Category Archives: Kit Bashing

17 October 2015 (01:19 UTC-07 Tango 01)/25 Mehr 1394/03 Muharram 1436/05 Bing-Xu (9th month) 4713

U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration are being tasked by Barack Obama to register all owners and operators of remote control model planes!

I guess they can get a little big and dangerous.

Model planes are now considered ‘drones’ under new regulations. The new rules go into effect on the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. Kit bashers who build flying models will have to get “permission” to fly their homegrown planes, and then register them.

Oooops!

Australia bans: “remotely controlled device, including a vehicle or a model of a vehicle, including, for example, any of the following operated by remote control— (a) a toy car (b) a model plane (c) a drone or unmanned aerial vehicle”

Idaho Students Building Model Kits

Kit Bashing

Model-land ‘deaths’, 2013-15!

Image August 7, 2015 Hutchins AAron

Incomplete list of hobby shop shutdowns.

California: After 67 years a hobby shop I loved to check out whenever I was forced to visit my child hating Oma, Dave’s Hobby Central, in Santa Barbara closed down: “It is with deep regret and a heavy heart that I must to tell you that today we have closed the doors for good! After a long and fruitless year I have no choice but to fold up the doors.”-store statement on Facebook

Hawaii: Toys N’ Joys shut down after 30 years in business.

Idaho:

Current location, in Chubbuck, Idaho. Photo by AAron B. Hutchins, November 2014.

In Chubbuck, at the end of 2014, and after 23 years the iconic local Dapco Hobbies went up for sale. Employees said the current owner was selling everything off and wants out of the hobby business. But at the beginning of 2015 Dapco Hobbies relocated to a much, much smaller place in Pocatello (across the street from Bamboo Garden Chinese buffet), apparently to pleas from customers (and the employees) that it not shutdown. Dapco Hobbies was originally located on Garrett Way in Pocatello (according to the BBB, that was beginning in 1991). After Corey & Melia took over Dapco relocated to Chubbuck around 2007-08. For a very brief time Dapco Hobbies had a shop in Ammon, then Idaho Falls (apparently they left about the same time the ‘big box’ Hobby Town left Idaho Falls), and they even had an internet website. Dapco Hobbies started out focused on trains, then shifted to RC when that got big. I went there for the plastic model kits (and I still do, unfortunately they got hit by RC burglars right after they moved into their current Pocatello location off Yellowstone Avenue).

Illinois: Plastic model kit company Testors laid off 107 employees at its Rockford plant! Testors has operated out of Rockford since 1929, they also make paint and other model building supplies. Company officials say the bad economy is forcing them to eliminate some of their model supply brands. This means closing their 84 years old Blackhawk Park Avenue building, and moving operations into a smaller building.

Kentucky: In Louisville, model train store L&N Trains and Things shut down after 32 years. The owner blames health problems (just in time for Obama Care).

New York: In Fairpoint, after 30 years Toy Soldier shutdown. In Farmingdale, Model Power, a major internet model railroad retailer, is being killed off by Too Big to Jail banks: “After nearly 50 years serving the hobby industry, our 3rd generation family business will be closing effective immediately to the public. We will be reaching out to our clients over the next few weeks to settle any demand needs that they may have.

In 2007, our banks began an aggressive deleveraging process. They no longer approved of a profitable and paying client such as ours, which had been reliant on inventory. This is why one of the industry’s most extensive lines, had begun to see much of its products unavailable on the market. Now it will no longer be seen at all.

During these past 7 years, we had made changes to the business in order to accommodate and adjust to the changing nature of the business relationship with our lenders. We had offered multiple solutions to our lenders in order to ‘fix’ our situation, all were rejected, came with different restrictions, or offered too little too late. In all our efforts, no arrangements by our lenders would allow for Model Power to arrive at a position in which we could get back to fill our customer needs.

We would like to take the time to thank all of those whom we have worked with the past 50 years. To our customers and competitors within the industry, we thank you.

Sincerely,
The Model Power Family”

I’ve been reporting on the deleveraging conspiracy by the Too Big to Jail banks, read the articles and weep: De-leveraging will continue until the economy improves, and that means you!, it’s called Deleveraging and it’s a sign we’re in a “Terminal Downturn”!, 4,000 people stranded when….airline is suddenly deleveraged, All part of the IMF’s orders to deleverage!, IMF pushes for U.S. consolidation, code for even more drastic deleveraging!

Ohio: In Lakewood, after 67 years Wings Hobby Shop shutdown. The owner blames lazy young people: “We peaked out, volume-wise, in 1995. Little by little it started to go away, because we weren’t getting any young people……Society has evolved into a mode of instant gratification…….They want to have a collection to look at, but they don’t want to build anything. “-Al Cicerchi

Wisconsin: In Wausau a 50 years old hobby store shutdown. The owner of Pope’s Hobbyland said it was time he retired. After 50 years iconic Greenfield News and Hobby store shutdown. The store was up for sale, with no luck. “A lot of kids aren’t picking up these hobbies either because they’re being priced out … or because they’d rather go to online or home video games, and it’s hard to counteract that.”-Jeff Reich, editor of Model Retailer, Kalmbach Publishing

Obama regime using 2011 financing order to shut down successful ebay model kit sellers!

If you like building model planes, then you are a terrorist!

Styrofoam containers, boards or sheets, we model builders have been recycling them into diorama bases for years.

Hot Wheels, Matchbox & other toy cars are the new way to protest your corrupt local government!

Iran to display life size model of U.S. Stealth Drone, sends Obama a smaller hot pink version

Kit Bashing & Education Reform: Idaho Students Building Model Kits

Kit Bashing, Technology

Kit Bashing: 3D Printer helps save ‘Siamese Twins’ by creating plastic model!

June 11, 2015 Hutchins AAron

11 June 2015 (00:17 UTC-07 Tango 01)/21 Kordad 1394/23 Sha’ban 1436/25 Ren-Wu (4th month) 4713

“With the 3D model, we could better understand the actual anatomical structure of the twin girls’ conjoined parts. And it helped us to decide on a more precise starting point…”-Zheng Shan, chief surgeon

A 3D printer helped Chinese medical personnel separate two girls joined at the butt.

Healthcare workers at the Children’s Hospital of Fudan University, in Shanghai, used MRI and CT scans, in conjunction with the printer, to map out and create 3D models of the infant girl’s hips and spines. They used the models to practice ‘virtual’ operations, before performing the actual separation.

The concern was that it appeared that the last part of the girl’s lower intestine were fused into one.

So far the operation is considered successful, but doctors are waiting three days to make sure the girls are recovering well, before making an official proclamation.

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss.

Image May 22, 2015 Hutchins AAron

I ‘built’ a collection of 1:48 scale Ling Temco Vought A-7 Corsair 2s. Time to compare them, as a lot of kit bashers always want to know which is the best, or at least which looks the best out of the box.

The first 1:48 A-7 was the old 1969 issue Aurora kit. It was marketed as a D version, but is actually an A/B/C version. The main difference is that the A/B/C versions had two single barrel Colt Mark 12 20mm guns firing through troughs on either side of the air intake. D and E versions had a single six barreled M61 20mm Vulcan gun on the left (port) side. The Aurora kit has two gun troughs on either side of the air intake, making it an A, B or C version.

Click the pics to make bigger

: Monogram supposedly re-tooled the Aurora kit.

: The Monogram re-tool resulted in a longer fuselage.

: The Monogram kit is also slightly larger in cross section.

: The Monogram wing (the one underneath the tan wing) also got longer in span.

: Monogram gives us more detail in the cockpit, but for some reason the canopy got really fat.

: Aurora’s legs are down right ugly, but Mongram’s aren’t great, either.

: Pathetic weaponry. At least Monogram gives you decent looking pylon-ejector racks and external fuel tanks.

: Note how round the Aurora tailpipe is.

The old kit is interesting in that it has recessed panel lines (Matchbox ‘trench’ style), something unique for a 1960s kit. Other than the recessed surface details the kit is basically a toy. There are very little details anywhere else and the landing gear and ordinance are pathetic. I do not have 1:48 scale drawings of the A-7, so the best I can do is compare the kits and make judgments based on the 1:72 scale drawings I have. The Aurora kit is mentioned because the next 1:48 scale A-7 kit to be issued came from Monogram, and supposedly evolved from the Aurora kit.

In 1976-77 Aurora went out of business and sold-off its kit molds. Monogram bought most of the molds. Reports say Monogram re-tooled the Aurora A-7, if this is true they did a crappy job (compared to the ground breaking kits they issued in the mid 1970s-early 80s). It is currently issued by Revell U.S.A. (do not confuse it with the recent A-7 issued by Revell Germany, which is a re-boxing of Hasegawa’s A-7).

Monogram made some major changes, which resulted in raised panel lines and a longer fuselage. The wing span is also longer. The most ugly change was the widening of the cockpit area, the canopy is not only bigger than the original Aurora canopy, it’s the biggest of all the kits I compare. The ordinance is no better than Aurora’s but at least you get big external fuel tanks. At least Monogram made the tailpipe more oval, as Aurora’s is round.

Monogram did market it as an A-7A. So far Hobby Boss is the only other kit maker to issue an A-7A Corsair 2. The Monogram-Revell kit is a crappy kit, and I’m surprised by how much the original Monogram issue kit sells for on the internet. I’m also surprised Revell U.S.A. re-issued the thing, especially when Revell Germany sells the Hasegawa kit (unfortunately, I’ve discovered that sometimes Revell-Germany also issued the old Monogram kit).

Close on the heels of the Monogram issue came Italy’s ESCI A-7D/E versions. I read many posts saying how bad the ESCI kit is, but in my opinion it’s still better (in some ways) than the Monogram/Aurora kits.

: ESCI’s fuselage is molded in 4 parts.

: ESCI’s air intake sits farther back.

: Note how round the ESCI air intake is.

: The position of the elevator on ESCI’s kit is higher up than the Revell-Monogram kit.

: ESCI multi-part fuselage reveals a problem caused by size difference. Did ESCI cast it this way because they were planning a TwoSair version?

: The instructions in the AMT issue calls this a “missile launch rail”!

: AMT’s instructions would have you mount this even when building the A-7E version.

: At least ESCI gives you separately molded wing tips and flaps.

: The Revell-Monogram (on the bottom) wing is still longer.

: The ESCI elevators are slightly narrower and more pointy at the tips than Revell-Monogram’s.

: Finally some decent looking ordinance. Don’t look at the ‘ejector racks’, no, don’t look at them!

AMT has re-issued the kit after ESCI went bust. AMT’s instructions call the U.S. Navy refueling probe a “missile launch rail”. Also, the kit I have is supposed to be a USN A-7E yet the instructions have you mount the USAF A-7D refueling receptacle on top of the fuselage anyway.

The kit has some good points like a long intake trunk, the onboard boarding ladder, a separately molded radome, separately molded folding wing tips and some okay looking ECM pods, Snakeye bombs and Maverick missiles.

Some of the bad points are lack of cockpit/wheel well details, the fuselage is molded in four parts with the forward parts being slightly larger in diameter from the rear parts, and incredibly bad ordnance ‘ejector racks’ which look like sticks of plastic.

Compared to the Revell-Monogram kit the ESCI fuselage seems the same length, but the ESCI intake lip is further back from the Revell-Monogram kit (I line up the fuselages at the tailpipe end). The ESCI intake is too round. From the rear, the tailpipes are similar in shape, but the ESCI elevator location is higher up on the fuselage. The Revell-Monogram main wing and elevators are slightly larger than the ESCI kit, with the ESCI elevators too narrow at the tips.

Finally, in the 1990s Japan’s Hasegawa issued a 1:48 A-7D and E Corsair 2. Out of the box it’s the best yet, with good looking shapes, recessed panel lines, exposed avionics bays, boarding ladder, intake trunk, some cockpit and wheel well details, separately molded wing tips, flaps and slats, nice looking Sidewinder missiles and even a separately molded air (speed) brake (which can only be posed in the extended position if you model the plane in-flight with wheels up).

: Both ESCI & Hasegawa give the option of displaying the built in boarding ladder and steps.

: The Hasegawa 1990s issue is still the answer to A-7 lover’s prayers!

: Hasegawa’s fuselage is slightly shorter than Revell-Monogram’s, but who’s correct?

: Hasegawa’s tailpipe is similar in shape to Revell-Monogram’s, but is larger in diameter. Also, note that Hasegawa’s elevator locator position is higher up, just like the ESCI kit.

: Hasegawa gives you separately molded wing fold tips, flaps and slats.

: Hasegawa’s wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s.

: Hasegawa failed to bomb up their kit, but gives us awesome Sidewinders. The Hasegawa external tanks are skinnier than Revell-Monogram’s.

I compared it to the Revell-Monogram kit, which has a slightly longer fuselage. From the rear the tail pipes are similar in shape, but the Hasegawa’s is larger and, like the ESCI kit, the position of the elevators are higher up on the fuselage. The main wing span is longer than Revell-Monogram’s, but the folding wing area is smaller than Revell-Monogram’s. The elevators are similar. The Hasegawa external fuel tank is the same length but skinnier. The downside is Hasegawa does not provide bombs or other ground attack ordinance and, as usual, Hasegawa’s decal color register is off (the only time they get it right is when they subcontract with aftermarket decal printers).

In 2009 China’s Hobby Boss issued a new series of A-7 Corsair 2s, including an A-7A. Out of the box it looks great, until you spend more time looking it over.

: Out-o-the box the Hobby Boss looks loaded with details, but….

: …the Hobby Boss fuselage is longer….

: …and the nose is skinnier.

: The Hobby Boss tailpipe is squatier. (squatier? more squat)

: No folding wing tips with Hobby Boss.

: The Hobby Boss main wing span is slighlty shorter, but the ‘chord’ is much, much wider than Hasegawa’s.

: Hasegawa (smallest) on the left, Hobby Boss in the middle, Revell-Monogram (biggest) on the right.

: The Hobby Boss external fuel tank is anorexic.

: You get a lot of ordinance, and a FLIR, but the Mark 82s are questionable.

The fuselage is the longest, with a skinny nose/radome, and the most oval shaped (and skinny) tailpipe of all the kits. The main wing does not have a folding section, is shorter in span than the Hasegawa kit yet much wider. This is interesting because the Hobby Boss 1:72 scale A-7 wing matches the scale drawings I compared it to.

The external fuel tank is longer and skinnier than the Hasegawa kit. The canopy size lies in between the Hasegawa and Revell-Monogram kits. The Hobby Boss kit does have nice looking ordinance including FLIR pods, but the Mark 82s are too skinny.

As far as surface details (panel lines) all the kits are different. I’ve read that some of the Hobby Boss surface details for the A-7A are in the wrong location and are more accurate for later versions of the Corsair 2. Apparently the two gun troughs are the only surface detail that matches an A-7A.

It looks like the Hasegawa kit is still the overall best 1:48 scale A-7 Corsair kit available.

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/72 scale A-7 Corsair 2 comparison: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix & Hobby Boss

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

1/72 REVISED comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Fujimi, ESCI, Airfix, Hasegawa, Matchbox, Revell & Hobby Boss. More reason not to trust scale drawings?

Image June 13, 2014 Hutchins AAron

I’ve collected a few LTV A-7 Corsair 2 kits in 1/72 scale, and noticed a lot of difference in shape. I’ve also learned that the latest and greatest kit issue from Asia isn’t so great.

Update: I recently got the ancient 1979 The A-7 Corsair II in Detail & Scale and immediately noticed a difference in the Ed Moore scale drawings and the Bunrin-Do (1989 #18 Famous Airplanes of the World: LTV A-7 Corsair II Navy Version) drawings I originally used for this review. The Bunrin-Do drawings look much better than the Ed Moore drawings but does that mean they’re more accurate?

Click the pics to make bigger and read results

: This is the Japanese 1/72 scale drawing I used to compare fuselages.

: The ESCI/ERTL/AMT kit is far too short at the rear. The fuselage is very slightly thin going by the overhead drawings.

: The Fujimi/Testors kit is narrow at the exhaust, and the vertical tail is too tall.

: Amazingly this expensive kit, with all its extensive surface detail and exposed avionics bays, has the most inaccurate fuselage! It’s long and way too skinny!

: Which one is the best?

: Good idea, too bad the shape of the wing is wrong.

: Ed Moore drawing from 1979.

The Hobby Boss kit (it needs to die or be completely re-tooled) is disappointing dimensionally, even the Mark 82 bombs are incredibly anorexic! The Hobby Boss main wing is almost right on with the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are accurate close to the fuselage, but start to slightly narrow at the tip (but nothing like the narrowness of the other kits). Despite the fuselage being too narrow, the canopy is slightly too fat. If you think the Hobby Boss kit fuselage is too long and skinny, wait until you compare it to the Ed Moore drawings; it’s anorexic! Amazingly the wing is almost spot-on in shape, span and chord! The elevators are ever-so slightly short in span. The canopy is still fat.

The 'mold parting' line on this Hobby Boss canopy is not in the right place to be the result of mold halves, but matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

The ‘mold parting’ line on this Hobby Boss canopy matches the center line used by drafters of scale drawings!

And I think I’ve discovered why many Chinese made kits have ‘mold parting’ lines down the center of their canopies: Perhaps they’re not mold parting lines, but the lines from scale drawings? However the Chinese companies are transcribing scale plans of aircraft to the mold making process, they’re including the line drafters use to indicate the center-line of the fuselage?

(Note: I didn’t check windshields, just canopies.)

The ancient Hasegawa kit (still being issued) fuselage has good shape but is slightly short when compared to the Ed Moore drawings. The antennae on the spine are in the wrong place. The old issue kit is missing the ECM antenna on the vertical tail, but supposedly later issues were revised. The elevators are too small. The wings are slightly short in span but match the shape of the drawings. The canopy profile matches the drawings but is slightly fat in cross-section. Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Hasegawa fuselage is too short. Here’s where it gets weird, the elevators and canopy match the Bunrin-Do drawings, but the wings are even shorter in span when compared to the Ed Moore drawings!

When compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the Airfix (also issued by MPC) kit fuselage is the most accurate shape wise, but the main wings are too short in span, narrow in chord, and the wing tips are cut straight instead of being curved. The elevators are too short with incorrect shaped tips. The canopy looks the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is missing as it is part of the kit fuselage, so no way to pose it open. Compared to the Ed Moore drawings the Airfix main wings have the same problem; too short, wrong shape. The elevators are not only short in span but in chord as well. The canopy is slightly fat. The fuselage length matches the Ed Moore drawings, but the vertical tail is further back on the spine and the antennae are in the wrong place. Interestingly the 1979 edition of the Detail & Scale book praises the Airfix kit as being “the best kit available”.

The Matchbox kit fuselage matches the shape of the Ed Moore drawings almost perfectly (the kit was issued after the Detail & Scale book was first published) but is slightly long. The canopy is slightly flat in profile, but matches in cross section, it is molded as a one piece canopy-windshield, and like the Airfix kit, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. The wing matches the span and wing tip shape of the Ed Moore drawings, but is narrow in chord. The elevators match the drawings. Compared to the Bunrin-Do drawings the elevators are the correct size, but the tips are the wrong shape. The wing is too short and too narrow. The canopy matches the profile and cross-section. The fuselage is too short, and too narrow at the ass-end.

Revell’s ancient kit (repeatedly re-issued, somebody put it out of our misery!) matches the shape of the Ed Moore fuselage, but is slightly long. The ECM antenna on the tail (apparently added to later issues of the kit) is too small. The canopy-windshield matches the drawings, but like the Airfix and Matchbox kits, the framing for the canopy is molded as part of the fuselage. Revell’s wing is the best as far as how it mounts to the fuselage; it is molded as part of the spine which greatly reduces the need for filling in join lines (debatable), however, the wing is the wrong shape and long in span. The elevators have too great a sweep. According to the Bunrin-Do drawings the wing is too short in span and too narrow. The elevators have the same sweep-back problem. The canopy-windshield seem slightly small compared to the drawings. Like the Matchbox kit, the fuselage is too short, and too narrow, at the ass-end.

Comparing the ESCI (re-boxed by AMT-ERTL/Italeri) main wing to the Bunrin-Do drawings it is way too short in span, and the elevators are too narrow. The canopy seems the right width, but the rear portion of the frame is not correct. The Ed Moore drawings say the same thing about the main wing, the elevators fair better by barely matching the drawings. The canopy looks good. The fuselage matches the profile of the drawing but is slightly short. The tip of the vertical tail does not match Ed Moore’s drawing, but none of the kits do as the drawing shows the tail tip being rounded, which is wrong (oh my, you mean an authoritative scale drawing is wrong?)! ESCI kits usually come with good decals.

The Fujimi main wing is barely short going by the Bunrin-Do drawings. The elevators are way too narrow, and the canopy slightly fat with incorrect rear frame. The fuselage matches the Ed Moore drawings. Spine antennae are in the wrong location. The canopy matches. The elevators are narrow in chord and have incorrectly shaped tips. The wing is slightly short in span due to incorrectly shaped tips. Nice decals came with my kit.

Ordinance: The only kits in this review with decent weapons load are the ESCI and Fujimi kits, not great, but better than the lumps of plastic you kit with the other brands. The skinny Hobby Boss Mark 82s come with optional fuse extenders.

IFR (In-Flight Refueling): The Matchbox kit provides IFR for USAF aircraft only. The Airfix kit provides IFR for USN aircraft only. Hasegawa provides IFR for USN only, which is interesting because the AMT re-box (A-693:130) comes with markings for a USAF version. Revell’s kit has IFR for USN only, despite numerous re-issues with USAF decals. Fujimi, ESCI and Hobby Boss provide IFRs for both USAF and USN (depending on which issue of the kit you buy).

Out of the kit manufactures I compared none are accurate overall (and none got the main wing tip shape correct). I read from other kit builders that the only way to get an accurate 1/72 scale A-7 is to kit-bash several kits from different makers. From my perspective, it might be done by combining the Fujimi or Airfix fuselage with the Hobby Boss wing, for a start. If you’re planing on building a kit to enter into a highly competitive model contest then kit-bashing is your only choice, but most of us don’t have the time (or money).

The A-7 has such a unique look and all the kits capture that look despite having shape issues, so, if you’re building one just for the heck of it then save some money and buy the cheapest one you can find, and go for it.

Notes: Before re-boxing the ESCI kit, AMT also re-boxed the Matchbox kit (late 1970s) and the super-ancient Hasegawa kit (early 1970s). The AMT/Matchbox issue uses the original Matchbox artwork and the phrase “Molded in 3 Colors” (using the U.S. English spelling of the word colors).

The website ScaleMates reports the Ace Hobby Kit A-7 is a copy of the Hasegawa kit, wrong! The Ace A-7 is a re-tooled terrible copy of the ESCI kit. Ace offers it in A, B, D, E versions, but all are wrong, like not having the correct parts, or decals, for the version offered! Stay away from the Ace kit.

Heller re-boxed the Airfix A-7 in the 1990s when Airfix and Heller were owned by a single parent company (Humbrol).

USAF A-7 CORSAIRS, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO?

1/48 scale comparison A-7 Corsair 2: Aurora, Revell-Monogram, ESCI, Hasegawa & Hobby Boss

Cold War Aggressor: EA-7L THE ‘ELECTRIC’ TA-7C CORSAIR-2

Cold War Maintenance Walk Around: A-7D CORSAIR-2

1:72 F-100 SUPER SABER KIT KLASH, OR MORE REASONS WHY YOU CAN’T TRUST SCALE DRAWINGS

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Revell 1937 Ford Pickup or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image February 16, 2014 Hutchins AAron

Click/tap pics to make bigger and read the text:

: Cool looking kit, but fiddly construction with instructions that don’t help.

: No attachment points for the wiper blades. I didn’t notice until after painting, and assembly was 99% complete. I could’a swore earlier issues of this kit had locating holes. So, on this latest issue drill holes before painting. Also, no ‘positive’ attachment points on the “stock” headlight shells. I did drill holes in the bottoms of the shells, you’ll get frustrated if you don’t.

: I had problems with the grill shell. When I attached it to the radiator it tilted too far back and prevented the hood from fitting. I suspect the crosspiece between the front fenders is the cause. I ended up gluing the grill shell to the hood. In fact the instructions don’t show the attachment of the stock grill shell to the radiator! It is a prime example of the necessity of lots of dry fitting and modification before assembly on this kit.

: The brake lights look more like rubies. I had to drill out the end of the stock exhaust pipe. I think attaching the wheels/tires earlier than what the instructions say is a good idea, as the axle to chassis connections are a little fiddly, and it took some pressure to get the stock wheels to snap on.

: If you’re using the custom dual exhaust, these cool metal pipe tips come with this issue of the kit.

: The bed has nice wood floor details, or you can use the included decals.

: I have lot-o-decals left over for custom builds. I decided to make this pickup a stock build, using only the decals for the stock gauges.

: The decal gauges look good. I taped them to the backside of the panel. The down side is that if you somehow screw up the decals there are no plastic gauges in the kit. Attachment of steering wheel shaft can be frustrating. Instead of a hole to slide it through, you have to somehow hold it in place as the glue dries (I turned the interior upside down and used gravity).

: No attachment points on the chassis. I used lots-o-glue where the frame meets the floor pan. Ignore the instructions and attach the bumper mounts at the beginning (especially before the gas tank is mounted), otherwise you’ll have problems clamping them in place while the glue dries. The instructions show steering linkage for the custom version, but no mention of it for stock. Also, instructions mention stock lever action (torsion) front shocks but not how to attach them (I eventually figured it out).

: Major faux pas here! The stock exhaust does not line up with the stock manifold opening on this side of the engine! What happened Revell? The instructions are totally focused on the “custom” version with little help for a “stock” build.

: Extra clear parts not used on this kit.

: The “custom” tires, which don’t look much different than the stock tires.

: By building a stock version I’m left with two unopened bags of cool custom parts for other projects!

: Take some time to double check your dry fits with the instructions and you’ll get a nice looking stock 1930s pickup truck.

Here’s a real 1930s Ford pickup truck in Idaho: 2015 Chubbuck Days Car Show

Kit Bashing: MULTI-MAVERICK OR WHY MODEL ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE WRONG!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Kit Bashing: PJ Production has new stuff for 2014!

Image February 16, 2014 Hutchins AAron

16 February 2014 (00:40 UTC-07 Tango)/15 Rabi ‘ath-Thani 1435/27 Bahman 1392/17 Bing-Yin (1st month) 4712

Click pics to make bigger:

: 1/32-54mm USN USMC seated pilot from 1950s/Korean War.

: Detailed PUR cast body.

: Detail of one of the optional heads.

: I couldn’t get the camera to focus on this other head.

: 1/48-38mm modern British empire helicopter crew.

: Use super/krazy type glue, or epoxy glue on these detailed PUR cast figures.

: 1/72-20mm Mirage 3S/RS/DS conversion.

: Tiny PE antenna. Not good for builders with bad vision or shaky hands.

: PUR cast parts: Antenna bumps, countermeasure flare dispenser, nose gear, detailed wheel well with cockpit tub on other side.

: PUR cast tail/rudder and canards.

: Optional noses (clear PUR nose is for recon).

: For single or two seater. PJ says the conversion is for his full Mirage kits, but I think they could be easily used on other brands of Mirage 3 kits.

2013: PJ PRODUCTION HAS NEW STUFF!

Business/Economics, International, Kit Bashing, U.S.

Hot Wheels, Matchbox & other toy cars are the new way to protest your corrupt local government!

November 3, 2013 Hutchins AAron

03 November 2013 (13:33 UTC-07 Tango)/29 Dhu’l-Hijja 1434/12 Aban 1391/01 Gui-Hai (10th month) 4711

What would you do if your local county government used your tax money to buy a luxury car? Hit ’em with your Hot Wheels!

In the European country of Croatia, residents in one county protested the government purchase of a luxury car by piling Hot Wheels, Matchbox and other toy cars on the steps of the county building in Sisak.

A corrupt county administrator spent $76-thousand USD in tax money to buy herself a German luxury Audi. She made a false flag claim, saying she needs a car equipped with special electronics to make her daily commutes to work “safe”!

Kit Bashing, Reviews

Multi-Maverick or Why model assembly instructions can be wrong!

Image September 14, 2013 Hutchins AAron

14 September 2013 (22:11 UTC-07 Tango 13 September 2013)/09 Dhu ‘l-Qa’da 1434/23 Shahrivar 1391/10 Xin-You (8th month) 4711

Click pics to make bigger and read why the instructions are wrong:

: AMT-ERTL & Hobby Heaven reissued the early 1970s MPC Multi-Maverick kit. They even reissued the original confusing instructions.

: The reissue kit reminded me why I had so much trouble building dragster kits as a kid in the mid-1970s. The instructions show you attaching the headers in step 1, but if you do you can’t get the engine onto the chassis. Headers/exhaust pipes must be attached after the engine & chassis are mated.

: I installed this firewall as per the artwork on the box. The instructions didn’t mention it and I found out why. If you build the car with the extended wheelbase, and the engine moved forward, the firewall contacts the engine preventing the body from properly resting on the chassis.

: The kit allows you to build two options; a standard wheelbase or extended wheelbase dragster. It says not to glue on the fender mods so you can switch between set ups, but for practical race time handling, I mean display purposes your choice should be permanent.

: A major reminder of why I didn’t get along with dragster kits in the 1970s; suspension components are frustratingly fiddly & fragile!

: The suspension parts can be easily broken when removed from the sprues, and the instruction’s rigging template for the front suspension was no help. I used a slow setting glue while fanagling the parts into place.

: The fuel can in front of the engine is not how the instructions would have you mount it. It won’t fit with the engine in the forward position, unless you turn it sideways. Also, there’s no definite location point. The belt on the supercharger (blower) is plastic and snapped right on. No mention of it in the instructions. In fact, in step 1 you’re told to use string to make a belt, then in step 9 you’re told to use a rubber band. The ‘C’ notch in the front of the chassis is so the belt drive can fit when the engine is in the forward position, however, I still had to thin it greatly to get the engine to fit.

: Another problem: The body hinge bar. Instructions tell you to insert the bar into the chassis, then glue it to attachment notches on the body. So called ‘notches’ are almost nonexistent. On top of that when I closed down the body the wheel wells didn’t line up with the Altered wheelbase.