Ace-Garageguy

All true, but even in today's CAD-empowered digital wonder age, errors of a ridiculously large magnitude slip in when nobody is paying attention. And that's EXACTLY what it comes down to...simply not paying attention. Professionals get paid very good money to get this stuff right today, and tool-and-die makers of old were traditionally among the best-paid of the "blue collar" professions, simply because they were EXPECTED TO BE ACCURATE. In the final analysis, numbers don't lie, and paying attention to doing one's job correctly is all that's required to excel, whether doing the work old-school, or with scanners and CAD. Pity that's an apparently obsolete idea.

Ya'll know the recently reissued (nee Monogram) Revell Grim Reaper and Freedom Chopper (a different version based on the same tool) are both still easily available on Ebay, right? The GR is about $25. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Revell-Tom-Daniel-Grim-Reaper-Chopper-1-8-scale-motorcycle-model-kit-new-7541-/192107118555?hash=item2cba79ffdb:g:edoAAOSwdGFYpmng

If you can do without the stamped-in lettering of the real part, simply sanding the fins or other detail off of the innumerable covers out there that represent cast-aluminum parts produces a quite acceptable stamped-steel stock-looking part.

If the wheelbases are the same, there's absolutely no doubt the coupe is longer simply by virtue of the length of the overhangs, particularly the front.

Genius. Sheer genius. Simple AND effective.

As we've seen innumerable times, measuring accurately and dividing by the denominator of whatever fractional scale is supposedly represented seems to be beyond the skill sets of even some of the best of the "professionals" out there. Two companies' versions of the SAME CAR, IN THE SAME SCALE, can be very significantly different. How this is possible eludes my limited comprehension of incompetence. So...I've just about given up expecting anybody to get much of anything right where there are numbers and simple arithmetic involved. Eventually, machines will be able to do this stuff without idiot human intervention, and we may once again see some semblance of accuracy, but until then, if it looks pretty good, go with it.

The walking, talking human excrement that preys on less-knowledgeable people on the internet. I got one of those phony "Microsoft Security" BS scare scams that locks up the computer and says in its machine voice that YOUR COMPUTER SECURITY HAS BEEN BREACHED>>>DO NOT SHUT DOWN YOUR COMPUTER>>>CONTACT THIS PHONE NUMBER IMMEDIATELY >>>YOUR DATA AND CREDIT CARD NUMBERS AND PASSWORDS ARE BEING STOLEN>>>!!!!!!!!!!! I know how to deal with this carp, and my machine is fine, but where the HELL is the federal government in all this? If I ran things, I'd have really TOUGH laws on the books to deal with malicious "mischief" and computer crime, and have law enforcement tear into these lowlife SOBS like a pack of rabid pit-bulls. But no, just la la la la la la la la.

Yup...and just FYI...the '57 T-bird was the last one to be built on a frame, and the rails were roughly straight and parallel, not at all like the full-size '57 and later Ford frames as shown above. The '58 'bird was a unibody.

Too far gone even for me.

Very helpful info.

Nice work, all of 'em. What program did you use to do these? I've seen your Pete bike hauler somewhere before, love it, bought a snapper kit specifically to do something inspired by your idea, and then lost the address of your illustrations. Thanks for putting these up.

Moving along nicely. These old AMT '32 kits, when they're in bad shape especially, are just like pulling some rusty, tired old junker out of the boneyard and building something cool from stuff other folks see as worthless. It's the original, true spirit of hot-rodding, in miniature. No rules, no lines to have to color inside of, just a canvas to let your imagination run wild on. The last mockup does look good, but as Spex84 and you both mentioned, I'd pull the front of the body up to level with the bottom of the frame rails, just to get that hood line working straighter forward of the cowl. Nice work, fun to watch it come together.

Excellent idea. Every one of his models was inspiring, and every build thread had loads of information on how-to-do-it.

I heard they fell off the edge of the flat Earth.

A clean M16, lots of full clips, and with any luck at all, the sound of a dustoff Huey coming in just over the treeline. Fine looking model, by the way,

Those pesky goats get everywhere, even in the salad.

Yes, I scratch the spindles. Here's a tutorial I did for a method that will work with just about any front axle. http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/119034-tutorial-steerable-i-beam-and-tubular-front-axles-part-one/

The subtle chop and interesting side trim and wheels really work well. Nice job.

Missed this one earlier, great to see it back. Really low flathead-powered '29s are a special breed, and as usual, you're going the extra mile to get the period look and details spot on. Looking forward to seeing this one come all the way together.

For some of those who don't really know the kind of guy Harry was, and the amount of time and effort he put into helping people in the community, have a look at his 7-part tutorial on using Photoshop, at the top of this section of this board... http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/forum/20-auto-art/

The importance of proportion and line can not be overstated when it comes time to do the rad shell. The original American Graffiti car had a rad shell that was sectioned too much, and always looked goofy to me. A shell with that much chopped out of it would be appropriate for a channeled car, but not one like this, where the body sits on top of the frame rails. A rework of the basic idea gets the rad shell looking right in relation to the rest of the car. See the difference? The BEST way to get the radiator shell right is to use a hood to mock up the top of it relative to the cowl, AFTER the body has been channeled the amount you want. THEN, figure out the amount of sectioning that will be required to bring the bottom of the shell up to where it won't be torn off on every speed bump.

Pretty much sums up all human fiction ever written. Hmmmm....history, too.

Every car is different. You I do what looks best in each individual situation. Sectioned AND lowered here... The body has been channeled the full height of the frame rails, and the top of the rad shell lowered to line up with the cowl correctly. But this lowering ALSO would result in the bottom of the rad shell being below the pavement. A careful sectioning job corrects this, and also avoids to often poor proportions of heavily chopped rad shells. Even if you use a PE insert, it's fairly easy to customize it to for a sectioned rad shell EXACTLY with some precise work.

It's coming.

Thanks. No real reason this one got sidetracked, no particular build problems, but looking at the dates of my last posts, it seems it was about the time my personal life went kinda off the rails. I really like this one, so she'll be moving as soon as I actually finish at least one of the builds on the bench at the moment.