Ace-Garageguy

Though I have to respect Harry's position, I also agree entirely with Bernard's. Two of my own ongoing builds are far removed from practical "trucks" and are in fact radical show-style customs, but are put in the light utility / commercial category. I know that's the way it is, but I don't have to like it. As Bernard says, folks who go to the "light commercial" category have little interest, in general, in hot-rods or radical customs that really aren't "trucks". --------------------------------------------------------- On another note...nice project, Bernard. looking forward to seeing this come all the way together.

Absolutely correct. I was thinking of a caliper in my head but my fingers typed "micrometer". Duh. Glad you corrected me, because a digital caliper IS exactly what I'd intended to recommend. Sorry for posting the wrong info there, folks.

Ed Roth in particular wasn't much about function, but built some striking and innovative customs that were much more machine-inspired static sculpture than actual machines. One of my favorites was the Mysterion. Wild way beyond the then-current definition of wild, it also lacked crankshafts and pistons at one point in its show career, and its frame cracked during the rigors of being looked at and hauled around. Still, it's a cool thing. I have the kit, and I have no interest in correcting whatever engineering deficiencies it may have. It's just so cool to look at, who cares? If a modeler is wanting to build something in that vein, great. If a modeler wants to build something that represents a what-if functional machine, that's something else entirely, and understanding of aspects of real-world functionality is a definite plus.

As always, your scale engineering takes into account what it would take to make this model function if it were scaled-up to 1:1. That's one of the things I particularly like to see on model cars, and you get it right.

I remember that guy from the other forum. He did some really beautiful work, but some of his tires were so impossibly huge it was immediately obvious that the tops were cut off to get the cars to sit as low on them as they did. And I'll admit, the initial "look" was often striking and very attractive...but after my brain kicked in, the effect on me was like fingernails on a chalkboard. That's the curse of living in a real-car-world where things have to actually function as well as look good. Kinda takes some of the free-form creativity out of the equation, but replaces it with a requirement to work a little harder to get a look AND a function that aren't mutually exclusive. I don't say anybody HAS to build models by my particular set of reality-bound constraints. I just offer information in case somebody WANTS to.

All the Midwest basswood packages of current manufacture carry decimal dimensions...as per the link I posted above. But I have a better idea. Math-free, and I use it frequently because it's so quick. As Art mentions, in 1/25 scale, one millimeter equals one inch. Get yourself a cheap digital micrometer that has both metric and decimal readouts. Most do these days, and they're only $25 or less. Measure the basswood you have with the readout in millimeters. This will tell you what the full-scale size would be in inches. Or when you measure the old barns, take the dimension you get (let's say 12.5" for a heavy column) and simply set your micrometer to read 12.5 mm. Presto. If you DO happen to see basswood dimensioned in decimals but you can't open the package to measure it directly (or even if you see the dimensions on the web), all you have to do is open your caliper to read the decimal dimension, and then press the button that switches the readout to millimeters. You now know what size, in inches, your scale lumber represents in 1/25.

Guess you better lighten up on all those floating alternators and mirrorless exteriors too, then. And hey...who cares about scale accuracy? If something kinda "looks" like the subject, it's close enough...right? Why even bother? After all, "toy cars" don't have to portray reality. But I always seemed to think that was the object of "scale models". Jus' differen' strokes.

Again, scale lumber is usually sold in decimal sizes. This isn't hard. And if it's sold in fractional sizes, it's a straightforward in-your-head conversion to 32nds. 1/2=16/32. 1/8= 4/32 Etc. This basswood is sold in even fractional sizes. http://www.nationalbalsa.com/Basswood_Sticks_s/46.htm

Most scale lumber in basswood I'm familiar with IS dimensioned in decimal sizes...English decimal sizes and sometimes also in metric sizes...which are not the same thing obviously. See the listings for scale lumber here for examples. http://www.hobbylinc.com/cgi-bin/s8.cgi?cat_s=RCE&str_s=dml modelers If for some reason you still DO have to convert from decimal sizes to fractional sizes, remember that nothing WILL work perfectly. There are no exact multiples of 1/32 that will equal all decimal dimensions. Obviously, you first have to convert any metric dimensions into decimal English dimensions, and then convert your decimal dimensions into fractional dimensions. Again, it won't be prefect and you'll have to "round up" and guesstimate somewhat. Just FYI....31" is about 1/3 of an inch, obviously. There are 32 32nds in one inch, so 1/3 of 32 will be about 11/32". Here's a short video about converting decimals to fractions in general. It is simple arithmetic. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/pre-algebra/pre-algebra-decimals/pre-algebra-decimals-to-fractions/v/converting-decimals-to-fractions-1-ex-1

I don't disagree with any of that. But...the new-issue Revell '30 coupe CAN be relatively easily modified to go on the excellent vintage 1/25 scale Revell '30-'31 Ford Model A fenders. Fill the wheel arches and the fender tops with sheet. The old 1/25 kits have everything else required to build a stocker in 1/25 other than an un-chopped body shell. The most difficult problem to deal with on the recent '30 coupe if you want to go full-fender is the width of the cowl. It is correct for use with a '32 hood, but if you want to use a '30-'31 hood and grille, it has to be narrowed considerably.

The real one is built on '32 rails, which start out considerably stouter than A rails. A '32 Chevy frame might be a better beginning though, as it has parallel leaf springs up front. And of course it can be done. You can put just about any engine in anything imaginable. Allison-powered trike Hemi-powered Messerschmidt

I use a really low-tech setup that seems to work pretty well for me. 100-watt equivalent compact-fluorescent bulbs in swing-arm lamps. Camera is a 4MP point-shoot Nikon Coolpix L4 with a 3X optical zoom on a tripod. Not much depth-of field control, but the results are fine for modeling forums

While it may look cool, keep in mind the Duesey engine is huge and heavy as 1930fordpickup already mentioned. An A chassis needs considerable beefing up in the real world just to handle a flathead V8. It'll take a lot more to run a Deusenberg engine...a LOT more...especially if the frame is lengthened. Look under a Deusenberg and you'll see frame rails that wouldn't be out of place on a large truck...not surprising considering the cars could weigh over 3 tons (6000 pounds), while a Ford A was in the 2300 pound range. Just trying to keep it real.

Hmmmm...other than both of the new Revell A kits having the now ubiquitous Ford 9" on coils in the rear (which has been done for many, many years in the 1:1 world) I'm not seeing ANYTHING that makes the new pair of Revell Ford model-A kits hopelessly caught in the present moment. Everything there has been part and parcel of hot rods since the post-war period, through the '60s, '70's and on up to today. Cars have been built fenderless since the word go. Cars have run dropped I-beam front axles with tube shocks and finned Buick drums, A-bones have been built on '32 rails pinched in the back or have been channeled over A rails, have been powered by Buick nailheads and smallblock Chevys (even the automatic transmissions are nothing particularly current-think), rear wheel cutouts have been raised, etc, etc, etc. just about forever. Many builders here have gone well beyond "out of the box" and built very accurate and period-representative cars with only reasonable effort, including Tim Boyd, Dennis Lacy, Spex84 (and even I have a few on the bench). To me, the recent Revell A-bone offerings are the greatest stepping-off point for building period-correct cars since Revell and AMT's old Ford A-models of 50+ years back. To illustrate my point, this model under construction by Spex84 looks the part for a 1958 hot rod as well as it does for something built in 2016 in the "retro" style. This one from Tom Kren just screams '60s-'70s This '29 being built by Dennis Lacy hits a particular late '40s-early '50s look dead on too. I guess it's all in one's perceptions. I've said before I love the old 1/24 Monogram '30, and I do...but there's no point knocking the current Revell issues of the venerable A as being in any way limiting as to what can be done with them.

Duesenberg SJ, early 1930s (1/24 scale Monogram kits)

Absolutely nothing. Because...rather than continuing to buy more models that I may never get the time to build, I've decided to divert what I usually spend on the hobby towards the fund to Help Harry. I think a lot of us could probably put off buying at least a model or two every month to send the funds instead to our good friend here who's needing our help. In case you somehow haven't heard, our moderator Harry Pristovnik has a serious health issue, an expensive and painful proposition, and really needs financial assistance. How about those of you who appreciate what Harry has done for this forum...working here for free for years...donate to his help fund some of the money you'd normally spend on your hobby? For more information, please see the "HELP HARRY" thread pinned to the top of this column by clicking http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/116986-help-harry/ Or go directly to his gofundme help fund page by clicking https://www.gofundme.com/2pndgj5w?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cta_button&utm_campaign=upd_n It's quick and easy to donate, and they accept all the major credit and bank cards. Come on guys...he needs us.

Are you wanting to do a particular car? Probably the most instantly recognizable from the era are the Greenwood "Stars and Stripes" cars. One was available as a kit, and I'm certain somebody did aftermarket decals too. A company I worked for ran a similarly-painted smallblock-powered B-production Corvette roadster in SCCA in the early '70s. The majority of the cars were considerably less flashy, and could be represented with paint and generic stripe, meatball / number and period sponsor decals

Got the body sitting down on the zeed and bobbed rails close to right and got the firewall rough-trimmed to allow the trans to go in where it needs to be, and trimmed a little off of the K-member to get it all a little lower. This is the close-to-final location of the engine relative to the body. One thing that's very apparent is that the carbs will need to be leveled once the engine install is finalized. The float bowls need to be as close to level at rest as possible, and the rake, plus allowing for a reasonable pinion-angle, will mean the carb flanges on the manifold will need to be 'machined'. Another thing we do know at this point is that there'll be plenty of hood clearance over the carbs for air cleaners. This can be a problem with channeled cars, and you never know fo' sho' until you fit it all up. The headers will be reworked from these shown (made for a Pontiac engine). Because the doors are 'welded' shut, the megaphones can extend rearwards more than they could if the doors had to open. I was kinda hoping I could get away with running a 2-pot Hilborn injected GMC 4-71 blower without having to cut the hood. While it looks like it may just be possible, it would leave no room for a scoop or air filter, and you really don't want to suck a lot of abrasive dust through your expensive and close-tolerance blower impellers, pistons and rings. So,we have a slightly revised idea of how the car will look with the engine in and the hood on. The stance will stay exactly as originally envisioned, and the task of modifying and fabbing crossmembers to achieve that starts now.

Thanks gentlemen ! Once I get some primer issues worked out, I'll be back on several of these. The solvent-sensitivity of the plastics that kits are molded from these days has been playing jell with my old standby Duplicolor primer method. Steve Guthmiller suggested a first coat of Tamiya primer followed by Duplicolor, so I'll be experimenting with that technique for a while.

My last pay check cleared, so I just made the donation I'd promised earlier. Just a reminder...Harry's need isn't going to go away any time soon. He'll have an ongoing difficult time, so I think we should all seriously consider making regular donations to help him out. I'm hereby committing to diverting at least my monthly modeling budget to Harry's fund. I sure as jell don't need any more models, and I'd feel pretty bad about working on any of them knowing I could have helped more, but didn't.

If you have a lot of little bottles of Testors and an airbrush, which is what I understand from reading your post, you might look into Donn Yost's method of thinning Testors enamels with lacquer thinner for airbrushing. I have no experience with it myself, but his results are first-rate and speak for themselves.

Hmmm. That's especially good to know. Very interesting that BMF wouldn't pull paint up, but blue tape would. I'll have to avoid blue tape entitely. Thanks for the heads-up on this.

Here's a REALLY slick trick posted by a member here, Lovefordgalaxie...

Yup. It's a stretchable polypropylene tape that follows curves well. It's widely used in the automotive custom-painting biz for laying out flames, etc. specifically because it resists all common paint solvents, releases clean, and leaves a razor-sharp line. It comes in 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 inch widths and it's great stuff. NOTE: It is generally not flexible enough to do intricate flame jobs on a model. 3M green masking tape in widths from 1/8 up to several inches is a paper tape that is also very solvent resistant, but it doesn't make the sharp line that "fine line" will. I use it exclusively for masking NEXT TO the fine line product, and treated paper beyond that. No problems.

Blue "painter's tape" is generally manufactured and specified for use with latex and other wall and house type paints. The paper and adhesive used are NOT resistant to the solvents in either automotive or model-car lacquers and enamels. The Chinese-made blue carp is even worse. Blue tape is specified for "low tack" applications where a more aggressive and chemically-resistant masking medium has the potential to pull up the outer layer of paper that's the usual finish on drywall. It's fine to use blue tape to cover large areas to protect from light mist overspray, but never in contact with the surface of a model itself when the tape will be coated with paint. There's a real good reason that body-shop masking tape is considerably more expensive. It works, and resists the solvents in lacquers and enamels. The paper it's made from is coated to inhibit solvents from soaking through and making the adhesive gummy or sticking it to the work permanently, too.