Ace-Garageguy

I'm fixing to find out. I'm doing a 1/26 Gee Bee that requires intricate scallops to be masked over an irregular surface, and the only way I see to do it in any reasonable amount of time is with the MS blue goo. We shall see. I'm doing a removal test today.

Acceptable article, but full of inaccuracies and severely math-challenged. The author's equating the 2000 PSI injection-pressure with the "weight of 400 compact cars" means absolutely nothing. The description of alignment pins for two halves of the mold as "steel support rods (that) keep the steel mold for [sic] warping as plastic explodes into the channels" is wrong. The '30 Ford on the CAD monitor screen is incorrectly identified as Revell's '29. Later there's the .003" written-out by the author as "one three-thousandths of an inch" (it's actually three one-thousandths of an inch...an ENTIRELY different number). And then comes a biggie. The industry is described as being "uniquely American", which we all know is not right...at all. Anybody remember seeing kits from Japan? England? Western Europe? Russia? Czechoslovakia? Rowlett is also quoted as saying (referring to the ability of Americans to cut tooling) "We no longer have those types of skill sets in the States". That's just flat out incorrect. The problem is that the Americans who can do it also think they should be paid well for highly specialized work. Go figure. The article also fails to explain that 3D-printed first-generation "test-shots" are part of many manufacturer's processes now, or the fact that metal tools have to be actually cut to get to the later test-shot phases. So many factual errors and omissions (I quit counting at that point) in a single article are unacceptable, so when you read it, even though it's an OK general overview, be sure to have your internal BS detector switch in the ON position. The author says he'd like to see a scale model of Lady Gaga wearing a meat-dress, so I guess you just have to consider the source sometimes.

Yeah, but choo know what they say...no pain, no gain. Two ways to look at a fighter who has a lot of scars. Either he's not a very good fighter, or he's learned to be a VERY good fighter.

Yeah, seriously. Shot from the can, which is what I assumed the OP was getting at. I first noticed a run of sensitive plastic on a fairly recent Revell '50 Olds. Crazed, but not terrible. Next one was a Gunze Ferrari 250 GTO. Glad I shot the undersides first, 'cause it went crazy. Most recent was a Revell '29 Ford body. Shot with Duplicolor red sandable from the can; it crazed so badly it had to become an experimental rusty weathering job. PLEASE NOTE: I'm currently doing an old Lindberg Gee Bee with the same Duplicolor materials, shot from the cans. NO PROBLEM, just like I've been used to doing for years. The old Lindberg plastic will stand up to VERY HOT SEM automotive self-etching primers with no crazing too...as will many older Revell, AMT, Pyro, and Johan kit plastics. The plastic formulations in some of the recent models is substandard snot. I'm not interested in arguing. I know how to paint. These are my observations. And I'm not the only very experienced modeler having this issue. Your method is perfectly workable, but until quite recently, it simply wasn't necessary for ME to go to all that rigmarole just to get a decent coat of primer down.

I did too. We didn't always agree, but he did some nice work and had some imagination and creativity. I tried to find his Mooneyes dragster, but all his pix have disappeared.

So very unfortunate that all the "fixing" done by the current administration has only made everything worse. To be in serious pain and up against a wall of frustrating and illogical rules and policies just isn't right.

All very interesting, I'm sure, but "early de-molding" is very often cited as the cause of damage like this within the industry, by engineers whose jobs it is to correct issues like this. And...ummm...how do you reconcile your theory with the fact that NO damage to the boxes is being reported? No crushed or warped boxes mentioned. How do you suppose the contents are getting warped when the little ol' flimsy cardboard boxes aren't showing any damage whatsoever? This is only one of many articles written about troubleshooting the "warpage" problem in the injection molding process: Plastic Injection Molding Troubleshooting Warpage Improves Production Performance http://www.improve-your-injection-molding.com/plastic-injection-molding-troubleshooting.html

And a day to remember that we must NOT be willing to trade freedom for security.

Duplicolor primers will SEVERELY CRAZE some of the current and recent plastics that kits are made of. See this thread for more information: http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/topic/116530-duplicolor-primers-too-hot-for-current-production-kits/

Absolutely. 50+ year-old Revell Oldsmobile 303-321-371-394. It's from the Orange Crate kit.

I love you too.

I think some parts of life may be better where you live...

That should really resonate with you.

Only having to put up with fools. Always full of snide remarks, never offering anything helpful in any context whatsoever. WHY do they come here? They obviously don't BUILD models. Maybe there's a forum for little jerks who get off pulling the wings off of flies, or tying tin cans to cats' tails.

I learn best from my own. Does that make me a fool? Oh...wait...then there's the one that says "The Person Who Never Makes a Mistake Will Never Make Anything". Various attributions: 1859: He who never made a mistake, never made a discovery. (Samuel Smiles) 1896: It’s only those who do nothing that make no mistakes. (Joseph Conrad) 1900: The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything. (Solid Attribution: Theodore Roosevelt) 1927: Every man makes mistakes; they say a man who never makes mistakes never makes anything else. (G. K. Chesterton)

Well, you just have yourself a Happy 9/11 Day then, sport. Don't choke on misplaced sentiment. Those of us who appreciate what it means to be American, and who remember the outrage we felt seeing our own innocent countrymen slaughtered by insane fanatics may view the anniversary somewhat differently.

Thanks for the clarification. Not being extremely familiar with old Mopar engines other than the Hemis, I'd assumed all the "poly" engines with similar appearing valve covers were based on the same architecture. I should know better that to assume.

Back in the 1980s, I frequently visited NAS Atlanta, Dobbins AFB, and Lockheed. I was surprised to see a lot of Dodge D-50 pickups running around in either Navy or Air Force blue with yellow stenciling (probably Navy...I think AF ground equipment at the time was gray). The Dodge D-50 was, of course, built by the very same Mitsubishi. I always wondered if the guys in purchasing knew that.

Whether that's a real ad or a parody, it's still in incredibly poor taste. Like using photos of holocaust survivors to advertise weight-loss aids. Nobody with any kind of emotional intelligence could think either of these is remotely acceptable.

The "A" "poly" engine is based on the first generation Chrysler Hemi bottom end. My understanding is that real poly heads and intake manifolds will swap on to Hemi blocks that have the same deck height. Renderings of the two engines show them to have similar oil pan configurations as well. Distributors are in the rear on both. Looks like a good way to get a scale "poly" engine would be to just modify some existing heads and a hemi intake manifold, scratch-build the "poly" valve covers, then hang appropriate accessories on a slightly modified timing-cover / water pump setup...stick it all on a gen-one hemi bottom end.

In my view, it's the best close-air-support aircraft in the history of the world, and will be for the foreseeable future. It's incredibly tough, very well armored AND armed, and relatively simple...which is a very good thing for something operating in an actual combat environment. Every pilot I've ever known who flew it loved it too. Though it's going to be tough to beat in the role it excels at, it's slated to ultimately be phased out by the controversial and much criticized F-35, another high-cost piece of very-high-tech that many critics also believe tries to do too many things, and ends up not doing any of them particularly well. Trying to get rid of all of my own old tools and replace them with one Swiss-Army-Knife-style everything-tool would be idiotic...just like thinking the F-35 can function effectively in the role the A-10 pretty well owns. Think of the Warthog as a .357 magnum revolver, and the F-35 JSF as a scope-equipped .30-06 rifle. They both are exceedingly effective tools, depending on who and where the bad guys are. (This is, of course, assuming that the F-35 lives up to its claimed design potential in actual combat.) But they just aren't very good at doing the other's job.

The insurance industry has become a license to steal. It was a good idea in the beginning, just like unions, but it's devolved into a game that's not about anything but getting money for nothing. Every type of insurance has its own particular way of sticking it to the customer, but they ALL do it....and all WE do is keep on complaining as we continue to write the monthly checks.

Some days they're better than others. And sometimes they even do really smart things like keeping the old A-10 "Warthogs" around for another few years.

One of her two sister ships now under construction is also being considered for fitting with an electromagnetic rail-gun that can fire 25 pound projectiles 100 miles at Mach 7 (5000 MPH). Though 25 pounds may not sound like much, it packs quite a punch traveling that fast. Some critics think the Navy may have tried to cram too much capability into one platform with this series of ships, and others feel they may prove to be vulnerable due to their very heavy reliance on advanced electronics and computer technology.