# Clipper Time!



## Carson Dyle

The original issue of the PanAm Space Clipper is the first model kit I ever built (in 1968), and it remains a personal fave. Now our friends at Moebius have taken an already cool model and made it even better.

Since Frank was kind enough to send me an advance copy of the Moebius kit I though it would be fun to compare the new parts with those of the two previous (Aurora) versions.



















At top is the original 1968 fuselage. In the middle is the slightly retooled `75 re-pop. At bottom is the Moebius version.

I realize Moebius’ decision to do away with the heavily engraved panel lines will disappoint some, but from my perspective it was absolutely, positively, unequivocally the right decision. 

Scribing, drawing, or painting new panel lines is relatively easy compared with the hassle of having to putty in and sand down pre-existing panel lines. Given the scale, I’ve always regarded the paneling of the Aurora kit(s) to be somewhat heavy-handed, and am therefore happy to see them go.



















One feature not included with the Moebius kit is the interior engine/ reactor assembly. Since I was photographing the old kit anyway I figured I’d include a couple pix for those unfamiliar with the original parts... 




















My plan is to build (at least) two Moebius Clippers; the first will be straight out-of-the-box with no special additions or augmentations other than an old set of aftermarket PanAm decals. For this version I’ll also use the hull marking decals included with the kit to simulate panel lines and hull plating.

For the second, more ambitious build I’ll attempt to recreate the filming miniature as closely as possible given the scale, utilizing whatever aftermarket parts may become available, and incorporating a combination of various faux-recessed-panel-lining techniques (light scribing, masking, pencil, masking tape panels, etc).

Stay tuned for further updates – and thanks once more to Moebius for bringing another great retro-sci-fi kit to market!


----------



## Lee Staton

Thanks for the pix, Rob. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

Our plans are similar: I intend to build one completely stock out of the box with the supplied decals. Then I've ordered two more, so I can do one very accurately and one as the lifting body with AJA's aftermarket kit.

Much as I'd like a larger version, this one is a really nice shelf size (as was the Aurora).

Lee


----------



## RSN

That was always a favorite of mine, but I got mad everytime I built one, and the "tail" parts would break off. I don't think that would be a problem now, I doubt I would be playing with it now!!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Lee Staton said:


> Much as I'd like a larger version, this one is a really nice shelf size (as was the Aurora).


Agreed.

I may be wrong, but I have a theory that if one were to really take one’s time finishing and detailing this kit the end results would surprise those who regard the scale as being too small to do justice to the filming miniature. 

I mean, I’ve seen some commercial aircraft models in or around this scale that could easily have passed for much larger models. It’s just a matter of putting in the time and effort required to sell the effect (that’s my theory anyway).

Mind you, I’d love to see a larger version of this subject. In the meantime however I plan to do everything I can to make the Moebius kit appear larger than it really is. 



Xenodyssey said:


> I won't be scribing panel lines in my Moebius version when I get it. Guess I'll see what I can do with paint like I'm doing with the Moonbus.


Yeah, I suspect any scribing I do will be very subtle and restrained. 

I need to do a bit of research to see what sort of paneling tricks aircraft modelers working at a reduced scale tend to favor. My guess is it involves a lot of very careful masking, painting, pastel weathering, and clear-coating.

But that’s later. First up is the fun, easy, no-pressure, right-out-of-the-box approach.


----------



## Tim H.

Never saw the art box version, mine was the photo box. Looking forward to this even though it seems odd to see it naked, without panels lines  Were they eliminated for being incorrect as well as too heavy?


----------



## Paulbo

Tim H. said:


> ...Were they eliminated for being incorrect as well as too heavy?


Yes, that's why.

Thanks for sharing the pictures! Boy, I miss my old first edition. My mom got it for me shortly after we saw the movie in the theater (back when I was 6 or 7).


----------



## StarshipClass

Excellent review! Now I know why they send YOU the advance copy 

Can't wait to see it built up.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Well, pretty obviously the Moebius kit has not done away with engraved lines entirely. They’ve simply elected to retain those which appear to be the most pronounced on the filming miniature.

*Look, I REALLY do not want this thread to devolve into a big panel line debate.* Suffice to say I personally wouldn’t want every panel on my Clipper to be outlined by an engraved line, any more than I’d want every Aztek panel on my TMP Enterprise to outlined by an engraved line. That's just me.

Looking at my reference pix, it seems to _me_ that much of what Aurora originally chose to engrave would have been better (and fairly easily) served by applying masking tape, paint, flat and satin clear coats, and maybe a little pastel. Certainly this is true with regard to the fuselage.

The only areas I anticipate maybe taking the back of a broken Xacto to are the wing surfaces. This will take a little time to do right but, honestly, it ain’t rocket science, and the end results will in all likelihood be much crisper, sharper, and “in scale” than anything Moebius could have done given budgetary and tooling realities.

Anyway, that’s my opinion, and I’m stickin’ to it. 

I’ve spent the last few years scouring the web for reference pix of the Space Clipper. There ain’t a whole heckuva lot out there, and much of what is out there has already been posted on the Sci-fi Forum’s “Orion” thread. Nevertheless, in the interests of having everything handily accessible in one place, I’ve posted my “Space Clipper Archive” below.

As I mentioned, everything found below was dug up online. So far as I know none of it is _Top Secret info-hoarder forbidden classified proprietary data_ but if anyone has a problem with any of the shots posted please shoot me a PM. I’m certainly not trying to take advantage of anyone, or violate any copyright laws. I simply want to give my fellow modelers some decent reference to go by.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Few more...

*Please note that the "top" and "bottom" views posted below are not of the original filming miniature, and are simply someone's interpretation of it. Likewise, the frame grabs of the canopy area were taken from a "2001" documentary, and it's my impression that they do NOT depict the original filming miniature. *

Shots of the Clipper's underside are _very_ scarce indeed, so we kinda hafta make do with what we can get.


----------



## flyingfrets

I don't build many aircraft, but I know I have a purpose-made scribing tool around here somewhere.

I have used it to great effect (using dymo label tape as a guide...self adhesive and if follows the curvature of most hulls quite handily) on the rare occassions that I *have* used it.

I prefer it to the back of a #11 x-acto blade (which does indeed work), for the simple reason that it doesn't leave the rough or ragged edges along the new panel lines.

I suspect the Clipper will be another one of those rare instances I have a use for it...now if I could just remember where I left it...:roll:


----------



## Carson Dyle

Dave P said:


> I would also consider respecting Rob's request that his thread not turn into a panel line debate.


So much for common courtesy.



To reiterate, the purpose of this thread is to chronicle the construction of two different versions of the same model: one straight-out-of-the-box, and the other augmented to represent the onscreen look of the filming miniature as closely as possible given the scale. 

If, along the way, a constructive discussion ensues re: scribing, masking, painting, weathering, etc., all the better (for example, I'd be very interested to know what sort of scribing tool flyingfrets uses. If he can find it, that is). 

I've stated why I think Moebius made a good call with regard to doing away with the old Aurora style panel lines. I realize it's not a universal opinion, and that's fine. Those who disagree with me are free to start their own Orion threads wherein they can discuss the kit's perceived shortcomings to their hearts' content. 

I'm sure most of you will have no problem respecting my wishes that the thread stay on topic. If you want to nit-pick please do so somewhere else.

:wave:


----------



## g_xii

Carson Dyle said:


> To reiterate, the purpose of this thread is to chronicle the construction of two different versions of the same model: one straight-out-of-the-box, and the other augmented to represent the onscreen look of the filming miniature as closely as possible given the scale.
> 
> If, along the way, a constructive discussion ensues re: scribing, masking, painting, weathering, etc., all the better (for example, I'd be very interested to know what sort of scribing tool flyingfrets uses. If he can find it, that is).
> 
> I've stated why I think Moebius made a good call with regard to doing away with the old Aurora style panel lines. I realize it's not a universal opinion, and that's fine. Those who disagree with me are free to start their own Orion threads wherein they can discuss the kit's perceived shortcomings to their hearts' content.
> 
> I'm sure most of you will have no problem respecting my wishes that the thread stay on topic. If you want to nit-pick please do so somewhere else.
> 
> :wave:


Well said. I don't want to see this interesting thread run over by those for and those against the line issue. I'm going to go back and edit / delete some of these posts so we can stay on topic. 

Please respect the thread-starters request and stay on topic here.

Thanks,

--Henry


----------



## Carson Dyle

Much obliged, Henry.


----------



## flyingfrets

Carson,

Still can't find *my* scribing tool , but I'm almost positive it's this one:

http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/squ/squ10202.htm

Bought mine years ago, so the backing card is long gone, but this looks too familiar to be coincidental. Come to think of it, how many different scribing tools could there be???

Anyway, as I said, I use dymo label tape as a guide/edge to follow. As you lightly etch the new panel line, you'll see a small thread of plastic curling up and away from the model surface. I tend to make several light passes until I achieve the desired depth/width. You just don't want to be heavy handed intially since you can always scribe out a little more, but if you gouge the plastic, you're back to puttying & re-scribing.

I just like the fact that it doesn't leave the burrs and imperfections I get trying to do the job with a hobby knife. Maybe it's just a question of technique, but this thing works for me.

Good luck...

BTW: *HENRY*!!! How ya been?


----------



## Carson Dyle

flyingfrets said:


> how many different scribing tools could there be???


You'd be surprised.

I just picked up four different types on Amazon (all pretty cheap). I'll conduct some experiments and post the results here. 

If nothing else, this thread have something to say about current scribe tool options. 

Yeah, from your description I figured you were referring to the Squadron/ Micro-Mark tool. I've found those to be useful when it comes to scribing larger scale subjects, but I'm not sure they'd be right for the Moebius Orion. I could be wrong of course. As I said, I intend to experiment with a few different scribing options. Stay tuned.


----------



## Gemini1999

I've got an idea/suggestion to tackle the lack of panel lines, at least I think that I do...

How many of you that were fans of the 1701 refit wanted a model that was devoid of panel lines so you could accomplish the aztec paint scheme without it looking very dodgy? If the Moebius tooling of the Clipper is superior to that of the original Aurora & Airfix releases, even with the lack of molded panel lines, isn't it the better model to start with?

Can't Aztek painting process be applied to the Clipper? Couldn't painting templates be created to paint it so it looks like the filming miniature as in the pictures that someone posted?

Look at the Vulcan Shuttle...not so many panel lines, but the decals provided much more detail than was able to be practically done to where it looks in scale to the model itself.

I think that having a panel paint scheme would avoid the panel lines being too dark, too big, too small, etc., but achieve the desired result.

I sense an aftermarket painting template opportunity for someone....

Bryan


----------



## djnick66

Actually it would be super simple to scribe some panel lines in if you really want some. I use Dymo plastic label tape (for those old fashioned squeeze letter label makers). Its like a self adhesive ruler... Just run your scriber (or the back of a #11) along the edge.


----------



## starseeker

The Squadron scriber would be like using a stone tool on a model of this small scale. I've uploaded 2 pages from Verlinden's "On Plastic Wings" here:
http://s1004.photobucket.com/albums/af170/jkirkphotos/
(which by co-incidence I was re-reading for the first time in 20 years last night). If you feel the need to scribe and not just let shades of paint do the talking, this is the way to scribe.
Printed in 1983 and one of the two finest modelling reference books I've ever seen (Brick Price's being the other). 
Rob, thanks for those great reference photos!!


----------



## Carson Dyle

Great tips, guys. Keep `em coming.


----------



## flyingfrets

starseeker said:


> The Squadron scriber would be like using a stone tool on a model of this small scale.


Hmm...I'm surprised by that assessment. As I remembered it, the lines were rather fine and almost delicate. But it *has* been quite awhile since I've actually used it.

But since we're on the subject of panels & panel lines at this scale, if you choose to go the painting route (and forego scribed panel lines altogether), you might consider using Bare Metal Foil in place of masking tape. 

You won't get the paint buildup along the tape lines because the foil is much thinner (still fairly low-tack too). I used this method on a 1/96 scale Apollo CSM & LM and the demarcation lines are ultra-crisp with no buildup or bleed under. The scale of that kit (and the metallizer paint) led me to experiment with the foil...still pleased with the outcome.


----------



## Lee Staton

Okay, this isn't scribing...but it is about scale.

In judging many contests over the years, both military and sci-fi, I often notice that panel differentiations (shades of gray) on white aircraft/spacecraft are too radical and make the model look like a checkerboard. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional. I think this happens because it's hard to darken the base coat and see the job you're doing without going too far. When it's so contrasty, it loses all sense of scale--which was the whole purpose of paneling in the first place!

In his figure modeling videos, David Fisher addresses this topic by noting how modelers airbrushing muscle shading on figures stop once they've painted the shadows and highlights...which can be too strong. He takes a saved amount of the original basecoat, thins it way down, and airbrushes that carefully back over the shading job to even it out. I've done this on an unshirted figure and it works beautifully!

I want to try this thinned base color overcoat on a Space Clipper. I think it will help the scale effect and be far less heavy-handed.

Lee


----------



## RSN

If it helps, when I painted the Aztec pattern on my Reliant years ago, I basecoated the model with a fairly dark gray. Next, I taped off the patterns and sprayed a coat of flat white. Then I removed the tape and sprayed another coat of flat white over the whole model. The finished result was an overall coat of white, with the gray beneath, almost a ghost image. I was very happy with the result!


----------



## SUNGOD

g_xii said:


> Well said. I don't want to see this interesting thread run over by those for and those against the line issue. I'm going to go back and edit / delete some of these posts so we can stay on topic.
> 
> Please respect the thread-starters request and stay on topic here.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Henry



First of all........Carson started this thread off talking about the panel lines so I just joined in the conversation so it's not as if he said that he didn't want people mentioning them at all and secondly.....why did you delete mine and others posts gx? 

Why didn't you just leave them? I wasn't going to mention them again in this thread anyway. 

And I can't help noticing that panel lines are being discussed again yet my posts have vanished into thin air.


----------



## Carson Dyle

A discussion of panel lines is fine so long as the basic objective is to help determine the best means by which to effect those lines on the Moebius kit.

It was my hope that this might serve as a practical, working, information-filled build thread for those interested in _simulating_, as closely as possible, the look of the filming miniature.

What I'd like to avoid is a thread which devolves into a tiresome and irrelevant discussion of Moebius' tooling choices vis a vis panel lines.


----------



## Tim H.

Fair enough, no debate here, just confirming something for myself I may have forgotten in the earlier threads. Thanks for the reference pics, they'll come in very handy for whatever I do with mine. Hopefully my hobby store has this in next week.


----------



## johnF

*Space Clipper Comparison*

I got my Space Clipper today and it looks very good, but I thought Moebius was doing an all new tooling.
Looking at the parts, I noticed part #4 have the same detail on its back side as the Aurora kit (engine room bulkhead) and other parts have the same locating pin locations.
Did Moebius plan on putting in the made up engine room, then change their mind?
Has any one with the Aurora kit checked to see what parts would match up with the Moebius kit?
It looks like Moebius did the same with the Space Clipper as they did with the Moon Bus, and make corrections and clean up the kit in general.
I still very happy to get my hands on it and am already planning on what I will do with my Space Clipper!

John F


----------



## Tim H.

I've not done any planes since I was a kid and accuracy didn't matter then. Do panels tend to follow inside structure (bulkheads, beams, etc.) on a vehicle such as this and would they be symmetrical from side to side?


----------



## Kitzillastein58

SUNGOD said:


> First of all........Carson started this thread off talking about the panel lines so I just joined in the conversation so it's not as if he said that he didn't want people mentioning them at all and secondly.....why did you delete mine and others posts gx?
> 
> Why didn't you just leave them? I wasn't going to mention them again in this thread anyway.
> 
> And I can't help noticing that panel lines are being discussed again yet my posts have vanished into thin air.


My post was harmless, I never even mentioned panel lines, or anything like it. Only that I had been given an Airfix version, and that I was planning to buy the Moebius version too. I don't know anything at all about these kits, never had one before. I was hoping to get my foot in the door, maybe try to learn something from this thread, and possibly contribute to it later on, but I guess not.


----------



## Carson Dyle

johnF said:


> Has any one with the Aurora kit checked to see what parts would match up with the Moebius kit?


Uh, yeah. I did. You'll find the results way back on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## johnF

Carson Dyle said:


> Uh, yeah. I did. You'll find the results way back on page 1 of this thread.


D'oh!


----------



## John P

Lee Staton said:


> Okay, this isn't scribing...but it is about scale.
> 
> In judging many contests over the years, both military and sci-fi, I often notice that panel differentiations (shades of gray) on white aircraft/spacecraft are too radical and make the model look like a checkerboard. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional. I think this happens because it's hard to darken the base coat and see the job you're doing without going too far. When it's so contrasty, it loses all sense of scale--which was the whole purpose of paneling in the first place!
> 
> In his figure modeling videos, David Fisher addresses this topic by noting how modelers airbrushing muscle shading on figures stop once they've painted the shadows and highlights...which can be too strong. He takes a saved amount of the original basecoat, thins it way down, and airbrushes that carefully back over the shading job to even it out. I've done this on an unshirted figure and it works beautifully!
> 
> I want to try this thinned base color overcoat on a Space Clipper. I think it will help the scale effect and be far less heavy-handed.
> 
> Lee


I've used that technique on a couple of aztecking paint jobs, and, yes, it works great.


----------



## spock62

Lee Staton said:


> Okay, this isn't scribing...but it is about scale.
> 
> In judging many contests over the years, both military and sci-fi, I often notice that panel differentiations (shades of gray) on white aircraft/spacecraft are too radical and make the model look like a checkerboard. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional. I think this happens because it's hard to darken the base coat and see the job you're doing without going too far. When it's so contrasty, it loses all sense of scale--which was the whole purpose of paneling in the first place!
> 
> In his figure modeling videos, David Fisher addresses this topic by noting how modelers airbrushing muscle shading on figures stop once they've painted the shadows and highlights...which can be too strong. He takes a saved amount of the original basecoat, thins it way down, and airbrushes that carefully back over the shading job to even it out. I've done this on an unshirted figure and it works beautifully!
> 
> I want to try this thinned base color overcoat on a Space Clipper. I think it will help the scale effect and be far less heavy-handed.
> 
> Lee


Actually, this is what I was thinking of doing if I felt the kit's decal panel lines/shaded panels were too intense.


----------



## StarshipClass

I'm thinking decals as much as possible. I like the gray panels but hate the thought of masking and painting over and over if I can do it on the computer.


----------



## GKvfx

A few techniques that I've tried at various times over the years - 

*Masked panels with very light overspray of a slightly different shade of the base color.* Basically, using a flat clear lacquer with just a hint of paint, and heavily thinning the mix. If you can see the color contrast with the first pass of the airbrush - it's too heavy. I use this when I'm spraying a coat of "dust" or "fine mud" over a model. Think of a dark color car after it's been driving around in the rain. When it dries, it gets that faint dusty covering. Well, this is the same thing, except you are masking off certain areas. This keeps the base color from being obliterated and reduces contrast.

*For a little relief try an applique of thin Scotch tape.* We used this a lot when making masters and wanted just a slight relief (more than paint, less than sheet styrene). So long as the tape is sufficiently sticky and you keep your greasy hands off of the sticky side, it should be sticky enough that it won't peel up after a coat of paint. Carson tends to use multiple cans of Tamiya spray paint per model, which may obliterate the effect. But if you were to lay the tape panels down after one coat of the base color, and then apply a couple more coats with an airbrush on top of the tape, it should still give some relief to the model.

*Sheens - (Not Charlie or Martin).* Very effective way to break up the paneling. Use the overspray method above, just with clear gloss/flat/semi-gloss.

*Pencil lines.* Works better on flat/dull coated models. Couple of different ways to do this. A straight line drawn on. (Can be kinda contrasty on a white model). A smudged pencil line (drawn on and then rubbed with a finger). Or a pencil line drawn on and smudged with some sort of mask protecting an area.

*Sanding the paint to get a different sheen.* Rather than applying another paint, mask off an area (probably using that Dymo label tape) and lightly wet sand the masked off area. May not be the sharpest demarcation line possible, but it will break up the surface. Alternately, you could use a straight razor blade and a straightedge to slightly scrape away the top layer of paint. (FYI - Pat McClung used this method on the original paintjob of the Sulaco from "Aliens.")

More ideas as they come to me..........

Gene


----------



## StarshipClass

Great reference pics! Thanks!


----------



## Carson Dyle

GKvfx said:


> Carson tends to use multiple cans of Tamiya spray paint per model, which may obliterate the effect.


Hey, on those big, rounded, organic, shiny Irwin Allen models I find a lot of primer works in my favor.



Clearly that won't be the case in this instance due to the aforementioned obliteration of detail that would ensue.

I've spent part of the morning performing basic clean-up chores. 

Like all styrene kits, the Moebius Clipper has a fair share of minor surface imperfections, blemishes, etc. (usually where a joint or seam on the inside of the model is "bleeding" through to the exterior). 

Probably goes without saying, but I strongly advise giving the parts a good preliminary once-over with 320/ 400 sandpaper. Additional, post-panel-scribing sanding will be required later on, so you probably don't need to take the first pass over 400 -- just enough of a grade to get rid of the more obvious irregularities in the plastic.

I will say this for the Moebius kit; the parts fit together beautifully; in some cases, almost seamlessly.

Special thanks once more to Starseeker for his previously posted scribing link (see thread pg. 1). I'd never tried the sewing-needle-in-a-pin-vice technique for scribing, but I conducted a quick test this morning on a piece of scrap styrene and the results were EXACTLY what I'd hoped they'd be. 

Anyone planning to add subtly engraved lines to this kit would do well to play around with this surprisingly easy to use tool. A couple of "medium pressure" passes are all that's required to score a properly scaled panel line. The needle width is PERFECT for the Clipper. 

Yes, you do have to take a moment to sand down the excess ridges which form on either side of the freshly scribed-out lines, but this only takes a second or two. The back of a #11 blade, subsequently run LIGHTLY through the scribed-out trench does a quick job of cleaning out the dust that settles there after sanding. Finally, a Q-tip dipped in rubbing alcohol washes out any remaining particles.

I'll post a test shot later so you guys can judge for yourselves. No doubt there are other techniques that would get the job done, but I'm sticking with the needle-in-a-pin-vice. 

I've yet to determine exactly how deep or heavy to make the panel lines in order to withstand light priming and painting coats. The goal is to make them _just_ deep enough to effectively accommodate a) the airbrushed primer coat, b) the airbrushed surface finish (I'll probably use decanted Tamiya lacquer) and c) a light detail wash to bring out the detail.

More tests to follow...


----------



## flyingfrets

Something else to look into is what the aircraft guys call "pre-shading" instead of washes. Don't know much about the technique, but the effect is pretty sharp if done right. Have no idea if there are any scale limitation issues, just thought I'd pass it on...


----------



## Kitzillastein58

Carson Dyle said:


> Special thanks once more to Starseeker for his previously posted scribing link (see thread pg. 1). I'd never tried the sewing-needle-in-a-pin-vice technique for scribing, but I conducted a quick test this morning on a piece of scrap styrene and the results were EXACTLY what I'd hoped they'd be.
> 
> No doubt there are other techniques that would get the job done, but I'm sticking with the needle-in-a-pin-vice.
> 
> 
> 
> More tests to follow...


How do you determine the depth of the scribe lines? Is it possible to go too deep, and if that happens, can you just use putty or something like Bondo to fix it?


----------



## ajmadison

Lee Staton said:


> Okay, this isn't scribing...but it is about scale.
> 
> In judging many contests over the years, both military and sci-fi, I often notice that panel differentiations (shades of gray) on white aircraft/spacecraft are too radical and make the model look like a checkerboard. I'm pretty sure this is unintentional. I think this happens because it's hard to darken the base coat and see the job you're doing without going too far. When it's so contrasty, it loses all sense of scale--which was the whole purpose of paneling in the first place!


Before there were aztek decals, before there was pre-cut vinyl masks, modelers who wanted to replicate intricate panel detailing did it the hard way. Hand cut frisket masks, and certain skills with paint & airbrush/paint bombs. Not that I'm claiming I'm an airbrush expert, just that I was practiced in certain skills. 

Wish the pictures were better, and soon there will be:

http://starshipmodeler.com/gallery/contest3/scr15.htm

Anyway, when I did my own Federation Starship, I did it the Star Fleet Assembly Manual #4 way. I applied a basecoat of white gloss paint. SFAM #4 recommends a second color of flat white. But I did tests and didn't like it. What I did do, was started with a full bottle of white paint, and started adding individual drops of grey paint until I could discern a color change. At the time I wrote the details down in case I needed a second bottle, but that's long gone. Now, by saying, discern a color change, I had a test piece with the original base coat on it, if I couldn't tell the difference between the original and the test patch next to it, I would add another drop or two to the second color bottle and try again. Since I was cutting masks applying them over the space of a week, this series of tests could be done over many hobby nights. I would let the test patch dry over night to be sure it didn't cure to a different color. 

So the short version, is yes, its hard to darken the base coat. If you don't have experience in it, test and retest until you have a very subtle effect. Once you have your second color, paint the base color, mask, and shoot the second color. Hope for the best when you pull the masks.


----------



## phantom11

Lots of great suggestions here! Thanks for starting this thread; I've got the Moebius Space Clipper and the Aurora Orion in the que, and would like to get both looking their best. 

One question: I've been reading Martin Bower's "How to" on his Clipper model, and noticed that he scribed in panels with a surgical scalpel AFTER applying the base coat. Then used graphite to differentiate panels. Anyone ever try this?


----------



## mach7

Anyone build one yet? 

I went to my LHS today to pick up paint for my Spindrift and one of the guys had his started. He said there were fit problems around the wing/fuselage join.


----------



## Lee Staton

Haven't glued mine yet, but I have trimmed and fitted the parts. With a very small amount of massaging, I thought the fit was great.

I love the way the wings were made. Might get this glued in the next night or two--real job permitting.

We'll see.

If not, I'll be taking it with me to the IPMS show in Indianapolis on Saturday and workin' on it at Dave Hodge's tables. That and the Spindrift should be fun!

Lee


----------



## spock62

mach7 said:


> Anyone build one yet?
> 
> I went to my LHS today to pick up paint for my Spindrift and one of the guys had his started. He said there were fit problems around the wing/fuselage join.


I'm in the test-fitting stage, holding the pieces together with tape. Overall the fit is good, the wing/fuselage joints will need to be filled, though it's nothing serious. Fit of the aft bulkhead (where the engine room was on the old Aurora model) is very good, I'll probably leave it off so I can insert a wooden dowel in the fuselage to hold it during painting. Fit of the intake/exhausts will require putty, particularly the top intakes.

The kit is very nice, more accurate then anything done in styrene before, but it does have some issues. First, there's a lot of flash, which is odd for a new kit. Seems the molds don't mate well, which, I believe, causes the next problem, the ribbing around the fuselage where the Pan-Am logos will go is missing on the top of the fuselage pieces. It goes from ribbing to a plain curved surface. This is wrong and will need to be addressed. Emailed Moebius today about this, waiting on a reply.

Second issue, are the decals. There's two problems with them, in my opinion. First, the panel lines, while very thin (a good thing), are also very dark. This makes them stand out too much, at least based on what I've seen of the studio model. Secondly, there's not enough of them. Moebius provides panel-line/shaded panel decals for the wings, a few areas on top of the ship and one on the bottom, about 50% of what is needed. There are quite a few shaded panels seen on the studio model that are not included with the kit. These will have to be added, based on available photos and eyeballing what colors to pick in order to match the decals.

Lastly, there are no frames for the canopy windows. Again, you'll have to use available photos to see how this is done.

Overall a great little kit, somewhat tarnished by so-so decals. But, that's my opinion, your mileage might vary.


----------



## Paulbo

spock62 said:


> ...First, there's a lot of flash, which is odd for a new kit...


Hmmm. Mine doesn't have any flash.



spock62 said:


> ...the ribbing around the fuselage where the Pan-Am logos will go is missing on the top of the fuselage pieces. It goes from ribbing to a plain curved surface...


Actually, the lack of ribs at the top is entirely due to the molding process. Without going to a multi-action mold (that would greatly increase the cost) there's no way to make the ribs go all the way around the hull.

This is, however, fixed by my photoetch set.



spock62 said:


> ...Lastly, there are no frames for the canopy windows...


Again, my photoetch set solves this as well - the window frames are included in the set.


----------



## spock62

Paulbo said:


> Hmmm. Mine doesn't have any flash.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the lack of ribs at the top is entirely due to the molding process. Without going to a multi-action mold (that would greatly increase the cost) there's no way to make the ribs go all the way around the hull.
> 
> This is, however, fixed by my photoetch set.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, my photoetch set solves this as well - the window frames are included in the set.


Maybe it was just my copy, but the kit has flash. Nothing a few minutes and a file/sandpaper can't take care of, but it was a bit surprising given that other Moebius kits I have are flash free.

Why some of the ribs are missing is not as important as the fact...that the ribs are missing. Aurora was able to do this back in 1969, not sure why Moebius can't accomplish this in 2011. As for the canopy frames, every aircraft kit I've purchased since the '70's has framing depicted on the clear parts or as part of the fuselage parts. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice if the frames had been molded on.

I know about your photoetch set and it looks to be of the same high quality as your others (some of which I've purchased in the past), but, I don't feel I should have to spend an extra $25-$30 to correct errors/omissions that the manufacturer made. If the kit was produced back in the '60's I'd give it a pass, but not when it has been produced this year!

My point wasn't to bash the kit or the company, just to give mach7 some input regarding the kit and wither or not it has any fit issues.


----------



## John P

Paulbo said:


> Actually, the lack of ribs at the top is entirely due to the molding process. Without going to a multi-action mold (that would greatly increase the cost) there's no way to make the ribs go all the way around the hull.


And yet, they were just fine on the 40-year-old Aurora kit, with only a tiny, tiny smooth section of maybe two corrugations-width.


----------



## =bg=

Just bought this kit on eBay. Now, what kinda paint do I need for this? I assume not much as no interior, right?

Funny, I always thought was is the back, was the front. And vice versa.


----------



## spock62

Also, the area in question, as shown on the kit instructions (assembly page and decal placement page), has all ribs shown. This would lead you to assume that Moebius intended to have all the ribs on the kit, so something went wrong in the molding process I would think. Surprised they didn't catch this before production began.


----------



## spock62

=bg= said:


> Just bought this kit on eBay. Now, what kinda paint do I need for this? I assume not much as no interior, right?
> 
> Funny, I always thought was is the back, was the front. And vice versa.


The instructions list overall flat white (or, if using decals, gloss white, add decals, then overcoat with flat clear) with black for the engine exhaust area in the tail. No interior is included.


----------



## =bg=

spock62 said:


> The instructions list overall flat white (or, if using decals, gloss white, add decals, then overcoat with flat clear) with black for the engine exhaust area in the tail. No interior is included.



you mean it has to be painted white even tho it's molded in white?


----------



## jbond

It's not molded in FLAT white. And it's always a good idea to paint a kit no matter what it's molded in because plastic has a tendency to yellow a lot more than paint does. I've also discovered on white kits like this that it's a good idea to paint the whole thing gloss black first, then cover it with white. This gives a bit of dimension to the detail, plus it prevents light from leaching through the hull.


----------



## kenlee

mach7 said:


> Anyone build one yet?
> 
> I went to my LHS today to pick up paint for my Spindrift and one of the guys had his started. He said there were fit problems around the wing/fuselage join.


The fit problem is easily solved with a .015 strip of styrene glued to each wing root, this makes the gap virtually disappear, easier than trying to apply and sand putty in that area.


----------



## kenlee

spock62 said:


> The kit is very nice, more accurate then anything done in styrene before, but it does have some issues. First, there's a lot of flash, which is odd for a new kit. Seems the molds don't mate well, which, I believe, causes the next problem, the ribbing around the fuselage where the Pan-Am logos will go is missing on the top of the fuselage pieces. It goes from ribbing to a plain curved surface. This is wrong and will need to be addressed. Emailed Moebius today about this, waiting on a reply.


The lack of ribbing is easily addressed with careful use of an xacto knife and a straight edge. Score the plastic with a firm, even pressure and this replicates the look of the ribs. You may want to practice on a scrap piece of styrene to find what works best before attempting it on the model. 
The flash problem is unusual, mine had very little flash, about 1/4 mm around the edges of the parts.


----------



## spock62

Thanks for the tips kenlee. Was planning on scribing the missing ribs and I'll definitely use your idea for the wing roots. But, regarding the missing ribs, my point is that the kit has a molding error that the company needs to correct. Even though it's easy to add this detail back in, it should have been there to begin with. The other issues I have with the kit, decals being the exception, aren't that big of a deal to me.


----------



## John P

kenlee said:


> The fit problem is easily solved with a .015 strip of styrene glued to each wing root, this makes the gap virtually disappear, easier than trying to apply and sand putty in that area.


Excellent idea, thank you, kind sir. I was all set to just leave the gap 'cause wingroot gaps are hell.


----------



## Mark Dorais

Carson Dyle said:


> Few more...
> 
> *Please note that the "top" and "bottom" views posted below are not of the original filming miniature, and are simply someone's interpretation of it. Likewise, the frame grabs of the canopy area were taken from a "2001" documentary, and it's my impression that they do NOT depict the original filming miniature. *
> 
> Shots of the Clipper's underside are _very_ scarce indeed, so we kinda hafta make do with what we can get.


 It's intersting that on the shots of the filming miniature that there is a slight flaring out the forward fuselage where it joins to the beginning of the wing....kind of a filet! Is this detail on the Moebius kit?


----------



## Paulbo

John P said:


> And yet, they were just fine on the 40-year-old Aurora kit, with only a tiny, tiny smooth section of maybe two corrugations-width.


Cool. I wonder how they did that.


----------



## Carson Dyle

I'd never noticed that.... But...

The Last 3 closeup shots posted above do NOT depict the original filming miniature.

Those screen grabs were taken from one of the 2001 DVD extras, and if im not mistaken that's Martin Bower's Orion we're seeing.

Which is not to say the original lacked the feature you're referring to.

The area in question, the point at which the leading inboard edge of the wings connects to the fuselage, needs a bit of custom tweaking in any event.


----------



## John P

For no particular reason, here's a comparison of my Stargazer 1/144 Orion cargo version, the Moebius Orion (in primer gray), and my old good ol' Aurora model.


----------



## Antimatter

Is it true that Stanley Kubrick had all the models destroyed? Anyway, I found these and they may be of some use.
http://www.underview.com/atkorion.html
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/2001/2001int.htm


----------



## Allan31

*Airfix Orion III*

Greetings All,
Found this chat about the new Moebius Orion and thought I would show what can be done with the older stuff, but I now can't post pics unless i ahve posted 2 or more...

Humph......


----------



## Allan31

So now this is my second post, perhaps I can post pics next time up.....


----------



## Allan31

*Airfix Orion III*

Thought I would show the old stuff, I completed this in April of 2009...

Airfix Orion III with the nose, windows and engine nacelle corrected with pencil panel lines and three shades of gray airbrushed on....









































































I can't wait to get my hands on the new one....
Enjoy your model building !!!!,
Allan


----------



## deadmanincfan

I'm not a vehicular kit guy per se, but that it a sweet build! :thumbsup:


----------



## Xenodyssey

That is a really nice version. Great panelling.


----------



## Aurora-brat

Saw this when you posted it over on Hyperscale, that is one outstanding build of that kit. It shows that with same effort (or in this case a whole lot of effort) a silk purse can truly be made of a sow's ear.

Thanks for posting it, great to see it again!

Tory


----------



## Paulbo

Drat, Aurora-brat, you stole the analogy I was going to use "silk purse from a pig's ear" (at least that's the way I know it).

Sweet work, Allan! I have one of those down in the basement and it never occured to me to file off the insanely oversized detailing. D'oh! Great job.


----------



## Aurora-brat

Paulbo said:


> Drat, Aurora-brat, you stole the analogy I was going to use "silk purse from a pig's ear" (at least that's the way I know it).
> 
> Sweet work, Allan! I have one of those down in the basement and it never occured to me to file off the insanely oversized detailing. D'oh! Great job.


So sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder! 

Not sure, but Allan can confirm that a whole lot more work went into that then just filing off the oversized detail. If my memory serves, he did some very extensive cutting and reshaping in the engine area, and added a lot of detailing as well. 

Though I'm no expert on the Orion, I believe Aurora got the overall shape better than Airfix, but until Moebius came along with this recent issue, the Airfix kit was easier and cheaper to get than the Aurora. 

Thanks again Frank for issuing it! Its is definitely on my "to pick up" list!


----------



## falcondesigns

Welcome Allen,It's good to see someone who actually is a modeller.


----------



## StarshipClass

Allan31 said:


> Thought I would show the old stuff, I completed this in April of 2009...
> 
> Airfix Orion III with the nose, windows and engine nacelle corrected with pencil panel lines and three shades of gray airbrushed on....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait to get my hands on the new one....
> Enjoy your model building !!!!,
> Allan


EXCELLENT work, sir!:thumbsup:


----------



## Antimatter

I built one as a kid. I always wanted a Discovery too.


----------



## spock62

For those who are interested, I just received a reply from Moebius regarding the missing ribs on the top of the fuselage (by the Pan Am logos):

Hi,

I see what your talking about, the model itself is correct, the instructions should not have the grooves showing all the way up. I apologize for the inconvenience. The kit itself is not based on any filming miniatures.

Thanks.
Moebius Models

So, my question is this (which I also asked the guys at Moebius in a reply to the above), if the model is correct and it is supposed to be the most accurate styrene kit made of the subject and it is NOT based and any of the filming miniatures, then what exactly is it based on? The photos of the filming minatures seem to show the ribs on top, but I might be mistaken. At any rate, those of use trying to make as accurate a replica as possible, might want to hold off scribing in those "missing" ribs!

Oh, and Allan31, that is a beautiful build, thanks for posting!


----------



## Paulbo

I think what they mean by "The kit itself is not based on any filming miniatures" is that the filming miniatures no longer exist so they could not take direct measurements off of it/them.


----------



## GKvfx

Antimatter said:


> Is it true that Stanley Kubrick had all the models destroyed? ........


Yes. Wait, no. Well, sorta - 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showpost.php?p=2404083&postcount=1

Gene


----------



## spock62

Paulbo said:


> I think what they mean by "The kit itself is not based on any filming miniatures" is that the filming miniatures no longer exist so they could not take direct measurements off of it/them.


That's correct, the original filming miniatures don't exist (or do they?), but there are some photos of the miniature, which have been posted on this thread, that could have been used as a guide. The statement from Moebius seems to indicate they didn't use these photos. Again, if the photos where not used, which are the only "surviving" record (that we know) of what the Orion looked like, what did Moebius use? Also, every kit/drawing I've seen of the Orion looks like it has the ribs going around the fuselage, are they all inaccurate (not that this would be too shocking)? Not saying Moebius is wrong, just curious what their source material is.


----------



## Trekkriffic

That is a beautiful model Allan31.


----------



## Tim H.

spock62 said:


> That's correct, the original filming miniatures don't exist (or do they?), but there are some photos of the miniature, which have been posted on this thread, that could have been used as a guide. The statement from Moebius seems to indicate they didn't use these photos. Again, if the photos where not used, which are the only "surviving" record (that we know) of what the Orion looked like, what did Moebius use? Also, every kit/drawing I've seen of the Orion looks like it has the ribs going around the fuselage, are they all inaccurate (not that this would be too shocking)? Not saying Moebius is wrong, just curious what their source material is.


How about they used the images of the filming miniature that make up the frames of the film sequence? Hi-rez frame grabs, maybe they also had confidential access to material in the forthcoming book.

Terrific build, Allan31, hopefully mine will be half so good.


----------



## Allan31

*Panel line issues...*

Like you guys, I have been gleaning photos of this rarest of birds off the internet to use as reference for model building.
The "Ribs" around the fuselage at the Pan-Am logo. To my eye, this is not a 3-dimensional area, rather, it seems the ribs are drawn on like the rest of the panel lines on the studio model. Look closely at the area in question, no shadow from the ribs.

REMOVED BY MODERATOR - PHOTO TOO LARGE - PLEASE RESIZE AND RE-POST!

Same here, no shadow yet the edge of the collar catches light.

REMOVED BY MODERATOR - PHOTO TOO LARGE - PLEASE RESIZE AND RE-POST!

What I have come to call the "Average Truth" seems to be that these two shots are of the model used in the film.
A scarce shot of the bottom...










More pics can be found here:

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/orion3.htm

Hope this helps.
I can post a simple tutorial on the modes I did for this kit if anyone has it still lurking in their stash.
Thanks for all the comments, glad you enjoy my Orion !!
Allan


----------



## spock62

I think your on to something, Allan31. The ribs might be penciled lines after all.

It would be great if you posted a tutorial on your build of the Airfix kit, have one waiting to be built in my stash.

Thanks for the info/pictures.


----------



## fluke

Allen, If you weren't a guy I'd kiss you smack on the lips! 

YUCK!!!!!!! :tongue:

Thanks for those great images and the nifty link! :thumbsup:

Good show! I may choose to scribe in those lines behind the Pan Am logo ...like the rest of my Orion's lines will be done. If done carefully it can look real nice.

This is going to be a fun project indeed!


----------



## fluke

A good buddy of mine who has years of Studio experience under his wing just confirmed that the Discovery and Moon Bus also had their share of pencil lines.

Here is one other good view of such lines.


----------



## =bg=

How come no Pan Am decals? Trademarks prob?


----------



## fluke

Must be a studio thing as Pan Am isn't around to complain.


----------



## Paulbo

Pan Am as a trademarked name still exists. I believe the name was purchased by a region airline.


----------



## veedubb67

Pan Am was forced to declare bankruptcy on January 8, 1991. Delta Air Lines purchased the remaining profitable assets of Pan Am.

In November 2010 Pan American Airways, Inc. was resurrected. The company's inaugural flight was to Monterrey, Mexico on November 12, 2010. The airline has said it will carry cargo only at this stage but intends to announce passenger service by 2011.

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## xsavoie

Pan Am should feel honored that anyone uses their logo,especially for such a futuristic looking aircraft.It can only be a positive symbol for them.


----------



## Carson Dyle

Allan31 said:


> Like you guys, I have been gleaning photos of this rarest of birds off the internet to use as reference for model building.


Yeah, you might also want to check out page one of this thread.


----------



## phantom11

Some great stuff here, and Carson, the pics you've posted already are invaluable! Thanks for starting it up.

Re: the ribbing on the section with the Pan Am logo, I just picked up a couple sets of the PE parts from ParaGrafix. They've got a part in the set that takes care of the issue quite beautifully, and I'll be using it on the Clipper, along with penciled in panel lines.


----------



## BlackbirdCD

Paulbo said:


> Pan Am as a trademarked name still exists. I believe the name was purchased by a region airline.


They're making scads of money just selling Pan Am logo merchandise in tourist traps all over the planet. There's an entire range of retro-1960's items (ash trays, travel bags, T-shirts, etc.) with the classic Pan Am logo. It's likely the most money they're ever going to make on it, I doubt that a new Pan Am airline will ever exist. But you're correct, they guard their license closely, and it ain't cheap.


----------



## phantom11

*Just an observation....*

...not to throw a spanner in the works or anything, but I was looking at the new Pan American website (they re-started business late last year), and something in the photo on their homepage caught my eye. Now, I know this is a far more modern plane than what was around in the 60's, but look at the little detail I've circled and see if it doesn't remind you of anything we've seen on the Space Clipper....









Is it possible that what many have considered to be some kind of reaction control thruster is actually a lighting setup similar to what we see on this modern plane?

Just thinking...:dude:


----------



## mach7

Well, no.

That light is covered by an aerodynamic fairing, and there would be no requirement for a line of lights along the entire leading edge of the wing. Also during reentry the lenses would be subject to extreme heat.

Nice thought though.


----------



## SUNGOD

veedubb67 said:


> Pan Am was forced to declare bankruptcy on January 8, 1991. Delta Air Lines purchased the remaining profitable assets of Pan Am.
> 
> In November 2010 Pan American Airways, Inc. was resurrected. The company's inaugural flight was to Monterrey, Mexico on November 12, 2010. The airline has said it will carry cargo only at this stage but intends to announce passenger service by 2011.
> 
> Rob
> Iwata Padawan




I thought I'd heard that Pan Am was making a comeback. I remember a discussion a while back saying that the demise of Pan Am dated 2001 along with the films title date....but now it adds more realisim once again to the film as it's back.

The Orion can proudly wear the Pan Am logo once more!


----------



## John P

Aurora seemed to think that was a landing light, since they included clear lenses for it. But I'm pretty sure it's a retro thruster


----------



## Gemini1999

John P said:


> Aurora seemed to think that was a landing light, since they included clear lenses for it. But I'm pretty sure it's a retro thruster


John -

I remember that bit of clear plastic as well. I always took it to be some sort of a landing light. I don't see how you could mistake a piece of clear plastic as a retro thruster, but that's just my opinion.

Bryan


----------



## John P

_I _didn't mistake the piece of clear plastic for a retro thruster, I'm saying Aurora mistook the retro thruster for a landing light.


----------



## johnF

*Thruster*

Here is a close up shot. Looks to me like some kinda manuvering thruster.


----------



## Carson Dyle

SUNGOD said:


> I thought I'd heard that Pan Am was making a comeback.


That may depend on your definition of "comeback"...

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-28/...travelers-attendants-famous-logo?_s=PM:TRAVEL


----------



## Gemini1999

johnF said:


> Here is a close up shot. Looks to me like some kinda manuvering thruster.
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=129230&stc=1&d=1300466033


Linky no worky....


----------



## SUNGOD

Carson Dyle said:


> That may depend on your definition of "comeback"...
> 
> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-28/...travelers-attendants-famous-logo?_s=PM:TRAVEL




See what veedub's posted above.


----------



## spindrift

I think Moebius' Space Clipper is a great kit....any alterations can be made to builder's choice...we are modelers, right?
:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Talking of clear plastic. I've been looking at the pictures of the filming miniature and it appears that on the close up of the wings there's a landing type light on each tip. Anyone else noticed this?


----------



## Paulbo

There's a discussion of just that point in the Orion thread in the SF forum: http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=222210&page=9 (about half-way down).


----------



## SUNGOD

Thanks Paulbo. I'm not seeing things after all.


----------



## fluke

Now all this talk about lights has got thinking ( and yes...it hurts like hell! ) :freak: The Orion is a bi stratospheric craft...soooo

Where would they put lading lights? On the struts only or strut and wing edge comb? hmmmmmm.


----------



## Paulbo

A lot of planes have them on the forward landing gear struts. Or they could be in the little cutouts at the leading edge where wing meets the hull. (I can't think of what else would be in there - though like the extreme front, they're both totally un-aerodynamic and would heat up like heck during re-entry.)


----------



## fluke

Good point. We have already come to the conclusion that wing tip nav lights exist. Those seem to be clear....now for a vehicle of this nature we can assume that materials used may not have any problems with re-entry heat at all.

Not to mention the advanced techniques for re-entry alone could make a big difference on just how much heat builds up and where.

Mumbo jumbo aside.....its up to us the builders to have fun and do what ever we wanna! LOL


----------



## stargazer

fluke said:


> Good point. We have already come to the conclusion that wing tip nav lights exist. Those seem to be clear....now for a vehicle of this nature we can assume that materials used may not have any problems with re-entry heat at all.
> 
> Not to mention the advanced techniques for re-entry alone could make a big difference on just how much heat builds up and where.
> 
> Mumbo jumbo aside.....its up to us the builders to have fun and do what ever we wanna! LOL


 
The wing tip lights do indeed exist and can be seen on my resin orion version, (which I later painted red and green) 

also the wing root 'things' are landing lights. http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ORION 3 reference/pilots.jpg


also note that the wing leading edges are rounded not flat* as seen here (and on several other pix) http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=128770&d=1299972461

*the oval intakes not being set on a flat surface.. .


----------



## John P

stargazer said:


> The wing tip lights do indeed exist and can be seen on my resin orion version, also the wing root 'things' are landing lights. (which I later painted red and green)
> 
> http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/ORION 3 reference/pilots.jpg


Damn, I hope those pilots have pressure suits on!


----------



## John P

I see also in Ian's second picture that the wing leading edge should be scalloped for the scramjet intakes, not straight with small intakes like the kit.


----------



## stargazer

John P said:


> I see also in Ian's second picture that the wing leading edge should be scalloped for the scramjet intakes, not straight with small intakes like the kit.


 
Indeed...

I have altered one wing edge on the kit (see photo to compare)

Just sanded the edge round, and scrapped a sharp blade along the intakes to give them the 'scalloped' look of the studio model

http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/scallopes.jpg





PS The curved 'web' between the main engine exhausts needs to be made straight... it should not be curved.


Also he Windscreen needs to not have a 'curved top edge'. Top and Btm. should be near parallel ..(See pix below) (this is what the 'ridge' is all about, to facilitate this otherwise it comes out curved).


The Bulbs can be seen 'protruding' from their recesses in photo 'landing lights' (see here) http://www.planet3earth.co.uk/detail/


----------



## xsavoie

Unbelievable pictures.Thanks.Will these pictures inspire anyone out there in making a docking area with Orion diorama.


----------



## cbear

I second that! Great pics! Thanks for posting them.

Chuck


----------



## fluke

Bloody good Stargazer!! Awesome pics! Thank you! :thumbsup:


----------



## =bg=

Had to ditch those teeny decals. WAY to small for me to work with. Sure wish it had PAN AM on it, tho.


----------



## Allan31

Thanks everyone, glad you enjoyed my old Airfix Orion. Shame the Moebius issue has no decals but thanks to aftermarket, we can get.
Bravo Stargazer, cracking build you're doing. I believe you helped with pics for my build a couple of years ago.


----------



## Allan31

*Missing markings.....*

Just as a "heads-up" to everyone, the important "Pan-Am" writing on the bottom of the wings is not included on the TSDS sheet.




























But I found this sheet...










Here at scifi88's ebay store.

http://stores.ebay.com/Rockets-Decals?_trksid=p4340.l2563

Happy modeling all....

Allan


----------



## phantom11

Good catch on the logos for the wing underside; I picked up a set of decals from Acreation over at Cult TVMan:










http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space-Clipper-decals-from-Acreation_p_1619.html 

They've got some of the other smaller markings on the sheet, too...


----------



## xsavoie

Love the TSDS decals and details package.But would the photo etched interior being offered on Cult TV Man really make a difference,since the interior is not that much visible.


----------



## Paulbo

With lighting, the interior takes it from being blank windows to having depth to the interior. Think about old movies where the cityscapes looked fake because the windows were just lit rectangles all at the same brightness - later movies added curtains, the shapes of people behind the windows, and different lighting levels in various windows. A dramatic uptick in believability.

Of course I might be biased


----------



## SteveR

xsavoie said:


> But would the photo etched interior being offered on Cult TV Man really make a difference,since the interior is not that much visible.


Thin window glass should help.


----------



## fluke

With that......I may have to break away from my current project to show how the window 'glass' can be done. 

I keep walking into the Model / pet rat room and the 1st thing I see is the Moebuis Clipper box...OH man!!!!!


----------



## g_xii

Allan31 said:


> Just as a "heads-up" to everyone, the important "Pan-Am" writing on the bottom of the wings is not included on the TSDS sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi --

The underside PAN AM logo was not included in the first issue of the decals because I did not know about it! It was fixed over a month ago and extras were added:










If anyone who purchased the first issue of the Clipper decals and needs the additional decal, I have a small decal suppliment sheet that I can drop in the mail to you. 

I thought I had posted something about this but apparently I did not. Apologies to anyone that was inconvenienced...

PM or email me if you have any questions,

--Henry


----------



## robtrek

Oh, I did get my extra PAN AM supplement sheet as promised for us early buyers. Thank you very much for addressing this error and not just sluffing it off. Good business practice!


----------



## steve123

Here's my Airfix version that Henry and I did to test the decals.
I must take the blame for the missing underwing logos.
I knew they were needed but forgot to mention/didn't mention the ommision when I was working with the test decs.

















The paper interior looks nice in a lit interior...

Steve


----------



## spock62

Looks good Steve, I've got one in the stash that needs to be built, someday. 

Currently have the Moebius version on the work bench and was wondering if anyone has built this kit in it's Pan-Am markings. Was wondering how you guys tackled adding the panel lines/panels that the decals leave out. Pictures are welcomed!


----------

