1/25 Monogram Slingster Dragster

[oldnslow]

Revell got back to me last night, really fast response, I have to send in the UPC codes from the boxes, but that's no big. I bought 4 kits for our club build, there's always more that 1 variation I want to try. Three had issues with the chrome and one was missing the tires.

Pleased so far with their customer service.

[jbwelda]

So they want you to cut up your boxes to send in the UPC? That wouldn't work for me; or I would then need them to send me boxes too because I was required to ruin mine.

jb

[mnwildpunk]

I've never had to send in a upc but it has been a bit since I asked for replacement parts

[Brett Barrow]

So they want you to cut up your boxes to send in the UPC? That wouldn't work for me; or I would then need them to send me boxes too because I was required to ruin mine.

jb

I can't imagine how bad people were abusing the old parts service. Sending in UPC codes is a smart move on their part. I had to do it last time I needed parts, a 70 cuda body (a-pillar was broken in the box). They re-did their whole replacement parts system, now you actually get a tracking number. I'll gladly sacrifice a 1" square of kit box for that! It still opens and closes - it doesn't fall apart, catch on fire, or rip a hole in the space-time continuum...

[oldnslow]

I was requesting replacement parts for 4 kits so I'm fine with sending proof I bought 4.

[unclescott58]

Just finished building my Slingster. Built the version C, the Coupe. Over all the kit turned out great. Everything went together fine. But, I have mixed feeling about the decals. They were nice decals to work with. They released from their paper very quickly. And settled on down fine on the model itself. But, as someone else pointed out, they seem too big for the model. Looking at sponsorship decals #27, 28, 29, there is no way they will fit where instructions tell you place them. They are way too big for that space. So I will not be using them on this kit. The center point on decal #25 went a little past the hole in roof. Forcing me to add a little decal solvent and folding tip tip under the roof. This is very minor. Most people will probably not even notice it. And it still looks good on the model.

I wonder what happened here? Were the decals designed to fit the original version of this kit, and the decal maker not notified of the kit's new tooling and scale? Yet it doesn't seem that far off. In fact if the kit had been tooled over to Mongram's traditional 1/24th scale they might fit perfect. Though, I'm glad they tooled it to 1/25th.

The decal problem is so minor, it's almost not worth mentioning. Everthing else on my kit was perfect. I am very, very happy with how the kit turned out. Do not let my complaints about the decals stop you from buying this kit if your thinking about it.

Scott

[Ace-Garageguy]

Speaking of late to the party...I just finally got one of these today, cheap, at the ACME event in Atlanta.

I'm glad it was cheap, because there are several scaling issues that really jump out at me.

I'm going to do some serious measuring to verify them all, but two biggies are 1) the slicks and 2) the quick-change rear end.

The slicks are ridiculously undersize for cars like this kit builds into. They're appropriate for a modified stock sedan, but hardly for a blown rail job.

And the quick-change is a joke. It's as undersized as those pathetic little engines in the "new-tool" Ala Kart.

There's more, so stay tuned.

Some parts seem to be about right, and some seem to be way off.

We'll see.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Greg Myers]

Almost like they went "The other way" from the original 1/20th ? Sizzler. why couldn't they just leave well enough along and give us a great nostalgia kit.

[Daddyfink]

Well, they probably got away from the odd scale it was originally so it would sell better, as 1/20th never really did sell that well. 

As for the slicks, they are period correct. Slick Recaps where not that big a tire as they where based of production tires. I guess everyone is used to model kits coming with big gumball style tires. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

As for the slicks, they are period correct. Slick Recaps where not that big a tire as they where based of production tires. I guess everyone is used to model kits coming with big gumball style tires. 

Many slick recaps were built on 16" truck carcasses, or large passenger car carcasses.

The height of the sidewalls and resulting OD of the kit slicks is wrong for most rail dragsters of the period represented.

The OD of the Slingster kit slicks is about 27.5".

The OD of the ancient AMT generic piecrusts from the early 1960s is 30.25"...about right.

AMT's later Firestone slicks, and Revell's wider M&H slicks (supplied in kits like the original SWC Willys, their competition tires parts pack, the double-dragster kits, and various rail jobs like Tony Nancy's cars) would also be much more class and period correct.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Spex84]

That was my big disappointment in the kit...opened it up, looked at the slicks, and went..."what the eff??"  I've seen them used on a '27 Ford hot rod, they're about the right size for that application.

I'd be curious to see some actual measurements. Just from looking at historical photos, I can see that the slicks should probably be larger in proportion versus the Bantam body.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I'd be curious to see some actual measurements. Just from looking at historical photos, I can see that the slicks should probably be larger in proportion versus the Bantam body.

No problemo. We had an old blown SB Chebby-powered rail on a Dragmaster frame in the shop several years back. 

The owner wanted it freshened to do some nostalgia drag events. The 16" slicks were rock-hard, and measured about 31" diameter.

We replaced them with repro slicks in a 32" diameter from Radir.

This is the general look of the car...

Here's the Radir catalog page...

http://www.radirwheels.com/slicks.htm

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Matt T.]

Here’s my in-progress build with AMT slicks and a mild channel job. 

 

[Daddyfink]

Many slick recaps were built on 16" truck carcasses, or large passenger car carcasses.

The height of the sidewalls and resulting OD of the kit slicks is wrong for most rail dragsters of the period represented.

The OD of the Slingster kit slicks is about 27.5".

The OD of the ancient AMT generic piecrusts from the early 1960s is 30.25"...about right.

AMT's later Firestone slicks, and Revell's wider M&H slicks (supplied in kits like the original SWC Willys, their competition tires parts pack, the double-dragster kits, and various rail jobs like Tony Nancy's cars) would also be much more class and period correct.

They look pretty close

But they did start growing rather quickly

 

 

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

They look pretty close...

...But they did start growing rather quickly

Great photos showing the rapid early evolution of slicks. We don't often see models representing dragsters as early as the upper one, and it's helpful to have a reference shot from the very early 1950s.

Mickey Thompson originated the "slingshot" configuration in about '54 or '55 I believe (where the driver sits behind the diff rather than over it), so both the lower photo and the Slingster kit represent the later configuration.

Though the lower photo shows a relatively large slick, much larger than what's represented in the kit, it's a front-blown car, and that configuration mostly pre-dates the Gilmer-belt-driven top blower on the car represented by the Slingster.

The point being that the kit slick really is too small to correctly represent what would have been on most similar dragsters of the immediate period the kit represents.

[Daddyfink]

Well, here is a K-88 Chassis, what I am assuming is what the kit represents, with some rather small tires on it. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Well, here is a K-88 Chassis, what I am assuming is what the kit represents, with some rather small tires on it. 

There's this thing called perspective, but if you really think those small tires in the kit look right, by all means use them.

That's an injected nailhead-powered car, and isn't going to need as much tire as a blown SBC-powered car anyway.

Tire diameter can be used to augment gearing, as we all know...or should.

Most of the cars I'm familiar with that appear to me to be what's represented in the Slingster kit run significantly larger rear tires.

The box-art appears to show larger rear tires as well.

There are other scaling and proportion issues, but maybe it's just not worth the effort to try to disseminate correct info.

I'm beginning to find that to be the case.

And besides...what do I know ? 

  

Edited November 7, 2017 by Ace-Garageguy

[Snake45]

I think part of the problem might be that the frame--particularly the cockpit area--is just too BIG. I know this is a problem with the Double Dragster frame and I think to a lesser degree it is with the Slingster, too. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

I think part of the problem might be that the frame--particularly the cockpit area--is just too BIG. I know this is a problem with the Double Dragster frame and I think to a lesser degree it is with the Slingster, too. 

The tires are ridiculously undersized for a blown car on 16" rims.

Did you look at the tire size chart I posted for 16" rims from Radir? The rear wheels in the kit scale out to 16".

[Snake45]

The tires are ridiculously undersized for a blown car on 16" rims.

Did you look at the tire size chart I posted for 16" rims from Radir? The rear wheels in the kit scale out to 16".

The frames still have their own problems. You can hardly put a big enough rear tire on the Double Dragster for the whole thing to look "right." 

[GaryR]

The Slingster is a total mess, I had really looked forward to it too.

Apparently Revell thought the charm of the Sizzler was it's inaccurate and out of proportion parts, that  were what we were "nostalgic" for.

Not so! I had HOPED it would be a cool kit of a circa 60-63 AA/C-A/C drag car, with all the original problems fixed.Instead they were just made worse ! I've been pretty disappointed in Revell 's last few.the 50 Olds was nice, but the engine was an awful throwback with the heads as part of the intake manifold.

I was scolded here and lectured about costs blah blah blah blah.

Yeah riiiiiiiight.If they want nearly thirty bucks for a kit, at least do it correctly.I haven't bought a new kit in years, have a huge stash, there hasn't been much since the Hudson kits that have been really well done.

NO EXCUSE for inaccurate kits in this day and age!

[Casey]

The Slingster is a total mess, I had really looked forward to it too.

Apparently Revell thought the charm of the Sizzler was it's inaccurate and out of proportion parts, that  were what we were "nostalgic" for.

Not so!

Actually, I would argue that is a large part of the Sizzler's (and the Deuce Sport Coupe, etc.) appeal-- perfect scale accuracy and fidelity be damned, this thing just looks cool and can't be replicated by anything new.

[GaryR]

Actually, I would argue that is a large part of the Sizzler's (and the Deuce Sport Coupe, etc.) appeal-- perfect scale accuracy and fidelity be damned, this thing just looks cool and can't be replicated by anything new.

To each their own, but this is why aircraft , armor and ship modelers get more accurate kits.I don't want to build toys.

If it's part of the charm, what's the point of this thread?

Sometimes I just don't get modelers.

[Brett Barrow]

The Slingster slicks would make great Stock & Super Stock slicks if they weren't sized for a 16" wheel.  :-(    

Gary's right, they played the Slingster too down the middle.  If they made it an exact replica of the old ~20th scale Sizzler, you could at least chalk it up to being a copy.  But since they tried to bring it more into 25th scale, they could have done a better job of proportioning the parts better or adding more modern detailling.  Instead we just got a 20% smaller Sizzler. 

As I understand it, the preliminary 3D CAD data was created by a "civilian" outside Revell as a personal project to digitize the Sizzler.    

Sometimes I just don't get modelers.

Dude, I've been in this business 16 years and I still don't get them.  

Edited November 8, 2017 by Brett Barrow

[Daddyfink]

I have yet to compare the kits next to each other, but yes, it looks like the just shrunk the Sizzler