Ace-Garageguy

I recently bought one of the Testors version for about $50 (including stateside shipping) and one of the identical-contents "Circuit Wolf"-boxed kits from Japan, also including shipping for about $50...and that seemed to be about the best deal going at the time. Same kit, exactly

It's been around for a long time, works well, as does the little hypo-needle pipette applicator they sell. I use mostly Plastruct Plastic Weld (orange label) these days, or Weld-On 3.

One of my long term sleeping projects is an AMT Deluxe Tudor on the Revell chassis and guts. Very mild, period-style kustom, kinda like this... And just an FYI...Ford used essentially the same chassis under all of its passenger cars from 1935 through 1940 (light trucks used it through '41). The Revell '40 chassis fits very well under the AMT '36 Fords and all the AMT '40 Fords...as it should, if both companies did their scaling reasonably right.

.026" ID clear flexible (I assume you want flexible for "detailing") tubing is going to be tough to find. There aren't many uses for something like that. That's only 26 one-thousandths of an inch for your inside diameter. Here's clear polyurethane tubing, .025" ID with a .040" OD, made for medical experimentation. The product number is MRE 040. 36 feet is $54. http://www.braintreesci.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MRE040 Scroll down to page 4 of the PDF. http://www.braintreesci.com/images/MRE.pdf

Revell supplied the same chassis under ALL of their '48 Ford cars, and substituted or added suspension parts as necessary, so all of the Revell bits will fit all of the Revell chassis like they're made for them. Revell's other woody wagon is a '49 Mercury, and is on an entirely different frame. Also on the same frame design are the '41 Ford woody kits from AMT. There are two versions, stock and custom, and the parts and chassis assemblies are fairly easy swaps into the Revell bodies and vice versa.

Something to remember about the frames in the AMT double-dragster kit is that the real two-engined car that one of the frames in the kit is loosely based on used rather large diameter tubing, and a fair number of rails were built with tubes much larger in diameter than used by the Dragmaster and other frames represented by the Revell parts-pack offerings. There was a lot more variation in the way things were built in the old days of drag-racing than there is today.

Welcome Terry. A popular method for getting a well-detailed chassis under those early unibody Johan Mopars is to simply substitute the chassis and running gear from one of the Lindberg '64 Dodge kits, which can very often be found cheap. The undersides of all the early Chrysler Corp. unibody range were quite similar visually, and separate-suspension donor chassis and parts are usually plenty close enough to make an accurate representation without having to build everything from scratch. The photo below shows a typical blobular Johan chassis plate on the left, with a Lindberg chassis on the right. The fit of the Lindberg chassis in the Johan bodies is very good, though a slight wheelbase adjustment may be necessary, depending on the particular vehicle being modeled.

So...those of us who drive manual gearboxes ought to get a break on our insurance rates, right?

See above...

The tank in the Lindberg kit measures about 15 inches long, and has an elliptical section of roughly 4 inches by 2 inches. If we multiply by 25 (the model is in 1/25 scale), that gives us a full-size tank of about 375 inches length, with an elliptical section of about 100 inches by 50 inches. To find the volume of an elliptical tank, we take these dimensions... ... and use this simplified formula... pi x A x B x length, all divided by 4. (pi = 3.1416, A = 50, B = 100, length = 375) That will give us about 1,472,625 cubic inches. One gallon is 231 cubic inches. Divide the volume of the tank by the number of cubic inches in a gallon. We get about 6375 gallons, which is about right for an older fuel tanker trailer design. Today's larger tankers, pulled by more powerful tractors, are around 9000 gallons. PS. Anybody, please feel free to check my math. It's late, and I'm tired.

The red one is definitely close enough to pass, or to modify into something a little more accurate. What kit is the white blobular manifold from (in your photo above)? PS. This is what makes the Y-block manifold so unusual in reality. See the stacked intake ports? No other domestic OHV V8 engine is arranged that way. Also note that some Y-block manifolds have full-length flanges that bolt to the heads in the usual fashion, while others are missing a chunk between the intake port runners and the heat risers. They use a different kind of hold-down, with wide washers like these that span the gap.

You might see 2 or 3 one-barrels on a flathead V8, or an inline. 2 or 3 two-barrels is more common on a flathead. An OHV V8 multi-carb intake manifold is most likely going to be 3 two-barrels, 2 four-barrels, or six or eight one-barrels, or possibly six or eight 2-barrels (serious overkill). 3 two-barrel setup for a Y-block: though they may look like one-barrels, they're not. Bare manifold, showing the ports for the two-barrel carb throats:

GREAT JOB !! THANKS !!

Starting with the Jag D-type

Pretty cool. Before they figured out the swept-wing and "area rule" stuff for supersonic flight. Nice model of an important research aircraft.

For more variations on the venerable Spridget, click here... http://www.vrgonline.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=475

Happy B-day, Rob. Glad you were born, glad you're still around.

In daylight this will be indistinguishable from the real thing. The engine, in particular, looks like a well cared-for but actually used unit. Harry is smiling.

Yes. They're like miniature bending brakes in a sheetmetal fabrication shop. Like a "finger" brake: Like a regular sheetmetal brake: Google : "photo etch bending tools", look at the images, then click on the links to see descriptions, prices and availability. Then click on "videos" to see how they work. Here's one...

I guess I'm more DK than I thought. Damm. Maybe sometimes getting slapped with a cold fish is good for the soul...nah...but the fish seems to be diggin' it...

I'll probably not be paying $1300 for a book on a car I'll most likely never even see in the flesh. If I can't or haven't driven one, I just don't care that much. I DO have a stack of books on the Cobra roadsters and the GT40, however, still occasionally get my hands on one. And I STILL doubt there were differences of SEVERAL INCHES among the cars...unless it was for aerodynamic or other valid engineering reasons, as the cars were developed. The fact is, the "1/25" scale model in the above photographs appears to be 1/24 scale in width, 1/25 in length. As the cars were built on the large-tube Cobra roadster chassis, differences in width would rationally only crop up in places like fenders widened to accommodate wider rubber...like the GT40 cars...not in the width at the sills. But there are many many more experts on this particular car here than I would have imagined, and I will defer to their overwhelmingly superior knowledge. Also please note I SAID :" On old coachbuilt bodies, it's very common for cars to not be entirely symmetrical, and for fractions-of-an-inch variances to creep in, even for scoops and other minor details to move from car to car. But every car in a production run of the same nominal vehicle from the same coachbuilder at the same time in history will usually be very close to the others in major dimensions." I clarified my statement with the phrase "every car in a production run of the same nominal vehicle from the same coachbuilder at the same time in history will usually be very close to the others in major dimensions." A production run can be only 5 vehicles. The "nominal vehicle" means Cobra Daytona, but the other clarifiers "from the same coachbuilder" and "at the same time in history" already accommodate the fact that all the cars weren't built at the same place OR time. I don't quite understand what you want to argue about.

Like I said...

No idea. None, zero, period. Thought I had a clue, but it went nowhere. I thought I had a pretty good handle on things in this vein, but this one's got me stumped. Nice job.

Not really knowing how you mean that...if it's directed towards me as a "self styled expert", all I can tell you is that I never rely entirely on my memory...or even my recollection of my understanding of a particular subject...and I almost always fact-check prior to posting anything technical here or elsewhere. I also often back up my technical information with primary source material from elsewhere on the web (recently from several manufacturers that make the products for industry that 'experts' insisted were unnecessary in some of today's industrial processes)...not opinions parroted from others, or "I saw it done once so I know everything about it" types. I'm vastly ignorant of a great many subjects, and I happily admit it. Knowing you DON'T KNOW something is the first step to learning. I also know rather a lot, from both education and from many years of hands-on engineering, automotive and aviation experience...and just paying attention in general. I try to share what I know to be true, and post factual and correct information. Several folks have seen the need to denigrate that, call me names, insult me, or argue from positions of inferior knowledge or experience. That is something I'll never understand. I personally respect and revere people who know things I don't (and there are a LOT of them), especially when they try to help ME. I also freely admit when I'm wrong...if someone with provable superior knowledge or experience can convincingly illustrate my misconception, with facts. But you know, it does get tiring arguing with ignorant idiots who are too stupid to know they're ignorant idiots...which is perhaps the non-PC but nonetheless accurate definition of the DK effect. And these days, they seem to be everywhere. I'm sure someone will take this little missive personally, complain, and I'll get another warning. And you know what? I really don't much care anymore. PS. And then there's always the clown who has to make some snide but carefully oblique comment, a specialist in the CYA game, but not much else.

I think giving it plenty of time to air or dry out or whatever may happen here (there's no way to really know exactly WHAT the problem is without formal chemical testing and analysis) is a very wise decision. If there's any hope of your resin shell returning to normal, time will surely help. Alcohol DOES in fact mix with water quite happily, so a water soak could possibly be beneficial, but if the alcohol has any hope in hell of coming out of your resin body, simply setting it aside (in such a way as it isn't going to warp) for some time is probably your best bet. Low humidity and a warmish environment would probably be good too...simply to try to encourage evaporation of the alcohol out of the resin...if that's even possible at this point.