don't feel like going to the bench. I'm "retiring" sometime late this or early next year, so some models will very likely come out of hibernation.

See Rob, the real problem is dealing with people who lack simple common sense, a usefully-wide knowledge-base, and any kind of logical approach to life....whether they were taught engineering in a "fancy college", got an MBA from a 3rd rate liberal arts school (or a Harvard equivalent), or somehow manage to pass as "technicians" when they're skill-free slackers. Any "engineer" who sees putting 5 pounds of crapp in a 3-pound sack as a "design challenge" is lacking common sense (and I encounter the results frequently). Any manager or marketer who insists it's possible is equally foolish. And usually when the techs take something like that apart and put it back together, they make such a hash of it you end up just replacing the entire unit (because it never works again after it's been "repaired"). Every day, day in and day out, I often spend the majority of my time correcting "work" done by idiot techs, idiot engineers, all driven by idiot managers and marketing people. My avatar reflects my usual mental state brought on by the current state of affairs in my particular sphere of influence, and why I'm quitting working for others upon completion of the three projects I'm running now. I've been told one-too-many times (by people who can't design, make or repair ANYTHING) that, because I'm the "expert", I need to figure a way to get 200 hours of work completed in 50, and on-budget, with no overtime or additional help. I've decided to walk away and let THEM do it.

...especially if they're "management" or "marketing".

The cords on many "Venetian" window blinds are also often made from a very fine braided material, in diameters useful for models.

Bear in mind that many "automotive" primers, including the ones recommended above, are now much too "hot" to be sprayed out-of-the-can on current styrene models. This has been covered at some length here on the board, and the reason is two-fold. 1) Many current and recent models are made of a much softer and less solvent-resistant grade of "styrene" than in years past. Shooting Duplicolor primer out of the can, for instance, on some recent Revell models, will result in horrible surface crazing. 2) The primer manufacturers seem to be constantly tinkering with (probably to save a few cents per can) the formulations, and many offshore manufacturers simply don't give a damm about following the formulas accurately. Add this to an almost total lack of quality-control stateside on products made elsewhere, and you have a real problem. So BEFORE you commit to spraying ANYTHING on a model you care about, TEST EXTENSIVELY...and NOT ON SPOONS. Plastic spoons ARE NOT always representative of kit-styrene, and many modelers have horror stories from using spoon-tested materials on models. Your testing, to be valid, MUST be done on the undersides of the actual model you're working on.

Yes, exceptionally clean. Great looking paint, fine model overall. Just about impossible to drive with that roll-bar location though. Revell apparently goofed on that.

A further note on epoxy...in general, the LONGER any epoxy takes to set up and cure, the STRONGER it will be. I use a very high strength epoxy made for real aircraft, as I always have some in stock that's gone out of date and can't be used on real planes anymore...though it's still fine for anything else. It's $185 per gallon, so obviously most modelers aren't going to have access to it. It has to be mixed on a gram-scale, and takes several hours just to gel. It's 24 hours to reach handling strength, but to me, it's worth it. I NEVER have to worry about seams cracking. HOWEVER, I have no use for 5-minute epoxy for anything other than jigs, fixtures, and things that won't ever be subjected to much handling or stress. A 20-minute or 30-minute epoxy made for RC aircraft will be MUCH stronger than the 5-minute goo, and by virtue of being lower viscosity, it will BETTER wet-out any reinforcement material you might choose. The West-System 105 epoxies are very good too, strong, and are even certified for some light experimental aircraft use. They're available in reasonably-sized and priced quantities. Mixed with microballoons, they make an easy-to-sand lightweight filler with exceptional adhesion, for difficult situations. And always bear in mind that epoxies need to be measured for mixing fairly accurately. NEVER be tempted to use more "hardener" to speed up the curing process. You will only RUIN the strength of the material by doing so. Mark also has a very valid point about the possibility of continued warping going on with acetate parts, even after they're incorporated into a model. It's not really hard to make molds of the parts you want to use, and make copies in fiberglass or resin which won't warp over time. The process of making silicone molds is thoroughly covered elsewhere on the web, so I won't go into that here. The process of making partial molds from epoxy and light fiberglass cloth is shown in this thread of mine, restoring an old JoHan model. Though the particular model shown here is styrene, it's an older formulation that resists many solvent glues modelers have today, so all the replacement panels were attached with epoxy-fiberglass as well as being made from the stuff.

Not a pet exactly, but I found a baby house wren on my front porch the other night. It seemed dazed and disoriented, and had scraggly feathers that weren't all the way in yet. Incredibly tiny bird. I managed to catch it...and if I could catch it, the neighborhood cats would surely have had a wren snack that night. Brought it in, put it in a box, and let it go in the morning. It seemed to be completely recovered, and shot out of the box like a rocket when I opened it up.

Sounds like you my have a very interesting project in mind. A decent epoxy will give you a stronger bond than CA, and like any glued joint, the strength of the bond is in direct proportion to the AREA of the bond. All this means is that a simple edge glued to another edge won't be very strong, and will tend to fail at the joint if you do any serious heavy bodywork...which I assume you intend to do if you're attaching large acetate sections to styrene. Any way you can spread the bond over a larger area, or reinforce it, will be very helpful. I do a lot of heavy parts swapping. And I ALWAYS reinforce the backside of the joins with very fine fiberglass cloth, made for RC aircraft, and more epoxy. This is important to prevent cracking on styrene-to-styrene joints, and will be doubly important if you're gluing acetate sections to styrene. Be sure to thoroughly roughen the areas to get bonded with 180 grit sandpaper.

ACETONE is a solvent. There's no such word as ACYTATE. ACETATE is the plastic you refer to, and yes, epoxy will adhere to it just fine.

Couple of '59 Buick built-ups, one to restore and one to build something inspired by Daryl Starbird's version...

I understand your point of view, and I agree for the most part; I'd never dream of doing something like that to a clean or decent restorable example. HOWEVER...there are surely examples of this vehicle out there that are beyond any hope of economically feasible restoration to stock condition. I would consider such cars as candidates for heavy modification, rather than simply sending them to the crusher. For instance, we currently have in the shop a Jag MkII that is just too far gone to be cost-effective to restore it. BUT, there's plenty there to make a Jag-based hot rod. NOT a rat, but an upgraded high-performance car that LOOKS like a Jag MkII...and goes, stops and handles like a Corvette C5.

The Heller version is a completely different kit, no common tooling with the Atlantis / SMER / Merit kits.

This would be great fun with modern suspension, brakes, an LS (or modern 4 or 6 cylinder high-output engine) set back behind the front axle centerline, and about 250 pounds taken out up high. Tuck wide rubber under the fenders to keep the stocker look, and muffle it down to a whisper.

Not according to their own website, which I looked at prior to posting. https://plastruct.com/product-category/tubing-fittings/styrene-round-tubing/

https://articulo.mercadolibre.com.ar/MLA-606225753-cano-rigido-plastico-20mm-34-emi-x-metro-_JM

https://www.sinclair-rush.co.uk/category/217/hard-plastic-round-tubes

Hmmmm...I have a couple cars stored in a small inland town that's much flooded. Haven't been able to get a phone call through to the management yet. May be under water. Bugger.