Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Olivier de St Raph

Ford Mustang 1964 1/2 Convertible 1/16 from the Coupe AMT kit: the Indy 500 Pace Car

Recommended Posts

Ok Roy, now I understand. It is impossible to know if they really want to hide some stuff to us or if they are just not concerned by this research. You seem to lean for the 1st assumption, I would personally rather bet for the 2nd... The result is the same anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

Ok Roy, now I understand. It is impossible to know if they really want to hide some stuff to us or if they are just not concerned by this research. You seem to lean for the 1st assumption, I would personally rather bet for the 2nd...

No I also think it's the 2nd. They just don't seem to be interested. They probably think, better be safe than sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

I have asked Bernard to check the total width between the right and left flanges, because I am not sure such wide seats would come in my current interior:

co2qRp.jpg

 

Bernard kindly (happily for me, he is here, and pity, he hasn't got the same seats than the Indy 500...) made the measures. And, just as I feared, the width between side flanges is too low. Bernard measured 1280 mm (80 mm at 1/16 instead of 71 mm) at the front and 1260 mm (78,75 mm instead of 71 mm) at the rear (behind the front seats). As I don't intend to reconsider the car's width (what would send me too far), I will have to deal and find compromises, fe by decreasing a bit the tunnel width and by representing seats a bit too narrow (wider though than the AMT ones)...

The last printing trial  was a little better but, as I feared, the supports on the thin rods were not a good thing for them. Finally, for now, my first print remains the best. A good new in this ocean of bad ones: the cured resin is really great to work, and so it is possible to still improve this version by sanding it with care:

yIEXOJ.jpg

 

P.S: I have sent a message to Thomas Roussel, of Polysculpt, who made the tuto above testing the Creality LD-001 (I also followed his hints about the Resinaway - other great tuto - and the UV small room. He is french, speaks very well english, is used to work with resin 3D prints and is a modeler (figures). I hope he will be OK to bring me some help and improve my 3D resin printings. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Olivier,
Your tenacity attire the respect.
However, to my eyes, you ask to your printer something for which she is not made!

I don't know anything about this technic but the tutos I saw (figures etc) were not
as thin as your demand...
This work to me require etched method!
Just a view, I'm sorry!
Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, Dan.

Though, I personally go on thinking such a machine will allow me to get nice inlet slots (as the photo above, post# 553, suggests imho), much better than crafted ones. The etched method, that I never used, is maybe a good way too.

The problem is that I was (and am still)  unexperienced in 3D resin printing.

To that matter, Thomas has ever replied and explained that the surfaces to print must never be parallel or perpendicular to the platform, what explains most of my failures.

He also said that choosing a very low layer height is the best way to fail. Here too, if I had known that before, I would have earned a lot of time.

To learn walking, you have to accept to fall...

Regards 

Olivier 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This day, begun with hopes, stayed on with disappointments and failures, ends with a big bag of sunshine:

first because I now know the reasons of my failures, thanks to Thomas. Then because I am sure the latter will be able to give me the keys to get the most out of this Anycubic printer. His experience could also be very useful for CAD...

And then BECAUSE FINALLY I COULD GET THESE DAMNED MEASURES OF THE SEATS :D!!!

I have thanked warmly machbill, from the Mustang forum, who just posted them on the latter. He will get, at the end of my build, a small and personal gift, as Bernard of course, for his contribution to my build.

So:

- Photo 1:

BEe3TI.png

 

1= 23 cm (14,37 mm, currently 15,2 mm on my build)

2= 21 cm (13,12 mm, currently 15,2 mm) as it seemed to me, the central part of the seat back is wider on top...

3= 36 cm (22,5 mm, currently 21,75 mm)

4= 38 cm (23,75 mm, currently 21,8 mm): logically, as the central part is wider on top, it is the contrary for the left and right seat back cushions, the latter being more over a bit wider to the depend of the central part.

5= 56 cm (35 mm, currently 32 mm): the seat back should be about 3 mm higher 

6= 43 cm (26,9 mm, currently 24,2 mm): the cushion, quite logically, should be a bit higher too, about 2,7 mm...

7= 38 cm (23,75 mm, currently 21,8 mm)

13= 37,5 cm (23,4 mm, currently 21,25 mm): the sitting cushions should be wider but, unlike the seat back, they have a nearly square shape (the widths 7 and 13 are nearly the same).

8= 38 cm (23,75 mm, currently 18,3 mm): the AMT sitting depth is much too short: 5,45 mm,  which makes 87 mm at 1:1. To be frank, I am not really surprised by this result. It seemed to me obvious that this lenght was too short, as the floor was for the front passengers (not so much, though...)

9= 5 cm (3,12 mm, currently 2,75 mm)

10= 6,5 cm (4 mm, currently 3,25 mm)

11a (on the side)= 9 cm (5,6 mm, currently 4,5 mm)

11b (I made a mistake and used 2 times the number 11)= 18 cm (11,25 mm, currently 6,25 mm!): I am much more surprised by this difference...

12= 20 cm (12,5 mm, currently 16 mm): the central part of the sitting is much too wide and correcting this big error will involve necessary important modifications on the rear portion of the tunnel  too...

14= 3,5 cm (2,19 mm, currently 2 mm)

 

 

- Photo 2:

6qgwiU.png

 

1= 48 cm (30 mm, currently 25,7 mm, much too narrow, as seen above, even if, happily for me, the standard seats are a bit narrower than the Pony ones)

2= 50 cm (31,25 mm, currently 27,3 mm)

3= 55 cm (34,38 mm, currently 31,9 mm): as at the rear, the front seats should be higher

4= 9,5 cm (5,94 mm, currently 6 mm): finally a value that matches!

5= 30 cm (18,75 mm, currently 16 mm): logically too narrow, as the whole front seat

6= 45 cm (28,13 mm, currently 30,6 mm): if the sitting was much too short on the backseat, it is too long on the front one.

7= 29,5 cm (18,44 mm, currently 21,85 mm) 

10= 15,5 cm (9,7 mm, currently 8,8 mm)

8= 54 cm (33,75 mm, currently 30,6 mm)

9= 6 cm (3,75 mm, currently 2,17 mm, while my front seats are too narrow. This means that I should decrease the tunnel width, especially between the front seats...

 

- Photo 3:

0cg5mL.jpg

 

1= 30 cm (18,75 mm, currently 24,3 mm): this info confirms that my tunnel is much too wide, not leaving enough room for wider front seats. I will have to remove the felt and improve that...

2= 17 cm (10,62 mm, currently 16,3 mm): this is another surprising result for me, my tunnel would be also much too high! But the machbill's Mustang has a central console, and in such conditions, I can't consider this measure as reliable. The measures on the tunnel should be done on a 1st generation Mustang without the console and with the carpet.

3= 64 cm (40 mm, currently about 31 mm). 

4= 66 cm (41,25 mm, currently about 51 mm), not very significant too.

5= 14 cm (8,75 mm). A precious info for me when I will work on the gearbox...

 

Conclusion:  the hardest is to come, many measures are really far from the truth. I wonder if I should go on using the AMT backseat and front seat parts... 

 

Thanks for going on watching this totally mad thread of a totally crazy modeler...

 

Olivier 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot for the updates regarding the Photon printer. I hope you can get the result you are looking for. If it is difficult to print very thin object maybe try the first file I sent you and see if that is any better? Or maybe even try a different object that is easier to print while you get to know all the different settings and what they do. Did any sample model come with the printer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dbostream said:

Did any sample model come with the printer?

Yes, Daniel, but I didn't print them. A 250 ml bottle of resin was provided and I worried about lacking of resin if I began to print objects with no particular interest. I now know that you can print several times (it also depends on the objects, of course) even with a small bottle like that.

I have ordered a 1l bottle of Anycubic white resin, I hope I will get it soon, as because of my many trials, I begin to lack with resin... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it use up a lot of resin to print once piece of the inlet slots? I have a pretty good idea when it comes to filament but resin I have no clue and it would be interesting to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn’t. Of course, it also depends on the quantity you use for the bottom and the supports. But definitely, we can’t say it consumes a lot. And you can refill the can of resin filtering the remaining resin staying in the vat after the print.

Now all in all, the resin consumables are certainly more expensive than FDM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided I had spent enough time with the inlet slots. I have still improved the part, then cut it and then integrated it on my body, first removing (with a tear...) my previous crafted ones, that were far from being as good despite all my efforts.

Q3Syl1.jpg

 

PcijAd.jpg

 

 

After a delicate fitting job, I used Tamiya liquid cyano by capillarity first, and then the Vallejo Plastic Putty to fill the small gaps (just applied). After a complete drying of the latter, the final sanding job will end the step...

 

N.B:

1) I have completely removed any trace of Wimbledon White paint (Tamiya Paint Remover, alcohol) to avoid a thick coat of paint, that would decrease the slots width.

2) my last trial of printing was not bad, but not better than the all first one. As I had ever spent time in the post processing with the latter, I naturally used it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olivier

 

I can understand if you got fed up with the inlet slots but honestly I still think the FDM version looks better and since you spent money on a resin printer I would have expected you to master it before moving on. But I am sure you will improve the glued in piece before you are done and it will turn out great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel,

honestly it is not at all the problem of the money I spent on a resin printer.

Maybe you don't have a good perception of the result because it is not yet painted. and because the integration job of this "graft" is not over.

I have a certain level of requirement, quite high I think (it is not a perfect world, though...) and this result I got with the resin printer (at least as good - if not better...- as the best one I got with the FDM printer imho) is really satisfying for me. 

As a painter or a sculptor who has to decide at a moment that such a detail is, if not perfect, satisfying to his eyes, I considered it was the case. I couldn't spend all my life on this detail that represents maybe 0,5% of the whole build, while I got such a so good result (to my eyes), much better than what I could get with traditional techniques (thanks to you, who opened my eyes on 3D printing and who provided me the inlet slots file!)

I am gonna do the sanding job around (I don't feel necessary to improve further the slots themselves) and when I will apply the Wimbledon White, then maybe you will understand better my decision (the transparent green doesn't do justice to that result).

Now if I compare (humbly, with my very small experience of both kind of printers) the advantages and weak points of each kind of 3D printing technology, I would say:

 

FDM :

adv:

- clean

- cheap

- printing simple and not requiring a lot of room, products, material and procedures 

w.p:

- quite bad state of surface of the PLA, hard material (difficult and random post processing) hardly compatible imho with our modelers requirements

- average level of accuracy

- Cura settings not simple imho 

 

Resin:

adv:

- good level of accuracy with a basic printer like the Anycubic, probably great with a high-end one like the Form 2 (Formlabs), much more expensive

- the post-processing is easy, allowing to get a neat state of surface (a very important parameter to my modelers eyes). So, from a just average result of the printing itself, I could get the expected result. 

w.p:

- quite messy, needs much material and products (UV lights, US vat, resin, filters, funnel, Resinaway etc.) and more room. I had to reorganize a bit my working space.

- requires more care (mask, gloves, protection glasses), a bit smelly (better to work in a well ventilated and large room)

- Anycubic slicing software to improve (see above)

- the cleaning procedures are quite tedious

 

Honestly, and despite the inconvenients, I don't regret the choice I made of a resin printer. Btw, these conclusions are not only mine, I share them with an experienced figures modeler, Thomas Roussel (and not only with him, see videos on YT), who experienced several printers of both technologies (he should try the Anycubic very soon, I will post the link on the thread then).

 

Conclusion: I am a beginner in 3D printing, and I have to practice and so improve my results, but I think the resin printers suits more for my model making hobby.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To84wt.jpg

 

euiwob.jpg

 

That said, honestly, by the naked eye, the result is really better than what this merciless photo suggests...

 

Edit a few hours later: I have applied a second coat of W.W, thinned this time with the Mr Hobby Aqueous thinner, that allows to get a much brighter surface. And what I see with this 2nd coat is that my slots are OK (imho), I just have a little tweak around them here or there. So I finally won't require the services of my technician for this time. On the other hand, the hood must be improved (the middle rib must be more visible, the state of surface must be smoother)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ifJ1TG.jpg

 

I could have used another option, the Bare Metal Foil, but it seemed to me that such a delicate work was a quite good opportunity to use the Molotow LC. One of the advantages of the latter, in addition to its good Chrome look, is that it is an acrylic paint, thinned with alcohol. By the naked eye, the result is quite good. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the post# 556 above, I gave the real measures, made by machbill (thanks again to him if he reads this post!) and the 1/16 matching. But I didn't have time to compare the latter with what I had on my side (backseat and front seats). I have edited this post and the results are, in general, rather far from truth. In the same time, I added some comments. In such conditions, I wonder if I shouldn't leave definitely aside the AMT parts. I admit scratchbuilding them from the real measures scares me a bit, especially the backseat (3D files would be much welcome :D).

These measures have shown too that my tunnel was too wide and too high. What a pity that I had to wait so much to get them. I could have earned a lot of time. But let's not complain, I have now all the keys (if not the skills...) in hand to represent quite faithfully this legendary car. 

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hood is over. Good for morale, while I still have so much to do (and often redo...). I just hope that the MicroSol will be efficient to remove the folds (I will know that in a few hours).

4yth5P.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DGwAFT.jpg

 

N.B:

- removing the felt was not easy, as it was powerfully glued. I used an anti-adhesive (Gifrer).

- I took advantage of removing the felt to try to get a smoother carpet, by using first a classic razor blade and then an iron:

LCzCTj.jpg

 

Edit a bit later: my experience to remove the hairs has been, to be honest, a total... failure! The more I removed hairs, the longer they were 😫!! I tried everything, the iron, the paint, the white glue, nothing to do except admitting that this idea, that sounded good in theory, was in fact really bad!

I decided to use another piece of felt (happily, I had several) and I just applied a coat of TS-19 on it. The result seems to be quite good, waiting for a complete drying and the applying on my new floor before drawing firm conclusions... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the last improvements, the painting and varnish job, the polish and buffing has been done on the inlet slots panel (and also the lateral panels going forward):

t4RdT5.jpg

 

9xrcwF.jpg

 

Maybe I will remove this decal (using the decal of the 2nd kit), because it was not well centered (I didn't take enough marks when placing it). And probably I will apply a varnish on the new one... 

 

Edit a bit later: I have never seen a decal glueing like this one. The only way I found was to remove the paint too! (Tamiya Paint Remover, a great product)

So, I will have to redo (an habit, you'll tell me...) the whole job on the hood. Holy patience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olivier de St Raph said:

Edit a bit later: I have never seen a decal glueing like this one. The only way I found was to remove the paint too! (Tamiya Paint Remover, a great product)

So, I will have to redo (an habit, you'll tell me...) the whole job on the hood. Holy patience...

Too bad! But version 2 will surely be even better. The slots look very good by the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olivier, 

Sorry to hear of your decal issues.

If you are going to gloss over the decal anyway, have you considered masking with tape and painting the stripes?

Also, it appeared to me that the hood gap in the center near the vents is a bit tighter than at the ends. An opportunity to address this while you are stripping for other reasons.

What did you decide to do about carpet material?

 Les

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chronology:

- one coat of WW thinned with 96° alcohol. Let dry at least 2 h

- remove if necessary small dusts with Micromesh from 4000 to 12000

- medium coat of Alclad Klear Kote. Let dry at least 8h

- Micromesh from 4000 to 12000 on the latter

- Compounds fine and finish

- decal placement (I am here right now, see the water drops on the decal just placed)

- medium coat of Klear Kote on the decal 

- same polish and buffing with Micromesh (if necessary) and Tamiya Compounds

- letters with Molotow LC (no varnish must be applied on the latter

 

YobfIh.jpg

 

P.S: Les, I found out your post just after doing this post. No time now to reply now, I will as soon as possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lvp said:

Olivier, 

Sorry to hear of your decal issues.

If you are going to gloss over the decal anyway, have you considered masking with tape and painting the stripes?

Also, it appeared to me that the hood gap in the center near the vents is a bit tighter than at the ends. An opportunity to address this while you are stripping for other reasons.

What did you decide to do about carpet material?

 Les

 

 

 

Les,

1) I will think about the option you suggest to paint the strips. I must say it was not at all in my intention up to now, but 3 factors could lend me to possibly reconsider that:

- the strong  decal adhesion

- the small defects of the blue color on the latter. 

- the small folds at the front difficult to eliminate even with softeners.

2) I see what you mean. I will do a small correction to have a more regular hood gap

3) the last version of the carpet, painted TS-19 before applying on the floor, looks really good. I think it was a better idea to paint the felt before applying it. I will use a brand new blade to have very neat cuts and so avoid undesirable hairs. I am quite confident about the result. 

 

Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×