# Starcruiser 1



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Bought this 20 years ago for next to nothing at a yard sale, intending to use it as a source kit for scratchbuilding but never did. I started building it about 15 years ago but more interesting things pushed it out of my mind and it has been in storage ever since. This is the MPC black "NASA" version from 1982 but I am going to paint it white with red trim, the way it was originally released.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Wow... I didn't knew that a black version with another boxart existed. I owned two Starcruisers as a kid, and I have one unbuild in my stash.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Wow... I didn't knew that a black version with another boxart existed. I owned two Starcruisers as a kid, and I have one unbuild in my stash.


I think it was only sold in the United States in 1982. Even though the box indicates it was made by MPC, there is an Airfix trademark stamped on the inside of one of the fuselage halves. The original Airfix kit was sold in the U.S. in the late 1970's under the US Airfix brand.
I also have the Cosmic Clipper that was released by US Airfix.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Man, Starcruiser is such a confusing product from that sad 'post Space:1999' time of the Gerry Anderson group. It's both sleek and clumsy. IIRC the 'fighter pod' was added and it just doesn't work, it throws the visual balance all off. The 'support' pod needs another refining pass and I assume the landing gear magically disappears in flight. 

Surprised Dinky passed on making a toy of it. I'm thinking maybe the 'bloom was off the rose' as far as Anderson Production marketability was concerned at that time. I think it wasn't too much later Bandai U.K. started up the Terrahawks line. 

It'll be fun to see this build. What's the thought, try and make it 'real' as if it was a real vehicle used in an Anderson show, or make a clean, perfect representation of the ideal, the concept?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I look upon this kit the same as the Leif Ericson (and some of the new Pegasus kit s like the Apollo 27). It is a rare kit and a marketing risk to produce a model of a unique subject, one without any prior tie in in film or TV.
Most companies play it safe and just make what they anticipate demand for, sometimes waiting until the movie has already been released and popularity determined.

This is the Anderson version of that risky attempt. I never got one because the design didn't appeal to me much, but I love the Anderson touches in it. I would love to see a build up as a 'real world' vehicle from an Anderson show with realistic weathering and those wonderful details which take it out of the play action toy world.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Man, Starcruiser is such a confusing product from that sad 'post Space:1999' time of the Gerry Anderson group. It's both sleek and clumsy. IIRC the 'fighter pod' was added and it just doesn't work, it throws the visual balance all off. The 'support' pod needs another refining pass and I assume the landing gear magically disappears in flight.
> 
> Surprised Dinky passed on making a toy of it. I'm thinking maybe the 'bloom was off the rose' as far as Anderson Production marketability was concerned at that time. I think it wasn't too much later Bandai U.K. started up the Terrahawks line.
> 
> It'll be fun to see this build. What's the thought, try and make it 'real' as if it was a real vehicle used in an Anderson show, or make a clean, perfect representation of the ideal, the concept?


My initial thought was to do a quick out of the box build, no modifications, but I just can't make myself do that. I am going to ditch the skids on the nose section and possibly the two engine bells on the underside of the nose. I want to add tanks and framework, like on the Eagle, to the tail section and I will probably redesign the pod on the underside.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

After a little research and finding Martin Bower's website with pics of the Starcruiser's prototype this has just turned into a more extensive project. The Command Module needs some reworking, the pod underneath is just wrong and my idea for the tanks on the tail section is right. I will keep the wings, but rework the skids, I will probably leave off the interceptor.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I had a couple of these when they first came out as well. I have to agree, really ugly kit,


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

pagni said:


> I had a couple of these when they first came out as well. I have to agree, really ugly kit,


Designed by committee, they threw design elements from half a dozen Gerry Anderson spaceships into this design. I don't know why they changed it so drastically from the prototype, that was a cool design.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

I have to agree, that thing is butt-ugly. It's the fictional spacecraft version of the Pontiac Aztek.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

scotpens said:


> I have to agree, that thing is butt-ugly. It's the fictional spacecraft version of the Pontiac Aztek.


Hey, now, I kinda like the Aztek! Next thing you know you'll be dogging on the PT Cruiser! 

Anyway, Bower's original Starcruiser is much more interesting, but I can see why they made some changes. It really looks like a Space:1999 Year 3 thing, a melding of Swift and Eagle (Swift Eagle? That would be a neat name actually).

Were I to take a crack at 'revisiting' the Starcruiser (and if I had the skill, of course) I would:

1. figure out a proper scale. I would use as a yardstick the idea that people would be able to walk along the 'spine' part of the combination to travel from the nose to the pod. I think that makes it a HUGE vessel, probably 1/100, maybe 1/144.

2. completely ditch the fighter pod thing. It's fine if you shrink it down quite a bit. Then you could carry a couple internal to the nose ship. This is a job for 3-d printing! 

3. The pod is meant to be both a mobile unit and the main 'living quarters'. Clearly needs to be refined quite a bit, more smooth and streamlined. Some form of propulsion. Ramps for vehicles? At the suggested scale it's several stories tall.

4. The nose. Explorer, or heavy fighter. Mothership for the gunpods? The giant landing motor bells have to go, of course. Smaller, more refined ones. 

The assumption is that the spine ship is the warp drive. Everything else hangs off it. 

There's a lot of potential there.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

According to this write up on the Catacombs site, the Airfix kit is 1/48 scale http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/w2mstarcruiser.html.
And the fighter ship was added by Airfix, not part of the original design.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robn1 said:


> According to this write up on the Catacombs site, the Airfix kit is 1/48 scale http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/w2mstarcruiser.html.
> And the fighter ship was added by Airfix, not part of the original design.


Sure, 1/48 based on the included figures, but that doesn't work very well for the 'spine' ship and turns the pod into a very cramped caravan (camper).

The fighter isn't terrible-it's a rather basic design consisting of engines, weapons, cockpit and not much else- it just looks so terrible stuck on top of the spine ship, throwing the aesthetics completely wonky. OTOH it would have worked OK as a toy. 

For some reason I have memory of Airfix selling the fighter part as a separate, inexpensive kit. Am I just hallucinating that?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Sure, 1/48 based on the included figures, but that doesn't work very well for the 'spine' ship and turns the pod into a very cramped caravan (camper).
> 
> The fighter isn't terrible-it's a rather basic design consisting of engines, weapons, cockpit and not much else- it just looks so terrible stuck on top of the spine ship, throwing the aesthetics completely wonky. OTOH it would have worked OK as a toy.
> 
> For some reason I have memory of Airfix selling the fighter part as a separate, inexpensive kit. Am I just hallucinating that?


You are not hallucinating, the Interceptor was sold seperately, but in a different scale, nearly twice the size as the one that came with Starcruiser 1.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> You are not hallucinating, the Interceptor was sold seperately, but in a different scale, nearly twice the size as the one that came with Starcruiser 1.


That's right! Something close to 1/24th scale, right?

Now THAT would be fun to mess around with, detail it up, make it even more Anderson-ish.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

IIRC the Interceptor design was also released as a toy (Dinky?) with a tiny, off-scale rubber pilot. It was larger, all white and instead of the kit's weapon pods had two quite powerful spring-loaded missile tubes. My brother and I used them to shoot down Lego minifigs across the room. Those were the days...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

electric indigo said:


> IIRC the Interceptor design was also released as a toy (Dinky?) with a tiny, off-scale rubber pilot. It was larger, all white and instead of the kit's weapon pods had two quite powerful spring-loaded missile tubes. My brother and I used them to shoot down Lego minifigs across the room. Those were the days...


If it did exist, it most likely was Dinky. Man, those missiles had some serious power behind them! I remember the missile from the SHADO Mobile just going an incredible distance and with some hefty punch behind it! Same as the missile from the SPV and the FAB 1. (the FAB 1 rear missiles were puny, weak little things easily lost, but that missile out of the front radiator, wow!)

Can you tell the Dinky/Anderson connection was an important part of my youth?


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

I found it under the name "Space Battle Cruiser", apparently there was also a "Zygon Marauder" that uses the same basic design!

http://www.catawiki.com/catalog/mod...urers/dinky-toys/3492023-space-battle-cruiser


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

After looking at this for a couple of days now, I have come to the conclusion that it will be easier just to scratchbuild the Starcruiser 1 prototype. I will go ahead and build this model with just a few tweaks, mainly with the engines, deleting the skids from the "Command Module" nose section, and build a more presentable looking "Command Pod". I have decided to leave off the Interceptor part since it was not part of the original design.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Steve H said:


> That's right! Something close to 1/24th scale, right?
> 
> Now THAT would be fun to mess around with, detail it up, make it even more Anderson-ish.


I have one, and I plan to sell it. If you like to get it contact me and make me an offer.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Marco Scheloske said:


> I have one, and I plan to sell it. If you like to get it contact me and make me an offer.


That's kind of you, and I thank you, but I have to pass. However, if you'd let others here have the same chance you might well make some money.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started work on the nose section, I have built up the rear section and I will also add to the underside to make it look usable. I will probably wind up reworking every section of this model to make it more plausible.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Some sanding done on the addition to the nose section. This is still going to need some putty and more sanding to blend the addition in to the main part. I have decided to also eliminate that ridge that runs around the edge of the nose section.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Removed the lip around the edge of the nose section and started building up the bottom of it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gotta say, just trimming that lip makes a huge difference.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great work! And REALLY glad you're modifying it! I've always thought that kit could convert to something along the lines of this making a more "real space" version of the Space:1999 Eagle:










Can't wait to see what you come up with!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started building up the underside of the nose section. I used 1/8 inch wide .040 strips 11 layers thick to do this. after drying for a day or so I will use a file to shape it to the proper contour.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Great work! And REALLY glad you're modifying it! I've always thought that kit could convert to something along the lines of this making a more "real space" version of the Space:1999 Eagle:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now that is a cool design.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> Now that is a cool design.


It reminds me of some of the 'man on the moon soonest' ideas, there was one that used a Gemini capsule (minus the 'hoop skirt') with I think it was an Agena B stage as a service module and an unspecified booster stage. It was to land on the Moon like a 'tail dragger' aircraft (three point), the astronauts then got out, did stuff, got back in and then light off the Agena and shoot across the Lunar surface and climbing out like a fighter.

Man, that would have been some serious hairy-chested rocketman piloting...


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Finished building up the bottom of the nose section.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> It reminds me of some of the 'man on the moon soonest' ideas, there was one that used a Gemini capsule (minus the 'hoop skirt') with I think it was an Agena B stage as a service module and an unspecified booster stage. It was to land on the Moon like a 'tail dragger' aircraft (three point), the astronauts then got out, did stuff, got back in and then light off the Agena and shoot across the Lunar surface and climbing out like a fighter.
> 
> Man, that would have been some serious hairy-chested rocketman piloting...


Like this?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> Like this?


Naw, that's a tail sitter. 

(but wouldn't that make for an interesting model?)

And maybe I misremembered. Looking at a handy book, 'The Lunar Exploration Scrapbook', I can find no evidence of a horizontal landing Gemini variant, but there IS a two-man Apollo study from 1961 called 'Lunar Direct', in both a tail lander and horizontal landing version. 

Man, EVERYTHING was on the table back then.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Naw, that's a tail sitter.
> 
> (but wouldn't that make for an interesting model?)
> 
> ...


This one, there were some wild ideas back then.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

That's the one. Just imagine, sitting in a 2-man Apollo capsule, staring at the Lunar horizon, and you're gonna light that fire and blast off, hoping that the thrusters can change your angle enough to turn it into a climb rather than plowing into a mountain range. 

Heck, I can't even figure out how the astronauts were supposed to put on their EVA gear, a cone at an angle just fails in terms of 'internal room'. Only thing I can figure is they would suit up in orbit, land, put on the PLSS packs and go walkabout, then when they return they'd have to wait until orbit to shuck out of the EVA suits. 

Not the best solution.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

BWolfe said:


> Like this?


Maybe I'm misinformed about what's going on with that design but I just don't get this one. Unless the wings were going to be used while reentering the atmosphere, it doesn't make any sense. The wings won't help on the moon and why drag those wings all the way to the moon and back when the Gemini can already reenter the atmosphere with its heat shield?

Besides that, it's a great-looking design and seems to be one of the influences of the _Planet of the Apes_ spaceship.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ohh, so many scary design flaws in that.

1. How are the astronauts even breathing? I see no PLSS packs in any form, unless the slight 'hunchback' on the suits are it.

2. That's one brave co-pilot in the starboard cockpit, edging along the lip of everything until he can access the tiny rungs. Altho, granted, given the way the ship is photographed, there could well be a separate set of rungs for that cockpit. 

3. How do they get from those bottom rungs on the booster to the ground?

4. Is that meant to be a cargo hatch on that booster tank?

But yeah, I can't figure out that huge wing either. Unless it was launched in a VERY unconventional way, like air launched from some massive carrier airplane (Spaceship One, SHADO Lunar Module).


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Ohh, so many scary design flaws in that.
> 
> 1. How are the astronauts even breathing? I see no PLSS packs in any form, unless the slight 'hunchback' on the suits are it.
> 
> ...


IIRC, this was supposed to be launched in a conventional way, on top of a large rocket like the NOVA. It was to land on the moon, take off after the two astronauts collected samples, return to earth as a re-entry glider and land on an airstrip. You can see the influence of the Dyna Soar project in this, the delta wings and vertical stabilizers are from that design.
A later idea was a little more practical, using a Centaur upper stage with a Gemini docking adapter, a modified Gemini spacecraft that had a service module with a garage for a one man lunar lander.










The lander was a very simplistic design that offered little protection for the astronaut.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Took the file to the nose section addition and after about 30 minutes I see that it will only need a little filler. I will also add on some panels like on the Hawk and other details to busy up the design a little, nothing drastic. I still have not decided if I want the nose to be separable from the main body or not, but I have decided that the main body will need a makeover to accommodate the new nose.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Did a little work on the main body, cut out the section where the cargo/passenger pod will go. I may make a service module section to go between the nose section and the main body. I am considering adding framework along the spine, similar to the Eagle.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started the "service module" that will go between the nose section and main body. The forward landing rockets and landing gear will be attached to this.


----------



## cozmo (Nov 29, 2004)

I've been wanting another one of those. Along with the Cosmic Clipper also from Airfix.

Looking forward to seeing the progress.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

You're doing beautiful work, but all this re-visioning, are you sure you don't want to reconsider adjusting the scale? I still think something like 1/72 (or maybe the familiar 'Aurora scale' of 1/60th) makes this a much more practical craft.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> You're doing beautiful work, but all this re-visioning, are you sure you don't want to reconsider adjusting the scale? I still think something like 1/72 (or maybe the familiar 'Aurora scale' of 1/60th) makes this a much more practical craft.


Yeah, I had already decided that 1/48 did not work for this and settled on 1/72 scale. Since the astronauts have already been sealed into the nose section, I have two options, ignore the size discrepancy or paint over the windows.
The more I look at this, the more I do not like the look of the main body, so it is going to get a drastic makeover like the nose section. I plan on extending the new roof line of the nose the full length of the main body. The only thing I will not change are the wings and I will make some modifications to the tail section to accommodate just 5 of the engine bells instead of all 7.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

I have extended the new roof line of the nose section along the entire length of the main body. I stopped where I did because I am going to completely re-make the rear section to match the forward section. This will have a center pod, similar to the Eagle spaceship. I envision this as being in the UFO/Space:1999 universe, about halfway between the two series, this being a predecessor of sorts to the Eagle.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Do you know what you've got there, potentially? It just suddenly struck me. 

Fireball XL-5 as if designed by Mike Trim.

That suggests all manner of fascinating directions to me.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Neat!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Made the bulkheads to build up the aft section, cut away part of the upper aft section and extended the roofline all the way to the aft bulkhead. It is going to need some putty work to blend the wings smoothly into the new aft section. This is going to look more aerodynamic than the Eagles, the only exposed framework will be the support structure for the five engines on the tail.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started making the tanks for the engines, will use a pair of 12mm pearls mounted on a 3/32 styrene rod with a 12mm wide strip of .020 styrene to connect them. There will be 5 engine and tank combinations, still haven't decided whether or not to arrange them in a pentagon or "X" configuration.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Crazy idea: Given the slightly 'wedge' aspect , what about two top, three below? Centered on the center of gravity at the centerline of the unified craft of course. 

I don't know why but it strikes me this would look really good given the restructuring you've done.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Swapped ends and did some work on the interface between the command and service modules. A matching door and frame structure will be added to the command module and I still have to work in the magnets that will join the two sections. I know that the work looks sloppy now, but that is just the way I work, it will clean up real good.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Matching Command and Service module hatches complete.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Magnets in place to hold the Command Module on and more refinements to the main body. Only a small part of the original "Starcruiser" design will be left when this is finished.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Did some putty work and started on the cargo pod. This pod will be one of two that I make for this, it will have a cargo container that will fit on either side. I will also make a Passenger pod that will resemble the pod from the Eagle.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

That is looking so nice! From the looks you've decided on no spine section cockpit?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> That is looking so nice! From the looks you've decided on no spine section cockpit?


I decided to go with the smooth look, with little exposed framework, I think this fits in nicely with the timeline I envisioned, about 10 years before "Breakaway" in Space:1999. The only exposed framework will be on the cargo pod, landing gear struts and the engine section.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> I decided to go with the smooth look, with little exposed framework, I think this fits in nicely with the timeline I envisioned, about 10 years before "Breakaway" in Space:1999. The only exposed framework will be on the cargo pod, landing gear struts and the engine section.


OK, yes, I can see that from your excellent work. 

My question was, the spinal section, the 'star drive', had it's own (pretty non-scale) cockpit, ala the dome on the hull of Fireball XL-5. You've blended over that window. So, the spine section can not be a separate piloted vehicle in your re-envisioning?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> OK, yes, I can see that from your excellent work.
> 
> My question was, the spinal section, the 'star drive', had it's own (pretty non-scale) cockpit, ala the dome on the hull of Fireball XL-5. You've blended over that window. So, the spine section can not be a separate piloted vehicle in your re-envisioning?


It will be like the Eagle, the nose section being the only cockpit. I thought about leaving that window there, but even at 1/72 scale it just did not make sense to me. After the modifications I made to the main body design, that section is too cramped for a cockpit. 
I can imagine mission specific modules that could have a pilot station. In such a configuration, the nose could be separated from the main craft and used for reconnaissance, satellite rendezvous and repair work, a shuttle between spacecraft, or whatever is needed. I can even imagine a modified nose section that could be used as a lander for planetary exploration, leaving the main bulk of the ship in orbit. 
I think of this vehicle as being a true multi-purpose vehicle system, no two vehicles ever looking the same. The core of the system is the main body section, that would be the same in all vehicles. The differences would come in the form of different nose sections, cargo/passenger/laboratory sections and engine configurations, whatever is needed to accomplish the mission. There would even be the option for strap on fuel tanks for long duration flights. 
Whether or not I actually build all of this is yet to be seen, but the idea is there to do so.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Basic structure of the cargo module and cargo containers complete, time for the details.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Slow but steady progress, most of the details done on the cargo module, still have to add the landing gear. Landing gear struts added to the main ship as well as landing rocket motors.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ohh, I hate being the bad guy. I'm just in awe of what you've done but...

It kind of feels like you've lost direction or something here. So much restructuring of the basic kit and it's looking really good, but now it's kind of... off.

I guess the issue I'm having is, do you have a clear vision of the 'end product'? Here's this beautiful streamlined craft, now it has a big unaerodynamic cargo block and a stuck on 'what does it do' nose gear, the kind of thing that while often used in Anderson productions, at least SOME lip service is given to it going somewhere. 

I know, I should shut up, but it was going in such an interesting direction, it's my fault for making assumptions or something. carry on!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Ohh, I hate being the bad guy. I'm just in awe of what you've done but...
> 
> It kind of feels like you've lost direction or something here. So much restructuring of the basic kit and it's looking really good, but now it's kind of... off.
> 
> ...


The way I work is to sometimes to just stick something on and see if it looks right, the nose gear is bugging me and I am probably going to rework it, that is why I didn't make the pads to go on the landing gear struts yet. It also means I will have to re-think the landing rockets as well. The cargo module is just one of several modules that I plan to build to go with this, one will even be just as streamlined as the rest of the craft. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I envision this as a very flexible multi purpose vehicle with different nose sections, passenger and laboratory modules. Some will be very aerodynamic for in atmosphere use and some, like the cargo module will be boxy looking for use outside the atmosphere.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

I think the design does work, look at the Sikorsky Skycrane, for example. I can also easily imagine a streamlined personnel module turning it into something like a space age Learjet.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

electric indigo said:


> I think the design does work, look at the Sikorsky Skycrane, for example. I can also easily imagine a streamlined personnel module turning it into something like a space age Learjet.


The Skycrane being one of my favorite helicopters, I do get it, but a Skycrane isn't flying transonic as it enters a planet's atmosphere. 

My problem is I guess the more I saw of this build, the more my brain was saying "updated Fireball XL-5" which I know is completely wrong.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lovin' it so far! :thumbsup:

I like the idea of making it a proto-eagle.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

electric indigo said:


> I think the design does work, look at the Sikorsky Skycrane, for example. I can also easily imagine a streamlined personnel module turning it into something like a space age Learjet.


I have that in mind, I plan on several different modules and possibly a different nose section, after all, this will be a multi-mission, multi purpose vehicle.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started on the "Executive" module. This could also be a passenger module, for 6 to 8 passengers.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

"Executive" module blending in very nicely, lots more to do as well as some new ideas to play around with.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started on the engine modules, this will be the first of the two interchangeable modules. Used some leftover pieces from an AMT Man In Space 1/200 set, the second stage engine mount cone from the Saturn V, four of the second stage engines, two of the First stage engine bell sections and an engine bell from a Revell 1:48 Lunar Module.


----------



## 67657 (Mar 4, 2010)

Really liking the direction you're taking this!


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Oh yea!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started work on the chemical engine module and did some detailing to the nuclear engine module.










Chemical engine module shown in place, still have details to add to it. The chemical engine module is made using a 1/200 Saturn V second stage engine mount cone and the five Saturn V first stage engines.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Only thing I would suggest is adjust the sub nozzles on the Nuclear propulsion system to be inline like the chemical version. maybe saw off the mount points and use 1/48 scale 500 pound bombs as pre-mix chambers or something.I assume there's a spacing and exhaust interference concern going on. I'm concerned about a fault in one of the nozzles and what asymmetrical thrust would do.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

My thought on the 4 small engines on the nuclear engine module is that they are either steering motors or orbital maneuvering engines, they don't fire full thrust all the time like the five engines on the chemical engine module.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Started blending the Executive Module to the body, a little filler and a lot of sanding but it is getting there. Still have work to do around the wings and on the underside of the aft section.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Finally got back to this, been a rough week, lost a close friend. Added the landing rockets, went with rockets like on Fireball XL-5. Also re thought the scale, going now with HO scale. Will probably paint over the cockpit windows since the kit supplied figures are now almost twice as big as they should be and there is no easy way to remove them. I really need a new camera, the lens on this thing makes the hull appear curved in some pictures.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Sorry for your loss. It's hard to lose a friend, we never really expect it. I still mourn my friend who passed back in 2011, not a day goes by something happens and I think "Hey, he'd like to know about this" but he's gone, and blah blah blah.

OK, anyway. I think HO scale works fine for this. Given the radical re-working done so far there's no real reason you can't bust out the window glass, yank out the figures, do a little 'ship in a bottle' work to mount new seats and such and then build some frames, clear plastic and glue it on. 
Naturally this kind of work will require being 4-handed, with microscope vision.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Sorry for your loss. It's hard to lose a friend, we never really expect it. I still mourn my friend who passed back in 2011, not a day goes by something happens and I think "Hey, he'd like to know about this" but he's gone, and blah blah blah.
> 
> OK, anyway. I think HO scale works fine for this. Given the radical re-working done so far there's no real reason you can't bust out the window glass, yank out the figures, do a little 'ship in a bottle' work to mount new seats and such and then build some frames, clear plastic and glue it on.
> Naturally this kind of work will require being 4-handed, with microscope vision.


With my new ocular implants, restoring my vision to 20/20, that may be something I might try. I am also considering some razor saw surgery on just the cockpit area, carefully slicing off the roof and reworking the interior.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hey, congrats on the implants! I just found out I've got cataracts developing so, bleh. 

I think you've got a really good shape on the nose module, I guess I'd be concerned about spoiling that, but you may well have a better idea.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Not trying to criticize. Cause heaven knows you are doing work here that I wouldn't even attempt. But this is just an observation. Concerning the high ridge between the cockpit windows,......Doesn't that ridge create one heck of a blind spot for your pilot ???


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

DCH10664 said:


> Not trying to criticize. Cause heaven knows you are doing work here that I wouldn't even attempt. But this is just an observation. Concerning the high ridge between the cockpit windows,......Doesn't that ridge create one heck of a blind spot for your pilot ???


I actually considered removing it but I wanted to keep the visual design cue that makes it distinctly part of the Gerry Anderson universe.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I agree, the design has a very Mike Trim look to it, and fairing over the cutouts or chopping the ridge off would completely unbalance the design. I would make the assumption that there are plenty of exterior cameras to prevent any blind spots.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Steve H said:


> I agree, the design has a very Mike Trim look to it, and fairing over the cutouts or chopping the ridge off would completely unbalance the design. I would make the assumption that there are plenty of exterior cameras to prevent any blind spots.


I guess I wasn't thinking,....But you're right. In real life a ship this size wouldn't be piloted by sight as much as it would be by instruments and such.

BWolfe, I see your point now. A ridge of sorts between the pilot windows seems to be one of the design characteristics that Gerry Anderson favors. And it certainly never gave the Eagle pilots any trouble.

In fact, (by some small stretch of the imagination) the ridge could be seen as a safety feature. In the event of going head on with debris etc. The ridge would help to divert objects up and over the cockpit.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

DCH10664 said:


> In fact, (by some small stretch of the imagination) the ridge could be seen as a safety feature. In the event of going head on with debris etc. The ridge would help to divert objects up and over the cockpit.


Not that we ever saw an Eagle go head on with debris...! 

I have to agree that removing that feature would have removed a lot of the Gerry Anderson feel of the design. I like how this project is coming along.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Fozzie said:


> Not that we ever saw an Eagle go head on with debris...!
> 
> I have to agree that removing that feature would have removed a lot of the Gerry Anderson feel of the design. I like how this project is coming along.


Well I did say "by some small stretch of the imagination", LOL. And if you wanted to stretch your imagination a little further. This model could be seen as a previous generation of the Eagle. Or maybe even a next Generation of the Eagle. But in any case, this is a fantastic build ! It really blows my mind that the original model has become not much more than the skeleton for a whole new model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I still get the vibe it's an evolution/remake of Fireball XL5. Borrowing from the Eagle it now has swappable modules for different missions (default being a general purpose living/ cargo transportation/ general science module), it retains the detachable 'Fireball Jr.' for the nose, blah blah blah.

But that's what *I* see from what Wolfe has shown us. It's not the story going on in his head.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> I still get the vibe it's an evolution/remake of Fireball XL5. Borrowing from the Eagle it now has swappable modules for different missions (default being a general purpose living/ cargo transportation/ general science module), it retains the detachable 'Fireball Jr.' for the nose, blah blah blah.
> 
> But that's what *I* see from what Wolfe has shown us. It's not the story going on in his head.


Considering that "Fireball XL-5" takes place in 2062, this could be very well be a predecessor to that ship as well as a stepping stone between the ships seen in UFO and Space:1999.
What I originally set out to do was just an update of the Starcruiser 1 model, making some alterations to make a little more plausible. After studying it for a while, I decided my best option was a complete nose to tail make over, leaving very little of it unchanged. I got the idea stuck in my head that this could be a predecessor to the Eagle and I went with that idea, creating the separate passenger/cargo modules. I had also planned to make the engine section similar to the Eagle with tanks, engine bells and framework but finally decided against that, coming up with the two possible engine pod configurations I have now. I still plan to build a passenger pod that resembles the Eagle pod and I think I will re-work the landing gear, with the scale change, it is too high off the ground. 
I won't be able to work as much on this as I want to since I just started a new job today in an Amazon fulfillment center. I will be on my feet 10 hours a day, walking an average of 8 miles a day so I am going to be tired for a while until I get used to it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

But you might want it a bit high off the ground to facilitate swapping out the pods. 

And good luck with the job! Make sure my stuff gets to me first.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Good Luck with the new job ! And don't worry, you will always have a job as long as my Mother and Sister are alive. Those two order everything from Amazon ! :wave:


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Finally got to work on this some more, painted the engine modules and did some more filling and sanding on the main body, it is almost ready for paint. Still thinking about the landing gear, they just don't look right to me, may do something different with those.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

OK, landing gear. Maybe we all can have a little discussion about 'use' and 'purpose'? As in would we expect that sometimes the ship doesn't land straight VTOL but slides and glides? Is a wide footprint more desirable than a skid, ski or rail? Should they have the appearance of retracting into something? Should they be wheels or even caterpillar treads? (Don't laugh. It was a real thing!)

Might the core problem be they just look like a pad on a stick? maybe fiddle with some additional struts, links or things? How about a streamlined pod split open to imply they retract into same?


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

I would consider that this is a craft that can pick up several different types of modules. And some of these modules could be quite heavy. But the landing gear doesn't look sturdy enough to handle a great deal of weight.

But since you consider this to be a predecessor to the Eagle. Possibly you could design landing gear that is similar to the Eagle. As if your landing gear design is what eventually evolved into the Eagle landing gear design.

On another note,...the engine modules look excellent !! :thumbsup:


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Found these pieces in my stash today and now I am thinking... Of course this will have to wait until Tuesday, my next day off and hopefully the beginning of a three day weekend for me.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

DCH10664 said:


> I would consider that this is a craft that can pick up several different types of modules. And some of these modules could be quite heavy. But the landing gear doesn't look sturdy enough to handle a great deal of weight.
> 
> But since you consider this to be a predecessor to the Eagle. Possibly you could design landing gear that is similar to the Eagle. As if your landing gear design is what eventually evolved into the Eagle landing gear design.
> 
> On another note,...the engine modules look excellent !! :thumbsup:


I have considered doing away with the wings and making a frame structure to hold landing gear similar to the Eagle, but I really like the look of the wings. I am really mentally stuck on this, I want to keep the aerodynamic styling but I also want to come up with something that looks like it evolved into the Eagle.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

BWolfe said:


> I have considered doing away with the wings and making a frame structure to hold landing gear similar to the Eagle, but I really like the look of the wings. I am really mentally stuck on this, I want to keep the aerodynamic styling but I also want to come up with something that looks like it evolved into the Eagle.


Considering the fantastic job you have done so far. I'm sure you will come up with a way to have your cake and eat it too !


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> I have considered doing away with the wings and making a frame structure to hold landing gear similar to the Eagle, but I really like the look of the wings. I am really mentally stuck on this, I want to keep the aerodynamic styling but I also want to come up with something that looks like it evolved into the Eagle.


I want to chime in before you go that far, because there's an interesting dynamic at work, and I honestly hope to contribute in some positive way. 

But first it's important I say this. This is YOUR work, Wolfe. It's your imagination, it's the story you create, it's what you have to be happy with as you'll be staring at it for years. I'm not in any way trying to say you're 'wrong' about anything. What I AM trying to say is, maybe, just maybe, your subconscious is at odds with what you think you want. 

All I can go by is what you show of your work in progress. You say you're trying to work towards a precursor of the Eagle maybe sorta. I'm just not seeing it. I'm not. What I see growing and evolving is one of two things. 

It's either a 'modern re-visioning' of Fireball XL5 (as if designed by Mike Trim), complete with specific features to make a cool toy for marketing purposes as well as being flexible for stories, or..

It's a SUCCESSOR to the Eagle, built with the realities of Moonbase Alpha's continuing survival in mind- taking notes from the Swift (real hardware to them) and Hawk and SuperSwift (which may not have been actual Earth hardware but aliens pulled the design elements from the minds of knowledgeable people on Alpha to fool them) and modifying things based on the manufacturing capability available to them. 

More aerodynamic so the 'reentry shield' barrier technology can be more focused on defensive use, more power for longer range, that sort of thing. It loses some of the 'space frame' modular construction flexibility but standard Eagles can still be used around Moonbase.

Eagle Plus is the 'deep probe' and 'first contact' ship. It's more of an explorer. If Alpha ever obtains a 'supra light' drive it's the ship that will carry it. 

So I'm just throwing all that out there and see if any of it resonates.


----------

