# 1:48 scale Eagle from Round 2?



## Fozzie

Hey guys, read this:

http://culttvman.com/main/round-2-news-for-april-2015/


----------



## TIEbomber1967

Fozzie said:


> Hey guys, read this:
> 
> http://culttvman.com/main/round-2-news-for-april-2015/


 I'm taking this with a HUGE grain of salt! Listed in that "leaked information" are two kits we know are cancelled (Wicked Witch and King Kong).
Excelsior is a possibility as there are only a couple of pieces that need to be re-made. I'd like one, but I'm not holding my breath.
There is no chance in hell that a 1:48 scale Eagle will be ready by November of this year (if it's coming at all). Don't hold your breath either.
All the rest are re-issues so it's a real possibility for those, but Jamie at Round 2 has recently stated (on the Round 2 blog) that they will no longer announce anything new without having something physical to show for it (ie: test shot). So, I'm not sure what that means for re-issue announcements.
So did Cult TV Man just post rumors? Hmmm.


----------



## djnick66

Well it was posted in April... I am pretty certain its not a real kit and not coming out in November. Wasn't this discussed to death already here ?


----------



## RB

When giving an update on Round 2's schedule in Volume 36 of Sci-fi and Fantasy Modeler, Jamie ended on this "cryptic" message:

"Lastly, we've got a major (and possibly unexpected) kit development underway that may have rumours circulating soon. Although it might be shown on upcoming distributor price lists soon, I'm not going to talk about it or show anything until we have a mockup well underway, which I hope to have at _Wonderfest_. Lags in other kit development and cancellations of other kits keeps me from saying anything more until I have a mockup in my hands. But, if you hear something new is coming, I have no comment-_Jamie_"

When I saw "possibly unexpected", I figured it would be anything BUT a new Eagle, like maybe a Firefly kit. But here we are with a 1/48th Eagle showing up on distributor's lists. And an accessory kit as well. Guess we'll find out at the end of next month. SF&FM 36 was published at around the beginning of the year, and they usually have around a three month lead, so the quote would've been from around October-November 2014. And if James Small assisted with development, then they could conceivably ramp up pretty quickly. It may be time to start saving those pennies...


----------



## Hunch

If its accurate and not an up-scaled version of the MPC abomination (notice its listed under the MPC banner) I'm in for many, many kits.
Jim


----------



## RB

Hunch said:


> If its accurate and not an up-scaled version of the MPC abomination (notice its listed under the MPC banner) I'm in for many, many kits.
> Jim


I'm pretty sure that just a scaled-up version of the original MPC kit would lead to mobs armed with torches and pitchforks storming Round 2 headquarters...


----------



## Steve H

RB said:


> I'm pretty sure that just a scaled-up version of the original MPC kit would lead to mobs armed with torches and pitchforks storming Round 2 headquarters...


No, they just found the old Mattel Eagle toy tooling and are calling it a 'kit'. 

(OK, bad joke but you know, in some ways that would be a cool thing to do, kinda sorta maybe. I do wonder what happened to all the tooling for various toys over the decades.)


----------



## nostromorolls

*This may be...*

I'm a friend of Jim Small...

I live nearby

This has been in talks for over two years...

I maybe shooting myself in the foot...however - End Of MAY we will know!


----------



## Maritain

If R2 goes through with it, that would be FANTASTIC!!! I know I'll get at least two.


----------



## SUNGOD

There's probably some mix up and it's to do with the old MPC/Airfix kit........... but if it is a new all styrene kit (including the different pods) then the champagne corks will be popping in my house and I suspect many others too.


----------



## BWolfe

If this turns out to be true, I know what I will be giving myself for Samhain.


----------



## WOI

I've just heard about it today,but I find it hard to believe!


----------



## RMC

steve (culttvman) always has credible info


----------



## Steve H

So, OK, if it's true, and R2 is jumping to make a 1/48th scale Eagle, I'm happy for everyone, it's going to be a good seller for an expensive kit, and I suspect they've got a person/team assisting that will make this a great kit (with, undoubtedly, one or two surprising, tiny flaws that the Chinese factory will introduce because that's something that seems to happen no matter what), but I have to be a voice calling for, in addition to this magical kit, an all new tool Eagle in 1/72 as well. It's just logical. Lower pricepoint, smaller box size makes it more attractive to the overseas market that hungers for this subject. 

And besides, having a new tool Eagle in 1/72 allows forced perspective dioramas just like on TV. 

(dammit. Of course the existing '70s era kit is sufficient for that, and they tended to use photograph cutouts as well. I just want some excuse for a new 1/72 scale kit, OK? )


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson

TIEbomber1967 said:


> I'm taking this with a HUGE grain of salt! Listed in that "leaked information" are two kits we know are cancelled (Wicked Witch and King Kong).
> Excelsior is a possibility as there are only a couple of pieces that need to be re-made. I'd like one, but I'm not holding my breath.
> There is no chance in hell that a 1:48 scale Eagle will be ready by November of this year (if it's coming at all). Don't hold your breath either.....
> So did Cult TV Man just post rumors? Hmmm.





djnick66 said:


> Well it was posted in April... I am pretty certain its not a real kit and not coming out in November. Wasn't this discussed to death already here ?





SUNGOD said:


> There's probably some mix up and it's to do with the old MPC/Airfix kit..


So you think I sit around and make this stuff up? Really?


----------



## BWolfe

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> So you think I sit around and make this stuff up? Really?


Not everyone thought that.


----------



## Steve H

Steve, as a fellow Steve, it's all good. You have to admit, to us in the great unwashed this news is so COMPLETELY out of left field it's second nature to question. 

Naturally you've got tons more 'street cred' than all those other "I heard from a guy who knows this dude" types of posts, but the item is SO mind blowing, well. Just saying. Nobody is calling you a liar. At least I hope not, that's wrong.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> So you think I sit around and make this stuff up? Really?




Of course not Steve. I always find your site a good source of info.......but mistakes do happen and wrong info can get about and happen on any site. It's got nothing to do with us thinking you make stuff up.


----------



## mach7

If true, and I think it probably is, it's not unexpected. 
It follows what R2 has done in the past. re pop old kits with small improvements.
If they sell well we get a new kit.

The re pop eagle sold very well, if memory serves they had to do a second run because demand was so high. The new, deluxe kit just came out and I think it is selling well. 

The next step is an all new kit. Jamie has always said they will use the sales of the old kits to justify a new kit. The fact that the Deluxe kit uses the Small art works resin parts is a good indication that he is involved with the project. 

Logic would dictate,.... Oh wait, wrong franchise. 

THE FUTURE IS FANTASTIC!


----------



## JeffBond

The quote from Jamie certainly strengthens the possibilities; bonus points to R2 for keeping a project this big a secret too. VERY exciting...and if a big Eagle sells can a Hawk be far behind? 
Again, we are spoiled. Can anyone imagine something like this being put out in the 70s or 80s? Granted it's still not in our hands but what a possibility...


----------



## WOI

I am just saying R2 had announced something like this before but they 
didn't go through with it.


----------



## RB

WOI said:


> I am just saying R2 had announced something like this before but they
> didn't go through with it.


To be fair though they _haven't_ announced it. Steve picked up on it through the distributor's lists and reported what he found, but he was careful to put big question marks around everything. Jamie has mentioned kits in development before, like the Trek Shuttlecraft and the Sulaco, and those have yet to see production. So I think he's being understandably cautious for everyone's sake.

Slightly OT, but it's interesting to see the Wicked Witch kit resurrected in full resin, along with the Kong kit. Maybe resin production for figures is making financial sense for R2? 

My best friend works at the local hobby shop and confirmed the listing at Great Planes as 1/48 Eagle Transporter. Didn't mention the Accessory Set, which one certainly wonders about. Figures? Etch? The passenger pod stairs or in-scale moonbuggy? Lots to ponder...


----------



## fire91bird

I sure hope the big Eagle happens.


----------



## Dr. Brad

I have to admit it's not a kit I was interested in at first, but the more I think about it, well, it could be pretty cool!
Edit: I'm talking about the Eagle....


----------



## Sparky

Dr. Brad said:


> I have to admit it's not a kit I was interested in at first, but the more I think about it, well, it could be pretty cool!
> Edit: I'm talking about the Eagle....


I feel the same way on the Eagle. It does sound cool.

As a fan of the Excelsior design, I am looking forward to the reissue. I was under the impression that this kit wasn't gonna happen again. Since R2 has to do some retooling anyway, I am really hoping that they incorporate optional parts to permit the NX-2000 version to be built. 

My thanks Steve (Cult) for the heads up on these upcoming (or potential) kits. :wave:.


----------



## iamjafi

Really? Really!?!
I _just_ (and I mean 2 hours ago) ordered the Replicas Unlimited Eagle.
Where am I going to find space for a _second_ Eagle!?!


'Cuz you _know_ I'm gonna buy the Round2 kit.


----------



## WOI

RB said:


> To be fair though they _haven't_ announced it. Steve picked up on it through the distributor's lists and reported what he found, but he was careful to put big question marks around everything. Jamie has mentioned kits in development before, like the Trek Shuttlecraft and the Sulaco, and those have yet to see production. So I think he's being understandably cautious for everyone's sake.
> 
> Slightly OT, but it's interesting to see the Wicked Witch kit resurrected in full resin, along with the Kong kit. Maybe resin production for figures is making financial sense for R2?
> 
> My best friend works at the local hobby shop and confirmed the listing at Great Planes as 1/48 Eagle Transporter. Didn't mention the Accessory Set, which one certainly wonders about. Figures? Etch? The passenger pod stairs or in-scale moonbuggy? Lots to ponder...


Don't shoot the messager,I'm only just telling what I had read online.


----------



## RB

WOI said:


> Don't shoot the messager,I'm only just telling what I had read online.


My apologies, I didn't mean to sound strident WOI!


----------



## Fozzie

Such possibilities for add-on packs:

Science module
Winch module
Platform module
Cockpit interior w/ pilots (partial, at least)
Strap on boosters (side and top)
Pop-up laser cannon (Season 2)
Glider (from Season 2)
In scale Moon Buggy w/ astronauts
Lighting for cockpit and main engines

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming...

P.S. Who is going to be the first person to add some kind of system to blast rocket exhaust out of the bottom nozzles to simulate lift off?


----------



## Zombie_61

iamjafi said:


> Where am I going to find space for a _second_ Eagle!?!


At 1:48 scale, I don't even have space for a _first_ Eagle.


----------



## KUROK

1:48 would make it somewhere between the current kit and the RU kit in size?
Roughly 1.5 feet?

That would be sweet!

I always thought that would be a good size to detail and not too large.


----------



## ViperRecon

I would really prefer an accurate Eagle at around the size of the original MPC kit (like the smaller Product Enterprise die-cast Eagle) - I would probably pick up a couple of those, but 1:48 is cool (though I'd only be in for one kit at that size).

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## JPhil123

ViperRecon said:


> I would really prefer an accurate Eagle at around the size of the original MPC kit (like the smaller Product Enterprise die-cast Eagle) - I would probably pick up a couple of those, but 1:48 is cool (though I'd only be in for one kit at that size).
> 
> Mark in Okinawa


Hello,
I would definitely get at least one model at the 1/48 scale. I do have one 23 inch PE Eagle, and the smaller PE diecast Eagles. The 23 inch replica I have is the recon version. I might buy a 1/48 scale model, build it and decide, at the last minute, whether to make it a rescue version. What would really be nice, if the 1/48 scale Eagle model is actually released, would be an add/on or upgrade kit containing a 1/48 scale lab pod and booster (like they have in the MPC deluxe Eagle release). But I'm just thinking out loud here. Really, I would be very happy with an accurate 1/48 scale Eagle model.

Jim


----------



## Zombie_61

KUROK said:


> 1:48 would make it somewhere between the current kit and the RU kit in size?
> Roughly 1.5 feet?
> 
> That would be sweet!
> 
> I always thought that would be a good size to detail and not too large.


It depends on which length you use for the "real" Eagle, which I've found can vary three to four feet. At 1/48 scale, I'm guessing it would be a little over 2' long.

I'm with ViperRecon--I'd really prefer an accurate Eagle that's roughly the same size as the MPC kit.


----------



## BWolfe

Zombie_61 said:


> It depends on which length you use for the "real" Eagle, which I've found can vary three to four feet. At 1/48 scale, I'm guessing it would be a little over 2' long.
> 
> I'm with ViperRecon--I'd really prefer an accurate Eagle that's roughly the same size as the MPC kit.


I believe that the accepted scales we have for the Eagles came from the original studio models, the 44 inch model used 1/24 scale Gemini astronaut figures so it was accepted as being 1/24 scale. The 22 inch model, being half the size was accepted as being 1/48 scale and the 11 inch model is 1/96 scale. In reality, the 1/24 scale figures were a little large for the 44 inch model, but looked good. 
I have seen scales for the 44 inch model on various fan sites ranging from 1/30 scale to 1/35 scale. 
Either way, I expect the Round 2 model to be fantastic and I will be happy with an 18 to 22 inch Eagle model.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

I have a resin shell of a '44" studio scale' Eagle beak for which I'm building an interior. I've found that the best fit is an odd scale, about 1/28.5. When I eventually get it done, I'll depict an Eagle cockpit crashed on the Lunar surface with the door open and footprints leading away. It'll be entitled "Alan Carter Rides Again".


----------



## SUNGOD

ViperRecon said:


> I would really prefer an accurate Eagle at around the size of the original MPC kit (like the smaller Product Enterprise die-cast Eagle) - I would probably pick up a couple of those, but 1:48 is cool (though I'd only be in for one kit at that size).
> 
> Mark in Okinawa





A 1/48th kit won't be that big. The Eagles are long slender things so a 22 inch Eagle won't take up that much shelf space.


----------



## Hunch

If they make it and it does not need to be reworked to death (if they do their homework) I will buy so many of them they will need two molds to keep up with my purchases!
If they rush it out of the gate and it needs to be upgraded to look correct that will limit my purchases...maybe to none.
Do it right guys! Make me spend my money!


----------



## SUNGOD

Same here. If they're good the dangerous thing is I can see me buying at least 7 of them as I don't want to just do the on screen vehicles. I'd love to paint 2 up in the colours of the Dinky Eagles (so I really hope they do the Nuclear Hazard pod) and a few other schemes that weren't on the tv.

The advantage of the Eagles is there's quite a few variations and they could do a Hasegawa and sell the different versions in different boxes. I hope they do the cockpit and transporter pods windows in clear plastic too.


----------



## BWolfe

I can see at least three of these in my future, especially if the kit is done right and no aftermarket pieces are required to get a decent model.


----------



## SUNGOD

I found it a shame (and very puzzling) why Product Enterprise never did the Nuclear hazard pod especially seeing as it was probably much more well known than the Freighter pod because of the Dinky Eagles (even if they wrongly called it a freighter). 

So if there is an Eagle in the pipeline and anyone from R2 reads this.......a Nuclear Hazard pod is a must. It's also probably the coolest looking out of the pods too as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## ClubTepes

BWolfe said:


> I believe that the accepted scales we have for the Eagles came from the original studio models, the 44 inch model used 1/24 scale Gemini astronaut figures so it was accepted as being 1/24 scale. The 22 inch model, being half the size was accepted as being 1/48 scale and the 11 inch model is 1/96 scale. In reality, the 1/24 scale figures were a little large for the 44 inch model, but looked good.
> I have seen scales for the 44 inch model on various fan sites ranging from 1/30 scale to 1/35 scale.
> Either way, I expect the Round 2 model to be fantastic and I will be happy with an 18 to 22 inch Eagle model.


That is a common misconception.

Yes, it is likely that they PLANNED on them being 1/24 and 1/48.

However, the 44" Eagle is actually 43.25" long.
And the 22" Eagle is actually 23" long. 
So it doesn't work out to be an even halving of the larger Eagle.

Just because you put 1/24 Scale Gemini figures in your miniature, doesn't actually make your miniature 1/24 scale.

Other things have to be taken into consideration.
For example, the pod door on the set, is 6' tall - Which doesn't support the 1/24 scale at all.

Also, the cockpit won't fit into either of those scales.

Here is a link that discusses the possible lengths of the Eagle.

http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umeaglescale.html

Based on a hyper-accurate set of Blueprints of the 43.25" Eagle, the minimum length for the Eagle would be 94'
94' based on matching the length for the height of the pod door.
(This makes the 11.75" round 2 Eagle exactly 1/96 scale.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, is the 102' postulated by Roberto Ballisari (Sp?)

The average of those two measurements (94' and 102') is 98'.

Making the 11.75" Round 2 kit. 1/100 scale.

A nice thing about the 1/96 and 1/100 scales, is that you can get figures in those scales.

The Catacombs suggests 100 feet as the best length to fit all the relevant issues.

So, any length between 94' and 102' and your probably safe.

Its all based on your personal tolerances.


----------



## mach7

I don't really worry too much about the set fitting inside the eagle. 

Sets NEVER fit. They are designed to look good on camera. It's said that even the moonbus set won't fit inside the exterior.

Also the camera lenses can really effect the appearance of size.

If they intended the 44 inch eagle to be 44 inches, they intended it to be 1/24 scale, and used 1/24 scale figures that works for me. Giving a 88 ft eagle. 

This is how I figure it but I respect others will have different views on the subject.


----------



## ClubTepes

mach7 said:


> I don't really worry too much about the set fitting inside the eagle.
> 
> Sets NEVER fit. They are designed to look good on camera. It's said that even the moonbus set won't fit inside the exterior.
> 
> Also the camera lenses can really effect the appearance of size.
> 
> If they intended the 44 inch eagle to be 44 inches, they intended it to be 1/24 scale, and used 1/24 scale figures that works for me. Giving a 88 ft eagle.
> 
> This is how I figure it but I respect others will have different views on the subject.


Having worked on movies for over 25 years, I understand all that and that it has its place.
Back then, no one expected people like us to really analyze all of it to death.

It is always argued that film sets were made larger to accommodate ease of filming. 
While that might be true, it is only true on the horizontal axis's. Giving more floorspace for crew and equipment.
Set 'flats' for example, like those typical in the era of Star Trek, were 10 feet tall. The reason being, so that it was harder to shoot off the 'top' of the set.
For a long corridor like that on the Enterprise, those cross pieces are put in at 8 feet high, to again, give a barrier to keep from shooting off the top of the set and they give the opportunity to hide lights.
On your average 'room' set, like on any other TV show, you might notice a piece of cove moulding on the wall at 8', and then, the flat being painted a 'ceiling' color above that. Again, to give an illusion of a 'ceiling' to the set.

There is no need to enlarge the vertical axis such as a door. As this has a direct correlation to the actors movements.
A 5' high door is going to cause all actors to bend over, which would be apparent on screen, while a 6' door would not.
And vice versa, a 8' high door is going to read as a door much taller than a person.

One can call an Eagle 88 feet long all day long if they want to. 
But again, if a door is 6' tall, where actors (All except Martin Landau) can walk through it without bending over, its looks pretty funny putting figures next to it where the door only comes up to their shoulders.

THAT is something that doesn't jive with what people remember seeing on the show.

That is why I have no argument agreeing to the idea that they INTENDED to make something a certain scale in the production meetings.

It just didn't end up that way on the finished product.


----------



## SUNGOD

It would be cool if they could at least do a bit of an interior and a few figures. The PE diecasts are lacking in the windows department being just painted metal.


----------



## Steve H

ClubTepes said:


> Having worked on movies for over 25 years, I understand all that and that it has its place.
> Back then, no one expected people like us to really analyze all of it to death.
> 
> It is always argued that film sets were made larger to accommodate ease of filming.
> While that might be true, it is only true on the horizontal axis's. Giving more floorspace for crew and equipment.
> Set 'flats' for example, like those typical in the era of Star Trek, were 10 feet tall. The reason being, so that it was harder to shoot off the 'top' of the set.
> For a long corridor like that on the Enterprise, those cross pieces are put in at 8 feet high, to again, give a barrier to keep from shooting off the top of the set and they give the opportunity to hide lights.
> On your average 'room' set, like on any other TV show, you might notice a piece of cove moulding on the wall at 8', and then, the flat being painted a 'ceiling' color above that. Again, to give an illusion of a 'ceiling' to the set.
> 
> There is no need to enlarge the vertical axis such as a door. As this has a direct correlation to the actors movements.
> A 5' high door is going to cause all actors to bend over, which would be apparent on screen, while a 6' door would not.
> And vice versa, a 8' high door is going to read as a door much taller than a person.
> 
> One can call an Eagle 88 feet long all day long if they want to.
> But again, if a door is 6' tall, where actors (All except Martin Landau) can walk through it without bending over, its looks pretty funny putting figures next to it where the door only comes up to their shoulders.
> 
> THAT is something that doesn't jive with what people remember seeing on the show.
> 
> That is why I have no argument agreeing to the idea that they INTENDED to make something a certain scale in the production meetings.
> 
> It just didn't end up that way on the finished product.


Ya see, you got most of it, I think it's just one step you're ignoring. So, let's go thru filmmaking 101 for everyone's sake to see if we're on the same page. 

Three things to create an illusion. A miniature, an exterior set and the interior set. All three things are referenced and designed in concert, but they fulfill different needs, and production realities tend to infect a sort of 'mission creep' into them. To wit:

Miniatures are generally built to a scale. 1/3, 1/6, 1/12, 1/24 are fairly common (depending on the subject). The reason for this is has to do with the math of filmmaking. You want a model as large as you can because it makes the math easier. The lens, the type of film, the aperture, the seep the film runs in the camera, all that is tied to how much light you need for the desired finished look. It's all a part of the whole. Add in smoke or water or fire or explosions and it's even more complex. Standard scales give easily generated formula. As much art as science of course. Naturally there are subjects that aren't built to a scale per se, you get something like a Star Destroyer or the full length Discovery or Valley Forge, you're building as big as you can within the constraints of the shooting stage and where you have to place the camera. 

(of course there are many other factors. Building in 1/24 for a city gives you access to all those model kits of cars for easy and cheap detailing for one case.)

The exterior set is a different beast. There you have the constraints of the stage, the money, the ability of the construction crew to match the miniature, does it have to be portable, and so on. Often that results in 'semi-scale' sets. Generally speaking most exterior sets based on a miniature don't match well. 'Close enough' is the word of the day because it's not important, it's just a thing that's there for actors to walk in and out of and around. 

Interior sets can be the worst, because they're designed for the needs of being a place actors act in. Wild walls, open ceilings to allow the tons of light needed, the various 'cheats' to hide the fact that it's not a real room in a real place. Yes, a door is a door, a window is a window, both build to reflect the use of the actors, not what the result would be if it was constructed to reflect the imposed reality of the original miniature. 

I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien. 

So, this is my roundabout way of laying groundwork for this opinion: If the large Eagle miniature was designed at 1/24 scale, then that's what it is. If the Gemini astronauts seem 'too big' in the cockpit then the failing isn't in the build, it's in letting the influence of the interior set, the exterior set and the effects shot of actors superimposed on the windows trick you. We see people in those shots, it's NATURAL to believe that "it must be real because that person is standing there" but the reality is, as based solely on the main miniature, the Eagle is a cramped little ship. 

Has anyone ever tried to draw interior plans based ONLY on the conceit that the model is in 1/24 scale and that 6 foot high doors are a lie? Probably not as you cannot fit the interior sets in that at all. 

So, like the Seaview with it's 200 foot long crossways corridors and the Jupiter II with its impossible lower deck, rather than debating what the 'true' size of the Eagle is we may do better just building it as well as we can and not sweat that stuff. 

Look, of course it's our nature to want to reconcile those three separate and equal yet different imagery- Model, Exterior set and Interior set. It just doesn't work. It's fiction. It's fantasy. Suspension of disbelief and all that. In our wheelhouse the main thing is how does the model look? Se we build a 1/48 scale Eagle that maybe isn't REALLY 1/48th scale but it's OK. 

(Here's a secret: When I was building armor back in the '70s I paired some 1/35 scale Tamiya kits with Revell's 1/32 scale Huey for a diorama. Shhhh.  )


----------



## ClubTepes

Steve H said:


> Ya see, you got most of it, I think it's just one step you're ignoring. So, let's go thru filmmaking 101 for everyone's sake to see if we're on the same page.
> 
> Three things to create an illusion. A miniature, an exterior set and the interior set. All three things are referenced and designed in concert, but they fulfill different needs, and production realities tend to infect a sort of 'mission creep' into them. To wit:
> 
> Miniatures are generally built to a scale. 1/3, 1/6, 1/12, 1/24 are fairly common (depending on the subject). The reason for this is has to do with the math of filmmaking. You want a model as large as you can because it makes the math easier. The lens, the type of film, the aperture, the seep the film runs in the camera, all that is tied to how much light you need for the desired finished look. It's all a part of the whole. Add in smoke or water or fire or explosions and it's even more complex. Standard scales give easily generated formula. As much art as science of course. Naturally there are subjects that aren't built to a scale per se, you get something like a Star Destroyer or the full length Discovery or Valley Forge, you're building as big as you can within the constraints of the shooting stage and where you have to place the camera.
> 
> (of course there are many other factors. Building in 1/24 for a city gives you access to all those model kits of cars for easy and cheap detailing for one case.)
> 
> The exterior set is a different beast. There you have the constraints of the stage, the money, the ability of the construction crew to match the miniature, does it have to be portable, and so on. Often that results in 'semi-scale' sets. Generally speaking most exterior sets based on a miniature don't match well. 'Close enough' is the word of the day because it's not important, it's just a thing that's there for actors to walk in and out of and around.
> 
> Interior sets can be the worst, because they're designed for the needs of being a place actors act in. Wild walls, open ceilings to allow the tons of light needed, the various 'cheats' to hide the fact that it's not a real room in a real place. Yes, a door is a door, a window is a window, both build to reflect the use of the actors, not what the result would be if it was constructed to reflect the imposed reality of the original miniature.
> 
> I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien.
> 
> So, this is my roundabout way of laying groundwork for this opinion: If the large Eagle miniature was designed at 1/24 scale, then that's what it is. If the Gemini astronauts seem 'too big' in the cockpit then the failing isn't in the build, it's in letting the influence of the interior set, the exterior set and the effects shot of actors superimposed on the windows trick you. We see people in those shots, it's NATURAL to believe that "it must be real because that person is standing there" but the reality is, as based solely on the main miniature, the Eagle is a cramped little ship.
> 
> Has anyone ever tried to draw interior plans based ONLY on the conceit that the model is in 1/24 scale and that 6 foot high doors are a lie? Probably not as you cannot fit the interior sets in that at all.
> 
> So, like the Seaview with it's 200 foot long crossways corridors and the Jupiter II with its impossible lower deck, rather than debating what the 'true' size of the Eagle is we may do better just building it as well as we can and not sweat that stuff.
> 
> Look, of course it's our nature to want to reconcile those three separate and equal yet different imagery- Model, Exterior set and Interior set. It just doesn't work. It's fiction. It's fantasy. Suspension of disbelief and all that. In our wheelhouse the main thing is how does the model look? Se we build a 1/48 scale Eagle that maybe isn't REALLY 1/48th scale but it's OK.
> 
> (Here's a secret: When I was building armor back in the '70s I paired some 1/35 scale Tamiya kits with Revell's 1/32 scale Huey for a diorama. Shhhh.  )



Mixing 1/35 and 1/32!!!!!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!


But, where I disagree, is saying that actors not having to bend over going through a door, is superseded by model makers putting 1/24 scale astronaughts into a model.
As I have said, it is very likely that they did indeed plan on the model being 1/24. I'm not arguing that point. I'm just saying, it didn't turn out that way, nullifying the 'intended' scale.

Lets also, not forget that those pilots are way to low to actually look out the windows.
So there are a lot of cheats. But the one thing that is easily tangible,in relation to the human body, is the height of the door.


----------



## mach7

Good points. And I see your argument.

But I'm building the exterior of the ship, not the interior or full size pod exterior.

As with the J-2 or the Galileo I am more interested in an acurate exterior that matches the filming miniature. 

On a side note, a 6 foot door would work really well on a filming set, but would be an extravagance on a real ship of the size of the eagle. Doors/hatches/windows are structural weak links on a pressurized vehicle. They require a large amount of reinforcement to make up for the holes in the structure. This adds weight/mass that could be used for fuel/payload. A ship the size of the eagle should have a 5 ft door. This would allow easy ingress/egress in a hurry while limiting the extra mass as much as feasible. 

Is all this a huge rationalization on my part? could be. But Club Tepes you are completely correct when you say that no one 40 years ago could have imagined we would be having these discussions. I for one find the fact that we are having this discussion very satisfying.


----------



## The_Engineer

Even though I love the eagle, when I re-watched the series back in the early 90's, I found 'design mistakes' in the model. The forward and rear eagle sections on the model are a thin corridor with a door stuck on the end. This makes no sense at all. Inorder for the door to slide open, the door would slide out of the thin corridor and fall out! The corridor needs to be twice the width inorder to fix the door slide problem plus to make the set fit into the model. Also the back end of the command pod is too rounded and can't have the rear door on it. The command pod is just stuck on the forward corridor on the model. Some have fix the command pod rear by removing the end part and flatten the rear and adding a door to it. This is how the model should be with the 2 doors align with each other.

There's someone who was making a 50 inch eagle who is adding the interior to it. He took the forward and rear eagle sections corridor and has made them wider and added a section where the door slides into when it opens (this part sticks out into the side angle sections). This is how the eagle would truly look like if it was 'real'. If I was to build an eagle model (I'm being thinking about it for some time, perhaps in a few years) this is how I would build it.


----------



## Steve H

Remember the doors between modules and sections on Moonbase in UFO? Double thick, counter-operating, curved to fit the pressure sphere and a rather small opening, I think they were like 4 1/2 feet or thereabouts. No striding down the hallway doing a 'walk and talk' in that place!

Given the way the Eagle nose module curves, I've thought that design would have been a better 'fit', it would have made sense if they could have re-purposed the set piece, but it seems that wasn't looked at or an option.

So, they made up a bunch of standard doorways and hatches and used them all over the place. Smart from a design POV, troublesome for those of us trying to rationalize stuff that, when looked at, can't do what it's supposed to do. 

(word was that the sets for Alpha were beautifully flexible in their modular nature, but slip ups did happen, such as the vanishing steps to the 'outside wall' windows in Main Mission)


----------



## SUNGOD

The_Engineer said:


> Even though I love the eagle, when I re-watched the series back in the early 90's, I found 'design mistakes' in the model. The forward and rear eagle sections on the model are a thin corridor with a door stuck on the end. This makes no sense at all. Inorder for the door to slide open, the door would slide out of the thin corridor and fall out! The corridor needs to be twice the width inorder to fix the door slide problem plus to make the set fit into the model. Also the back end of the command pod is too rounded and can't have the rear door on it. The command pod is just stuck on the forward corridor on the model. Some have fix the command pod rear by removing the end part and flatten the rear and adding a door to it. This is how the model should be with the 2 doors align with each other.
> 
> There's someone who was making a 50 inch eagle who is adding the interior to it. He took the forward and rear eagle sections corridor and has made them wider and added a section where the door slides into when it opens (this part sticks out into the side angle sections). This is how the eagle would truly look like if it was 'real'. If I was to build an eagle model (I'm being thinking about it for some time, perhaps in a few years) this is how I would build it.




Yes as great as the Eagles are unfortunately there are some design flaws and not to mention the spine would probably be weak without the pods.


----------



## Paulbo

And let's not forget that they go straight from the cockpit into the pod, without having to walk through the service module.

In other words ... IT'S A TV SHOW AND IT'S ALL FAKE. :wave:


----------



## Owen E Oulton

For my money, the figures that came with the MPC/R2 Moonbase Alpha kit look just right with the MPC/R2 Eagle kits I'm using them in a diorama together. They look perfect to me.


----------



## RB

SUNGOD said:


> Yes as great as the Eagles are unfortunately there are some design flaws and not to mention the spine would probably be weak without the pods.


Speaking of...

So, any proposed styrene eagle kit of that size and scale will have to have the pod be integral and un-removable from the finished model, yes? Unless the spine was was die-cast or reinforced internally with metal rods, it would be too fragile to hold the weight fore and aft without a pod attached to the overall structure to provide stability. I'm not sure about the RU Eagle, but the Product Enterprises 24" Eagle depended on the pod being permanently attached to provide stability for the spine and cages. We've talked in the past about the variety of pods that could be produced for a new kit. Shouldn't we expect that any pod iteration (hopefully) issued will have to released as part of a complete Eagle kit release, and not separately as part of a "switch 'n' swap pod" kit strategy? 

Personally, I'd be fine with an annual or bi-annual Eagle release, each with a new and different pod.


----------



## ClubTepes

Paulbo said:


> And let's not forget that they go straight from the cockpit into the pod, without having to walk through the service module.
> 
> In other words ... IT'S A TV SHOW AND IT'S ALL FAKE. :wave:


Actually Paul, they did in the first season episodes, have the service module set.
I believe that it was in the second season, where they removed that piece and had the actors go from cockpit to pod as you describe.


----------



## ClubTepes

Owen E Oulton said:


> For my money, the figures that came with the MPC/R2 Moonbase Alpha kit look just right with the MPC/R2 Eagle kits I'm using them in a diorama together. They look perfect to me.


BINGO.

It comes down to what looks right to you.

And that is why I latch (no pun intended) onto the door so much.
It is a very tangible aspect of the ship in relation to actual humans.


----------



## ClubTepes

mach7 said:


> Good points. And I see your argument.
> 
> But I'm building the exterior of the ship, not the interior or full size pod exterior.
> 
> As with the J-2 or the Galileo I am more interested in an acurate exterior that matches the filming miniature.
> 
> On a side note, a 6 foot door would work really well on a filming set, but would be an extravagance on a real ship of the size of the eagle. Doors/hatches/windows are structural weak links on a pressurized vehicle. They require a large amount of reinforcement to make up for the holes in the structure. This adds weight/mass that could be used for fuel/payload. A ship the size of the eagle should have a 5 ft door. This would allow easy ingress/egress in a hurry while limiting the extra mass as much as feasible.
> 
> Is all this a huge rationalization on my part? could be. But Club Tepes you are completely correct when you say that no one 40 years ago could have imagined we would be having these discussions. I for one find the fact that we are having this discussion very satisfying.


All very good points.
And this of course is where we get into speculation.

What materials and construction methods are used in the future, etc.
What would the 'real' word mission parameters of an Eagle be?
Are those points still relevant.
I'd never say that they weren't, but then again, maybe they are.
There is no right answer to that.

And all that comes back to, does an Eagle NEED to be as small as some try to make it.
Sort of a side point, but when I finally saw a real Space Shuttle at Udvar-Hazy in DC, it was MUCH bigger than I had envisioned.
My point being, in Sci-fi film production, dues to the issues like what Steve brought up. Such as exteriors being made smaller due to cost and space.
We tend to get the idea in our heads that sci-fi vehicles are smaller, than they are planned to be.
Examples, the ST Galileo (exterior 3/4 scale), the Millenium Falcon (Both ANH and EPB were both built smaller).

On the show, the Eagles were capable of planet landings.
So I concede that for the purposes of the show, the Eagles could land and take off from a planet with gravity equal to that of Earth's.

But in a more realistic reboot of the show, would an Eagle be limited to functioning only in Lunar Gravity?
Such as only having the ability to traverse the distance from a space station and the moon.

Believe me, I'm not trying to go all 'JJ Abrams' and say an Eagle is 2,000 feet long.
In the 94' to 102' debate, I prefer to stay at the short end of the spectrum.
94' is the minimum length the Eagle can be, and still respect the 6' high door that the actors have to deal with.
The larger lengths are ones trying to 'fit' all the sets into.
So that is my conceit, in trying to respect the notion that a Eagle is a smaller craft.

People put SOOOOOO much value on this 1/24 scale idea.
Again, a very possible idea in pre-production. But as has been pointed out, things change from pre-production to the final result as aired on TV or in the theater.

Ok then, here is the math.

An 88' Eagle at 1/24 scale is 44"
However, the miniature isn't 44" its 43.25" inches long, making the Eagle 86.5' long.
Did the model makers fall short?
Was there some other change in the proposed length?
Who knows.

But hold on.
The 1/48 scale Eagle miniature (which by all accounts should be 22" long) is actually 23" long.
Again, what happened in the model making process.
23" certainly isn't 1/2 of 43.25" long. 

So it defiantly isn't an even halving of the larger Eagle model.

Because of this, both 1/24 and 1/48 don't agree with each other.
If the 23" miniature is supposed to be 1/48 scale, then the length of an Eagle would come out to be 92'

Because of all these errors and inconsistencies between the models, it just takes weight AWAY from treating any of their 'stated' scales as gospel.

That is why I go with the door, as one measurement that we can gauge in relation to a human being. 
A perfect answer?
No, because if we tried to fit all the sets in, then opposite would happen with the door. It would become too big.

But at least with a taller door, you aren't creating a visual conundrum with the established actions of the actors.


----------



## mach7

Club, We reach. 

A longer eagle might actually have room for fuel!

I had the same experience with Discovery at the Udvar-Hazy center. At first glance from the entrance she seemed about the expected size, but as I walked up to her, the size started to set in. She is big!

Having read "Destination Moonbase Alpha" and 2 and 1/2 of the "These are the Voyages" books It is apparent that Space 1999 was not as concerned with scientific accuracy or details as Star Trek was. If it looked good, and sounded good, and had some drama they were happy.


----------



## Trek Ace

I frankly don't care what the stated scale is for this kit. It doesn't matter to me.
If it is about the same scale and reasonably accurate to the mid-size fx model used on the show - that's good enough for me. I can determine the scale/figure size myself if I want to include them in a dio.


----------



## robn1

Trek Ace said:


> I frankly don't care what the stated scale is for this kit. It doesn't matter to me.
> If it is about the same scale and reasonably accurate to the mid-size fx model used on the show - that's good enough for me. I can determine the scale/figure size myself if I want to include them in a dio.


That's my thought too, match it to the 23in filming model. It's a good size without being too big. Then they can call it studio scale, and I can use the 1/48 Gemini figures.


----------



## phicks

"I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien."
*************************************************************
Actually, Andy Probert was always conscious of the connection between interior sets and the exterior model hull when he designed the TMP Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D. Note the curved walls in TNG interior ship sets like Ten Forward and crew quarters, which were meant to show they are on the edge of the saucer.


----------



## BWolfe

Trek Ace said:


> I frankly don't care what the stated scale is for this kit. It doesn't matter to me.
> If it is about the same scale and reasonably accurate to the mid-size fx model used on the show - that's good enough for me. I can determine the scale/figure size myself if I want to include them in a dio.


My thoughts exactly, If I want to do any kind of diorama with the model that includes figures, I will base the figures on the door height of the passenger pod. If Round 2 wants to call this model 1:48 scale, that is fine with me as long it is a great quality model that is at least close to the size of the mid-size filming model.


----------



## Richard Baker

phicks said:


> "I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien."


The Proteus from 'Fantastic Voyage' matched simply because they built the exterior around the interior- the only problem is there was no room left of the other equipment the vessel would need- ballast tanks, space for the telescoping struts to retract into, air tanks...

I am not going to spend much time pondering how the Eagles interior matches up to the exterior or what size it scales out to be accurate. My concern is when I look at it on the shelf, does it look like the craft I saw on the screen and does it look 'Real' instead of looking like an approximation.


----------



## Steve H

phicks said:


> "I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien."
> *************************************************************
> Actually, Andy Probert was always conscious of the connection between interior sets and the exterior model hull when he designed the TMP Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D. Note the curved walls in TNG interior ship sets like Ten Forward and crew quarters, which were meant to show they are on the edge of the saucer.


Yes, I know he was, and he worked very hard on that, but there's always the overriding director/producer reality. They want something to look 'this way' and all that care and work can go completely out the window. Let us not forget the cargo bay scene that was going to have a great big window in one wall because "looks cool", I think Probert managed to quash that but I seem to recall it was not an easy fight. OK, fight isn't the right term, there was his point of view and others who had more 'juice' and we're all glad Probert's vision was used. 

The Rec Room would be one example. Roddenberry wanted that "get everyone in one room' scene and to do that a set had to be built that's just crazy big. I think, if there had been some more thought, bringing everyone to the hanger deck/cargo bay area might have made more sense. 

And of course the new M/AM intermix chamber running from the engineering hull up the dorsal to the primary hull creates real issues for running a turbolift shaft.

(speaking of which, has there ever been a really clear shot of that 'turbolift route map' graphic briefly and blurry seen?)

Enterprise D is a whole other bag of fish. So big they can get away with the 'we can invent a room for whatever we need because modular' dodge. Only any room with windows really has to be careful.


----------



## SUNGOD

RB said:


> Speaking of...
> 
> So, any proposed styrene eagle kit of that size and scale will have to have the pod be integral and un-removable from the finished model, yes? Unless the spine was was die-cast or reinforced internally with metal rods, it would be too fragile to hold the weight fore and aft without a pod attached to the overall structure to provide stability. I'm not sure about the RU Eagle, but the Product Enterprises 24" Eagle depended on the pod being permanently attached to provide stability for the spine and cages. We've talked in the past about the variety of pods that could be produced for a new kit. Shouldn't we expect that any pod iteration (hopefully) issued will have to released as part of a complete Eagle kit release, and not separately as part of a "switch 'n' swap pod" kit strategy?
> 
> Personally, I'd be fine with an annual or bi-annual Eagle release, each with a new and different pod.





No I think it'll be more than ok to have the pods removable as styrene is lighter than the resin on the PE 24 inch Eagles. The pods are removable on the 12 inch diecasts and if we get this new Eagle (if of course as it's far from confirmed) a 1/48th version will only be about twice the size so even if the spine bends a bit it probably won't matter. That said R2 have to make their money back on these kits if we get them so I wouldn't object to them releasing different variants in different boxes like what PE did. As long as the pods are all styrene and we get the Nuclear hazard pod too.


----------



## Steve H

Just trying to think around the design, it's going to depend on the kind of plastic they use on a 1/48 scale Eagle. The spine frame may need to be shot in its own tool. Would ABS be stronger than styrene? 

Conceptually, I think the Eagle wasn't designed for prolonged work without a pod of some kind in place. A pod or platform would be an essential structural component. I could even see a kind of temporary 'ladder frame' to bridge the gap between the forward and aft service modules(bridging between the bottom parts of the modules, secured by the same clamps the various winch and transport platforms lock to), to be jettisoned when the ship maneuvered to retrieve a pod.

I would hope for a variety of pods. I think I might be more happy with a 'box 'o pod parts' additional kit rather than constant re-pops of the whole kit, but that would depend on the wisdom of keeping the kit as a 'current production' item and not a one-time RARE COLLECTABLE BUY IT NOW release.


----------



## BWolfe

What I would Like to see is have the basic kit, the Eagle and Passenger pod. Then every few months come out with an expansion kit that would be the variants of the passenger pod, the lab pod the waste transport pod, the winch pod and the strap on booster packs. Also they could sell the Eagle model without the passenger pod so that you could pick and choose which version you want to build using the expansion kits. I know that is just dreaming and we will be lucky just to get the basic Eagle kit, but it never hurts to dream.


----------



## SUNGOD

Well if we do get a new Eagle I think R2 would be stupid not to do all of the pods at least. Just like you get aircraft, tank kits etc that are released as different variants to get the most out of the tools. Again certain parts could be used over and over on the pods such as maybe the bottom and supports. That's the good thing about the Eagles...........there's quite a few variants.


----------



## ClubTepes

Trek Ace said:


> I frankly don't care what the stated scale is for this kit. It doesn't matter to me.
> If it is about the same scale and reasonably accurate to the mid-size fx model used on the show - that's good enough for me. I can determine the scale/figure size myself if I want to include them in a dio.


And there is nothing wrong with that. If thats all that matters to someone.

I am one who likes to display same scale items together, to get a sense of how big they 'really' are.
(And there is nothing wrong with that mentality either.)

So I am always a little disappointed when a manufacturer produces a kit that is in an odd, goofy, or non scale.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Well if we do get a new Eagle I think R2 would be stupid not to do all of the pods at least. Just like you get aircraft, tank kits etc that are released as different variants to get the most out of the tools. Again certain parts could be used over and over on the pods such as maybe the bottom and supports. That's the good thing about the Eagles...........there's quite a few variants.


But the Eagle has one advantage armor and aircraft don't have. The main change is the pod. 

One could make a kit that covers all the variations of, say, a M-4 Sherman tank. You would be able to build (I think, I'm just running this off the top of my head in re. all the changes) 3 whole tanks and significant parts of a couple others. It would be a huge kit. 

The Eagle doesn't have that issue. Most of the variations are deco and detail changes to the basic passenger pod. There isn't a case where the cockpit changed (like the P-51 Mustang) or different engines were put into place (like switching from pistons to turboshaft jets on a DC-3). Any changes to the Eagle itself can be addressed by 'simple' plant-on detail parts. 

I really favor the 'build your own pod' accessory kit. Passenger pod, the airlock 'wing' add-ons, the various boosters, a platform, the crane bits, the radioactive waste carrier stuff, maybe some spacesuited figures, a moonbuggy, simple bits and pieces that would allow near infinite display and diorama potential. 

Yes, of course, there would be all manner of leftover bits. Wouldn't that be fun? What could be scratch built from that stuff?


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> But the Eagle has one advantage armor and aircraft don't have. The main change is the pod.
> 
> One could make a kit that covers all the variations of, say, a M-4 Sherman tank. You would be able to build (I think, I'm just running this off the top of my head in re. all the changes) 3 whole tanks and significant parts of a couple others. It would be a huge kit.
> 
> The Eagle doesn't have that issue. Most of the variations are deco and detail changes to the basic passenger pod. There isn't a case where the cockpit changed (like the P-51 Mustang) or different engines were put into place (like switching from pistons to turboshaft jets on a DC-3). Any changes to the Eagle itself can be addressed by 'simple' plant-on detail parts.
> 
> I really favor the 'build your own pod' accessory kit. Passenger pod, the airlock 'wing' add-ons, the various boosters, a platform, the crane bits, the radioactive waste carrier stuff, maybe some spacesuited figures, a moonbuggy, simple bits and pieces that would allow near infinite display and diorama potential.
> 
> Yes, of course, there would be all manner of leftover bits. Wouldn't that be fun? What could be scratch built from that stuff?






True but as long as the different pods are all styrene and yes some styrene spacesuited figures and other accessories such as a moonbuggy would be nice.

I could imagine these kits if we ever have them being very handy for scratchuilders too........plus new Eagle variants that haven't been done before. In one of my Space 1999 annuals the front beak/command module can fly off separately so that could be interesting as an escape type pod.


----------



## BWolfe

SUNGOD said:


> True but as long as the different pods are all styrene and yes some styrene spacesuited figures and other accessories such as a moonbuggy would be nice.
> 
> I could imagine these kits if we ever have them being very handy for scratchuilders too........plus new Eagle variants that haven't been done before. In one of my Space 1999 annuals the front beak/command module can fly off separately so that could be interesting as an escape type pod.


That was actually done in the episode "Dragon's Domain" Cellini separated the nose from the Eagle, flew it over and docked it onto the Ultra Probe.


----------



## SUNGOD

BWolfe said:


> That was actually done in the episode "Dragon's Domain" Cellini separated the nose from the Eagle, flew it over and docked it onto the Ultra Probe.





Forgot about that. Mind you I haven't seen the episodes for a long time. It would be cool if R2 could do the Ultra and Meta probes too.............but I doubt they would. And of course that's if we even get some new Eagles.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> That was actually done in the episode "Dragon's Domain" Cellini separated the nose from the Eagle, flew it over and docked it onto the Ultra Probe.


Well, separated the nose from the Eagle but somehow managed to dock with the forward service module corridor attached.


----------



## SUNGOD

I'm certainly not expecting any annoncements as we don't even know if a new Eagle's happening but what date is Wonderfest anyway?


----------



## jheilman

Wonderfest is May 30-31


----------



## SUNGOD

I thought it was around the 16th for some reason but thanks.


----------



## jheilman

It changes from year to year. It's been in June before too.


----------



## SUNGOD

No wonder I never know what date it is then. I thought it was the same every year.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

phicks said:


> "I think, and I'm going out on a limb here, the ONLY spaceship interior set that accurately reflects the design of the miniature would be the Nostromo from Alien."


The cockpit of the classic Battlestar Galactica large shuttle was designed in conjunction with the model - in the WIP shots you can see them revising the model to to match the interior. Then, all that attention to detail was thrown out like yesterday's garbage when an episode director decided the shuttle was too big and re-sized it down by 50%. Some people have no respect for the efforts of their co-workers. However the Galileo from Star Trek V was built with the set inside the exterior set piece. So was the TNG Type 6, which was a cut-down version. The ship from Pitch Black (an otherwise dismal movie which foisted Dim Weasel upon the world) had the interior built inside the exterior set piece.

Most Hollywood efforts don't even try, like Star Trek's original Galileo, where the inside was bigger just so they could get the cameras in.


----------



## Paulbo

SUNGOD said:


> No wonder I never know what date it is then. I thought it was the same every year.


They have a website that provides info like the date: http://www.wonderfest.com :wave:


----------



## Richard Baker

Owen E Oulton said:


> The cockpit of the classic Battlestar Galactica large shuttle was designed in conjunction with the model - in the WIP shots you can see them revising the model to to match the interior. Then, all that attention to detail was thrown out like yesterday's garbage when an episode director decided the shuttle was too big and re-sized it down by 50%.


IIRC it was the 'full scale' stage set prop that was drastically downsized, the interior and the filming model still matched. The shuttle was just too big to build even a partial set piece for so they cheated the size hoping nobody would ever notice.


----------



## Richard Baker

SUNGOD said:


> I'm certainly not expecting any annoncements as we don't even know if a new Eagle's happening but what date is Wonderfest anyway?


Don't care if there is announcement or not- Round2 changes things too much to believe any good news and until test shots are posted I am just thinking happy thoughts.

Come to think of it, they also posted test shots of the NuEnterprise before they cancelled the kit.


----------



## SUNGOD

Paulbo said:


> They have a website that provides info like the date: http://www.wonderfest.com :wave:



Thanks for that. I did look before but for some reason I couldn't find the date.

I see the magnificent Vincent Price's daughter is going there. Should be interesting.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Don't care if there is announcement or not- Round2 changes things too much to believe any good news and until test shots are posted I am just thinking happy thoughts.
> 
> Come to think of it, they also posted test shots of the NuEnterprise before they cancelled the kit.





That is a good point. Even if there's an announcement I'll believe it if/when it hits the shops. I might be wrong but I think R2 would be stupid not to do a new tool of one of the most famous best loved ships in sci fi. Not as famous as the Enterprise but it's not far behind and they can do multiple variants unlike the Enterprise where there's only 1 or 2.


----------



## Richard Baker

R2 did manage to run out a few variants of the TOS-E kit- the glow in the dark Defiant and the Space Seed kit were genius in selling a new kit to somebody who already has one.

Only problem with releasing all the pod variants of the Eagle is the size of the kit- at around two feel long few people will have enough room to get them all. I do hope R2 hedges it's bet by releasing just the pods separately.


----------



## Hunch

If its real, accurate, and I buy as many as I want to buy the wife's threatening divorce! 
Oh well, I think 15 years is a pretty good run!


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> R2 did manage to run out a few variants of the TOS-E kit- the glow in the dark Defiant and the Space Seed kit were genius in selling a new kit to somebody who already has one.
> 
> Only problem with releasing all the pod variants of the Eagle is the size of the kit- at around two feel long few people will have enough room to get them all. I do hope R2 hedges it's bet by releasing just the pods separately.




As I said a 22 inch Eagle won't really be that big. It's only roughly twice as long as the MPC/Airfix kit and PE diecasts.......and it's a fairly slim design.


----------



## Hunch

Oh yeah, its the perfect size! Slim enough to fit comfortably on a shelf, not so big that there's nowhere to pet her. I'm in,in,in,in,IN!


----------



## SUNGOD

Hunch said:


> Oh yeah, its the perfect size! Slim enough to fit comfortably on a shelf, not so big that there's nowhere to pet her. I'm in,in,in,in,IN!





Now that's the spirit! And Eagles like to be petted.


----------



## Richard Baker

One 22" Eagle, no problem. Six or more covering all the pod variants and booster packs, yeah, that will not fit. Having one display eagle which I could swap the parts on every so often, perfect.

And eagles love to be petted, but really crave being gently picked up and made to go ZOOM around a dark room with a dramatic spotlight...


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> One 22" Eagle, no problem. Six or more covering all the pod variants and booster packs, yeah, that will not fit. Having one display eagle which I could swap the parts on every so often, perfect.
> 
> And eagles love to be petted, but really crave being gently picked up and made to go ZOOM around a dark room with a dramatic spotlight...





You could always make a couple of shelves?


----------



## ClubTepes

Owen E Oulton said:


> The cockpit of the classic Battlestar Galactica large shuttle was designed in conjunction with the model - in the WIP shots you can see them revising the model to to match the interior. Then, all that attention to detail was thrown out like yesterday's garbage when an episode director decided the shuttle was too big and re-sized it down by 50%. Some people have no respect for the efforts of their co-workers. However the Galileo from Star Trek V was built with the set inside the exterior set piece. So was the TNG Type 6, which was a cut-down version. The ship from Pitch Black (an otherwise dismal movie which foisted Dim Weasel upon the world) had the interior built inside the exterior set piece.
> 
> Most Hollywood efforts don't even try, like Star Trek's original Galileo, where the inside was bigger just so they could get the cameras in.


I respectfully am going to disagree with your approach.

In the case of MOST, filming set pieces like space ships, it is the EXTERIOR that is altered in size.
As has been pointed out, exteriors are large expenditures of money, space, logistics etc. 
It is much easier to fudge the size of an exterior.

In the case of the Galileo, it was not a case of making the interiors larger vs. the exterior being the correct size. It is well documented, that the exterior was constructed to 3/4 scale.
And again, there can be many reasons why this might be done.
Examples include, getting it through stage doors, loading it onto a truck to take out to a location, size of the stage they are planning on shooting it on, etc.

If they wanted the inside to be as small as the outside, they easily could have done it. Sets have 'wild' (removable) walls to allow access for camera and crew. 
With a smaller Galileo interior, actors would be bending over (which I'm sure they would protest) for unnecessarily (not part of any story point).

In the case of the Galactica Shuttle, yes, they did try to make the model and the set match.
But AGAIN, building such a large exterior, doesn't make any sense on a TV budget. The set piece was likely on wheels to be movable, and they would have to get it through stage doors.
And here is an interesting tidbit about the Galactica shuttle interior - they also only built 1/2 of the whole interior space, meaning that it is twice as wide as what they showed us.


Even on movies they try and get away with shrinking an exterior whenever possible. 
All Millenium Falcon exteriors were smaller.

Even the 'Full Size' Titanic exterior was built to 90% scale.
Here is a real vessel with 'real' dimensions. But they thought they could visually get away with 10% and not have it look that way on screen.
10% smaller = 10% less cost.
10%+ less weight (remember, the whole ship was on hydraulics so that it could 'sink').

Im sure there are plenty of other examples.


----------



## Neverendingmods

*Confirmation from Round 2*

Hey, folks --

I called Round2 today, and the customer service rep confirmed that the 48th scale Eagle is in development, slated for release in November. WooHoo! My only fear is that it'll get cancelled, like Thor and the Wicked Witch, due to lack of interest. So, maybe if we gently call and write, to let them know that we're excited, and each of us will buy one or two. . . ? Maybe less chance of cancellation?


----------



## KUROK

Nah. I think it's on!
They probably gauged interest based on sales of the MPC reissue. 
Dudes that bought that will most likely buy a modern one.

I'm as giddy about this kit as the 1:350 TOS E!


----------



## SUNGOD

If it *is* on as Kurok says they must have gauged interest from the MPC kit sales and that would obviously mean the sales met their requirements to do a new tool. And I think it's fair to say the people who bought those (including myself) would buy a new tool Eagle. In fact I'd say it's a bloody certainty even if a few people have a gripe about the size.


----------



## phicks

News of the 1/48 Eagle first broke on CultTVMan's website, in a report that also mentioned other forthcoming products from R2. I think it is worth noting that one of those products, a repop of the 1989 Batmobile, has now been confirmed on R2's blog. I think this also lends credence to the 1/48 Eagle rumour.


----------



## John P

What also lends credence is the guy in post #94 who called R2 and asked. :lol:


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Richard Baker said:


> IIRC it was the 'full scale' stage set prop that was drastically downsized, the interior and the filming model still matched. The shuttle was just too big to build even a partial set piece for so they cheated the size hoping nobody would ever notice.


Yep. They thought so. They were dead wrong.


----------



## electric indigo

*IF* they make the November date, I know a perfect Christmas gift for myself...


----------



## phicks

John P said:


> What also lends credence is the guy in post #94 who called R2 and asked. :lol:


John - I considered that, but at the time I posted he had a total history of ...brace yourself....TWO posts here on HobbyTalk. That is sometimes a sign to take the information with a big grain of salt.


----------



## John P

Point! :lol:


----------



## Mr. Wabac

Bought the Eagle when it first came out and was disappointed.
Bought a second one when it was re-released the first time and never built it.
Each time, I would just look at the box and think about all the work I would need to make it look right - back on the shelf it would go.

I had two chances to buy a Product Enterprise diecast Eagle at the release price and decided to wait. Guess I lost out on that idea 

I would definitely buy a 1/48th if they mold the cages properly; at least one maybe others if they were to later come out with different modules.
It would still be cheaper than trying to get a single small-scale PE Eagle now on eBay !


----------



## f1steph

BWolfe said:


> That was actually done in the episode "Dragon's Domain" Cellini separated the nose from the Eagle, flew it over and docked it onto the Ultra Probe.


Several years ago, I made a CM module with ladding gears, interior lights, pilots and interior backwall. I've also added a Moon buggy. I cloned the CM from my unbuilt RU Eagle. Herre's the link:

https://plus.google.com/photos/101014169512489939839/albums/5156105120731770705

But a 1/48 Eagle with a detailed interior, that would be very nice to built.

Steph


----------



## phicks

f1steph said:


> Several years ago, I made a CM module with ladding gears, interior lights, pilots and interior backwall. I've also added a Moon buggy. I cloned the CM from my unbuilt RU Eagle. Herre's the link:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/photos/101014169512489939839/albums/5156105120731770705
> 
> But a 1/48 Eagle with a detailed interior, that would be very nice to built.
> 
> Steph


For $120, I don't think they could afford an interior on a 1/48 Eagle. BUT, who knows might be included in the accessory kit, for which Cult did not supply a price? Cockpit interior? Lab pod? Booster rockets?


----------



## BWolfe

f1steph said:


> Several years ago, I made a CM module with ladding gears, interior lights, pilots and interior backwall. I've also added a Moon buggy. I cloned the CM from my unbuilt RU Eagle. Herre's the link:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/photos/101014169512489939839/albums/5156105120731770705
> 
> But a 1/48 Eagle with a detailed interior, that would be very nice to built.
> 
> Steph


Very cool, it never occurred to me to add landing gear to an Eagle nose, great idea!


----------



## Neverendingmods

Fine. Laugh at me, and don't believe me. Fine. I just don't live online. Call them for yourselves. I was trying to be enthusiastic and cooperative, and got made fun of. Sweeet!


----------



## BWolfe

Neverendingmods said:


> Fine. Laugh at me, and don't believe me. Fine. I just don't live online. Call them for yourselves. I was trying to be enthusiastic and cooperative, and got made fun of. Sweeet!


Welcome to the forum, don't let what some say keep you away. I don't get the idea that a low post count equals no credibility.


----------



## Neverendingmods

*Credibility*

Thank you. Some folks are nice, others aren't. That's life. 

I really did call Round2, and the guy really did say that it's in development. I can't guarantee anything. I don't work for any of the companies involved. I'm a hobbyist, and an enthusiast, and I work part-time at a Local Hobby Shop. I just wanted to share what I'd learned.


----------



## SUNGOD

I don't think you can blame people for being sceptical Neverending as you did just turn up out of the blue and announce you'd phoned them. I don't think people were making fun of you but just being cautious. Welcome to the board anyway and let's hope we get that new Eagle!


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I don't think you can blame people for being sceptical Neverending as you did just turn up out of the blue and announce you'd phoned them. I don't think people were making fun of you but just being cautious. Welcome to the board anyway and let's hope we get that new Eagle!


Just like the initial post that started this thread, one wishes to be optimistic in these things but one must also do a reality check, right?

I think of all the details it takes to make a model, the most critical I believe has to do with actually selling the kit. That means soliciting orders from jobbers and distributors. Those, in turn, solicit orders from their retail partners. These numbers then are turned over to the beancounters and they tell the Chinese factory to make (x) and ship them. To have this kit in stores in November, they have to already designed and prototyped the kit, gotten licensor approval, dealt with all the little mistakes the Chinese toolmakers always seem to introduce into what is supposed to be a locked-down product, and, now, the solicitations. 

Given nothing was shown at the national hobby show to promote such a kit (because you HAVE to promote anything that's gonna be as costly as a 1/48 scale Eagle) I do have to question a November 2015 release.

But it could happen. It could! If everything works just right, it could happen. It would be nice.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

A 22" Eagle is not 1/48, regardless of the fact that they used 1/48 Gemini pilot figures in the studio model. It's closer to 1/54 or 1/60, (28mm miniature scale). 1/54 would make it 99 feet long, while 1/60 would make it 110 feet. Both are lengths consider accurate by some factions of fandom.


----------



## phicks

Neverending - I was not trying to ridicule you, I was simply being cautious. Peace to you, and welcome to the boards.

Steve H - R2 says they will no longer announce kits unless they have something physical to show at a trade show. If they can display a test shot at Wonderfest at the end of May then a November release could happen. If not, then it will certainly be much later.


----------



## Neverendingmods

*Thanks*

Thank you. I understand the skepticism. I do. The truth is, even I'm not 100% convinced it's gonna happen. I know that many, many things could happen to derail the whole thing. I just got jazzed that they confirmed it, and wanted to share the news. So I, like others, am cautiously optimistic. I've wanted a good kit of the Eagle since about 1980, when I read the article in the IPMS Quarterly (I think. . .) about accurizing it. I was 12, and doing all that cutting and filing to open up the trusses was a pain. So, for 35 years, I've hoped for this -- and I don't even like "Space: 1999" as a show that much! The music is good, but the pace of the show is slooowwwww. But I have an abiding love for the miniatures. Wouldn't it be great if they did some of the alien ships, or Taybor's Gun? Nah, won't happen.

And, part of me worries about this: What if they cheap out, and still don't have open trusswork, clear windows, or consistent door sizes. . .!? Then all of this excitement will have been for naught!


----------



## Zombie_61

Neverendingmods said:


> ...And, part of me worries about this: What if they cheap out, and still don't have open trusswork, clear windows, or consistent door sizes. . .!? Then all of this excitement will have been for naught!


Worse yet--what if they _really_ cheap out and just upsize the old AMT kit? :freak:


----------



## Trek Ace

Or, even worse, the old MPC kit.


----------



## Richard Baker

When R2 repopped the old Eagle they told us it was not an accurate retool, just a new decal sheet. It was a test to see if there was a market for a better kit before they spent a lot of time and treasure on it. Unlike Star Trek and the 1/350, Space 1999 is not as mainstream and I can understand being cautious. Now that the repop has sold well they seem to be making an investment in producing a really nice kit- I do hope it is followed through. This kit might have been in development for quite a while, just being quiet- i can also understand this considering what has happened with their announcements in the past. November might be possible, I am thinking Christmas more likely.
Whatever happens, I think they will take their time and try to do it justice. I have waited many years for this, another year would not matter if what is produced is done well.


----------



## veedubb67

Like Phicks said, we can ask Jamie in person at WonderFest in about 3 weeks !

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## WOI

Only if they can make a diecast metal spine and support cages to help to
properly support it.


----------



## jheilman

I hope this is true too. My MPC and Product Enterprise eagles could use a new big brother on the shelf. I really regret only buying one Product Enterprise when they came out. Now, they are well beyond my budget on eBay. Really want an acucrate eagle with the lab pod and spine boosters. And a tiny moon buggy to sit next to it.


----------



## John P

WOI said:


> Only if they can make a diecast metal spine and support cages to help to
> properly support it.


And, and, opening hatches. And, and, a full interior with articulated crew. And, and, sprung landing gear with working oleos. And, and, real rockets on the back. And, and, egg with my beer...


----------



## mach7

Egg with your beer? That's just crazy!


----------



## SUNGOD

WOI said:


> Only if they can make a diecast metal spine and support cages to help to
> properly support it.



I doubt very much they'd make the spine and cages in diecast. And to be honest I think styrene will be perfectly fine as the kit won't be that heavy if it's in all styrene. As long as there's a very positive joint between the spine and cages so it's all solidly held together.


----------



## Richard Baker

My PE 12" Eagle has a plastic Spine and a metal Lab-Pod. Works fine as long as you don't stress it. Styrene for this kit should be strong enough, it is after all a space frame. When a pod is in place it shares the load, which is how most people will be displaying theirs.


----------



## jheilman

John P said:


> And, and, opening hatches. And, and, a full interior with articulated crew. And, and, sprung landing gear with working oleos. And, and, real rockets on the back. And, and, egg with my beer...


And a pony. Why do they always forget the pony? 

Seriously, I am prepared to love this kit with a styrene spine. At this scale, it should be sturdy enough to hold the weight. But, I leave that to the designers at Round 2.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> My PE 12" Eagle has a plastic Spine and a metal Lab-Pod. Works fine as long as you don't stress it. Styrene for this kit should be strong enough, it is after all a space frame. When a pod is in place it shares the load, which is how most people will be displaying theirs.





Exactly and a 22/24 inch Eagle might well be lighter than the PE ones anyway.


----------



## kekker

Richard Baker said:


> My PE 12" Eagle has a plastic Spine and a metal Lab-Pod. Works fine as long as you don't stress it. Styrene for this kit should be strong enough, it is after all a space frame. When a pod is in place it shares the load, which is how most people will be displaying theirs.


In other words: you'll have to be careful with the high-G maneuvering while playi- I mean, recreating scenes from the show.


----------



## Fozzie

Well, this is interesting. Hobbylinc has a 1/48 Eagle from MPC on its order page.


----------



## Steve H

kekker said:


> In other words: you'll have to be careful with the high-G maneuvering while playi- I mean, recreating scenes from the show.


Isn't it sad that the main memory of that beautiful spaceship is...crashing? 

I swear, I have no idea how many crashes (due to, naturally, a Mysterious Space Force) my Dinky Toys Eagle endured. And that carried over to my early MPC Eagle kit, of course. Those used fishing line for more realism. 

(I even recall making a crude Lydecker rig, superglued some small segments of brass tube inside the spine lattice, ran fishing line thru...and discovered the shame of how soft that darn MPC plastic really was when the line rubbed along bare plastic.)


----------



## robiwon

I saw that. Only $82? And $113 normally? On par with the big Moebius J2.


----------



## SUNGOD

Fozzie said:


> Well, this is interesting. Hobbylinc has a 1/48 Eagle from MPC on its order page.



Interesting. Hopefully this is more evidence.


----------



## Paulbo

3 weeks and I'm sure Jamie will have a big announcement at Wonderfest.


----------



## Steve H

Paulbo said:


> 3 weeks and I'm sure Jamie will have a big announcement at Wonderfest.


Ya know, it would be the most hilarious thing ever if they mocked up a 1/48 Eagle enlarged from the old MPC kit. Just for the howls of fan outrage. Then reveal the actual prototype. 

Sadly, we live in a time where something as obviously goofy as that would actually have negative business consequences.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Ya know, it would be the most hilarious thing ever if they mocked up a 1/48 Eagle enlarged from the old MPC kit. Just for the howls of fan outrage. Then reveal the actual prototype.
> 
> Sadly, we live in a time where something as obviously goofy as that would actually have negative business consequences.





If they then revealed a new accurate Eagle I think most people would find it funny. 

It's like April Fools jokes are funny if you say people aren't getting something but then they find out they are.............but they aren't funny if you pretend people are getting something but they're not.


----------



## robiwon

I just hope they stick to their alleged new motto of not making an announcement unless they have something in hand to show and it's actually going to happen. They don't have the best track record in that respect (ALIENS, Akira, Wizard of Oz, Kong, etc...). Not getting my hopes up until I at least hear them say at WF they are doing it. Then, I wont really believe it until I see it on shelves....


----------



## Richard Baker

robiwon said:


> I just hope they stick to their alleged new motto of not making an announcement unless they have something in hand to show and it's actually going to happen. They don't have the best track record in that respect (ALIENS, Akira, Wizard of Oz, Kong, etc...). Not getting my hopes up until I at least hear them say at WF they are doing it. Then, I wont really believe it until I see it on shelves....


Agreed- I hope for the best but still remember the past...


----------



## Paulbo

And yet, when they DO have something in hand to show and it's actually going to happen, people on the boards freak out like the smallest defect (or defect in their own interpretation) in a work-in-progress prototype is a harbinger of universal Armageddon and everyone associated with the project should be shot at dawn.

In some ways they'd be better off just waiting until the kit has hit port in LA and THEN make the announcement ... of course then they'd be criticized for not being communicative.


----------



## LGFugate

In the "Good Old Days" (before the Internet...), we found out about new kits either when they hit the shelves or when they appeared in the annual manufacturer's catalogs. I would always gasp in delight when Mom and Dad took me to the store (K-Mart) and I'd find that new kit on their shelves, or if Dad would come home from work (he was in the Air Force) with a new kit for me. While it's fun and exciting to have new kit information so far in advance, we tend to over analyze it and then criticize even before the actual kit is in our hands. If Round2 want's to keep quiet about a new kit until it hits the port, then all the better. I know I'll be gasping in delight if and when this new eagle kit is in my hands!!!

Larry


----------



## phicks

R2 will have a little bit of maneuvering room with accuracy concerning the Eagle. There were several different studio models of the Eagle , most being 11, 22, or 44 inches long. But there are numerous small differences between them. So to say this model is an Eagle is like saying a model is a Tiger Tank. In other words, it is from a general family of closely related vehicles, but there are lots of minor changes that occurred during the production schedule. As long as the features of the new Eagle kit look like at least one of the studio models, we should be happy.


----------



## Steve H

phicks said:


> R2 will have a little bit of maneuvering room with accuracy concerning the Eagle. There were several different studio models of the Eagle , most being 11, 22, or 44 inches long. But there are numerous small differences between them. So to say this model is an Eagle is like saying a model is a Tiger Tank. In other words, it is from a general family of closely related vehicles, but there are lots of minor changes that occurred during the production schedule. As long as the features of the new Eagle kit look like at least one of the studio models, we should be happy.


Very good point, and raises that uncomfortable question:

What if they bungle it by trying to 'blend' all the different Eagles? 

Because all the models did not look alike. Being hand made, even when multiples were made by whatever method (heat formed perspex, slush mold resin, hand laid fibreglas, whatever.), variations were introduced. 

and of course when plastic kit bits were used to detail the big Eagle, you couldn't always downscale those bits. There's a lot you can do with then-available 'real space' kits (seems the Gemini capsule was much beloved  ) but only some parts ended up in multiple scales. 

So that means fine detail changed. 

And you get things like the subtle changes in the shape of the Eagle nose. 

So, I guess what I'm hoping is, they've got someone like Shaw or Gary K or their ilk, with that deep love and knowledge about the Eagle, working on the thing.


----------



## Richard Baker

I consider all the studio models, despite variations, to be representing the 'Real' Eagle. Rivets aside, if I look at it and think - "So _THAT_ is what it really looked like...", it is a winner.


----------



## BWolfe

It is all a matter of perspective, this is an actual screen used Hawk from "War Games", it is just 5 inches long, but can still be considered accurate since it was used in the episode.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> It is all a matter of perspective, this is an actual screen used Hawk from "War Games", it is just 5 inches long, but can still be considered accurate since it was used in the episode.


Wow, that's kinda terrible. 

I mean, I get it, it's something that for a distant shot (escort for the 'big bomber', right?) performed the job of having the right general shape and color and that's all it needed to be. 

But boy would it be sad if, in some future time, that somehow was thought to represent the actual 'hero model' of the Hawk and it was held up as an example of how much 'magic' existed in old school filmmaking, pre-digital and CGI. "Who would have thought a model that looked like (this) in real life would turn out looking like (that) in the finished episode?"


----------



## SUNGOD

Paulbo said:


> And yet, when they DO have something in hand to show and it's actually going to happen, people on the boards freak out like the smallest defect (or defect in their own interpretation) in a work-in-progress prototype is a harbinger of universal Armageddon and everyone associated with the project should be shot at dawn.
> 
> In some ways they'd be better off just waiting until the kit has hit port in LA and THEN make the announcement ... of course then they'd be criticized for not being communicative.




That's a bit of an exagerration. They should only announce it yes if/when it's definitely going ahead but even though they obviously can't do everything people on boards like these ask for...............people on these boards do make some valid points. If I was a model company one of the first things I'd do is check out what people are saying on forums as not only are they fans who are usually at least fairly knowledgeable but they're also potential customers too.


----------



## phicks

Steve H said:


> So, I guess what I'm hoping is, they've got someone like Shaw or Gary K or their ilk, with that deep love and knowledge about the Eagle, working on the thing.


The man who builds the display models for R2 for conventions is James Small. He has a fascinating website where he presents his own works, including miniature effects he worked on for Battlefield Earth. Small was building Eagles and Eagle hangers long before R2 ever got the licence for Space:1999. Small mastered the lab pod and the booster rocket pack for the upgraded release for the MPC Eagle. I have to believe he is all over this new Eagle tooling. I hope we hear some design notes from him prior to the model's release, similar to what R2 did with the 1/350 TOS Enterprise.

Go visit Small's webpage, and be sure to read the article about restoration of the 44 inch Eagle:

http://www.smallartworks.ca/


----------



## swhite228

BWolfe said:


> It is all a matter of perspective, this is an actual screen used Hawk from "War Games", it is just 5 inches long, but can still be considered accurate since it was used in the episode.


Compared to the 5.5inch eagle that is really ruff









and on screen


----------



## veedubb67

SUNGOD said:


> That's a bit of an exagerration. They should only announce it yes if/when it's definitely going ahead but even though they obviously can't do everything people on boards like these ask for...............people on these boards do make some valid points. If I was a model company one of the first things I'd do is check out what people are saying on forums as not only are they fans who are usually at least fairly knowledgeable but they're also potential customers too.


Sadly, it's not an exaggeration. That's why Moebius doesn't moderate the Moebius forum anymore. They'd announce a kit and the first thing people would do is bitch about the scale/size. Then the purported "experts" would weigh in about all the inaccuracies and how they'll never buy the kit even though folks like Gary Kerr did all the research and design. Go back and look at the threads on just about any model announced/released in the past 5 years and you'll see exactly what we're talking about. 

I remember a comment Dave Merriman made a few years ago that stirred up quite a bit of controversy - We're not modelers, we're kit assemblers. At first I took umbrage to that comment, but then I understood what he was saying; most folks want a "shake & bake" kit straight out of the box vs. having to use the modeling skills they've learned over the years. That's why I try and challenge myself on every build to try something new.

Trust me - the model companies listen to what their customers say. That's why we have the 1/350 TOS Enterprise - it was just a pipe dream of Jamie's until he got solid data from the masses. That's why all the old Star Trek kits have been re-released, and so on, and so on...

All sorts of factors go into the decision to produce a kit including licensing and return on investment. Just because a small group of vocal fans WANT a kit doesn't mean it'll be produced. There's plenty of stuff I'd like to see produced, but I know it'll never happen. That's what the garage kit market is for - small runs of obscure kits (and I don't have a phobia against resin).

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## spock62

Seems like a lot of fuss and assumptions for a kit that may or may not get made.

_If_ R2 goes forward with the development of this kit, and based on how well done some of their past new-tool kits have been (i.e. 1/350 TOS Enterprise, 1/25 '66 Batmobile), I'm pretty confident that the Eagle will turn out well. 

Perfect? Probably not. Accurate enough to satisfy most. Most definitely. 

At any rate, it's got to be better then the old MPC kit!


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> Ya know, it would be the most hilarious thing ever if they mocked up a 1/48 Eagle enlarged from the old MPC kit. Just for the howls of fan outrage. Then reveal the actual prototype.
> 
> Sadly, we live in a time where something as obviously goofy as that would actually have negative business consequences.


Torches and pitchforks...torches and pitchforks...:freak:


----------



## SUNGOD

veedubb67 said:


> Sadly, it's not an exaggeration. That's why Moebius doesn't moderate the Moebius forum anymore. They'd announce a kit and the first thing people would do is bitch about the scale/size. Then the purported "experts" would weigh in about all the inaccuracies and how they'll never buy the kit even though folks like Gary Kerr did all the research and design. Go back and look at the threads on just about any model announced/released in the past 5 years and you'll see exactly what we're talking about.
> 
> I remember a comment Dave Merriman made a few years ago that stirred up quite a bit of controversy - We're not modelers, we're kit assemblers. At first I took umbrage to that comment, but then I understood what he was saying; most folks want a "shake & bake" kit straight out of the box vs. having to use the modeling skills they've learned over the years. That's why I try and challenge myself on every build to try something new.
> 
> Trust me - the model companies listen to what their customers say. That's why we have the 1/350 TOS Enterprise - it was just a pipe dream of Jamie's until he got solid data from the masses. That's why all the old Star Trek kits have been re-released, and so on, and so on...
> 
> All sorts of factors go into the decision to produce a kit including licensing and return on investment. Just because a small group of vocal fans WANT a kit doesn't mean it'll be produced. There's plenty of stuff I'd like to see produced, but I know it'll never happen. That's what the garage kit market is for - small runs of obscure kits (and I don't have a phobia against resin).
> 
> Rob
> Iwata Padawan








Maybe 1 or 2 people can go a bit over the top but I've been posting on here since 2006 and I haven't seen much bad bitching about upcoming kits. Model companies should realise what us modellers are like and grow a thicker skin. You can't uninvent the wheel and whilst forums like this exist people are going to come on here and give their views. And most of the views about Moebius for instance have been positive but as long as people aren't being abusive (which I've rarely seen on here) there's absolutely nothing wrong with people saying they think certain parts of a kit should be better or they'd prefer a different scale.

That's what these forums are for and trying to stop people from doing that is just censorship. And in fact one of the few times I've seen things get a bit heated is when Dave Merriman came on here but I still found a lot of what he said about the Skipjack and other subs interesting even though some people find him abrasive.


----------



## veedubb67

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe 1 or 2 people can go a bit over the top but I've been posting on here since 2006 and I haven't seen much bad bitching about upcoming kits.


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=426100&highlight=metzner

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe 1 or 2 people can go a bit over the top but I've been posting on here since 2006 and I haven't seen much bad bitching about upcoming kits. Model companies should realise what us modellers are like and grow a thicker skin. You can't uninvent the wheel and whilst forums like this exist people are going to come on here and give their views. And most of the views about Moebius for instance have been positive but as long as people aren't being abusive (which I've rarely seen on here) there's absolutely nothing wrong with people saying they think certain parts of a kit should be better or they'd prefer a different scale.
> 
> That's what these forums are for and trying to stop people from doing that is just censorship. And in fact one of the few times I've seen things get a bit heated is when Dave Merriman came on here but I still found a lot of what he said about the Skipjack and other subs interesting even though some people find him abrasive.


And yet, when bulls**t shows up, it really needs to be called out for what it is. Cite Moebius and that ever-delayed 1/35 scale Space Pod and Chariot kit. It was announced as an expensive multi-media kit because they wanted to get it out fast, didn't think it would sell enough to warrant full tooling for injection plastic (changed to 'the different materials are better for the kits' or some such), and it's STILL out there as a pre-order in many many places. Now, seems to me, if they were going to 'garage kit' this thing it would have been out by now. I'm sure somewhere there's a date and I'm sure it'll slip past that again. How many years has it been now? 3? 4? And now we've got a big deal anniversary for LIS coming up and will it show for that? Hm.

*ahem* but see, that discussion gets lost in the noise. And one can't blame a company person for not wanting to bathe in that (sometimes acid) bath.

But on topic, I like to think I've made some valid, reasoned points on why a new tool Eagle in 1/72 is a better risk, and should be still considered even in the face of the upcoming (?) 1/48 scale kit. It's smaller, it would have a lower price point, both of these things make a 1/72 Eagle more attractive to the retailers, to consumers and, and this is key to my mind, the international market. Even if R2 license is limited to North America, that puppy would be gray market bait like nobody's business. Revell Germany's Star Trek license didn't stop anyone from getting those kits here that really wanted them, did it? I think some of the names in this very discussion did the import dance on those kits. 

(and there is of course their deal with Platz in Japan...)

But THIS discussion would be declared 'invalid' because "You don't know what you're talking about, you're not in the business so your voice has no value!!".

Humph. People can know things.


----------



## robiwon

I just pre-ordered my 1/48 Eagle from Hobbylink for $81.


----------



## Richard Baker

MonstersInMotion sent out an eMail yesterday taking PreOrders for the 1/35 Lost In Space Chariot & Space Pod. Don't know if this is old news or not, but the fact they did send it might indicate some developments.

Going to have to wait on the 1/48 Eagle myself- no free cash and too many unbuilts in line to get it for a while. Nice thing is that when I do get it there will be build up references to learn from and a bunch of accessories to decide about.

I am just glad R2 seems to be following up on their plan to go with a better new tool if the classic kit sold well. 1/72 would have been preferable for me due to space limitations and lower costs, but I can see how releasing it at that scale would put it into direct competition with the repop kit they already are selling. A larger scale will also give then some elbow room to provide better detail (although the PE Eagle shows it can be done at that size.


----------



## robiwon

Hopefully, we will get some concrete info from them at WF in a few weeks. I'm just glad a model like this should be easy to light! Don't have to worry about hundreds or even thousands of tiny fiber optics to fiddle with! Four lights for the engines, one or two for the cockpit!

Sitting here at my desk, starring at a yard stick, at the 22 inch mark....Going to be a nice size model, if we get one.


----------



## BWolfe

robiwon said:


> Hopefully, we will get some concrete info from them at WF in a few weeks. I'm just glad a model like this should be easy to light! Don't have to worry about hundreds or even thousands of tiny fiber optics to fiddle with! Four lights for the engines, one or two for the cockpit!
> 
> Sitting here at my desk, starring at a yard stick, at the 22 inch mark....Going to be a nice size model, if we get one.


Don't forget the landing gear lights!


----------



## swhite228

SUNGOD said:


> I haven't seen much bad bitching about upcoming kits.


Two words.....GRID LINES!


----------



## Steve H

I have become convinced that the Great Gridline Debate is our hobby's 'who killed JFK?'. 

It may, just maybe, also become compared to Martin Luther's posting of his thesis on the doors of the Church. It does become that heated at times, and emotion triumphs over reason and logic. 

But, same as it ever was.

Actually, it is relevant to the topic at hand. I don't think there's much else to learn about the Eagle. It was produced fairly recently, the principals involved are mostly alive, the models are in pretty good shape, any debates are more about 'tweaks' than anything else.

The Enterprise was fairly cloaked in mystery for decades. Key people involved are sadly passed and greatly missed. Documentation from 'in the time' is not that extensive as back then it wasn't really IMPORTANT to document and photograph and explain every little thing. See also all the Irwin Allen productions. So all the 'model archeology' that has gone on in regards to Star Trek is actually uncovering new data all the time. 

There will always be debates about the Grid Lines because we can't ask 1966 Matt Jefferies about them. 

Good thing I'm agnostic on things like this.


----------



## SUNGOD

swhite228 said:


> Two words.....GRID LINES!




I didn't mind the grid lines but people were perfectly entitled to say they didn't want them. If that's all the "bitching" people can come up with then this site is extremely mild compared to most.


----------



## JeffBond

I do think the 1/35 Space Pod and Chariot will be out this year--and I believe that simply came down to changing costs and conditions over the years. The initial plan was to do it in resin--it's true we've had a long wait but now it looks like a styrene kit with photo-etch details. That probably wouldn't have even been a consideration when the kit was originally conceived so those of us who want this are better off due to the wait.


----------



## seaQuest

robiwon said:


> I just pre-ordered my 1/48 Eagle from Hobbylink for $81.


So did I.


----------



## seaQuest

veedubb67 said:


> I remember a comment Dave Merriman made a few years ago that stirred up quite a bit of controversy - We're not modelers, we're kit assemblers. At first I took umbrage to that comment, but then I understood what he was saying; most folks want a "shake & bake" kit straight out of the box vs. having to use the modeling skills they've learned over the years.


Actually, the term Merriman used wasn't "kit assemblers," it was "puzzle assemblers." So it was even more of a diss.

I was online here a few years ago watching a meltdown between Merriman and Griffworks. Merriman basically finally tore into Griff about being a tin god and Griff banned him in a flash. It was rather hilarious watching it all go down in real time.


----------



## Richard Baker

seaQuest said:


> Actually, the term Merriman used wasn't "kit assemblers," it was "puzzle assemblers." So it was even more of a diss.
> 
> I was online here a few years ago watching a meltdown between Merriman and Griffworks. Merriman basically finally tore into Griff about being a tin god and Griff banned him in a flash. It was rather hilarious watching it all go down in real time.


Dave Merriman is a skilled individual but seemed to be lacking in 'people skills'- many times a simple conversation would take a dramatic turn needlessly.


----------



## Sparky

seaQuest said:


> Actually, the term Merriman used wasn't "kit assemblers," it was "puzzle assemblers." So it was even more of a diss.
> 
> I was online here a few years ago watching a meltdown between Merriman and Griffworks. Merriman basically finally tore into Griff about being a tin god and Griff banned him in a flash. It was rather hilarious watching it all go down in real time.


I have spent time thinking about that comment of Merriman's and how it relates to model building as an art. If I just build a kit out of the box and paint it per the instructions, it takes skills sure but does not feel like art and maybe I am just a "puzzle assembler". The final product on my shelf is someone else's art . I am just assembling what a actual "modeler" has created.

But if I make it match my vision through lighting, scratch building, and other significant modifications it becomes art because it reflects what is in my head not just in the head of the original modeler. Building it just stock might be fun, but the final product will disappoint. As such, I refuse to build any kit stock. Its not my art and I don't feel like an actual modeler.


----------



## jheilman

The vibe I got from Merriman was always that others were lacking if they didn't build things like he does. As though being a kit assembler is somehow wrong. If someone wants to buy a kit, assemble and paint and be content, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone doesn't want to learn to scratchbuild, there's nothing wrong with that either. It's OK to have all different levels of modelers/kit assemblers. It was the ridicule that I found annoying.


----------



## kekker

Of course, this is an argument that has been ongoing since the old rec.models.scale newsgroup back in the early 90's!


----------



## Fozzie

Sparky said:


> I have spent time thinking about that comment of Merriman's and how it relates to model building as an art. If I just build a kit out of the box and paint it per the instructions, it takes skills sure but does not feel like art and maybe I am just a "puzzle assembler". The final product on my shelf is someone else's art . I am just assembling what a actual "modeler" has created.
> 
> But if I make it match my vision through lighting, scratch building, and other significant modifications it becomes art because it reflects what is in my head not just in the head of the original modeler. Building it just stock might be fun, but the final product will disappoint. As such, I refuse to build any kit stock. Its not my art and I don't feel like an actual modeler.


The kit is just the canvas.


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> The vibe I got from Merriman was always that others were lacking if they didn't build things like he does. As though being a kit assembler is somehow wrong. If someone wants to buy a kit, assemble and paint and be content, there's nothing wrong with that. If someone doesn't want to learn to scratchbuild, there's nothing wrong with that either. It's OK to have all different levels of modelers/kit assemblers. It was the ridicule that I found annoying.





It's only on here that I became familiar with the name Dave Merriman and how he could rub people up the wrong way.................or so I at first thought. 

Then I remembered reading an article in Finescale Modeler many years back where the person writing the article said that people reading it might find the model maker in question very opinionated and I remember the model maker saying that people who built kits weren't real modellers but just kit assemblers. The guy in question was making a large scale Enterprise if I remember correctly and I'm sure that was Dave. I think I've got it somewhere. 

What you say is correct though. Dave's obviously a very good scratchbuilder etc but there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to build something straight from the box. In fact there's nothing more satisfying than building a kit that just melts together without any hassle. And of course some people who build kits from the box also scratchbuild. And not to mention there's still a skill involved in building straight from the box and many people just can't do that.


----------



## ClubTepes

seaQuest said:


> Actually, the term Merriman used wasn't "kit assemblers," it was "puzzle assemblers." So it was even more of a diss.
> 
> I was online here a few years ago watching a meltdown between Merriman and Griffworks. Merriman basically finally tore into Griff about being a tin god and Griff banned him in a flash. It was rather hilarious watching it all go down in real time.


He used both.

And he's not the only well known, super talented modeler out there who is severely lacking in people skills.

What is it about these guys, where they are so convinced that what they think is correct and others are simply 'wrong' for not thinking they same way they do.

"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you......"


----------



## Fozzie

Getting back to the original topic...

I'm surprised (and delighted) that this kit is as cheap as what we're seeing on the pre-orders. I have the 1:350 Enterprise and a 2-foot Eagle from Product Enterprises here and, comparatively, the Eagle looks to have just as much plastic as the Big E.

The difference, I think, is that all the molds required for the Eagle could be a LOT smaller than the giant ones needed for the Enterprise pieces (particularly the primary hull).


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> Actually, the term Merriman used wasn't "kit assemblers," it was "puzzle assemblers." So it was even more of a diss.
> 
> I was online here a few years ago watching a meltdown between Merriman and Griffworks. Merriman basically finally tore into Griff about being a tin god and Griff banned him in a flash. It was rather hilarious watching it all go down in real time.




I must admit..........that did provide a bit of amusemet. I remember something about the "administrators ass" and "jack booted thugs".


----------



## SUNGOD

Fozzie said:


> Getting back to the original topic...
> 
> I'm surprised (and delighted) that this kit is as cheap as what we're seeing on the pre-orders. I have the 1:350 Enterprise and a 2-foot Eagle from Product Enterprises here and, comparatively, the Eagle looks to have just as much plastic as the Big E.
> 
> The difference, I think, is that all the molds required for the Eagle could be a LOT smaller than the giant ones needed for the Enterprise pieces (particularly the primary hull).





Don't forget we stil don't know if it's a reality yet. That said surely people wouldn't be putting up pre-orders if there wasn't at least a bit of truth to it. It's good people are pre ordering though as it shows interest.


----------



## Steve H

Fozzie said:


> Getting back to the original topic...
> 
> I'm surprised (and delighted) that this kit is as cheap as what we're seeing on the pre-orders. I have the 1:350 Enterprise and a 2-foot Eagle from Product Enterprises here and, comparatively, the Eagle looks to have just as much plastic as the Big E.
> 
> The difference, I think, is that all the molds required for the Eagle could be a LOT smaller than the giant ones needed for the Enterprise pieces (particularly the primary hull).


Not to mention parts re-use. The forward and aft service modules are mostly identical, I think the landing gear pods are also mostly identical (aren't they basically Left/front and right/rear, and then mirrored for the other spaces? Something like that), in all I think the tooling needs are around half as much as the 1/350 Enterprise. Even if the difference was 1/4, that's a significant savings.


----------



## electric indigo

On the other hand, the cage and the pipework on the engines are pretty complex, and there's a lot of surface details. And at 1/48, it better has a hint of a cockpit interior.


----------



## Steve H

electric indigo said:


> On the other hand, the cage and the pipework on the engines are pretty complex, and there's a lot of surface details. And at 1/48, it better has a hint of a cockpit interior.


I agree, but to my mind there's 'cheats' that can be used. It seems there's a number of repeated shapes that can be used to build complete units. It looks like the service module cages are ultimately 2 units, the 'pod side' lattice and the 'connecting' lattice. 2 pod sides and 4 connectors pretty much makes the cage, then you have the service module parts and the end pieces, one 'common' end with the doors to the passenger module, and the specific ends for the engines and the command module. 

That's most of the complexity right there. Or so it seems to me going from memory and not referring to anything. 

Now, if you want to simplify assembly and will pay for deeper tools, you could use multi-part sliding molds and make your cages in half pieces to wrap around the module. Would that result in a more accurate, stronger model? Dunno. I am pretty sure it would cost tons more to do. 

I can't wait for whatever shows at Wonderfest. Wish I could go. Been decades since I've gone to a hobby show.


----------



## John P

Skewing briefly back to Mr. Merriman - I've been convinced his antisocialness is an online persona. The few times I've corresponded with him he's been nice, and many people who've dealt with him in person say he's polite and happy to help anyone. So, IMHO, it's all an act. I'd say it's an_ ill-advised_ act, mind you, since it just makes people dislike him.

Now carry on with our regularly scheduled kvetching.


----------



## JeffBond

I agree with that--I always saw Merriman's posts as tongue-in-cheek...but you could probably also substitute the term "troll"...


----------



## Paulbo

SUNGOD said:


> That's a bit of an exagerration...


The only exaggerations were "armageddon" and "shot". I don't seriously think than anyone thought the world would end or that someone should die.

HOWEVER, the nitpicking, "suggestions", armchair quarterbacking, "I know your business better than you", and general PITA-ness of a good percentage of the posts have driven several companies from being as forthcoming with upfront information as they used to be. It's just not worth the abuse.

Think back to when Frank and Dave used to routinely post on the Moebius Models forum. They would get chewed out by knowitall jackasses on a nearly daily basis. No wonder they dropped their sponsorship and all all contact with Hobbytalk.


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> Skewing briefly back to Mr. Merriman - I've been convinced his antisocialness is an online persona. The few times I've corresponded with him he's been nice, and many people who've dealt with him in person say he's polite and happy to help anyone. So, IMHO, it's all an act. I'd say it's an_ ill-advised_ act, mind you, since it just makes people dislike him.
> 
> Now carry on with our regularly scheduled kvetching.


John P wins the Internet this day for the use of "kvetching."


----------



## robiwon

If we do get a 1/48 Eagle and it's not an upscaled MPC kit I do hope the cages and spine are solid rod and not a two piece tube design. I would hate having to putty and sand that many joints to make a smooth tube.


----------



## SUNGOD

Paulbo said:


> The only exaggerations were "armageddon" and "shot". I don't seriously think than anyone thought the world would end or that someone should die.
> 
> HOWEVER, the nitpicking, "suggestions", armchair quarterbacking, "I know your business better than you", and general PITA-ness of a good percentage of the posts have driven several companies from being as forthcoming with upfront information as they used to be. It's just not worth the abuse.
> 
> Think back to when Frank and Dave used to routinely post on the Moebius Models forum. They would get chewed out by knowitall jackasses on a nearly daily basis. No wonder they dropped their sponsorship and all all contact with Hobbytalk.





But that goes with the territory. If you're making products to sell then people are going to scrutinize them and what's the difference between giving your opinions on here and on Facebook where people can probably be more abusive and act like knowitalls? As I said you can't uninvent the wheel and these forums exist now. I don't remember people being abusive and as I said the only time I remember things getting heated was from someone working on a project for Moebius

It's obviously up to companies if they post on here or not but people still carry on giving their opinions on here so leaving here isn't going to make people shut up.


----------



## Steve H

I would suggest that if one is on the internetz expecting only praise, one is completely naive about human interaction. 

I have seen in other fandoms this exact sort of thing. Yes, there are 'know it alls' who really know nothing, but there ARE intelligent people who can reason and just hope for the kind of honest interaction regarding mistakes (to the point of at least admitting that a mistake was indeed made) and not just endless puff and hype about how wonderful everything is. 

I recall when the Chariot kit first shipped, among the minor nitpicking (the road wheels are completely wrong! the laser rifles suck! The scanner is wrong! and so on) there were early comments about the vinyl for the treads were melting the plastic. This issue was noted but overall dismissed. People expressing concern were told to not worry. Then more comments appeared. And more. 

Now, I don't think a final, definitive explanation was ever posted, most with some knowledge of plastics figured it was the wrong type of vinyl interacting with the silver sparkly stryene (which is chemically altered slightly by the dyes used), and I can't recall if there was ever an 'all clear' posted that the Chinese factory had altered the materials used. This is why a company should communicate with the consumers regardless of hurt feelings. It's business. I'm still not comfortable buying a Chariot kit. I just don't know if I'm gonna open that thing up and have melt.


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> I would suggest that if one is on the internetz expecting only praise, one is completely naive about human interaction.
> 
> I have seen in other fandoms this exact sort of thing. Yes, there are 'know it alls' who really know nothing, but there ARE intelligent people who can reason and just hope for the kind of honest interaction regarding mistakes (to the point of at least admitting that a mistake was indeed made) and not just endless puff and hype about how wonderful everything is.
> 
> I recall when the Chariot kit first shipped, among the minor nitpicking (the road wheels are completely wrong! the laser rifles suck! The scanner is wrong! and so on) there were early comments about the vinyl for the treads were melting the plastic. This issue was noted but overall dismissed. People expressing concern were told to not worry. Then more comments appeared. And more.
> 
> Now, I don't think a final, definitive explanation was ever posted, most with some knowledge of plastics figured it was the wrong type of vinyl interacting with the silver sparkly stryene (which is chemically altered slightly by the dyes used), and I can't recall if there was ever an 'all clear' posted that the Chinese factory had altered the materials used. This is why a company should communicate with the consumers regardless of hurt feelings. It's business. I'm still not comfortable buying a Chariot kit. I just don't know if I'm gonna open that thing up and have melt.


To their credit, they offered replacement parts, free of charge, for any damaged parts that were bagged with the vinyl treads.


----------



## Steve H

RB said:


> To their credit, they offered replacement parts, free of charge, for any damaged parts that were bagged with the vinyl treads.


That's true, and I think they were covered pretty well because in most cases it was the bottom of the hull that was affected. Some people just cut, puttied and sanded of course. 

But what about the people who never heard and are now watching the wheels melt? I recall some folks doing really elaborate coatings to try and prevent the reaction. 

Mind, it's the past. On the larger scale it probably seems to not matter now but did they ever fix the problem? I mean, the easy solution is to not use that sparkly additive in the silver plastic. Did that happen? I don't know.


----------



## fire91bird

I'm sure the companies keep tabs on what's being said on the boards in case there is a valid concern like the Chariot treads, but most of the other stuff is just noise for them. For a while, Moebius and Round2 did have a regular presence here, but it soon became clear that no matter what they did someone wouldn't like it. They've done their research and made their business decisions and decided that it was a waste of time and energy to try to entertain every opinion by arm chair experts. What would be the point? Why should they be expected to take the time to explain that they are going to do one version and see how it goes before doing any others? It's not a matter of being thin-skinned, just where to best spend their effort. Having said that, I do enjoy hearing folks' opinions so I can decide if it's something I'd be interested in, or even better, gotchas to watch for. And that's not to say I think the companies are perfect either - I think they announce things way too soon - but I can appreciate why they wouldn't want to participate here. 

Hopefully, we'll hear more in a couple of weeks about this new Eagle.


----------



## Fozzie

R2 has shown the smarts to enlist experts on particular models for advice (including our very own ClubTepes), they just don't necessarily openly talk about it. R2 has a working relationship with Jim Small and I would be shocked if he were not advising on any _Space: 1999_ project R2 has (he probably has an NDA that keeps him from talking about it though). I am not worried about any new tooling that comes from R2--they do their homework.


----------



## RB

So several instances of the Eagle actually being offered for preorder have been posted and we have a roundabout idea of the SRP. But has anyone seen the Eagle Accessory Pack being solicited alongside the actual Eagle kit?


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Some 188 posting later this is what I have taken away from this thread;

We have a strong possibility that R2 might produce 1/48 Space 1999 Eagle model to be released sometime in November 201?. 

This model will be approximately 22 inches long.

It will have open cage design so as to see the detail of the service modules only seen larger models.

There will be accurate engine piping and spring loaded landing gear.

The top of the command module will come off so "we" can see the full detailed cockpit, with astronauts. 

The interchangeable service module doors will open showing off the to scale interior.

A pamphlet will be included announcing future releases of additional service modules, external boosters attachments and the carbon fiber glider. Oh and I almost forgot about the lighting kit.

Did I leave anything off the wish list?............:jest:


----------



## RB

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Some 188 posting later this is what I have taken away from this thread;
> 
> We have a strong possibility that R2 might produce 1/48 Space 1999 Eagle model to be released sometime in November 201?.
> 
> This model will be approximately 22 inches long.
> 
> It will have open cage design so as to see the detail of the service modules only seen larger models.
> 
> There will be accurate engine piping and spring loaded landing gear.
> 
> The top of the command module will come off so "we" can see the full detailed cockpit, with astronauts.
> 
> The interchangeable service module doors will open showing off the to scale interior.
> 
> A pamphlet will be included announcing future releases of additional service modules, external boosters attachments and the carbon fiber glider. Oh and I almost forgot about the lighting kit.
> 
> Did I leave anything off the wish list?............:jest:


Figures...how could you leave out the figures...dude, seriously...


----------



## robiwon

The Collectors Club Edition will come with a small sealed vile of moon dust collected by the various Apollo missions, limited to a run of 1999.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

RB said:


> Figures...how could you leave out the figures...dude, seriously...


How could I forget about the the mission crew.


----------



## SUNGOD

One thing I really hope there isn't is a sprue attachment right on the tip of the nose like on the MPC and Imai kits.


----------



## John P

Also, it should be able to mount Estes rocket engines and really fly.


----------



## Fozzie

John P said:


> Also, it should be able to mount Estes rocket engines and really fly.


As a kid, my brothers and I proved that, given enough thrust, ANYTHING will fly.

Briefly.


----------



## SteveR

Fozzie said:


> As a kid, my brothers and I proved that, given enough thrust, ANYTHING will fly.
> 
> Briefly.


Once.


----------



## BWolfe

John P said:


> Also, it should be able to mount Estes rocket engines and really fly.


It's been done!


----------



## KUROK

Anyone going to Wonderfest your job is to snap photos of any prototype Eagle kit they present ... and post said photos here!


----------



## hubert

KUROK said:


> Anyone going to Wonderfest your job is to snap photos of any prototype Eagle kit they present ... and post said photos here!


Agreed.


----------



## Richard Baker

KUROK said:


> Anyone going to Wonderfest your job is to snap photos of any prototype Eagle kit they present ... and post said photos here!


Actual prototype, not someone holding a photoshopped poster while dancing...


----------



## veedubb67

Aw, where's the fun in that???

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## phicks

Note that the resin King Kong kit that was part of CultTV Man's initial report has now been confirmed, via a photo on Jim Small's Facebook site. He said his buildup of Kong will be present at Wonderfest.


----------



## Richard Baker

veedubb67 said:


> Aw, where's the fun in that???
> 
> Rob
> Iwata Padawan


Seen the dance before and I am so proud of my R2 Akira kit...

Some companies I accept what they say and never doubt them, R2 I need to see something tangible...

(I wonder what ever happened to the Surlaco kit?)


----------



## SUNGOD

I was thinking about the Sulaco too. Personally I'm not that bothered if we don't get it as the old Halcyon kit's ok and I'd much prefer a new styrene Nostromo anyway (and of course an Eagle).

And a new K'Tinga in 1/350th.


----------



## Hunch

Wheres the love for a 1/350 D7 ?!!!! Its a sleek classic, IMO its just as great (almost) as the TOS E!


----------



## SUNGOD

Hunch said:


> Wheres the love for a 1/350 D7 ?!!!! Its a sleek classic, IMO its just as great (almost) as the TOS E!





I should imagine there's plenty of love for the D7 but I personally much prefer the K'Tinga and let's not forget a 1/350th kit was on the drawing boards a few years back before it was cancelled. Also I know it has the Aztec engraving on the rear and part of the command bridge but I think the Revell kit is a fairly good representation of the D7 plus there's the smaller 1/1000 kit. The K'Tinga hasn't got any good representation in kit form and the existing kits just don't do the detail justice.........and that's why we need a larger kit so much more of the detail can be captured.

If we are getting a new Eagle and it sells well then I think the K'Tinga should come next and in many polls over the past few years the Eagles and K'Tinga have been at the tops of the wants list.


----------



## Fozzie

First pictures from WonderFest are starting to show up and the 1:48 scale Eagle from Round 2 is real--and it looks fabulous!

Spring loaded landing gear and the deluxe accessories pack will include turned metal engine bells!


----------



## teslabe

Fozzie said:


> First pictures from WonderFest are starting to show up and the 1:48 scale Eagle from Round 2 is real--and it looks fabulous!
> 
> Spring loaded landing gear and the deluxe accessories pack will include turned metal engine bells!


I seem to have missed those pictures, could someone please post a few here in hobbyTalk, thanks.....:wave:


----------



## swhite228

https://www.facebook.com/pages/EAGLE-TRANSPORTER-SPACE-1999/46567890884

That's a small video of the model done by Todd Morton . The kit is based on the 44in filming Eagles and has spring loaded landing gear and it seems the 2 astronauts for the cm.

Round 2 announced at the show a deluxe accessory kit with turned metal engine bells and metal oleo struts

Todd has posted a lot of pictures of it on the Space 1999 groups on Facebook, so just search one of the groups out.


----------



## teslabe

swhite228 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/pages/EAGLE-TRANSPORTER-SPACE-1999/46567890884
> 
> That's a small video of the model done by Todd Morton . The kit is based on the 44in filming Eagles and has spring loaded landing gear and it seems the 2 astronauts for the cm.
> 
> Round 2 announced at the show a deluxe accessory kit with turned metal engine bells and metal oleo struts
> 
> Todd has posted a lot of pictures of it on the Space 1999 groups on Facebook, so just search one of the groups out.


Thank you very much, the pictures look great, can't wait......


----------



## mach7

HOLY $H!%!

That thing is beautiful!

Time to peorder.


----------



## swhite228

Between this and the possible reissue of the Sealab my Christmas hobby spending is already over.


----------



## Hunch

Oh my lord! I...I'm...speechless! I can see containers of these being shipped to England and Japan! HOME RUN!!!!
edited to add: They could not have picked better people to do the legwork! Those are the 2 people I would have suggested to use!


----------



## JeffBond

Wow--kit of the DECADE. I continue to be dumbfounded at the gifts we modelers get...we've been grousing about R2's releases for the past couple of years, turns out they had other things on their minds.


----------



## Steve H

That's very impressive, looks like it's gonna be a winner. 

I'm gonna say one negative thing based on those photos. I really wish they could have come up with a better way to secure the pod rather than 'a bar at either end secured by a screw'. I know that's what they did on the 44" filming model, but that's partially due to the needs of filming- get it set, get it on set, crack that box and plop in new freon cans let's go go go. 

Surely there could have been some kind of better, more subtle, more 'realistic' solution found?


----------



## electric indigo

Sorry for the mess, but my head just exploded...


----------



## Metaluna Mutant

I see my wife's xmas present to me already picked. In fact, I may have to get 2.


----------



## Neverendingmods

Enh. I'm still not convinced this is for real. Pictures and video can be faked.




KIDDING!:tongue:


----------



## jheilman

My absolute favorite thing at Wonderfest this year.


----------



## KUROK

Woo Hoooo!!!!!


----------



## WOI

It happened!!Round 2 had actually gone thru with it!


----------



## kekker

I noticed a pair of lunar module halves under the framework near the back! And what looks like a Tiger engine deck. I wonder how many other kits can be recognized?


----------



## iamjafi

It's... It's... Just Beautiful.
Wow, that's the Eagle I've always dreamed of having. Before the rivet counters chime in, I just want to say to Round2 that you've done a beautiful job on this kit. 
I'm going to wait a little before pre-ordering to see if Round2 does something like the 1701 Club they did with the 350 E. Either way, I'm pre-ordering at least one, maybe two of these babies.


----------



## JeffBond

I appreciate someone saying their head exploded instead of the usual half dozen "I need to change my pants" comments...


----------



## spindrift

Hope decals will be accurate and extensive- lots of little red rectangles go everywhere on it.
I'm concerned on it selling- I don't even think Space 1999 is in print anymore on DVD and Blu ray here in the States- I want both seasons now and think it should be back somehow...


----------



## Bugfood

There was only ONE season.

Repeat after me: "there was NO season 2"

- gives Paddington Bear Hard Stare - 

But am sure they'll have an awesome decal sheet. Be crazy not to, particularly with Messrs Trice and Prudhomme involved.

*BF*


----------



## spock62

Bugfood said:


> There was only ONE season.
> 
> Repeat after me: "there was NO season 2"
> 
> - gives Paddington Bear Hard Stare -
> *BF*


Yeah, season 2 is pretty bad! :lol:

Guess I'll have to sell more crap on ebay to get the money for this kit! Very happy to see that R2 is going forward with this.


----------



## Metaluna Mutant

spindrift said:


> Hope decals will be accurate and extensive- lots of little red rectangles go everywhere on it.
> I'm concerned on it selling- I don't even think Space 1999 is in print anymore on DVD and Blu ray here in the States- I want both seasons now and think it should be back somehow...


Unopened Season 1 s1999 blurays go for 100-200$, so there's definitely interest in it. Also Season 2 Blu ray is promised fall 2015. I know it's season 2, but I wanna finish the set. I'm thinking they may issue a season 1-2 box set later.

The fact that the R2 eagle repop sold well (I know the re-pop 20 years ago also sold well) is a good omen. No question for me, I'm getting 2.

One other thing to consider: a 48 scale eagle means different crew pods - Nuclear waste carrier, lab/booster, top spine booster also -- who knows? Lots of possible add ons for R2 later.


----------



## SteveR




----------



## fire91bird

It looked spectacular. Jamie even demonstrated its spring-loaded struts. Can't wait.


----------



## BWolfe

I will be getting at least one of these, possibly more now that I have a real job.


----------



## swhite228

kekker said:


> I noticed a pair of lunar module halves under the framework near the back! And what looks like a Tiger engine deck. I wonder how many other kits can be recognized?


1/144 Aififx Saturn 5
1/24 Revell Gemini
Are 2 more kits that were on the original and are represented on this kit


----------



## SUNGOD

Hold on a minute folks...........hold yer horses! Are we sure this is a new injection plastic kit? I can't see any references to that only some pics of a nice looking prototype and words saying it's based on the filming miniature???


----------



## fire91bird

It really is an awesome prototype.


----------



## eradicator178

phicks said:


> Note that the resin King Kong kit that was part of CultTV Man's initial report has now been confirmed, via a photo on Jim Small's Facebook site. He said his buildup of Kong will be present at Wonderfest.


Does that mean Kong is back on??


----------



## spock62

SUNGOD said:


> Hold on a minute folks...........hold yer horses! Are we sure this is a new injection plastic kit? I can't see any references to that only some pics of a nice looking prototype and words saying it's based on the filming miniature???


Well, based on the price it will sell for, low to high 80 dollar range, I'd say it will be a styrene kit. A resin kit of that size/complexity would cost way over $80!


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Does any games manufacturer make any SF crew figures in jumpsuits in 28mm scale, or spacesuited figures? A 22" Eagle, whilethe studio model used 1/48 Monogram astronauts, would be much closer to 28mm "scale". I'm pretty sure a GK manufacturer did a resin moonbuggy to that scale in the '90's. I used to have one, but I think it was a (gasp) recast.

Technically speaking, although it's the same length as one of the studio models, it's a reproduction of the 44" studio model, so it's not "Studio Scale". It is, to use a phrase Shaw came up with for his Galileo model, "1/2 Studio Scale".


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Well, based on the price it will sell for, low to high 80 dollar range, I'd say it will be a styrene kit. A resin kit of that size/complexity would cost way over $80!






I found a photo earlier on after doing a search but like an idiot I can't find it now. Anyway..........in this photo which looks like it's from Wonderfest there's a guy holding that prototype and surrounding him are a few other guys wearing Eagle t-shirts. On their t-shirts it appears to say (but it's blurry) 22inch Eagle transporter plastic model kit coming in 2015.


----------



## swhite228

Owen E Oulton said:


> Does any games manufacturer make any SF crew figures in jumpsuits in 28mm scale, or spacesuited figures? A 22" Eagle, whilethe studio model used 1/48 Monogram astronauts, would be much closer to 28mm "scale". I'm pretty sure a GK manufacturer did a resin moonbuggy to that scale in the '90's. I used to have one, but I think it was a (gasp) recast.


Pictures from Wonderfest and Todd Morton's post for the Space 1999 group indicate that their are astronauts (2) included with the kit along with the back wall of the command module.









The original 44 in Eagle used Revell 1/24 Gemini Astronauts so I would guess that if you took the 2 out of the Revel 1/48 Mercury/Gemini kit you should be ok.

As for a moonbuggy someone suggested that Round 2 look for the old Bananna Buggy molds.
Round 2 indicated that they are looking into other 1999 models and add on kits for this model and a moonbuggy is on the list being discussed along with possibly a new Hawk model.


----------



## Steve H

swhite228 said:


> Pictures from Wonderfest and Todd Morton's post for the Space 1999 group indicate that their are astronauts (2) included with the kit along with the back wall of the command module.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original 44 in Eagle used Revell 1/24 Gemini Astronauts so I would guess that if you took the 2 out of the Revel 1/48 Mercury/Gemini kit you should be ok.
> 
> As for a moonbuggy someone suggested that Round 2 look for the old Bananna Buggy molds.
> Round 2 indicated that they are looking into other 1999 models and add on kits for this model and a moonbuggy is on the list being discussed along with possibly a new Hawk model.


Finding the Banana Splits Buggy would be an ideal option. It would give them the potential for 2 kit releases, really. But I blathered on endlessly about that as I'm sure others have. 

So those figures shown, seem pretty much to be an attempt to copy the slight modifications made to those Gemini astronauts for the filming model. Am I the only one who thinks the kit would be better served with figures that looked like the actual Alpha space suits? Or is everyone who intends to buy this desiring a 'perfect' recreation of the filming model and not a 'real' Eagle?


----------



## Chuck_P.R.

I'm happy with my 3 foot long Matel "Eagel 1 Transporter". Not too screen accurate, but it does come with a winch and a smoked-plastic hinged top to the command module that flips up.


----------



## Bugfood

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I'm happy with my 3 foot long Matel "Eagel 1 Transporter". Not too screen accurate, but it does come with a winch and a smoked-plastic hinged top to the command module that flips up.


Sir: rivet counters of the world are now heading to a quiet copse of trees with a length of rope, a rickety chair and a well-oiled service revolver. 

Your work here is done...

*BF*


----------



## robiwon

I was there. I saw the 22 inch Eagle. It's real. It's coming. It's BEAUTIFUL. The landing gear is spring loaded. Optional metal parts pack coming soon (oleos, engine bells).

Coming this November(ish) to a modeling desk near you. Pre-order on line from many shops for around $81. Retail is $115.

Giggity!!!!!!!


----------



## Richard Baker

swhite228 said:


> Pictures from Wonderfest and Todd Morton's post for the Space 1999 group indicate that their are astronauts (2) included with the kit along with the back wall of the command module.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original 44 in Eagle used Revell 1/24 Gemini Astronauts so I would guess that if you took the 2 out of the Revel 1/48 Mercury/Gemini kit you should be ok.


A new back wall with figures in the show's costuming seems like a perfect aftermarket piece.
Impossible to make the interior accurate due to how badly they fudged things on the show, but with those windows you see something of the inerior besides two heads...


----------



## swhite228

Richard Baker said:


> A new back wall with figures in the show's costuming seems like a perfect aftermarket piece.
> Impossible to make the interior accurate due to how badly they fudged things on the show, but with those windows you see something of the inerior besides two heads...


They said Round 2 was working on the decal sheet to go with this so I'm thinking the back wall will probably be a detailed decal.


----------



## Steve H

swhite228 said:


> They said Round 2 was working on the decal sheet to go with this so I'm thinking the back wall will probably be a detailed decal.


Well, that surely sounds like it could be improved by Paul's stellar PE design skills. 

(I mean, a part for the back wall that has the door, another part laid on top to give depth for the padding around the door, add decal and presto, huh?)


----------



## Richard Baker

The trick is to figure out how to resolve the cabin backwall with the exterior- in the model the figures sit above the centerline looking out the top windows, on the set they sat below it and were staring at the section between the upper and lower windows*. How the door would appear would probably be based on the somewhat unseen connection between the command module and the corridor unit (I think in 'Dragon's Domain' that was seen briefly toward the end.

*Conjecture if the lower 'windows' were actual look down windows like helicopters use or sensor suites which just mirrored the shapes.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> The trick is to figure out how to resolve the cabin backwall with the exterior- in the model the figures sit above the centerline looking out the top windows, on the set they sat below it and were staring at the section between the upper and lower windows*. How the door would appear would probably be based on the somewhat unseen connection between the command module and the corridor unit (I think in 'Dragon's Domain' that was seen briefly toward the end.
> 
> *Conjecture if the lower 'windows' were actual look down windows like helicopters use or sensor suites which just mirrored the shapes.


I always assumed that the top and bottom of the Eagle command module was symmetrical for simplicity of manufacturing with the bottom 'window' area being dedicated to radar and sensors and stuff. I also assumed the 'plate' area overhead the 'main cabin' space in line with the window cutout area was a frangible panel for emergency exit or extraction. I assumed lots of doubtlessly crazy things, extrapolated from the design elements one could see. 

I say don't worry so much about trying to reconcile the interior set with the space available in the model. Put the trademark door in the middle, put whatever blinky light stuff there was on either side behind the astronauts, it'll look fine thru the limited area of the front glass. It's not like it has a big bay window like the Jupiter II


----------



## Owen E Oulton

swhite228 said:


> Pictures from Wonderfest and Todd Morton's post for the Space 1999 group indicate that their are astronauts (2) included with the kit along with the back wall of the command module.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original 44 in Eagle used Revell 1/24 Gemini Astronauts so I would guess that if you took the 2 out of the Revel 1/48 Mercury/Gemini kit you should be ok.
> 
> As for a moonbuggy someone suggested that Round 2 look for the old Bananna Buggy molds.
> Round 2 indicated that they are looking into other 1999 models and add on kits for this model and a moonbuggy is on the list being discussed along with possibly a new Hawk model.


Fodder for the parts box. I was just pointing out that 1/48 scale astronauts, even though they were used in the 22" studio model, are not even close to scale with the Eagle itself, which is closer to 1/54 scale, or 28mm "scale". The faux Monogram astronauts are only useful if you're doing a model on the studio model, but totally wrong for a model of the fictional Eagle...


----------



## RB

Owen E Oulton said:


> Fodder for the parts box. I was just pointing out that 1/48 scale astronauts, even though they were used in the 22" studio model, are not even close to scale with the Eagle itself, which is closer to 1/54 scale, or 28mm "scale". The faux Monogram astronauts are only useful if you're doing a model on the studio model, but totally wrong for a model of the fictional Eagle...


A model of the 44" studio model is apparently EXACTLY what they're going for, according to accounts on other sites. Including the screws holding the pod to the Eagle frame, just like on the 44 incher. It's a 1/2 scale model of the largest hero model from the show...


----------



## SUNGOD

Well seems like it is an all new injection kit so a big hats off to R2 for taking on the project.:thumbsup: A dream come true for Eagle fans.

They must have shifted quite a few of the old MPC kits.


----------



## Fozzie

robiwon said:


> I was there. I saw the 22 inch Eagle. It's real. It's coming. It's BEAUTIFUL. The landing gear is spring loaded. Optional metal parts pack coming soon (oleos, engine bells).


Forgive my ignorance, but what are "oleos"?


----------



## mach7

Oleos are the shock absorbing section of the landing gear.

Specially the section were the 2 sliding tubes are between the landing pad
housing (the 4 square side pods) and the landing pads.


----------



## Dr. Brad

You know what I'm really looking forward to about this kit? Not so much getting one, but seeing the amazing builds that people are doing to do of it! Can't imagine what some of you are already planning!


----------



## Steve H

Well, you know SOMEBODY is going to make a Moonbase Alpha landing pad to put this kit on. That ought to take up half a banquet table at a con.  Heck, it could take up an entire card table! Maybe that's the way to go, design it so it's its own self contained display...


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

Steve H said:


> Well, you know SOMEBODY is going to make a Moonbase Alpha landing pad to put this kit on. That ought to take up half a banquet table at a con.  Heck, it could take up an entire card table! Maybe that's the way to go, design it so it's its own self contained display...


I am already on it as well with the Glider to. :thumbsup:

:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Finding the Banana Splits Buggy would be an ideal option. It would give them the potential for 2 kit releases, really. But I blathered on endlessly about that as I'm sure others have.
> 
> So those figures shown, seem pretty much to be an attempt to copy the slight modifications made to those Gemini astronauts for the filming model. Am I the only one who thinks the kit would be better served with figures that looked like the actual Alpha space suits? Or is everyone who intends to buy this desiring a 'perfect' recreation of the filming model and not a 'real' Eagle?





No you're not the only one and I'd much prefer figures with the correct Alpha spacesuits too. This is one reason why I prefer a replica of what's on screen to a totally warts and all replica of the studio model even though this looks like it could be a great kit.


----------



## Metaluna Mutant

Dr. Brad said:


> You know what I'm really looking forward to about this kit? Not so much getting one, but seeing the amazing builds that people are doing to do of it! Can't imagine what some of you are already planning!


I just preordered 2 of these. However I still have the regular kit in my stash. What to do? 

How about a WRECKED eagle diorama, plowed into the Moon surface? Or an Eagle scrapyard a la the Sc-Fi Airshow? Good way to still use the venerable but inaccurate original kit and make an amazing diorama - plus there are MANY wrecks to emulate from s1999 

http://www.scifiairshow.com/ships-eagle4.html

http://www.scifiairshow.com/ships-boneyard.html


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> No you're not the only one and I'd much prefer figures with the correct Alpha spacesuits too. This is one reason why I prefer a replica of what's on screen to a totally warts and all replica of the studio model even though this looks like it could be a great kit.


Thank you. Somebody listened. 

I'm not putting down the kit. I'm not getting on my 'internet entitlement mentality' hobbyhorse and proclaiming that since it's not exactly and perfectly what I imagine it should be, the kit is completely dead to me and furthermore will turn out to be a complete sales disaster. No, never. It looks like a pretty amazing kit.

But, I do wish, and maybe there will actually be this, there were a few more options, options that correct obvious 'maybe doesn't look so good' things that are the difference from recreating a filming miniature (warts and all, as said) and making a model as-if it were a re-creation of a real vehicle. 

The astronauts, reflecting the 'nobody is really gonna see this clearly' nature of a special effects model. It might be nice to concede that they WILL be seen now, and maybe they should look more Moonbase Alpha-ish. I'm realistic in understanding that offering BOTH kinds of figures is right out. I'm not too thrilled by the giant screw and flat plate module retention system. Might something else be developed? I know that's what the filming model looked like but we never really saw that in the show, just like we never really saw the wires, or the pipe stand mount, or the freon cans inside the passenger module. 

I'm not asking for complex engineering trying to replicate what the 'real' connection system would be (and it would be a multi-layer system including power/control/fluids hardpoints and automatic latching  ) but hidden sliding tabs wouldn't be so bad (and again, every solution creates new problems and new angst on the interwebz. I get that.).

And does anyone know if the passenger module will have replacement extended legs? That's a thing too, don't forget.

And OK, I'll hop on my entitlement horse for a moment. I do wish this was in 1/72 scale, OR that a comparable all-new tool kit in 1/72 would join it. The smaller size and lower pricepoint would make it more more attractive for both customers and retailers. There.


----------



## The_Engineer

With the Product Enterprise diecast Eagles, they had a slide tab on the bottom of the passenger pod (1 forward and 1 rear) to connect the pod to the main body. I wonder if this can be done on this model. As for the legs on the bottom of the passenger pod, I think the best way to deal with that would be able to attach/remove the retracted legs and replace them with the extended legs (ie have them be swappable).


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> With the Product Enterprise diecast Eagles, they had a slide tab on the bottom of the passenger pod (1 forward and 1 rear) to connect the pod to the main body. I wonder if this can be done on this model. As for the legs on the bottom of the passenger pod, I think the best way to deal with that would be able to attach/remove the retracted legs and replace them with the extended legs (ie have them be swappable).


Now, that strikes me as an elegant solution. Putting the extending tabs on the passenger module means making 'platform based' (crane, waste carrying, etc.) modules an easy thing. If you don't want this it's an easy thing to fill and putty over. 

I agree, swappable legs for the passenger module seems the best solution. Maybe take a hint from the Japanese and embed some polycaps for the legs to plug into. 

Paul will probably have to make PE stairs for the pod.


----------



## seaQuest

Dr. Brad said:


> You know what I'm really looking forward to about this kit? Not so much getting one, but seeing the amazing builds that people are doing to do of it! Can't imagine what some of you are already planning!


Oh, I can already see people making their own launch and landing videos with this model.
Hey, maybe even the "crash in the hangar"? scene from "Space Warp."


----------



## Dr. Brad

Ah yes - already so many great ideas for what to do with the kit....


----------



## SUNGOD

The_Engineer said:


> With the Product Enterprise diecast Eagles, they had a slide tab on the bottom of the passenger pod (1 forward and 1 rear) to connect the pod to the main body. I wonder if this can be done on this model. As for the legs on the bottom of the passenger pod, I think the best way to deal with that would be able to attach/remove the retracted legs and replace them with the extended legs (ie have them be swappable).




Yes I think that would be a better solution than the screws. And of course the problem with putting screws into plastic is the plastic just gets rounded off by the metal so the pod might keep falling off. So far along with possible non authentic Alpha pilots these 2 things are a bit of a worry for me.


----------



## eimb1999

iamjafi said:


> ...... Before the rivet counters chime in, I just want to say to Round2 that you've done a beautiful job on this kit.


The nice thing is, the "rivet counters" are the ones MAKING this kit! 



iamjafi said:


> I'm going to wait a little before pre-ordering to see if Round2 does something like the 1701 Club they did with the 350 E.


No, not bothering with the 1701 club stuff. But they ARE offering turned ali bells as supplemental accessory kits!


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Thank you. Somebody listened.
> 
> I'm not putting down the kit. I'm not getting on my 'internet entitlement mentality' hobbyhorse and proclaiming that since it's not exactly and perfectly what I imagine it should be, the kit is completely dead to me and furthermore will turn out to be a complete sales disaster. No, never. It looks like a pretty amazing kit.
> 
> But, I do wish, and maybe there will actually be this, there were a few more options, options that correct obvious 'maybe doesn't look so good' things that are the difference from recreating a filming miniature (warts and all, as said) and making a model as-if it were a re-creation of a real vehicle.
> 
> The astronauts, reflecting the 'nobody is really gonna see this clearly' nature of a special effects model. It might be nice to concede that they WILL be seen now, and maybe they should look more Moonbase Alpha-ish. I'm realistic in understanding that offering BOTH kinds of figures is right out. I'm not too thrilled by the giant screw and flat plate module retention system. Might something else be developed? I know that's what the filming model looked like but we never really saw that in the show, just like we never really saw the wires, or the pipe stand mount, or the freon cans inside the passenger module.
> 
> I'm not asking for complex engineering trying to replicate what the 'real' connection system would be (and it would be a multi-layer system including power/control/fluids hardpoints and automatic latching  ) but hidden sliding tabs wouldn't be so bad (and again, every solution creates new problems and new angst on the interwebz. I get that.).
> 
> And does anyone know if the passenger module will have replacement extended legs? That's a thing too, don't forget.
> 
> And OK, I'll hop on my entitlement horse for a moment. I do wish this was in 1/72 scale, OR that a comparable all-new tool kit in 1/72 would join it. The smaller size and lower pricepoint would make it more more attractive for both customers and retailers. There.





Of course you're not putting the kit down and you've got every right to comment on these things. I hope R2 at least takes posts like these into consideration when making this as we all want it to be really good and so far as I said the pilots and the screws holding the pod thing are 2 things that bother me too. 

As I've said quite a few times I think this exact replica of the filming miniature can be taken too far and I also prefer a replica of what it's supposed to be on screen i.e.......a real spaceship. It's like the Moebius Orion. The original miniature probably had the panel lines drawn on but that doesn't mean that it's a great idea to do them just as decals. I'd much, much prefer proper engraved panel lines like you'd see on a real ship.


Another one is like when Product Enterprise copied the Captain Scarlet SPV miniature by putting the distinctive panel lines on as printed instead of making them proper engravings. I just hate that and what some people forget is the makers of these miniatures were striving to make them look like real vehicles and not film props. 

I'd like to see all of the panel lines on the Eagle done as fine engravings too.


----------



## eimb1999

Steve H said:


> Well, that surely sounds like it could be improved by Paul's stellar PE design skills.
> 
> (I mean, a part for the back wall that has the door, another part laid on top to give depth for the padding around the door, add decal and presto, huh?)



You can rest assured that such aftermarket details will be wasted, as you can't see much through the cockpit windows anyway. There will be two pilot figures and the back wall will be represented by an accurate decal which will be more than adequate. If you saw the studio model's back wall you would easily agree. The original model's back wall was all orange or tan with two black stripes on each side. We're planning on doing at least a little better than that.


----------



## eimb1999

https://www.facebook.com/permalink....961071751&id=251360838378332&substory_index=0

Any questions? Please ask on that page.


----------



## ken1701

would round2 think about doing a 44 inch eagle kit if the sales of the 22 inch which I will be buying by the box load does well.


----------



## John P

Of course not.


----------



## eimb1999

ken1701 said:


> would round2 think about doing a 44 inch eagle kit if the sales of the 22 inch which I will be buying by the box load does well.


Not a chance. A 44" Eagle kit is no whee near practical.


----------



## ken1701

one can dream .


----------



## eimb1999

Looking at a few posts here, I realize that no matter how good something is, there will always be someone who says it's not good enough. Let me lay down some facts for all of you with this attitude.....

First, the VFX 44" model was built to 1/24th scale. That is a fact. Do not argue it by saying the doors are too short. That is irrelevant. 1/24th scale is what the modelmalkers built it to, as it’s a standard VFX scale and all the off-the-shelf products like staircases, ladders, railings and things seen in the hangars and so on are also 1/24th scale that were used every time the models were filmed. That fact is NOT arguable. Since we never saw people walking around any full scale Eagles anyway, it matters not that the side door is too short. The modelmakers either made a mistake in that respect or it just didn’t matter to achieve the illusion of a functional-looking spacecraft in a fictional setting. 

This kit is an exact duplicate of that hero 44” model but half the size. That makes it 1/48th scale. Live with that fact. You’ll sleep better. Forget the idea that the doors are too short. Just ignore it. It doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. Who cares. So what. No biggie. Never mind.

Second... the interior sets the actors interacted with cannot... repeat CANNOT work with the model. Not at all. Not the doors, not the windows, not the cockpit layout... NOTHING. It’s a physical impossibility unless you change either the set layout or the ship’s entire design. Live with that fact. You’ll sleep better.

Third.... this is a replica of the VFX miniature used in all the VFX shots. It is NOT a model of a "real" ship because (shockingly) the REAL ship NEVER EXISTED!!!!

Fourth... there will NOT be any engraved lines on the kit beyond what was used on the VFX model because the VFX model did not have them. For the most part, panel lines were drawn on with a pencil on the 44" studio model. Nothing to stop the modeler from doing the same thing or even engraving them yourself if you want. Not hard to do.

Details like screws holding the PP to the spine are there because they are on the VFX model too. Besides, that’s the only way to hold the pod in place unless you change the design.

The decision was made to make the model look like the filming model rather than a “real ship” because the filming miniature is WHAT WE SAW ON SCREEN! If you change it to reflect a “real ship” then you would not have an accurate replica of what you SAW ON SCREEN.

If the kit was made with all the design changes some of you suggest, then it wouldn’t be the same as the VFX model, and then those people would complain. I know because I’d be one of them. All true Eagle fans want a replica of what we saw on screen, not a re-worked one. 

It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to have it both ways.

Also, all the “extras” you’d want cost money. Therefore the price of the kit would go up. We’re doing the best we can to make this kit as close to perfect as practical and still keep the model down to an affordable price. And, let’s be honest here... with a pre-order price of only about $85, and a street price likely no higher than maybe $120 or so, the kit is an INCREDIBLE bargain even at twice the price for the size, authenticity and detail you will get for the money. 

So, you have two choices. Buy the kit and be happy that you got the most accurate, most completely detailed, absolutely the best Sci-Fi kit for the money ever made in the history of model kits and build it to your liking and make the changes you want yourself, or, you can complain that it’s not exactly the way you want it to be and ignore it because a couple of screws are showing, penciled panel lines are not engraved (definitely will NOT be done... yuck! but you can do them yourself if you like) and the pilots aren’t the imagined fictional scale.

The fact is, if you like the Eagle as much as I do, this should be the ultimate wet dream for you and will buy a dozen of them. 

If the kit sells well, there will be more coming.


----------



## BWolfe

I am excited for this after seeing the prototype pics, I will buy at least two of these (that's all I have room for). If there is something I don't like about the kit, like the screws holding the passenger pod in place, it is easy enough to correct. I have already worked out how to add magnets to the pod and to the attach points on the Eagle itself, so no big deal. The pilots, again, no big deal, the only thing you will be able to really see are their heads. 
The reality is, there were three 44 inch filming models used on the show and even though the basic shape and proportions are similar, none of the small details are an exact match. The same with the two 22 inch models, when you compare them side by side, there are many differences readily apparent. That means that during the run of the series, there were 5 noticeably different Eagles used in filming, not counting the 11 inch and 5.5 inch models. I am glad that it was decided that this model is going to be a reproduction of one of the 44 inch models and not an idealized version of what an Eagle should be. If there is a detail that I like on one of the other models that is not on the kit, it will be easy enough for me or anyone with even basic modeling skills to add it. That could be something that aftermarket suppliers could do, research the differences and produce add on detail parts kits from the different Eagle models. 
Only thing I hope Round 2 does consider doing is producing just the passenger pod as a separate kit so that builders can have the basic pod, the red stripe pod and the orange sided pod without having to fork over the cash for a complete Eagle kit just to have each of those represented. Add on kits could be the Lab pod, the waste container platform pod, the winch pod and the strap on booster packs, never hurts to dream, right!


----------



## Scifitodd

Hello everyone, my name is Todd and I was there at WonderFest to witness the announcement of this 22" eagle transporter. Let me say this, if you are a true model builder this is the dream kit if you love the eagle like most of us do! There is no sense in wishing or complaining, it's going to be fabulous! It also makes it possible for so much imagination and scratch building if that is what you desire! I have been waiting for this for a long while as most of us have. All the posts about screws and cockpit interior is just nuts, if you don't like the screws figure out how to not use them, for pete's sake your a model builder! Use magnets! Ah, there is an idea, put your personality in it! That is what makes model building so awesome! Brian Johnson built one with parts from 100's of kits now that is a true builder! Enjoy the best eagle model ever made in this scale and make it yours, that is what this hobby is all about. :thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

BWolfe said:


> I am excited for this after seeing the prototype pics, I will buy at least two of these (that's all I have room for). If there is something I don't like about the kit, like the screws holding the passenger pod in place, it is easy enough to correct. I have already worked out how to add magnets to the pod and to the attach points on the Eagle itself, so no big deal. The pilots, again, no big deal, the only thing you will be able to really see are their heads.
> The reality is, there were three 44 inch filming models used on the show and even though the basic shape and proportions are similar, none of the small details are an exact match. The same with the two 22 inch models, when you compare them side by side, there are many differences readily apparent. That means that during the run of the series, there were 5 noticeably different Eagles used in filming, not counting the 11 inch and 5.5 inch models. I am glad that it was decided that this model is going to be a reproduction of one of the 44 inch models and not an idealized version of what an Eagle should be. If there is a detail that I like on one of the other models that is not on the kit, it will be easy enough for me or anyone with even basic modeling skills to add it. That could be something that aftermarket suppliers could do, research the differences and produce add on detail parts kits from the different Eagle models.
> Ony thing I hope Round 2 does consider doing is producing just the passenger pod as a separate kit so that builders can have the basic pod, the red stripe pod and the orange sided pod without having to fork over the cash for a complete Eagle kit just to have each of those represented. Add on kits could be the Lab pod, the waste container platform pod, the winch pod and the strap on booster packs, never hurts to dream, right!


Kudos to you, enjoy your kits! If this kit sales are good there will be more! :thumbsup:


----------



## Havok69

Meh. Give me the Galileo instead.


----------



## jheilman

Who ever said it has to be one or the other? I want both.


----------



## Scifitodd

Toddyboy766 said:


> Hello everyone, my name is Todd and I was there at WonderFest to witness the announcement of this 22" eagle transporter. Let me say this, if you are a true model builder this is the dream kit if you love the eagle like most of us do! There is no sense in wishing or complaining, it's going to be fabulous! It also makes it possible for so much imagination and scratch building if that is what you desire! I have been waiting for this for a long while as most of us have. All the posts about screws and cockpit interior is just nuts, if you don't like the screws figure out how to not use them, for pete's sake your a model builder! Use magnets! Ah, there is an idea, put your personality in it! That is what makes model building so awesome! Brian Johnson built one with parts from 100's of kits now that is a true builder! Enjoy the best eagle model ever made in this scale and make it yours, that is what this hobby is all about. :thumbsup:


 By the way, that's a picture of Jamie Anderson holding the prototype which he was very approving of! The other picture is the top view of the pod, and the next picture is the guys responsible for making this happen! Kudos to them for sticking their heads in the lions mouth and hoping to keep it attached to their shoulders! Jamie Hood and Chris Purvis of Round2!


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> Meh. Give me the Galileo instead.


No problem, you may be in the wrong thread then! But I will be getting the Galileo also!:wave:


----------



## jheilman

At this stage, I'm prepared to take it on faith that R2 will produce a satisfactory method to attach the pod. If I don't like how it looks, I'll change it. If I don't like the astronauts, I know someone will sell aftermarket varieties. This is the kit I have wanted for decades. I'm as excited about this kit as I was about the big TOS Enterprise. Honestly, maybe even a bit more. 

And, if anyone wants a 44" eagle, I'm sure they can hook you up. It's a bit more than $100. :wave: *Actually, you could buy 100 R2 eagles at the pre-order price vs. one of these!*


----------



## Havok69

IF they go through with it. I'm just bitter - I wanted the Galileo as my next kit to finish, since I've completed the TOS 1/350 Enterprise and am working on the Bridge kit now. I have a theme going. It just seems like even though all the work is done, they just dropped the Galileo and did this whole kit in the interim. I think a lot of people that were waiting are like WTF? Plus, not even a mention at Wonderfest is almost an insult. Hopefully it goes through.

I'll pick this kit up too as I just recently started binge watching Space 1999 and have always loved the show. Man, season two is a major change from one. The only bright spot of the new season is Maya, and Barbara Bain looks better...


----------



## crowe-t

From what I've seen in the pictures posted this 22" Eagle is incredibly accurate to the original 44" studio model! Most Eagle lovers seem to favor the original model and it's no surprise. 

Let's face it the only other styrene kit of the Eagle is the old MPC/AMT 12" Eagle and it's less than accurate, actually a lot less than accurate. :lol:

Up until now the only way to have an accurate 22" Eagle is to go build one from scratch.

Most Eagles I've seen scratch built represent the studio model to some degree. This kit from Round 2 really seems to be in line with how the Eagle is viewed. 

The original 44" studio model is my favorite and I'm glad Round 2 used that as reference in the design of this wonderful kit.

Round 2 keeps hitting home runs with these long awaited kits they are producing. The 1/350 TOS Enterprise and the 1/25 Batmobile come to mind. I can't wait to have one of these Eagle in hand!


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> IF they go through with it. I'm just bitter - I wanted the Galileo as my next kit to finish, since I've completed the TOS 1/350 Enterprise and am working on the Bridge kit now. I have a theme going. It just seems like even though all the work is done, they just dropped the Galileo and did this whole kit in the interim. I think a lot of people that were waiting are like WTF? Plus, not even a mention at Wonderfest is almost an insult. Hopefully it goes through.
> 
> I'll pick this kit up too as I just recently started binge watching Space 1999 and have always loved the show. Man, season two is a major change from one. The only bright spot of the new season is Maya, and Barbara Bain looks better...


I think it's still going to happen but it's delayed for some reason, whenI talk to Round2 again I will enquire for us!


----------



## Scifitodd

crowe-t said:


> From what I've seen in the pictures posted this 22" Eagle is incredibly accurate to the original 44" studio model! Most Eagle lovers seem to favor the original model and it's no surprise.
> 
> Let's face it the only other styrene kit of the Eagle is the old MPC/AMT 12" Eagle and it's less than accurate, actually a lot less than accurate. :lol:
> 
> Up until now the only way to have an accurate 22" Eagle is to go build one from scratch.
> 
> Most Eagles I've seen scratch built represent the studio model to some degree. This kit from Round 2 really seems to be in line with how the Eagle is viewed.
> 
> The original 44" studio model is my favorite and I'm glad Round 2 used that as reference in the design of this wonderful kit.
> 
> Round 2 keeps hitting home runs with these long awaited kits they are producing. The 1/350 TOS Enterprise and the 1/25 Batmobile come to mind. I can't wait to have one of these Eagle in hand!


I agree wholly! I'm excited, really see my cheesy smile! lol.....:thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

RB said:


> I'm pretty sure that just a scaled-up version of the original MPC kit would lead to mobs armed with torches and pitchforks storming Round 2 headquarters...


Now what do you think?:thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> So you think I sit around and make this stuff up? Really?



So, I guess you were right Steve!:thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

djnick66 said:


> Well it was posted in April... I am pretty certain its not a real kit and not coming out in November. Wasn't this discussed to death already here ?


Hmmm? Pretty sure it is real!:thumbsup:


----------



## RB

eimb1999 said:


> Since we never saw people walking around any full scale Eagles anyway, it matters not that the side door is too short.


Well, there IS that shot in Another Time, Another Place, reused in Testament of Arkadia. No side door tho...:

http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/epimghd/tiatap9.html


----------



## SUNGOD

> Third.... this is a replica of the VFX miniature used in all the VFX shots. It is NOT a model of a "real" ship because (shockingly) the REAL ship NEVER EXISTED!!!!


Come on........that's not the point we were making. We were saying about what it's supposed to be on screen. I.E. a real ship.





> Fourth... there will NOT be any engraved lines on the kit beyond what was used on the VFX model because the VFX model did not have them. For the most part, panel lines were drawn on with a pencil on the 44" studio model. Nothing to stop the modeler from doing the same thing or even engraving them yourself if you want. Not hard to do.



The Enterprise had a hand drawn faint grid pattern but R2 put them on their kit as fairly fine engraved lines. Ok a small bunch of people complained but I thought they looked pretty effective on the 1/350th kit.





> Details like screws holding the PP to the spine are there because they are on the VFX model too. Besides, that’s the only way to hold the pod in place unless you change the design.




Well I thought that Product Enterprise came up with a neat solution to that even if maybe the design was altered slightly. The alterations are so small anyway you can hardly notice them and I think it gives the PE ones a more realistic, believable approach. As if it's a real ship. I can imagine those 2 tabs electronically retracting to let the pods free on an Eagle if it was real.





> The decision was made to make the model look like the filming model rather than a “real ship” because the filming miniature is WHAT WE SAW ON SCREEN! If you change it to reflect a “real ship” then you would not have an accurate replica of what you SAW ON SCREEN.




Nobody's saying you could make it exactly like a real ship but you can give it a bit more realism than the filming miniatures. Most filming miniatures are very rough close up anyway so this argument that you can't give a model kit more realism without totally changing it from the filming miniatures is nonsense. Look at Fine Molds and Bandai giving the option of adding windows to their Star Wars ships. The filming miniatures didn't have any glass. Look at the Product Enterprise SPV. Those distinctive panel lines were just printed on it and even though they were on the miniatures too they were supposed to be real 3D panel lines...........you compare it with a toy SPV that has engraved lines and they don't look anywhere near as good as the light doesn't hit them in the same way. Yes I know the Eagles don't have loads of panel lines but I think a few finely engraved lines would be a neat touch. All I can say is what I prefer. 





> If the kit was made with all the design changes some of you suggest, then it wouldn’t be the same as the VFX model, and then those people would complain. I know because I’d be one of them. All true Eagle fans want a replica of what we saw on screen, not a re-worked one.
> 
> It is therefore NOT POSSIBLE to have it both ways.




I think it is possible. Adding a few real panel lines instead of hand drawn ones and maybe a few other touches won't make it so it's not what we see on screen. The miniature Eagles were supposed to represent real spaceships. Same with the pilots. I'd prefer to at least see some pilots that look like the Alpha ones we saw on tv instead of old Gemini ones or whatever.





> Also, all the “extras” you’d want cost money. Therefore the price of the kit would go up. We’re doing the best we can to make this kit as close to perfect as practical and still keep the model down to an affordable price. And, let’s be honest here... with a pre-order price of only about $85, and a street price likely no higher than maybe $120 or so, the kit is an INCREDIBLE bargain even at twice the price for the size, authenticity and detail you will get for the money.




I agree it sounds like an incredible bargain and believe me I'm chuffed that it's being done. Just because some of us point out a few things we think could be different doesn't mean we're bashing the kit. From what I've seen it looks like a fantastic kit. Don't confuse people putting forward a few ideas with people trashing it.





> So, you have two choices. Buy the kit and be happy that you got the most accurate, most completely detailed, absolutely the best Sci-Fi kit for the money ever made in the history of model kits and build it to your liking and make the changes you want yourself, or, you can complain that it’s not exactly the way you want it to be and ignore it because a couple of screws are showing, penciled panel lines are not engraved (definitely will NOT be done... yuck! but you can do them yourself if you like) and the pilots aren’t the imagined fictional scale.




I think saying "yuck" about a few panel lines is a bit silly. I really don't think a few ready done finely engraved lines would hurt the kit at all (improve it in some peoples eyes)






> The fact is, if you like the Eagle as much as I do, this should be the ultimate wet dream for you and will buy a dozen of them.




Nobody's saying it isn't a dream come true. As I said don't confuse people putting forward a few ideas they'd like to see with people just trashing it as that isn't the case.




> If the kit sells well, there will be more coming.




That's great to hear and hopefully it will sell well. I'll be buying quite a few at least myself but whilst forums like this exist you can't blame people for putting forward a few ideas. Again I think it's fantastic that R2 is doing this.


----------



## Steve H

I do not understand the seeming vitriol in the gentleman's post. It sounds oddly defensive, as if there was argument over replicating the 44" filming miniature Vs. 'making it like it was a real thing'. Like he had some major pushback on the idea and fought like hell to get what he wanted. I'm glad we didn't seem to have that debate for the 1/350 Enterprise, huh?

Myself, I don't understand the allure of wanting to duplicate the filming miniature. I mean, to PROPERLY do it one needs to carve the detail plates a little (as they were all hand cut and hand applied, so there doubtlessly was some not quite perfect work there), maybe give the top of the model a slightly sticky coating of anti-flair spray dusted with powered paint, cut off this or that detail greebly to represent when the glue failed and a part fell off, and so on. Oh, and the holes for the wires. 

I'm glad the discussion about the miniature's scale was brought up, seems I recall making some of the exact same points with even more clarity. 

I get that the windows are small, I get that any kind of detail other than a decal is likely useless but I know Paul does amazing things with PE and all I ever suggested was some outlines and shapes that if a decal was laid on top of, it would look even better. And I really want Alpha spacesuits on those figures. But we can't have that because it would violate the purity of replicating the filming miniature. I guess. 

So, OK. Wonderful kit of the filming miniature.


----------



## BWolfe

The main thing to remember, we are finally getting an accurate Eagle in styrene, in a decent scale and a good price! If there is a detail that I do not like or that is not included because it was on one of the other filming models, I can easily fix it.


----------



## Trek Ace

Bring it on!

The Eagle has been one of my favorite post-_Star Trek_ vehicles. It looks like a genuine real-world utility spacecraft. Brian Johnson was (and is) a genius in the visual effects field. I'm so happy that this craft is finally being given the kit release that it deserves. 

As for the _Galileo_ kit, I want one as much as anyone, but there are no sour grapes on my part if it is delayed for a time and we get a large, accurate Eagle kit in the interim. I see it as a win-win scenario. What a pleasant surprise!

For those of you who want engraved panel lines on the Eagle, I suggest getting a scribing tool and a straightedge and start practicing. You'll come away with not only your own unique Eagle model with scribed panel lines, but you'll learn some new modeling skills as well!


----------



## crowe-t

The TOS Enterprise seems to be mostly built by modelers as a 'real' ship so I can see why the 1/350 TOS E has the panel lines scribed in. Producing it as a 'studio model' replica would have meant leaving details(i.e. deflector fork, windows...) off of the port side which would have looked ridiculous. The 1/350 kit can be modified to look like the studio model. Leaving those details on the port side was a good decision and I'm sure most modelers would agree. 

From what I've seen on the Eagle model building forums, most Eagle replicas are built to resemble the studio models. I suppose since the Eagle studio models are complete from all sides this makes sense. Also a lot of Eagle replicas are built using the same materials and techniques(i.e. brass tubing, kit(bashed) parts, screws holding the pods in place, Gemini figures in the cockpit...) as seen on the studio models. Other then the old MPC/AMT 12" Eagle kit there are no other styrene Eagle kits. There are a few garage kits that are expensive but most Eagle builds are done in the same fashion as the studio models from scratch. It's almost a mission for a majority of Eagle model builders to replicate the studio models. I can see why Round 2 decided to go with the look of the studio model for the 22" Eagle kit. They chose the original 44" studio model as reference giving that it's the most popular of all the studio models which is a good choice. 

It seems that Round 2 really does their homework when producing kits. The 1/350 TOS Enterprise can be modified to resemble the studio model or the grid lines can be filled in and drawn on with a pencil more easily than scribing the grid. So adding the engraved grid seems like a good solution.

The panels lines that appear on the Eagle studio model were drawn on but they are simple straight lines unlike the TOS Enterprise's saucer grid. The panel lines also weren't present on the model early in the 1st season so the model can be built with or without them.

All in all the new 22" Eagle is very accurate to the studio model in shape and details. It will definitely look like what was on screen whether built out of box or with some modifications to make it resemble a real ship.


----------



## robiwon

No model company will ever produce a model that 100% of it's fan base will agree 100% on. Accept what is coming, if you don't like something in the box, change it. It will be your model, do what you want with it.


----------



## Richard Baker

robiwon said:


> No model company will ever produce a model that 100% of it's fan base will agree 100% on. Accept what is coming, if you don't like something in the box, change it. It will be your model, do what you want with it.


Exactly!
When this kit hits the shelves there will be some incredible buildups, some great aftermarket choices and of course some Japanese guy will take the kit way past spectacular with a level of detail which seems impossible for mere mortals...

Meanwhile I will just build mine as I want to and have a lot of fun doing it


----------



## phicks

If you are a knowledgeable enough modeler to spot "inaccuracies", then you are probably a skilled enough modeler to correct such inaccuracies. So view this wonderful upcoming kit as a base upon which you may make modifications. Peace to all.


----------



## robiwon

Great posts Richard and phicks!

The Japanese modeler you speak of (man I wish he was a member here) has caused me to want to throw out my entire model collection many times over!


----------



## RB

robiwon said:


> Great posts Richard and phicks!
> 
> The Japanese modeler you speak of (man I wish he was a member here) has caused me to want to throw out my entire model collection many times over!


Are you talking about the guy who did this astonishing/freaking insane mod to the Revell Venator?:

http://www.gunjap.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/6108.jpg


----------



## Richard Baker

RB said:


> Are you talking about the guy who did this astonishing/freaking insane mod to the Revell Venator?:
> 
> http://www.gunjap.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/6108.jpg


Could be- 
I remember one astonishing build up of a Blade Runner Spinner with complete articulation- even the rear quarter panel 'wing' units (not seen on film but designed to work).

It could be the same guy or a cultural mindset, but whenever I see these builds I feel like a three year old child again...


----------



## robiwon

This guy...

http://dorobou.blog.so-net.ne.jp/


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> This guy...
> 
> http://dorobou.blog.so-net.ne.jp/


Ah, yes. Love his work, it's in many of the books on Yamato 2199 models I've picked up.

I think this is the spinner in question?

http://dorobou.blog.so-net.ne.jp/archive/c2302914556-1

He cheated a little bit with the flying/ground conversion but good lord, that interior! and working doors!

yeah, it's stuff like that which makes me question why I even bother sometimes.


----------



## Dr. Brad

Steve H said:


> yeah, it's stuff like that which makes me question why I even bother sometimes.


Oh yeah, I feel that way too! But then, I suppose I wouldn't do too much of anything if I looked around at everyone who's better at things than I am!


----------



## RB

robiwon said:


> This guy...
> 
> http://dorobou.blog.so-net.ne.jp/


Holy sh*t....


----------



## Richard Baker

Now can you just imagine what he will be doing to a 1/48 Eagle?


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> Now can you just imagine what he will be doing to a 1/48 Eagle?


I suspect he'll cram an interior in that command module


----------



## SUNGOD

Am I correct in thinking 2 advantages the R2 Eagles will have over the PE Eagles is hollowed out shoulder thrusters and transparent cockpit and pod windows?


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Am I correct in thinking 2 advantages the R2 Eagles will have over the PE Eagles is hollowed out shoulder thrusters and transparent cockpit and pod windows?


Yes, clear windows on both CM and Passenger Pod. Not sure what you mean hollowed shoulder pods, but the cages are cut out and are accurate! :thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

More pictures from WonderFest of the 22" eagle!


----------



## Scifitodd

The eagle boss! The eagle is coming!


----------



## Xenodyssey

I can see people not just doing interiors for the command pod but an interior for the passenger pod.


----------



## SteveR

Post removed. Frivolous!


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> Yes, clear windows on both CM and Passenger Pod. Not sure what you mean hollowed shoulder pods, but the cages are cut out and are accurate! :thumbsup:




Maybe I didn't explain very well but here they are from the nice pics you posted........


http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/attachment.php?attachmentid=199217&d=1433451235


On the PE ones those 4 little thruster bells don't have hollow ends so they don't look very realistic.

Great news about the windows b.t.w.:thumbsup: I was disappointed the PE diecasts didn't have the windows in clear.


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> The eagle boss! The eagle is coming!




Dig the psychedelic Eagle!


----------



## Owen E Oulton

(Deleted)


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Richard Baker said:


> Now can you just imagine what he will be doing to a 1/48 Eagle?


He'll plaster anime characters all over it. That graffiti scrawled Enterprise is sacrilege!


----------



## Steve H

Owen E Oulton said:


> He'll plaster anime characters all over it. That graffiti scrawled Enterprise is sacrilege!


I'm not sure that's his work, I think it was something he saw at a model show and he wanted to share.

I could be wrong. 

It's not graffitti per se, it's a swipe at the 'Itasha' (painful car) culture, where people take their cars (often heavily modded street racers) and decorate them with their favorite anime character or show. Some of the work really is stunning, if indeed painful to see. 

Not to everyone's taste, obviously, but still imaginative and well executed. I do rather like how the 'white' Enterprise markings look.


----------



## RB

Cult now has preorders at $84.95 for the Eagle:

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space1...-2MPC--8495--PREORDER-RESERVATION_p_3181.html

As well as preorders for Kong and the Wicked Witch (if they had a fight, who'd win?) :

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/King-K...ghts-13495--PREORDER-RESERVATION-_p_3183.html

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/The-Wi...ghts--13495--PREORDER-RESERVATION_p_3182.html


----------



## SUNGOD

Funnily enough. A few weeks before we knew anything about a possible new Eagle I was going to start a thread along the lines of.... "*New Eagle...why doesn't R2 just get on with it?"*. Where I was going to point out things like all the votes on Revells site and how it's been tops of various wants lists over the years.

Maybe there's some psychic activity going on there?


----------



## Bugfood

There is nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the brand new, styrene 22" Eagle Transporter that is bad, un-good or even remotely complain-able about.

It's blisteringly accurate, affordable, styrene and awesome.

It's big enough to ogle. It's not too big to display (with care). It's likely customisable and allows for aftermarket accessories to be created.:thumbsup:

There is no downside to this.

It's all upside!

There. I said it. 

File under: AWESOME

*BF*

PS: if I see another "your sure it's styrene?" post, I'll likely turn into a (totally imaginary) clocktower sniper. This is Round2 we're talking about. What's it going to be made from? Kelp? Wood? Frozen gravy?


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> There is nothing - absolutely NOTHING - about the brand new, styrene 22" Eagle Transporter that is bad, un-good or even remotely complain-able about.
> 
> It's blisteringly accurate, affordable, styrene and awesome.
> 
> It's big enough to ogle. It's not too big to display (with care). It's likely customisable and allows for aftermarket accessories to be created.:thumbsup:
> 
> There is no downside to this.
> 
> It's all upside!
> 
> There. I said it.
> 
> File under: AWESOME
> 
> *BF*
> 
> PS: if I see another "your sure it's styrene?" post, I'll likely turn into a (totally imaginary) clocktower sniper. This is Round2 we're talking about. What's it going to be made from? Kelp? Wood? Frozen gravy?


Well said Bugfood! Thank you!


----------



## John P

Mmmm. Frozen gravy...


----------



## Bugfood

John P said:


> Mmmm. Frozen gravy...


...the modelling medium of the future: resilient, sculptable, bubble-free, cheap ...and damn tasty with turkey.

*BF*


----------



## Scifitodd

Culttvman now has pre-orders for the 22" eagle.:thumbsup:  

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space1...-2MPC--8495--PREORDER-RESERVATION_p_3181.html


We are taking preorders on the new Space: 1999 Eagle 22-inch model kit from Round 2/MPC. The kit is expected to be out in late 2015, or early 2016. As always, details are subject to change and products are subject to delays.

Here is what we know so far:
1:48 scale
22 inches long
styrene
based on the main filming miniature as seen in the first season
accurate structure
spring loaded landing gear
two figures for the cockpit
clear windows

no interior except for the bulkhead visible through the front windows.
There will also be accessories available from Round 2 for this kit.
Note that the photo shows the prototype.
Order at the CultTVman Hobbyshop!


----------



## irishtrek

Bugfood said:


> PS: if I see another "your sure it's styrene?" post, I'll likely turn into a (totally imaginary) clocktower sniper. This is Round2 we're talking about. What's it going to be made from? Kelp? Wood? Frozen gravy?


What flavor of gravy are we talking about here, turkey, chicken, pork or beef, or a combination of 2 or more flavors???


----------



## Bugfood

I'm think beginning to think this whole 'gravy-based half scale studio replica' thing may catch on.

I can see the sales pitch now:

"The [insert long-dreamed of sci-fi vessel name here], out now in [insert appropriate scale], available in 7 richly bastable flavours"

Aftermarket will skip past PE and head straight for tinfoil accurizing. And loads of veggie sides.

But no sprouts...

*BF*


----------



## SUNGOD

I really hope they do the nuclear hazard pod. Probably THE most popular pod after the transporter pod. And of course many people remember it from the old Dinky diecast (wrongly called freighter) and Product Enterprise strangely didn't do it (which could well be to R2's advantage).

I want me some little plastic hazard containers.


----------



## SUNGOD

And I'd like to see a chrome effect on the plastic engine bells.


----------



## Zombie_61

Bugfood said:


> ...It's not too big to display (with care).


That depends on how much display space a person has. I'd much rather it was somewhere around 12" in length because I can fit four or five kits in the space this one kit will occupy, and I don't have much display space to begin with.

I'm still getting one though.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> That depends on how much display space a person has. I'd much rather it was somewhere around 12" in length because I can fit four or five kits in the space this one kit will occupy, and I don't have much display space to begin with.
> 
> I'm still getting one though.




But the larger size will allow for more detail. Eagles are fairly slim things anyway so they won't take up that much room.


----------



## Zombie_61

SUNGOD said:


> But the larger size will allow for more detail...


True, but more detail does me (and surely some other modelers) no good if I (we) don't have space to display the finished kit. Sometimes, less is more.


----------



## electric indigo

It won't fit into the Detolf...

but it deserves it's own display case anyway.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> True, but more detail does me (and surely some other modelers) no good if I (we) don't have space to display the finished kit. Sometimes, less is more.






I haven't got endless amounts of space myself but I'll find the space for a few of these. As I said Eagles aren't like something like a large Enterprise which has a whacking great saucer. They're fairly slim and long so a couple of new shelves should do.


----------



## Trek Ace

They'll also look good hanging from the ceiling if you're short on shelf space.


----------



## electric indigo

Is there any distributor for R2 kits in Europe? Shipping costs make direct import from the US less favorable, it might be cheaper for me to buy from Japan if Platz will sell the Eagle there, too.


----------



## Scifitodd

electric indigo said:


> Is there any distributor for R2 kits in Europe? Shipping costs make direct import from the US less favorable, it might be cheaper for me to buy from Japan if Platz will sell the Eagle there, too.


Jamie Hood from Round2 Models told me that there will be markets selling these in the European countries! Just wait for them to receive the information. I am keeping a page on FB that has a list and I am doing the same here!


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> Jamie Hood from Round2 Models told me that there will be markets selling these in the European countries! Just wait for them to receive the information. I am keeping a page on FB that has a list and I am doing the same here!



Great to see some photos of the guys making it happen.:thumbsup:


----------



## Fozzie

Toddyboy766 said:


> Jamie Hood from Round2 Models told me that there will be markets selling these in the European countries! Just wait for them to receive the information. I am keeping a page on FB that has a list and I am doing the same here!


I think the international interest in this subject is part of why it was done. This should sell well overseas.


----------



## Xenodyssey

I don't know about Platz being an alternative to buying direct from the US. Their prices on ebay at least are...excessive.

Then again international postal charges from the US are excessive as well. At current exchanges rates I'm looking at AUD $110 plus another $70+ for postage at current pre-preorder prices...as an estimate.



electric indigo said:


> Is there any distributor for R2 kits in Europe? Shipping costs make direct import from the US less favorable, it might be cheaper for me to buy from Japan if Platz will sell the Eagle there, too.


----------



## Bugfood

Does anyone have any pics of the back of the kit's Command Module? Am curious about what's there...

(Asking for a friend)

*BF*


----------



## electric indigo

Bugfood said:


> Does anyone have any pics of the back of the kit's Command Module?


http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2meagle.html

Scroll down a bit for the shot you're looking for. 

Catacombs has all the reference photos you can wish for. Navigating through the site can be a bit challenging, though. Disable Javascript to get around the obnoxious picture presentation and to download the pics easily.


----------



## robiwon

I think he meant pic of the back of the CM for the model kit.


----------



## Scifitodd

Here are the distributers taking pre-orders at this time. If you see one that I don't have let me know and we will add it to the list!

USA Distributers 

1. Hobbylinc 
http://www.hobbylinc.com/htm/mpc/mpcmpc825-06.htm

2. Tower Hobbies
http://www3.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin...p&I=LXFFSZ&P=7 

3. Culttvman
http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space19...ON_p_3181.html

4. Mega Hobby 
http://www.megahobby.com/22inchspace1999eagletransportermpc.aspx


Timeless hobbies has the 1/48 eagle transporter pre-sale up now. 

http://www.timeless-hobbies.com/store/p3465/Eagle_Transporter_1/48th_Scale..html


----------



## Bugfood

electric indigo said:


> http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2meagle.html
> 
> Scroll down a bit for the shot you're looking for.


Cheers Mr Indigo

Those are great reference shots and I haven't really poked around in the catacombs that much, so they're really useful.

However, Robiwon was correct: it was the rear of the new 1/48 kit command module that I am curious and was referring to.

But thanks very much for the link!

*BF*


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> Cheers Mr Indigo
> 
> Those are great reference shots and I haven't really poked around in the catacombs that much, so they're really useful.
> 
> However, Robiwon was correct: it was the rear of the new 1/48 kit command module that I am curious and was referring to.
> 
> But thanks very much for the link!
> 
> *BF*


Let me see what I can find out.


----------



## KUROK

I am sooooo pumped about an accurate styrene kit of this!,,,


----------



## Scifitodd

I would like to do a review of the kit! I may be able to get some pictures of the kit when the test shots go out! I am sure some of the guys doing them would send me some photo's of it! We will see.........The rear of the cockpit is smooth, no door or anything! Some things will have to be scratch built!


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> Cheers Mr Indigo
> 
> Those are great reference shots and I haven't really poked around in the catacombs that much, so they're really useful.
> 
> However, Robiwon was correct: it was the rear of the new 1/48 kit command module that I am curious and was referring to.
> 
> But thanks very much for the link!
> 
> *BF*


The rear of the cockpit is smooth, no door or anything! Some things will have to be scratch built!:wave::thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek

Any reference images for the inside of the pod???


----------



## Scifitodd

irishtrek said:


> Any reference images for the inside of the pod???


No photo's for the pod, it's just an empty box I'm sure. Soon enough we will have some test shots and reviews to get information from! Be patient! Mean while here I am holding the Rogue Studio's 44" eagle! I wanted to run, but Lee was already on the phone with security! Lol.........


----------



## Bugfood

Toddyboy766 said:


> The rear of the cockpit is smooth, no door or anything! Some things will have to be scratch built!:wave::thumbsup:


Cheers Mr T

So there's nothing? Ermmmm....

But is there a door at the both sides of the service block / connecting companionway?

I'm never a rivet counter but no door seems a bit of an... oversight?

*BF*


----------



## SUNGOD

Bugfood said:


> Cheers Mr T
> 
> So there's nothing? Ermmmm....
> 
> But is there a door at the both sides of the service block / connecting companionway?
> 
> I'm never a rivet counter but no door seems a bit of an... oversight?
> 
> *BF*



If we use our imaginations maybe 1 or 2 of the panels could open up?


----------



## Steve H

Bugfood said:


> Cheers Mr T
> 
> So there's nothing? Ermmmm....
> 
> But is there a door at the both sides of the service block / connecting companionway?
> 
> I'm never a rivet counter but no door seems a bit of an... oversight?
> 
> *BF*


If we are speaking of the 44" filming miniature, it's not an oversight, they just never thought it was going to be needed. If it WAS needed they would build a larger scale section for the closeup work, just like with the Moonbase exterior building units (which, if you look carefully, never 'line up' with any of the existing buildings seen in the exterior master shots).

If we're speaking of the upcoming 22" model kit, it's been stated they intend to make this a replica of the 44" filming miniature, so see above.


----------



## edge10

Collector Model has a post on this now:

http://www.collectormodel.com/


----------



## Scifitodd

Here's a word from Round2's Jamie Hood! This explains a few things everyone wanted to know!

Round 2 Models: Wonderfest 2015 Space:1999 Eagle Announcement
posted by JamieH 10:58 AM
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
This year’s Wonderfest will be one to remember for me I’m sure. It may rival the shows where we announced or showed our 1:350 scale TOS U.S.S. Enterprise. The trip was fun all around. Instead of doing one long post about the show, I’m going to split up some topics through a few posts and I’ll put them up over the next few weeks. (no… really… I mean it this time. I’ve already written them. I just need to “publish” them…) I’ll cover the “big news” in this one.
I think most attendees were (happily) surprised to see the main attraction at our booth this year was a mockup of our upcoming Space:1999 Eagle Transporter. It’s a bit shy of 22” long and is based on the 44” filming miniature. Our team of consultants on the kit is comprised of Jim Small, Daniel Prud’homme who supplied the CAD model and Chris Trice. The model features spring-loaded landing gear and comes injected in white and gray with clear windows. The only interior details will be the pilot figures with a back wall in the nosecone. The retail price is targeted at about $100, but that will vary by retailer. I understand some have already started taking preorders. I’ll post more pics of the mockup later on.
One other thing to mention… Some people get confused when they see “subject to licensor review” like they saw on the little sign next to the mockup. In some cases, we put that statement on there voluntarily and sometimes it is required by the licensor. The true meaning of that can vary, but it essentially means what it says. The licensor has the right to review the product and can ask for changes from what you see. It has nothing to do with “permission” to make a product. The licensor is aware that it is being developed, and the rights to manufacture it have already been resolved through the licensing agreement. In an ideal world, the licensor would have had a chance to review it before we put it on display, but in this particular case the mockup arrived on my desk about a week before the show. Since I was busy prepping for that I never had time to properly photograph it to send to the licensor for their approval of it.
- See more at: http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.Z7uvKqSZ.dpuf


----------



## irishtrek

Toddyboy766 said:


> No photo's for the pod, it's just an empty box I'm sure. Soon enough we will have some test shots and reviews to get information from! Be patient! Mean while here I am holding the Rogue Studio's 44" eagle! I wanted to run, but Lee was already on the phone with security! Lol.........


I was not reffering to the Eagle R2 had there at Wonderfest, instead I was reffering to screen grabs.


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> Here's a word from Round2's Jamie Hood! This explains a few things everyone wanted to know!
> 
> Round 2 Models: Wonderfest 2015 Space:1999 Eagle Announcement
> posted by JamieH 10:58 AM
> Tuesday, June 16, 2015
> This year’s Wonderfest will be one to remember for me I’m sure. It may rival the shows where we announced or showed our 1:350 scale TOS U.S.S. Enterprise. The trip was fun all around. Instead of doing one long post about the show, I’m going to split up some topics through a few posts and I’ll put them up over the next few weeks. (no… really… I mean it this time. I’ve already written them. I just need to “publish” them…) I’ll cover the “big news” in this one.
> I think most attendees were (happily) surprised to see the main attraction at our booth this year was a mockup of our upcoming Space:1999 Eagle Transporter. It’s a bit shy of 22” long and is based on the 44” filming miniature. Our team of consultants on the kit is comprised of Jim Small, Daniel Prud’homme who supplied the CAD model and Chris Trice. The model features spring-loaded landing gear and comes injected in white and gray with clear windows. The only interior details will be the pilot figures with a back wall in the nosecone. The retail price is targeted at about $100, but that will vary by retailer. I understand some have already started taking preorders. I’ll post more pics of the mockup later on.
> One other thing to mention… Some people get confused when they see “subject to licensor review” like they saw on the little sign next to the mockup. In some cases, we put that statement on there voluntarily and sometimes it is required by the licensor. The true meaning of that can vary, but it essentially means what it says. The licensor has the right to review the product and can ask for changes from what you see. It has nothing to do with “permission” to make a product. The licensor is aware that it is being developed, and the rights to manufacture it have already been resolved through the licensing agreement. In an ideal world, the licensor would have had a chance to review it before we put it on display, but in this particular case the mockup arrived on my desk about a week before the show. Since I was busy prepping for that I never had time to properly photograph it to send to the licensor for their approval of it.
> - See more at: http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.Z7uvKqSZ.dpuf




So it looks like full steam ahead.


----------



## Scifitodd

Attention all sections alpha, I have some good news! After some thought about the cockpit CM back wall decal, the team decided to try and put together a 3-D wall without using a decal. So what they have worked out is the picture you see here. First of all, it is important to note that this is not quite finalized and there is still some tweaking to do. Also the color is just to illustrate. The part will be molded in one piece, one color and yes you have to paint it. They originally decided it would just be flat with a decal but wanted something better. This is what they came up with and the 3-D model was then created by Daniel Prud'homme. The second photo is what you saw at WonderFest. Also the CG render has some strange artifacting going on that will not be on the final product. This is the group of people bringing us the best eagle model ever! They listen and go to work to see if it can be done! The Round2 crew have done a spectacular job and I just don't think this will be the last time you hear that from me or the model builders of the world!


----------



## Steve H

Toddyboy766 said:


> Attention all sections alpha, I have some good news! After some thought about the cockpit CM back wall decal, the team decided to try and put together a 3-D wall without using a decal. So what they have worked out is the picture you see here. First of all, it is important to note that this is not quite finalized and there is still some tweaking to do. Also the color is just to illustrate. The part will be molded in one piece, one color and yes you have to paint it. They originally decided it would just be flat with a decal but wanted something better. This is what they came up with and the 3-D model was then created by Daniel Prud'homme. The second photo is what you saw at WonderFest. Also the CG render has some strange artifacting going on that will not be on the final product. This is the group of people bringing us the best eagle model ever! They listen and go to work to see if it can be done! The Round2 crew have done a spectacular job and I just don't think this will be the last time you hear that from me or the model builders of the world!


Not to be 'that guy' but I'm gonna. 

This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I had suggested early on in the thread. The thing I was told was 'impossible' mainly because it wasn't part of the 44" studio miniature so it wasn't something to even be considered. 

Oh dear, this isn't a pure representation of the actual studio model any more! I'm sure this ruined it completely for somebody.

Mind, I figured two or three layers of photo etch detailing would achieve the same effect, and one could lay a decal or two over it, but this looks like it's gonna work. 

Now, now can we have astronauts dressed in actual Alpha style spacesuits, and maybe, maybe work out an alternate way to secure the passenger pod other than a simple bar and a big 'ol screw?


----------



## crowe-t

Toddyboy766 said:


> Attention all sections alpha, I have some good news! After some thought about the cockpit CM back wall decal, the team decided to try and put together a 3-D wall without using a decal. So what they have worked out is the picture you see here. First of all, it is important to note that this is not quite finalized and there is still some tweaking to do. Also the color is just to illustrate. The part will be molded in one piece, one color and yes you have to paint it. They originally decided it would just be flat with a decal but wanted something better. This is what they came up with and the 3-D model was then created by Daniel Prud'homme. The second photo is what you saw at WonderFest. Also the CG render has some strange artifacting going on that will not be on the final product. This is the group of people bringing us the best eagle model ever! They listen and go to work to see if it can be done! The Round2 crew have done a spectacular job and I just don't think this will be the last time you hear that from me or the model builders of the world!


This looks great! :thumbsup: Round 2 is really doing a great job with this kit. This Round 2 Eagle kit will be much easier to build than having to solder brass rods and scratch build the whole thing to get this amount of accuracy.

It would be nice to have an option of a flat wall and the 3D wall for the cockpit but if only one option is provided than this is the better option. 

For those that want the flat wall that's easy to make, much easier than scratch building the raised details for those who want the 3d look.

Great job Round 2 and thanks for bringing us this excellent and extremely accurate Eagle!


----------



## jheilman

Hooray for this. Looks great! I'm sure the aftermarket crowd will supply new Alpha suited pilots and other goodies.


----------



## irishtrek

The 1/1 scale cockpit had detailing like that so why not a 22" model kit. Kudos Round 2:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

Does anyone know an admin on here? I want my user name to match my website and other forums and I can't get any replies through the contact link.


----------



## SUNGOD

Maybe you could just try altering your username? Not that I've tried though.


----------



## Paulbo

Toddyboy766 said:


> Does anyone know an admin on here? I want my user name to match my website and other forums and I can't get any replies through the contact link.


A quick question:

Why post this in a forum about the large Eagle kit instead of someplace like the "Hobbytalk.com Sites Issues and Help Section" area?

I mean, if it were me, I'd try that rather than asking random people for help, but maybe that's just too much work.


----------



## mach7

Seeing as your here Paul, 

Do you have anything planed for the big eagle?
I ask hopefully.


----------



## Paulbo

Yes, I plan on doing something for the kit. What it will be will depend entirely upon the finished kit.


----------



## Scifitodd

Paulbo said:


> A quick question:
> 
> Why post this in a forum about the large Eagle kit instead of someplace like the "Hobbytalk.com Sites Issues and Help Section" area?
> 
> I mean, if it were me, I'd try that rather than asking random people for help, but maybe that's just too much work. :roll eyes:


Because I had already gone every route possible including help/contact us and thought maybe somebody here may have been in the same situation or would be an admin or know one or was friends with one! Did I bother you by asking? Maybe you should get all the facts before you roll your eyes and think you know everything! I mean if it were me I might try to be a little more helpful, but maybe that's just too much to ask from someone the likes of you!:thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe you could just try altering your username? Not that I've tried though.


Thanks for the helpful idea and I do appreciate it, but I would have to start all over and I am already a lifetime member. I have sent emails, questions over and over again. I just can't get any answers.


----------



## edge10

It's kind of a known quantity that the current owners aren't too responsive to the users.

Unfortunate but true.


----------



## Havok69

Why not just create a new account then?


----------



## Richard Baker

Toddyboy766 said:


> Thanks for the helpful idea and I do appreciate it, but I would have to start all over and I am already a lifetime member. I have sent emails, questions over and over again. I just can't get any answers.


Have you sent a PM to "vs-Admin" ?
He is the administrator for this site now and usually responds in a couple of days.

Back on Topic-
I am glad Round 2 decided to go for a detailed back wall for the cockpit- a plain blank one would be in keeping with following the 44" SFX miniature but what looks good on camera sometimes does not look good in person.


----------



## SUNGOD

I'm glad too but I wouldn't mind seeing them do an even more comprehensive cockpit even if it doesn't quite match the actual sets. Plus 2 Alphan pilots in correct spacesuits.


----------



## Richard Baker

You have to give the aftermarket people something to make for us...


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I'm glad too but I wouldn't mind seeing them do an even more comprehensive cockpit even if it doesn't quite match the actual sets. Plus 2 Alphan pilots in correct spacesuits.


I can concede any additional faux interior detail (that would be either additional parts, extra tooling costs) if I could have Alpha spacesuits (modification of existing sculpt, not as much work) on the figures.

again, just to rattle the cage of somebody, while I get that the model in the show was a model, the INTENT of the model was to create the illusion of reality, thus a real vehicle. It doesn't ruin the 22" model from R2 to make whatever alterations that can be made to NOT spoil the 'illusion' of a real vehicle, including adding some 'not on the miniature' interior stuff, 'not like the miniature' actual screen realistic astronauts, or even 'not like the miniature' replacing the big slab and screw holding the pod to the ship. These specific issues weren't a problem on the show because they could be shot around, cut away from, or replaced with different miniatures designed for a specific close-up shot. We, on the gripping hand, will be looking at a pile of plastic day in and day out, with much more clarity then was ever possible watching Space:1999 on our 26 inch Magnavox Color TVs.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> You have to give the aftermarket people something to make for us...




Sorry but I have absolutely no patience whatsoever with that view. Model companies shouldn't pander to the aftermarket people and I think should strive to do as much as possible. They shouldn't leave things out on a model just to give the aftermarket guys some business.

Aftermarket people can always find something to do that doesn't have to be part of the model the plastic kit manufacturers are producing............like Warp did with the Eagle launch platform. A good accessory.


----------



## robiwon

I believe R2 had a choice to make, as do other companies when it comes to replicating filming miniature, make a replica of what was used on screen or make it real by adding details that were not there or only hinted at. Can a company go to the extreme in either direction, sure. Are there builders out there that support both sides, sure there are. Can the models company make everyone happy, give every model builder what they want expect? Not in a million years.


----------



## Paulbo

Hear Hear Robiwon.

Also, I can speak from experience when I say that no model manufacturer has *ever* pandered to the aftermarket companies, nor do they sit back and say "let's not make the best kit we can _in our budget_ and leave stuff off for the aftermarket companies."


----------



## phicks

Paulbo said:


> Hear Hear Robiwon.
> 
> Also, I can speak from experience when I say that no model manufacturer has *ever* pandered to the aftermarket companies, nor do they sit back and say "let's not make the best kit we can _in our budget_ and leave stuff off for the aftermarket companies."


And yet it seems in the armour market particularly, that aftermarket photoetch comes out at virtually the same time as a new kit. It has always made me wonder if the photoetch companies somehow acquired a "preview" copy of the kit.


----------



## John P

phicks said:


> And yet it seems in the armour market particularly, that aftermarket photoetch comes out at virtually the same time as a new kit. It has always made me wonder if the photoetch companies somehow acquired a "preview" copy of the kit.


I've always assumed they do.


----------



## spock62

John P said:


> I've always assumed they do.


Of course they do. Instead of adding details themselves, companies figure the aftermarket will take care of it. That's why the aftermarket guys get pre-production kits, so they can develop their photoetch/resin/etc. to have available when the kit is released. 

Works out well for the kit manufacturer's, it's cheaper for them to produce their kits by leaving some details out. 

And it works out well for the aftermarket companies, giving them something to sell. 

But, it doesn't work out so well for the customer who wants a kit that is accurate and complete, unless he doesn't mind shelling out up to or over the the price of the original kit for the aftermarket stuff.

The upcoming Interstellar Ranger is a good example. The photoetch sheet is really well done and the price is right considering what you get. But, shouldn't those details have been included in the kit to begin with? Adding the photoetch more then doubles the price of the kit. Not all of us are independently wealthy!


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> I believe R2 had a choice to make, as do other companies when it comes to replicating filming miniature, make a replica of what was used on screen or make it real by adding details that were not there or only hinted at. Can a company go to the extreme in either direction, sure. Are there builders out there that support both sides, sure there are. Can the models company make everyone happy, give every model builder what they want expect? Not in a million years.


Well spoken, not in a million years will everyone be happy with what ever they come up with, and they know this. Why do you think things are kept a secret for? They know every one will add what they suggest should be in the kit, then complain they weren't listened to! Or complain it's too expensive when they do! If you have ever owned your own company you have an understanding how you have to toe the line just right to make more happy than not! It's the way it is, why can't they just add this, and why did they do that, now it's too expensive! Damned if they do and damned if they don't! I wouldn't want to be the guy who handles the public on these kits! People get irate with them, silly for sure!


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Of course they do. Instead of adding details themselves, companies figure the aftermarket will take care of it. That's why the aftermarket guys get pre-production kits, so they can develop their photoetch/resin/etc. to have available when the kit is released.
> 
> Works out well for the kit manufacturer's, it's cheaper for them to produce their kits by leaving some details out.
> 
> And it works out well for the aftermarket companies, giving them something to sell.
> 
> But, it doesn't work out so well for the customer who wants a kit that is accurate and complete, unless he doesn't mind shelling out up to or over the the price of the original kit for the aftermarket stuff.
> 
> The upcoming Interstellar Ranger is a good example. The photoetch sheet is really well done and the price is right considering what you get. But, shouldn't those details have been included in the kit to begin with? Adding the photoetch more then doubles the price of the kit. Not all of us are independently wealthy!





Good points. I can only speak for myself but my preference is always for a kit that's as complete as possible from the box and also things like photoetch aren't exactly always user friendly. I've got aircraft that I made years ago for instance with photoetch in the cockpit. Some of those pieces have now fallen off and they rattle around inside the cockpit. The only way to get at them is to take the canopy off but that would probably end in disaster as it's glued firmly. And I stuck them at the time with the strongest glue around hoping they'd be stuck permanently. 

So things like photoetch can be a pain whilst polystyrene is so much easier to use and when you glue it properly it welds together and won't come apart at some later date. Some of the photoetch details don't look any better anyway.


----------



## Richard Baker

I usually scratchbuild my enhancements, I have yet to see any kit that is 'perfect ' out of the box. It js not due to a company slouching, expecting aftermarkets to fill the need, it is just there has to be some practical cut off point in a kits development. Adding absolute detail raises the cost to the point it can't be affordable.
Round 2 does offer an aluminium bell and gear set for the new Eagle, I will not be buying it because of cost. If they had included it with the model kit then I could never buy an Eagle at all.

It is easy to spend several times the cost of a kit on aftermarket items, for those who want a perfect model and can afford it more power to you. ANY shortcomings can be addressed by either pocmetbook or creativity. A model company has the primary task of making a kit that people can buy. Adding to the cost of a kit to keep people who want everything perfect right out the box is counter productive.

Make a kit accurate in detail and proportion, keep it affordable and let the builders take it further if and how they choose.


----------



## fire91bird

I always figured the companies did the best they could given the limitations of styrene while meeting their target price point, then letting the aftermarket take it from there. 

I think it says a lot that Round2 went back and designed a nice back wall for the interior. It's still hard to believe that such a kit is being produced and if the prototype is any indicator, it will be stunning as is.


----------



## SUNGOD

robiwon said:


> I believe R2 had a choice to make, as do other companies when it comes to replicating filming miniature, make a replica of what was used on screen or make it real by adding details that were not there or only hinted at. Can a company go to the extreme in either direction, sure. Are there builders out there that support both sides, sure there are. Can the models company make everyone happy, give every model builder what they want expect? Not in a million years.





I think both is just about possible with this. It looks llike a great kit but I think at least a bit of a cockpit would be a good thing even if it wasn't in the filming miniature and same with the pilots. I'd like to see 2 with the correct Alpha gear and 2 replicating the original Gemini pilots.


----------



## BWolfe

SUNGOD said:


> I think both is just about possible with this. It looks like a great kit but I think at least a bit of a cockpit would be a good thing even if it wasn't in the filming miniature and same with the pilots. I'd like to see 2 with the correct Alpha gear and 2 replicating the original Gemini pilots.


I have an unbuilt Gemini spacecraft in 1:48 scale, it will be interesting to see how the 1:48 scale Eagle pilots compare to the Gemini pilots.


----------



## SUNGOD

BWolfe said:


> I have an unbuilt Gemini spacecraft in 1:48 scale, it will be interesting to see how the 1:48 scale Eagle pilots compare to the Gemini pilots.




If they're the correct size...............I reckon it would be better if R2 did some astronauts in the right Alpha Moonbase gear and then if people wanted to replicate the prop they could get them from the Gemini kit? They'd be the genuine thing then and not a copy.


----------



## Scifitodd

Attention all sections Alpha, please voice your opinion in choosing the next kits to be released by Round2 Models by visiting the link below! You can only CHOOSE ONE in each category, so please don't add what you wish for, these are the questions they want the answers to for now. We will here more after they see what everyone chooses for now! But, you have to vote to have an opinion! I expect to see lots of votes! This is what we have been asking for, hell that is what I started this group for in the first place, so please participate!clap:

1) See the goofy looking figure holding a flyswatter? What should we name him? 

2) Would you support a Round 2 Models Kickstarter campaign for any of the following kits? (select all you would be interested in)
A) Not familiar with Kickstarter 
B) Sealab III 
C) 1/25 scale Green Hornet Black Beauty 
D) 1/350 scale Klingon K’t’inga 
E) I wouldn’t support a Kickstarter campaign 

3) What length is the K’t’inga (choose one) 
A) 214m 
B) 349m 

4) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 1:1000 U.S.S. Constellation 
B) 1:1000 FJ scout/destroyer 
C) 1:2500 Nebula-class (Enterprise 1701-D variant) 
D) 1:2500 Enterprise 1701-D Dreadnought E) 1:1000 Battle Damaged Refit scale w/ dry dock 

5) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 1:1000 Klingon K’tinga 
B) 1:1000 USS Defiant 
C) 1:1000 USS Voyager D) 1:1000 USS Grissom/ KBoP scale 2-pack 

6) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 1:2500 USS Akira 
B) 1:2500 Excelsior/Ent-B, Oberth, KBoP 3-pack 
C) 1:2500 NX-01, Voyager, U.S.S. Constellation 3-pack 

7) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 1:1000 Enterprise 1701-D 
B) 1:350 Ktinga 
C) 1:350 Klingon D7 

Choose one of the below Space:1999 kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 1:48 Hawk 
B) Ultra Probe 
C) Laser Tank #1 

9) Choose one of the below Space:1999 kit ideas (choose one) 
A) 22″ Eagle Transporter W/ LAB POD 
B) 22″ Eagle Transporter W/ CARGO POD 
C) 22″ Eagle expansion set #1 – Nuke Mine, Claw, Side Booster & Laser Turret 
D) 22″ Eagle expansion set #2 – Gantry, Entry Stairs, Buggy, Nuke Pods & Figures 

http://www.collectormodel.com/round2...rvey/#comments


----------



## Paulbo

phicks said:


> And yet it seems in the armour market particularly, that aftermarket photoetch comes out at virtually the same time as a new kit. It has always made me wonder if the photoetch companies somehow acquired a "preview" copy of the kit.


It's called professional courtesy. 

Yes, I sometimes get preview kits from Moebius, but I've always assumed that it was because they want to give people options in their builds - you can build a basic kit straight out of the box, or add aftermarket accessories if you so desire.

I'm also another set of eyes, looking at the kit without thinking "how much adding detail X, Y, or Z is going to add to the production cost?". I look at it as "where can I make an improvement that some modelers will want?".

Also, look at the prices of aftermarket sets - is everyone going to want to spend that much extra on the kit? Particularly less skilled builders who aren't going to use the "extras"?

Of course, YMMV :wave:


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> Attention all sections Alpha, please voice your opinion in choosing the next kits to be released by Round2 Models by visiting the link below! You can only CHOOSE ONE in each category, so please don't add what you wish for, these are the questions they want the answers to for now. We will here more after they see what everyone chooses for now! But, you have to vote to have an opinion! I expect to see lots of votes! This is what we have been asking for, hell that is what I started this group for in the first place, so please participate!clap:
> 
> 1) See the goofy looking figure holding a flyswatter? What should we name him?
> 
> 2) Would you support a Round 2 Models Kickstarter campaign for any of the following kits? (select all you would be interested in)
> A) Not familiar with Kickstarter
> B) Sealab III
> C) 1/25 scale Green Hornet Black Beauty
> D) 1/350 scale Klingon K’t’inga
> E) I wouldn’t support a Kickstarter campaign
> 
> 3) What length is the K’t’inga (choose one)
> A) 214m
> B) 349m
> 
> 4) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 1:1000 U.S.S. Constellation
> B) 1:1000 FJ scout/destroyer
> C) 1:2500 Nebula-class (Enterprise 1701-D variant)
> D) 1:2500 Enterprise 1701-D Dreadnought E) 1:1000 Battle Damaged Refit scale w/ dry dock
> 
> 5) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 1:1000 Klingon K’tinga
> B) 1:1000 USS Defiant
> C) 1:1000 USS Voyager D) 1:1000 USS Grissom/ KBoP scale 2-pack
> 
> 6) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 1:2500 USS Akira
> B) 1:2500 Excelsior/Ent-B, Oberth, KBoP 3-pack
> C) 1:2500 NX-01, Voyager, U.S.S. Constellation 3-pack
> 
> 7) Choose your favorite from the below Star Trek kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 1:1000 Enterprise 1701-D
> B) 1:350 Ktinga
> C) 1:350 Klingon D7
> 
> Choose one of the below Space:1999 kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 1:48 Hawk
> B) Ultra Probe
> C) Laser Tank #1
> 
> 9) Choose one of the below Space:1999 kit ideas (choose one)
> A) 22″ Eagle Transporter W/ LAB POD
> B) 22″ Eagle Transporter W/ CARGO POD
> C) 22″ Eagle expansion set #1 – Nuke Mine, Claw, Side Booster & Laser Turret
> D) 22″ Eagle expansion set #2 – Gantry, Entry Stairs, Buggy, Nuke Pods & Figures
> 
> http://www.collectormodel.com/round2...rvey/#comments




I keep getting 'not found' for that page now?


----------



## Richard Baker

Probably a short term survey whose time has elapsed...


----------



## SUNGOD

Could be. I wonder if the Eagle is in the tooling process yet?


----------



## robn1

I found it in the July archives http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2314-round-2-models-wonderfest-2015-survey/#sthash.oSFZTuvK.dpbs


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> I keep getting 'not found' for that page now?


http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.MhT5rzf4.dpbs


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> I keep getting 'not found' for that page now?


It should be working now.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Could be. I wonder if the Eagle is in the tooling process yet?


Keep watching the blog!??


----------



## Havok69

Hopefully they do some more Space:1999 stuff...


----------



## Zombie_61

Havok69 said:


> Hopefully they do some more Space:1999 stuff...


Like what? A Commlock? Stun gun? Barry Morse's sideburns?


----------



## Havok69

Zombie_61 said:


> Like what? A Commlock? Stun gun? Barry Morse's sideburns?


Yes yes and YES!

How about some wicked cool bell bottom pants?


----------



## robn1

Yes to a stun gun and commlock. And a Swift in scale with the Eagle. The Superswift may be too big but would be cool.


----------



## Zombie_61

Havok69 said:


> ...How about some wicked cool bell bottom pants?


Been there, worn those. No thanks. I could do with a stun gun though.


----------



## Scifitodd

Zombie_61 said:


> Been there, worn those. No thanks. I could do with a stun gun though.


If you want commlocks and stun guns I have the places to go! Several people are doing these. Alex Jackson of Century Castings! He is a great guy and his kits are cast very good. Price is very good also less then $50 to the USA.

https://www.facebook.com/alexjackson.art

http://www.centurycastings.co.uk

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SPACE1999-C...908?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item2c9dc20bac


----------



## Scifitodd

robn1 said:


> Yes to a stun gun and commlock. And a Swift in scale with the Eagle. The Superswift may be too big but would be cool.


Also Jim Small does a very nice stun gun from both seasons! The last picture is my year 1 stun gun from Jim and it has Mike Reader aluminum parts upgrade! It's fantastic.

http://www.smallartworks.ca/PS/Space1999/Stungun/Stungun.html


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> Yes yes and YES!
> 
> How about some wicked cool bell bottom pants?


The next Commlock is a Mark Shaw Comlock, very nice and very accurate! These pictures are of mine! He's very good at it!

https://www.facebook.com/mark.shaw.5074?fref=ts


----------



## Scifitodd

Please Don't forget, this ends July 31st

Hello Members, please voice your opinion in choosing the next kits to be released by Round2 Models by visiting the link below! You can only CHOOSE ONE in each category, so please don't add what you wish for, these are the questions they want the answers to for now. We will hear more after they see what everyone chooses for now! But, you have to vote to have an opinion, so please participate!

http://www.collectormodel.com/round...-wonderfest-2015-survey/#sthash.xwomm6I9.dpbs


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> Hopefully they do some more Space:1999 stuff...


If the sales for the eagle are as good as I think they will be, more kits are coming! Just look at the survey on Round2's blog! They are already gathering information for next release kits! So buy your 22" eagle and pick your choice from the survey and sit back and enjoy the kits!


----------



## seaQuest

Toddyboy766 said:


> The next Commlock is a Mark Shaw Comlock, very nice and very accurate! These pictures are of mine! He's very good at it!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/mark.shaw.5074?fref=ts


Back in tbe day, I had an Ed Miarecki commlock.
Don't know why, but he put panel lines on it.


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> Keep watching the blog!??




Will do!


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> Been there, worn those. No thanks. I could do with a stun gun though.




I dunno. I think I'd look quite stylish with some bell bottoms and Barry Morse sideburns (not sure about the hairdo though).


----------



## SUNGOD

Toddyboy766 said:


> If the sales for the eagle are as good as I think they will be, more kits are coming! Just look at the survey on Round2's blog! They are already gathering information for next release kits! So buy your 22" eagle and pick your choice from the survey and sit back and enjoy the kits!




The sales of the old kit must have at least been good so if that old mediocre kit can sell then hopefully that bodes well for the new kit. And I reckon 1999 fans would snap up other new injection kits. I'm not the biggest Hawk fan for instance but I'd buy at least 2. Not just because I quite like the ship (nowhere near as much as the Eagle though) but because it would be a new 1999 plastic kit.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> The sales of the old kit must have at least been good so if that old mediocre kit can sell then hopefully that bodes well for the new kit. And I reckon 1999 fans would snap up other new injection kits. I'm not the biggest Hawk fan for instance but I'd buy at least 2. Not just because I quite like the ship (nowhere near as much as the Eagle though) but because it would be a new 1999 plastic kit.


Yes, they sold really well, and the Deluxe eagle kit with spine booster showed them we were very ready for a new kit! We are going to have a great new line of 1999 kits coming as long as we keep buying them. And they (Round2) actually listen and ask what we would like to have. It's just really nice to have this happen and it's almost the 40 year anniversary!


----------



## RMC

Scifitodd said:


> If the sales for the eagle are as good as I think they will be, more kits are coming! Just look at the survey on Round2's blog! They are already gathering information for next release kits! So buy your 22" eagle and pick your choice from the survey and sit back and enjoy the kits!


*I sure wished they would have released the hawk in that scale first :thumbsup:;*


----------



## Scifitodd

RMC said:


> *I sure wished they would have released the hawk in that scale first :thumbsup:;*


There is No way the hawk would sell as well as the eagle. Wouldn't happen. It's a great ship and I'm looking forward to it, but what good is the hawk without the eagle transporter? People are ordering 6-10 eagles, that would never happen with just the hawk. Make sure you visit the website and fill out the survey with your choice of kits next up.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Yes, they sold really well, and the Deluxe eagle kit with spine booster showed them we were very ready for a new kit! We are going to have a great new line of 1999 kits coming as long as we keep buying them. And they (Round2) actually listen and ask what we would like to have. It's just really nice to have this happen and it's almost the 40 year anniversary!





Yes it's great that R2 listen to us. Obviously they can't do everything people ask for but the very fact they're doing an all new Eagle and are considering other 99 kits shows we must make some good points on here and other sites (and sales of the old kit of course). 

I'd love to know how many they sold?


----------



## SUNGOD

RMC said:


> *I sure wished they would have released the hawk in that scale first :thumbsup:;*




As Todd says the Hawk won't sell as well as the Eagles. There's the multiple variants that can be made with the Eagles whereas the Hawk can only be done as one screen variant as it was only in the show once. Of course people can also do the all white version (from the promo photos) and a version with the orange paint and black anti glare panels instead of white but the Hawk's never been as popular as the Eagles anyway.

That said I still think if we had a new Hawk it would sell pretty well. I reckon most 99 fans would buy at least one plus there's the people who don't like the show but would buy new styrene kits of the ships.


----------



## RB

SUNGOD said:


> As Todd says the Hawk won't sell as well as the Eagles. There's the multiple variants that can be made with the Eagles whereas the Hawk can only be done as one screen variant as it was only in the show once. Of course people can also do the all white version (from the promo photos) and a version with the orange paint and black anti glare panels instead of white but the Hawk's never been as popular as the Eagles anyway.
> 
> That said I still think if we had a new Hawk it would sell pretty well. I reckon most 99 fans would buy at least one plus there's the people who don't like the show but would buy new styrene kits of the ships.


If you wanted to do a "hung from the ceiling" dio of Alan and his Eagle buddies fighting that final battle with the Hawks, you'd need 3 Eagles and 3 Hawks. Plus, there's the launch platform/cradle dio option such as this:

https://gregcharest.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gsprogress_04.jpg?w=614&h=345

I think one of the recent comic books had a similar concept. And you can always use one as kitbash base (rather ironically given the Hawk's origins). You probably *wouldn't* sell quite as many Hawks, but remember, it IS essentially the Eagle's ONLY "opposite number". It is to the Eagle what the Klingon Battlecruiser is to the USS Enterprise...


----------



## SUNGOD

RB said:


> If you wanted to do a "hung from the ceiling" dio of Alan and his Eagle buddies fighting that final battle with the Hawks, you'd need 3 Eagles and 3 Hawks. Plus, there's the launch platform/cradle dio option such as this:
> 
> https://gregcharest.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/gsprogress_04.jpg?w=614&h=345
> 
> I think one of the recent comic books had a similar concept. And you can always use one as kitbash base (rather ironically given the Hawk's origins). You probably *wouldn't* sell quite as many Hawks, but remember, it IS essentially the Eagle's ONLY "opposite number". It is to the Eagle what the Klingon Battlecruiser is to the USS Enterprise...




Not sure if I'd put it in the same opposite number class like the Klingon Battlecruiser as it was only in the show once whereas the battlecruisers often turned up in the show, but of course all 99 fans know of the Hawk though. Another thing that could be done is "what ifs". I've already toyed with the idea of getting some Eagles and painting them different colours to what was in the show and the same with the Hawk. I think the Hawk could definitely sell quite well too.


----------



## seaQuest

Y'know, for the last few years, I thought if this kind of kit were to be produced, it would be Moebius doing it.
Boy, was I wrong.


----------



## robiwon

Now we just need to get the Buck Rogers Thunderfighter repoped or a new tool in a bigger scale!!!!


----------



## RB

seaQuest said:


> Y'know, for the last few years, I thought if this kind of kit were to be produced, it would be Moebius doing it.
> Boy, was I wrong.


Years back, someone on the board asked Dave Metzner if there was a possibility of Moebius producing an Eagle and his response was something like "not this year!" I think it was at least on their radar as a possible subject.


----------



## robn1

robiwon said:


> Now we just need to get the Buck Rogers Thunderfighter repoped or a new tool in a bigger scale!!!!


I would love to see that, and the Marauder.



RB said:


> Years back, someone on the board asked Dave Metzner if there was a possibility of Moebius producing an Eagle and his response was something like "not this year!" I think it was at least on their radar as a possible subject.


Round 2 got the MPC stuff, and I guess the old licenses came with it. I don't care who does it as long as it's done right, and it looks like it is :thumbsup:

I also hope the MPC acquisition allows the $6M Man kits to be repoped as well.


----------



## John P

robiwon said:


> Now we just need to get the Buck Rogers Thunderfighter repoped or a new tool in a bigger scale!!!!


I'd want it the same size, because it's 1/32 - the same scale as Moebius' BSG Viper kits, Flying Sub and upcoming Proteus.

I'd love them to add a pilot figure and landing gear, though.


----------



## SUNGOD

I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Thunderfighter one day seeing as more and more older ships from the 70s and before are being done in plastic. All these older designs are not only usually more original and distinctive than most of the stuff coming out in films and tv now they probably won't be bettered. Look at all the new Star Wars kits coming out now. Still really popular after all these years and same with the Eagles.

Mind you the old Thunderfighter kit isn't too bad and one of the better older sci fi kits. I haven't long finished mine and it looks pretty good.


----------



## RB

Jamie has just posted the first in a series of August weekly updates on the Eagle kit here:

http://www.collectormodel.com/round...pace1999-eagle-update-1/#sthash.sTGePi7x.dpbs


----------



## mach7

Thanks for the heads up. So far the kit looks great.


----------



## Scifitodd

From Jamie Hood at Round2:

A month has blown by and I couldn’t let another week go by without posting. I figured the hot topic may still be the new Space:1999 Eagle kit we announced at Wonderfest. Like I did back in June, I’ve written several posts that will appear weekly. We have closed the thread for the survey. Thanks for all of the input. We’ll be tabulating everything and I’m sure I’ll post some kind of response to the tallies later on. And now, on to the Eagle… The kit is based on the ship as it appeared early in season 1. The model was redressed and details changed as filming went along. In some a few minor instances details have been simplified or compromised from how the miniature looked. The sub-assemblies of the kit will go together in much the same way as the original did. The kit will measure 21 5/8” long, which is exactly half the length of the 44” (it wasn’t quite that long) filming miniature that was used during filming of the show. The “true” length of the ship has always been a point of contention. Like the Galileo shuttle in Star Trek, it has the Tardis-effect of being bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Most glaring is the fact that the doors on the personnel pod aren’t to scale with the doors martin Landau stepped through. The case can be made that the ship was longer. We landed on this length for two reasons. 1) 1/24 scale modeling materials were used to create both this miniature as well as the surrounding environments such as the MBA interior shots of the Eagle hangar. So, if you want to scratch build the environment to match the show, going exactly ½ scale from that is ideal. 2) From the development budget standpoint, the kit parts would have outgrown the amount of tooling we had estimated. Even just a couple inches longer threw everything off and driven up the price of the tooling to the point we could not have managed it. In the end, we figured the market would accept a kit in the area of 2’ long that was properly detailed even if the scale stated on the box was to be ignored. In order to sidestep the debate, I generally refer to it as the 22” Eagle and only state the scale for the benefit of the parties that require us to assign a scale. The kit will come injected in two colors, white and gray along with clear windows. The white plastic is a match to the paint used on the miniature. The kit will feature spring-action landing gear with articulated elbow joints. At the show we gave a look at the interior of the command module with it being a flat wall with figures mounted to it in much the same way as the original had. We have since found the opportunity to improve on this though and now that flat wall will feature relief detail that matches the interior set pretty well. A dash and console would barely be visible so those aren’t included. Again anyone that wants to add interior features like that as a scratch-building exercise will find the room to do that. Some have remarked that they thought the use of a screw to hold the pod in place will be a bit of an eyesore even though the original looked that way. For the sake of the stability of the model, we do have other attachment points designed in that would hold the pod in place without the screw. For the purists that want a completely removable/swappable pod these attachment points have been designed for easy removal. Enjoy a few peeks inside the model. Next time I’ll talk more about the mockup. - See more at: http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2335-mpc-model-kits-22-space1999-eagle-update-1/#.dpuf


----------



## robiwon

Wow, great info. So looking forward to this kit. Come on winter time! So the molded in color is interesting, the white looks kinda creamy, which is an issue I was dealing with my 12 inch Deluxe build.


----------



## Richard Baker

robiwon said:


> Wow, great info. So looking forward to this kit. Come on winter time! So the molded in color is interesting, the white looks kinda creamy, which is an issue I was dealing with my 12 inch Deluxe build.


I just sent the info over to EagleTransporter forum- if anybody can properly identify 'Eagle White' the experts are there...


----------



## robiwon

I believe it was identified as Ford Diamond White.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me it looks like the front roll cage alone comes in about ten or more different sections.


----------



## Steve H

That sounds pretty impressive so far. I'm glad to see that my concerns (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one!  ) about the 'screw and slab' pod attachment are addressed, I'm also sure that's infuriating the "MUST LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE 44" FILMING MODEL OR IT'S CRAP!!" gang no end. Now if we can only get some word that they're taking that one further step of sculpting the pilots to the correct Alpha spacesuit look instead of a copy of the Revell Gemini astronauts...


----------



## jheilman

I'm not worried about the pilot figures. I know someone is already planning to step up with replacements.


----------



## fluke

Oh boy is this going to be great!!!


----------



## swhite228

robiwon said:


> I believe it was identified as Ford Diamond White.


Correct


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> That sounds pretty impressive so far. I'm glad to see that my concerns (and I'm sure I wasn't the only one!  ) about the 'screw and slab' pod attachment are addressed, I'm also sure that's infuriating the "MUST LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THE 44" FILMING MODEL OR IT'S CRAP!!" gang no end. Now if we can only get some word that they're taking that one further step of sculpting the pilots to the correct Alpha spacesuit look instead of a copy of the Revell Gemini astronauts...


So when would enough be enough for everybody? I mean when should they stop trying to add every little detail that we want and start actually producing the Eagles? At the rate the " well that's great but I want this also" is going it might be another 40 years before we get the model in our hands. The original MPC/Airfix 12" model had no pilots, no open cages or detail, no correct landing gear and didn't operate either, incorrect spine, CM, engine details missing, shoulder pads and no clear windows on PP or CM, no landing struts for the PP, so basically the only thing that was right about the 12" MPC eagle was that it almost looked like an eagle transporter but didn't. So now we have an eagle kit twice the size as before, 99.8% more correct detail, working landing gear, clear windows in both CM and PP, correct spine and engine details, two pilots and more and we can't just say WoW, thank you Round2 for giving us 98.5% of what we asked for and get this thing into production so I can have it in my hands? Really? Come on guys, I want a bunch of things too, but you're gonna price it right out of our reach if the keep adding more details. I wish I had a million dollars but if someone said hey Todd, here's a hundred thousand dollars, can you make due? Hell yes I can and thank you so much! Or would I say, well I could really use five hundred thousand! Round2 has said publicly, buy this eagle and we will keep the kits and accessories coming. So fellow fans, buy the eagle, scratch build your interiors and pilots and let's support Round2 for even trying to make us happy! Please!:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> I'm not worried about the pilot figures. I know someone is already planning to step up with replacements.




But they won't be styrene and I'm a styrene freak.


----------



## jheilman

Oy, please tell you're joking.


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> Oy, please tell you're joking.




No joking here. Nothing wrong with wanting some Alpha pilots in plastic.:tongue:


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> So when would enough be enough for everybody? I mean when should they stop trying to add every little detail that we want and start actually producing the Eagles? At the rate the " well that's great but I want this also" is going it might be another 40 years before we get the model in our hands. The original MPC/Airfix 12" model had no pilots, no open cages or detail, no correct landing gear and didn't operate either, incorrect spine, CM, engine details missing, shoulder pads and no clear windows on PP or CM, no landing struts for the PP, so basically the only thing that was right about the 12" MPC eagle was that it almost looked like an eagle transporter but didn't. So now we have an eagle kit twice the size as before, 99.8% more correct detail, working landing gear, clear windows in both CM and PP, correct spine and engine details, two pilots and more and we can't just say WoW, thank you Round2 for giving us 98.5% of what we asked for and get this thing into production so I can have it in my hands? Really? Come on guys, I want a bunch of things too, but you're gonna price it right out of our reach if the keep adding more details. I wish I had a million dollars but if someone said hey Todd, here's a hundred thousand dollars, can you make due? Hell yes I can and thank you so much! Or would I say, well I could really use five hundred thousand! Round2 has said publicly, buy this eagle and we will keep the kits and accessories coming. So fellow fans, buy the eagle, scratch build your interiors and pilots and let's support Round2 for even trying to make us happy! Please!:wave:



Hold on a minute Todd.....I think all of us Eagle fans have said WOW and thanks R2 for this new Eagle at some point or other after it was announced. As I said before don't confuse people saying a few things they'd like to see to us not being glad to see this new kit. We're only talking about some Alpha pilots and maybe a bit of a cockpit seeing as it thankfully has clear windows


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> So when would enough be enough for everybody? I mean when should they stop trying to add every little detail that we want and start actually producing the Eagles? At the rate the " well that's great but I want this also" is going it might be another 40 years before we get the model in our hands. The original MPC/Airfix 12" model had no pilots, no open cages or detail, no correct landing gear and didn't operate either, incorrect spine, CM, engine details missing, shoulder pads and no clear windows on PP or CM, no landing struts for the PP, so basically the only thing that was right about the 12" MPC eagle was that it almost looked like an eagle transporter but didn't. So now we have an eagle kit twice the size as before, 99.8% more correct detail, working landing gear, clear windows in both CM and PP, correct spine and engine details, two pilots and more and we can't just say WoW, thank you Round2 for giving us 98.5% of what we asked for and get this thing into production so I can have it in my hands? Really? Come on guys, I want a bunch of things too, but you're gonna price it right out of our reach if the keep adding more details. I wish I had a million dollars but if someone said hey Todd, here's a hundred thousand dollars, can you make due? Hell yes I can and thank you so much! Or would I say, well I could really use five hundred thousand! Round2 has said publicly, buy this eagle and we will keep the kits and accessories coming. So fellow fans, buy the eagle, scratch build your interiors and pilots and let's support Round2 for even trying to make us happy! Please!:wave:


Strawman argument.

Right now, it seems the tooling is still in the 'virtual' phase. They added detail to the back cockpit wall and all indications point to it not delaying the project whatsoever. They addressed the pod attachment issue and it hasn't affected the release. My point is, right now it would be simple to adjust the computer mastering and make the pilot figures represent actual, pardon me, 'actual' Moonbase Alpha astronauts and not repurposed '60s model kit Gemini Astronauts (and, if memory serves, those failed to even properly represent the suits flown on Gemini missions, so..  ) glued into an effects model to give some small representation of being manned.

So some in the aftermarket might make resin replacement figures. Fine, OK, I wish them well and hope they sell lots of product. But I'm not in the market for a pair of figures that may well cost anywhere from a quarter to half the price of the kit when RIGHT NOW the tooling can be cut to make decent figures. Because it's not too late NOW. It's not impossible to do NOW. It's simply replacing one digital file with another one. 

Full (if actually impossible to see) cockpit interior? I'm not looking for that, that's ADDING tooling and expense. Full screen accurate pod interior (again, doesn't work but some will try)? Again, added tooling, not asking for that. 

They've addressed the pod attachment issue, a thing I honestly figured would be not done. They added some detail to the cockpit wall, another thing that is a pleasant and welcomed surprise. Making the pilots look like Alpha spacesuits has no downside, except to those who demand nothing less than a 100% authentic recreation of the 44" filming model. 

This is not 'endless bitching'. This is not micromanagement. This is a reasoned discussion. If the tooling is locked down and finalized for cutting steel, then what we get is what we get and I accept that reality. But if it CAN be changed, I respectfully suggest it SHOULD be changed, because in concert with the minimalist back wall detail it will present a very pleasing 'out of the box' product that will satisfy the greater number of customers. 

After all, you can always paint the window black.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Strawman argument.
> 
> Right now, it seems the tooling is still in the 'virtual' phase. They added detail to the back cockpit wall and all indications point to it not delaying the project whatsoever. They addressed the pod attachment issue and it hasn't affected the release. My point is, right now it would be simple to adjust the computer mastering and make the pilot figures represent actual, pardon me, 'actual' Moonbase Alpha astronauts and not repurposed '60s model kit Gemini Astronauts (and, if memory serves, those failed to even properly represent the suits flown on Gemini missions, so..  ) glued into an effects model to give some small representation of being manned.
> 
> So some in the aftermarket might make resin replacement figures. Fine, OK, I wish them well and hope they sell lots of product. But I'm not in the market for a pair of figures that may well cost anywhere from a quarter to half the price of the kit when RIGHT NOW the tooling can be cut to make decent figures. Because it's not too late NOW. It's not impossible to do NOW. It's simply replacing one digital file with another one.
> 
> Full (if actually impossible to see) cockpit interior? I'm not looking for that, that's ADDING tooling and expense. Full screen accurate pod interior (again, doesn't work but some will try)? Again, added tooling, not asking for that.
> 
> They've addressed the pod attachment issue, a thing I honestly figured would be not done. They added some detail to the cockpit wall, another thing that is a pleasant and welcomed surprise. Making the pilots look like Alpha spacesuits has no downside, except to those who demand nothing less than a 100% authentic recreation of the 44" filming model.
> 
> This is not 'endless bitching'. This is not micromanagement. This is a reasoned discussion. If the tooling is locked down and finalized for cutting steel, then what we get is what we get and I accept that reality. But if it CAN be changed, I respectfully suggest it SHOULD be changed, because in concert with the minimalist back wall detail it will present a very pleasing 'out of the box' product that will satisfy the greater number of customers.
> 
> After all, you can always paint the window black.


I agree with it could have been done, but yes the tooling is already in process and we should see some test shots coming soon! But again, this kit was designed by the very people who have access to the original filming miniatures and they decided that the kit would stay true to the full scale filming models. We have to let them get to work and get this thing into production or it may not make it for this end of year! As Jamie said in the blog, if you don't like the screws there are other ways to secure the PP to the model. All these things are minor compared to the vast changes they put into the kit and the old kit! I just can't see asking them for more changes. There is no original pilots to even go from because they used the gemini pilots to begin with, it would have to be another complete new tool instead of a quick rescale. Jamie said they had to cut a few corners to get this in the right price range, this may be one of those corners. Maybe after they see how well it sells they will come out with a different accessory kit for the cockpit? We will just have to wait and see. I spent the whole weekend at Wonderfest with these guys and they wanted to bring us the best eagle at the best price they could. That is what we have here. This new kit is better and more accurate than the original 22" eagle!


----------



## spock62

I agree with Steve H's comments. It should be no problem for Round 2 to make the pilots look as they did on the show. Considering the cost of the kit, it seems silly not to do this. I'd also like to see the pilots sitting in actual seats instead of being stuck on the wall with a big tab sticking out of their backs!


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Hold on a minute Todd.....I think all of us Eagle fans have said WOW and thanks R2 for this new Eagle at some point or other after it was announced. As I said before don't confuse people saying a few things they'd like to see to us not being glad to see this new kit. We're only talking about some Alpha pilots and maybe a bit of a cockpit seeing as it thankfully has clear windows


Well, I guess I might have taken it a little harder than I should, but this isn't the only forum talking about this debate. Some people are questioning everything from the scale to the cockpit! If I misunderstood then I do apologize for jumping the gun. I've become a little bothered and sometimes take it personal. I feel bad for the guys back at Round2 working hard to get this out by end of year. I asked Jamie why he wouldn't join the forums and Facebook groups to see the reactions of the fans, he said it's too personal and he wouldn't like the negativity. I didn't understand that until the last month or so. I've seen fist hand on the forums and I have begun to feel the same way! I was so happy to help announce the new eagle and excited to see all the fan reaction. I'm not totally naive that I thought no criticism would be out there but I definitely wasn't ready for what I have seen. Thank you for bringing to my attention and I will try to not take everything so personal! Sorry guys! :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

I'm happy as hell about the new Eagle kit. I have several on order, already. I will be buying the Hawk, too, in the future, as soon as it is announced.


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> I agree with it could have been done, but yes the tooling is already in process and we should see some test shots coming soon! But again, this kit was designed by the very people who have access to the original filming miniatures and they decided that the kit would stay true to the full scale filming models. We have to let them get to work and get this thing into production or it may not make it for this end of year! As Jamie said in the blog, if you don't like the screws there are other ways to secure the PP to the model. All these things are minor compared to the vast changes they put into the kit and the old kit! I just can't see asking them for more changes. There is no original pilots to even go from because they used the gemini pilots to begin with, it would have to be another complete new tool instead of a quick rescale. Jamie said they had to cut a few corners to get this in the right price range, this may be one of those corners. Maybe after they see how well it sells they will come out with a different accessory kit for the cockpit? We will just have to wait and see. I spent the whole weekend at Wonderfest with these guys and they wanted to bring us the best eagle at the best price they could. That is what we have here. This new kit is better and more accurate than the original 22" eagle!


I'm not sure you read my comment, or maybe I used too much 'shorthand'. I've been accused of having a tendency to go pedantic because I want to be understood, but carefully and slowly explaining all the context then gets me accused of being too talky...

So. If the tooling is still undergoing corrections due to fit issues or incorrect details (a thing we've seen in early 'check' files sent back to R2, it's a constant thing that has to be watched out for with the Chinese factories), ANY change can be introduced. It won't offend or upset the Chinese toolmaker, it's just a job. Retooling the figures from mock Gemini spacesuits to Alpha spacesuits is not a complex task.

As long as the tooling isn't FINALIZED FOR PRODUCTION a change can be made. 

Honestly, even if it is, depending on how the sprue are laid out, if each sub-assembly has its own beryllium insert within a tool steel carrier, those figures could be 'broken out' and a newly tooled insert fitted. But that's a real long shot, parts breakdown probably doesn't work that way for this kit. 

And I covered that. Again, if the tooling is locked, fine, what is, is. 

Yes, the internet is a messy place. If one has a fragile ego, if one can't take reasoned discussion and rather considers any disagreement as an argument, as 'picking on', as not being properly thankful and so on, then yes one SHOULD stay away from the internet. Altho I like to think the general tone HERE is much more reasoned and rational compared to the swamp and muck of what I call 'mayfly media', Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and so on. 

Heated disagreement? Sure. Strong love means strong opinions. I am SURE there are those who are of the "MUST BE A PERFECT REPLICA OF THE 44" MODEL OR NOTHING!!" camp who want to tear me a new orifice for daring to suggest that mock replica Gemini astronauts are not the best to be inside this new Eagle kit. I don't care. But I wouldn't shut them up or ignore their opinion. I just think they're wrong. 

In the end, within a year or less, we'll have a new tool Eagle model. I have no doubts there will be a top level 'stickie' thread about "22 inch Eagle corrections" within a week of release. The 44" model replica people will have their say, others finding mistakes made by the Chinese pattern makers will have a say, everybody will be building Eagles.

And out in the midlands, someone will be breaking out Testors tube glue and a rattlecan of flat white...


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> I'm not sure you read my comment, or maybe I used too much 'shorthand'. I've been accused of having a tendency to go pedantic because I want to be understood, but carefully and slowly explaining all the context then gets me accused of being too talky...
> 
> So. If the tooling is still undergoing corrections due to fit issues or incorrect details (a thing we've seen in early 'check' files sent back to R2, it's a constant thing that has to be watched out for with the Chinese factories), ANY change can be introduced. It won't offend or upset the Chinese toolmaker, it's just a job. Retooling the figures from mock Gemini spacesuits to Alpha spacesuits is not a complex task.
> 
> As long as the tooling isn't FINALIZED FOR PRODUCTION a change can be made.
> 
> Honestly, even if it is, depending on how the sprue are laid out, if each sub-assembly has its own beryllium insert within a tool steel carrier, those figures could be 'broken out' and a newly tooled insert fitted. But that's a real long shot, parts breakdown probably doesn't work that way for this kit.
> 
> And I covered that. Again, if the tooling is locked, find, what is, is.
> 
> Yes, the internet is a messy place. If one has a fragile ego, if one can't take reasoned discussion and rather considers any disagreement as an argument, as 'picking on', as not being properly thankful and so on, then yes one SHOULD stay away from the internet. Altho I like to think the general tone HERE is much more reasoned and rational compared to the swamp and muck of what I call 'mayfly media', Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and so on.
> 
> Heated disagreement? Sure. Strong love means strong opinions. I am SURE there are those who are of the "MUST BE A PERFECT REPLICA OF THE 44" MODEL OR NOTHING!!" camp who want to tear me a new orifice for daring to suggest that mock replica Gemini astronauts are not the best to be inside this new Eagle kit. I don't care. But I wouldn't shut them up or ignore their opinion. I just think they're wrong.
> 
> In the end, within a year or less, we'll have a new tool Eagle model. I have no doubts there will be a top level 'stickie' thread about "22 inch Eagle corrections" within a week of release. The 44" model replica people will have their say, others finding mistakes made by the Chinese pattern makers will have a say, everybody will be building Eagles.
> 
> And out in the midlands, someone will be breaking out Testors tube glue and a rattlecan of flat white...


Hi Steve, I probably took it too personal and really these are valid points so I'm good now! You obviously know more about the process than I do. So I'm going to agree with you that it probably could be done but it more than likely won't. As far as the "MUST BE A PERFECT REPLICA OF THE 44" MODEL OR NOTHING!!" you may be right but like you said it's a person's opinion and I will let them have their say! This has been a good lesson for me today, thank you! I'm serious and not being sarcastic. I will lighten up and maybe enjoy some debate. Thank you for not going all guns a blazing on me! I need this to be fun like it was at WonderFest again! :thumbsup:


----------



## The_Engineer

Well I'm glad that R2 stated that for those who disliked the screws holding the PP in place, that they gave other attachment points to use. A big ++ in that. And I believe for those that want a full cockpit, that should be done as a secondary kit. It keeps the cost of the main kit the same (for those that just want the back wall of the CM) and for those that want a full cockpit can buy the full cockpit interior kit. And for those that want more - I suppose you can get the interior of the PP and some exterior parts as another secondary kit (2 staircases, extended PP landing legs).


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> But they won't be styrene and I'm a styrene freak.


What, you have something against resin or is it CA type of glues?? If it's the latter then go with an epoxy.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> What, you have something against resin or is it CA type of glues?? If it's the latter then go with an epoxy.




Well I've often said on here I don't like resin. Don't get me wrong there's some great resin sculpts out there but I make no apologies for saying not only have I no interest in resin kits but I have no interest in resin aftermarket stuff too. 

The only time I'd use resin is if it was for a base or something such as trees or rocks etc to compliment a plastic kit. There seems to be this really annoying assumption by some people that if you make models you automatically like resin or vinyl but I don't. I'm only interested in styrene plastic kits.


----------



## SUNGOD

The_Engineer said:


> Well I'm glad that R2 stated that for those who disliked the screws holding the PP in place, that they gave other attachment points to use. A big ++ in that. And I believe for those that want a full cockpit, that should be done as a secondary kit. It keeps the cost of the main kit the same (for those that just want the back wall of the CM) and for those that want a full cockpit can buy the full cockpit interior kit. And for those that want more - I suppose you can get the interior of the PP and some exterior parts as another secondary kit (2 staircases, extended PP landing legs).




Not sure what the other attachment points are and how secure they'll hold the pods but if the pods can be held without the screws (which I wasn't fond of even though they're on the miniature) then that's great they 'possibly' took notice of us who weren't so keen on the screws. I say "possibly" as maybe it was designed that way before they heard some of our reactions.


----------



## RB

Guys, if one of the accessory sets includes a 1/48 moon buggy, as mentioned in the survey, then R2 will probably be providing styrene figures to go with that buggy. It should easy to repurpose those into Eagle pilots. Problem solved.


----------



## robiwon

I'm using the screws and the Gemini pilots.


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> I'm using the screws and the Gemini pilots.


Me too Robert! ?


----------



## robiwon

This all goes back to what model does R2 wanted to replicate. They chose to replicate the actual filming miniature, not an idealized ship that never appeared on screen. Nothing wrong with that. 

I really believe that R2 kept all this a secret to limit the amount of the "I want to see this in the kit" feedback that could have delayed the kit had they chose to start making a lot of changes to make everyone happy.

I'm sure it's a bit more involved than just saying "here, use this pilot figure file instead, O.K"? But, I don't know. R2 may not be allowed to use the spacesuit design? That suit design was not part of the licensing agreement that was signed? R2 decided they were going to do what they wanted to do? Who knows unless Jamie decides to say something about it. There could be many factors involved as to why it will have Gemini pilots or there may be none at all.

If I had a choice, I would use the SP1999 pilot over Gemini pilot. I'll take whatever they throw in the box...


----------



## mach7

Very well thought out post robiwon. 

I think the second point is the most important. After the gridline issues with the TOS E, they rightly decided to bypass it all. 

And it should not be too hard to convert the Gemini astro's into Alpa astro's, 
At least good enough for what you will see through the windows.

I'll be building 1 as the filming miniature and 1 as the "real" eagle. So I'm in for 2 anyway. I already have an idea for a quick Alpha conversion to the astronaut's.


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> This all goes back to what model does R2 wanted to replicate. They chose to replicate the actual filming miniature, not an idealized ship that never appeared on screen. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I really believe that R2 kept all this a secret to limit the amount of the "I want to see this in the kit" feedback that could have delayed the kit had they chose to start making a lot of changes to make everyone happy.
> 
> I'm sure it's a bit more involved than just saying "here, use this pilot figure file instead, O.K"? But, I don't know. R2 may not be allowed to use the spacesuit design? That suit design was not part of the licensing agreement that was signed? R2 decided they were going to do what they wanted to do? Who knows unless Jamie decides to say something about it. There could be many factors involved as to why it will have Gemini pilots or there may be none at all.
> 
> If I had a choice, I would use the SP1999 pilot over Gemini pilot. I'll take whatever they throw in the box...


That's a good point, Licensing is never an easy thing to figure out. I'm sure that had quite a bit to do with these things. I wish they could announce that so this could be squashed once and for all! I know that with the rogue 44" that Lee had to agree to all kinds of you can and can't do this kind of stuff. They wouldn't even let the engine compartment be detachable. So this is a very valid point also.


----------



## robiwon

Some times I have good thoughts, some times I don't....I have no clue...Squirrel....


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> This all goes back to what model does R2 wanted to replicate. They chose to replicate the actual filming miniature, not an idealized ship that never appeared on screen. Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I really believe that R2 kept all this a secret to limit the amount of the "I want to see this in the kit" feedback that could have delayed the kit had they chose to start making a lot of changes to make everyone happy.
> 
> I'm sure it's a bit more involved than just saying "here, use this pilot figure file instead, O.K"? But, I don't know. R2 may not be allowed to use the spacesuit design? That suit design was not part of the licensing agreement that was signed? R2 decided they were going to do what they wanted to do? Who knows unless Jamie decides to say something about it. There could be many factors involved as to why it will have Gemini pilots or there may be none at all.
> 
> If I had a choice, I would use the SP1999 pilot over Gemini pilot. I'll take whatever they throw in the box...


Here's the thing. And I have to stress there's not a fight here, it's discussion of opinion.

The impression I have is that you are of the "I want a model that replicates the 44" filming model and only that". OK, fine, that's what you want. So how do you feel about the addition of detail to that cockpit wall? Does that ruin the model for you? Are you going to be ditching that part for a scratch build plastic sheet back wall, or shaving the detail off the part?

Because if you leave it as-is, you don't have an accurate representation of the filming model. 

If you are going to leave it because you can't really see it that well thru the windows, might that not be said as well of figures that have detail sculpted to make them look more like Alpha spacesuits instead of replicas of '60s Revell Gemini capsule astronauts?

Really, this is completely different from the Great Gridline Debate. After all these decades, and with so many original creators passed away, and all the different hands that have touched that model and the different restorations and so on, it's reached near religious levels of emotion. The Eagle is much more recent, we HAVE context for why things were done (mostly, on the whole), there are production people still alive and with their minds intact to talk to and learn from, there's not so much heat.

Choices were made when the 44" Eagle was built that fit the requirements of filming. These choices were made without regard to the model sitting on a table to be looked at closely, day after day. Shortcuts were taken to make the model easier to 'set up' for a shot. So on and so on. 

I'm not comfortable with the concept that R2 felt the need to 'sneak' this release into product in order to avoid fans expressing thoughts that might affect the production. If there's that much ego involved, if fans (of any stripe) are FEARED because they might say "Hey, you know, this might work better than that idea you had", I don't know why they bother to announce anything at all, just pop out the thing and be done with it. Don't go to shows, don't go to cons, don't say a thing until you have the kit at the factory and you need numbers to set the production run.

This is a niche market and a boutique kit. It's not going to sell 100,000 units domestic. When you're making a kit that has to find its base, it's not a bad idea to listen to what that base wants. Warts and grumbles and all.

If the sudden and welcome detailing of the cockpit wall isn't a deal breaker for a person, then the sculpting change to make the pilots have Alpha spacesuits shouldn't be either.


----------



## robiwon

Steve, no fights here. It's all good discussion here.  Do I want an exact replica of the 44 filming miniature? No, I just want a big Eagle that looks better than the 12 incher that's on my build desk right now. Like I said, I have no clue why R2 is doing the things they are doing, that's just my thought, your mileage may vary.

I really don't think they are afraid of us making suggestions, I think it's more along the lines of "hey, lets develop this kit that people want and then surprise them". They know that there will be heated discussions on details, size, scale, features, etc. To avoid the forum melt downs they decided to keep it a secret until May 30th. *Is* that what happened? Again, I have no clue.

Also there again may be more involved in the "behind the scenes" as to why they can't just pop an Alpha pilot in there. We don't know, we don't work for R2.

Ya know, the internet really put a hurt on things. I remember going to my hobby shop and asking to look at the new model catalogs from Monogram, MPC, Tamiya, etc. to see what new car models were coming out. This was back in '84. They were doing the new Corvette. You know what? They had a picture of the car in the catalog with a cloth draped over it! We had to wait to see what the kit looked like until it his store shelves!! I would have no issue with companies keeping all this instant info to themselves and really surprising us again.


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> Well I've often said on here I don't like resin. Don't get me wrong there's some great resin sculpts out there but I make no apologies for saying not only have I no interest in resin kits but I have no interest in resin aftermarket stuff too.
> 
> The only time I'd use resin is if it was for a base or something such as trees or rocks etc to compliment a plastic kit. There seems to be this really annoying assumption by some people that if you make models you automatically like resin or vinyl but I don't. I'm only interested in styrene plastic kits.


I too prefer styrene but in the past 4 years I've purchased a couple of kits that that have resin pieces as well as styrene. A few years ago my friend gave me a tube of handyman's all-purpose adhesive sealant by Loctite, this stuff is a very thick epoxy that works with resin.


----------



## robiwon

Eh, to each their own on resin vs vinyl vs plastic. They each require specific build technique/tools/adhesives, etc. They just aren't everybody's cup of tea.
Myself, I got introduced to vinyl and resin back in the 90's when I was doing commissioned Godzilla builds for a collector. He bought but didn't build. I did a good half dozen build ups for him. Since then I've done numerous other resin and vinyl kits over the years.


----------



## Trek Ace

Styrene, ABS, resin, wood, metal, vinyl, polycarbonate, acrylic... It's all just raw material to me. I enjoy the fact that each material requires a different approach, varied skills and techniques, and an assortment of adhesives and paints. That makes model building much more fun. Bring on the kits that contain more than just styrene parts. I can handle it.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

Trek Ace said:


> Styrene, ABS, resin, wood, metal, vinyl, polycarbonate, acrylic... It's all just raw material to me. I enjoy the fact that each material requires a different approach, varied skills and techniques, and an assortment of adhesives and paints. That makes model building much more fun. Bring on the kits that contain more than just styrene parts. I can handle it.


Ditto !

:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Well, I guess I might have taken it a little harder than I should, but this isn't the only forum talking about this debate. Some people are questioning everything from the scale to the cockpit! If I misunderstood then I do apologize for jumping the gun. I've become a little bothered and sometimes take it personal. I feel bad for the guys back at Round2 working hard to get this out by end of year. I asked Jamie why he wouldn't join the forums and Facebook groups to see the reactions of the fans, he said it's too personal and he wouldn't like the negativity. I didn't understand that until the last month or so. I've seen fist hand on the forums and I have begun to feel the same way! I was so happy to help announce the new eagle and excited to see all the fan reaction. I'm not totally naive that I thought no criticism would be out there but I definitely wasn't ready for what I have seen. Thank you for bringing to my attention and I will try to not take everything so personal! Sorry guys! :thumbsup:





It's good you see that maybe you were taking things a bit hard and personal. I definitely think that's sometimes the case with some folk especially those involved in producing a new kit.....but what have people said that's been that negative and made you not ready for what you'd seen? 

The only things I've seen on here is people mainly talking about wanting some Alpha pilots and commenting on the screws. That's not really being negative just people putting forward their preferences before the kit goes to tooling.


----------



## SUNGOD

RB said:


> Guys, if one of the accessory sets includes a 1/48 moon buggy, as mentioned in the survey, then R2 will probably be providing styrene figures to go with that buggy. It should easy to repurpose those into Eagle pilots. Problem solved.




That would be cool. I don't think anyone has any objection to some accessory sets. Companies like Tamiya do separate motorcycle riders etc.


----------



## irishtrek

Too bad R2 is unwilling to provide a black and white printout of the instrument panels of the cockpit so folks can scratch build our own and mold the forward pieces in clear styrene to show them off.


----------



## swhite228

irishtrek said:


> Too bad R2 is unwilling to provide a black and white printout of the instrument panels of the cockpit so folks can scratch build our own and mold the forward pieces in clear styrene to show them off.


If folks are willing and able to model a clear section to show off the instrument panels why is it they will need print outs from R2? There is enough reference material and pictures on the net that they should be able to Google it.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> That would be cool. I don't think anyone has any objection to some accessory sets. Companies like Tamiya do separate motorcycle riders etc.


No question about it. I was a complete whore for Tamiya's 1/35 scale military kits back in the '70s. I loved those figure sets. I was always really excited when a new one came out and man, did those sculpts get GOOD. I mean, I just think about that early 4-figure German Army set and the later all new tool 8 figure 'mid war squad' set. Day and night. Those delicate MG-34s and MG-42s with the double drums...outstanding. 

But they weren't made of resin and more expensive than the tank kits. 

Here's a crazy idea. Make the Eagle pilot figures look like they have Moonbase Alpha suits NOW, and they can REPURPOSE them for a 1/48 moonbuggy! Wouldn't that be nice if it reduced the tooling cost to a point they can then release a styrene moonbuggy instead of resin? (probably not, that's completely unrealistic, but it's a pleasing fantasy)

Do I want various Alpha astronauts to pose around the Eagle? I don't think so. It would make the scale issues too obvious, that darn passenger pod door...


----------



## f1steph

Yeck, if they wan't to make a CM backwall, there was one included with the Replica Unlimited Eagle. I have one and it looks nice. As for using the Gemini astronauts as Eagle pilots, well guys, they aren't the same at all. Everything is wrong on the suits, the helmet is also totally different. If you compare the real Gemini suits to the ones included with the Revell kit, the helmet has to be modified. I know this because I've built the Gemini 12 capsule. 
So if R2 are really gonna produce an big Eagle kit, let them do it and S:99 fans will buy it as is. I'm pretty sure that it will look very nice. As for making a cockpit interior, you'll have plenty of room in there to add lots of stuff....... that will be hard to see... but crunchy detailing are always nice on a model.....


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> No question about it. I was a complete whore for Tamiya's 1/35 scale military kits back in the '70s. I loved those figure sets. I was always really excited when a new one came out and man, did those sculpts get GOOD. I mean, I just think about that early 4-figure German Army set and the later all new tool 8 figure 'mid war squad' set. Day and night. Those delicate MG-34s and MG-42s with the double drums...outstanding.
> 
> But they weren't made of resin and more expensive than the tank kits.
> 
> Here's a crazy idea. Make the Eagle pilot figures look like they have Moonbase Alpha suits NOW, and they can REPURPOSE them for a 1/48 moonbuggy! Wouldn't that be nice if it reduced the tooling cost to a point they can then release a styrene moonbuggy instead of resin? (probably not, that's completely unrealistic, but it's a pleasing fantasy)
> 
> Do I want various Alpha astronauts to pose around the Eagle? I don't think so. It would make the scale issues too obvious, that darn passenger pod door...




I don't know if you're aware but they actually brought out new sculpts of the original 4 figure German army set a few years ago. They're ok but they should have been much better seeing as they were newly tooled kits.

Anyway as for any accessory sets such as a moon buggy I'd only be interested if they're styrene. I think people who will buy the Eagle will buy any accessory sets anyway and I think it's pointless R2 (who are mainly a plastic kit company) doing much resin. I know they're doing things like Kane but I think things like that should be rare as garage kit guys can do the resin.


----------



## robiwon

I think it would be great if R2 did a whole set of figures in different poses in resin. They wont sell as many of those as other popular kits so the investment would not be as much for a smaller run of these. R2 has proven they can do high quality resin in the Kane kit and Deluxe Eagle. I'm working on the Deluxe Eagle right now and those resin parts fit like a glove.


----------



## Richard Baker

I am thinking of putting some seat backs in my Eagle and displaying it landed with the crew off somewhere being eaten in slow motion...


----------



## fluke

Herahaha!! Hey there is still some goofyness on HB!

This is what I am going to do.

I have always thought the visibility from the Eagles cockpit was
too limited in a big way.....soooo....Im going to side windows, try to
keep with the original shapes etc and call it Eagle II.


----------



## RB

Has there been an announcement that the #1 & #2 accessory kits would be in resin?


----------



## robiwon

No announcements that I'm aware of other than the aluminum engine bells and metal landing gear bits.


----------



## irishtrek

swhite228 said:


> If folks are willing and able to model a clear section to show off the instrument panels why is it they will need print outs from R2? There is enough reference material and pictures on the net that they should be able to Google it.


The black and white print could be used as a guide to scratch build an insturment panel is the idea. Should have clarified in my last post, me bad.


----------



## Scifitodd

RB said:


> Has there been an announcement that the #1 & #2 accessory kits would be in resin?


What resin accessories are you talking about? The only accessories that are happening for the eagle is aluminum engine bells, thrusters and oleo struts! No other kits are coming out at this time!

http://www.fabgearusa.com/space-1999-eagle-transporter-22-inch-model-deluxe-accessory-set/
Product Description
Eagle Deluxe Accessory Set

Solid aluminum parts

4 Landing gear oleo struts
12 replacement engine bells


----------



## Paulbo

irishtrek said:


> The black and white print could be used as a guide to scratch build an insturment panel is the idea. Should have clarified in my last post, me bad.


If one were to scratch build it, why not just go online and print out a set? There are many, many different ones available: Google Link


----------



## RB

Scifitodd said:


> What resin accessories are you talking about? The only accessories that are happening for the eagle is aluminum engine bells, thrusters and oleo struts! No other kits are coming out at this time!
> 
> http://www.fabgearusa.com/space-1999-eagle-transporter-22-inch-model-deluxe-accessory-set/
> Product Description
> Eagle Deluxe Accessory Set
> 
> Solid aluminum parts
> 
> 4 Landing gear oleo struts
> 12 replacement engine bells


I'm well aware of the Deluxe Accessory Set that's already been solicited. I'm talking about the proposed accessory kits in the Round 2 model survey. Although there had been no indication of material used I had assumed, if produced, that these potential accessories would be styrene. Robiwon however had mentioned resin. To the best of my knowledge Jamie had not given an indication one way or another. However, it's always possible to have missed something.


----------



## Scifitodd

RB said:


> I'm well aware of the Deluxe Accessory Set that's already been solicited. I'm talking about the proposed accessory kits in the Round 2 model survey. Although there had been no indication of material used I had assumed, if produced, that these potential accessories would be styrene. Robiwon however had mentioned resin. To the best of my knowledge Jamie had not given an indication one way or another. However, it's always possible to have missed something.



Those will be Styrene if they happen. It's all depends on the sales of the eagle kit. I don't expect any more kits until next fall!?


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Those will be Styrene if they happen. It's all depends on the sales of the eagle kit. I don't expect any more kits until next fall!&#55357;&#56847;




Thank god for that. I think R2 would be stupid not to do those sets that everyone voted for in plastic. If this new Eagles a success (and I think it will be) then what Eagle fan isn't going to buy those sets as well?

I'll probably buy every 1999 kit R2 puts out...even the stuff I'm not quite so bothered about (as long as they're styrene and good of course). And I bet 99.99% of people will do also.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Thank god for that. I think R2 would be stupid not to do those sets that everyone voted for in plastic. If this new Eagles a success (and I think it will be) then what Eagle fan isn't going to buy those sets as well?
> 
> I'll probably buy every 1999 kit R2 puts out...even the stuff I'm not quite so bothered about (as long as they're styrene and good of course). And I bet 99.99% of people will do also.


I'm with you SUNGOD, I'll purchase every one they release! :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> I'm with you SUNGOD, I'll purchase every one they release! :thumbsup:




Well the more they sell..............the more kits we'll get.


----------



## Havok69

Why so anti-resin? I've worked with it and in my opinion, it's really not a big deal. It looks the same on the shelf, no?


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> Why so anti-resin? I've worked with it and in my opinion, it's really not a big deal. It looks the same on the shelf, no?



Resin is more expensive and heavier so postage is costly. And lots of people haven't worked with it before. I like resin kits, but the general public will shy away from them.


----------



## SUNGOD

Havok69 said:


> Why so anti-resin? I've worked with it and in my opinion, it's really not a big deal. It looks the same on the shelf, no?




That's the problem. Some people seem to think the only thing that matters is what it looks like built up. 

If that was all that matters then there wouldn't be any plastic kits as they'd all be made of resin or vinyl which is massively cheaper to make. some people can't seem to understand that people like to have something that's factory mass produced. Something that takes cutting edge technology to make. 

Anyone can cast resin but hardly anyone can produce a new state of the art plastic kit except for larger companies. That automatically gives something like an Eagle kit more realism to me as apart from the engines and electronics the plastic fuselage etc is being made a bit like a full size version would be made.....in a factory Not some guy in a garage with a bunch of resin. Plus styrene plastic is much sturdier, not brittle and much easier to work with.


----------



## BWolfe

Havok69 said:


> Why so anti-resin? I've worked with it and in my opinion, it's really not a big deal. It looks the same on the shelf, no?


The main reason I don't buy resin kits is the price, I can buy one resin kit or 4 styrene kits, to me it is a no brainer. They may look as good but if a person cannot afford it, what is the point?


----------



## robiwon

So how would people handle this kit if you don't do resin? Only half of it is plastic, the other half, resin?


----------



## Steve H

Count me in as one of the 'prefer styrene over resin' camp, if anyone is keeping track. 

Resin is useful, resin has its place, and of course there's quality resin and sheer crap resin. My philosophical issue with a company like R2, a 'major', is that they really shouldn't be in the 'garage kit' business.

Yes I felt the same way when Bandai started their B-Club house brand back in the '80s.

Part of the thing, to me, is what seems to be a 'cash grab' because it's known and more or less accepted that a guy hand crafting a resin kit can charge way more for his work because you are, in effect, paying directly, an exchange directly from creator to consumer. When R2 does it, it SEEMS like just an excuse to charge big money for not much product. It seems to show an odd waffling over the confidence they have in the license. 

Mind, this is just a private opinion of mine. It's colored by decades of model building and too much 'inside baseball' stuff. I do NOT accuse them, I just have that subconscious impression. (OK, I do accuse Mobieus to some extent with that 1/35 mixed media Space Pod and Chariot nonsense. I believe they're STILL soliciting it for release after how many years now?)

Can I ask the room a question? What, exactly, is the deal with turned aluminum engine bells? I get that they look nifty, and I get that it's surely a good way to get a perfectly seamless part, and if one is gonna cram a tab of Jetex fuel (I know, I know, that stuff hasn't been made in ages  ) into it for a rocket blast metal is much better than any plastic.

But it's heavy. Gluing it is as much a bitch as resin. Modern multi-part sliding molds can make as perfect a part in plastic. And it costs a boatload. So why? Other than the egoboo of "I'm using this super expensive thing because I am so cool"? Will metal parts really make the new 22" Eagle look THAT much better?

And that goes to my problem of a 'major' selling garage kit parts. R2 will have a factory in China crank those out for pennies on the dollar, while a guy in his garage with a lathe probably turns out 4 a day. Yet R2 is going to charge a price comparable with what a guy in the garage would charge. 

Ahhh, I'm getting all tangled up. Never mind. Hooray for the new kit!


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> So how would people handle this kit if you don't do resin? Only half of it is plastic, the other half, resin?


Well I handle it by not buying it. Pretty simple, that.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Well I handle it by not buying it. Pretty simple, that.




Same here. I don't know why some people can't seem to understand that some people just won't touch resin. I've absolutely no interest in owning resin kits (though I can appreciate some sculpts like Jeff Yagers).

The only possible resin kits I'd ever buy are something really unique. Maybe something like that brilliantly sculpted Coppola's Dracula bust that was on here a while back.........even if it was out of my price range. I certainly wouldn't be in the slightest bit interested in resin spaceships or vehicles etc.


----------



## robiwon

Alright, I won't push the issue, to each their own. I will say that if your an Eagle fan, your missing out on a great kit in the Deluxe Eagle. I did nothing different in building it. All parts, including the plastic, were washed and assembled using ether Tamiya liquid or CA. Plus, the resin parts required less clean up than the plastic parts!


----------



## Scifitodd

Havok69 said:


> Why so anti-resin? I've worked with it and in my opinion, it's really not a big deal. It looks the same on the shelf, no?


Sorry, I was thinking you were meaning the eagle as a total resin kit, which we've tried that and it doesn't work. But as far as the small accessory kits like the spine booster and so on are very doable! The Deluxe Eagle kit had the resin spine booster and it was fantastic and perfect fitting parts. So yes these small kits are a great way to go! See my deluxe eagle kit below with aluminum engine bells and thrusters including the (resin) spine booster!


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Alright, I won't push the issue, to each their own. I will say that if your an Eagle fan, your missing out on a great kit in the Deluxe Eagle. I did nothing different in building it. All parts, including the plastic, were washed and assembled using ether Tamiya liquid or CA. Plus, the resin parts required less clean up than the plastic parts!


That's fine, and I'm glad you're happy.

But here's my thing, and I want to be clear, this, again, is a discussion, matters of personal opinion. There's no right or wrong side.

Back in the '70s, when the MPC Eagle kit was released, I loved it. Even with the crappy soft plastic they used, I thought it was a nice, if simple kit. 

Fast forward to today, and by some people's opinions, not only is that the worst kit ever made, it's a total abomination and insult. Nothing is right about it. Every single shape is wrong. It's just crap.

Of course that's the extreme opinion but it's common in the SF plastic kit community. Similar things have been said about the AMT Enterprise, the Aurora Seaview, the Monogram Battlestar Galactica, on and on. 

So I look at that Deluxe Eagle kit, and how expensive it is, and I see all the work put into the additions (even if 'repurposed' from previously created fan-made garage kit work) and I say to myself, my, that's some really expensive lipstick they put on that pig. 

Which goes back, long ago, to my comments. They can probably be searched or something. I'm GLAD to see the '70s MPC Eagle kit reissued. Nostalgia is a powerful factor and old kits can be fun to revisit. It really should be cheaper but that's a factor of various choices made. However, saying that, I honestly believe that at the same time an all new tool Eagle in 1/72 scale would have been a very low risk idea with great global sales potential. Let the aftermarket make all kinds of 'lipstick' for the old kit, focus on core, focus on new. The upcoming 22" Eagle is going to be a good kit, it will find its market, but with all the realities of the global economy in mind, I firmly believe R2 could have sold MORE of a new-tool 1/72 scale Eagle, just as any other company sells more of a 1/72 P-51D Mustang then 1/48 or 1/32. 

And like that example, I don't feel it has to be either/or. Were R2 to announce a new-tool Eagle in 1/72 (or, given the 'scale debate', should I call that the 11" version?) I bet people would be just as excited. And THEN a deluxe version with multi-media parts would be worth investing in, altho I would hope that wisdom would prevail and styrene would be used. 

So, that's a lot of complex thinking going on there. I've left myself open for the usual "Well YOU don't work in the industry, YOU don't know this or that person, you're just making stuff up blah blah blah", but I don't care. People are happy the upcoming 22" Eagle is mainly designed to replicate the 44" Filming Miniature. People are happy to superglue $100 accessories onto what should be by all rights a $10 kit. I think other choices, broader choices could have been made but I'm not in that loop, so this is the only way to express these thoughts. And who knows, someone might actually listen.


----------



## irishtrek

robiwon said:


> So how would people handle this kit if you don't do resin? Only half of it is plastic, the other half, resin?


Ah, but keep in mind resin is a plastic also.


----------



## BWolfe

robiwon said:


> So how would people handle this kit if you don't do resin? Only half of it is plastic, the other half, resin?


If only Hobby Lobby sold that kit I would buy it in a heartbeat. I could use their 40% discount coupon and get it for around the cost of the standard kit, if not cheaper.


----------



## fire91bird

I had thought that resin was cheaper for the manufacturers, no expensive steel molds. That would make it more economical for a subject expected to sell in low numbers. They probably factored in the number of addition sales that styrene would mean and figured those still wouldn't pay for the steel molds. You know, it always comes back to what makes business sense to the manufacturer. My thought on basing the Eagle on the 44" is Round 2 could always refer to that for their decisions: "It's like that on the 44". If they went for an "idealized" version, they'd get heat for that decision because then it would be someone's interpretation of what that would be, not to mention those who want a duplicate of the studio model.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> If only Hobby Lobby sold that kit I would buy it in a heartbeat. I could use their 40% discount coupon and get it for around the cost of the standard kit, if not cheaper.


And boom goes the dynamite. 

Hobby Lobby sells a HUGE amount...check that. They STOCK/shelf a large amount of R2's various brands in car kit form. I might go so far as to say Round 2 pretty much owns Hobby Lobby's plastic kit aisle. Hardly any shelf space devoted to the SF kits. One would think that the 1/1000 scale Star Trek kits would be considered 'evergreen' and be on the shelves but at least the 'cadet series' kits seem to be there. But I never saw the reissue AMT ST kits, nor the Space:1999 kits, nor the Pilgrim Observer or the Leif Erickson or even the (we're not licensing the name of the show) Spy car.

So what's the deal? Basic retail says Hobby Lobby isn't stocking them because their buyer doesn't feel they'll sell. If the decision isn't made by Hobby Lobby but by an outside jobber who services the section, then they don't have confidence. I would guess that pricepoint is an issue. 

I'm sure if asked, this is what Hobby Lobby would say : 'well, we tried stocking SF kits in some depth, but the turns just weren't there, and the product category is very uneven in terms of popularity. There's a good nostalgia factor in the retro release car kits that let a person justify the cost of the kit to recapture their youth.' or something close to that. They would also probably mumble something about 'we don't get many requests and when we do the sales just aren't there'.

To put it in our language, people will pop $25 for a kit of a car they may have made in their youth, but are cold to $40 and up SF kits. 

Hence Wolfe's (completely rational, reasonable and understandable) statement about wanting to use a big discount coupon. 

Price is a significant problem in our little hobby. I have no idea how to change things. One would think the current economic turbulence in China would be a windfall and prices would drop, but no, it seems to be pushing prices even higher.


----------



## Steve H

fire91bird said:


> I had thought that resin was cheaper for the manufacturers, no expensive steel molds. That would make it more economical for a subject expected to sell in low numbers. They probably factored in the number of addition sales that styrene would mean and figured those still wouldn't pay for the steel molds. You know, it always comes back to what makes business sense to the manufacturer. My thought on basing the Eagle on the 44" is Round 2 could always refer to that for their decisions: "It's like that on the 44". If they went for an "idealized" version, they'd get heat for that decision because then it would be someone's interpretation of what that would be, not to mention those who want a duplicate of the studio model.


I can see that of course.

But then again, I'll repeat, you may have missed it. The studio miniature existed to create the ILLUSION of reality. The warts and simplicity exist in service of speed of filming, ease of repair. The Eagle isn't real but it was MEANT to SEEM real, via different kinds of special effects. Flying on wire, suspended on a pipe, photographed and animated ala many of the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, sitting on a stage floor surrounded by chemical smoke, all served to create the illusion of reality. 

Do you build your 1/350 Enterprise with the left side undetailed and trenches gouged into it for wires? Do you build your Flying Sub with holes in the faceplate for a Lydecker rig, and holes along the upper back of the wings for water to drain out? Yet those are filming miniatures.

(Seriously, has ANYONE done that? It would be interesting but not very popular I would wager)

Thing is, there's no real downside if they chose to 'idealise' the Eagle kit. Those that wanted to create an 'accurate' model of the 44" filming miniature could easily omit whatever 'realistic' pod securing hardware was designed and drive a big 'ol steel screw and plate into the roof of the passenger pod.

(Psst. I hear they're including clear windows for that pod. The 44" miniature didn't HAVE clear windows. How will people survive that blasphemy?  )


----------



## fire91bird

You know, I totally agree with you on the 1/350 Enterprise thing. Round2 got a lot of grief for the grid lines because it wasn't on the studio model and I'm pretty sure exactly no one left the port side off. But the engraved grid lines were one interpretation of the studio model. But, not everyone's interpretation. So what would an "idealized" Eagle be like? Who's interpretation will it be? For sure there is for Round2 a downside to the "idealized" version for sure: less sales if they're wrong.When you say the studio replica people can easily modify it, they're saying the same thing about people who want different interpretations.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> I can see that of course.
> 
> But then again, I'll repeat, you may have missed it. The studio miniature existed to create the ILLUSION of reality. The warts and simplicity exist in service of speed of filming, ease of repair. The Eagle isn't real but it was MEANT to SEEM real, via different kinds of special effects. Flying on wire, suspended on a pipe, photographed and animated ala many of the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey, sitting on a stage floor surrounded by chemical smoke, all served to create the illusion of reality.
> 
> Do you build your 1/350 Enterprise with the left side undetailed and trenches gouged into it for wires? Do you build your Flying Sub with holes in the faceplate for a Lydecker rig, and holes along the upper back of the wings for water to drain out? Yet those are filming miniatures.
> 
> (Seriously, has ANYONE done that? It would be interesting but not very popular I would wager)
> 
> Thing is, there's no real downside if they chose to 'idealise' the Eagle kit. Those that wanted to create an 'accurate' model of the 44" filming miniature could easily omit whatever 'realistic' pod securing hardware was designed and drive a big 'ol steel screw and plate into the roof of the passenger pod.
> 
> (Psst. I hear they're including clear windows for that pod. The 44" miniature didn't HAVE clear windows. How will people survive that blasphemy?  )




Great points. Most filming miniatures are quite rough.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Great points. Most filming miniatures are quite rough.


Oh, don't I know it! I remember vividly when my 'bubble' was shattered!

It was 1984, I was in Anaheim for the '84 Worldcon, and Lucasfilm had set up an exhibit 'from the vault' of various filming miniatures from the Star Wars movies. No photography allowed of course.

On the whole they looked like CRAP! The one that really sticks out in memory was a 'hero' Snowspeeder. The blasters were not anywhere NEAR symmetrical, let alone lined up. Paint, were it shown at ANY IPMS event would earn it a 'nice try, practice more' ribbon. The pilots ended EXACTLY at the bottom of the cockpit window line. One could see the various servomotors to move the head. 

But it was all that was needed for the shots it was used for. Between the speed of 'motion' in the shot and the many layers of effects running through the optical printer, it was good enough for the task. 

It was a sobering thing. 

I won't go into my impression of the Lost In Space Chariot here, and I'm sure that miniature must have been touched up by now but man, back in 1984 it was in ROUGH shape. (obviously a separate display.  ) 

I wish digital cameras had existed back then. I only had three rolls of film. I had to pick and choose what to take pics of and let so many interesting things 'walk away'.


----------



## Steve H

fire91bird said:


> You know, I totally agree with you on the 1/350 Enterprise thing. Round2 got a lot of grief for the grid lines because it wasn't on the studio model and I'm pretty sure exactly no one left the port side off. But the engraved grid lines were one interpretation of the studio model. But, not everyone's interpretation. So what would an "idealized" Eagle be like? Who's interpretation will it be? For sure there is for Round2 a downside to the "idealized" version for sure: less sales if they're wrong.When you say the studio replica people can easily modify it, they're saying the same thing about people who want different interpretations.


I think the main problem over the grid lines was the factory just couldn't, for some mysterious reason, render them fine enough to be more subtle. I also think there was some debate on the wisdom on making them raised so they could be sanded off by those that didn't want them. I dunno, it's really a difficult series of choices on that.

Let me try and explain the difference with the Eagle, filming miniature replica vs. 'idealized interpretation'. It's pretty obvious that the 44" model is the most ideal source to start from. An argument CAN be made that the 22" models are valid start points as they did get a fair amount of screen time, but bigger is usually better when it comes to these things. 

First thing to understand, these were all hand made, with no computer drafting or any kind of assistance. parts sculpted by hand, bucks for vac-forming or slush casting made by hand, there are inevitable little 'errors' that can creep in, alignments off a touch, panels not matching, so on. There is also the fact they were multi-media constructions, with wood, styrene, perspex, metal, epoxy resin and who knows what-all. Sometimes stuff fell off, or broke, or melted and repairs had to be done. 

So, my understanding, the three 44" miniatures had differences. Then the task becomes, do we make a model of one specific miniature or do we try and reconcile the three? Sounds like R2 took that path.

Now, a filming miniature needs to be functional, robust and look good on screen. One of the key gimmicks of the Eagle was mounting 'canned air' cans inside the passenger pod, because that blasting of Fuller's Earth dust off the launch pad always looks cool. So not only did that pod have to be securely attached, it had to be able to be removed quickly and easily to replace the cans. Hence the big screws holding a large metal bar that locks the pod in. 

Obviously that set-up isn't how a REAL Eagle...sorry, 'real' Eagle would work. On the show it was never necessary to show in detail how the undocking system worked. If it HAD been necessary they would have used a 'close up' miniature likely showing a series of clamps unlocking and connecting tubes and cables disconnecting. 

There are markings on the 'contact' side of the main support frame that could be seen as indicating latch points. One can assume there are also structural supports that engage the pod from the mating faces of the service modules. If an 'idealized' kit were made with these (speculative, of course) details, and one wished to be completely faithful to the 44" filming miniature, it really would be simple to omit the detail parts and drill in a screw (of course, painstakingly measured to be the correct dimensions  ) thru a slab of plastic sheet and into the top of the pod.

Conversely, were R2 to NOT include a speculative pod latching system and ONLY have that screw and slab, that's a lot more work to do something with. The simple solution of course is to just glue the pod to the frame but boy, we all know that swapping out pods is what the Eagle is all about, right? I know I sure did a lot of "quick, load the passenger pod!" play with my Dinky Toys die-cast Eagles. 

So that's my view.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Oh, don't I know it! I remember vividly when my 'bubble' was shattered!
> 
> It was 1984, I was in Anaheim for the '84 Worldcon, and Lucasfilm had set up an exhibit 'from the vault' of various filming miniatures from the Star Wars movies. No photography allowed of course.
> 
> On the whole they looked like CRAP! The one that really sticks out in memory was a 'hero' Snowspeeder. The blasters were not anywhere NEAR symmetrical, let alone lined up. Paint, were it shown at ANY IPMS event would earn it a 'nice try, practice more' ribbon. The pilots ended EXACTLY at the bottom of the cockpit window line. One could see the various servomotors to move the head.
> 
> But it was all that was needed for the shots it was used for. Between the speed of 'motion' in the shot and the many layers of effects running through the optical printer, it was good enough for the task.
> 
> It was a sobering thing.
> 
> I won't go into my impression of the Lost In Space Chariot here, and I'm sure that miniature must have been touched up by now but man, back in 1984 it was in ROUGH shape. (obviously a separate display.  )
> 
> I wish digital cameras had existed back then. I only had three rolls of film. I had to pick and choose what to take pics of and let so many interesting things 'walk away'.





I know companies like R2 are the experts on injection moulding and obviously they have a certain budget to produce these kits as they've pointed out but I think it's possible to do both a replica of the original filming miniatures (as close as possible without the roughness....which I don't think people would be very fond of anyway) and an idealised "what it's supposed to be on screen" vehicle. As you say in regards to the Enterprise most people were moaning because the grid lines weren't finer (well on the Revell kit anyway and to a lesser extent on the R2 kit) and not because they were there (even though the miniatures had them drawn on). 

Fine engraved lines always look much better than decals or printed lines.

And with the Eagle it sounds like they maybe doing the pod so it can be like the filming miniature (with the screw) and another way of it being held on. This please's both camps. Same with the cockpit. Again I know there's the issue of budget but a mixture of the Gemini pilots and Alpha ones would be a great thing plus a bit of a cockpit.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I know companies like R2 are the experts on injection moulding and obviously they have a certain budget to produce these kits as they've pointed out but I think it's possible to do both a replica of the original filming miniatures (as close as possible without the roughness....which I don't think people would be very fond of anyway) and an idealised "what it's supposed to be on screen" vehicle. As you say in regards to the Enterprise most people were moaning because the grid lines weren't finer (well on the Revell kit anyway and to a lesser extent on the R2 kit) and not because they were there (even though the miniatures had them drawn on).
> 
> Fine engraved lines always look much better than decals or printed lines.
> 
> And with the Eagle it sounds like they maybe doing the pod so it can be like the filming miniature (with the screw) and another way of it being held on. This please's both camps. Same with the cockpit. Again I know there's the issue of budget but a mixture of the Gemini pilots and Alpha ones would be a great thing plus a bit of a cockpit.


Here's my thing on this. 

When the test model was shown, it had bare cockpit wall, replicated Gemini pilots, and the screw&slab pod attachment. This was strongly hinted to be what the kit would be and suck it up, this is what it is. Those that are of the "44" Filming miniature or nothing!!" camp were ecstatic. 

They wouldn't add cockpit detail because you couldn't see it and it wasn't in the filming miniature. The screw/slab attachment wasn't even discussed. 

But now, they HAVE added some minimal cockpit detail. They've said there will be an alternate way to secure the passenger pod (altho it's reasonable to assume it won't be as robust as the screw/slab so no flying around the room, boys.  )

I feel there's probably time enough to have those faux Gemini pilots re-sculpted to look like proper Moonbase Alpha spacesuits. I don't expect it to be reasonable to have BOTH included. I cannot see any downside to having those pilots wearing Alpha suits.


----------



## Havok69

If they were following the release schedule of the Galileo, they would certainly have time to make whatever changes they wanted.

Yes, I'm bitter...


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Here's my thing on this.
> 
> When the test model was shown, it had bare cockpit wall, replicated Gemini pilots, and the screw&slab pod attachment. This was strongly hinted to be what the kit would be and suck it up, this is what it is. Those that are of the "44" Filming miniature or nothing!!" camp were ecstatic.
> 
> They wouldn't add cockpit detail because you couldn't see it and it wasn't in the filming miniature. The screw/slab attachment wasn't even discussed.
> 
> But now, they HAVE added some minimal cockpit detail. They've said there will be an alternate way to secure the passenger pod (altho it's reasonable to assume it won't be as robust as the screw/slab so no flying around the room, boys.  )
> 
> I feel there's probably time enough to have those faux Gemini pilots re-sculpted to look like proper Moonbase Alpha spacesuits. I don't expect it to be reasonable to have BOTH included. I cannot see any downside to having those pilots wearing Alpha suits.




Same here. I must admit I can't really see why anyone would want Gemini pilots in there. After all the reason why they were put there by the original effects guys is to stand in for Alpha pilots and the Eagle from the shots we've seen does appear to be very accurate to the filming miniatures anyway. 

R2 appear to be listening at least a bit which is a good thing. I think model companies that do that are usually rewarded for it.


----------



## Steve H

Havok69 said:


> If they were following the release schedule of the Galileo, they would certainly have time to make whatever changes they wanted.
> 
> Yes, I'm bitter...


I understand the frustration, and there ARE similar issues at work, but honestly, there's so MUCH debatable and controversial regarding a decent model of the Galileo, the fiddling and tweaking will eventually produce a really nice kit. 

I think the big problem there is the darn interior, that and the surprisingly subtle and complex shapes that make up the hull. If they omitted the interior (which, on a larger kit, would be a shame) they could use the Japanese technique of 'frames, bulkheads and panels' to build the hull. This is a fairly recent idea, Bandai's used it on their Yamato 2199 kits. It was explained in the Japanese fan press that this was a result of wanting to perfectly capture the curves of the Yamato's hull, but on further thinking I note it ALSO results in not needing a deep draft tool for hull halves! That may well be an issue, the sheer thickness of tooling steel needed to mold the Galileo's hull shape.

That Galileo will be made. I am sure of it. And there'll be a top level sticky for mistakes and corrections


----------



## The_Engineer

Last year, I toyed with the idea of building an ideal/real eagle model - ie, a large (~44" long) eagle model with the full interior. I knew in order to get the interior to fit, changes had to be made to the exterior. I took some measurements from one of the PE Eagles (the forward Eagle section and the passenger pod) and scaled it up. I then tried to make the interior of the forward Eagle section fit to that size and couldn't. The forward Eagle exterior has to be made bigger (length and width - it's a square) for the interior to fit. Length wise (forward to back) I don't think it's much of a problem. Width wise, it is - it pushes the landing leg boxes further out. It also messes with the front end which connects to the CM (the hinges on the side). Instead of the hinges being straight, they will bend out at an angle. It would definitely look weird.

The passenger pod interior fit pretty well (length and width), although I'm not sure about the height. I think it would to be made taller (especially, if you want the stairs somehow popping out under the door). I started to work on the rear Eagle section (where the moon buggy is stored) and I wanted to have an elevator platform there that would lower the buggy to the ground. I had to stop as I would need the moon buggy at that scale to get the size of the elevator platform right. I did know that in order to get that to fit, the length and width of the rear Eagle section would have to be made bigger (probably about the same amount as the forward section). That's where I left it. I was planning on going back to try to finish the interior - although it might get around to it in a couple of years. 

I was planning on make a few design changes. One, I always hated the 'girder' construction of the Eagle- the spine and what people refer to as the forward and rear 'cages'. I was going to make all of it as a solid body (like an airplane). Second, in the interior of the cockpit, the pilot and co-pilot chairs being sunk down into the floor. In order for the pilots to see out the windows, this wouldn't work as they would be much too low. So I was going to have the chairs and control panel raised by about 2 steps above the floor so the pilot heads would be able to look out the window. There would be some other design changes here and there. It starts to become a bit of a headache to make the interior fit the exterior and I can see why R2 went with a studio model of the Eagle.


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> Last year, I toyed with the idea of building an ideal/real eagle model - ie, a large (~44" long) eagle model with the full interior. I knew in order to get the interior to fit, changes had to be made to the exterior. I took some measurements from one of the PE Eagles (the forward Eagle section and the passenger pod) and scaled it up. I then tried to make the interior of the forward Eagle section fit to that size and couldn't. The forward Eagle exterior has to be made bigger (length and width - it's a square) for the interior to fit. Length wise (forward to back) I don't think it's much of a problem. Width wise, it is - it pushes the landing leg boxes further out. It also messes with the front end which connects to the CM (the hinges on the side). Instead of the hinges being straight, they will bend out at an angle. It would definitely look weird.
> 
> The passenger pod interior fit pretty well (length and width), although I'm not sure about the height. I think it would to be made taller (especially, if you want the stairs somehow popping out under the door). I started to work on the rear Eagle section (where the moon buggy is stored) and I wanted to have an elevator platform there that would lower the buggy to the ground. I had to stop as I would need the moon buggy at that scale to get the size of the elevator platform right. I did know that in order to get that to fit, the length and width of the rear Eagle section would have to be made bigger (probably about the same amount as the forward section). That's where I left it. I was planning on going back to try to finish the interior - although it might get around to it in a couple of years.
> 
> I was planning on make a few design changes. One, I always hated the 'girder' construction of the Eagle- the spine and what people refer to as the forward and rear 'cages'. I was going to make all of it as a solid body (like an airplane). Second, in the interior of the cockpit, the pilot and co-pilot chairs being sunk down into the floor. In order for the pilots to see out the windows, this wouldn't work as they would be much too low. So I was going to have the chairs and control panel raised by about 2 steps above the floor so the pilot heads would be able to look out the window. There would be some other design changes here and there. It starts to become a bit of a headache to make the interior fit the exterior and I can see why R2 went with a studio model of the Eagle.


There's another way to tackle it. Toss away the interior as seen in the show and scale everything to the exterior. That means people mostly sit in the passenger pod as there's a low ceiling. One bends over to get into the cockpit, I personally would use doors similar to the SHADO Moon base, that would conform to the shape of the rear of the command module.

But this would not stand in a commercial kit. People EXPECT to see the interior as-seen on TV.


----------



## SUNGOD

The_Engineer said:


> Last year, I toyed with the idea of building an ideal/real eagle model - ie, a large (~44" long) eagle model with the full interior. I knew in order to get the interior to fit, changes had to be made to the exterior. I took some measurements from one of the PE Eagles (the forward Eagle section and the passenger pod) and scaled it up. I then tried to make the interior of the forward Eagle section fit to that size and couldn't. The forward Eagle exterior has to be made bigger (length and width - it's a square) for the interior to fit. Length wise (forward to back) I don't think it's much of a problem. Width wise, it is - it pushes the landing leg boxes further out. It also messes with the front end which connects to the CM (the hinges on the side). Instead of the hinges being straight, they will bend out at an angle. It would definitely look weird.
> 
> The passenger pod interior fit pretty well (length and width), although I'm not sure about the height. I think it would to be made taller (especially, if you want the stairs somehow popping out under the door). I started to work on the rear Eagle section (where the moon buggy is stored) and I wanted to have an elevator platform there that would lower the buggy to the ground. I had to stop as I would need the moon buggy at that scale to get the size of the elevator platform right. I did know that in order to get that to fit, the length and width of the rear Eagle section would have to be made bigger (probably about the same amount as the forward section). That's where I left it. I was planning on going back to try to finish the interior - although it might take me a couple of years.
> 
> I was planning on make a few design changes. One, I always hated the 'girder' construction of the Eagle- the spine and what people refer to as the forward and rear 'cages'. I was going to make all of it as a solid body (like an airplane). Second, in the interior of the cockpit, the pilot and co-pilot chairs being sunk down into the floor. In order for the pilots to see out the windows, this wouldn't work as they would be much too low. So I was going to have the chairs and control panel raised by about 2 steps above the floor so the pilot heads would be able to look out the window. There would be some other design changes here and there. It starts to become a bit of a headache to make the interior fit the exterior and I can see why R2 went with a studio model of the Eagle.



There's no doubt the sets and dimensions have problems when it comes to the Eagles interior relating to the exterior but even if the cockpit isn't accurate I think a bit of cockpit detail wouldn't do any harm.

But oh dear.........I'm afraid to say you've said something that's sacrilage about the Eagles Engineer which is a crime amongst Eagle fanatics............


*"One, I always hated the 'girder' construction of the Eagle- the spine and what people refer to as the forward and rear 'cages'. I was going to make all of it as a solid body (like an airplane)"*


I'm afraid there will have to be some punishment for that blasphemy Engineer. What shall we do with him guys?


----------



## Steve H

Oh, he's done no harm. I agree with him in some ways. The Eagle is a very nicely designed vehicle for space work, seems very practical in its modular construction. Saying that, they really should have changed them, made a story point, of modifying the Eagles (if nothing else, shells over the frames) for planetary exploration and landings. But doing THAT creates problems for marketing and merchandising. I also would have liked to have seen something, anything taking advantage of the modular Eagle parts. We almost get that with the introduction of the 'science' Eagle with booster. 

But that's what fans, and a closet full of kits is for.


----------



## The_Engineer

SUNGOD said:


> There's no doubt the sets and dimensions have problems when it comes to the Eagles interior relating to the exterior but even if the cockpit isn't accurate I think a bit of cockpit detail wouldn't do any harm.
> 
> But oh dear.........I'm afraid to say you've said something that's sacrilage about the Eagles Engineer which is a crime amongst Eagle fanatics............
> 
> 
> *"One, I always hated the 'girder' construction of the Eagle- the spine and what people refer to as the forward and rear 'cages'. I was going to make all of it as a solid body (like an airplane)"*
> 
> 
> I'm afraid there will have to be some punishment for that blasphemy Engineer. What shall we do with him guys?


:lol:

I mentioned the girder thing to my brother a few weeks ago, and he said that the girder construction was one of the things that he liked most about the Eagle as it was more realistic. Me, I go by if someone actually was going to build an Eagle for real, what would it look like. Having numerous holes in a ship's body is not good when flying through a planet's atmosphere like on Earth - the Eagle would be a flying brick. It needs to have a solid body like an airplane. Back in the 90's, I came up with a new, more aerodynamic (and larger) version of the Eagle (which I also included lots of airlocks). It was good but I thought it could be better. The main problem was the hull integrity when the pod is removed. I don't feel that a huge heavy front and a huge heavy rear can stay connected to each other by the spine - it would snap the Eagle into 2. It was at that point that in order to have a large removable section, and to be structurally sound, I thought that the Eagle should be bigger (2 decks high) just like a passenger jet. The upper deck would be where the passengers are and the bottom deck would be the removable pod (and contain cargo) just like the layout of a passenger plane. When the pod is removed, the two ends are connected to each other by the upper deck - making for a much stronger structure. I also started looking into having rear wings on the Eagle which would hinge up (like on fighter jets on an aircraft carrier) when 2 Eagles were going to dock with each other . I see a 'real' Eagle looking like a cross between a passenger jet and the space shuttle (like the 2001 Pan Am shuttle).


----------



## robiwon

I just love the sarcasm on this site.


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> I think the main problem over the grid lines was the factory just couldn't, for some mysterious reason, render them fine enough to be more subtle.


I'm still a little peeved over that, because I was one of the people really pushing for the fine engraved lines. I KNOW it could be done so they're barely visible, because I have a gazillion airplane models with engraved lines so fine that they'll disappear if you put a third coat of paint on. I don't know why PL's Chinese factory couldn't manage that.


----------



## Richard Baker

I am not about to redesign the Eagle- I will probably make some enhancements following the idea of "so that's what it really looked like" instead of how it first appeared on my blurry black and white TV set when I fell in love with the design. Some subtle navigation lights, that sort of thing.

An accessory set in styrene would be wonderful- I am more comfortable with that media that resin but I can see the logic of making a limited production run without the added costs of steel injection molds. One thing though- this kit is being made for serious modelers, but in the scale and the price. Like the 1/350 Enterprises, a casual modeler will not be making the significant investment for this subject when there are smaller, cheaper kits available. People who buy this kit are going to want it as an ultimate build, not for a shelf parking lot. I am also sure the aftermarket will kick into overdrive with all the potential add ons- alternate pods, figures, support equipment, correction sets, etc...


----------



## Paulbo

The_Engineer said:


> :lol:
> 
> I mentioned the girder thing to my brother a few weeks ago, and he said that the girder construction was one of the things that he liked most about the Eagle as it was more realistic. Me, I go by if someone actually was going to build an Eagle for real, what would it look like. Having numerous holes in a ship's body is not good when flying through a planet's atmosphere like on Earth - the Eagle would be a flying brick. It needs to have a solid body like an airplane. Back in the 90's, I came up with a new, more aerodynamic (and larger) version of the Eagle (which I also included lots of airlocks). It was good but I thought it could be better. The main problem was the hull integrity when the pod is removed. I don't feel that a huge heavy front and a huge heavy rear can stay connected to each other by the spine - it would snap the Eagle into 2. It was at that point that in order to have a large removable section, and to be structurally sound, I thought that the Eagle should be bigger (2 decks high) just like a passenger jet. The upper deck would be where the passengers are and the bottom deck would be the removable pod (and contain cargo) just like the layout of a passenger plane. When the pod is removed, the two ends are connected to each other by the upper deck - making for a much stronger structure. I also started looking into having rear wings on the Eagle which would hinge up (like on fighter jets on an aircraft carrier) when 2 Eagles were going to dock with each other . I see a 'real' Eagle looking like a cross between a passenger jet and the space shuttle (like the 2001 Pan Am shuttle).


Then it's not an Eagle anymore. It's like redesigning the Enterprise so it's insanely huge and has a brewery in the socondary hull ... you can CALL it the Enterprise, but that doesn't make it so. :wave:


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> I'm still a little peeved over that, because I was one of the people really pushing for the fine engraved lines. I KNOW it could be done so they're barely visible, because I have a gazillion airplane models with engraved lines so fine that they'll disappear if you put a third coat of paint on. I don't know why PL's Chinese factory couldn't manage that.


Yeah. I mean, it's a conceit of the model world, because realistically you shouldn't even SEE panel lines until a plane kit is like, 1/24 scale or thereabouts, right? But we accept it as a thing, a slight exaggeration of reality. A 1/24 scale car kit with panel lines comparable with the lines on a 1/72 plane would be laughed at. It's just a convention of the subject that's accepted.

We'll never really know what the story was. We've been told things, but, frankly, there's always the question of "is that truth or is that spin?".

I mean, I could see the Chinese toolmaker making the grid lines too heavy (it's appalling to me how often those factories just do what they want because they think they're improving the thing) , and because the molds for the saucer parts are so large it would have been very costly for the factory to scrap it and do over (and polishing it smooth wasn't an option because grid lines were called for), the factory may well have said "OK, this is the best we can do unless you fork over another $100,000", a kind of blackmail to cover their error. Is that reality? I don't know but it's possible. 

And I'm very close to my usual rant about 'bringing it home' and the need to ween ourselves off of depending on Chinese 'turn-key' manufactures, what with the language barrier, the time factor, transportation, customs... blah blah blah sorry.


----------



## Paulbo

Well, Round 2 *is* bringing it home for at least one upcoming kit - the Rat Rod. They'll even be including photoetch made here in the USA by (modest cough) ParaGrafix.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

On the pilot debate, why are some so resistant to proper Alpha pilots in styrene? It's not like the old Monogram 1/48 Gemini/Mercury kit is hard to get and grab the pilots from, also in styrene. This sidesteps the resin vs. styrene debate entirely.


----------



## seaQuest

If you do proper Eagle pilots in Alpha pressure suits, they'll need va formed bubble faceplates.


----------



## BWolfe

Round 2 not doing the Alpha style astronauts could be a simple licensing issue. It may be as simple as they have the rights to do hardware but not figures. I have no problem using the Gemini style astronauts because after the kit is sealed up, they will be hard to see.


----------



## robn1

I haven't seen anyone resistant to Alpha pilots. I want the Gemini pilots myself, but I have an unbuilt Gemini I can rob the pilots from if need be, which I may do anyway depending how the R2 version looks.


----------



## Steve H

Owen E Oulton said:


> On the pilot debate, why are some so resistant to proper Alpha pilots in styrene? It's not like the old Monogram 1/48 Gemini/Mercury kit is hard to get and grab the pilots from, also in styrene. This sidesteps the resin vs. styrene debate entirely.


My opinion, it's because for some odd reason there is a vocal sub-group of Space:1999 model fans that see making a model of the Eagle anything other than a direct, perfect copy (of a blending) of the (three) 44" filming miniature(s) to be sheer utter blasphemy. They CLING to those poor misshapen lumps of '60s space kit plastic as some kind of proof of faith totem. 

Me, I just think it makes sense to do what the model builders didn't want to take the time to do. If the statement is "you really can't see them clearly in the model anyway!!" then why should it matter? 

No, see, to those fans, the fact that they KNOW the pilots are repurposed Revell Gemini astronauts is somehow empowering. It's like a fannish secret that outsiders, mundanes wouldn't know or understand. 

Of course when it did matter the show's effects department DID putty and resculpt the Gemini astros to proper Alpha spacesuits, for the in-scale moonbuggy. 

On the subject, I can't think of any instance when they used the 44" miniature, or a photograph cut-out, and the Gemini astros were visible. I have the idea that they were used mainly as 'reference points for alignment' for when they went to the animation stand and superimposed a live action shot of actors in the cockpit set (seen to best effect in Breakaway when Koenig was making his way to the moon.). 

but yeah. The issue seems to be surprisingly heated, when really it's a non-issue. Make 'em look like Alpha spacesuits and far, far more people will be happy. Make 'em faux replica Gemini astros and most of the customers will be wondering why R2 couldn't make them look right.

And it's not like there wouldn't be someone out there with a 1/48th Gemini kit who will instantly whip out some RTV and make some money selling them.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> Round 2 not doing the Alpha style astronauts could be a simple licensing issue. It may be as simple as they have the rights to do hardware but not figures. I have no problem using the Gemini style astronauts because after the kit is sealed up, they will be hard to see.


I don't think that's a problem. I mean, of course it could be, licensors can be compete d*cks over astonishingly petty things, but on the whole as long as R2 isn't attempting to make accurate representations of specific actors, just making spacesuits should be no problem at all.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> If you do proper Eagle pilots in Alpha pressure suits, they'll need va formed bubble faceplates.


Or just opaque bubbled helmets, no faces at all. It's the call I would make. Someone could then make clever aftermarket decals of faces. 

Not joking, that's a viable way to handle it.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...for some odd reason there is a vocal sub-group of Space:1999 model fans that see making a model of the Eagle anything other than a direct, perfect copy (of a blending) of the (three) 44" filming miniature(s) to be sheer utter blasphemy. They CLING to those poor misshapen lumps of '60s space kit plastic as some kind of proof of faith totem. ...


Can you post a link to these posts? Because I haven't seen anything like this. Posts I've seen are either happy with what's been shown or are upset that it's too much like the studio model.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> Can you post a link to these posts? Because I haven't seen anything like this. Posts I've seen are either happy with what's been shown or are upset that it's too much like the studio model.


I'm using a touch of hyperbole of course, but look back at...hmmm...the previous 6 pages of the thread, you'll see it. People are really clinging to those poor blobby Gemini astros.

Every single retort to my posts about this can be summed up as "I want those astros and you shut up"


----------



## robiwon

Again I just love the sarcasm on this site.


----------



## robn1

Well I see just as many posts wanting Alpha astros, you included. I don't care about something easily changed, they can put Bugs and Daffy in there for all I care.


----------



## robiwon

robn1 said:


> Well I see just as many posts wanting Alpha astros, you included. I don't care about something easily changed, they can put Bugs and Daffy in there for all I care.


But they can't be resin or a lot of people won't buy the kit, lol.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Again I just love the sarcasm on this site.


Having a good sense of humor is important for a healthy life! I love that you can share this opinion!


----------



## BWolfe

To me, the use of the Gemini Astronauts vs the Alpha Astronauts is a non issue. If I choose to light the cockpit and have only the Gemini astros to work with I will apply the appropriate paint and move on, same with the Alpha astros. 90% 0f the people who will ever see my finished model in person will not know or care about the difference. The one thing I will do with this model is add the landing gear lights as seen in "Ring Around the Moon", that was cool looking.


----------



## Steve H

Hey, Wolfe, I wonder, do you plan to put running/identification/formation lights on your Eagle? Is there any fan consensus on where lights would be on the Eagle?


----------



## seaQuest

As for resin, I got used to both resin and vinyl back in the early days of the garage kit figure craze. You wanted a figure of Michael Keaton's Batman, vinyl was your only option. 

That said, when Moebius released the Viper Mk. VII, I was disappointed the pilot figure wasn't a resin casting like they did with the Viper Mk.II. Styrene detail is way too soft.


----------



## SUNGOD

The_Engineer said:


> :lol:
> 
> I mentioned the girder thing to my brother a few weeks ago, and he said that the girder construction was one of the things that he liked most about the Eagle as it was more realistic. Me, I go by if someone actually was going to build an Eagle for real, what would it look like. Having numerous holes in a ship's body is not good when flying through a planet's atmosphere like on Earth - the Eagle would be a flying brick. It needs to have a solid body like an airplane. Back in the 90's, I came up with a new, more aerodynamic (and larger) version of the Eagle (which I also included lots of airlocks). It was good but I thought it could be better. The main problem was the hull integrity when the pod is removed. I don't feel that a huge heavy front and a huge heavy rear can stay connected to each other by the spine - it would snap the Eagle into 2. It was at that point that in order to have a large removable section, and to be structurally sound, I thought that the Eagle should be bigger (2 decks high) just like a passenger jet. The upper deck would be where the passengers are and the bottom deck would be the removable pod (and contain cargo) just like the layout of a passenger plane. When the pod is removed, the two ends are connected to each other by the upper deck - making for a much stronger structure. I also started looking into having rear wings on the Eagle which would hinge up (like on fighter jets on an aircraft carrier) when 2 Eagles were going to dock with each other . I see a 'real' Eagle looking like a cross between a passenger jet and the space shuttle (like the 2001 Pan Am shuttle).







Sigh! I'm afraid there is yet more blasphemy from the one known as Engineer folks.......

*"I see a 'real' Eagle looking like a cross between a passenger jet and the space shuttle (like the 2001 Pan Am shuttle"*

You're brother Mr Engineer sounds like a wise man. A man who appreciates the things that make an Eagle an Eagle. A man who appreciates that the girder construction (with the visible interior detailing) is one of the things that makes the Eagle so appealing. Yes the Eagle would have to have some extra support between the cages so it doesn't bend without the pod in real life...............but crimes against Eagledom must not go unpunished. I'm afraid Mr Engineer the High Eagle Council have seen your case and the sentence is..........................


*You must be forced to listen to annoying boyband One Direction 24 hours a day for the next 2 weeks. *


Yes I know it's harsh and listening to them for 2 minutes is torture........but I'm afraid the sentence must be carried out.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> As for resin, I got used to both resin and vinyl back in the early days of the garage kit figure craze. You wanted a figure of Michael Keaton's Batman, vinyl was your only option.
> 
> That said, when Moebius released the Viper Mk. VII, I was disappointed the pilot figure wasn't a resin casting like they did with the Viper Mk.II. Styrene detail is way too soft.


Soft vinyl is a b***ch. Hard vinyl is a king b***ch. I still fret over working on a Tsukuda Hobby hard vinyl figure way way back in the mid '80s. working the seams down was the most frustrating thing I've ever done. 

Then Bandai upped the game with some weird ABS variant with their Armored Gals kits...

Naw, I loves me some styrene plastic.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> Hey, Wolfe, I wonder, do you plan to put running/identification/formation lights on your Eagle? Is there any fan consensus on where lights would be on the Eagle?


The only lights I plan to use are in the cockpit and the landing gear lights. Those are the only lights I remember seeing during the run of the series. Formation and running lights would be logical on this type of craft, but I have no idea where they would be, perhaps the small domes on the landing gear pods?


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> The only lights I plan to use are in the cockpit and the landing gear lights. Those are the only lights I remember seeing during the run of the series. Formation and running lights would be logical on this type of craft, but I have no idea where they would be, perhaps the small domes on the landing gear pods?


Well, history and tradition would inform any choice made. Investigating the light layout of the Apollo CSM might also be good. 

We can assume the standard steady red/port and green/starboard, white/blue blinking top and red blinking underside. I would tend to believe there would be lights on the command module, the outrigger pods, the passenger pod and along the spine. The pod lights might be off in flight and on when it's detached. There may be a spotlight near the main egress hatch. 

formation lights, maybe like those electrolume panels on modern aircraft? That would be cool.

Oh, I think an Eagle could shine like a Christmas tree with the potential lights.


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> Soft vinyl is a b***ch. Hard vinyl is a king b***ch. I still fret over working on a Tsukuda Hobby hard vinyl figure way way back in the mid '80s. working the seams down was the most frustrating thing I've ever done.
> 
> Then Bandai upped the game with some weird ABS variant with their Armored Gals kits...
> 
> Naw, I loves me some styrene plastic.


Just out of curiosity, do you remember which Tsukuda figure kit it was?


----------



## Steve H

RB said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you remember which Tsukuda figure kit it was?


Absolutely, it's sitting on a shelf and even with everything I can see wrong (and don't we all do that?) I'm stupidly proud of it.

1/1 scale Lillis Fau from Heavy Metal L-Gaim. I eventually used about 12 shades of pink for her giant '80s poofy hair, I spent roughly a month painting her eyes.

The glue holding her head onto her body failed (and a good thing I drilled a pin in just in case!) (damn hard vinyl!) and I really want to replace the acetate wings so it's a good thing the head IS loose because her hair covers the screw in her back securing those wings. 

I sometimes have a wish to find another kit and try again, there's much better glues and fillers available now, but this, this works for me for now. 

Back to the Eagle!

Actually, the blow molded vinyl of the old flying model rocket kit of the Eagle was just as horrible to work with. I remember struggling along on the X-Wing...bah.


----------



## John P

seaQuest said:


> If you do proper Eagle pilots in Alpha pressure suits, they'll need va formed bubble faceplates.


On 1/48 figures? :freak: Has anyone, in the entire history of model manufacturing, ever made a 1/48 scale pilot or astronaut figure with a separate clear faceplate? Ever since I glue-bombed my first model together in 1962, I have never seen such a thing.


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> Absolutely, it's sitting on a shelf and even with everything I can see wrong (and don't we all do that?) I'm stupidly proud of it.
> 
> 1/1 scale Lillis Fau from Heavy Metal L-Gaim. I eventually used about 12 shades of pink for her giant '80s poofy hair, I spent roughly a month painting her eyes.
> 
> The glue holding her head onto her body failed (and a good thing I drilled a pin in just in case!) (damn hard vinyl!) and I really want to replace the acetate wings so it's a good thing the head IS loose because her hair covers the screw in her back securing those wings.
> 
> I sometimes have a wish to find another kit and try again, there's much better glues and fillers available now, but this, this works for me for now.
> 
> Back to the Eagle!
> 
> Actually, the blow molded vinyl of the old flying model rocket kit of the Eagle was just as horrible to work with. I remember struggling along on the X-Wing...bah.


Thanks! I only ever had one of the Tsukuda figures, a 1/12 Eve from Megazone 23. Yeah, very hard vinyl!

Back to the Eagle...Jamie has the second update here:

http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.CJZgW28z.dpbs


----------



## mhvink

Ok, I'm going to step in here and add fuel to the fire regarding the pilots. Having just watched the series again on YouTube, I can only remember ONE time when the pilots flew in full suits and helmets. They flew several times in suits without helmets, and mainly just in regular service uniforms.

So, you COULD use regularly clothed pilots (painted in Alpha colors) and call it "Canon" as well.

Now, let the new round of fireworks begin . . .

Mike


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> Om 1/48 figures? :freak: Has anyone, in the entire history of model manufacturing, ever made a 1/48 scale pilot or astronaut figure with a separate clear faceplate? Ever since I glue-bombed my first model together in 1962, I have never seen such a thing.


Okay, John. What color paint is a good match for "clear plastic faceplate?" I've never seen, a or painted myself, a faceplate that looks anywhere near realistic.


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> Soft vinyl is a b***ch. Hard vinyl is a king b***ch. I still fret over working on a Tsukuda Hobby hard vinyl figure way way back in the mid '80s. working the seams down was the most frustrating thing I've ever done.
> 
> Then Bandai upped the game with some weird ABS variant with their Armored Gals kits...
> 
> Naw, I loves me some styrene plastic.


I never had a problem with Horizon or Billiken vinyl kits. Just kept a blow dryer handy to keep heating the vinyl when removing the excess.

I'll agree about better glues. If I built those kits today, I'd use Gorilla Glue or Loctite Go2Glue.


----------



## Scifitodd

New blog entry from Jamie about the 22" eagle!


http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.CJZgW28z.WBMgnav2.dpbs


----------



## Paulbo

Good news all around in that update.


----------



## fire91bird

<quote>Well, Round 2 is bringing it home for at least one upcoming kit - the Rat Rod. They'll even be including photoetch made here in the USA by (modest cough) ParaGrafix.</quote>

Hey Paul, quick deviation and back to the Eagle: what's this "Rat Rod"?


----------



## robiwon

Great news on the Eagle being Approved "as is".
For painting face shields, just check out the military aircraft forums. Should be lots of good examples there.


----------



## Paulbo

fire91bird said:


> <quote>Well, Round 2 is bringing it home for at least one upcoming kit - the Rat Rod. They'll even be including photoetch made here in the USA by (modest cough) ParaGrafix.</quote>
> 
> Hey Paul, quick deviation and back to the Eagle: what's this "Rat Rod"?


It's a hotrod version of a 1934 Ford Roadster.


----------



## fire91bird

Thanks, Paul.

Meanwhile, back on the moon...


----------



## robn1

John P said:


> Om 1/48 figures? :freak: Has anyone, in the entire history of model manufacturing, ever made a 1/48 scale pilot or astronaut figure with a separate clear faceplate? Ever since I glue-bombed my first model together in 1962, I have never seen such a thing.


It could be done. Get some clear orange sheet, heat it up and push the end of a paint brush into it to make a dome. Cut it out, leaving a bit around the edge for the frame, paint the frame yellow and glue it onto the helmet with canopy glue. I've seen all kinds of small clear domes made this way.

Heck I once made mirrored sunglasses for a 1/48 pilot.


----------



## edge10

Great job on designing the kit! Nice to hear it is ready for mold cutting. Sounds like Christmas 2015 is a real possibility.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

seaQuest said:


> Okay, John. What color paint is a good match for "clear plastic faceplate?" I've never seen, a or painted myself, a faceplate that looks anywhere near realistic.


I'm not John Payne, but I play him on television.

Just place a blob of 5-minute epoxy on the face area. For Alpha pilots, go over that once dry and cured (give it 24 hours, even though it sets in 5 minutes) with clear yellow, like Tamiya clear or "stained glass" paints.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> Om 1/48 figures? :freak: Has anyone, in the entire history of model manufacturing, ever made a 1/48 scale pilot or astronaut figure with a separate clear faceplate? Ever since I glue-bombed my first model together in 1962, I have never seen such a thing.




The only thing I've seen is Tamiya doing the goggles in clear plastic with their 1/32 Mustang (which is a nice touch). I can't imagine R2 doing a clear visor if they ever do Alpha pilots.


----------



## Fozzie

mhvink said:


> Ok, I'm going to step in here and add fuel to the fire regarding the pilots. Having just watched the series again on YouTube, I can only remember ONE time when the pilots flew in full suits and helmets. They flew several times in suits without helmets, and mainly just in regular service uniforms.
> 
> So, you COULD use regularly clothed pilots (painted in Alpha colors) and call it "Canon" as well.
> 
> Now, let the new round of fireworks begin . . .
> 
> Mike


I hadn't really thought of this, but it is a valid point. It would certainly be a great option for those doing multiple kits. Use spacesuits in one, no suits in the 2nd.


----------



## robn1

Fozzie said:


> ...no suits in the 2nd.


Naked? That would make it the "Streak Eagle".


----------



## Steve H

Fozzie said:


> I hadn't really thought of this, but it is a valid point. It would certainly be a great option for those doing multiple kits. Use spacesuits in one, no suits in the 2nd.


Don't forget, you'll need a pair of empty chairs as well, for the 'fly by remote' version. 

I suspect crew without spacesuits would end up being aftermarket goodies. 2 generic males and a generic female would do the job.


----------



## John P

One nice thing about this is that there were so many Eagles at the base that we didn't necessarily see, we can each add little personal touches if we want.


----------



## Trek Ace

There would had to have been several of those large, underground hangars depicted in the series (probably one per launch pad) all packed with eagles and all of the variant pods and attachments, since at least two dozen of the craft were destroyed during the run of the show.


----------



## BWolfe

Trek Ace said:


> There would had to have been several of those large, underground hangars depicted in the series (probably one per launch pad) all packed with eagles and all of the variant pods and attachments, since at least two dozen of the craft were destroyed during the run of the show.


According to ITC promotional material there were 28 Eagles on Moonbase Alpha, 29 with the arrival of Commissioner Simmonds. During the run of the series 24 were destroyed. They had to have had a very overworked technical staff to salvage and repair those Eagles that did crash in order to have enough to evacuate Alpha if they needed to. Using a passenger pod like Koenig arrives at Alpha in "Breakaway" that held 8 passengers and 2 pilots, they would need 30 Eagles for a complete personnel evacuation. Then you would need more Eagles outfitted for cargo transport for the supplies they would need after the evacuation.


----------



## Paulbo

John P said:


> One nice thing about this is that there were so many Eagles at the base that we didn't necessarily see, we can each add little personal touches if we want.


And since they are atmosphere capable I'm sure they were used between Earth and space stations, so there are probably hundreds of variations. Hmmm.


----------



## Richard Baker

Eagle Transporter had a Pod contest a couple of years ago- fun to see what special variants people came up with.

My entry was an AWACS Pod (shown on the PE 12" Eagle)- the idea was to have long range scouting and area coordination abilities added to a stock Eagle.
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/RBaker2164/Top.jpg
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/RBaker2164/ForwardStored.jpg
Deployed
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/RBaker2164/Forward-1.jpg
Side view showing remote sensor (stowed)
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/RBaker2164/side.jpg
Remote Sensor
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e267/RBaker2164/Probe-Detail.jpg

I can hardly wait to see what people come up with for this new kit- lots of elbow room in this scale for enhancements and creativity.

(I apologize for the Photobucket links- I am just keeping the old stuff there)


----------



## Scifitodd

Here are some of the POD-U-LIKE contest a few years ago!


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Here are some of the POD-U-LIKE contest a few years ago!


Here are some more Pictures


----------



## spock62

Scifitodd said:


> Here are some of the POD-U-LIKE contest a few years ago!


I like the A.C.I.D. version, a nice nod to the U.F.O. show, the Moonbase of which may or may not be the beginnings of a much larger moon base...Moonbase Alpha of Space 1999...depending on how you look at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)

"...Gerry Anderson proposed a format in which SHADO Moonbase had been greatly enlarged to become the organisation's main headquarters, and pre-production on _UFO 2_ began with extensive research and design for the new Moonbase. These developments were not without precedent in the earlier episodes: a subplot of "Kill Straker!" sees Straker negotiating with SHADO's financial supporters for funding to build more moonbases within 10 years. However, when ratings for the syndicated broadcasts in America dropped towards the end of the run, ITC got cold feet and cancelled the second season plans. Unwilling to let the _UFO 2_ pre-production work go to waste, Anderson instead offered ITC a new series idea, unrelated to _UFO,_ in which the Moon would be blown out of Earth orbit taking the Moonbase survivors with it. This proposal developed into _Space 1999."_


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> I like the A.C.I.D. version, a nice nod to the U.F.O. show, the Moonbase of which may or may not be the beginnings of a much larger moon base...Moonbase Alpha of Space 1999...depending on how you look at it:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_(TV_series)
> 
> "...Gerry Anderson proposed a format in which SHADO Moonbase had been greatly enlarged to become the organisation's main headquarters, and pre-production on _UFO 2_ began with extensive research and design for the new Moonbase. These developments were not without precedent in the earlier episodes: a subplot of "Kill Straker!" sees Straker negotiating with SHADO's financial supporters for funding to build more moonbases within 10 years. However, when ratings for the syndicated broadcasts in America dropped towards the end of the run, ITC got cold feet and cancelled the second season plans. Unwilling to let the _UFO 2_ pre-production work go to waste, Anderson instead offered ITC a new series idea, unrelated to _UFO,_ in which the Moon would be blown out of Earth orbit taking the Moonbase survivors with it. This proposal developed into _Space 1999."_


I have read this, or some version of this, for decades, but I have never, ever seen one sketch, one drawing, one copy of a memo backing the story up. Some of it doesn't quite hold when you start looking at dates things had to have happened by. Keep in mind that back in those days, September was hard and fast the start of the new TV season on U.S. Television. To have product ready for broadcast, production has to be well underway. A second series of UFO (technically the third filming block) would have had to have all their pre-pro wrapped up and ready to go no later than Oct. of that same year, Nov. at the latest and the ratings for the current season of UFO wouldn't have had a final tally, only the early broadcasts and projecting trends. 

I don't know the truth, I am just not at all sure there was really a second season of UFO on the boards and ready to go. There would be a lot more evidence of it, a paper trail. So it seems to me.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> I have read this, or some version of this, for decades, but I have never, ever seen one sketch, one drawing, one copy of a memo backing the story up. Some of it doesn't quite hold when you start looking at dates things had to have happened by. Keep in mind that back in those days, September was hard and fast the start of the new TV season on U.S. Television. To have product ready for broadcast, production has to be well underway. A second series of UFO (technically the third filming block) would have had to have all their pre-pro wrapped up and ready to go no later than Oct. of that same year, Nov. at the latest and the ratings for the current season of UFO wouldn't have had a final tally, only the early broadcasts and projecting trends.
> 
> I don't know the truth, I am just not at all sure there was really a second season of UFO on the boards and ready to go. There would be a lot more evidence of it, a paper trail. So it seems to me.


This is covered in the Fanderson UFO and Space:1999 documentaries. Gerry Anderson himself discusses the evolution of UFO Series 2 into Space:1999.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> This is covered in the Fanderson UFO and Space:1999 documentaries. Gerry Anderson himself discusses the evolution of UFO Series 2 into Space:1999.


I understand that. I've read some version of the tale over and over. It's obviously easier to believe than not believe, but it's nice to SEE something. All the books on the Anderson world I've bought (and it's a nice library, if I do say so myself  ) I have never, ever seen one single drawing, one sketch, one piece of paper of work on a second series of UFO. Construction would have had to begun on sets. Models would have to have been built. Costumes sewn up. 

I can't help but wonder if the whole thing may have been more "We would have LIKED to have done more UFO and this was the direction I would have gone" tale which, over time, evolved into " we WERE going into production on more UFO when the hammer fell". Do you see the subtle difference?

Maybe I'm just a creature of many bad habits and want that peek behind the curtain. I want to see the visualizations of what wasn't happening. Heck, for that matter, I want to see the rejected designs for Space:1999. I want to see the discarded Eagle designs.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> I understand that. I've read some version of the tale over and over. It's obviously easier to believe than not believe, but it's nice to SEE something. All the books on the Anderson world I've bought (and it's a nice library, if I do say so myself  ) I have never, ever seen one single drawing, one sketch, one piece of paper of work on a second series of UFO. Construction would have had to begun on sets. Models would have to have been built. Costumes sewn up.
> 
> I can't help but wonder if the whole thing may have been more "We would have LIKED to have done more UFO and this was the direction I would have gone" tale which, over time, evolved into " we WERE going into production on more UFO when the hammer fell". Do you see the subtle difference?
> 
> Maybe I'm just a creature of many bad habits and want that peek behind the curtain. I want to see the visualizations of what wasn't happening. Heck, for that matter, I want to see the rejected designs for Space:1999. I want to see the discarded Eagle designs.


A Starlog Magazine article made reference to the show being a sequel to UFO, I forget which issue this was, but it is from the 1970's.


----------



## Steve H

OK, good archaeology there! I probably have that Starlog in storage.  If I recall correctly, Hirsch was actually working for ITC in New York, so I would expect 'maintaining the company line', right? Word has it in various histories that his input about 'what America wants' led to various mistakes in production for them. That whole " We MUST be on American TV!!" mentality of syndication in the '70s. But that's really neither here nor there. 

So, some nice pre-pro for Space: 1999 there. I'm actually quite intrigued by that 'Moonship' picture, lower right. I'm not sure if it's just wonky perspective going on or if the intent was indeed to have landing gear pods up front like chipmunk cheeks, with the rear being more conformal, or it's just really forced perspective.

I seem to recall that illo used as copy material in some S:1999 comic from the time.

But again, none of this really leads to "this was UFO Series 2" does it? Even Hirsch phrases it as "sounds like it could have been a spin-off to UFO" and not "this was going to be UFO but they dumped that connection and changed things"

That moonhopper of the left is interesting, seems much more aerodynamic, the landing gear pretty obviously fully retracts.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> OK, good archaeology there! I probably have that Starlog in storage.  If I recall correctly, Hirsch was actually working for ITC in New York, so I would expect 'maintaining the company line', right? Word has it in various histories that his input about 'what America wants' led to various mistakes in production for them. That whole " We MUST be on American TV!!" mentality of syndication in the '70s. But that's really neither here nor there.
> 
> So, some nice pre-pro for Space: 1999 there. I'm actually quite intrigued by that 'Moonship' picture, lower right. I'm not sure if it's just wonky perspective going on or if the intent was indeed to have landing gear pods up front like chipmunk cheeks, with the rear being more conformal, or it's just really forced perspective.
> 
> I seem to recall that illo used as copy material in some S:1999 comic from the time.
> 
> But again, none of this really leads to "this was UFO Series 2" does it? Even Hirsch phrases it as "sounds like it could have been a spin-off to UFO" and not "this was going to be UFO but they dumped that connection and changed things"
> 
> That moonhopper of the left is interesting, seems much more aerodynamic, the landing gear pretty obviously fully retracts.


Watch the first minute and a half of this documentary. 

https://youtu.be/V_uA5G7rPsw


----------



## hubert

BWolfe said:


> A Starlog Magazine article made reference to the show being a sequel to UFO, I forget which issue this was, but it is from the 1970's.



Thanks for this post. I certainly don't remember the article. There are some parts of which, I wish they could have kept. The subterranean command center would have been a better idea, as I thought the being on the surface, in the center (wow, what a target) was pretty impractical.

We all know the concept was used in UFO and perhaps they didn't want to be derivative or the set design would have been cost prohibitive. 

Amazingly, we do have things like this today. At one location I work, the (massive) control centers are buried far below the city streets under benign structures. Access to these areas is not nearly as sexy however. Indeed, it's often clandestine compared to the ideas shown in TV or movies.


----------



## Richard Baker

The subterranean command center was a good idea for 'UFO 2' since the show was predicated on defense from Alien attacks but the premise for S1999 was that Alpha Moonbase was in a benign environment. Once the moon was ripped from orbit and they realized the hazards they faced, moving the command center to a safer location would be a good thing. I think the only problem for moving it would be they had limited resources, most of which were devoted to plain survival and the effort in manpower and materials to dig a large underground room, then transfer all the computer equipment and make new connections to all the sensors plus the rest of the moonbase infrastructure connections would be daunting.

I do think it would have been better if they had just armored up the exterior and closed off the windows- it sits on top as such an inviting target, just like a Federation Bridge.


----------



## hubert

You are correct, of course. I wasn't thinking only of Alien attacks but just general vulnerability: space debris, meteors, and radiation and rogue Eagle pilots wanting to take out command centers (like a FedEx pilot once attempted about the time this series was made). 

At least the Federation ship probably had a secondary battle bridge (Franz J) when the inevitable would occur. Moonbase may have as well.


----------



## John P

PLEASE reduce the size of that scan or thumbnail it. :freak:


----------



## irishtrek

Like John P said reduce the size of your image!!!


----------



## TIEbomber1967

Another Eagle update on the Round2 website.
Now with MORE pictures!


----------



## Steve H

Don't want to read too much into it but I think they may have put some Alpha in those pilots. There seems to be the quilted neckring going on there.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Don't want to read too much into it but I think they may have put some Alpha in those pilots. There seems to be the quilted neckring going on there.


So what's wrong with this astronaut? This is what will probably be in the kit only scaled down! It's workable wouldn't you say?


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> So what's wrong with this astronaut? This is what will probably be in the kit only scaled down! It's workable wouldn't you say?


Another photo side view!


----------



## kekker

No wonder all those Eagles crashed - they weren't working the controls!


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> So what's wrong with this astronaut? This is what will probably be in the kit only scaled down! It's workable wouldn't you say?


But Todd, that goes to exactly what I said before. While they did nothing to the Revell Gemini astronauts (other than chop off their legs) inside the 44" Eagle, when they used the same figures for the 1/24 scale moonbuggy miniature they DID put the effort (albeit minimal) to make them more like they were wearing Alpha spacesuits. 

I would note that if R2 has indeed sculpted the neckring quilting, that's far beyond what was done on Space:1999.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> But Todd, that goes to exactly what I said before. While they did nothing to the Revell Gemini astronauts (other than chop off their legs) inside the 44" Eagle, when they used the same figures for the 1/24 scale moonbuggy miniature they DID put the effort (albeit minimal) to make them more like they were wearing Alpha spacesuits.
> 
> I would note that if R2 has indeed sculpted the neckring quilting, that's far beyond what was done on Space:1999.


Basically because it wasn't needed, the moon buggy was much more visible than the eagle cockpit! It really wasn't in very many scenes!


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> Basically because it wasn't needed, the moon buggy was much more visible than the eagle cockpit! It really wasn't in very many scenes!


But...that's exactly what I was saying. The model builders put in exactly the amount of work (detail) as was needed. Eagle Cockpit figures = registration points for later effects insert work. Moonbuggy figures = 3 second effects shot. 

Which, I point out once again, is completely different to the needs of a finished display model. A model sitting on your shelf, or displayed on a table at a convention, or even, maybe, being used for one's own special effects shooting.


----------



## Scifitodd

This is what we are getting! No More no less! 22" eagle is a go! If we want more then we are going to have to get creative, and I know there are builders out there that will do just that! Just look at the link below and see what people are doing with the 12" MPC kit, it's amazing! And it all over my Facebook group too!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/space1999propsandships/

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=460714


----------



## robiwon

Thanks Todd. Really looking forward to the R2 Eagle. I have some plans for it, or something else I will be building.

Here is my humble Deluxe Eagle, finally finished.


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> Thanks Todd. Really looking forward to the R2 Eagle. I have some plans for it, or something else I will be building.
> 
> Here is my humble Deluxe Eagle, finally finished.


This is a gorgeous build and it shows no matter how the kit starts out, it can shine!


----------



## JGG1701

robiwon said:


> Here is my humble Deluxe Eagle, finally finished.


:thumbsup: Beautiful build if I do say so myself! :thumbsup:
-Jim G.G.


----------



## lordofthestings

*Painting*

I am new to modeling and posting on Hobby Talk.
I searched for the 12" Eagle 1 by MPC but I nothing came up for me. 
The instructions don't say anything about painting the main body of the model but I thought it would look better if painted. I'm also afraid I might ruin it if I paint it. 
I'm looking for info on whether to paint it or not and what color to put on it. 
I apologize if this is the wrong area for this post. I thought someone here might have some experience with the kit in question.
Thanks.


----------



## Scifitodd

lordofthestings said:


> I am new to modeling and posting on Hobby Talk.
> I searched for the 12" Eagle 1 by MPC but I nothing came up for me.
> The instructions don't say anything about painting the main body of the model but I thought it would look better if painted. I'm also afraid I might ruin it if I paint it.
> I'm looking for info on whether to paint it or not and what color to put on it.
> I apologize if this is the wrong area for this post. I thought someone here might have some experience with the kit in question.
> Thanks.


Go to this thread below and see just what you can do with that kit if you want to. Yes it needs painted and Robert did a fantastic job on his. Enjoy! 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=460714&highlight=space+1999


----------



## lordofthestings

*Thank you.*



Scifitodd said:


> Go to this thread below and see just what you can do with that kit if you want to. Yes it needs painted and Robert did a fantastic job on his. Enjoy!
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=460714&highlight=space+1999


Thanks a lot.
Awesome Eagle 1


----------



## robiwon

With display base.


----------



## lordofthestings

*Nice*



robiwon said:


> With display base.


What did you use for the exhaust?


----------



## robiwon

Couch pillow stuffing.


----------



## fluke

Great effect! Its amazing how common materials found 
around the house find thier way to our benches and on our
projects. BRAVO! :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon

Thanks, I was going to use cotton balls but a FB member suggested stuffing instead. I don't think cotton would have looked as good and would have required much more "coaxing" to get it to look right. A little dark grey spray paint and we were all set!


----------



## Scifitodd

New blog from Jamie at Round2 models!


http://www.collectormodel.com/round...eagle-update-3/#sthash.ZsNLPOrk.nk1nQ4NF.dpbs


----------



## RB

The new Eagle news entry seems especially fascinating with a look at the tool layout design process. Wish it was a little more detailed with regard to the actual tool cutting process, but it's still all good. Maybe next week we'll get a hint as to the box art!

http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.cBqQTObp.4buun1Po.dpbs


----------



## robiwon

Nice, I wish the pictures were clickable for a bigger pictures. Come on Jamie, throw us a bigger bone! 

Todd, you should send my pics to Jamie and tell him I'd be willing to do a test shot build for them, LOL....


----------



## fluke

Oh man! This and Proteus will make 2016 a 'bench' mark year for sure!
Thanks for the news! ......I think its safe to assume the Eagle a 1st qtr 2016 release?


----------



## Paulbo

I can't wait until this kit gets closer so there can be a lot of entries here - this thread is a little bare ;-)


----------



## robiwon

They keep saying before Christmas but that might be pushing it. 1st qtr 2016 sounds reasonable. Unless they put the pressure on the plant in China to bust these out.


----------



## Scifitodd

fluke said:


> Oh man! This and Proteus will make 2016 a 'bench' mark year for sure!
> Thanks for the news! ......I think its safe to assume the Eagle a 1st qtr 2016 release?


It's scheduled for this November/December.


----------



## RB

Scifitodd said:


> It's scheduled for this November/December.


That's assuming everything goes smoothly, not just on the production side itself but also with factory scheduling, labor, transportation, customs, etc. Round 2 can do everything right on their side but there could still be unforeseen delays. Not trying to be Debbie Downer, just being realistic given what we've all seen Round 2 and other companies go through in the past. I think we'd all be delighted if it's Nov/Dec, but it would be entirely understandable if it's just a little longer. It would be great though if it made delivery during the 40th anniversary year!


----------



## Richard Baker

When the Chinese factories get rushed they make mistakes- mistakes that result in warped parts, bad decals and a lot of headaches for R2 to replace these problems.

Next year is good- got plenty to build in the meantime and it is nice to have something terrific to look forward to.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> New blog from Jamie at Round2 models!
> 
> 
> http://www.collectormodel.com/round...eagle-update-3/#sthash.ZsNLPOrk.nk1nQ4NF.dpbs




Hopefully if that's the sprue layout it looks like the beak/command module will have the sprue attachments at the rear where it's glued instead of the tip of the nose (unlike the old MPC and Imai kits). If that's the case it's a good thing as the last thing it should have is some nasty sprue attachment right on the end of the nose. It would be great also if the sprue attachments on the engine bells could be on the gluable end instead of scarring the tips of the bells etc.


----------



## mach7

In the past Jamie has said they put a lot of thought into where they 
attach the sprue to the part so as not to blemish the part.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> In the past Jamie has said they put a lot of thought into where they
> attach the sprue to the part so as not to blemish the part.




That's great to hear. Obviously we haven't seen the kit yet so I'll have a cautious optimism but I wonder if some companies don't put much thought into where the sprue attachments are. I've had a few kits with annoying sprue attachments.


----------



## Zombie_61

Richard Baker said:


> When the Chinese factories get rushed they make mistakes- mistakes that result in warped parts, bad decals and a lot of headaches for R2 to replace these problems.
> 
> Next year is good- got plenty to build in the meantime and it is nice to have something terrific to look forward to.


I agree--make sure it's right first, _then_ get it on the shelves. If that takes an extra six months or so, so be it.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

robiwon said:


> Nice, I wish the pictures were clickable for a bigger pictures. Come on Jamie, throw us a bigger bone!
> 
> Todd, you should send my pics to Jamie and tell him I'd be willing to do a test shot build for them, LOL....


I pretty much suspect that you'd have to kidnap Jim Small to get him out of the way to have any chance of even getting in line. He's one of R2's go-to guys for Eagle stuff. I know Jim and he seems like he could take care of himself, so good luck...


----------



## Scifitodd

Here’s a look at the Eagle Accessory kit from Round 2. This is for the upcoming 22″ Eagle. From Culttvman............


----------



## Richard Baker

Scifitodd said:


> Here’s a look at the Eagle Accessory kit from Round 2. This is for the upcoming 22″ Eagle. From Culttvman............


They look great but are priced out of my reach.
I can understand a small scale GR pricing like that, but you would think R2 would have gotten a better volume deal for those...


----------



## robiwon

It is an expensive accessory, but if you look at what people spend on PE detail kits, painting masks, lighting kits, etc. the price is fairly reasonable. This kit probably will not need a PE kit nor an elaborate lighting kit. Buy the model, the bells and add two yellow LEDs in the CM windows and it will be a whole lot less than a 1/350 TOS E, Refit, J2, or any number of other elaborate builds.


----------



## Scifitodd

Richard Baker said:


> They look great but are priced out of my reach.
> I can understand a small scale GR pricing like that, but you would think R2 would have gotten a better volume deal for those...





Guys, it's not cheap to make these aluminum parts! The 23" sets are at that price from our current vender Mike Reader, and we know he's the best there is at the ones he produces and his prices. It' won't get cheaper! And they are including the landing gear assembly also! 

23" RU Mains and v/tols $115.00 ( per set )
23" PE mains and v/tols $127.00 ( per set )

Space: 1999 Props & Ships
https://www.facebook.com/groups/space1999propsandships/


----------



## SUNGOD

They look very nice from that photo. I wonder though how securely they'll attach to the plastic parts? Be nothing worse than the heavier aluminium bits falling off all the time.


----------



## BWolfe

SUNGOD said:


> They look very nice from that photo. I wonder though how securely they'll attach to the plastic parts? Be nothing worse than the heavier aluminium bits falling off all the time.


Use the original JB Weld, you will have to break the plastic to get them off again.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> They look very nice from that photo. I wonder though how securely they'll attach to the plastic parts? Be nothing worse than the heavier aluminium bits falling off all the time.


They don't fall off of my models!


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> Guys, it's not cheap to make these aluminum parts! The 23" sets are at that price from our current vender Mike Reader, and we know he's the best there is at the ones he produces and his prices. It' won't get cheaper! And they are including the landing gear assembly also!
> 
> 23" RU Mains and v/tols $115.00 ( per set )
> 23" PE mains and v/tols $127.00 ( per set )
> 
> Space: 1999 Props & Ships
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/space1999propsandships/


Sure, and that's a fair price for the hard hand work of (I assume) turning aluminum stock into polished engine bells.

But this is why I get a little uncomfortable when a 'major' dips into the 'garage kit materials' world. Were I a turn-key factory in China, I wouldn't turn those exhausts from bar aluminum, that's too time consuming and resource wasteful. What I would do would be cast the bells as 'blanks' the general shape and all, then finish them on a lathe. Faster, cheaper, less aluminum wasted-heck the shavings can go back into the pot for that matter. 

Is that what will be done? I have no idea, but I DO know that it would be cheaper by far than the way Mr. Reader does it.

The lure of a 'major' dipping into 'garage kit materials' is the fat price hike. We're USED to paying for that 'one man company' work, something we do gladly.

And here's the thing. I've asked this before and never got a reply. What, exactly is the appeal of turned aluminum engine exhausts? I get why they came to be for the MPC Eagle, they were needed to correct poor parts in the kit. 

But this is the modern age. There are multi-part sliding molds that can make engine exhaust bells of delicate and precise beauty with nary a seam to be seen. Hopefully this technology will be used on the new 22" Eagle. 

So since we have experts who are working hard to make this as good a kit as humanly possible (and allowing for Factory screwups, imposed on the kit regardless of how clear the instructions are. Why does that keep happening?), is there going to be a need for the turned aluminum bells? Those struts, heck yes and I wish R2 would sell just those, but the bells, the bells... I dunno how well those are going to go over. 

As to the aluminum bells falling off the kit, I don't see that as a problem. A few pages back a picture was posted of that exact attachment area, you can read about the need to have a good, long post to hang the bells on and see the changes in the draft drawing.


----------



## Trek Ace

Well, the metal aftermarket bells are there for those who want to purchase them. For everyone else, there's Alclad.


----------



## robiwon

I really don't see this as R2 dipping into the GK market, If that were the case then every kit that has a PE fret or window masks in it should be pulled from the shelves. One of the allures of the filming miniature are those aluminum bells. Try as one might, most probably can't replicate an authentic aluminum finish.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> I really don't see this as R2 dipping into the GK market, If that were the case then every kit that has a PE fret or window masks in it should be pulled from the shelves. One of the allures of the filming miniature are those aluminum bells. Try as one might, most probably can't replicate an authentic aluminum finish.


I blame my own shorthand. In this case I was referring more to 'garage aftermarket' than actual 'garage kit'. The process of small run mixed media parts, the kind of thing that usually is a 'one man one garage business', dig?

Like the Moebius Flying Sub landing gear and claw set. 

OTOH that resin Alien kit of Kane sure crosses over into full-on Garage Kit land. 

OK, so, once again, the key factor is 'desire to replicate the 44" filming miniature', is that fair to say? I get that.


----------



## jheilman

Trek Ace said:


> Well, the metal aftermarket bells are there for those who want to purchase them. For everyone else, there's Alclad.


Exactly. I had a set of Jim Small's aluminum bells for the MPC eagle. I'm not talented enough to get a paint finish to match that look.


----------



## SUNGOD

I think the plastic engine bells should have a chrome finish though even if they're bringing out the aluminium ones.


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> I think the plastic engine bells should have a chrome finish though even if they're bringing out the aluminium ones.


In that case why not an aluminum finish instead of chrome?? It would look more realistic.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> In that case why not an aluminum finish instead of chrome?? It would look more realistic.




The bells look quite shiny in the tv series and not just silver (like the Product Enterprise ones) so I think they should have a shiny chrome type finish.

Then people who can want the even more authentic look can get the aluminium ones.


----------



## seaQuest

Hit the chrome with dullcote, voilá, aluminum.


----------



## Zombie_61

seaQuest said:


> Hit the chrome with dullcote, voilá, aluminum.


The problem with spraying Dullcote over chrome plated parts is that it gives them the appearance of non-polished aluminum. The engine bells on the Eagle filming miniatures did have some shine/reflection to them, they just didn't have that "mirror" finish that chrome would have. I had good luck with Testors' Chrome Silver enamel in the aerosol can--it's a little darker than polished aluminum, but it has approximately the right amount of reflection to it once it's dry. So even if Round 2 chrome plates the engine bells I'll probably strip 'em and repaint them with Chrome Silver.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> The problem with spraying Dullcote over chrome plated parts is that it gives them the appearance of non-polished aluminum. The engine bells on the Eagle filming miniatures did have some shine/reflection to them, they just didn't have that "mirror" finish that chrome would have. I had good luck with Testors' Chrome Silver enamel in the aerosol can--it's a little darker than polished aluminum, but it has approximately the right amount of reflection to it once it's dry. So even if Round 2 chrome plates the engine bells I'll probably strip 'em and repaint them with Chrome Silver.



Maybe not a total chrome finish but they are quite shiny. Manufacturers these days can make the chrome finish more muted than they used to. The silver painted bells on the PE diecasts just don't look right.


----------



## Zombie_61

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe not a total chrome finish but they are quite shiny. Manufacturers these days can make the chrome finish more muted than they used to...


That might just be the key to making them look right.



SUNGOD said:


> ...The silver painted bells on the PE diecasts just don't look right.


True, but I don't own an airbrush so I can't use Alclad, and I can't afford the aluminum aftermarket parts. I know Chrome Silver paint won't get the job done properly, but that's really the only option I have.


----------



## Steve H

I'm fairly sure I've seen some nice chrome spray at Hobby Lobby. I think the secret would be solid, decent prep work on the kit parts, the right combo of undercoats. 

I'm not gonna worry about it. If silver and gunmetal and titanium don't make it look exactly like the 44" filming miniature, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.


----------



## robiwon

These are the plastic and resin bells that came with the Deluxe kit. I used Spaz Stix Chrome on them over a gloss black base. Came out pretty good. Maybe a bit to shiny for aluminum. I thought about dipping in Future to see if it tones them down.


----------



## robn1

A semi gloss or satin black undercoat will give the chrome a duller look. That looks great, too bad R2 didn't give extra resin bells as replacements for the Eagle.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> These are the plastic and resin bells that came with the Deluxe kit. I used Spaz Stix Chrome on them over a gloss black base. Came out pretty good. Maybe a bit to shiny for aluminum. I thought about dipping in Future to see if it tones them down.


I was wondering if an unconventional 'wash' of a color would do the job? We're always used to 'give it a wash of black' but what if you tried white, or a light gray?

Hm, maybe not the more I think of it. Washes are done mainly to flow some color into and around details and that's not gonna help much here other than lighten up the engraved bits. Still want those dark. Hm. 

Maybe I don't mean 'wash' per se, thinking more like applying makeup, blush, a light dusting. more a 'wipe' over the shiny bits. I'm totally at sea vis a vis terminology now.


----------



## RB

Zombie_61 said:


> That might just be the key to making them look right.
> 
> True, but I don't own an airbrush so I can't use Alclad, and I can't afford the aluminum aftermarket parts. I know Chrome Silver paint won't get the job done properly, but that's really the only option I have.


Spastix Mirror Chrome, comparable to Alclad, is available in a spray can, no airbrush needed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkG5kW3u6kQ


----------



## robiwon

That's what I used on mine, see my post above, straight from the spray can.


----------



## seaQuest

What's wrong with Testors Metallizer?


----------



## RB

robiwon said:


> That's what I used on mine, see my post above, straight from the spray can.


And your Spastix parts, along with everything else, turned out beautifully!:thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon

seaQuest said:


> What's wrong with Testors Metallizer?


Nothing, they are great paints. I love them, but they can be delicate if not sealed.


----------



## SUNGOD

Zombie_61 said:


> That might just be the key to making them look right.
> 
> True, but I don't own an airbrush so I can't use Alclad, and I can't afford the aluminum aftermarket parts. I know Chrome Silver paint won't get the job done properly, but that's really the only option I have.




I think it would be a good idea idea to give them a nice shiny finish and it would save people from having to do all that. This won't stop the people who want the aluminium bells either as the aluminium bells will still have that extra authentic look.


----------



## robiwon

Yeah, I'll be doing the aluminum bells on mine.


----------



## SUNGOD

I'll probably pick up a set anyway too as like many people I'll probably be building at least 4 Eagles and I can't resist using the aluminium bells on at least one of them.


----------



## BARRYZ28

I have had great results from Kosutte Ginsan.
No longer made but there are others that have replaced it.
I've had great chrome results over enamel white and a polished steel look over a flat silver.
You can get different results depending on the base color used under it.
Go check youtube for vids.


----------



## fluke

seaQuest said:


> What's wrong with Testors Metallizer?


I agree ! here here! No matter how they look on the show
Im starting with steel then the gradual fade of burnt exhaust.
Its an engine bell for crying out loud


----------



## Steve H

fluke said:


> I agree ! here here! No matter how they look on the show
> Im starting with steel then the gradual fade of burnt exhaust.
> Its an engine bell for crying out loud


But..but...that's not how the filming miniature looked! How can you even think of that?! HERETIC!!


----------



## irishtrek

seaQuest said:


> What's wrong with Testors Metallizer?


But do they have a realistic looking aluminum??


----------



## RB

Today's Eagle update sure is a treat. Good things come in threes...I had most of those 1999 products back in day. Most are gone now, nice to see them again:

http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.GjeCkmSP.dpbs


----------



## robiwon

First column, second to the last, is the box art I like the most.


----------



## BWolfe

The one on the bottom right is my favorite.


----------



## Steve H

Ya know, I understand what Jamie is trying to do. I think. Under the guise of 'wanting a retro feel' he's seeking to design a boxtop that will REALLY stand out on a website or catalog page. On the shelf, not much of a concern because this isn't a kit that's going to be stocked in depth at a Hobby Lobby. I doubt many shops will be 'facing' the box.

So, with that in mind, we want clarity and ease of reading. I would (with those aforementioned goals) tend to lean towards the bottom left, changing it by dropping the '1' from Eagle and dropping the yellow outline 'Eagle' in favor of the solid white style seen in the next-from-bottom right.

I dither over using the 'rescue Eagle' striped pod. I understand, the red stripes do 'break up' the overall white look to draw the eye, but OTOH it's really not something we saw every episode. Still again, this isn't a toy that provides only one choice.

I really like that yellow/red Space:1999 graphic. That would really pop. Throw that on a web page with a dozen different kits on it and the eye would be drawn to it instantly.

(mind, I'm mainly thinking in wholesale/distro terms. You HAVE to get the shops to buy it before the customers can even think about it.)


----------



## seaQuest

irishtrek said:


> But do they have a realistic looking aluminum??


You tell me.


----------



## kangg7

In reference to the box art, I like the middle left one myself.?


----------



## The_Engineer

The second one with the rescue Eagle on the launch pad and the red/yellow text reminds me of the 70's Space: 1999 board game. Talk about a trip down memory lane.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

BWolfe said:


> The one on the bottom right is my favorite.


I agree. Bottom right. The kit itself is retro, the box doesn't need to be. The others look like board games I'd find at a garage sale.


----------



## irishtrek

seaQuest said:


> You tell me.


Since I've never used MM metalizer paints I don't know which is why I'm asking. I do know that the Tamiya aluminum is more realistic looking than any other acrylic paint.


----------



## Bugfood

Latest - number 5 - Eagle blogpost is up at Round2: 

http://www.collectormodel.com/round...pace1999-eagle-update-5/#sthash.YOLiZnRv.dpbs

Looking cool.

BF


----------



## electric indigo

It gets better and better!


----------



## fluke

*COOL!*


----------



## Steve H

Does look very nifty, the decal info is a very positive thing. 

Kinda hope they might offer the metal struts on their own but I suspect that's not possible for one reason or another. 

I wonder, should the main engine bells have a ridge inside to help fit the 'debatable based on which you look at' baffles? I suppose careful engineering of the baffles themselves would eliminate the need.


----------



## electric indigo

It's happening:

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...41830.251360838378332/496400400541040/?type=1


----------



## SUNGOD

Wow! The test shots are here.:thumbsup: I didn't think there'd be anything until late October for some reason.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Wow! The test shots are here.:thumbsup: I didn't think there'd be anything until late October for some reason.


Nobody listens to me! :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Scifitodd said:


> Nobody listens to me! :thumbsup:


I'm sorry...what was that?


----------



## jheilman

This is so great. I've been too scared to attempt my 1/350 refit. Ditto with the 1/350 TOS E. But this one, I'm diving right in.

Hopefully by next Wonderfest there will be many Eagles entered to ogle over.


----------



## Scifitodd

jheilman said:


> I'm sorry...what was that?


I've been preaching on all of the forums that this was for real and it would happen in the timeline Round2 announced. It's coming quickly. I would say in about 1 week you will start to see photo's of the test shots in build progress. And by the end of the month we should see things moving along quickly like box art and so on. It's going to be a great few months. :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman

Sorry, I was pretending to not hear you. A joke that would have worked in person falls totally flat in text.


----------



## irishtrek

Scifitodd said:


> Nobody listens to me! :thumbsup:


I know the feeling.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> I've been preaching on all of the forums that this was for real and it would happen in the timeline Round2 announced. It's coming quickly. I would say in about 1 week you will start to see photo's of the test shots in build progress. And by the end of the month we should see things moving along quickly like box art and so on. It's going to be a great few months. :thumbsup:




Did you say something todd?


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Did you say something todd?


Now that I see it it's pretty damn funny! ??


----------



## Zombie_61

irishtrek said:


> I know the feeling.


I'm sorry...what was that?


----------



## fluke

and now for something completely different....

a Llama!


----------



## phicks

SUNGOD said:


> Wow! The test shots are here.:thumbsup: I didn't think there'd be anything until late October for some reason.


R2 always said they were aiming for a November release. For that to happen, late October is way too late for a first test shot.


----------



## robiwon

I'm sure there will be more than a few built Eagles at WonderFest next year. I plan on having mine and my RU23 there.


----------



## Fozzie

phicks said:


> R2 always said they were aiming for a November release. For that to happen, late October is way too late for a first test shot.


R2 already has the first test shot...early September.


----------



## irishtrek

Zombie_61 said:


> I'm sorry...what was that?


You heard me, now get going.:wave:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

This just posted on Revell's FB page:

"Though we don't consider Round 2's Eagle kit to be our competitor, we're blocking it's distribution in the U.S. anyway because, c'mon guys you're making us look bad. You, Moebius and Bandai are making accurate, in scale, high quality kits that customers actually want and, frankly, we can't have that. Look, we're lazy. We could try to reach that high bar you're setting, but that would be hard. Well, actually not that hard, but harder than we're willing to work. Which is not very hard. It's much easy to just make deals that give us exclusive rights to maintain a hostage market. Our lawyers work hard so we don't have to! So, sorry to everyone who was looking forward to the new Eagle kit. Really, it looks nice. We'll probably buy some, but... you can't. It's just better this way. For us."

Granted, the original post was in German, so things may have been lost in translation.

:tongue:


----------



## electric indigo

^^^ nice one!


----------



## Scifitodd

Hello everyone! I'm doing this survey to see how many of you have preordered the new 22" eagle kit and if so how many did you order? Let's get this thing filled out so we can show that our 1999 fans lead the 22" eagle kit In sales. If you have already done this then please don't do it again! I only need one entry per order and I started this in the Props & Ships group! Please help me get this done before September 30th! Thank you........Use the link below please!

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/5VDS827


----------



## electric indigo

I would pre-order instantly if there was any word about an importer for Europe lately.


----------



## Scifitodd

electric indigo said:


> I would pre-order instantly if there was any word about an importer for Europe lately.


Timeless Hobbies!

http://www.timeless-hobbies.com/store/p3465/Eagle_Transporter_1/48th_Scale..html

Forbidden Planet

http://www.forbiddenplanet.co.uk/sp...ter-22-long?&zenid=6argjcl7edjfbk0us5ssorieh6


----------



## Zombie_61

irishtrek said:


> You heard me, now get going.:wave:


Sir! Yes Sir! Right away, Sir!


----------



## Bugfood

*About the decals...*

Hi all

Apols if I've missed this anywhere else, but apart from the Cartograf news (which is awesome) and previous online tidbits about there being a 'comprehensive sheet', do we have any indication as to what the contents of the final decal sheet may be?

*BF*


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> Hi all
> 
> Apols if I've missed this anywhere else, but apart from the Cartograf news (which is awesome) and previous online tidbits about there being a 'comprehensive sheet', do we have any indication as to what the contents of the final decal sheet may be?
> 
> *BF*


Coming soon! I'll keep you posted on the decal sheets and contents. Jamie may show it in his blog entry. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bugfood

Yay!

*BF:thumbsup:*


----------



## Zombie_61

Bugfood said:


> Hi all
> 
> Apols if I've missed this anywhere else, but apart from the Cartograf news (which is awesome) and previous online tidbits about there being a 'comprehensive sheet', do we have any indication as to what the contents of the final decal sheet may be?
> 
> *BF*


Yes. The contents of the decal sheet will be decals.


----------



## Bugfood

Zombie_61 said:


> Yes. The contents of the decal sheet will be decals.


Pedantically, I should point out that - until we see full evidence - even that statement is conjecture. *winky mcwink wink*

(Thought I'd get that in before some crazy net naysayer starts screaming "BUT WHERE'S THE PROOF?!!!")

In other news: Cartograf = mmmmmmmmmm 

*BF*


----------



## Steve H

Well, we have a fair idea what's likely, right? Anti-glare panels for the command module, 'heat resistant' panels for the maneuvering thrusters, Alpha Moonbase marks, maybe the red stripes for the 'Rescue Eagle' pod style (a thing most would set aside in favor of paint, but this makes it possible to build ' out of the box' without paint if one wished), that's the basics. Then there's all those stripes and lines...

If they wanted to really use up decal sheet space they might include the orange areas for the 'Executive' Eagle. Again, a thing most would use paint for, but it gives the 'out of the box no paint' option. Personally, I'd put that low on the 'how likely' list but who knows?


----------



## Bwain no more

Hunk A Junk said:


> This just posted on Revell's FB page:
> 
> "Though we don't consider Round 2's Eagle kit to be our competitor, we're blocking it's distribution in the U.S. anyway because, c'mon guys you're making us look bad. You, Moebius and Bandai are making accurate, in scale, high quality kits that customers actually want and, frankly, we can't have that. Look, we're lazy. We could try to reach that high bar you're setting, but that would be hard. Well, actually not that hard, but harder than we're willing to work. Which is not very hard. It's much easy to just make deals that give us exclusive rights to maintain a hostage market. Our lawyers work hard so we don't have to! So, sorry to everyone who was looking forward to the new Eagle kit. Really, it looks nice. We'll probably buy some, but... you can't. It's just better this way. For us."
> 
> Granted, the original post was in German, so things may have been lost in translation.
> 
> :tongue:


So THAT explains the forwarded email from R2 I received the other day advising me that if I did not adhere strictly to their minimum pricing policy, my opportunity to purchase product (and resell same) from them could be forfeited. * It MUST be evil Revell (and their lawyers) FORCING the fine folks at Round 2 to institute a somewhat obnoxious marketing policy. No doubt because upper management at Revell are STILL kicking themselves over letting Tom Lowe STEAL the "Space: 1999" license out from under their noses leaving them stuck to get by with the "Star Wars" license. 
Tom

* In the spirit of full disclosure, I was NOT the sole recipient of this email, it was forwarded the same day as the most recent updated price list which featured a NEW column next to MSRP (manufacturer SUGGESTED retail price). This new column, MAP (minimum ADVERTISED price) indicates that if a reseller goes LOWER than MAP, R2 MAY stop selling to him. So pretty much EVERYONE (not just ME) who will be carrying the new Eagle, or General Lee or WHATEVER product R2 puts out is now being told they can ONLY discount R2 product as low as R2 tells them they can. PRETTY sure none of you are particularly troubled by this ; I know I'm not, as I have pretty much been able to pick up most of the R2 stuff that interests me at BELOW wholesale through outlet stores. UNLESS, of course, you have preordered an Eagle for less than $109, in that case, this MAY impact you. AND how you reply to Todd's poll ! :wave:


----------



## Scifitodd

Bwain no more said:


> So THAT explains the forwarded email from R2 I received the other day advising me that if I did not adhere strictly to their minimum pricing policy, my opportunity to purchase product (and resell same) from them could be forfeited. * It MUST be evil Revell (and their lawyers) FORCING the fine folks at Round 2 to institute a somewhat obnoxious marketing policy. No doubt because upper management at Revell are STILL kicking themselves over letting Tom Lowe STEAL the "Space: 1999" license out from under their noses leaving them stuck to get by with the "Star Wars" license.
> Tom
> 
> * In the spirit of full disclosure, I was NOT the sole recipient of this email, it was forwarded the same day as the most recent updated price list which featured a NEW column next to MSRP (manufacturer SUGGESTED retail price). This new column, MAP (minimum ADVERTISED price) indicates that if a reseller goes LOWER than MAP, R2 MAY stop selling to him. So pretty much EVERYONE (not just ME) who will be carrying the new Eagle, or General Lee or WHATEVER product R2 puts out is now being told they can ONLY discount R2 product as low as R2 tells them they can. PRETTY sure none of you are particularly troubled by this ; I know I'm not, as I have pretty much been able to pick up most of the R2 stuff that interests me at BELOW wholesale through outlet stores. UNLESS, of course, you have preordered an Eagle for less than $109, in that case, this MAY impact you. AND how you reply to Todd's poll ! :wave:


I'm confused! I thought that Revell thing was a joke?


----------



## Bugfood

Mr Todd

You are correct. It is a joke.

*BF*


----------



## Bwain no more

Scifitodd said:


> I'm confused! I thought that Revell thing was a joke?


Well like they say, if you have to EXPLAIN a joke...:freak: 
Tom


----------



## Scifitodd

Bwain no more said:


> Well like they say, if you have to EXPLAIN a joke...:freak:
> Tom


It's really hard to figure out you guys sometimes if you're serious or joking.


----------



## Bwain no more

Hey, I was in high school when "Space:1999" premiered and could NEVER sit through an entire episode. To each his own, right? The only entertaining moment I have ever associated with the show is when a local TV reviewer commented that "the acting was MORE wooden than that on one of Mr. Anderson's previous TV series, "Thunderbirds." BTW, I was in a friend's basement when I heard this and sprayed a mouthful of soda all over his mom's fairly new couch. That was ANOTHER joke that had to be explained (to my friend) in addition to being cleaned up after; talk about coming full circle. :thumbsup: 
BTW, my reference to Revell (and their lawyers) was the joke. R2's new pricing guidelines most definitely are NOT, although I am personally NOT taking it all too seriously...
Tom


----------



## irishtrek

Steve H said:


> Well, we have a fair idea what's likely, right? Anti-glare panels for the command module, 'heat resistant' panels for the maneuvering thrusters, Alpha Moonbase marks, maybe the red stripes for the 'Rescue Eagle' pod style (a thing most would set aside in favor of paint, but this makes it possible to build ' out of the box' without paint if one wished), that's the basics. Then there's all those stripes and lines...
> 
> If they wanted to really use up decal sheet space they might include the orange areas for the 'Executive' Eagle. Again, a thing most would use paint for, but it gives the 'out of the box no paint' option. Personally, I'd put that low on the 'how likely' list but who knows?


But if some of us choose to paint rather than go with decals does that not count as out of the box as well??? Think about it.


----------



## Steve H

irishtrek said:


> But if some of us choose to paint rather than go with decals does that not count as out of the box as well??? Think about it.


Yes, of course. That's old school, when 'out of the box' meant no additions, no corrections, nothing more than putty and paint and glue. 

Nowadays 'out of the box' means Bandai Star Wars kits, and Revell's snap fit pre-painted. Glue is the only 'outside' buy needed and that is still pretty cheap, compared to paint. 

(good lord, I used to think I was crazy for paying like a buck and a quarter for Tamiya or Gunze Sanygo paint, and Humbrol was my gold standard, those lovely small tins. Now...yeesh.  )

Now, granted, the Eagle isn't a P-51 Mustang or a SR-71 so eager kids are not likely to buy the thing and not have at least SOME basics on hand, but who knows?

(and I'll be polite and not get into the whole 'but a smaller 12" new tool Eagle would have a broader potential 'casual buyer' market because it would be cheaper' blather because I hope and pray R2 is smart enough to have that waiting in the wings for next year  )


----------



## SUNGOD

I'm not really sure a smaller Eagle would have much broader potential.....if at all. I think it's fair to say that if you're an Eagle or 99 fan you'll be buying this new Eagle. Some people might prefer a smaller Eagle but I bet most people wanted a larger Eagle with more detail.

Of course if this sells well then we'll get more 99 kits so maybe a smaller kit one day but I'd hope they do other 99 craft before that.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not really sure a smaller Eagle would have much broader potential.....if at all. I think it's fair to say that if you're an Eagle or 99 fan you'll be buying this new Eagle. Some people might prefer a smaller Eagle but I bet most people wanted a larger Eagle with more detail.
> 
> Of course if this sells well then we'll get more 99 kits so maybe a smaller kit one day but I'd hope they do other 99 craft before that.


Valid, but narrow in view I think.

Look, if you have a kit that's $100 USD or more, that's a huge risk for a local hobby shop to carry in any depth. Generally what will happen is they'll take pre-orders with a deposit to ensure the model is actually purchased when it arrives (people do back out of orders for various valid reasons) and that's all the stock they'll get. MAYBE if they're daring they'll get one for the shelf just in case. Maybe.

You're also locking yourself out of Hobby Lobby and the other national craft store chains. 

So, you've limited your market. 

Smaller kit, same kind of attention to detail, lower pricepoint, maybe you get the kit on the shelf of Hobby Lobby. Maybe that local hobby shop buys a case for the shelf instead of one. Maybe people will be able to find it at MSRP 6 months down the line because more wholesellers ordered it for the retailers. Lots of maybes, but history tends to prove it out. 

Or do I imagine that R2 sold a lot more 1/1000 scale TOS Enterprise models compared to the 1/350 scale kit?


----------



## Trek Ace

The kit will undoubtedly sell well regardless of the vendor - whether brick & mortar or online. Very few of the kits that we find attractive can be had at places like Hobby Lobby, Michaels, or the local department stores, whose stock seem to be limited to little more than the basic Revell assortment. 

I seriously doubt if any of these kits will be left languishing on the shelves any more than other popular kits in the same price range that seem to disappear off the isles as quickly as they are placed on them.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Valid, but narrow in view I think.
> 
> Look, if you have a kit that's $100 USD or more, that's a huge risk for a local hobby shop to carry in any depth. Generally what will happen is they'll take pre-orders with a deposit to ensure the model is actually purchased when it arrives (people do back out of orders for various valid reasons) and that's all the stock they'll get. MAYBE if they're daring they'll get one for the shelf just in case. Maybe.
> 
> You're also locking yourself out of Hobby Lobby and the other national craft store chains.
> 
> So, you've limited your market.
> 
> Smaller kit, same kind of attention to detail, lower pricepoint, maybe you get the kit on the shelf of Hobby Lobby. Maybe that local hobby shop buys a case for the shelf instead of one. Maybe people will be able to find it at MSRP 6 months down the line because more wholesellers ordered it for the retailers. Lots of maybes, but history tends to prove it out.
> 
> Or do I imagine that R2 sold a lot more 1/1000 scale TOS Enterprise models compared to the 1/350 scale kit?




As Trek Ace says I don't think you'll see many of these in local hobby shops. Hobbycraft one of the few remaining kit sellers in the UK probably won't store it and I should imagine it'll be the same in the US and elsewhere. The most sci fi they seem to sell is Revell Star Wars and new Galactica. 

Plus don't forget many people have the PE diecasts too.


----------



## irishtrek

Steve H said:


> Valid, but narrow in view I think.
> 
> Look, if you have a kit that's $100 USD or more, that's a huge risk for a local hobby shop to carry in any depth. Generally what will happen is they'll take pre-orders with a deposit to ensure the model is actually purchased when it arrives (people do back out of orders for various valid reasons) and that's all the stock they'll get. MAYBE if they're daring they'll get one for the shelf just in case. Maybe.?


A local hobby shop did have kits on their shelves priced at a 100 or more and they also took orders from customers at times.


----------



## Zombie_61

Bugfood said:


> Pedantically, I should point out that - until we see full evidence - even that statement is conjecture. *winky mcwink wink*...


Well, I never said they'd be the _right_ decals. 



Bwain no more said:


> Hey, I was in high school when "Space:1999" premiered and could NEVER sit through an entire episode...


I was 14 years old when _Space: 1999_ premiered here in the U.S., and found most of the episodes tedious. Even the actors seemed to be bored most of the time. I kept watching mostly for the effects shots of the Eagles in action. Many years later I picked up an inexpensive DVD set that consisted of six episodes from the first season; it didn't change my opinion.


----------



## SUNGOD

It's a bit dated now like all sci fi gets but I can't say I ever found it boring or tedious to watch at the time. 

Anyway hopefully we'll start seeing some built ups pretty soon.


----------



## jheilman

Space:1999 if viewed objectively today is a mess. Poorly written characters and plots that just happen *to* our characters with them reacting. Koenig over-reacts and displays poor leadership skills over and over. Imagine Kirk acting like Koenig and tell me how long he would remain in command.

Given all that, and lots more from my critical friends, I still like the show. Silly as it sounds, it's cool. It takes me back to when I was 12. The FX and production design may be the real stars of the show. There were actually some episodes that were thoughtful and interesting. My favorite character was Victor. I just can't dismiss the show entirely as many do. 

Is it all based on flawed science? Yes. Did Martin Landau and Barbara Bain show more believable characters on a single episode of Mission Impossible than on both seasons of 1999, maybe. But, this show had a moonbase, gorgeous graphics and eagles. I can't help but love it for that.


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> Space:1999 if viewed objectively today is a mess. Poorly written characters and plots that just happen *to* our characters with them reacting. Koenig over-reacts and displays poor leadership skills over and over. Imagine Kirk acting like Koenig and tell me how long he would remain in command.
> 
> Given all that, and lots more from my critical friends, I still like the show. Silly as it sounds, it's cool. It takes me back to when I was 12. The FX and production design may be the real stars of the show. There were actually some episodes that were thoughtful and interesting. My favorite character was Victor. I just can't dismiss the show entirely as many do.
> 
> Is it all based on flawed science? Yes. Did Martin Landau and Barbara Bain show more believable characters on a single episode of Mission Impossible than on both seasons of 1999, maybe. But, this show had a moonbase, gorgeous graphics and eagles. I can't help but love it for that.


It's funny, the mixed feelings I have about Space:1999. One would be well to recall those curious, odd days pre-Star Wars, when it was felt that ANY new SF TV show was worth at least watching once. Because Star Trek was never going to come back, re-runs of, well, everything was a 'catch as catch can' affair and the concept of 'home video' was science fiction. 

Space:1999 had some actually interesting things going on beyond the above-average special effects. I thought the overall art direction was very clean and engaging. The uniforms, horribly dated and unflattering to most body types as they were to today's eyes, seemed fairly practical for the environment. The stories actually have a core of honestly interesting ideas sabotaged by, well, I don't know exactly what first season. Lack of focus and the strong hand of a producer with a singular vision I guess, with a muddling of 'too many cooks' with constant notes about "what the Americans want" from the New York ITC office (which was really only concerned about keeping their jobs) and the Italian network co-production conditions. There are hints and threads of an abandoned continuity in the first season. And yes, far too many stories were basically "something is happening and the Alphans end up having zero ability to effect change or otherwise do anything except maybe crash an Eagle again"

Second season, just a trainwreck. I've tried to re-watch it and I just can't. The music tries to sell the EXCITING!! ACTION!! HAPPENING!! so hard, but nothing really matched that. The jackets helped with body image problems highlighted by the uniforms but all the random patches were just goofy looking. 

But the models still looked good.


----------



## f1steph

I'm rewatching right now for the ''Gods know how many times'' the series. I've just watched episode 16 ''A matter of Balance''.... Gee, I know why they cancelled it. It's getting worse and worse. It's really incredible how writers had so crappy story lines. They really put the last nail in the coffin mid season 2. For me Season 1 was the best overall, including the acting. But when I'm saying best, I mean between S01 and S02. In S02, Space Warp is so nuts it hurts (put aside the really nice hangar sequence where we can have a look at how it was in the Eagles parking lot). They tried to make it more fun with the redundent Verdeschi beer flops but failed to make the show fun to watch. Also the fact that Main Mission is totally different in Season 2 (budget cost where too high in S01), all new uniforms, Professor Bergman, Kano, Paul Morrow simply vanished. All this plus poor story plots killed the show, viewers were watching something else on TV. But I still watch the series for the miniatures effects. It's really too bad because the main idea of the Moon nuclear incident (imagine what would happen on Earth) and a bunch of people stuck in a moonbase, self sufficient (transport, energy, food, minerals, techinical knowlodge) was all there for a good sci-fi show. But like most if not all old sci-fi shows they get outdated . I did try to watch Lost in Space once but stopped, couldn't take it anymore. Did you guys watched the interview of Sylvia Anderson on Youtube about the show. She didn't like much the Bain-Landau duo. There's also on Youtube a sad video, Space 1999 In Memoriam, about the people that worked on the show but that are no longer with us. Gee, almost everybody's gone.
Steph


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...And yes, far too many stories were basically "something is happening and the Alphans end up having zero ability to effect change or otherwise do anything except maybe crash an Eagle again"...


It's not often that I actually laugh out loud while reading posts on the various forums I frequent, but this one got me. Well done! :thumbsup:


----------



## Bugfood

There was NO Season 2 of Space 1999  *stares really hard to make the point and avoid the sad memories of unrequited awfulness*


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Space:1999 Season 2 just goes to show that if you take a struggling SF show and bring in Freddy Freiberger, he'll usher it into cancellation immediately. They should have learned _that _from Star Trek.


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> It's not often that I actually laugh out loud while reading posts on the various forums I frequent, but this one got me. Well done! :thumbsup:


Hope it made your day a little better! 

But I have to be fair. They didn't crash Eagles THAT often so much as the Mysterious Unknown Force of the day blew them up...

"Wait! Turn Back!" "Alpha, I can't read you..." woooshBOOM zwwwwowowowowowowoosss 

hay, THERE'S a build for someone to attempt. Moonbase Alpha 'hanger queens'. The Eagles that are recovered but not safe to fly that are stripped of their needed stuff.


----------



## seaQuest

At the first Space:1999 convention in 1978 in Columbus, OH, a dealer was selling Fred Freiberger dart boards.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> Hope it made your day a little better!
> 
> But I have to be fair. They didn't crash Eagles THAT often so much as the Mysterious Unknown Force of the day blew them up...
> 
> "Wait! Turn Back!" "Alpha, I can't read you..." woooshBOOM zwwwwowowowowowowoosss
> 
> hay, THERE'S a build for someone to attempt. Moonbase Alpha 'hanger queens'. The Eagles that are recovered but not safe to fly that are stripped of their needed stuff.


This was my interpretation of what was done with the crashed Eagles:




















krl


----------



## fluke

*COOL! * :thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## fluke

Funny that story lines, acting and other items have been mentioned...
even as a 7th grader I was bored to death LOL BUT! The EAGLE
...now that was always worth it! :thumbsup:

I just put in the 1st 70's BATTLE STAR GALACTICA episode and man
in comparison purdy dern good for its time there partner! :tongue:


----------



## Scifitodd

BWolfe said:


> This was my interpretation of what was done with the crashed Eagles:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> krl


I've seen these photo's before, Kenneth Lee's awesome work! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7

After reading all the "These are the Voyages" Trek books and "Destination Moonbase alpha" It became clear to me why Trek was written so much better.

Most TOS episodes went through a lengthy outline/treatment, Staff review, 
Many drafts of a script- with staff reviews at each stage, Final draft, and Staff polishes. With NBC's clumsy input at each stage. 

The driving force of all the staff over site was to make sure the story was a "Star Trek" Story, the charterers spoke with their correct "voice", One of the major stars was prominent in the story, that it was good, human drama.

On the other hand, The Scripts for the 1st season of Space 1999 went though very little staff over site. Destination Moonbase Alpha has more than one instances when the script was written on Friday through Sunday and filming started on Monday. It seems to me that the major concern with the scripts was just to get something to film.

But having said all that, Space 1999 sure is pretty!


----------



## The_Engineer

I remember re-watching Space: 1999 in the 90's and I noticed most of the stories were crap. They used bad scripts. The second season was worse. They had the characters stated really bad lines. I was watching some episodes with others and we were cracking up laughing not only at the plot but at the lines and even the acting. Like everyone else, I found the first season was much better than the second season. The only thing I liked about the second season was Maya and the jackets. If they had a better script process like Star Trek, the show would have been much better.


----------



## Steve H

mach7 said:


> After reading all the "These are the Voyages" Trek books and "Destination Moonbase alpha" It became clear to me why Trek was written so much better.
> 
> Most TOS episodes went through a lengthy outline/treatment, Staff review,
> Many drafts of a script- with staff reviews at each stage, Final draft, and Staff polishes. With NBC's clumsy input at each stage.
> 
> The driving force of all the staff over site was to make sure the story was a "Star Trek" Story, the charterers spoke with their correct "voice", One of the major stars was prominent in the story, that it was good, human drama.
> 
> On the other hand, The Scripts for the 1st season of Space 1999 went though very little staff over site. Destination Moonbase Alpha has more than one instances when the script was written on Friday through Sunday and filming started on Monday. It seems to me that the major concern with the scripts was just to get something to film.
> 
> But having said all that, Space 1999 sure is pretty!


I think I pretty much agree with this. Like I said, there wasn't a central 'voice' or to put it your way, no idea on what exactly a Space:1999 story was supposed to be. 

I tell ya, reading the various books and essays over the years, the central image I get is one of Gerry Anderson kinda sorta expecting the show to just happen, once he got the cast and effects in place. Part of the problem may well have been the rocky state of the Andersons marriage, I happen to believe that ceding so much creative control/input to the NYC office of ITC was a disaster.

I don't think anyone BELIEVED in the show, ya know? I think everyone from the top on down looked at it as just a way to make a paycheck. Nobody was really, honestly, invested in the concept. 

OK, maybe the effects crew, the model makers. I think they put 100% into their work.


----------



## irishtrek

Owen E Oulton said:


> Space:1999 Season 2 just goes to show that if you take a struggling SF show and bring in Freddy Freiberger, he'll usher it into cancellation immediately. They should have learned _that _from Star Trek.


I think he was responsible for other shows being canceled as well.


----------



## Zombie_61

BWolfe said:


> This was my interpretation of what was done with the crashed Eagles:


Hey, it's a Smart Eagle! :lol:


----------



## John P

Steve H said:


> I don't think anyone BELIEVED in the show, ya know? I think everyone from the top on down looked at it as just a way to make a paycheck. Nobody was really, honestly, invested in the concept.
> 
> OK, maybe the effects crew, the model makers. I think they put 100% into their work.


I agree with that last sentence, and would add that I feel the same about Voyager and Enterprise. Even if (IMHO), the writing and acting were awful, the effects, graphics, and modeling teams never gave less than their best.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

One could say the same of the vast majority of TNG. The first two seasons are just about unwatchable, and it seemed to lose its way in seasons 6 and 7. That leaves 3, 4 and 5, and even those have more than a few clunkers.


----------



## BWolfe

Scifitodd said:


> I've seen these photo's before, Kenneth Lee's awesome work! :thumbsup:


Yes, it is. :thumbsup:



krl


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> I think I pretty much agree with this. Like I said, there wasn't a central 'voice' or to put it your way, no idea on what exactly a Space:1999 story was supposed to be.
> 
> I tell ya, reading the various books and essays over the years, the central image I get is one of Gerry Anderson kinda sorta expecting the show to just happen, once he got the cast and effects in place. Part of the problem may well have been the rocky state of the Andersons marriage, I happen to believe that ceding so much creative control/input to the NYC office of ITC was a disaster.
> 
> I don't think anyone BELIEVED in the show, ya know? I think everyone from the top on down looked at it as just a way to make a paycheck. Nobody was really, honestly, invested in the concept.
> 
> OK, maybe the effects crew, the model makers. I think they put 100% into their work.


To me it seems as if the second season was written and produced like a saturday morning live action show with a low budget. You are right about Anderson listening too much to ITC New York, he was told to have more monsters since that is what the American audience wanted. About halfway through the series, they called him up and asked him what he was doing putting so many monsters in the show since the American audience wanted more action, suspense, and were tired of monsters.


----------



## seaQuest

Actually, what happened is that ITC New York president Robert Mandell was the one who informed Gerry that monsters were "in." Then partway through the series, Mandell visited the set and saw the monster costumes and went to Gerry and said that monsters were "out." Gerry replied that Mandell was the one who told him monsters were "in," now you say they're "out?"

I've wondered what Mandell based his conclusions on.


----------



## SUNGOD

I haven't seen the second season probably since the 80s but the only real problems I have with season 1 is the silly science about the moon breaking off and ending up in space where's there's loads of alien planets (that just doesn't stack up) and the awful moonbase clothing (not the spacesuits which are cool).

Other than that it's no worse than any other sci fi series of the time. Some guys were going to redo the show and call it Space 2099 and the moons disappearance would have been explained by a black hole opening up (which was much more believable) but nothings come of it unfortunately. It also amazes me when people criticise the acting and say it's wooden. Again it's no worse than many other shows.


----------



## irishtrek

Owen E Oulton said:


> One could say the same of the vast majority of TNG. The first two seasons are just about unwatchable, and it seemed to lose its way in seasons 6 and 7. That leaves 3, 4 and 5, and even those have more than a few clunkers.


Ah. but keep in mind that Star Trek was even more popular than when it 1999 first aired.


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> I think I pretty much agree with this. Like I said, there wasn't a central 'voice' or to put it your way, no idea on what exactly a Space:1999 story was supposed to be.
> 
> I tell ya, reading the various books and essays over the years, the central image I get is one of Gerry Anderson kinda sorta expecting the show to just happen, once he got the cast and effects in place. Part of the problem may well have been the rocky state of the Andersons marriage, I happen to believe that ceding so much creative control/input to the NYC office of ITC was a disaster.
> 
> I don't think anyone BELIEVED in the show, ya know? I think everyone from the top on down looked at it as just a way to make a paycheck. Nobody was really, honestly, invested in the concept.
> 
> OK, maybe the effects crew, the model makers. I think they put 100% into their work.


When you see interviews with Christopher Penfold and Johnny Byrne, the primary writers and story editors for Year 1, they seem incredibly passionate and attached to Space: 1999. Byrne especially seemed to invest much of himself, and his worldview, into his scripts for the series. I think THEY believed in the show and had a specific vision of what it should be, but as you said, there were all sorts of mitigating factors, including the Anderson marriage break-up, which seemed to strain their relationships with even their most loyal associates.


----------



## f1steph

If you look at the Sylvia Anderson's interview about Space 1999 on Youtube, you'll learn that they had no choice to hire Bain and Landau because ITC NY told them to. It seems that Anderson was not the boss ITC NY was. So I guss that the war started right there between the Anderson's and ITC NY.


----------



## seaQuest

The first choices were Robert Culp and Catherine Ross. The Andersons and Abe Mandell met with Culp who went into a spiel of "This is how I see my character" and informed them that he wanted to write and direct. So, based on that meeting, the Culp-Ross pairing was scrapped. 

If you listen to interviews with Gerry, he'll say the Landaus were Lew Grade's idea. The Andersons and Mandell met with the Landaus once, then their agent told them they wouldn't be allowed to speak to the Landaus again until negotiations were concluded. Then the Landaus agent began fleecing ITC and Grade with higher and higher salary demands right up until the 11th hour.


----------



## SUNGOD

Well whatever happened Landau and Bain are Space 1999 history so that's all that counts. I thought their acting in the show was very good. Understated and non hammy.

Anyway back to the Eagle itself. The test shot's out so I wonder when we'll see some built ups?


----------



## seaQuest

The only build-up I'm interested in is MY OWN!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Well whatever happened Landau and Bain are Space 1999 history so that's all that counts. I thought their acting in the show was very good. Understated and non hammy.
> 
> Anyway back to the Eagle itself. The test shot's out so I wonder when we'll see some built ups?


In about 3 weeks I'd say! They aren't in the hands of the builders yet but should be very soon!


----------



## SUNGOD

The countdown has begun.


----------



## robiwon

Saw on FB that the first test shot is in the hands of a builder, Jay. Come on and post some pics up here!!!
There's a lot of parts to this kit!!


----------



## Scifitodd

Test shot photo's from Jay!


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Test shot photo's from Jay!


More photo's and more coming soon!


----------



## robiwon

I know this is a test shot and not the final product, but they may need to clamp the molds a little tighter, there seems to be a lot of flash. More than I would expect on a high profile kit like this. Hopefully the large flat panels of the passenger module do not exhibit any kind of warp, they look awfully thin.

Still, awesome to see this getting ever so much closer to release!


----------



## Steve H

Interesting! rather than cut separate molds for the top and bottom of the command module, it looks like they made the top, with window cut-outs, put it on a sprue with other 'times 2' parts, and just shot it twice, so the bottom half I assume one places inserts to close off the window opening. 

That's clever and a good way to reduce actual tooling but does it reflect the actual look of the miniature? 

And it looks like the passenger module is made from slabs glued together instead of a deep draw tool for 'halves'. That's good for getting the somewhat complex top of the module accurate, but what forms the jig to properly align the slabs, the end caps? I guess we'll see.

and regretfully they kept the pseudo-revell astronauts. ah well.


----------



## JeffBond

I don't think there's any difference between the top and bottom halves of the command module; they both have the same white window frames built into the anti-glare cutouts and the only time you'd see a difference was in the rare shots where they showed a lit cockpit interior. Most of the time you were just looking at black unlit "windows" anyway.


----------



## seaQuest

The more I see this, the more convinced I am that I'll screw it up. No airbrush means panelling's going to be near-impossible. 
Maybe I should just finish it like the Eagle you see in the hangar in Breakaway with no panelling or weathering whatsoever.


----------



## TIEbomber1967

seaQuest said:


> The more I see this, the more convinced I am that I'll screw it up. No airbrush means panelling's going to be near-impossible.
> Maybe I should just finish it like the Eagle you see in the hangar in Breakaway with no panelling or weathering whatsoever.


Buy two, then you won't feel so bad about screwing one up.:tongue:


----------



## robiwon

I have not built a poorly designed "new" scifi kit from R2 yet. The amount of engineering that went into ensuring the 1/350 TOS Enterprise went together like a dream surely was applied to this kit as well. I'm sure that this kit will fall together just as well as the Enterprise did. 

But yes, building the passenger pod from so many pieces seems daunting to keep square.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> I have not built a poorly designed "new" scifi kit from R2 yet. The amount of engineering that went into ensuring the 1/350 TOS Enterprise went together like a dream surely was applied to this kit as well. I'm sure that this kit will fall together just as well as the Enterprise did.
> 
> But yes, building the passenger pod from so many pieces seems daunting to keep square.


Yeah, it's a concern. The way Bandai would handle that would be a series of frames that the wall parts would plug into. It would be strong but a king bitch if you had designs on placing an interior into the pod. Unless, of course, the placed the frames in the logical locations, leaving the door areas free for example.

But that's fantasy conjecture. I suspect the walls will slot into the 'ends' of the pod, then capped with the roof and base. Having the side hatch in an open position would be a real challenge to the whole thing I suspect. 

I mean, come on. Scaling issues notwithstanding, SOMEONE is going to go all-in on trying to cram a screen accurate interior into that pod. And maybe having an entire wall left off will be a good way to showcase that interior.


----------



## seaQuest

TIEbomber1967 said:


> Buy two, then you won't feel so bad about screwing one up.:tongue:


Can't afford that. I put $50 away this month (deposited it without entering it into my check register) and I'll do the same next month.


----------



## BWolfe

seaQuest said:


> The more I see this, the more convinced I am that I'll screw it up. No airbrush means panelling's going to be near-impossible.
> Maybe I should just finish it like the Eagle you see in the hangar in Breakaway with no panelling or weathering whatsoever.


I cheated when I did my AMT Eagle years ago, rather than try to airbrush all of the different shaded panels I printed various shades of gray and light blue in 2 inch squares on decal film. I then cut out various shapes from the various squares and applied them, looked pretty good. I will probably do the same thing with the new kit.











KRL


----------



## SUNGOD

Thanks for posting those Todd. I don't like the pilot either and he looks like he has some nasty seams.............but the actual Eagle looks like it could be pretty impressive.

I don't think the different parts for the pod will be that difficult too and I hope that's a sign that they're doing all the various pods. Great to see the parts!:thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> The more I see this, the more convinced I am that I'll screw it up. No airbrush means panelling's going to be near-impossible.
> Maybe I should just finish it like the Eagle you see in the hangar in Breakaway with no panelling or weathering whatsoever.




If you screw it up you can always get another one at some point. You don't need an airbrush though and I'll probably handbrush some panels in a very light grey.

I just hope that my favourite white spray (Halfords matt white primer) works on it as I'm sure they've changed the formula of it over the past few years. It makes things so much easier.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Thanks for posting those Todd. I don't like the pilot either and he looks like he has some nasty seams.............but the actual Eagle looks like it could be pretty impressive.
> 
> I don't think the different parts for the pod will be that difficult too and I hope that's a sign that they're doing all the various pods. Great to see the parts!:thumbsup:


You're very welcome, I still think this is going to be the kit of the year! In my book at least!


----------



## Scifitodd

Remember, The kit will come injected in two colors, white and gray along with clear windows. The white plastic is a match to the paint used on the miniature. So this means very little painting has to be done if you are an amateur or you just plain hate painting! Most of us will want the full blown paint job but don't worry if you don't have an air brush! It will look fine with a brush paint job!:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> I cheated when I did my AMT Eagle years ago, rather than try to airbrush all of the different shaded panels I printed various shades of gray and light blue in 2 inch squares on decal film. I then cut out various shapes from the various squares and applied them, looked pretty good. I will probably do the same thing with the new kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KRL


Well done, that was a really good idea. If you took it one step further and had the various 'shapes' pre-drawn on the decal sheet it would give you the ability to 'assembly line' multiple Eagles, at least if we assume that the shading represents repeated different materials on the ship, as opposed to weathering. 

Hm. I wonder if a set of aftermarket 'shading' decals would be of interest to builders...


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Well done, that was a really good idea. If you took it one step further and had the various 'shapes' pre-drawn on the decal sheet it would give you the ability to 'assembly line' multiple Eagles, at least if we assume that the shading represents repeated different materials on the ship, as opposed to weathering.
> 
> Hm. I wonder if a set of aftermarket 'shading' decals would be of interest to builders...


I'm pretty sure that's the way Jim Small does his eagle paint jobs! The two I have look identical almost, one was done in the 90's!:thumbsup:


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> Well done, that was a really good idea. If you took it one step further and had the various 'shapes' pre-drawn on the decal sheet it would give you the ability to 'assembly line' multiple Eagles, at least if we assume that the shading represents repeated different materials on the ship, as opposed to weathering.
> 
> Hm. I wonder if a set of aftermarket 'shading' decals would be of interest to builders...


I have actually thought about doing that very thing for the 22 inch Eagle, researching the filming model and duplicating as many of the shading markings as possible to cut down on paint time. For my "Moon Hopper", I created a custom decal sheet with various rectangle, square and line markings. I decided not to use the Alpha decals.


----------



## robiwon

That's a nice sheet! You need to print a bunch of those!!


----------



## irishtrek

To assemble the passenger pod just tape it together dry to get a feel of how it goes together and then glue a couple of pieces taped to the other pieces using them as a jig, and continue to do this until the pod has been assembled.


----------



## JeffBond

I remember seeing a shot of the Eagle miniature in a "Making of Space: 1999" book where the ship had just TONS of tiny little markings all over the pods and frame pieces in addition to the weathering. You could definitely make a major league aftermarket decal set for the model (and I'm interested in seeing what "MPC" will provide in this area).


----------



## electric indigo

You can kinda see the parts breakdown and the locking of the parts in this pic:

https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/p.458161087698305/458161087698305/


----------



## Scifitodd

More photo's from Jay! No drooling!


----------



## Scifitodd

And the rest! Hey I said no drooling!:tongue:


----------



## Scifitodd

One more to see!


----------



## Steve H

Hm. I'm not so sure about how the parts are broken down, but I'm no engineer so I'm not sure if there was a better or more elegant way to do it. I will say that if a constraint was to keep from having too deep a 'draft' in any mold they sure did a careful job.

Are there extended legs for the passenger pod gear? 

One area I know I don't know enough about is the placement of 'greeblies' on the original 44" filming model. The impression I have is that the detailing within the service module cages wasn't symmetrical or exactly repeated. Mind, it makes sense that it should be, but the impression persists in my mind. A half-ball here, a part of an engine block there, a transmission case, some pipes. Just stuff tossed in to make it visually interesting, not actually trying to be logical helium tanks, mechanical linkages, external power inputs or whatever. 

I dunno. Not seeing all the sprue trees, maybe there's more 'one-off' detail bits hiding out there.


----------



## edge10

Those are some good looking sprues... Ship it!


----------



## robiwon

This gets a full bore "Giggity Gig"!!!!!


----------



## Bugfood

*cough* Decals? *cough* 

In other news - and I know this got discussed a while back - I wonder who'll be the first aftermarket enterprising soul to come up with some concoction to *fix* the command module rear hatch. Yes, yes, I know it's accurate to the studio scale original, but it still looks weird and logically is...err..illogical. 

BUT...

THIS KIT IS AWESOME. And my random musings aside - and I'd be perfectly happy with it as is - this cheers me clean to the centre of my soul. 

Huge thanks to R2 and all involved!

*BF*


----------



## BWolfe

Bugfood said:


> *cough* Decals? *cough*
> 
> In other news - and I know this got discussed a while back - I wonder who'll be the first aftermarket enterprising soul to come up with some concoction to *fix* the command module rear hatch. Yes, yes, I know it's accurate to the studio scale original, but it still looks weird and logically is...err..illogical.
> 
> BUT...
> 
> THIS KIT IS AWESOME. And my random musings aside - and I'd be perfectly happy with it as is - this cheers me clean to the centre of my soul.
> 
> Huge thanks to R2 and all involved!
> 
> *BF*


I have actually been thinking about the Command Module Hatch and it is doable with only a minor alteration. Cut out the area circled below and replace it with a flat bulkhead with a recessed door in the center, install a matching door on the corridor section that it mates to and it should work. Probably have to add a little to the end of the corridor to get to mate up.


----------



## Bugfood

BWolfe said:


> I have actually been thinking about the Command Module Hatch and it is doable with only a minor alteration. Cut out the area circled below and replace it with a flat bulkhead with a recessed door in the center, install a matching door on the corridor section that it mates to and it should work. Probably have to add a little to the end of the corridor to get to mate up.


Excellent! Now all we need is - *stares heroically into the middle distance* - photo etch! (And /or resin)

Door WIN!

*BF*


----------



## seaQuest

I had to run down to UCLA this morning and had a lot of time to think about stuff on the MTA buses. I think I've got a panelling technique figured out.


----------



## Scifitodd

Check this out! Jim Small is already rolling with the test shot!

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/501978296649917/?type=3&theater


----------



## jheilman

Glass of wine and an eagle kit. Nice.


----------



## irishtrek

I counted 450 pieces among those parts trees, if any one is interested. That's a lot of plastic.


----------



## Zombie_61

jheilman said:


> Glass of wine and an eagle kit. Nice.


That might explain all of those crashes. 



irishtrek said:


> I counted 450 pieces among those parts trees, if any one is interested. That's a lot of plastic.


A Facebook post I saw earlier today said something about there being over 300 pieces in the kit, so you could be right. Sounds like a quick, "weekend build" to me! :lol:


----------



## Steve H

I'm a-gonna rile up the 'this kit MUST be a replica of the 44" filming miniature!!' gang one more time here. Maybe someone will pass it on to R2 and it can have a positive effect.

So I'm looking at all those trees of parts, all that work, all that clean detail and careful engineering. It's very impressive, I'm going to have to find some cash for this when it comes out. 

Then I see those faux Revell Gemini astronauts. They look like crap compared to the rest of the kit. Sheer, utter, lazy crap. 

Now I know most of the replies, the arguments. I'll save some time and repeat them here:

1: "the figures were crap in the original Revell Gemini kit anyway, and you can barely see them, so shut up"

2: "If you don't like them, buy some $50 aftermarket resin figures, shut up"

3: "I'm going to scratch build a screen accurate interior that can't fit in the space provided so I don't care about the figures so shut up"

4: "I'm painting the windows over and backlighting them with screen grabs from the show rendered into translucent plates so I don't even care shut up"

All of that is valid. All of that is from a generally hard core fan perspective. But not every fan knows about the context and history of the astronauts in the cockpit. What they see in their expensive plastic kit are lazy, poor looking figures that don't match the quality and attention to detail the rest of the kit shows. 

Boy, those are gonna stick out like a sore thumb against that nicely rendered back wall. (which, I hasten to point out, is not screen accurate to the 44" filming miniature. I guess those that are annoyed by that part will just turn the part around or something, huh?)

Heck, to be 'screen accurate' shouldn't those figures be chopped off below the knees?

Arrggh.


----------



## Bugfood

jheilman said:


> Glass of wine and an eagle kit. Nice.


The wine comes with the recently announced R2 Deluxe Deluxe Alan Carter 'Relaxed Senior Pilot' Edition...

*BF*


----------



## robn1

https://youtu.be/t3g5_PFa5JY


----------



## robn1

I'm liking what I see, nice job R2! I said earlier that I could rob pilots from the 48th Gemini but I looked at them and they don't match the 24th scale pilots, so I for one am glad for what R2 is providing.

And Todd's post here shows what can be done with the Gemini pilots with a bit of work.


----------



## Trek Ace

Steve H said:


> I'm a-gonna rile up the 'this kit MUST be a replica of the 44" filming miniature!!' gang one more time here. Maybe someone will pass it on to R2 and it can have a positive effect.
> 
> So I'm looking at all those trees of parts, all that work, all that clean detail and careful engineering. It's very impressive, I'm going to have to find some cash for this when it comes out.
> 
> Then I see those faux Revell Gemini astronauts. They look like crap compared to the rest of the kit. Sheer, utter, lazy crap.
> 
> Now I know most of the replies, the arguments. I'll save some time and repeat them here:
> 
> 1: "the figures were crap in the original Revell Gemini kit anyway, and you can barely see them, so shut up"
> 
> 2: "If you don't like them, buy some $50 aftermarket resin figures, shut up"
> 
> 3: "I'm going to scratch build a screen accurate interior that can't fit in the space provided so I don't care about the figures so shut up"
> 
> 4: "I'm painting the windows over and backlighting them with screen grabs from the show rendered into translucent plates so I don't even care shut up"
> 
> All of that is valid. All of that is from a generally hard core fan perspective. But not every fan knows about the context and history of the astronauts in the cockpit. What they see in their expensive plastic kit are lazy, poor looking figures that don't match the quality and attention to detail the rest of the kit shows.
> 
> Boy, those are gonna stick out like a sore thumb against that nicely rendered back wall. (which, I hasten to point out, is not screen accurate to the 44" filming miniature. I guess those that are annoyed by that part will just turn the part around or something, huh?)
> 
> Heck, to be 'screen accurate' shouldn't those figures be chopped off below the knees?
> 
> Arrggh.


5: "Get some cheese to go with that whine......and shut up".


----------



## robiwon

6: It's plastic, modify it...shut up.
7: Don't like it, don't buy it, take up needle point...shut up.

Seriously though, they can't please everybody. We just have to accept the kit and design choices that R2 made for us. Were lucky to have this kit. For R2 to put this kit out, with this much detail, when there are other ships that people have clamored for over the years and may be more popular we should all thank our lucky stars. The pilot issue, back wall issue, are small peanuts to having a large Eagle with open cages, accurate shapes, working suspension, aluminum accessory packs, etc.

Now maybe they could have included two different sets of pilots and two different back walls, etc. But guess what, that would have jacked up the price of the kit. I'm happy with it as is.

Buy one, build it, and sit it next to your 30 year old Fundimensions Eagle and see how disparaging the pilots are then.


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> 6: It's plastic, modify it...shut up.
> 7: Don't like it, don't buy it, take up needle point...shut up.
> 
> Seriously though, they can't please everybody. We just have to accept the kit and design choices that R2 made for us. Were lucky to have this kit. For R2 to put this kit out, with this much detail, when there are other ships that people have clamored for over the years and may be more popular we should all thank our lucky stars. The pilot issue, back wall issue, are small peanuts to having a large Eagle with open cages, accurate shapes, working suspension, aluminum accessory packs, etc.
> 
> Now maybe they could have included two different sets of pilots and two different back walls, etc. But guess what, that would have jacked up the price of the kit. I'm happy with it as is.
> 
> Buy one, build it, and sit it next to your 30 year old Fundimensions Eagle and see how disparaging the pilots are then.


Ok Robert, this thing you do, reading my mind is scaring me! Get outta my head! Lol. Well said brother! Let's not do the shoulda, woulda, coulda thing. Let's enjoy this fantastic kit and see just how good of imagination and talent you guys have! If you want to improve on it, just do it!


----------



## Bwain no more

robiwon said:


> 6: It's plastic, modify it...shut up.
> 7: Don't like it, don't buy it, take up needle point...shut up.
> 
> I suppose one could take the same approach when dealing with/posting about the Revell "Force Awakens" kits as well. If one were so inclined (or perhaps NOT saddled with an irony deficiency.  )
> Tom


----------



## phicks

Am I the only one who thinks the Eagle looks way better with black cockpit glass? I intend to build my Eagle with the cockpit blackened over, the same way it was for 99% of the shots on the show.


----------



## robiwon

I do have an irony deficiency, at times, LOL.

I don't like the Revell kits and I wont buy the Revell kits. But, I wont take up needle point! I'll just bypass the Revell's monopoly and Disney's bullishness and get my* good *SW kits straight from Japan. Win win...

There's also a big difference in R2 including a pilot that is what was seen on the TV screen compared to having Revell having access to digital files and still providing us an unassembled toy instead of a detailed model kit. Yes I know adults are not the market for Revell. I also know and have seen some builds where people have modified the little snappers to make them look better. Great job on them.

Todd, too much alike we are...


----------



## Bwain no more

To bring it full circle Robiwon, the initial talking point was astronaut figures originally tooled by Revell 50 some odd years ago (no doubt scanned by R2 from a kit in someone's stash. ) :thumbsup:
BTW, I live in a neighborhood where irony is "how the water tastes" so thanks for taking my post in the spirit in which it was intended. 
Tom


----------



## robiwon

Tom, this is a hobby for most of us and most have strong feelings based on what they like, don't like, etc. I respect everyone's opinions as I have my own as well that others may not agree with. Were all human here! I think at least!:tongue:


----------



## SUNGOD

It's got a lot more parts than what I was expecting. One other little nitpick apart from the astronaut I have is the landing pads. It's been talked about how they're being careful with the sprue attachment points (thankfully it looks like there isn't one right on the tip of the command module/beak like on the MPC and Imai kits) but I'm surprised to see 4 of them on each side of the landing pads. I hope those are thin attachments as the pads will take some cleaning up to get rid of the scars.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> It's got a lot more parts than what I was expecting. One other little nitpick apart from the astronaut I have is the landing pads. It's been talked about how they're being careful with the sprue attachment points (thankfully it looks like there isn't one right on the tip of the command module/beak like on the MPC and Imai kits) but I'm surprised to see 4 of them on each side of the landing pads. I hope those are thin attachments as the pads will take some cleaning up to get rid of the scars.


Yeah, I've been spoiled by the way Bandai does things. If a part is very delicate or has a precise edge, they use an 'undergate' to the sprue instead of a direct connection. You see this alot with their plated kits. 

Now, there's a technique that Bandai promotes that I don't know if it's common knowledge or not, what they say is to cut the mold spur off from the tree first, then take the part and trim the spur from the part. The theory is it introduces less stress at the gate/part interface compared to cutting it directly from the tree. That's what I would do with the command module parts.

(clarification: I think the reason it's supposed to work is when you try to cut the part from the gate, you can't get the best angle, the tree gets in the way. by cutting off the part with the gate and part of the sprue you can now use your nipper to more precisely trim.)


----------



## seaQuest

I'd really like to light the cockpit

HEY! VOODOO FX!


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> I'd really like to light the cockpit
> 
> HEY! VOODOO FX!


OHHHYEAHHHHHHH!

(Kool-aid Man or Macho Man Randy Savage, your choice.  )


----------



## electric indigo

Steve H said:


> Yeah, I've been spoiled by the way Bandai does things. If a part is very delicate or has a precise edge, they use an 'undergate' to the sprue instead of a direct connection. You see this alot with their plated kits.
> 
> Now, there's a technique that Bandai promotes that I don't know if it's common knowledge or not, what they say is to cut the mold spur off from the tree first, then take the part and trim the spur from the part. The theory is it introduces less stress at the gate/part interface compared to cutting it directly from the tree. That's what I would do with the command module parts.
> 
> (clarification: I think the reason it's supposed to work is when you try to cut the part from the gate, you can't get the best angle, the tree gets in the way. by cutting off the part with the gate and part of the sprue you can now use your nipper to more precisely trim.)


I accustomed myself to use my Dremel with a rotary saw for stress-free separation of the parts from the trees. I cut fairly close to the part, then pare of the remaining stub with a sharp knife. Seeing the quite large attachment point at the landing pad parts and the thrusters, I wouldn't try to work my way through the plastic with my hobby knife.

The kit has a nice 80s feeling about it, and seeing the sheer amount of parts, I think there will be some diverting winter evenings.


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> OHHHYEAHHHHHHH!
> 
> (Kool-aid Man or Macho Man Randy Savage, your choice.  )



Actually, "Hey, Culligan Man" came to my mind first, but they're all good!


----------



## RB

Chladek's a lucky sonofagun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3g5_PFa5JY

Happy and extremely jealous at the same time...


----------



## Paulbo

Don't use a hobby knife to cut parts from the tree - pick up a nice set of Xuron sprue cutters. They you can cut right up to the part and there's almost nothing left to file off.


----------



## LGFugate

Listen to Paulbo! Those cutters will be one of the best investments in model tools you'll ever make!


If the cost is a problem, go to the crafts department at WalMart. They sell a $5 pair that is almost exactly like the ones Paul mentioned. I've been using them for a couple of months now, and they work as well as my more expensive ones.


Larry


----------



## Scifitodd

Visit Small Art Works and get the updates on his 22" Round2 eagle build of the test shot he received! Eagle porn!

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/502298853284528/?type=3&theater


----------



## BWolfe

I picked up a manicure set a few years ago at Walgreens, It contained fingernail and toenail clippers, 20 emery boards (always useful in modeling) a nail shaper/buffer that had 4 different grits from 600 to 1000 on it, a metal nail file and cuticle clippers, which I found to be perfect for removing even the smallest parts from the sprue, all for less than $6.00. I have the Xuron sprue cutters and I find the cuticle clippers far more useful.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Yeah, I've been spoiled by the way Bandai does things. If a part is very delicate or has a precise edge, they use an 'undergate' to the sprue instead of a direct connection. You see this alot with their plated kits.
> 
> Now, there's a technique that Bandai promotes that I don't know if it's common knowledge or not, what they say is to cut the mold spur off from the tree first, then take the part and trim the spur from the part. The theory is it introduces less stress at the gate/part interface compared to cutting it directly from the tree. That's what I would do with the command module parts.
> 
> (clarification: I think the reason it's supposed to work is when you try to cut the part from the gate, you can't get the best angle, the tree gets in the way. by cutting off the part with the gate and part of the sprue you can now use your nipper to more precisely trim.)





I haven't really seen any new Bandai kits up close but it's interesting to read that. It's a shame sprue attachment points can't always be on the gluable end.


----------



## seaQuest

SUNGOD said:


> It's got a lot more parts than what I was expecting. One other little nitpick apart from the astronaut I have is the landing pads. It's been talked about how they're being careful with the sprue attachment points (thankfully it looks like there isn't one right on the tip of the command module/beak like on the MPC and Imai kits) but I'm surprised to see 4 of them on each side of the landing pads. I hope those are thin attachments as the pads will take some cleaning up to get rid of the scars.


320 parts.


----------



## SUNGOD

It's amazing. I never thought I'd see an Eagle kit let alone with that many parts.

It shows how seriously they're taking it.


----------



## irishtrek

seaQuest said:


> 320 parts.


Guess you missed my post saying I counted 450 parts.


----------



## Bugfood

According to R2* there are "in excess of a quarter of a billion parts. Nearly all labelled in Chinese only. 50 percent are made of low-yield spaghetti."

Who ever thought we would see a kit of these unique specifications...

*BF*

(* totally not according to R2)


----------



## robiwon

I love this kit, and have one on preorder. Is there such a thing as "too perfect"? I'm working on a RU23 kit right now. The original studio model, and most studio models, all have some degree of wonkiness as they are all hand built from scratch. After spending time with my resin kit and seeing Jim's build up of this I can't help but think is it too perfect? Does anyone else like a little wonkiness in their models? Maybe it's just me. I'm still getting mine, but in the end, after both are built, I wonder which one I'll treasure more....


----------



## Scifitodd

irishtrek said:


> Guess you missed my post saying I counted 450 parts.


The guy building the test shot, and also helped design it said 320 parts.


----------



## Bugfood

Scifitodd said:


> The guy building the test shot, and also helped design it said 320 parts.


I still think it's missing a couple of zeroes. And some pasta.

*winky mcwinkwink*

In other news: decals? 

*BF*


----------



## edge10

Scifitodd said:


> The guy building the test shot, and also helped design it said 320 parts.


What's 130 parts between friends?


----------



## edge10

robiwon said:


> I love this kit, and have one on preorder. Is there such a thing as "too perfect"? I'm working on a RU23 kit right now. The original studio model, and most studio models, all have some degree of wonkiness as they are all hand built from scratch. After spending time with my resin kit and seeing Jim's build up of this I can't help but think is it too perfect? Does anyone else like a little wonkiness in their models? Maybe it's just me. I'm still getting mine, but in the end, after both are built, I wonder which one I'll treasure more....


Ah yes the Stormtrooper gambit. 

When Master Replicas made their mass produced helmet, they made it symmetrical. It looks good but true enthusiasts dismiss it, in part, due to the fact that it doesn't have that hand crafted, wonky charm of the asymmetrical movie lids.


----------



## irishtrek

Scifitodd said:


> The guy building the test shot, and also helped design it said 320 parts.


I'm thinking one of us did a miss count. Also did you post all images of every parts tree??


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> I love this kit, and have one on preorder. Is there such a thing as "too perfect"? I'm working on a RU23 kit right now. The original studio model, and most studio models, all have some degree of wonkiness as they are all hand built from scratch. After spending time with my resin kit and seeing Jim's build up of this I can't help but think is it too perfect? Does anyone else like a little wonkiness in their models? Maybe it's just me. I'm still getting mine, but in the end, after both are built, I wonder which one I'll treasure more....


I brought this up, in full and in part, several times and met a stony silence. 

It's a thing I do wonder about. It's common now, with digital drawing and all that, to just make half of a thing then mirror it. I'm not sure that makes for the best 'look'.

I recall the old article in an issue of 'Seaview Soundings' about the making of the Seaview, how the lower strakes leading from the manta fin to the propeller nacelles weren't perfectly straight, but rather somewhat twisted, more so on one side than the other. This was partially a result of the manta fins being added after the preliminary model had been built. You never even really saw that on TV. 

Now when Moeibus made their big Seaview, people who 'knew stuff' noticed that the propeller nacelles were misaligned and not accurate to the large filming miniature and made a clear case for this being a fact. I posit that the reason those nacelles weren't aligned correctly was due to digital drafting, and the positioning of the underside strakes to perfectly line up from the manta fin to the nacelles. Straight as a razor. 

It corrects a 'flaw' but then it doesn't look right anymore. 

What's the right answer? I dunno. Maybe just build what looks right and ignore the rivet counting mentality?


----------



## Richard Baker

I figure all filming models (in different scales) and collectible replicas/model kits are intended to represent the 'true' subject in it's pure form. Any flaws, inconsistent parts and building shortcuts are unique to the particular version and do not take anything away from what the original is supposed to look like ideally. Most filming models and props look far worse than we imagine- the replica sitting on your shelf is meant to be seen at point blank for a long time, not moving around at so many frames per second in the middle of a scene.
I remember reading an interview with somebody at ILM talking about when they shifted to digital photography the set & model builders had to radically change how they did things because of the higher resolution...


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> I figure all filming models (in different scales) and collectible replicas/model kits are intended to represent the 'true' subject in it's pure form. Any flaws, inconsistent parts and building shortcuts are unique to the particular version and do not take anything away from what the original is supposed to look like ideally. Most filming models and props look far worse than we imagine- the replica sitting on your shelf is meant to be seen at point blank for a long time, not moving around at so many frames per second in the middle of a scene.
> I remember reading an interview with somebody at ILM talking about when they shifted to digital photography the set & model builders had to radically change how they did things because of the higher resolution...


Well said. I spoke of this as well, referencing my first hand experience of seeing some of the Star Wars filming miniatures at the 1984 Worldcon in L.A.

Which, to bring in back around, is why I keep up the fight against R2 using those half-a**ed faux Revell Gemini astronauts in that otherwise carefully researched and lovingly designed Eagle.


----------



## seaQuest

scifitodd said:


> the guy building the test shot, and also helped design it said 320 parts.


thank you, todd!


----------



## seaQuest

edge10 said:


> Ah yes the Stormtrooper gambit.
> 
> When Master Replicas made their mass produced helmet, they made it symmetrical. It looks good but true enthusiasts dismiss it, in part, due to the fact that it doesn't have that hand crafted, wonky charm of the asymmetrical movie lids.


Anybody still have a Don Post Stormtrooper helmet?


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> Well said. I spoke of this as well, referencing my first hand experience of seeing some of the Star Wars filming miniatures at the 1984 Worldcon in L.A.
> 
> Which, to bring in back around, is why I keep up the fight against R2 using those half-a**ed faux Revell Gemini astronauts in that otherwise carefully researched and lovingly designed Eagle.


Those must have been Return Of The Jedi models. I recall Starlog magazine reporting that the originals used for A New Hope were stolen out of the ILM/MCA 57/Apogee facility in Van Nuys.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Those must have been Return Of The Jedi models. I recall Starlog magazine reporting that the originals used for A New Hope were stolen out of the ILM/MCA 57/Apogee facility in Van Nuys.


Nope. At least Empire Strikes Back. No photographs were allowed but the memory of the Snowspeeder is forever etched in my mind. I'm pretty sure the Blockade Runner was there but I would not swear to it. Most of the models at the exhibit tended to what I recall being 'things that could be held in two hands' in size. That Blockade Runner would have been a notable exception I guess so it probably wasn't there. I do recall the ATAT but I was much more...the condition of the Snowspeeder really stuck in my mind.


----------



## SUNGOD

robiwon said:


> I love this kit, and have one on preorder. Is there such a thing as "too perfect"? I'm working on a RU23 kit right now. The original studio model, and most studio models, all have some degree of wonkiness as they are all hand built from scratch. After spending time with my resin kit and seeing Jim's build up of this I can't help but think is it too perfect? Does anyone else like a little wonkiness in their models? Maybe it's just me. I'm still getting mine, but in the end, after both are built, I wonder which one I'll treasure more....




No thanks! It all depends I suppose if you want a totally exact replica of the filming miniatures which are often at least rough and wonky in parts or something that's supposed to represent what's on screen more.....i.e. a real spaceship.

I want quality precision tooled parts like a real spaceship would have.......not handmade wonkiness. If you want that then then you're doing the right thing by building the handmade resin Eagle.


----------



## Fozzie

I figure I will introduce wonkiness unintentionally when I build it! :freak:


----------



## Richard Baker

Steve H said:


> Well said. I spoke of this as well, referencing my first hand experience of seeing some of the Star Wars filming miniatures at the 1984 Worldcon in L.A.
> 
> Which, to bring in back around, is why I keep up the fight against R2 using those half-a**ed faux Revell Gemini astronauts in that otherwise carefully researched and lovingly designed Eagle.


Round2 is trying to match the filming model, including it's shortcuts and imperfections. The big attraction for this kit in their minds is that is it supposed to be representing the actual filming model in half scale. It they were to change some of these details/features which are not present on the filming model then the purists would revolt- just look at what happened with the TOS-E kit and grid lines...

They did decide to change the cockpit rear wall to something which had physical detail on it instead of the flat featureless one in the 44" model- I am sure many builders will throw out that pars and replace it with plain styrene when they build theirs. I do think providing a second set of astronauts in Moonbase Alpha style suits would be a logical move and hope they do so on final release. 
In the few scenes when you could see inside the cockpit all you saw was just that there were people inside, the type of suit never registered. The Gemini figures worked for that, but here were are building a very expensive replica which will be lovingly stared at closeup for hours and that filming shortcut just detracts. It would be a shame to have to buy resin replacements after spending so much for the kit already.

On a side note, I will not but the Round2 repopped Klingon D-7 kit because they changed the molds to more accurately represent the filming model. two of the features I really liked was the two long grills on top of the engineering hull and the ribbed vents along the front. Yes, those two features were not present on the filming model, but they were supposed to be- the final drawing Franz Joseph made of the ship had them present. AMT followed his drawings when they mastered the model kit but when they made the larger version of it for the show for some reason those features were missing. I liked them- it made the ship look more like a machine instead of a sculpture for me. In this case Round2 in an effort to 'correct' the kit recreated a mistake instead.


----------



## ClubTepes

Everyone has their own nits to pick on what their 'perfect' model will be.

The people involved in this project are 'studio scale' people. A niche that I personally don't enjoy or see the logic of.

Many people complained about the grid lines on the 1/350 TOS E kit.
That "They weren't there on the miniature". 

I will always reference JohnP's comment "Its a model of the Enterprise..... Not a model, of the model of the Enterprise".

We treated that kit like it was a real world object, a 947 foot long spaceship with logical design issues and historical precedent set down by following and preceding technologies laid out in the show. The grid lines being one of those 'technologies.
Part of the determination back then was also what was easier for the modeler, to add grid lines or fill them in. 

On the Eagle, I think that we should be first and foremost happy that we are getting a bigger and more accurate kit of one of our favorite space ships.

My own personal beef, is the size (1/2 Studio Scale). As I don't consider it 1/48 - And that is a whole other discussion on 'true' size.
I voiced my thoughts and understand Jamie's positions.

The astronauts are a small price to pay for a otherwise gorgeous kit.
The astronauts will probably not look so bad reduced in size and I'm sure others will come up with aftermarket ones who want something more accurate.


----------



## Trek Ace

Richard Baker said:


> On a side note, I will not but the Round2 repopped Klingon D-7 kit because they changed the molds to more accurately represent the filming model. two of the features I really liked was the two long grills on top of the engineering hull and the ribbed vents along the front. Yes, those two features were not present on the filming model, but they were supposed to be- the final drawing Franz Joseph made of the ship had them present. AMT followed his drawings when they mastered the model kit but when they made the larger version of it for the show for some reason those features were missing.


It was actually Matt Jefferies who designed the Klingon D-7, not Franz Joseph.


----------



## Richard Baker

Trek Ace said:


> It was actually Matt Jefferies who designed the Klingon D-7, not Franz Joseph.


Yep- got that wrong in the rush of typing that post out before the boss walked in...


----------



## seaQuest

The Gemini astronauts are part of the test shots. With a release scheduled for less than two months away, it looks like they're staying.


----------



## Scifitodd

seaQuest said:


> The Gemini astronauts are part of the test shots. With a release scheduled for less than two months away, it looks like they're staying.


These Gemini figures can really be done up well enough for what you will see through the tiny windows on the eagle!


----------



## seaQuest

Or, as my Meemaw used to say, "You get what'cha get, and you don't get upset!"


----------



## Bugfood

There's more from Mr Small!:

https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1443729867./504193803095033/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1443729867./504193813095032/?type=3&theater

*BF*


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> There's more from Mr Small!:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1443729867./504193803095033/?type=3&theater
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1443729867./504193813095032/?type=3&theater
> 
> *BF*


Round2 Deluxe aluminum accessories! ?


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Round2 Deluxe aluminum accessories! ?


More aluminum.


----------



## jheilman

I had Jim's upgrade kit for the MPC eagle including all his aluminum engine bells. Then I bought a Product Enterprise eagle and realized I couldn't get the MPC kit up to that level of accuracy and sold it with the upgrades on eBay. So, I'll gladly pay to get more gorgeous machined aluminum for the R2 kit to make up for that previous sale.


----------



## ClubTepes

Ok, so people help me out......

What is the attraction to the metal engine bells?

Are they more accurate than the plastic parts?


----------



## jheilman

Well, because it's real metal. That's it. End of story. It has the look, feel and heft of metal. Can you replicate that with paint? Maybe get close. But, the real deal is the real deal. When I built my TOS phaser replica, real aluminum parts were the only way to go over painted plastic. It just looks better.


----------



## Steve H

ClubTepes said:


> Ok, so people help me out......
> 
> What is the attraction to the metal engine bells?
> 
> Are they more accurate than the plastic parts?


Hey now, I asked that some time back! 

The vague replies I got tended to drift into "because that's what the 44" filming miniature had, of course!!" but most wouldn't say that in those bald terms. 

I understand replacing the old MPC Eagle kit parts with turned aluminum because the stock plastic parts were as regretful as everything was, but an all new tooled kit with such knowledgeable people involved with the design should be able to avoid such mistakes. 

Sure, they're pretty and shiny and heavy and expensive so using the aluminum parts has a kind of... I dunno, bragging or showing off or something aspect. I suspect we're going to see some amazing metal finishes on the stock plastic parts when builds start showing up. 

OTOH I really think I'd pony up some cash for the metal landing gear struts. Those seem pretty useful to me.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Steve H said:


> OTOH I really think I'd pony up some cash for the metal landing gear struts. Those seem pretty useful to me.


This. I assume someone in the aftermarket will step up for those of us who don't want to buy the entire aluminum set. If Round 2 is smart enough to somehow offer the struts (maybe just online through its site) I'll happily give them my money instead of to someone else.


----------



## robiwon

Yes, they are more accurate than the plastic ones. The filming miniatures had aluminum bells, not plastic.


----------



## mach7

I've been thinking the same thing. I'm guessing that I can get the plastic engine bells to look good. 

I agree with Steve, If the metal struts are available I would buy them.

For me its a cost benefit analysis. $100 for the kit, $100+ for the metal parts, the obligatory PE set and aftermarket goodies will just be too much $$$. For me the Metal engine bells would just lose out at this time.


----------



## Scifitodd

Hunk A Junk said:


> This. I assume someone in the aftermarket will step up for those of us who don't want to buy the entire aluminum set. If Round 2 is smart enough to somehow offer the struts (maybe just online through its site) I'll happily give them my money instead of to someone else.


The aftermarket already has the bells and have been suppling us for quite some time and with all the parts in this kit the price is dead nuts on! It's actually cheaper than what the small garage kit guys can produce because his is all manual labor! The fact that these are an accessory to the kit is a personal choice, so we can't blame the price for purchasing or not purchasing them! The kit bells are just as accurate so that isn't a reason either! You won't get a better price with all the extra parts anywhere ever! So Please don't blame your choice on the price because it's a good price for all the aluminum parts you will receive! Below is a price for the 4 engine bells, 8 bottom V/tols and the small RCS thrusters on the side of the shoulder pods. So as you can see once you add the oleo struts to the mix it's really a bargain! I am replacing (at a slow rate ) all engines on my PE 12" eagles also! As I can finish them in my own time but they just look so much better, my personal choice! Oh, and the oleo struts will not be separated from the kit for sale. All or none in this case!


22" studio scale mains and v/tols $110 ( per set )
22" A/thrusters $25.00 ( 16 off )


----------



## Scifitodd

Here are some of the aluminum parts that my friend Mike Reader does for the Space 1999 kits! First photo is the 12" aluminum, next two are different size nuke canisters. Then the fourth is the aluminum for the stun gun , and the last is the 23" aluminum for the RU eagle kit!


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Here are some of the aluminum parts that my friend Mike Reader does for the Space 1999 kits! First photo is the 12" aluminum, next two are different size nuke canisters. Then the fourth is the aluminum for the stun gun , and the last is the 23" aluminum for the RU eagle kit!


More aluminum stuff!


----------



## robiwon

Good Gravy I would love to have a set of aluminum bells for my 23 inch RU23 kit!!!


----------



## Scifitodd

Latest 22" eagle test shot build from Jim!

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/504416603072753/?type=3&theater


----------



## robn1

I can't believe folks are complaining about the existence of an optional accessory :freak:


----------



## Scifitodd

robn1 said:


> I can't believe folks are complaining about the existence of an optional accessory :freak:


Well, you know how it goes Robert. Nobody can please everybody!


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> I can't believe folks are complaining about the existence of an optional accessory :freak:


Um. Point of order. I'm commenting, not complaining. 

It's fair to say there's a tad bit of complaining about the faux Revell astronauts on my part. It comes from wanting the very best kit possible. 

My confusion and attendant frustration comes from the mixed message of that nicely sculpted (and not at all accurate to the 44" filming miniature) back wall of the command module cockpit. The main defense of the 'must be like the filming miniature or else!!' lobby is "well, it's so small and dark in there you can't really see it it's good enough".

I say if they're going to the trouble to dress up that back wall even a tiny bit they should go the distance and gone ahead and made properly kitted out astronauts, because hey, it's small and dark in there and you won't really be able to see it so what's the difference? 

Let us not forget, someone at R2 took a look at the bare plastic (and accurate to the 44" filming model) back wall and said "Yeah, that's...that's just not good enough. We can do better, it looks cheap and crappy" and they did something about it. 

THAT'S complaining. Glad to be of help.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Um. Point of order. I'm commenting, not complaining.
> 
> It's fair to say there's a tad bit of complaining about the faux Revell astronauts on my part. It comes from wanting the very best kit possible.
> 
> My confusion and attendant frustration comes from the mixed message of that nicely sculpted (and not at all accurate to the 44" filming miniature) back wall of the command module cockpit. The main defense of the 'must be like the filming miniature or else!!' lobby is "well, it's so small and dark in there you can't really see it it's good enough".
> 
> I say if they're going to the trouble to dress up that back wall even a tiny bit they should go the distance and gone ahead and made properly kitted out astronauts, because hey, it's small and dark in there and you won't really be able to see it so what's the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Let us not forget, someone at R2 took a look at the bare plastic (and accurate to the 44" filming model) back wall and said "Yeah, that's...that's just not good enough. We can do better, it looks cheap and crappy" and they did something about it.
> 
> THAT'S complaining. Glad to be of help.


Steve, I do understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent about the back wall, but for a company to even give us all the heads up, photo's and ability to watch and see the build up of the test shots is huge for us and it kinda puts their necks stuck out there for every critic and complainer to chop it off! Most companies don't show this at all and you don't even know a kit is coming until it hits the shelves! So I hope Jamie keeps doing this even though the forums are grounds for complaining and constantly griping about trivial things! If I were him and Round2 I wouldn't have put the pilots or back wall in the kit at all. Then they would be like damn, you guys could've at least gave us a couple of pilots and a back wall! I can't build models anymore due to a previous surgery, but when I did I was a model builder who would take the kit from the shelf and build it to my best standard and I would've never even thought to say, damn this company could've don this and that to make it better! I would've stole a pilot or something from other kits or made my own to make it better! That's what model builders do, they take a kit from the shelf and add imagination to it and "BAM" you get something spectacular! I'm sure Round2 could've hired a sculptor like my friend did to make his 1999 astronauts seen in my photo's from my collection and paid him to make really nice ones for the kit, but again time and $$$ would make it more expensive! So then everyone would be like damn that's too expensive, I don't need a damn pilot, or aluminum engine bells! See, no win for Round2 either way!


----------



## seaQuest

I wish they would've given us the choice of a detailed back wall or a flat wall with a decal. I would go with the latter.


----------



## mhvink

You know, most aircraft kits, unless shown "In-flight" are displayed, gear-down with the cockpit empty of any life-forms at all. If you don't like the pilots, leave them out and display the Eagle "on the tarmac". Even when sitting on the launch platform, the Eagle is usually empty until Koenig yells, "Get to the Eagle and prepare for launch".

Just another option . . .

Mike


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...if they're going to the trouble to dress up that back wall even a tiny bit they should go the distance and gone ahead and made properly kitted out astronauts...


I agree with you on that, R2 _should _ include Alpha style astronauts; as optional parts alongside the Gemini type 

I'm not in the "accurate to the filming model or else" camp, but it is my preference. As a kid already into building models, I was fascinated by the use of models in movie effects. Behind the scenes stuff in Starlog and the Famous Spaceships book gave me an early peak at some of the filming models, and inspired me to build my models in their style. I've seen the Star Wars exhibits but my reaction was quite different from yours, I actually marveled at what I got to see up close.

We accuracy folks lost the grid line battle, it's nice to win one for a change. If we can fill in the grids, you can mod the pilots, looks like an easy job. We are model builders after all.


----------



## Scifitodd

seaQuest said:


> I wish they would've given us the choice of a detailed back wall or a flat wall with a decal. I would go with the latter.


Really? Decal versus detailed back wall?


----------



## Steve H

mhvink said:


> You know, most aircraft kits, unless shown "In-flight" are displayed, gear-down with the cockpit empty of any life-forms at all. If you don't like the pilots, leave them out and display the Eagle "on the tarmac". Even when sitting on the launch platform, the Eagle is usually empty until Koenig yells, "Get to the Eagle and prepare for launch".
> 
> Just another option . . .
> 
> Mike


Indeed so. Then the aftermarket needs to come up with seatbacks that plug into the space the figures plug into. 

Funny thing, that's almost enough parts to justify an extra parts tree- two Alpha Spacesuit clad astronauts, two 'generic' un-spacesuited Alpha pilots, two 'empty' seats*, and a blank flat back wall. Problems solved for everyone, huh? 

*of course I don't mean complete seats, that would probably be a waste given the space available and what could be seen thru the windows


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> Really? Decal versus detailed back wall?


From what the part seems to look like, I think if one wants to do this they should be able to just 'flip' the part around and have that blank wall. 

There's no need for them to sculpt the part in a way that the back has hollows and bumps that mirror the front for a consistent thickness of plastic, I expect the 'face' of the tool was engraved to add the detailing. But perhaps the lucky sods who have the test shots can actually confirm (or deny of course) this supposition of mine.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Indeed so. Then the aftermarket needs to come up with seatbacks that plug into the space the figures plug into.
> 
> Funny thing, that's almost enough parts to justify an extra parts tree- two Alpha Spacesuit clad astronauts, two 'generic' un-spacesuited Alpha pilots, two 'empty' seats*, and a blank flat back wall. Problems solved for everyone, huh?
> 
> *of course I don't mean complete seats, that would probably be a waste given the space available and what could be seen thru the windows


You mean like this? It was offered a few years back and not really a lot of hits on it! So as you can see, it can be done by a model builder! I have one in 44"!


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> You mean like this? It was offered a few years back and not really a lot of hits on it! So as you can see, it can be done by a model builder! I have one in 44"!


That's more elaborate than I envision, but something along those lines, yeah.

Ya know, I understand all about the 'can't please everybody' style of thinking, but so many times that's just an excuse, a rationalization for taking the easy way in solving an issue. 

I have a problem with this demonization of simple commentary. At no point am I saying "If they don't do this the way I say then it's crap and nobody should buy it!!". Not in any way, shape or form. I wish R2 success and that they sell many, many kits. 

I want the best kit possible. Honestly I would have preferred a new-tool kit in a 1/72-ish scale but I applaud the guts in taking a chance with this 22" kit. It seem the main point of contention is my desire for a kit that is the best possible kit (subset as if the Eagle was a real operational vehicle), and those that dramatically insist that the ONLY kit that should exist is a complete perfect replica of one of the 44" filming miniatures. 

I can't wait for those people to have kits in hand and start complaining about how this and that is 'wrong' because of this specific photo of a different 44" filming model, or even ranting about things seen in a close-up, which involved just that part 'blown up' to showcase a function built for one specific scene that are missing from the kit.


----------



## crowe-t

Round 2 did make the 1/350 TOS Enterprise as if it was a real spaceship. Yes it was based on blueprints of the studio model but that's about it. The studio model didn't have engraved grid lines on the saucer, no details on the port side... yet there were many who complained that the grid wasn't on the studio model so it shouldn't have been on the kit and so on. 

Now Round 2 is making the Eagle as more of a replica of the studio model and the same debate is happening. 

As far as the Eagle goes, until now there was no accurate styrene kit and a lot of scratch built Eagles seem to be built to represent the studio model. None of these Sci Fi ships are actually real so any model is just a model of the studio model. I see nothing wrong with going in either direction('real' or studio model replica). 

You won't please everyone all the time and additional sprues of parts do cost a lot of money. These model kits are produced to make money. So that's easier said than done.

I for one am ecstatic that Round 2 is putting this awesome kit out in such a great scale. It won't take much to make it look real. I'm sure there will be some nice aftermarket parts and photo etch that will become available to make it look more realistic.


----------



## Scifitodd

My "you can't please everyone" remark is valid! I just wish they would come out with an eagle built and fully painted the way it's suppose to be! Oh, really, they already did? Yes, it's $8,000 and available now for purchase! Wait for it, here come the complainers! What? 8K? WTF, HTH, and all that! Heard it all and it's the same thing, the could've done this and that and I'm over hearing about it! Below are I wish, and the cost, personal beefs and all in a short 10 pages of 57!


I wish they would've given us the choice of a detailed back wall or a flat wall with a decal. I would go with the latter.

For me its a cost benefit analysis. $100 for the kit, $100+ for the metal parts, the obligatory PE set and aftermarket goodies will just be too much $$$. For me the Metal engine bells would just lose out at this time.

My own personal beef, is the size (1/2 Studio Scale). As I don't consider it 1/48 - And that is a whole other discussion on 'true' size.
I voiced my thoughts and understand Jamie's positions.

Boy, those are gonna stick out like a sore thumb against that nicely rendered back wall. (which, I hasten to point out, is not screen accurate to the 44" filming miniature. I guess those that are annoyed by that part will just turn the part around or something, huh?)

Heck, to be 'screen accurate' shouldn't those figures be chopped off below the knees?

In other news - and I know this got discussed a while back - I wonder who'll be the first aftermarket enterprising soul to come up with some concoction to *fix* the command module rear hatch. Yes, yes, I know it's accurate to the studio scale original, but it still looks weird and logically is...err..illogical.


----------



## Scifitodd

crowe-t said:


> Round 2 did make the 1/350 TOS Enterprise as if it was a real spaceship. Yes it was based on blueprints of the studio model but that's about it. The studio model didn't have engraved grid lines on the saucer, no details on the port side... yet there were many who complained that the grid wasn't on the studio model so it shouldn't have been on the kit and so on.
> 
> Now Round 2 is making the Eagle as more of a replica of the studio model and the same debate is happening.
> 
> As far as the Eagle goes, until now there was no accurate styrene kit and a lot of scratch built Eagles seem to be built to represent the studio model. None of these Sci Fi ships are actually real so any model is just a model of the studio model. I see nothing wrong with going in either direction('real' or studio model replica).
> 
> You won't please everyone all the time and additional sprues of parts do cost a lot of money. These model kits are produced to make money. So that's easier said than done.
> 
> I for one am ecstatic that Round 2 is putting this awesome kit out in such a great scale. It won't take much to make it look real. I'm sure there will be some nice aftermarket parts and photo etch that will become available to make it look more realistic.


Thank you! That's what I wanted to say all along!


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> My "you can't please everyone" remark is valid! I just wish they would come out with an eagle built and fully painted the way it's suppose to be! Oh, really, they already did? Yes, it's $8,000 and available now for purchase! Wait for it, here come the complainers! What? 8K? WTF, HTH, and all that! Heard it all and it's the same thing, the could've done this and that and I'm over hearing about it! Below are I wish, and the cost, personal beefs and all in a short 10 pages of 57!
> 
> 
> I wish they would've given us the choice of a detailed back wall or a flat wall with a decal. I would go with the latter.
> 
> For me its a cost benefit analysis. $100 for the kit, $100+ for the metal parts, the obligatory PE set and aftermarket goodies will just be too much $$$. For me the Metal engine bells would just lose out at this time.
> 
> My own personal beef, is the size (1/2 Studio Scale). As I don't consider it 1/48 - And that is a whole other discussion on 'true' size.
> I voiced my thoughts and understand Jamie's positions.
> 
> Boy, those are gonna stick out like a sore thumb against that nicely rendered back wall. (which, I hasten to point out, is not screen accurate to the 44" filming miniature. I guess those that are annoyed by that part will just turn the part around or something, huh?)
> 
> Heck, to be 'screen accurate' shouldn't those figures be chopped off below the knees?
> 
> In other news - and I know this got discussed a while back - I wonder who'll be the first aftermarket enterprising soul to come up with some concoction to *fix* the command module rear hatch. Yes, yes, I know it's accurate to the studio scale original, but it still looks weird and logically is...err..illogical.


I....hurm. Lots to unpack here and I do want to be careful and civil. 

I'm honestly not sure what's being said here. These are quotes from the discussion, out of context. What I gather is that these things said, above all else, really grind your corn to the point of near rage or something. It shows we fans, or specifically those of us quoted, are a completely ungrateful and horrible breed for daring to say such things in your opinion.

Yet all those quotes, I think the only actual snark is mine, about the 'to be screen accurate shouldn't the pilot figures be cut off at the knees' thing. Which, I will stand behind. 

Comparing our discussion to people bitching about a $8000 prop replica has no content value. It's apples and oranges. Shouting praise about how some guy is making money turning aluminum engine bells for every kind of Eagle made (even the Dinky Toys Eagle? THAT'S dedication if so!) has nothing to do with if a person really needs to have such a thing on the new kit, as we must all assume the creators worked very very hard to make sure the kit parts in plastic are as perfect and accurate as can be, minus the being aluminum part. R2 is making those as an accessory kit because they know some WILL demand them, because 44" filming miniature and that's fine, hooray, official upgrade parts are good. I'm sure if they had made this kit 20 years ago the metal parts would have been included. 

So is the whole thing that only praise is acceptable speech about this kit? That's kinda boring, isn't it?


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> I....hurm. Lots to unpack here and I do want to be careful and civil.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what's being said here. These are quotes from the discussion, out of context. What I gather is that these things said, above all else, really grind your corn to the point of near rage or something. It shows we fans, or specifically those of us quoted, are a completely ungrateful and horrible breed for daring to say such things in your opinion.
> 
> Yet all those quotes, I think the only actual snark is mine, about the 'to be screen accurate shouldn't the pilot figures be cut off at the knees' thing. Which, I will stand behind.
> 
> Comparing our discussion to people bitching about a $8000 prop replica has no content value. It's apples and oranges. Shouting praise about how some guy is making money turning aluminum engine bells for every kind of Eagle made (even the Dinky Toys Eagle? THAT'S dedication if so!) has nothing to do with if a person really needs to have such a thing on the new kit, as we must all assume the creators worked very very hard to make sure the kit parts in plastic are as perfect and accurate as can be, minus the being aluminum part. R2 is making those as an accessory kit because they know some WILL demand them, because 44" filming miniature and that's fine, hooray, official upgrade parts are good. I'm sure if they had made this kit 20 years ago the metal parts would have been included.
> 
> So is the whole thing that only praise is acceptable speech about this kit? That's kinda boring, isn't it?


Steve, no I'm really trying to make a point and I'm obviously missing it. Why do we say, well what if they add a better pilot than the one they gave us? Why do we always want more for the same $$? I personally want the kit right where it is because it's already $100 and though I can afford it, there are many who will be stretching to purchase it, and the overseas fans are also going to have to pony up serious cash to pay for all the feed involved in shipping and taxes! If Round2 did anymore than they already have then you add more to the price of the kit. So the wish list is just that a wish list. I would like to see and participate in conversations of what the builders are going to do to make the kit stand out among all the other builders. That's what I was thinking this forum would be talking about now that we've seen the kit parts. Sorry about the rambling in my previous post.


----------



## mach7

Todd,

Please remove my quote from you bitch session.

I have NEVER complained about anything to do with the new eagle kit.
On the contrary I have had nothing but praise for R2 and Jamie for doing this kit. 

All I did was say I was not buying the accessory pack AT THIS TIME because I feel I cant justify the cost. That is my decision, if you don't like it I don't care.

Mark


----------



## Scifitodd

mach7 said:


> Todd,
> 
> Please remove my quote from you bitch session.
> 
> I have NEVER complained about anything to do with the new eagle kit.
> On the contrary I have had nothing but praise for R2 and Jamie for doing this kit.
> 
> All I did was say I was not buying the accessory pack AT THIS TIME because I feel I cant justify the cost. That is my decision, if you don't like it I don't care.
> 
> Mark


Mark I deleted the whole comment because after I read it it didn't get my point across anyway. I don't care if anyone does or doesn't purchase the kit, I even said its a personal choice. Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I just wanted to move past the what if's and talk about what are we gonna do to this kit. If you see Jim's FB of the build he's added his own ingenious ideas to light the cockpit and make the kit able to be taken apart for shipping. That's the interesting stuff I thought I'd see here.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...I have a problem with this demonization of simple commentary. At no point am I saying "If they don't do this the way I say then it's crap and nobody should buy it!!". Not in any way, shape or form. I wish R2 success and that they sell many, many kits...


No demonizing here, we're just pals with differing opinions :thumbsup:

Oh, and no need to cut off the legs.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> I....hurm. Lots to unpack here and I do want to be careful and civil.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what's being said here. These are quotes from the discussion, out of context. What I gather is that these things said, above all else, really grind your corn to the point of near rage or something. It shows we fans, or specifically those of us quoted, are a completely ungrateful and horrible breed for daring to say such things in your opinion.
> 
> Yet all those quotes, I think the only actual snark is mine, about the 'to be screen accurate shouldn't the pilot figures be cut off at the knees' thing. Which, I will stand behind.
> 
> Comparing our discussion to people bitching about a $8000 prop replica has no content value. It's apples and oranges. Shouting praise about how some guy is making money turning aluminum engine bells for every kind of Eagle made (even the Dinky Toys Eagle? THAT'S dedication if so!) has nothing to do with if a person really needs to have such a thing on the new kit, as we must all assume the creators worked very very hard to make sure the kit parts in plastic are as perfect and accurate as can be, minus the being aluminum part. R2 is making those as an accessory kit because they know some WILL demand them, because 44" filming miniature and that's fine, hooray, official upgrade parts are good. I'm sure if they had made this kit 20 years ago the metal parts would have been included.
> 
> So is the whole thing that only praise is acceptable speech about this kit? That's kinda boring, isn't it?


Yeah that sounded pretty stupid after I read it back to myself! No, absolutly not only praise! Just wanna hear what everyone is going to do to make it a killer display model! Sorry I might be in the wrong place! And I suck at trying to get what I'm thinking conveyed to you guys! :-(


----------



## Scifitodd

These are what I'm talking about, coming up with ways to light the kit, and attach the sections to make them removable so it can be packed for travel. Adding effects and landing lights!


----------



## Steve H

huh. I'm quite curious about what he's got going on with the passenger module.


----------



## jheilman

Scifitodd said:


> These are what I'm talking about, coming up with ways to light the kit, and attach the sections to make them removable so it can be packed for travel. Adding effects and landing lights!


I think you'll start seeing a lot of that once the kits are in builders' hands.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> huh. I'm quite curious about what he's got going on with the passenger module.


This is from Jim's post:

Since this model is being built primarily for photographic purposes and show display, I figured I'd make it easier to photograph, like a studio model. So I built a mount inside the passenger pod so the model can be put on a stand similar to the way motion control models were done. The cut-away door hatch will be held in place by magnets. 

The removable hatch only needs to be on the one side, since the model can simply be swapped end-for-end on the pod if the "other side" needs to be shot or displayed.

Magnets will hold the floor in place so the inside can be accessed easily for possible repairs, mods etc. in the future. Some underside floor parts placed loosely to test fit.


----------



## Steve H

Huh. So, not taking advantage of the already there 'pipe stand mount' that's part of the engine cluster? I guess it would take too much work and alteration of the kit to make that strong and secure enough to support the kit, to be useful for that purpose. 

Addendum: To my 'fantasy extra parts tree' earlier I forget that extended legs for the passenger pod would have been welcome.


----------



## Scifitodd

From Jim:

Slowly getting there. Have to paint the pilots, the interior back wall of the cockpit and then weather everything. I'm running out of time (model must be finished in two days) so I'm gonna have to cheat and use the "fast" weathering as shown on the Round 2 "Workbench" site for the 12" model. Oh and those pesky red stripes need to be done for the second passenger pod.


----------



## SUNGOD

crowe-t said:


> Round 2 did make the 1/350 TOS Enterprise as if it was a real spaceship. Yes it was based on blueprints of the studio model but that's about it. The studio model didn't have engraved grid lines on the saucer, no details on the port side... yet there were many who complained that the grid wasn't on the studio model so it shouldn't have been on the kit and so on.
> 
> Now Round 2 is making the Eagle as more of a replica of the studio model and the same debate is happening.
> 
> As far as the Eagle goes, until now there was no accurate styrene kit and a lot of scratch built Eagles seem to be built to represent the studio model. None of these Sci Fi ships are actually real so any model is just a model of the studio model. I see nothing wrong with going in either direction('real' or studio model replica).
> 
> You won't please everyone all the time and additional sprues of parts do cost a lot of money. These model kits are produced to make money. So that's easier said than done.
> 
> I for one am ecstatic that Round 2 is putting this awesome kit out in such a great scale. It won't take much to make it look real. I'm sure there will be some nice aftermarket parts and photo etch that will become available to make it look more realistic.




I seem to remember people weren't so much complaining that the grid pattern was there but that it should have been finer (although the lines weren't too bad). And of course even though they weren't engraved there are photos of the grid line drawn on so yes it was done as if it was a real ship. I think in many ways it's possible to please both the "accurate to the studio model" and "a replica of a real ship" crowds. 

This Eagle to be a "replica of a real ship" only really needs a separate detailing set with a more full interior and Alpha pilots (even an interior for the pod). And I wouldn't be surprised if even the accurate to the studio model crowd buys those also.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Latest 22" eagle test shot build from Jim!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/504416603072753/?type=3&theater





Look folks. It's a new styrene Eagle taking shape.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Look folks. It's a new styrene Eagle taking shape.


This is gonna be cool! I have my PE 23" eagle and soon the Round2 22" styrene eagle!


----------



## f1steph

Yes indeed, this kit will be good for somebody that wants to make a studio replica and for those that want to go for a more realistic ship. Everybody's right about both version. I prefer the ''how the Eagle would look like in real life'' kinda version. I've got a big bunch of pictures of both 44'' studio models. They ain't fantastic when you look at them closely. They were built for beeing filmed from far. The detailing inside the cages are totally random parts. They aren't parts that look like something in real life. Another exemple of this, the pilots are non modified Gemini astronauts.... Yes I know, nodody say them on the TV series. The same goes for the detailing of the studio version. You want to see how they were buchered in front a the cheap backwall, here's a picture of them:
https://goo.gl/photos/J4QRdApcJaZQitsY8

I think that Round2 are doing a fantastic job on this 22''. Too bad they didn't go in that direction for the Laboratory 12''. I have to scratchbuilt almost everything right now and it's a pain in the .... putty.... LOL

Steph


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Scifitodd said:


> The fact that these are an accessory to the kit is a personal choice, so we can't blame the price for purchasing or not purchasing them! The kit bells are just as accurate so that isn't a reason either! You won't get a better price with all the extra parts anywhere ever! So Please don't blame your choice on the price because it's a good price for all the aluminum parts you will receive!


I think you're missing my point. I doubt I'll get the aluminum kit because I don't want or need the aluminum engine bells. Yes, they look nice, but I'm fine painting the kit bells. The struts, however, are structural and those I can see using for strength and durability since they're moving parts. So in a perfect world, I'd have the option of buying just the aluminum parts I want instead of paying for the entire accessory kit. I'm not questioning whether the entire aluminum kit isn't an awesome value for those who want all those parts, I just would rather pay only for the stuff I actually want.


----------



## robiwon

For those that don't want the full aluminium kit you could probably make new metal struts on your own. It's not a complicated part, square and round bar stock and a washer. With a Dremel cut each to the desired length, drill a hole in the center of the square stock, insert round stock with some JB Weld and slide on washer.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

robiwon said:


> For those that don't want the full aluminium kit you could probably make new metal struts on your own. It's not a complicated part, square and round bar stock and a washer. With a Dremel cut each to the desired length, drill a hole in the center of the square stock, insert round stock with some JB Weld and slide on washer.


That's likely what I'll end up doing.


----------



## Trek Ace

I've preordered three kits so far. I plan on making one as a "hero" with all of the metal accessories, cockpit lighting, gas cylinders and armature mounts. The second will have alternate pods - one with red stripes on one side, VIP orange on the other, again with lights. The third will be strictly a display model which may or may not be lit.

The second and third models will be just the kit parts with plastic engine nozzles painted with Alclad, but with scratch-built metal oleo struts. I will also scratch build a "freighter/winch" pod that could be attached to any of the three.

I utilized detailed plans that are exactly scaled to the 22" model (actually 21.625") that I have used to plan most of this out.


----------



## seaQuest

Scifitodd said:


> Really? Decal versus detailed back wall?


Yeppers. I don't like painting up cockpits. You won't see squat, anyway.


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> I've preordered three kits so far. I plan on making one as a "hero" with all of the metal accessories, cockpit lighting, gas cylinders and armature mounts. The second will have alternate pods - one with red stripes on one side, VIP orange on the other, again with lights. The third will be strictly a display model which may or may not be lit.
> 
> The second and third models will be just the kit parts with plastic engine nozzles painted with Alclad, but with scratch-built metal oleo struts. I will also scratch build a "freighter/winch" pod that could be attached to any of the three.
> 
> I utilized detailed plans that are exactly scaled to the 22" model (actually 21.625") that I have used to plan most of this out.


I eagerly await seeing a vid of the gas in action. Might I assume you're going with maybe an airsoft gas unit (the small kind that's self-contained in a semi-auto pistol magazine) instead of the freon airbrush cylinders used in the 44" model?


----------



## electric indigo

Has anybody figured from the current photos how they solved the pod attachment?


----------



## seaQuest

SUNGOD said:


> I seem to remember people weren't so much complaining that the grid pattern was there but that it should have been finer (although the lines weren't too bad). And of course even though they weren't engraved there are photos of the grid line drawn on so yes it was done as if it was a real ship. I think in many ways it's possible to please both the "accurate to the studio model" and "a replica of a real ship" crowds.
> 
> This Eagle to be a "replica of a real ship" only really needs a separate detailing set with a more full interior and Alpha pilots (even an interior for the pod). And I wouldn't be surprised if even the accurate to the studio model crowd buys those also.


If an "operational ship" is what some wish to go after, the model is going to need a command module a helluva lot bigger than the studio models had. It wouls look like a super deformed Eagle.


----------



## seaQuest

On another note, I'm wondering if those aluminum bells put more stress on the styrene spine.


----------



## Scifitodd

electric indigo said:


> Has anybody figured from the current photos how they solved the pod attachment?


Yes, they stuck with the screw attachment on top of the pod!


----------



## Scifitodd

seaQuest said:


> On another note, I'm wondering if those aluminum bells put more stress on the styrene spine.


Aluminum bells do not put anymore stress on the Styrene, it's very strong and will not warp like the resin did! My MPC eagles have aluminum bells and they work perfectly!


----------



## Trek Ace

Steve H said:


> I eagerly await seeing a vid of the gas in action. Might I assume you're going with maybe an airsoft gas unit (the small kind that's self-contained in a semi-auto pistol magazine) instead of the freon airbrush cylinders used in the 44" model?


I will be using the smaller, half-size "dust off" canned air cylinders.


----------



## Scifitodd

Here is a closeup shot of a 44" eagle, taken by a member at a convention. You can see just how much you can't see inside the cockpit. This is why I'm not so concerned with a real looking pilot and back wall, you just won't be able to see much detail and that's with lights! The new kit is half this size!


----------



## RB

Scifitodd said:


> Here is a closeup shot of a 44" eagle, taken by a member at a convention. You can see just how much you can't see inside the cockpit. This is why I'm not so concerned with a real looking pilot and back wall, you just won't be able to see much detail and that's with lights! The new kit is half this size!


Interesting that it the Ariel probe attached to it! Wonder if that was a magnetic rig.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> If an "operational ship" is what some wish to go after, the model is going to need a command module a helluva lot bigger than the studio models had. It wouls look like a super deformed Eagle.


Orrrrrr you re-scale based on physical evidence, as others have stated that the side door on the passenger pod has to be at least 6 foot tall given the way the actors walked thru, yet on a 22" model purported to be 1/48 scale that same door is something like 4 1/2 feet. So, if the door is 6 foot tall per the stage set, that command module IS more than large enough for the shown set. 

If you re-scale the 'interconnect doors' to match now you find you can have the as-seen hatch at the back of the command module, and it somewhat cleans up the "but where do they go when they open?!" problem.

Debate debate quibble pick.


----------



## Trek Ace

That's the reason why I don't try to impose a particular scale on these models. I laughed out loud when I first saw the 11-12" Eagles referred to as "1/72 scale". Really?
With the 22-incher, which is nearly twice the size, at 1/48th? Uh huh. Sure.

The largest scale that I would assign to the existing MPC (and PE) Eagles would be 1/96, with a more realistic scale of closer to 1/110 to fit everything in as seen in the show, which would put the new kit closer to 1/56th. This is why I am just fine with a "studio scale" kit. Leave it to the individual modeler to determine the real-world scale that works best for them.


----------



## Scifitodd

Trek Ace said:


> That's the reason why I don't try to impose a particular scale on these models. I laughed out loud when I first saw the 11-12" Eagles referred to as "1/72 scale". Really?
> With the 22-incher, which is nearly twice the size, at 1/48th? Uh huh. Sure.
> 
> The largest scale that I would assign to the existing MPC (and PE) Eagles would be 1/96, with a more realistic scale of closer to 1/110 to fit everything in as seen in the show, which would put the new kit closer to 1/56th. This is why I am just fine with a "studio scale" kit. Leave it to the individual modeler to determine the real-world scale that works best for them.


Aaarrr! Here we go again with the scale. Yes, it's half of the studio scale!


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

electric indigo said:


> Has anybody figured from the current photos how they solved the pod attachment?


Two words; "Earth" "Magnets"

As for the back of the Command Module, I did a google WWW search for "EAGLE COMMAND MODULE" and found several renderings that look do-able. All we need is some enterprising "after-market-er" to do an air lock door without infringing on copy righted material.


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> Aaarrr! Here we go again with the scale. Yes, it's half of the studio scale!


NO, that's not what's going on. We all agree that the 44" model was built to 1/24 scale because that's normal for such things. It's a standard scale in the film making world. 

It's also generally thought that when it came time to build sets not as much care was taken to be consistent in matching scale. Partially due to the real world problems of camera size, getting the proper lighting into the sets, ease of construction and so on. If the Passenger Pod egress door was properly scaled it would have been somewhere around 4 1/2 foot to 5 foot tall (rivet counter correction welcome  ) and that creates problems in shooting, not to mention the visual discomfort of everyone always hunching over to get in and out and such. 

So the upshot is the sets don't match the model. Not the first time it's ever happened. You pick what you like and go with it. Or completely ignore it. 

It's not a crisis, it's not a feud, it's not an argument, it's discussion. It doesn't! require! every! sentence! to! have! exclamation! points! 

I would still like to see someone draft some interior plans for an Eagle that has the more cramped interior that strict adhering to scale would dictate. I'm kind of thinking that the only onboard place an average human could stand completely upright would be in the central corridor in the Passenger Module. Maybe.


----------



## Trek Ace

Scifitodd said:


> Aaarrr! Here we go again with the scale. Yes, it's half of the studio scale!


If you read through it again, Todd, I think that you will find that we are on the same page!

My criticism is toward the model companies assigning an arbitrary scale to a model kit without a second thought. A model that is half the scale of 1/48 is not 1/72, but rather 1/96.

If the new Eagle kit is studio-scale to the 22-incher OR one-half studio-scale to the 44-inch hero - I'm just fine with that. Great. But, since there never was a stated full-size dimension of the Eagle on the show, then just leave the scale up to the modeler to deal with, rather than assigning an arbitrary scale by the manufacturer.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

To my mind, the best source for a reasonable scale discussion for the Eagle is at http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umeaglescale.html - IMNSHO, the best approximation of the "real" ships's size is 111', making the 43.25" (not 44") shooting model about 1/30 scale. Is this perfect? Of course not, but 1/24 scale just doesn't work for me - it's simply a "close enough for FX on a TV show" approximation. The Eagle isn't anywhere near as bad as, say, the Millennium Falcon or as confusing as the Shuttlecraft Galileo. It's simply a matter of scaling with the Eagle. The 22" (Actually 21.625") Eagle is therefore _TO ME_, 1/60 scale or roughly in scale with 28mm figures. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary.


----------



## Scifitodd

Trek Ace said:


> If you read through it again, Todd, I think that you will find that we are on the same page!
> 
> My criticism is toward the model companies assigning an arbitrary scale to a model kit without a second thought. A model that is half the scale of 1/48 is not 1/72, but rather 1/96.
> 
> If the new Eagle kit is studio-scale to the 22-incher OR one-half studio-scale to the 44-inch hero - I'm just fine with that. Great. But, since there never was a stated full-size dimension of the Eagle on the show, then just leave the scale up to the modeler to deal with, rather than assigning an arbitrary scale by the manufacturer.


I was joking guys! I'm with you on that scale stuff, I went through all that on FB and got all irate and it was actually funny afterwords. ????


----------



## Steve H

Owen E Oulton said:


> To my mind, the best source for a reasonable scale discussion for the Eagle is at http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umeaglescale.html - IMNSHO, the best approximation of the "real" ships's size is 111', making the 43.25" (not 44") shooting model about 1/30 scale. Is this perfect? Of course not, but 1/24 scale just doesn't work for me - it's simply a "close enough for FX on a TV show" approximation. The Eagle isn't anywhere near as bad as, say, the Millennium Falcon or as confusing as the Shuttlecraft Galileo. It's simply a matter of scaling with the Eagle. The 22" (Actually 21.625") Eagle is therefore _TO ME_, 1/60 scale or roughly in scale with 28mm figures. Your mileage may, and probably will, vary.



Thank you for that link, that's some interesting discussion.

However, even these hard core fans miss some obvious things. One that leaps out, they design a cockpit as if there was a conventional seat. That's not what was used. It was the same dentist's chair that was in the medical center. More a lounge than a seat. That simple fact does free up some floor space. 

But blah blah blah. The Eagle is whatever someone who builds it wants it to be.


----------



## Steve H

Hey, you know what I just noticed, referencing that link above? 

Oh, this is gonna make people insane. Recall when one of our builders showed an easy mod for the MPC Eagle kit, how by thinning and removing part of the landing pad module tab one can shift the module against the Service Module cages to more accurately reflect the proper position i.e. shift them closer to the edge of the Passenger Module?

Huh. Well, they aren't always framing the Passenger Module all the time. There are a number of shots of the Eagle where the forward Landing Pad Modules are centered on the cage while the aft ones are indeed closer to the edge. That's on the 44" miniature. The 22", which appears to have been the primary use model, the landing pad modules are pretty clearly centered against the cages, like the MPC kit has them. I'm going to assume it has something to do with taking apart the miniature and maybe putting the pieces back on 'incorrectly'. 

OHHHZ NOZE! NOW WHAT DO WE DO?! 

What we do is build it the way we like. I'm sure someone will decide to shift the landing pad modules on the new 22" kit, just because they want to.


----------



## ClubTepes

Steve H said:


> NO, that's not what's going on. We all agree that the 44" model was built to 1/24 scale because that's normal for such things. It's a standard scale in the film making world.
> 
> It's also generally thought that when it came time to build sets not as much care was taken to be consistent in matching scale. Partially due to the real world problems of camera size, getting the proper lighting into the sets, ease of construction and so on. If the Passenger Pod egress door was properly scaled it would have been somewhere around 4 1/2 foot to 5 foot tall (rivet counter correction welcome  ) and that creates problems in shooting, not to mention the visual discomfort of everyone always hunching over to get in and out and such.
> 
> So the upshot is the sets don't match the model. Not the first time it's ever happened. You pick what you like and go with it. Or completely ignore it.
> 
> It's not a crisis, it's not a feud, it's not an argument, it's discussion. It doesn't! require! every! sentence! to! have! exclamation! points!
> 
> I would still like to see someone draft some interior plans for an Eagle that has the more cramped interior that strict adhering to scale would dictate. I'm kind of thinking that the only onboard place an average human could stand completely upright would be in the central corridor in the Passenger Module. Maybe.


Since when does a model 'size' trump sets?

I think at some point, 1/24 scale was the intent.
But what wound up on screen, negates that intention. 



Trek Ace said:


> That's the reason why I don't try to impose a particular scale on these models. I laughed out loud when I first saw the 11-12" Eagles referred to as "1/72 scale". Really?
> With the 22-incher, which is nearly twice the size, at 1/48th? Uh huh. Sure.
> 
> The largest scale that I would assign to the existing MPC (and PE) Eagles would be 1/96, with a more realistic scale of closer to 1/110 to fit everything in as seen in the show, which would put the new kit closer to 1/56th. This is why I am just fine with a "studio scale" kit. Leave it to the individual modeler to determine the real-world scale that works best for them.


I agree completely.
As I stated in an earlier post, the shortest length I would give an Eagle is 94'.
With the old kit coming in a 11.75" long, that happens to translate exactly to 1/96 scale.

Which isn't so bad, there are other 1/96 scale kits out there.
The larger Revell Saturn V kit is 1/96.
The MPC Star Wars AT-AT is 1/96.
Tamiya's 1/100 Space Shuttle.
etc.

I have a little diorama planned in my head involving the small Eagle kit with the Revell 1/100 lunar lander.


----------



## Steve H

"Since when does a model size trump sets?"

Well, seems to me, Jupiter II, Seaview, Shuttlecraft Galileo...


----------



## notype

ClubTepes said:


> I have a little diorama planned in my head involving the small Eagle kit with the Revell 1/100 lunar lander.


Just the two mentioned together sounds exciting. Would love to see that diorama someday! :thumbsup:


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> "Since when does a model size trump sets?"
> 
> Well, seems to me, Jupiter II, Seaview, Shuttlecraft Galileo...


:tongue:


----------



## Scifitodd

Enough dilly dallying! We have more important things to discuss! Like Holy moly it's here! And on the very day my FB group "Space 1999 Props & Ships" hits 1999 members! What a fitting day to see the first test shot completed on the same day!


----------



## robiwon

Jim's build turned out great. Still wondering if he had kit decals with his test shot.
What scale is it? Personally I don't care, it's a big frikken Eagle with detail and quality and love that we have never seen before applied to this craft. Just build the darn thing, make whatever mods you want, paint it however you want, and call it "your scale"!


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> Jim's build turned out great. Still wondering if he had kit decals with his test shot.
> What scale is it? Personally I don't care, it's a big frikken Eagle with detail and quality and love that we have never seen before applied to this craft. Just build the darn thing, make whatever mods you want, paint it however you want, and call it "your scale"!


Robert, I believe the decals are Jim's. He has done 22" eagles in the past and I would bet he has a good stash. There are several people who offer all scales of decal sheets including Chris Trice and he and Jim are good friends.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Enough dilly dallying! We have more important things to discuss! Like Holy moly it's here! And on the very day my FB group "Space 1999 Props & Ships" hits 1999 members! What a fitting day to see the first test shot completed on the same day!




Wow! That does look impressive.:thumbsup:


----------



## electric indigo

Scifitodd said:


> Robert, I believe the decals are Jim's. He has done 22" eagles in the past and I would bet he has a good stash. There are several people who offer all scales of decal sheets including Chris Trice and he and Jim are good friends.


He wrote in his FB comments that he printed the decals himself from the art that will be used for the kit.


----------



## seaQuest

November is starting to look like a realistic goal.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

The finished model looks great but without a point of reference no one can tell just how big it actually is in size. How about a side by side comparison with the 12 inch model? Oh and one other thing, are those the aluminum engine bells on the back?


----------



## Bugfood

enterprise_fanatic said:


> The finished model looks great but without a point of reference no one can tell just how big it actually is in size. How about a side by side comparison with the 12 inch model? Oh and one other thing, are those the aluminum engine bells on the back?


The kit is quoted as being approx 22" / 55.9cm in length. I believe that, although he has access to a set of the aluminium deluxe parts, he's using the supplied aluminium-sprayed kit parts in this build. 

*BF*


----------



## Scifitodd

Bugfood said:


> The kit is quoted as being approx 22" / 55.9cm in length. I believe that, although he has access to a set of the aluminium deluxe parts, he's using the supplied aluminium-sprayed kit parts in this build.
> 
> *BF*


He's using the plastic bells for photography of the eagle built box stock for the box art. The bells are removable so he can add them later. The first FX shot of the 22" eagle.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink....649665315&id=251360838378332&substory_index=0


----------



## edge10

Brilliant! Ship it.


----------



## robn1

Awesome! Can't wait.


----------



## SteveR

enterprise_fanatic said:


> The finished model looks great but without a point of reference no one can tell just how big it actually is in size.




















Yep, it's a two-hander.


----------



## edge10

Yes, but how big is it?


----------



## SteveR

That's a rather personal question.


----------



## Scifitodd

edge10 said:


> Yes, but how big is it?


It's the smallest one in these photo's! Approximately 22", just shy!


----------



## Bugfood

Imagine something 2 feet long. BUT actually 2 whole inches shorter. That will give you a fair yardstick as to it's length. 

22" is actually nearly as long as my arm (if I ignore my incredibly muscled shoulder...and chop my hand off at the wrist).

Take a whole bunch of standard red seedless grapes, detach them from the wooden sprues and lay them end to end. 22"? Probably not. But bloody good fun.

Imagine a standard size farm donkey th (stop it: Forum Mod)

*BF*


----------



## ClubTepes

Scifitodd said:


> Robert, I believe the decals are Jim's. He has done 22" eagles in the past and I would bet he has a good stash. There are several people who offer all scales of decal sheets including Chris Trice and he and Jim are good friends.


Except that this Eagle isn't the same size.

It is 1/2 the size of the "44 incher"....... Which really isn't 44 inches.

And the "22 incher" isn't really 22 inches.

So it isn't the same size as the 22 inchers.
There is a difference in size.

So technically, 22" decals should work on this kit.
But I have no doubt that a set were done up in the right size for this kit.


----------



## SteveR

I feel like I'm in a Python sketch.


----------



## Zombie_61

No you don't.


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> No you don't.


I think he's got the wrong room...


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> I think he's got the wrong room...


No he hasn't.


----------



## Bugfood

But are we absolutely sure they're decals?

I ask because I'm pretty sure that the sheer will of Forum members, if appropriately channeled, could literally cause adhesive shapes to coalesce directly onto the surface of the model.

PS: did we mention the model is approx 22" long / half 44"" studio scale? '-'

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

And, as if by magic, to provide some apparently much-needed scale reference, Mr S posts this:

https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/a.263089520538797.1073741830.251360838378332/505372582977155/?type=3&theater

NB: someone in the FB comments has already done the "is that a 1/48th scale glass?". So: no need to go there! 

On a serious note, the only thing I'm still curious about is the layout and complexity of the proposed final decal sheet. Would love to see that. 

*BF*


----------



## John P

Bugfood said:


> Imagine something 2 feet long. BUT actually 2 whole inches shorter. That will give you a fair yardstick as to it's length.


Well, 2/3 of one. Almost. But not quite.


----------



## Scifitodd

ClubTepes said:


> Except that this Eagle isn't the same size.
> 
> It is 1/2 the size of the "44 incher"....... Which really isn't 44 inches.
> 
> And the "22 incher" isn't really 22 inches.
> 
> So it isn't the same size as the 22 inchers.
> There is a difference in size.
> 
> So technically, 22" decals should work on this kit.
> But I have no doubt that a set were done up in the right size for this kit.


Guys, the kit will measure 21 5/8” long, which is exactly half the length of the 44” eagle. Yes, a brand new decal kit has been designed and will be supplied by Cartograf out of Italy. Should see a preview later this month!


----------



## Scifitodd

So, we have a 22" eagle photographed and looks just like the 44" in the show! And it looks good in the forrest too!

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...41830.251360838378332/505157649665315/?type=3


----------



## KUROK

SteveR said:


> I feel like I'm in a Python sketch.


What? The curtains?


----------



## Bugfood

KUROK said:


> What? The curtains?


Now let's not bicker and argue about *who* killed *who*...

*BF*

:hat:


----------



## Bugfood

Scifitodd said:


> So, we have a 22" eagle photographed and looks just like the 44" in the show!


So stoked, you could put a smoke stack on me and call me The Cannonball Express.:thumbsup:

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

Scifitodd said:


> Guys, the kit will measure 21 5/8” long...


Y'know, referring to the Eagle as the '21 and 5/8th-er' has a certain ring to it.

For us European souls, we'd prefer to call it the 55.1-er (centimetres, that is..)

Ermaghad! Just had an horrific thought! What if they've been working in metric not Imperial!? (Like those Space dudes did a while back).

It. Could. Be. Tiny! (...or actually about the same size as the existing MPC re-pop)

Oh, the humanity...! :drunk:

*BF*


----------



## seaQuest

SteveR said:


> I feel like I'm in a Python sketch.


'E's gone to sing with the choir eternal!


----------



## electric indigo

Not that I'm obsessed with it, but I do get the impression that all of Mr. Small's photos somewhat conceal the screw attachment of the pod...

Not much to do about the issue, though, cause all workarounds would be even more non-canon than the dreaded non-Gemini/Alpha pilots.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

SteveR said:


> I feel like I'm in a Python sketch.


"Hello Bruce" ... *"Hello Bruce"*...._"Hello Bruce"_..."Hello Bruce"... "Hello Bruce"


----------



## fluke

It's not dead its pinning. .....


----------



## Scifitodd

I asked Jim to photograph the 22" eagle next to the PE 12" eagle and he obliged!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153701912697700&set=gm.1642749819275047&type=3&theater


----------



## jheilman

Sweet!!!


----------



## SteveR

Scifitodd said:


> I asked Jim to photograph the 22" eagle next to the PE 12" eagle and he obliged!


End the pain, Jim!


----------



## Zombie_61

Scifitodd said:


> So, we have a 22" eagle photographed and looks just like the 44" in the show! And it looks good in the forrest too!


So, if an Eagle crashes in the forest and there's no one there to hear it...


----------



## Bugfood

Zombie_61 said:


> So, if an Eagle crashes in the forest ...


*IF*? lol

They're chief pilot was Alan Carter. That guy hardly ever got one down in one piece.

He even crashed in the hanger once.

He regularly would walk into doors and trip over non-existent carpet edges.

He sat on the ground once...and missed.

Young fella. Means well...

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

Scifitodd said:


> I asked Jim to photograph the 22" eagle next to the PE 12" eagle and he obliged![/url]


To paraphrase Father Ted:

"This one is very small. The other one is far away..."

But lovely comparison, though. Fun to note the cage member thickness on the PE is close to almost the same diameter as the cage on the new 22.

Tidy!

*BF*

PS: I see no screws


----------



## Steve H

Bugfood said:


> To paraphrase Father Ted:
> 
> "This one is very small. The other one is far away..."
> 
> But lovely comparison, though. Fun to note the cage member thickness on the PE is close to almost the same diameter as the cage on the new 22.
> 
> Tidy!
> 
> *BF*
> 
> PS: I see no screws


Actually, look carefully. The 22" model is very carefully angled so the spine framework kinda covers the 'filming model accurate' slab and screw pod attachment. You can see the edge of it on the aft end.


----------



## John P

fluke said:


> It's not dead its pinning. .....


Pinning what, the tail on the donkey?


----------



## ClubTepes

Scifitodd said:


> I asked Jim to photograph the 22" eagle next to the PE 12" eagle and he obliged!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153701912697700&set=gm.1642749819275047&type=3&theater


I see Jim had to put 1/48 on the image.

At least he has conviction.


----------



## ClubTepes

Bugfood said:


> *IF*? lol
> 
> They're chief pilot was Alan Carter. That guy hardly ever got one down in one piece.
> 
> He even crashed in the hanger once.
> 
> He regularly would walk into doors and trip over non-existent carpet edges.
> 
> He sat on the ground once...and missed.
> 
> Young fella. Means well...
> 
> *BF*


It's like Starbuck on BSG.....
He/She was supposed to be the best pilot, and they wrecked more vipers than the Cylons.


----------



## seaQuest

'E's pining for the fjords.


----------



## electric indigo

Bugfood said:


> *IF*? lol
> 
> They're chief pilot was Alan Carter. That guy hardly ever got one down in one piece.
> 
> *BF*


You gotta admit the Eagle was a quite unreliable piece of hardware. Many incidents were caused by a jammed lever and the likes. Almost like the script writers had put a spell on it...


----------



## fluke

Ok....so my grammar is not as good as my modelling skills
and spell check is only as good as its user. My bad .


----------



## Scifitodd

This is my favorite eagle model!

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/505912426256504/?type=3&theater


----------



## Steve H

electric indigo said:


> You gotta admit the Eagle was a quite unreliable piece of hardware. Many incidents were caused by a jammed lever and the likes. Almost like the script writers had put a spell on it...


Hey hey, be fair. Most of the Eagles lost were deadlined by Mysterious Unknown Forces beyond the human ken. Zoop Zoop zoooooooop.


----------



## Paulbo

John P said:


> Pinning what, the tail on the donkey?


Pinning (for) the fjord. Those fjord models are notoriously unstable and have to be pinned together.


----------



## jheilman

"I've got a slug."
"Does it talk?"
"Not really, no."
"Well it's scarcely a replacement then, is it?"


----------



## Zombie_61

What a senseless waste of human life.


----------



## jheilman

Too silly.


----------



## Bugfood

Scifitodd said:


> This is my favorite eagle model!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/505912426256504/?type=3&theater


That is particularly nice! :thumbsup:

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

With these new Mr Small pics available - and everything looking really, unquestionably AWESOME - I recommend we apply the following rule to those of an in definable rivet-countery disposition....

No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!

Even if - and I want to make this absolutely clear - they do say [insert dispersion-casting finger pointage comments here].

Fake facial hair will not protect you. 

PS: Are there any women here today?

*BF*


----------



## mhvink

But, I only said, "This Eagle is good enough for Jehova!" Ow . . .


----------



## mach7

"Who threw that?..... Alright, to the back with you!"


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> This is my favorite eagle model!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/505912426256504/?type=3&theater




Look at that Eagle. Beautiful plumage!


----------



## Zombie_61

mhvink said:


> But, I only said, "This Eagle is good enough for Jehova!" Ow . . .


You're only making it worse for yourself.


----------



## mhvink

Zombie_61 said:


> You're only making it worse for yourself.


Jehova, Jehova, Jehova! Owww. . .


----------



## SteveR

SteveR said:


> I feel like I'm in a Python sketch.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

If you are looking for a 1/48 scale moon buggy then I have one for sell.
This one has a little work that needs to be done on it so I am offering
$5.00 + $4.00 shipping in the USA.
Email me at [email protected] to buy the kit.

:wave:


----------



## f1steph

I installed this moonbuggy on my S:99 CM dio that I've built more then 10 years ago. It's a nice buggy, you'll have to make your own decals tho. Right beside the 22'' R2 Eagle, that would be awesome....

https://goo.gl/photos/widioPPsjCFVWiX79

Steph


----------



## Richard Baker

f1steph said:


> I installed this moonbuggy on my S:99 CM dio that I've built more then 10 years ago. It's a nice buggy, you'll have to make your own decals tho. Right beside the 22'' R2 Eagle, that would be awesome....
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/widioPPsjCFVWiX79
> 
> Steph


Wonderful diorama!


----------



## Bugfood

Another new Mr Small pic (pauses briefly for an intruding memory of the Mr Men) : 

https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1444743107./507618199419260/?type=3&theater

PS: I did giggle - in a totally un-PC way - at his references to a 'satisfying bank', 'friction fit' and 'large base for stability'.

I'm here all week. :thumbsup:

*BF*


----------



## SUNGOD

Bugfood said:


> Another new Mr Small pic (pauses briefly for an intruding memory of the Mr Men) :
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/251360838378332/photos/pb.251360838378332.-2207520000.1444743107./507618199419260/?type=3&theater
> 
> PS: I did giggle - in a totally un-PC way - at his references to a 'satisfying bank', 'friction fit' and 'large base for stability'.
> 
> I'm here all week. :thumbsup:
> 
> *BF*




Tis lookin good!:thumbsup:


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

I don't know who came up with this but i found it on a google search. Could an "after market company" make something like this for the back of the CM?


----------



## robn1

I'm sure some conversion parts will turn up on Shapeways.


----------



## irishtrek

Or one could always make their own version.


----------



## Nocoolname

enterprise_fanatic said:


> I don't know who came up with this but i found it on a google search. Could an "after market company" make something like this for the back of the CM?


I made two different CM's for my 12" Eagles, one like the picture you have and another with a rounded back that connects to the main body via a 'skirt'. You can see them in this thread 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=432034&highlight=eagle&page=2

I'm going to upscale these for when my 1/48's arrive and see how they fit.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Nocoolname said:


> I made two different CM's for my 12" Eagles, one like the picture you have and another with a rounded back that connects to the main body via a 'skirt'. You can see them in this thread
> 
> http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=432034&highlight=eagle&page=2
> 
> I'm going to upscale these for when my 1/48's arrive and see how they fit.


I don't know how I missed your thread, and I stand corrected. I went back and looked at the pictures and saw the door "bump outs" on the back of the CM. I also like what you did with the connecting passageway. 

Isn't it amazing what you can find when doing a Google search.


----------



## SUNGOD

Maybe a panel could open up at the back of the command module so it can link with the cage door?


----------



## Trek Ace

I discovered what appears to be the final box art:










Catchy design. I like it! Nice job Jamie and Round 2.


----------



## SUNGOD

Now that's some nice box art!:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek

I like it three!!!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

I should dislike that box, the design seems to violate various rules but surprisingly it seems to work. 

See, the problem is the Space:1999 logo. It has that 'vanishing point' thing going on, and when you pair that with a slant and normal flat text it should be a visual trainwreck. But somehow, paired with the strong visual of the Eagle which gives a stronger 'direction' in terms of perspective, there's a visual trick going on. Including a second Eagle (in standard coloring) helps drive the visual forward. 

Having Moonbase Alpha also in the frame acts as an additional 'product sell point' in a sort of subliminal way (I'm sure there's bound to be an 'also available!!' callout on one of the side panels), it probably should be white-ish but if they did that it would draw the eye away needlessly. I suspect a textless version of that art may become available and if that's not planned they're missing a bet.


----------



## jheilman

As a long-time fan and graphic designer, I do find the logo rotation jarring. Nothing that will prevent me from purchasing the kit, to be sure. But, just in the spirit of fun, I came up with my revision. The original does lead with the show name, that's a plus. And the flow being from left to right works in the original's favor. Not meant as a knock against R2, so don't take it that way, please. Just me Photoshopping.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

jheilman said:


> As a long-time fan and graphic designer, I do find the logo rotation jarring. Nothing that will prevent me from purchasing the kit, to be sure. But, just in the spirit of fun, I came up with my revision. The original does lead with the show name, that's a plus. And the flow being from left to right works in the original's favor. Not meant as a knock against R2, so don't take it that way, please. Just me Photoshopping.


I like it !
Do you do any small side work ?


----------



## Hunk A Junk

"Hello, Honey? Yeah, I know what you can get me for Christmas. Yes, it's another model. I know, 'another one.' But this one is... No, we're not running out of room to display them. We don't need the kids' baby pictures on that shelf anyway. What's that? Yes, I AM a grown man. But this is the Eagle and I want it I want it I want it please please please!"


----------



## Richard Baker

The box art is somewhat chaotic but it does have visual impact and gives you the feeling that this is a huge model, not just another kit.


----------



## robiwon

Not to mention the box is going to be huge...


----------



## jheilman

LARSON DESIGNS said:


> I like it !
> Do you do any small side work ?


Sure, always open for freelance design work.


----------



## John P

When will the aftermarket pod interiors be out?


----------



## fluke

hey.....build them yer self! :tongue:


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

jheilman said:


> Sure, always open for freelance design work.


Cool, PM me your e-mail address and I will get back with you.


----------



## SUNGOD

jheilman said:


> As a long-time fan and graphic designer, I do find the logo rotation jarring. Nothing that will prevent me from purchasing the kit, to be sure. But, just in the spirit of fun, I came up with my revision. The original does lead with the show name, that's a plus. And the flow being from left to right works in the original's favor. Not meant as a knock against R2, so don't take it that way, please. Just me Photoshopping.




The Space 1999 logo is possibly better but I think the Eagle logo takes up too much room and obscures the top of the Eagle.


----------



## jheilman

Yeah, not as good as I would do if this were an actual assignment. Just 10 minutes for fun.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

_"The Space 1999 logo is possibly better but I think the Eagle logo takes up too much room and obscures the top of the Eagle."_

Wouldn't it look better if you got rid of the white background behind the Eagle logo and change the color of the rest of the words so they won't dissappear into the background?


----------



## jheilman

Sure, go for it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Bugfood

Frankly, if the box was plain brown cardboard with 'Accurate 22" Eagle Transporter' crayoned on it, I'd be all over it like beans on toast. 

Just sayin'...

*BF*


----------



## Steve H

jheilman said:


> Yeah, not as good as I would do if this were an actual assignment. Just 10 minutes for fun.


And it's excellent. 10 minutes makes a 'first pass' draft astonishing. 

My points would be that upper right area seems very crowded now. The sideways MPC logo is a no-go to me. 

How about lower the image slightly, let the front landing gear get covered a bit by the Space:1999 block, tuck the MPC logo in the lower right corner (white outline so you still see that chunk of Moonbase Alpha?), put a stripe across the top for the Eagle name, group the skill and age level in a single line above the all new model text block.

I think that would balance nicely and still have some visual punch.


----------



## Scifitodd

Hi guys, the photo's below are of the second test shot from Jim Small that he built straight out of the box. Also a glimpse of the decal sheet which I have blown up for us. From Jim's post, please read and enjoy. You can read from his posts on his FB page here........

(Building a second test shot, this time with the parts molded in the correct colours as will be in the kit.

I'm deliberately NOT painting it and will be applying decals only, so that you can see what the model can look like if you want to build but don't like to paint. It's kinda like the old Matchbox kits in that manner.

Obviously the gray engine bells and oleo struts can be replaced with the aluminum accessory set for an even MORE desirable model.Model is assembled. The whole thing was built using only an exact knife and liquid cement. Getting ready to apply decals to show how good this model can look with minimal effort, NO painting. The only thing I added was black electrical tape on the inside of the windows of the passenger pod to hold them in place cuz I didn't wanna glue them in yet. Applying decals to the deliberately unpainted model. This is what you can expect to be able to build with minimal tools (only an Exacto knife, glue and scissors) and no paint!)


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Hi guys, the photo's below are of the second test shot from Jim Small that he built straight out of the box. Also a glimpse of the decal sheet which I have blown up for us. From Jim's post, please read and enjoy. You can read from his posts on his FB page here........
> 
> (Building a second test shot, this time with the parts molded in the correct colours as will be in the kit.
> 
> I'm deliberately NOT painting it and will be applying decals only, so that you can see what the model can look like if you want to build but don't like to paint. It's kinda like the old Matchbox kits in that manner.
> 
> Obviously the gray engine bells and oleo struts can be replaced with the aluminum accessory set for an even MORE desirable model.Model is assembled. The whole thing was built using only an exact knife and liquid cement. Getting ready to apply decals to show how good this model can look with minimal effort, NO painting. The only thing I added was black electrical tape on the inside of the windows of the passenger pod to hold them in place cuz I didn't wanna glue them in yet. Applying decals to the deliberately unpainted model. This is what you can expect to be able to build with minimal tools (only an Exacto knife, glue and scissors) and no paint!)


Just maybe this is the bottom of the box?


----------



## robiwon

Awesome stuff. The decals look fantastic.


----------



## John P

Are the pod windows _not _transparent?


----------



## spock62

Scifitodd said:


> Hi guys, the photo's below are of the second test shot from Jim Small that he built straight out of the box. Also a glimpse of the decal sheet which I have blown up for us. From Jim's post, please read and enjoy. You can read from his posts on his FB page here........


Looks great, even unpainted!


----------



## ClubTepes

John P said:


> Are the pod windows _not _transparent?


Why would they be?

Never thought they were windows on the show and the set doesn't represent windows.


----------



## BWolfe

ClubTepes said:


> Why would they be?
> 
> Never thought they were windows on the show and the set doesn't represent windows.


Yet there are rectangular depressions in the roof of the passenger pod set that roughly correspond to the exterior "windows" of the passenger pod as can be seen in this image.


----------



## Richard Baker

Could be a special material with can be either clear of when a current is passed through it becomes a light emitting surface- we have some of that stuff now.

I wonder what use those windows would have- unless the ship rotated and you looked up they were mostly just skylights...


----------



## mhvink

Scifitodd said:


> Just maybe this is the bottom of the box?


And why is there a cameo of Robot B-2 from Lost In Space on there?


----------



## scifimodelfan

Dont like the box art, just my personal opinion and not to sure if I want to put out the money for this one just yet. I will wait until it goes on discount as so many other models have done in the past once all the hype dies down.


----------



## John P

Hm. Always thought they were windows. Can't imagine any other reason for such shapes on the exterior.


----------



## irishtrek

If one decides to build an interior for the pod those windows can be left clear for folks to peek through and see the detailing. Or they could be solar panels.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> Are the pod windows _not _transparent?





I hope they are but maybe they look like that because of the tape Todd put on them? 

It looks great but I wish they'd do the engine bells with a chrome finish like they're supposed to be. Not everyone will be buying the aluminium ones.


----------



## Scifitodd

John P said:


> Are the pod windows _not _transparent?


Yes the windows are clear, Jim added black tape to the underside because he didn't want to paint or glue them in.


----------



## Scifitodd

More Small Art Works out of the box photo's with no painting, only glue and exacto knife were used for this 22" eagle build........

https://www.facebook.com/2513608383...1360838378332/514405672073846/?type=3&theater


----------



## edge10

Really a beautiful kit. You all did a great job!


----------



## SUNGOD

Thank god about the windows. 

I know I bang on but I really think they should do those engine bells with a chrome finish. The people who want the aluminium bells will still buy them anyway as they offer that extra edge of authenticity and realism over the plastic ones but the people who won't be buying them will have a bit of a job getting the engine bells to look anywhere near what they look like on the show otherwise.

I'll be buying at least 1 set of the aluminium ones but not everyone can afford the aluminium bells especially if they're making a few Eagles.


----------



## Trek Ace

That's why the great spirit made Alclad.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Thank god about the windows.
> 
> I know I bang on but I really think they should do those engine bells with a chrome finish. The people who want the aluminium bells will still buy them anyway as they offer that extra edge of authenticity and realism over the plastic ones but the people who won't be buying them will have a bit of a job getting the engine bells to look anywhere near what they look like on the show otherwise.
> 
> I'll be buying at least 1 set of the aluminium ones but not everyone can afford the aluminium bells especially if they're making a few Eagles.


I don't disagree about chrome per se, but the way they broke down the parts onto the sprue pretty much prevents that from being possible. Besides which, given how SOMETHING always gets screwed up at the Chinese factory, would you really want that chance of getting thick, poorly plated chrome on the nicely detailed parts? Then you have to strip it and apply your own finish anyway! 

But as many have said, there's a number of solutions that will look good.


----------



## Paulbo

mhvink said:


> And why is there a cameo of Robot B-2 from Lost In Space on there?


Because it's a built model of B-_*9*_ sitting on the bench where the photograph was taken? :wave:


----------



## f1steph

BWolfe said:


> Yet there are rectangular depressions in the roof of the passenger pod set that roughly correspond to the exterior "windows" of the passenger pod as can be seen in this image.


That's another exemple that the scale models builders were not talking to the on set builders. On the Eagles, the windows were simply painted flat black, not tinted black like it would be logic to be.


----------



## Steve H

f1steph said:


> That's another exemple that the scale models builders were not talking to the on set builders. On the Eagles, the windows were simply painted flat black, not tinted black like it would be logic to be.


But the problem is, if you really take it to complete reality, those windows on the passenger pod should be SHINING because that interior was lit fairly well. 

There clearly was some disconnect in understanding and communicating design choices and reasoning


----------



## f1steph

Steve H said:


> But the problem is, if you really take it to complete reality, those windows on the passenger pod should be SHINING because that interior was lit fairly well.
> 
> There clearly was some disconnect in understanding and communicating design choices and reasoning


Yes indeed, install clear tinted windows and put inside a dimmed light and you'll get what is should be like in the real world. But on the other hand, the Eagle as seen in S:99 is a big very nice nonsense. NASA would have a big and complicated project if they would have to built that type of craft. Imagine, the Lunar Module was the first real spacecraft and it was a fantastic , ultra complicated project to built, using a variable-thrust rocket single engine for the descent stage. A rocket engine works on-off, until there's no more fuel. Some say that it was the most complicated component to built during the Apollo program. The Eagle on S:99 has 4 main variable engines plus 8 small variable engines for the VTOL, without fuel tanks to feed them...... But that's sci-fi, doesn't mean that it can be really built. It makes us dream and makes us built models of those nice ships.... 
steph


----------



## Steve H

f1steph said:


> Yes indeed, install clear tinted windows and put inside a dimmed light and you'll get what is should be like in the real world. But on the other hand, the Eagle as seen in S:99 is a big very nice nonsense. NASA would have a big and complicated project if they would have to built that type of craft. Imagine, the Lunar Module was the first real spacecraft and it was a fantastic , ultra complicated project to built, using a variable-thrust rocket single engine for the descent stage. A rocket engine works on-off, until there's no more fuel. Some say that it was the most complicated component to built during the Apollo program. The Eagle on S:99 has 4 main variable engines plus 8 small variable engines for the VTOL, without fuel tanks to feed them...... But that's sci-fi, doesn't mean that it can be really built. It makes us dream and makes us built models of those nice ships....
> steph



Oh, believe me, I've read tons about the LEM nee LM, and it's an astonishing feat of engineering. Frankly, it's almost impossible to imagine how they got that to work with '60s technology and '50s materials and techniques. (I mean, taken as a whole, right?)

It's what makes the story of Apollo 13 so impressive. Everything worked so well, so past the design specs, even the fact that the LM landing motor could indeed be restarted after use (there was serious question about that at the time) to correct the stack's course. 

Impressive for a vehicle with walls so thin you could rip it open with a common ball point pen, or a hard kick. 

But the most impressive part is probably how the Grumman engineers were able to free themselves of 'conventional wisdom', like how the LM originally 'needed' seats and giant windows. As you say, the first manned vehicle designed to be operated only in space. 

Now, obviously, while the Eagle may have been designed as a space-only vehicle (conceptually, like the Aries lunar shuttle, a station to moon deal) the production quickly decided it had re-entry and atmospheric ability, and it was powered by Atomic something or other that negated huge fuel tanks. 

It would be interesting to develop a 'planetary lander' pod, keep the idea that the Eagle is, indeed, space only and have something that's like a passenger pod with retracting wings, a cockpit and so on that would detach, land, explore, return. 

Nawwww, never happen. We gots to live with what was on TV.


----------



## f1steph

Yeah, the LM walls were indeed very thin. If I was inside the LM while in space, I would always be wearing my helmet and wouln'd do like Wally Schira did on the flight of Apollo 7 and start a war with Houston about not wearing my helmet (he had a cold and was sneezing). Gene Kranz mentionned one time that NASA were very lucky that they actually never lost an astronaut during a mission (Chaffy,Grissom and White died during Apollo 1 but they were testing the systems and they were on the ground). Like you say, 1960's technologies were so limited that during every liftoff, they were on a very thin line and the only time they passed it was during Apollo 13. Imagine, the engine installed on the LM ascent stage couldn't be tested before the flight, because once it fired, it was scrapped because of the corrosive fuel used, a Kleenex type of engine. So everytime they were about to leave the Moon surface, everybody was praying at Bell and Houston.

Ya know, the ancestor, if we can call it like that, of the Eagle was the Moonbus. Brian Johnson mentioned that in a docu. The Moonbus is one of my favorite ''almost real'' spacecraft, same as the S:99 Eagle. But again , the propulsion system is not so real. You mention an atomic propulsion system for the Eagle, I guess that the same can apply to the Moonbus. But this can simply be impossible because of the need of a protective barrier to protect the passengers from radiation. It was the main problem for a plane that never flew, the Atomic bomber. The shielding was so heavy that it was impossible to fit it inside the plane...... 

Creating a plane-spacecraft today that can fly in the atmosphere and also maneuver in space and not for only 10 seconds is not gonna happed in our lifetime.
Steph


----------



## The_Engineer

Over the years, the exterior Passenger pod "windows" were labeled as 'solar panels'. The interior "windows" on the set were shown as light panels - which makes since. I've heard the argument that they were suppose to be windows, but I don't buy it. Even standing up (in the dropped floor), you can't really see out as they are too high. They were be more like skylights, but the purpose of skylights is to have sunlight coming in to help light up the room - useless on the Passenger pod. If these are suppose to be windows, they are as practical as the cheesy window on the ceiling of the Enterprise-D bridge. 

if the Eagle was suppose to have a nuclear reactor to power the engines, wouldn't it make more sense for the reactor to be fusion not fission?


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Since we are talking about all the inaccuracies of the Eagle, in post #993 BWolfe show us a picture of two male Alphians sitting in the passenger pod of an Eagle. Behind them are stacks of cargo "crates", so here's my question: the two males are wearing seat belts, what will keep the crates from floating around the cabin once the Eagle leaves the moons gravity? Does the Eagle have its own gravity generator like the Moon Base had when they went through the black hole?

I wouldn't want those things behind my head if Alan Carter was my pilot.


----------



## Steve H

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Since we are talking about all the inaccuracies of the Eagle, in post #993 BWolfe show us a picture of two male Alphians sitting in the passenger pod of an Eagle. Behind them are stacks of cargo "crates", so here's my question: the two males are wearing seat belts, what will keep the crates from floating around the cabin once the Eagle leaves the moons gravity? Does the Eagle have its own gravity generator like the Moon Base had when they went through the black hole?
> 
> I wouldn't want those things behind my head if Alan Carter was my pilot.


Well, how can you have action and drama if you can't have stacked items fall over and fling about when some crisis happens? 

Here's the kind of thing I talk about when it comes to not thinking of implications. We see that the Eagles have artificial gravity. We hear about such on Moonbase as well. We see a 'gravity shield' be generated. 

Now, I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure if you have the ability to generate gravity, that's officially a Big Deal. There's all kinds of stuff you can do with generating gravity. It can be propulsion. It can be a weapon. It can be a perfect defense. Anything is possible.

And with the exception of that 'Black Sun' episode, they never make use of it. 

Mind, you can handwave all manner of limitations on why you can't, for example, make a gravity cannon, or put up a barrier that completely repels any kind of attack.


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> Oh, believe me, I've read tons about the LEM nee LM, and it's an astonishing feat of engineering. Frankly, it's almost impossible to imagine how they got that to work with '60s technology and '50s materials and techniques. (I mean, taken as a whole, right?)


I have no idea how true this is, but several years ago I was told by someone who was working within the *Space Shuttle program that one of the reasons we haven't gone back to the moon is because the current generation of engineers have looked at all of the designs, blueprints, and specs for the various Lunar Modules, and they can't figure out how they worked. :lol:



*The last company I worked for processed parts for ATK Thiokol (formerly Morton-Thiokol), particularly the components that comprised the "shell" of the solid rocket motors that were used to launch each and every Shuttle, so the "source" was considerably more reliable than the average conspiracy-theory-minded wingnut.


----------



## irishtrek

I always assumed the atomic power for the Eagles came from the 4 pods, each holding a small reactor like for the atomic bomber.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Zombie_61 said:


> *The last company I worked for processed parts for ATK Thiokol (formerly Morton-Thiokol), particularly the components that comprised the "shell" of the solid rocket motors that were used to launch each and every Shuttle, so the "source" was considerably more reliable than the average conspiracy-theory-minded wingnut.


You mean the company whose technical advice was ignored when they informed NASA that the "O" rings wouldn't withstand the cold when Challenger was lauched?


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Even with nuclear power, you still need lots of reaction mass to give you thrust. the nuke pile just gives lots of heat. You need to inject mass (like hydrogen) into the heated chamber where it expands, giving you rocket thrust.


----------



## jaws62666

SUNGOD said:


> The Space 1999 logo is possibly better but I think the Eagle logo takes up too much room and obscures the top of the Eagle.


This is not the final box art. Here is the finalbox art from Round 2:

http://culttvman.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/mpceaglebox22.jpg


----------



## robiwon

Well its a made up sci fi TV show from years ago with fictional ships that never existed. To me, they are going to be windows and the engines powered by marshmallows.....


----------



## John P

f1steph said:


> ...ultra complicated project to built, using a variable-thrust rocket single engine for the descent stage. A rocket engine works on-off, until there's no more fuel. Some say that it was the most complicated component to built during the Apollo program.


Liquid fuel rockets are perfectly throttleable. It's _solid_-fuel rockets that basically burn at full power until the fuel is used up.


----------



## Paulbo

The tough part with the Apollo engines was making the CSM main engine be able to be restarted in space for the return trajectory. Nobody'd done that before.

The response time and fineness of control for the LEM decent engine were also big hurdles to overcome.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> Liquid fuel rockets are perfectly throttleable. It's _solid_-fuel rockets that basically burn at full power until the fuel is used up.


This is true, but usually liquid fuel rockets are 'light and go' deals just like solid motors.

I don't think any of the launch vehicles other than the Saturn V and Shuttle... check that. No vehicles I can think of ever...no, darn it, so much stuff crowding in my head, the Saturn V third stage would be shut down until it was restarted for LOI. 

What I was going to say earlier was about throttling down the vehicle at Max Q then going back to full power, I don't think anything other than the Saturn V and Shuttle had to deal with that. Maybe the Saturn 1b but maybe not. 

And then there was the 'pogo' problem. 

man, it's true. You get old and stuff starts to pack together in your head.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> I don't disagree about chrome per se, but the way they broke down the parts onto the sprue pretty much prevents that from being possible. Besides which, given how SOMETHING always gets screwed up at the Chinese factory, would you really want that chance of getting thick, poorly plated chrome on the nicely detailed parts? Then you have to strip it and apply your own finish anyway!
> 
> But as many have said, there's a number of solutions that will look good.





I haven't seen all the parts layout but chrome is usually much better these days (unless it's on Revells Snap Tite trucks.


----------



## RB

Following this line, Cult has a preorder up for the second Accessory Set, this time featuring the 16 smaller metal thrusters for the four side pods:

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space1...-2MPC--2695--PREORDER-RESERVATION_p_3356.html


----------



## Zombie_61

Owen E Oulton said:


> You mean the company whose technical advice was ignored when they informed NASA that the "O" rings wouldn't withstand the cold when Challenger was lauched?


To some degree, yes. Without going into too much detail, NASA and Thiokol knew there was a design flaw in the way the various segments of the SRBs attached to each other that had the potential to cause the very event that destroyed Challenger, and they were in the process of changing the design when that potential became a reality.

The real problem was that the decision to launch Challenger on January 28, 1986, had far more to do with politics and money than it did with science, technology, and/or safety. Thiokol had promised *more missions than their shuttles proved to be capable of, so NASA was constantly behind on their mission schedule. And because the shuttles were so expensive to maintain and operate, the program was in constant danger of losing their government funding--no bucks, no Buck Rogers. And this is where politics come into play. Then-President Reagan was scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address on the evening of January 28th. If Challenger launched, it would be mentioned in the address; if not, it wouldn't. And if it wasn't mentioned, it was almost certain that the government would cancel the Shuttle program. So with that much money and the future of space exploration hanging in the balance, those responsible for deciding whether or not Challenger would launch that morning had a lot of pressure on them to make sure it did. And because the advisers could not state with 100% certainty that launching Challenger on that morning would result in catastrophe, they chose to launch as scheduled despite the increased weather-related risks, and the rest is history.



*In fact, they rarely had two shuttles that were operational at the same time, and often took parts off of whichever shuttle had just returned to put them on the shuttle being prepared for the next mission.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Zombie_61 said:


> The real problem was that the decision to launch Challenger on January 28, 1986, had far more to do with politics and money than it did with science, technology, and/or safety.


I was in college when Challenger blew up and followed the space program as closely as 1980s media technology allowed -- which is to say broadcast TV news reports, newspapers and magazines (real ones). The media was covering the Challenger launch very closely because of the first teacher in space. The launch had been scrubbed a few times before January 28th, at least one time with the crew sitting inside the orbiter on the pad. I specifically remember several TV news stories prior to the disaster dismissively pointing out that the shuttle was promised to usher in airline-like routine access to space. So of course there were quips about NASA being embarrassed about flight delays. So the pressure wasn't just coming from politicians (who always have plausible deniability in these sorts of things), but from the media.


----------



## seaQuest

Apollo's re-startable Service Propulsion System engine was very simple in design and execution. With the development of advanced hypergolic fuels, the engine had a minimal amount of moving parts and didn't need an ignition source.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Apollo's re-startable Service Propulsion System engine was very simple in design and execution. With the development of advanced hypergolic fuels, the engine had a minimal amount of moving parts and didn't need an ignition source.


Very true, and I did forget to consider that in the whole 'restartable/throttled' engine discussion. But Von Braun would consider the SM to be the 4th stage of the Saturn V stack, and I'm pretty sure the Service Module was built a bit more robust than the LM. As I think about it as I type, if the SM had been as delicate as the LM, that O2 tank explosion would have completely shredded the SM and bleah, really bad day.

In normal use the LM Descent Engine wouldn't be restarted. I know there was some thought that in future missions a 'block' revision of the vehicle may have called for a restart to move the LM to another location, and it's too bad none of those plans came to be.


----------



## Zombie_61

Hunk A Junk said:


> ...So the pressure wasn't just coming from politicians (who always have plausible deniability in these sorts of things), but from the media.


Very true, especially considering most of the general public felt the space program was a waste of money that could be better spent in an effort to solve or eliminate problems here on Earth. Yeah, right.


----------



## John P

Zombie_61 said:


> Very true, especially considering most of the general public felt the space program was a waste of money that could be better spent in an effort to solve or eliminate problems here on Earth. Yeah, right.


My answer to people who say that has always been:_ Okay, what's your plan to solve those problems? 'Cause people have been trying to solve them since civilization began, and if we wait 'till they're solved, we'll never get anything else done. Meanwhile, why not do both things?

_Of course here we are now, not getting any of those things solved, and not doing the other thing either. :/


----------



## Bugfood

*cough* Eagle *cough*

*BF*


----------



## Richard Baker

John P said:


> My answer to people who say that has always been:_ Okay, what's your plan to solve those problems? 'Cause people have been trying to solve them since civilization began, and if we wait 'till they're solved, we'll never get anything else done. Meanwhile, why not do both things?
> 
> _Of course here we are now, not getting any of those things solves, and not doing the other thing either. :/


Plus a large portion of what makes our modern life 'cool' and convenient had it's beginnings in the space program.
Just because there is not an obvious A=>B does not mean what has raised our standard of living and given us the tools and toys we depend on for daily functions was a useless waste of time and money.


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

I will be also selling the 1/48 scale The Bringers of Wonder Alien creature.
Price will be $10.00 for 2 creatures + $5.00 shipping.
To order email me at [email protected] thanks! :thumbsup:

:wave:


----------



## irocer

Ok so when does this show up? Will we see it before Christmas?


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

I am molding the master up today.
So next week I will have kits to sell.

:thumbsup:


----------



## seaQuest

irocer said:


> Ok so when does this show up? Will we see it before Christmas?



I think he meant the actual R2 kit, not your Bringers of Wonder creatures.
Realistically, I would think January. The second test shots were delivered a couple weeks ago with fixes gleaned from the first test shots. By the time it goes into production, and taking into account the slow boat from China, I think January is realistic. But I HOPE for before Christmas.


----------



## electric indigo

Zombie_61 said:


> I have no idea how true this is, but several years ago I was told by someone who was working within the *Space Shuttle program that one of the reasons we haven't gone back to the moon is because the current generation of engineers have looked at all of the designs, blueprints, and specs for the various Lunar Modules, and they can't figure out how they worked. :lol:


Time to bring in the Up Goer Five :hat:


----------



## irocer

yeah I was asking about the Eagle's timeline- sorry to confuse Larson. Would be nice by Christmas but will be good whenever it shows.


----------



## irishtrek

I think it's due out some time this month. I think.


----------



## RB

It's been pushed back to December according to Cult, with the metal parts sets due in January. Although he did note that expect some of the dates to slide. R2 REALLY wants to get the kit out before the end of the year, so, fingers crossed...

http://culttvman.com/main/eagle-box-art-and-updates-from-round-2/


----------



## SUNGOD

It's amazing though. You'd think companies would plan these things so they can be released in plenty of time for Christmas.


----------



## Fozzie

SUNGOD said:


> It's amazing though. You'd think companies would plan these things so they can be released in plenty of time for Christmas.


I'm sure they do, but there are a lot of things which can delay it. For instance, what flaws show up in the test shots that have to be fixed? How many test shots are required to get it right? How long is it held up in customs? Are there shipping delays? Many of these things are out of R2's direct control.


----------



## RB

SUNGOD said:


> It's amazing though. You'd think companies would plan these things so they can be released in plenty of time for Christmas.


Working through Chinese factories really seems to up the ante in terms of possible delays. Then with overseas shipping and customs on top of that...

It seems like development of the Eagle has been pretty charmed, largely due to the diligence and enthusiasm of those who did the R&D. Now were entering a time where it's out of their hands and into those to whom it's just another product. Fingers crossed that the kit's charmed life continues...


----------



## SUNGOD

Yes I suppose it's hard to judge things and things always crop up too.


----------



## Steve H

RB said:


> Working through Chinese factories really seems to up the ante in terms of possible delays. Then with overseas shipping and customs on top of that...
> 
> It seems like development of the Eagle has been pretty charmed, largely due to the diligence and enthusiasm of those who did the R&D. Now were entering a time where it's out of their hands and into those to whom it's just another product. Fingers crossed that the kit's charmed life continues...


Well, given what we saw with the development of the 1/350 Enterprise, maybe the somewhat simple, modular design of the Eagle ended up 'bulletproofing' the process. 

Think about it. if you subtract the numbers for duplicated parts (4 landing feet, 4 of this, 8 or that and so on) there's probably only about 30 individually sculpted parts, and from my perspective the only one difficult shape is the nose/command module. Everything else is just detail.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

_Think about it. if you subtract the numbers for duplicated parts (4 landing feet, 4 of this, 8 or that and so on) there's probably only about 30 individually sculpted parts, and from my perspective the only one difficult shape is the nose/command module. Everything else is just detail_

Less we forget about the intricate piping on the engines, yes the front and the back are the only two areas where parts are not duplicated multiple times.


----------



## Bugfood

If it's a choice between now and right, I'll take right every time. 

Christmas is an imaginary line in the sand. 

And watching the latter stages of the development of this kit, in particular, has been great. And fast!

It'll be here soon, as right as it can be made and - after 40 years - we can all wait a few more weeks. 

*BF*


----------



## seaQuest

According to Bwain No More, we shouldn't have this kit at all. Hecsaid in a thread on Moebius Models that a few people requested the Eagle kit several hundred times each and manipulated R2 into making this kit. When I told him this was the kit we deserve, he said that we'll "get what's coming to us." When I mentioned we'd been waiting 40 years for this kit, he told me we were loyal. Like being a Cubs fan or a Bill Cosby accuser. I'll admit, I lit into him, but his ego won't let him shut up.


----------



## seaQuest

If you look up the thread on the Moebius forum, it has to do with the Affleck Batmobile. And what I said to him wasn't pretty; I lost it on him.


----------



## John P

Down, boy. Don't bring crap between forums.


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> Down, boy. Don't bring crap between forums.


I'm done. I just hope Jim Small goes to that thread and lays into Bwain. He thinks he's the biggest fish in a small pond, and needs Jim to sort him out.
But that's none of my business. (*sips tea*)


----------



## seaQuest

By the way, John, I find it interesting that you only talk to me when I'm pissed off.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> By the way, John, I find it interesting that you only talk to me when I'm pissed off.


Hey hey hey, come on now, it's all cool. 

Sometimes people chime in to agree, some times people chime in to either educate or just flap their jaws, and sometimes people don't say anything unless they feel they're bringing something substantive to the discussion. 

I mean, unless you subscribe to the "The only thing worse than being talked about is NOT being talked about" school of thought.


----------



## fluke

Here here! Well put.


----------



## John P

seaQuest said:


> By the way, John, I find it interesting that you only talk to me when I'm pissed off.


Really? I honestly hadn't noticed. I rarely even notice who I _am _talking to, I usually just respond to post content. I only chimed in now to try to calm things down.


----------



## Bwain no more

seaQuest said:


> I'm done. I just hope Jim Small goes to that thread and lays into Bwain. He thinks he's the biggest fish in a small pond, and needs Jim to sort him out.
> But that's none of my business. (*sips tea*)


IF Jim comes to sort me out, and IF we exchange replies (two VERY big ifs), I suppose that would give me the opportunity to have the BIGGEST voice in a SMALL conversation (*sips chocolate milk*)
Tom


----------



## robiwon

Wow, really guys? Can we act like grown ups and not kids on this forum anymore? Do we really need the constant sarcasm and profanity?


----------



## Buc

"Can we act like grown ups and not kids"

hahaha... are you lost? ... did you walk INTO the closet and
come out in some weird alter-world forum?


----------



## KUROK

I'm sure it will sell well. Perhaps they based it on sales of the re-issue of the old MPC Eagle kit. They might assume many who bought that will buy the new one, even with the higher price point.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Wow, really guys? Can we act like grown ups and not kids on this forum anymore? Do we really need the constant sarcasm and profanity?


 I don't know, DO we? Hmmmmmm? 

(sorry, you're right of course, and obvious audio sarcasm doesn't ever translate well into print. If you read the above in Michael Palin's voice it's way more funny.  )


----------



## Bwain no more

And if you read it in SARAH Palin's voice...well it still makes MORE sense than most of what she says, 
I LOVE this place!
Tom


----------



## Bugfood

So: Eagle.

Big kit.

Very accurate.

Affordable for the size.

Here soon.

Looking forward. Etc.

*BF*


----------



## Trek Ace

I used to like this thread.


----------



## RB

Trek Ace said:


> I used to like this thread.


Hang in there Trek Ace, you'll like it again. This won't last forever.


----------



## Fozzie

Trying to get this thread back on track...who's planning on a regular freighter paint job vs a rescue or VIP Eagle paint job?

Since I already have a plain freighter in that size (the 22" Product Enterprises Eagle), I'm going to give mine the red stripe treatment.


----------



## RB

Fozzie said:


> Trying to get this thread back on track...who's planning on a regular freighter paint job vs a rescue or VIP Eagle paint job?
> 
> Since I already have a plain freighter in that size (the 22" Product Enterprises Eagle), I'm going to give mine the red stripe treatment.


I have the 22" PE Eagle too. It's going to be interesting seeing those two side-by-side. Pretty sure the R2 is going to kick-ass next to the PE. Myself, that first R2 kit is going to be a standard Eagle. Start with the classics, then the variants. Originally I was going to initially buy 6, but with xmas coming up I'm going to keep it to two, at least till next year. With the additional metal accessories, two Eagles kits with (wait for it) all the bells and whistles will come to just over $450.00 or so. It'll be interesting how folks do with the Alclads and such when it comes to the bells. Nothing beats real metal, but cost-wise paint makes more sense.


----------



## robiwon

Not sure how I'll paint mine. I'm working on an RU23 Eagle right now and haven't decided on the pod color. Whatever I do with it I'll do the opposite with the R2.


----------



## mach7

My 1st one will be a standard eagle with all plastic parts. 

After that I'll evaluate my future options.


----------



## ClubTepes

Fozzie said:


> Trying to get this thread back on track...who's planning on a regular freighter paint job vs a rescue or VIP Eagle paint job?
> 
> Since I already have a plain freighter in that size (the 22" Product Enterprises Eagle), I'm going to give mine the red stripe treatment.


I was thinking Israeli Desert Camo.


----------



## John P

ClubTepes said:


> I was thinking Israeli Desert Camo.


I like it!


----------



## Steve H

ClubTepes said:


> I was thinking Israeli Desert Camo.


Gee, seems to me that would make it....

A DESERT EAGLE


----------



## robiwon

Steve H said:


> Gee, seems to me that would make it....
> 
> A DESERT EAGLE


Oh a desert camof.....wait a minute....


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Oh a desert camof.....wait a minute....


I think I did, I think HE did, do I win the internet cookie?


----------



## Xenodyssey

I want to build a standard Transporter Eagle...But later on I want to obtain or build additional pods, ie Survey Eagle or transporter and interchange them.

Hopefully Round 2 will in the future provide the passenger pod as a separate purchase. Or even customized versions.


----------



## RB

Xenodyssey said:


> I want to build a standard Transporter Eagle...But later on I want to obtain or build additional pods, ie Survey Eagle or transporter and interchange them.
> 
> Hopefully Round 2 will in the future provide the passenger pod as a separate purchase. Or even customized versions.


I think Jamie said that the various pods will only be sold along with the actual Eagle kit, no sale of pods by themselves.


----------



## Richard Baker

RB said:


> I think Jamie said that the various pods will only be sold along with the actual Eagle kit, no sale of pods by themselves.


That's a shame- many people will buy only one Eagle but would buy additional pods for it. I think very few people would have enough money and space to but a fleet of Eagles to get all the pod variants...


----------



## SUNGOD

As long as they do all the pods in styrene (especially the Nuclear hazard pod) I don't really care.


----------



## BWolfe

RB said:


> I think Jamie said that the various pods will only be sold along with the actual Eagle kit, no sale of pods by themselves.


That really sucks, looks like I will be scratchbuilding the various pod variants since I cannot afford to buy a complete kit just to get the different pod. Hopefully he will re-think that idea since it is a stupid decision, right up there with selling the light kit for the C57-d only in a complete kit, forcing those of us who had already bought the model to either buy a new one or forget about the lighting.


----------



## Steve H

I think this is a needlessly risky direction for them to take, making new pods and needing you to buy an entire new Eagle kit to get it. I understand the business reason, this allows them to get more R.O.I. from the tooling and when you're talking something like the Product Enterprises 12" toy, OK, fair enough but we're talking a $100 or thereabouts kit. A big box with a big pricetag. 

SOME will be happy because the Year Two Eagle (aka 'science pod') is their favorite version. I mean, I assume that's the plan, that being the next in line. But if you do entire kits so you can have the waste disposal Eagle, the crane Eagle, the 'carry a nuke bomb' Eagle, the 'extra boosters and that glider' Eagle, sales are going to spiral down and down. 

I know that sometimes comments here do make their way to the powers that be. So, as a business model, as a decent R.O.I. scheme, selling the pods by themselves, or better as one complete kit, does make more sense because the accessory can help sell more of the main product. Retailers would be more willing to sell a Pods Box because it would likely have a lower pricepoint. The deal could be sweetened with things like including a moonbuggy, some spacesuit clad astronauts, heck, even 'damage' bits to replace stock kit parts as one wacky idea. 

Another idea could be, make the pods available from the online store. That way you don't need to really do more than a baggie and a header card. I'd buy that.


----------



## SUNGOD

What we must remember is.........the more money R2 make off these Eagles the more 99 kits we'll get. Nobody likes paying more for things but if R2 can make more money out of selling the whole thing and not separately then so be it.

Again the more successful these kits are the more other 99 stuff we'll get.


----------



## Trek Ace

There is no doubt going to be plenty of aftermarket accessories introduced for these new kits. I'm starting to see some of them available already.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> What we must remember is.........the more money R2 make off these Eagles the more 99 kits we'll get. Nobody likes paying more for things but if R2 can make more money out of selling the whole thing and not separately then so be it.
> 
> Again the more successful these kits are the more other 99 stuff we'll get.


Yeah, but there's diminishing returns as well. Realistically, all I would expect from R2 in future S:1999 kits would be:

1. 12" Eagle (new tool)

2. Moonbuggy (which may or may not be a Banana Splits ATV repop)

3. Prop kits of the stun gun and commlock. 

4. A launch pad diorama in 1/144 with a new Eagle

(that's in order of likelyhood, not preference.  )

I would consider getting 2 of the above 4 released a successful thing. Were I a betting man I'd put my money on a new-tool 12" Eagle, maybe adapted from the 22" kit's digital files. 

But basing a green light for any of that on being able to sell 3 or 4 other 22" Eagle variations, that's no bet. I think R2 can get one more kit out of it, then retailer fatigue will hit and hit hard. My opinion, keeping the original 22" kit in production and refreshing it by releasing new pod accessory kits is more cost effective and retailer friendly.

Hey, I'd buy the waste hauler platform by itself if it came with a laser tank.


----------



## RMC

*hawk*

what we really need is a 1/48 scale HAWK


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Yeah, but there's diminishing returns as well. Realistically, all I would expect from R2 in future S:1999 kits would be:
> 
> 1. 12" Eagle (new tool)
> 
> 2. Moonbuggy (which may or may not be a Banana Splits ATV repop)
> 
> 3. Prop kits of the stun gun and commlock.
> 
> 4. A launch pad diorama in 1/144 with a new Eagle
> 
> (that's in order of likelyhood, not preference.  )
> 
> I would consider getting 2 of the above 4 released a successful thing. Were I a betting man I'd put my money on a new-tool 12" Eagle, maybe adapted from the 22" kit's digital files.
> 
> But basing a green light for any of that on being able to sell 3 or 4 other 22" Eagle variations, that's no bet. I think R2 can get one more kit out of it, then retailer fatigue will hit and hit hard. My opinion, keeping the original 22" kit in production and refreshing it by releasing new pod accessory kits is more cost effective and retailer friendly.
> 
> Hey, I'd buy the waste hauler platform by itself if it came with a laser tank.





Don't forget they had a survey with a 1/48th Hawk and Ultra probe too. I think those would sell but I can't see them doing a gun or comlock. I think it's the vehicles/ships people want.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Don't forget they had a survey with a 1/48th Hawk and Ultra probe too. I think those would sell but I can't see them doing a gun or comlock. I think it's the vehicles/ships people want.


Hawk makes sense, I fear a kit of the Ultra Probe is just too darn obscure for the 'casual fan' market. I know, in this day and age of limited retail exposure trying to grab the 'casual' fan seems like a waste of time but it's something that is desirable.

Prop kits can do well. I seem to be under the impression that the 'Galaxy Quest' prop set is a decent seller and THAT'S niche enough to be encouraging. I'm pretty sure the S:1999 community would support high quality and affordable plastic kits of the two key props from the show. 

(Don't judge by the re-pop of the AMT Exploration Set, that's just a horrible collection of off-scale crap that exists just for nostalgia value)

Lord knows Diamond Select Toys/Art Asylum sure isn't gonna touch them. 

Hmmm, aftermarket 'sound and lights' chip for the Stun Gun with today's super bright LEDs... someone using cell phone tech or bootleg iPod guts to make a truly working Commlock...yeah, I could see some of our friends going hog wild here. 

Can you imagine a Commlock with a fully functioning cell phone inside? That would rock.


----------



## John P

RMC said:


> what we really need is a 1/48 scale HAWK


Amen to that! It's smaller, so it'll be cheaper, and I can buy a case for kitbashing.  40 years ago I kitbashed a larger exploration vehicle out of 4 MPC Hawks. I'd love to do it again bigger.


----------



## Scifitodd

Jamie's blog update will knock your socks off. 

http://www.collectormodel.com/round...2-eagle-update/#sthash.0adw42tw.4H1KlLSZ.dpbs


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Hawk makes sense, I fear a kit of the Ultra Probe is just too darn obscure for the 'casual fan' market. I know, in this day and age of limited retail exposure trying to grab the 'casual' fan seems like a waste of time but it's something that is desirable.
> 
> Prop kits can do well. I seem to be under the impression that the 'Galaxy Quest' prop set is a decent seller and THAT'S niche enough to be encouraging. I'm pretty sure the S:1999 community would support high quality and affordable plastic kits of the two key props from the show.
> 
> (Don't judge by the re-pop of the AMT Exploration Set, that's just a horrible collection of off-scale crap that exists just for nostalgia value)
> 
> Lord knows Diamond Select Toys/Art Asylum sure isn't gonna touch them.
> 
> Hmmm, aftermarket 'sound and lights' chip for the Stun Gun with today's super bright LEDs... someone using cell phone tech or bootleg iPod guts to make a truly working Commlock...yeah, I could see some of our friends going hog wild here.
> 
> Can you imagine a Commlock with a fully functioning cell phone inside? That would rock.





Yes but I don't think it's going to be the casual fan market buying these. It'll mainly be Eagle and Space 1999 fans. And seeing as the Ultra probe is part Eagle I have a hard time believing that most Eagle/99 fans wouldn't buy that too.


----------



## Steve H

Decals are pretty, but are they missing a pair of 'anti glare' panels? I figure each 'quadrant' needs 2, plus the lower 'not windows' need 2 for a total of 10, I see 8 decals. Either it's missing two of the 'big wedge' or it's missing the panels for the 'not windows'. If the goal was display out of the box with no painting and just decals, something went missing.


----------



## robn1

The anti-glare panels are all there, the only thing missing would be the two lower windows. But in Jim's unpainted build up it looks like it has clear windows.

This is looking great! Too bad about the Cartograph decals, think I'll leave them off of mine until the Cartographs become available.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Decals are pretty, but are they missing a pair of 'anti glare' panels? I figure each 'quadrant' needs 2, plus the lower 'not windows' need 2 for a total of 10, I see 8 decals. Either it's missing two of the 'big wedge' or it's missing the panels for the 'not windows'. If the goal was display out of the box with no painting and just decals, something went missing.


Two of the windows will be clear styrene! So they are all accounted for! :thumbsup:


----------



## robn1

Like I said it looks like all four are clear.


----------



## Scifitodd

robn1 said:


> Like I said it looks like all four are clear.


Yes, see this photo shows the bottom clear also!


----------



## Steve H

but the bottom two aren't supposed to be clear. That means there should be decals to black them out. 

Or have the last 40 years been a lie?


----------



## RB

Steve H said:


> but the bottom two aren't supposed to be clear. That means there should be decals to black them out.
> 
> Or have the last 40 years been a lie?


There are photos of the filming model that show that, yes, the bottom windows were clear as well...remember it's a model of the filming model (like anyone would have to remind you!)


----------



## robn1

RB said:


> There are photos of the filming model that show that, yes, the bottom windows were clear as well...remember it's a model of the filming model (like anyone would have to remind you!)


Yup.


----------



## Bugfood

...and - alternatively - you can just paint 'em black. 

Cos, studio model reproduction or not, to leave em clear makes no sense. 

Probably. 

Sooooo looking forward to getting my hands on this plastic dream :thumbsup:

*BF*


----------



## Richard Baker

The lower windows do make sense to aid in landing, just like the clear nose & floor panels in helicopters (the Blade Runner Spinner also had them).


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Is there any direct evidence in the show (and I'm sure someone here has watched every single episode) that the bottom cockpit windows _couldn't_ be clear? Sure, we never see them being used to aid in landing (as far as I know), but did we ever see the cockpit floor by the pilots' feet? Could there have been glass there (fictionally speaking, of course) and we just never saw it on camera?


----------



## Steve H

I am going to paraphrase from Blazing Saddles:

"Are we awake?"

"we are not sure. Are the lower panels...clear?"

"Yes they are"

"Then we are awake, but we are very confused"

I do not EVER recall seeing them clear in the show. Ever. Every single shot that shows all four 'panels' have the underside two black. Not just 'in shadow' dark but black like the anti-glare paint. 

I don't buy the 'so they can see to land' excuse because the cockpit interior as designed and seen doesn't allow for that in any way. Recall, the cockpit seats are dentist's chairs, legs stretched out. 

I mean, look, that picture, I see it with my own eyes, I can see the finish and detailing around the clear parts that seems to indicate that's original and real and not some artifact of restoration, it just plain doesn't make any sense. Fair enough?


----------



## robiwon

If people don't want them clear, and there are no decals for them, paint them black! We don't have to build the kit the way R2 gives it to us.....were modelers....


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Steve H said:


> I am going to paraphrase from Blazing Saddles:
> 
> I do not EVER recall seeing them clear in the show. Ever. Every single shot that shows all four 'panels' have the underside two black. Not just 'in shadow' dark but black like the anti-glare paint.


True, but there IS wiggle room for someone to imagine they were blacked out glass. I'm not saying this is "right" or saying they _should_ be glass, but is there definitive 'no way they are glass because in Episode 5 of season 2 we see Koenig leaning his hand against it and they're definitely not glass' evidence? I'm just asking.



Steve H said:


> I don't buy the 'so they can see to land' excuse because the cockpit interior as designed and seen doesn't allow for that in any way. Recall, the cockpit seats are dentist's chairs, legs stretched out.


Yes, but the cockpit interior doesn't actually match the model exterior anyway. So why should anyone accept the impossible geometry of the set vs. exterior but draw a thick thin in the sand over the possibility of glass on the lower windows? Again, I'm not saying it should be one or the other, but, c'mon, it's a fictional spaceship.

I love a nerd pie fight!


----------



## Steve H

I can give this much credence to the 'underside plates are supposed to be clear windows' argument. 

when they plopped those 1/24 scale Revell Gemini astronaut figures in the cockpit, they chopped off their legs at roughly knee level. I long wondered about that, because they didn't seem to be so close to the windows that the legs would get in the way, nor was it an attempt to mirror the posture of the live action set, with actors on the dentist's chair seating. 

NOW I wonder if the legs were chopped off because they would have shown in the lower 'windows'. 

But it still doesn't make sense. If the cockpit is lit you'd see light thru that lower window. 

But then AGAIN the only time we really see a command module shot with people visible (live footage matted in ala 2001 A Space Odyssey) it's shot from above the centerline so we don't see the bottom, all other times it's black above and below.

Altho on TV there does seem to be a visible frame around the top area and the lower seems, SEEMS black overall. 

arrggh. I feel like Ro-Man now.


----------



## The_Engineer

I have always taken that the bottom 2 'windows' weren't really windows they were just there for symmetry. It wasn't until a few years ago I heard about the theory that they were windows to aid the pilots in landing the eagle. I never really bought that as the bottom windows didn't appear to be seen in the interior set. However, someone awhile back came up with theory that the bottom windows were covers for sensors and/or video cameras. I really like that explanation.


----------



## SUNGOD

Paint the inside of them black. That way you can have them looking black but also like tinted windows too.


----------



## Bugfood

I've just made a bet with my cat that the 'Windows / not Windows' discussion can run for at least another 2 pages. 

I go with not glass. Why would you put extra glass in a space vehicle? Plus: feet and equipment cover the whole shebang. 

Next, some one'll suggest that the silver sensory domes on the CM are actually pop-out wing mirrors. You know for, like, reversing in space. 

It's a spacecraft. Not a Ford Anglia!


*BF*


----------



## Richard Baker

Considering you cannot see any of the cockpit windows, upper or lower in the interior sets and the entire cockpit cannot fit into the geometry of the outer shell anyway, just build it like you want.
I am glad we are being given glass as an option for the ones down below - iy people don't want it that want it is an easy enough fix.

For me having four windows adds some unusual spice to the traditional eye level window scheme so common these days.


----------



## jfleisher

Maybe the windows are clear, but can be electronically tinted dark somehow (polarized?). Then they can be both ways, and they get turned clear for landing.


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> I have always taken that the bottom 2 'windows' weren't really windows they were just there for symmetry. It wasn't until a few years ago I heard about the theory that they were windows to aid the pilots in landing the eagle. I never really bought that as the bottom windows didn't appear to be seen in the interior set. However, someone awhile back came up with theory that the bottom windows were covers for sensors and/or video cameras. I really like that explanation.


Given the modular nature of the Eagle, it does make some sense for fabrication purposes that the bottom mirrors the top of the command module. I'm sure I'm not the only person to suggest that the lower 'window area' are energy transparent for various sensors, cameras, radar and so on. 

I'm still kind of boggling over the lower glass. It would ease my mind somewhat if there were some kind, ANY kind of verified documentation that all the 44" Eagles had that. 

I mean, that's not just a random feature. When the miniature was built SOMEONE decided that it needed glass top and bottom, but whatever plans there were for that, like so much in S:1999, failed to get communicated and implemented in live action filming. If all three 44" miniatures have this, it's clearly (ha! sorry) intentional, if the other two don't have it, it seems like it was an idea that didn't pan out and can be considered 'not real'. 

I just did a quick review of the video from the gentleman who has the first 44" Eagle (should still be on YouTube as Space 1999 Original Eagle 1 model), and watched real careful as he took apart the command module. I can clearly (there I go again, sorry!) see the clear plastic on the lower openings from the inside, but I can't see thru them. As he turns the nose around and is describing details I can easily see thru the topside windows, but the lower ones are never tilted in a way to make it 100% if they were clear or painted over. 

What I can see, they look painted over. 

Bother.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Jamie's blog update will knock your socks off.
> 
> http://www.collectormodel.com/round...2-eagle-update/#sthash.0adw42tw.4H1KlLSZ.dpbs





Lookin great and it's nice to see they're paying attention to things like surface texture and sink marks. The packaging looks the business too.

My only real negative I've seen so far is the sprue attachments on the 4 landing pads. They look quite big and it's a shame they couldn't have been on the gluable part instead of right on the edges of the pads.


----------



## Steve H

Bugfood said:


> I've just made a bet with my cat that the 'Windows / not Windows' discussion can run for at least another 2 pages.
> 
> I go with not glass. Why would you put extra glass in a space vehicle? Plus: feet and equipment cover the whole shebang.
> 
> Next, some one'll suggest that the silver sensory domes on the CM are actually pop-out wing mirrors. You know for, like, reversing in space.
> 
> It's a spacecraft. Not a Ford Anglia!
> 
> 
> *BF*


Doin' my part!

Wait, which side of the bet does your cat have?


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> Given the modular nature of the Eagle, it does make some sense for fabrication purposes that the bottom mirrors the top of the command module. I'm sure I'm not the only person to suggest that the lower 'window area' are energy transparent for various sensors, cameras, radar and so on.
> 
> I'm still kind of boggling over the lower glass. It would ease my mind somewhat if there were some kind, ANY kind of verified documentation that all the 44" Eagles had that.
> 
> I mean, that's not just a random feature. When the miniature was built SOMEONE decided that it needed glass top and bottom, but whatever plans there were for that, like so much in S:1999, failed to get communicated and implemented in live action filming. If all three 44" miniatures have this, it's clearly (ha! sorry) intentional, if the other two don't have it, it seems like it was an idea that didn't pan out and can be considered 'not real'.
> 
> I just did a quick review of the video from the gentleman who has the first 44" Eagle (should still be on YouTube as Space 1999 Original Eagle 1 model), and watched real careful as he took apart the command module. I can clearly (there I go again, sorry!) see the clear plastic on the lower openings from the inside, but I can't see thru them. As he turns the nose around and is describing details I can easily see thru the topside windows, but the lower ones are never tilted in a way to make it 100% if they were clear or painted over.
> 
> What I can see, they look painted over.
> 
> Bother.


From Dave Sisson's article on the restoration of the 44 inch Eagle 1 Studio Model:
"However in this case the model was not in 'studio filmed condition', it had been through many peoples hands and had been fiddled with over the years; the paintwork was not original, for example the red bands on the Pod were a more recent addition as were the black window panels on the Beak and all the Alpha decals were new reproductions. So I would not really be losing anything original and could only improve it."
I wonder if he meant the two lower "windows" in the beak? The model pictured above in this thread is apparently Eagle 2 which was built at the same time as Eagle 1.
More information I turned up from Jim Small's coverage of the Dave Sisson restoration:
"The front section of the nosecone is moulded in clear perspex (split top & bottom) a thinner layer of the same material is also used to form the raised panelling and the inside has been sprayed black to prevent any interior illumination from leaking out. An interesting note is that the lower 'windows' have only been painted black on the outside, which would seem to indicate that the original model maker probably misinterpreted the blueprint and built the beak with four clear windows."
Interesting! So the model was built with 4 clear windows but the blueprint called for only two, that seems to answer that question.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe, part of the problem in this specific discussion is nomenclature. I would think that line "black window panels" to refer to what I call 'anti-glare' panels. I really don't know what to call the not-window spaces that are on the command module underside. I mean what would be a universal, intrinsically understandable name. 

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person somewhat gobsmacked by that photo a few replies up.


----------



## seaQuest

I gotz an ideer.
Howzabout somebody pop in a Series Two Blu-ray or DVD (depending on region) and look at the Eagle that flies by "overhead" in the second scene of the opening credits? If someone over across the pond in Ol' Blighty who has the new Series Two Blu-ray set, maybe they could post a screen grabof the Eagle's flyby?


----------



## SUNGOD

Afraid I've only got series 1.


----------



## rowdylex

There was only ONE series to my mind - series 2 was a complete mess. Classic example of studio meddling with the artists vision.


----------



## electric indigo

Reverse logic: If the lower windows are not supposed to be windows, the anti-glare paint would make no sense at all...


----------



## Steve H

electric indigo said:


> Reverse logic: If the lower windows are not supposed to be windows, the anti-glare paint would make no sense at all...


Aesthetics can be a factor. I recall the modified B-36 that was the test article for flying nuclear reactors, the hope being it would lead to a nuclear powered bomber for SAC, originally had the anti-glare panel conforming to just around the modified cockpit area, but it looked strange so they extended the anti-glare to blend with other decoration to be more visually pleasing.

If one subscribes to the idea that the Eagle anti-glare areas are actually some distinct material, pre-formed/pre-colored modular panels maybe (they do have a distinct border after all), it could be argued that they are used both top and bottom as a cost saving/manufacturing ease measure.


----------



## robn1

If the lower windows are for cameras and sensors, then anti-glare panels would make sense there.


----------



## Richard Baker

What puzzles me is if the two lower windows are not windows but in fact some sort of sensor bays, why duplicate the design of the upper ones needlessly? Those underneath cutouts greatly reduce the interior volume and the sensor gear would have to be behind them reducing the already too tight cockpit space a lot more.

Like the TOE-E bridge turbolift offset issue with the physical model and the interior sets not agreeing, what the lower cut outs are and how they are dealt with will be a matter of personal choice I think. Nice thing is that (along with the 1/350 TOS-E kit) we are being given the option to do with our build as we want.


----------



## Bugfood

Steve H said:


> Doin' my part!
> 
> Wait, which side of the bet does your cat have?


He's saying three or more pages: I'm saying two. Still in my safe zone for now! 

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

Just noticed a blog reply on the Round 2 site where Jamie indicates they are NOT considering separate sales of Eagle pods in the foreseeable future. 

He also says this on another fan fave subject: 

JamieH says:
November 18, 2015 at 9:52 am
"Laser tanks have been discussed, but no telling at the moment if/when we’ll get to do those."

*BF*


----------



## robiwon

How can people argue, excuse me, discuss, what these "areas' were designed for if they were never explained in the TV show? One persons view that they are windows is no less or better than one who says they are sensors, or merely aesthetics, or clearly designed for sniffing out vegetables while landed on an alien world. 

Point being, it's all made up, those black panels that look like black window panels is all made up, they can be what ever the modeler wants them to be.

Remember, there is no Beryllium Sphere....

Jason Nesmith: "You've seen plywood sets that look like the inside. Our beryllium sphere is... is wire with plaster around it. And our digital conveyor is... it's Christmas tree lights. It's a decoration. It's all fake."

They will be black on mine.


----------



## Bugfood

robiwon said:


> Remember, there is no Beryllium Sphere....


But there *were* multiple Beryllium Spheres. They went looking for and - more importantly - found them. On the Planet of the Mino(e)rs

So, there's that...

Just saying...

*BF*


----------



## Trek Ace

I frankly don't care the slightest what the original intent for the bottom 'windows' were. I'll light them if I want, paint them over if I want, or tint them if I want. I won't ask for a vote, consensus, opinion or permission from anyone else when I do so.
I will look over the available references, make a decision on how I want to proceed, and do it. It will be my model, built to please only me.


----------



## Bugfood

<Palpatine voice>

"Yes! Yesssssss! Good. Goooooooood..."

</Palpatine voice>

*BF*


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> How can people argue, excuse me, discuss, what these "areas' were designed for if they were never explained in the TV show? One persons view that they are windows is no less or better than one who says they are sensors, or merely aesthetics, or clearly designed for sniffing out vegetables while landed on an alien world.
> 
> Point being, it's all made up, those black panels that look like black window panels is all made up, they can be what ever the modeler wants them to be.
> 
> Remember, there is no Beryllium Sphere....
> 
> Jason Nesmith: "You've seen plywood sets that look like the inside. Our beryllium sphere is... is wire with plaster around it. And our digital conveyor is... it's Christmas tree lights. It's a decoration. It's all fake."
> 
> They will be black on mine.



*pffft*

They're clearly multi-purpose intakes.

In space, they act to scoop up interstellar hydrogen as fuel for the atomic motors. In atmosphere they scoop up air to burn.

They feed to tiny tiny pipes, running along the spine to the engines.

Tiny, tiny pipes.

TWO SCOOPS

What's that mother? Time for my medicine? Thank you, the room is all spinny and I smell toast, lovely toast...


----------



## robiwon

I like toast...


----------



## jheilman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHptn_3RyYE


----------



## edge10

Zim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ntiphuey8g


----------



## seaQuest

Laser beam emitters. Where are the laser beam emitters on the command module?
And the force shield around the CM in Ring Around The Moon? Where was it emitted from?
Somebody tell me!


----------



## seaQuest

rowdylex said:


> There was only ONE series to my mind - series 2 was a complete mess. Classic example of studio meddling with the artists vision.


You're missing the point, that being there's a damn good shot of the front lower CM in the opening credits of Series Two. Has nothing to do with the quality of Series Two as a whole. My comment wasn't meant to stir debate on the age-old "Series One vs. Series Two" argument.

Re-thinking my original Idea. The Metamorph is included on the Series One Blu-ray set, disc 5. Could somebody post a screen-cap of the Eagle from the aforementioned shot?


----------



## BWolfe

seaQuest said:


> You're missing the point, that being there's a damn good shot of the front lower CM in the opening credits of Series Two. Has nothing to do with the quality of Series Two as a whole. My comment wasn't meant to stir debate on the age-old "Series One vs. Series Two" argument.
> 
> Re-thinking my original Idea. The Metamorph is included on the Series One Blu-ray set, disc 5. Could somebody post a screen-cap of the Eagle from the aforementioned shot?


I don't have the capability of getting a blu-ray screengrab but looking at the still image, the lower "windows" are clearly blacked out. Used my digital camera to get an image directly from the screen, definitely blacked out.

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=1d28971ecffb99a9c327f1a031d7a36b&oe=56B159F1


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Richard Baker said:


> Like the TOE-E bridge turbolift offset issue with the physical model and the interior sets not agreeing....


Wait, how do they not agree? They totally agree. The turbolift fits inside the cylinder shaped external bump and the entire bridge is angles to the left. I don't see what the controversy is.

Oooooh, I see. For some reason the crew _must_ sit facing forward? On a faster than light starship where inertial dampers keep the crew from being smeared onto the walls like jelly if the ship even slightly changes direction? Where even if they sat facing backwards it wouldn't matter because they don't actually feel a sense of movement except when the ship gets knocked about in battle?

Hmmm... Nope, not seeing the controversy.

:hat:

Now that I've lit that fuse, I'm going to skip away for cover and watch this sucker blow. :tongue:


----------



## The_Engineer

seaQuest said:


> Laser beam emitters. Where are the laser beam emitters on the command module?
> And the force shield around the CM in Ring Around The Moon? Where was it emitted from?
> Somebody tell me!


I think the laser beam effect seem to come from the bottom window divider (whatever it's called) just forward of the bottom facing dish. It's one of those things where the model didn't have an exact spot for certain things and the effects people just pick a spot to add the effect to. This is what happen in TOS with the phaser banks and photon torpedo tube. When they did ST:TMP, they design the refit Enterprise to show exactly where the phaser beams and photon torpedoes came from.


----------



## John P

I think I'll leave those bottom windows clear, and put some faux sensors and camera lens-looking-things inside them.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

I don't usually pipe in on "discussions" like this but I came across a video on YouTube

I can't post a link to it but the clip is from a BBC Space: 1999 documentary called "Space: 1999 BBC Horizon Footage" 

Part way through video Brian Johnson is standing behind a large model of the Eagle. Around 1:23 there is a good close-up of the CM. You can see that the top windows are clear and the bottom "window" is blacked out with no hint of light behind it. 

Like most of people that are following this thread I can't wait for this kit to come out. We all know that a lot of research went into making this model and research is expensive. From what I can see so far it was money well spent. As for my build up, I would rather spend the money on more model and paint than the accessories that cost more than the model.


----------



## robn1

It seems some eagles had the windows blacked out, but some were clear as well. You can't go wrong either way.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Ok I'm doing something that I rarely do...... again....but this time I have a question, in all the research that was done did anybody think to ask Brian Johnson about the "windows" in the CM?

robn1, the pictures you posted are of two different Eagles. The first one shows off the unfinished inside of the CM, which is something i don't. The other shows a reflection of the non-glare paint which is the look I want for mine, although I do like the idea a laser beam emitter


----------



## SUNGOD

Interesting seeing these pics. I don't think I've seen any showing the bottom windows as clear before. Looks like R2 has done a good thing by making them clear.


----------



## SUNGOD

Bugfood said:


> Just noticed a blog reply on the Round 2 site where Jamie indicates they are NOT considering separate sales of Eagle pods in the foreseeable future.
> 
> He also says this on another fan fave subject:
> 
> JamieH says:
> November 18, 2015 at 9:52 am
> "Laser tanks have been discussed, but no telling at the moment if/when we’ll get to do those."
> 
> *BF*




I think they should definitely do a separate pod and cockpit detailing set though with accurate Alpha pilots and interior.


----------



## BWolfe

enterprise_fanatic said:


> I don't usually pipe in on "discussions" like this but I came across a video on YouTube
> 
> I can't post a link to it but the clip is from a BBC Space: 1999 documentary called "Space: 1999 BBC Horizon Footage"
> 
> Part way through video Brian Johnson is standing behind a large model of the Eagle. Around 1:23 there is a good close-up of the CM. You can see that the top windows are clear and the bottom "window" is blacked out with no hint of light behind it.
> 
> Like most of people that are following this thread I can't wait for this kit to come out. We all know that a lot of research went into making this model and research is expensive. From what I can see so far it was money well spent. As for my build up, I would rather spend the money on more model and paint than the accessories that cost more than the model.


Here is a screen grab from the youtube video, a close-up of the Eagle nose, looks like blacked out bottom windows to me.


----------



## seaQuest

BWolfe said:


> I don't have the capability of getting a blu-ray screengrab but looking at the still image, the lower "windows" are clearly blacked out. Used my digital camera to get an image directly from the screen, definitely blacked out.
> 
> https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=1d28971ecffb99a9c327f1a031d7a36b&oe=56B159F1


End of discussion.


----------



## seaQuest

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Ok I'm doing something that I rarely do...... again....but this time I have a question, in all the research that was done did anybody think to ask Brian Johnson about the "windows" in the CM?
> 
> robn1, the pictures you posted are of two different Eagles. The first one shows off the unfinished inside of the CM, which is something i don't. The other shows a reflection of the non-glare paint which is the look I want for mine, although I do like the idea a laser beam emitter


Nope, those are both photos of 44" Eagle #2.


----------



## edge10

seaQuest said:


> End of discussion.


End of what discussion? You know they had more than one Eagle model, right?

Here is a pic, that seems to show the same thing Robiwon's pic shows










Here is a great site for pics of the Eagles, make up your own mind:

http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2memenu.html


----------



## robiwon

You mean robn1? I didn't post any pics.


----------



## edge10

robiwon said:


> You mean robn1? I didn't post any pics.


 Of course, you are right. 

Aren't you suppose to be eating toast or something anyway?


----------



## Bugfood

Just FYI: my cat is currently gloating _in extremis_ over this whole windows 'discussion'...

*BF*


----------



## ClubTepes

FWIW:

I've always thought that they SHOULD be windows - regardless if they are depicted that way on the model or not.

Like in a helicopter, which has lower windows, so the pilot can look downward and see what he's maneuvering around.

Sure, people can claim in the future, its all electronic navigation etc. but just like Star Treks transporter, those things have a tendency to fail when you need them the most (or make for and interesting drama point).


----------



## robiwon

edge10 said:


> Of course, you are right.
> 
> Aren't you suppose to be eating toast or something anyway?


I like cats too.


----------



## fluke

Science Fiction is fun.
Here here for the modeler to do with the Eagle's cm
as they wish.....its obvious that the models and sets
do not make much sense for 'practical' flight needs.
Its going to be interesting to see what some come up 
with. Build on Garth!


----------



## seaQuest

edge10 said:


> End of what discussion? You know they had more than one Eagle model, right?
> 
> Here is a pic, that seems to show the same thing Robiwon's pic shows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a great site for pics of the Eagles, make up your own mind:
> 
> http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2memenu.html



I see blacked-out lower windows.
Yes, I know they had more than one model. 3 44", 2 22", 1 11", 1 5.5".I HOPE I should know, I was a consultant on Jace Hall's Space 2099 reboot.


----------



## edge10

Then you need to get your eyes examined.


----------



## RB

You know, most of the time the _upper_ windows were blacked out too...it was actually something of a rarity to see inside the CM at all.


----------



## Steve H

RB said:


> You know, most of the time the _upper_ windows were blacked out too...it was actually something of a rarity to see inside the CM at all.


That's true. I suspect most times that's the 22" miniature, but I could be wrong. Heck, it would be easy enough to cut some construction paper to mask the upper windows on the 44" miniature and tack that on with a little rubber cement, so they could peel it off when they wanted to use the lights to register the superimposing of live actor footage. 

altho, wait, they didn't do it like that, they did it like 2001 where they shot a high contrast photo and worked it on an animation stand. So, huh.


----------



## seaQuest

edge10 said:


> Then you need to get your eyes examined.


I pinch-and-zoomed as far as my Android phone will allow. Still see blacked-out windows.
Don't tell me to look at the pics on a computer, I don't use them anymore.


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> That's true. I suspect most times that's the 22" miniature, but I could be wrong. Heck, it would be easy enough to cut some construction paper to mask the upper windows on the 44" miniature and tack that on with a little rubber cement, so they could peel it off when they wanted to use the lights to register the superimposing of live actor footage.
> 
> altho, wait, they didn't do it like that, they did it like 2001 where they shot a high contrast photo and worked it on an animation stand. So, huh.


Steve, that was a photographic blow-up in front of the cockpit set. Forced perspective.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Steve, that was a photographic blow-up in front of the cockpit set. Forced perspective.


Even cheaper and faster!


----------



## robiwon

The delay is fine with me, I'm still working on my RU23 Eagle!!!


----------



## Scifitodd

Update on Jamie's blog, go read it!
http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.Yjzk4kLj.dpbs


----------



## Steve H

I have to say, it's pleasing to know Brian Johnson got a chance to look over this kit and talk about the Eagle. Maybe it doesn't matter in the end, the kit is the kit and it doesn't NEED his approval, but it's NICE. I wish Matt Jefferies had been alive to see the 1/350 Enterprise come to life. 

Because regardless of any comments I've made that some might have considered negative, even blasphemous, I do admire the dedication and attention to detail and care that has gone into this kit. Yeah, there are things that (in my fantasy world, it's a nice place  ) had I been in charge I may have wanted done differently (I wouldn't have made slavishly copying the filming miniature as much a priority, I would have had Alpha spacesuit pilots, pilots without spacesuits and empty seat backs as parts, blah blah) but heck, that's just choices and as others have said, it's inevitable that the aftermarket will rise to the challenge and the potential to make money. 

I still strongly believe that making separate specialty pods as 'add-on' kits is a much better and profitable idea then the (to date, anyway) idea of making consumers buy a whole entire Eagle kit to get that Science Pod et al, maybe we'll be able to influence that at least.

Happy Thanksgiving, every one! This Eagle won't be a Turkey.


----------



## robn1

Steve H said:


> ...I would have had Alpha spacesuit pilots, pilots without spacesuits and empty seat backs as parts...


I would have all that _and _the Gemini pilots, if it were up to me.


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> I would have all that _and _the Gemini pilots, if it were up to me.


I can understand that, and given the kit, this actual release, the intent, that makes a great deal of sense. I'd be fine with it. 

But re-read, I was specific in saying I would NOT have had modeling the 44" filming miniature as part of the design mandate. That means Revell Gemini astronaut imitations are not desirable. 

Which likely would have gotten me some nasty heat, were I in charge. 

and if I figured that if people needed to replicate the 'slab and screw' pod attachment of the miniature they could grab a wood screw and some plastic sheet and do as they please, I'd probably have been burned at the stake by some!


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> I think I'll leave those bottom windows clear, and put some faux sensors and camera lens-looking-things inside them.


I've been contemplating this notion since I first read it. And paint the lower windows with a smoke tint.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> I've been contemplating this notion since I first read it. And paint the lower windows with a smoke tint.


Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. My idea would be do some photoetch stuff, like scaled down car and tank parts (apropos for the early '70s, plastic kit-wise) arraigned like sensor blocks and stuff, barely visible behind the glass.

The other thought is to 'plant' them on the outside surface but still painted black, but that's not how the ship looked so it kind of takes it out of the desirable styling.


----------



## electric indigo

Scifitodd said:


> Update on Jamie's blog, go read it!
> http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.Yjzk4kLj.dpbs


Bandwidth limit exceeded 

Can anybody give a summary?


----------



## robiwon

electric indigo said:


> Bandwidth limit exceeded
> 
> Can anybody give a summary?


I got that to, thought there was something wrong with *my* computer...


----------



## Steve H

electric indigo said:


> Bandwidth limit exceeded
> 
> Can anybody give a summary?


I'll give it a try. THERE ARE MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT, DON'T BLAME JAMIE FOR MY RANTINGS

As said, looks like the kits should hit our shore in Dec, MAYBE in time for Christmas but probably not.

Showed pics of various sink hole problems and discussed that. The landing feet seem to be proving troublesome in terms of getting the plastic to flow right, they're re-designed the part. Aside, hopefully that also corrects the issue with the pour stub placement.

Numerous little fixes and tweaks as per usual with the Chinese shops, you correct one problem and oddly, something else gets bitched up that was perfectly fine before. (sorry for the editorializing, but this ALWAYS HAPPENS and man, I would lose my mind were I dealing with this)

The decals from Italy aren't gonna happen with the Eagle, seems there's a near insurmountable problem getting them from Italy to China and into the boxes. Going forward, future kits will have the Italian decals. The good news seems to be that the effort to bring those decals into the project 'woke up' the Chinese decal supplier to improve their QC so everything should be O.K. Personally, I would hope one of our aftermarket people would prep a replacement sheet anyway, because, you know, China. I probably shouldn't keep editorializing like this but I hope if I call it out as such people will understand and not pillory R2 for MY thoughts. 

There's gonna be a spiffy special issue of SF&F Modeler on the Eagle with a big interview with Brian Johnson. I think it's due in Feb. 2016. 

I think that covers most of the key stuff. Oh, Jamie had a little sadness over our critique of his box cover, we apparently just don't understand how many hours he sweated painting and designing and laying it out and all but he got over it and still loves us or something.


----------



## robiwon

Ah, O.K. I thought this was a new update, but I read all that a couple weeks ago on the blog. Thanks though.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Ah, O.K. I thought this was a new update, but I read all that a couple weeks ago on the blog. Thanks though.


 And You're Welcome! If there was a more recent post I must have missed it, this is what I found when I clicked the link, so, yeah, apologies if that's not what was expected. 

Have to say, seeing some of the sink hole problems, I'm really astonished that they happen. The thing where making a fix causes something else, something completely unrelated to go sideways continues to blow my mind. 

I mean, I've never put tool and die work in the same 'production' category as publishing but maybe I have to. Doesn't this 'correction creep' thing sound like fixing a paragraph in a book but 'pasting' the correction into a file that is accidentally 3 'generations' older than the current mostly correct file and then running that? Were I an even more suspicious and paranoid dude than I am I would suspect that the factory was doing such things on purpose to eat up the budget and force more money from R2. (because even if ALL corrections are 'free', the simple act of time passing and the flux of international exchange means R2 would end up spending more).

Good thing I'm not that paranoid, huh?


----------



## jaws62666

Steve H said:


> And You're Welcome! If there was a more recent post I must have missed it, this is what I found when I clicked the link, so, yeah, apologies if that's not what was expected.
> 
> Have to say, seeing some of the sink hole problems, I'm really astonished that they happen. The thing where making a fix causes something else, something completely unrelated to go sideways continues to blow my mind.
> 
> I mean, I've never put tool and die work in the same 'production' category as publishing but maybe I have to. Doesn't this 'correction creep' thing sound like fixing a paragraph in a book but 'pasting' the correction into a file that is accidentally 3 'generations' older than the current mostly correct file and then running that? Were I an even more suspicious and paranoid dude than I am I would suspect that the factory was doing such things on purpose to eat up the budget and force more money from R2. (because even if ALL corrections are 'free', the simple act of time passing and the flux of international exchange means R2 would end up spending more).
> 
> Good thing I'm not that paranoid, huh?


There was an update at the top. The kits are leaving on the boat from China the end of the month. We could possibly have them for Xmas.


----------



## robiwon

That's good news.

Oh, and jaws, just because your *not* paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get you....


----------



## Scifitodd

Scifitodd said:


> Update on Jamie's blog, go read it!
> http://www.collectormodel.com/#sthash.Yjzk4kLj.dpbs


Basically the update was this! Kits will ship from China to distributors by the end of November. They can't promise delivery to everyone by Christmas, but many should have their kits by the end of the year. :thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek

Scifitodd said:


> Basically the update was this! Kits will ship from China to distributors by the end of November. They can't promise delivery to everyone by Christmas, but many should have their kits by the end of the year. :thumbsup:


I'm getting a blank page with the words 'band width exceeded'.


----------



## seaQuest

Slow boat from China.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Slow boat from China.


Travel time, on average, between 14 and 20 days to the West Coast. If, for some odd reason it's more desirable to have the cargo offload at New Jersey, closer to 22 to 30 days.

Main bottleneck is U.S. Customs. Hella lot of shipping containers to check this time of year. Given recent world events assume everything is getting looked at much more closely, or at least that's the show that'll be provided. 

Seems to me, if everything goes smoothly and everyone involved is on the ball, we'll have the Eagle before the end of December. Hey, stranger things HAVE happened.


----------



## The_Engineer

Steve H said:


> I'll give it a try. THERE ARE MY PERSONAL THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT, DON'T BLAME JAMIE FOR MY RANTINGS
> 
> ....
> The decals from Italy aren't gonna happen with the Eagle, seems there's a near insurmountable problem getting them from Italy to China and into the boxes. Going forward, future kits will have the Italian decals. The good news seems to be that the effort to bring those decals into the project 'woke up' the Chinese decal supplier to improve their QC so everything should be O.K. Personally, I would hope one of our aftermarket people would prep a replacement sheet anyway, because, you know, China. I probably shouldn't keep editorializing like this but I hope if I call it out as such people will understand and not pillory R2 for MY thoughts.
> ......


Is it possible to get the decal sheet as a separate item for those who buy the kit now? I haven't placed my order yet but I was planning on doing it very soon. Now with the news for the decal sheet not going to be part of the first batch of the kits BUT might be included later, I'm not sure about waiting a few months (?) until another batch where it will be included.

Also in the news ....... the forerunner of the eagle ?????

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/plans-detachable-cabin-let-passengers-110032090.html


----------



## Steve H

The_Engineer said:


> Is it possible to get the decal sheet as a separate item for those who buy the kit now? I haven't placed my order yet but I was planning on doing it very soon. Now with the news for the decal sheet not going to be part of the first batch of the kits BUT might be included later, I'm not sure about waiting a few months (?) until another batch where it will be included.
> 
> Also in the news ....... the forerunner of the eagle ?????
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/plans-detachable-cabin-let-passengers-110032090.html


Keep in mind I am not in any way an official voice for R2, I was just trying to summarize a blog post that can't be accessed at the moment. 

I should have been a bit more clear but maybe I've misread this part. The Cartografix (sp?) decals from Italy are no-go for the Eagle. That company will be providing decals for future R2 releases, not future reissues of the 22" Eagle. 

Now, TOTAL SPECULATION, if the Chinese produced decals Do end up failing, regardless of all the promises of improvement, it's possible, POSSIBLE that R2 could go back to the Italian company and greenlight their Eagle decals as replacements. I make the assumption that the company has access to the digital masters for the decals and has produced test runs for R2 to check. 

Again, me, I can't see why an American company can't get that job done, SURELY producing a decal sheet isn't as costly as cutting steel for a plastic model tool but it's not my company, blah blah blah


----------



## electric indigo

What I read from the blog post was that Cartograph already has produced the decal sheets and that there was just no way to include them in the boxes in China before shipment. So maybe they will get used for the second batch, as R2 already paid for them?


----------



## Bugfood

I'm pretty sure that Jamie was indicating the Cartograf decals are totally off the table for the Eagle. At least for it's initial run and maybe permanently. And that also isn't to suggest there's a defineable 'coming soon' aspect to Cartograf and the plastic ending up in the box together at anytime in the immediately foreseeable future. 

It would make no financial or logistical sense for R2 to offer replacement decals after shipping UNLESS there's a problem with the product. And that is what QA testing is all about avoiding. 

Bottom line: the Eagle will have Chinese-sourced decals. 

My secondary observation is that, if alternative decals sources are required - and bear in mind Jamie clearly said the current Chinese decals were responding well to setting solutions - we'd most likely have to hit up someone like JT Graphics. Our choice. 

*BF*


----------



## kekker

The_Engineer said:


> Also in the news ....... the forerunner of the eagle ?????
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/plans-detachable-cabin-let-passengers-110032090.html


Or there's this, from the 1950's... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane

or this, that actually went into use... http://www.sikorskyarchives.com/images/images S-64 TARHE/S-64 4edit.jpg


----------



## Havok69

Scifitodd said:


> Basically the update was this! Kits will ship from China to distributors by the end of November. They can't promise delivery to everyone by Christmas, but many should have their kits by the end of the year. :thumbsup:


Yay! Now enough of the flipping Eagle. Let's get the Galileo done, you remember, the kit that was announced THREE years ago?


----------



## Bugfood

Havok69 said:


> Yay! Now enough of the flipping Eagle. Let's get the Galileo done, you remember, the kit that was announced THREE years ago?


Haven't Trek modellers had a fair enough crack of the whip since...well...forever? 

*BF*


----------



## JGG1701

Havok69 said:


> Yay! Now enough of the flipping Eagle. Let's get the Galileo done, you remember, the kit that was announced THREE years ago?


That belongs to another thread...............................
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=427591
-Jim G.G.


----------



## SUNGOD

Bugfood said:


> Haven't Trek modellers had a fair enough crack of the whip since...well...forever?
> 
> *BF*




Exactly. I like my Trek kits just like many on here but thank god we're getting subjects other than Trek or Star Wars. 

And the K'Tinga was planned before the Galileo from what I remember anyway. Let's have a 1/350th K'Tinga if we're talking Trek.


----------



## Havok69

Bugfood said:


> Haven't Trek modellers had a fair enough crack of the whip since...well...forever?
> 
> *BF*


Of course the Trek models get a fair enough crack. It's still going! I love me my Space 1999, but it was only for 2 years... I will get one of these kits as well, but AFTER the Galileo. It just annoys me that they just dropped the ball and had enough time to release an entirely new kit.

Now they need to put out a Comm and Stun gun. The electronics options would really make those two a fun build.


----------



## SUNGOD

Havok69 said:


> Of course the Trek models get a fair enough crack. It's still going! I love me my Space 1999, but it was only for 2 years... I will get one of these kits as well, but AFTER the Galileo. It just annoys me that they just dropped the ball and had enough time to release an entirely new kit.
> 
> Now they need to put out a Comm and Stun gun. The electronics options would really make those two a fun build.




I know it's disappointing when you've been waiting for something for years but surely if you love 1999 you wouldn't be calling it the "flipping Eagle" and complaining about a new kit of it coming out?


----------



## Havok69

It's just the idea that if they had enough time and resources to do the Eagle, surely some of that energy could have been directed to complete the Galileo. First. Then the Eagle. I get it though, business initiatives, solar flares, etc. I'm glad it's coming to market, it's just that I wish the Galileo was already here. It's all good though, venting complete. One of these days I shall explore this foreign concept of patience.


----------



## Steve H

Havok69 said:


> It's just the idea that if they had enough time and resources to do the Eagle, surely some of that energy could have been directed to complete the Galileo. First. Then the Eagle. I get it though, business initiatives, solar flares, etc. I'm glad it's coming to market, it's just that I wish the Galileo was already here. It's all good though, venting complete. One of these days I shall explore this foreign concept of patience.


I believe the modular design of the Eagle actually helped 'fast-track' the production (fewer actual molds being cut), as well as the challenge the Galileo has with the subtle contours of the body. If Bandai were making the Galileo they would likely use their 'frames/bulkheads/panels' system to avoid having to make a deep well tool and perfectly model the slopes and curves and angles, but if that construction concept was taken, you would have to forget any kind of an interior. 

I'm pretty sure when it comes to a Galileo kit, having an interior is highly desired. How can we complain about 'screen accurate Vs. practical reality' without it?


----------



## Zombie_61

Steve H said:


> ...I'm pretty sure when it comes to a Galileo kit, having an interior is highly desired...


I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I couldn't care less about an interior. That's mostly because it would be difficult to see and truly appreciate the full interior without having to make the shuttle's roof removable like a butter dish, and at that point it becomes too toy-like and would likely compromise the look of the exterior.


----------



## Steve H

Zombie_61 said:


> I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I couldn't care less about an interior. That's mostly because it would be difficult to see and truly appreciate the full interior without having to make the shuttle's roof removable like a butter dish, and at that point it becomes too toy-like and would likely compromise the look of the exterior.


Not to mention the all-too common 'set Vs. model' scaling conundrum. 

There could be ways, if it were built with a 'frames and panels' style construction, and there was some way to keep the frames a scale thickness and the connecting pins for the panels small, one could have panels detached to show the interior, or conversely do the old fashioned 'red rimmed cut-out' (something I frankly haven't seen since some Tamiya tank kits back in the '70s) but then that's forever and mucks up the exterior...


----------



## Trek Ace

Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the _Galileo_ model thread...


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the _Galileo_ model thread...


NO! It is not allowed! 

(actually, sorry, I got caught up. I'm used to discussing things and having the convo go all over the place as different thoughts are generated, bringing up sidebars and context and history and tradition and such.  )

Actually it is somewhat relevant. The 22" Eagle really didn't have much in the way of 'deep draw' or 'deep well' parts, unlike the original MPC kit. That kit, the passenger pod parts required a fairly deep tool, which means more steel, which adds to the cost. The 22" Eagle, because of the completely modular design work by both its original creation and the model kit, is able to use fairly shallow tooling which I am 100% confident aided in its fast track production.

Trying to 'crack' the parts breakdown of the Galileo is likely one of the things that has slowed it down.


----------



## robiwon

I think coming up with a design that will please most modelers with minimal backlash from the rivet counters is most likely what is causing the delay. I mean look what a lot of people did over a box top painting. Just sayin............


----------



## SUNGOD

Maybe it just boils down to that they think the Eagle is more profitable? The Eagles aren't as famous as the Enterprise's and Space 1999 isn't as well known as Trek but the Eagle is probably more well known and sought after than the Galileo.


----------



## seaQuest

Jamie said earlier this year that the Galileo is being targeted for 3rd/4th quarter next year to coincide with the 50th anniversary of Star Trek's premiere. This year is the 40th anniversary for Space:1999. So if you're waiting to pick up on the Galileo before buying an Eagle, you may want to pick up the Eagle sooner rather than later.


----------



## Proper2

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe it just boils down to that they think the Eagle is more profitable? The Eagles aren't as famous as the Enterprise's and Space 1999 isn't as well known as Trek but the Eagle is probably more well known and sought after than the Galileo.


How does that make any sense. I don't agree.


----------



## SUNGOD

Proper2 said:


> How does that make any sense. I don't agree.


I thought it made perfect sense. Why don't you explain why you don't agree?


----------



## Proper2

Well, I believe Star Trek is much more popular and well known than S1999 and thus and therefore so is the Shuttlecraft much more well known than the Eagle. I don't see how the Eagle would be more well known than the Galileo if the show is less well known.


----------



## Steve H

Here's what I think Sungod was getting at. Star Trek is, yes, the bigger show, clearly by money and numbers the most popular, so on and so on. 

But comparing the impact of the Eagle and the Galileo on 'pop culture zeitgeist' is a different matter. The Eagle had a life of its own. That Dinky Toys die-cast toy was a HUGE seller as I recall, almost in the range of Thunderbird 2 or Corgi's James Bond Goldfinger DB 5. Lots of people bought that toy (or more likely had it bought for them) and so it is an impactful icon. 

The Galileo, not so much. Honestly. Ask most anyone to make a crude sketch of the Enterprise, or just describe it and you'd get the saucer, the nacelles and the other thing. Ask them about the shuttlecraft and so many people would think you meant the NASA Space Shuttle. 

The Galileo was in just a small handful of episodes. WE all know it and love it and can talk about it for hours but really, most people really don't 'know' it on that pop culture zeitgeist level. 

OTOH, the Eagle was in EVERY episode. It was a key feature of the OP credits, both series. The Eagle was the thing. THE THING. 

So that's how I figure that while Star Trek is the massively popular and long lived franchise the Eagle has a bit of a leg up in public visibility on the Shuttlecraft Galileo. 

Am I in the ballpark, Sungod?


----------



## scooke123

I agree- the Eagle is highly recognizable craft. people that never watched 1999 still recognize it. Plus lining p the anniversaries for kit release makes sense too. We ARE getting both models so I'm sure most of us have plenty of projects to keep busy with until we get these 2 models.


----------



## jheilman

I agree that despite Trek's popularity, the eagle is more recognizable and desirable than the Galileo. I want both, but I want the eagle more. A lot more.


----------



## Steve H

Mind, I wasn't saying the Eagle was BETTER than the Galileo, that's an apples and bananas comparison. 

I speak of intangibles in the public zeitgeist.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Here's what I think Sungod was getting at. Star Trek is, yes, the bigger show, clearly by money and numbers the most popular, so on and so on.
> 
> But comparing the impact of the Eagle and the Galileo on 'pop culture zeitgeist' is a different matter. The Eagle had a life of its own. That Dinky Toys die-cast toy was a HUGE seller as I recall, almost in the range of Thunderbird 2 or Corgi's James Bond Goldfinger DB 5. Lots of people bought that toy (or more likely had it bought for them) and so it is an impactful icon.
> 
> The Galileo, not so much. Honestly. Ask most anyone to make a crude sketch of the Enterprise, or just describe it and you'd get the saucer, the nacelles and the other thing. Ask them about the shuttlecraft and so many people would think you meant the NASA Space Shuttle.
> 
> The Galileo was in just a small handful of episodes. WE all know it and love it and can talk about it for hours but really, most people really don't 'know' it on that pop culture zeitgeist level.
> 
> OTOH, the Eagle was in EVERY episode. It was a key feature of the OP credits, both series. The Eagle was the thing. THE THING.
> 
> So that's how I figure that while Star Trek is the massively popular and long lived franchise the Eagle has a bit of a leg up in public visibility on the Shuttlecraft Galileo.
> 
> Am I in the ballpark, Sungod?





Spot on!:thumbsup:


----------



## Trek Ace

Can't we just enjoy both?


----------



## Buc

<slap!>


----------



## Bugfood

*cough* Eagle thread *cough*

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

BTW: looks like Round 2 fixed their bandwidth issue: the blog is back up:

http://www.collectormodel.com/round2-models/2448-space1999-models-22-eagle-update/#comments

*BF*


----------



## seaQuest

Huh. I never had a problem loading that page on my phone.


----------



## Bugfood

seaQuest said:


> Huh. I never had a problem loading that page on my phone.


Lucky chap! For just about everyone else it's been offline the last week with a 'Bandwidth Exceeded' notice.

Still back now. So mini-fistbumps all round.

*BF*


----------



## robiwon

If your pre-order gets cancelled thru HobbyLink just send them an email with order details. Mine was cancelled this morning, and I emailed them thru links provided and within 10 minutes my pre-order was back in at the original price. Easy-peasy...

"We have reinstated this order with the same price.

On 12/2/2015 7:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Order #63539554
>
> ITEM: MPCMPC825-06
>
> My pre-order for the MPC Space 1999 Eagle Transporter has been 
> cancelled due to the 6 month wait. Please reinstate my pre-order at 
> the original pre-order price of $81.99 + $9.54 shipping and handling
>

--
Thank you for your interest in Hobbylinc.com.

Hobbylinc.com"


----------



## SUNGOD

Did they jack the price up after people pre-ordered?


----------



## robiwon

I believe so, but not by much.


----------



## SUNGOD

It all depends on whether they told people the price might rise before they pre-ordered. If they did then it's fair enough but if they didn't then that's a bit naughty.


----------



## irocer

looks like the price went up today at Mega by a few dollars


----------



## seaQuest

The price went up $9 in one day.


----------



## irishtrek

Don't know if anyone else has thought of it but if we can convince R2 to mold the body of the transport pod in clear styrene we could scratch build our own interiors.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Whatever for? You can build your own interior anyway, and the windows are transparent. Leave the doors open (or cut them out if they're not separate. That's as much view into the pod as is correct, anyway.


----------



## RB

I imagine some smart aftermarket seller will produce an passenger compartment interior, possibly allowing for the roof to be removable to allow Aurora style viewing...


----------



## Bugfood

Maybe we could get one made of jam.

Or horse hair...?

*BF*

PS: for American readers: jam = jelly.

Or is it Aluminum? :freak:


----------



## Richard Baker

Bugfood said:


> Maybe we could get one made of jam.
> 
> Or horse hair...?
> 
> *BF*
> 
> PS: for American readers: jam = jelly.
> 
> Or is it Aluminum? :freak:


You totally lost me there...


----------



## SUNGOD

RB said:


> I imagine some smart aftermarket seller will produce an passenger compartment interior, possibly allowing for the roof to be removable to allow Aurora style viewing...




I'd like to see R2 release a detailing set in plastic with interior, Alpha astronauts and a cute lil moon buggy.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> You totally lost me there...





He lost me too.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

Jam is not jelly. Jam is called preserves in the United States, while jelly is clear, like gelatin. Aluminum is the North American spelling of the metal, while Aluminium is the European spelling. Not sure why either is relevant to anything, though.


----------



## Zombie_61

Owen E Oulton said:


> Jam is not jelly. Jam is called preserves in the United States, while jelly is clear, like gelatin.


It must be jelly, 'cause jam don't shake like that.


----------



## irishtrek

Zombie_61 said:


> It must be jelly, 'cause jam don't shake like that.


That's exactly what my neighbor was saying from time to time this past summer while we were sitting out side watching the women go walking by.


----------



## Trek Ace

Back to the Eagle kit: 
I have three of these kits on order. I plan on making one a "hero" version with all of the metal accessories, lighting, etc. The rest will get Alclad metal treatment.
I've been considering getting the RU resin kit of the winch module, but it may be slightly larger than the scale of this kit. However, if the size is not too far off, it may be possible to modify it to fit.

Anyone else have similar ideas?


----------



## jheilman

Looking forward to seeing what you build. I will probably get a single kit. But, I would love to build it with the additional passenger pod extensions and booster rockets seen in season 2. Also planing to add aluminum engine bells. I'm only building one, so it needs to be my ultimate eagle.


----------



## RB

Being a US citizen, I am of course prone to being sarcasm/irony disabled. But I _think_ Bugfood was mocking many of us with our "Let's Have This, Let's Have That" attitude here with his whimsical Jam-based Eagle. Having said that, I *do* think that a Jam-based Eagle would be more structurally stable than a Horsehair Eagle, but it has yet to be tested, especially against an Aluminum Eagle. One would think that the Jam/Horsehair Eagles would also be more cost-effective to produce than the Aluminum Eagle, but of course that also depends on how much Jam/Horsehair/Aluminum you can source, and at what prices. Clearly, studies need to be done. Or not.


----------



## mach7

It seems to me that a horse hair eagle could be itchy.

And the Jam eagle would be sticky and could attract wildlife.


----------



## Bugfood

rb said:


> being a us citizen, i am of course prone to being sarcasm/irony disabled. But i _think_ bugfood was mocking many of us with our "let's have this, let's have that" attitude here with his whimsical jam-based eagle. Having said that, i *do* think that a jam-based eagle would be more structurally stable than a horsehair eagle, but it has yet to be tested, especially against an aluminum eagle. One would think that the jam/horsehair eagles would also be more cost-effective to produce than the aluminum eagle, but of course that also depends on how much jam/horsehair/aluminum you can source, and at what prices. Clearly, studies need to be done. Or not.


What you said 

*BF*


----------



## John P

Our apologies. Everyone associated with the horsehair Eagle has been sacked.


----------



## robiwon

Yeah, but what would the "deckals" be made of?





(runs and hides...)


----------



## Trek Ace

That's "deckles".


----------



## Zombie_61

John P said:


> Our apologies. Everyone associated with the horsehair Eagle has been sacked.


Aww, nuts. That's the one I was _really_ looking forward to.


----------



## electric indigo

So, any ideas how to fit the deluxe aluminum bells to the jam eagle...?


----------



## Bugfood

It should be noted that Round 2 will likely have to produce two different releases of the Deluxe accessories...

One clearly marked Aluminum (US and most markets), the other Aluminium (UK, GB and Commenwealth territories only). 

Because: reasons. 

*BF*


----------



## Bugfood

electric indigo said:


> So, any ideas how to fit the deluxe aluminum bells to the jam eagle...?


Obviously they'd be toasted on to the horsehair Eagle release.

For the jam-only version, they'd be buttered.

NB: the CM lower Windows will be opaque in both versions*

*BF*

* ...too soon?


----------



## robiwon

Come on R2, were all getting a little Slap Happy waiting on our most favoritist model to come out....:tongue::wave::tongue::drunk:


----------



## irishtrek

electric indigo said:


> So, any ideas how to fit the deluxe aluminum bells to the jam eagle...?


Peanut butter???


----------



## Steve H

electric indigo said:


> So, any ideas how to fit the deluxe aluminum bells to the jam eagle...?


I would think we have to wait until R2 tells us if they are white aluminum or whole wheat aluminum. It matters, you know. Texture and all that. 

Mind, rumor has it the Chinese factory cocked it up and made them out of English Muffin.


----------



## jheilman

White aluminum bells brown up nicer during a fiery crash than whole wheat. But they are not as healthy.


----------



## robiwon

irishtrek said:


> Peanut butter???


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVPNXsc4wsQ


----------



## Zombie_61

electric indigo said:


> So, any ideas how to fit the deluxe aluminum bells to the jam eagle...?


Just jam 'em in there.


----------



## SUNGOD

Looks like they'll struggle to get this out before last Xmas post.


----------



## Xenodyssey

An email from Culttvman has stated it is expected to be in stock around New Year, depending on any further delays.

I was never expecting to get mine in Oz before mid January anyway.


----------



## BigGuidoKC

I bought the Airfix version of the MPC kit about 12 years ago off of eBay. I was really excited to get it and revisit the wonderful experience I had building the old MPC kit back in 1976. Once I got it and opened it up, I was amazed at how mundane of a kit it was. It's pretty amazing how much your standards change over the course of 28 years. I pretty much put all the parts into a couple of ziplocs and tossed it on the pile of kits in my basement that I keep telling myself I'll build one day, but know at heart I never will.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Here is the email I got last night from CultTVman.

This is a status update your preorder for the Space:1999 Eagle 22-inch kit 1:48 scale from Round 2/MPC. The good news is that the kits will be coming soon! As of Dec. 12, we expect the models to be in stock around the new year. This is subject to further delays. We have a lot of kits we will be shipping at that time so it will likely take us several days to get them all in the mail.


----------



## Trek Ace

Finescale.com has a video review of the 1/48 Eagle kit:

http://finescale.com/videos/new-product-rundown/2015/12/nprd-ep-77


----------



## Steve H

In the famous mis-quote library, "We're gonna need a bigger shelf"


----------



## Neverendingmods

phicks said:


> John - I considered that, but at the time I posted he had a total history of ...brace yourself....TWO posts here on HobbyTalk. That is sometimes a sign to take the information with a big grain of salt.


Enh, I dunno. I've finally come around to the nay-sayers' point of view. This kit will never happen. It would have been nice, BUT, we have to face reality: there will be no Eagle Transporter kit.


----------



## Zombie_61

Neverendingmods said:


> Enh, I dunno. I've finally come around to the nay-sayers' point of view. This kit will never happen. It would have been nice, BUT, we have to face reality: there will be no Eagle Transporter kit.


----------



## Neverendingmods

Zombie_61 said:


>


KIDDING! Looking forward to it.


----------



## StarshipClass

Got mine on pre-order. Looks like the perfect kit in terms of accuracy and detailing.


----------



## fluke

COOL Thanks for posting but a quick build up in hand showing 'actual size' would have been impressive and getting a model review like getting the evening news is kinda cold.


----------



## Zombie_61

Neverendingmods said:


> KIDDING! Looking forward to it.


Ah. Yeah, I didn't get that when I read your previous post. Sorry.


----------



## seaQuest

I have mine pre-ordered, too. But y'know what? I've kinda cooled my enthusiasm. I'm half-expecting to receive an e-mail stating that I pre-ordered too late, they've run out of their allocation of kits, and they'll either refund me or have me wait for a re-stock.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> I have mine pre-ordered, too. But y'know what? I've kinda cooled my enthusiasm. I'm half-expecting to receive an e-mail stating that I pre-ordered too late, they've run out of their allocation of kits, and they'll either refund me or have me wait for a re-stock.


Now now now, let the spirit of the holidays fill you! You WILL get your kit!


----------



## StarshipClass

seaQuest said:


> I have mine pre-ordered, too. But y'know what? I've kinda cooled my enthusiasm. I'm half-expecting to receive an e-mail stating that I pre-ordered too late, they've run out of their allocation of kits, and they'll either refund me or have me wait for a re-stock.


I don't think your Eagle will be grinched, either. Hang in there! :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> I have mine pre-ordered, too. But y'know what? I've kinda cooled my enthusiasm. I'm half-expecting to receive an e-mail stating that I pre-ordered too late, they've run out of their allocation of kits, and they'll either refund me or have me wait for a re-stock.




I've heard that if they run out of kits then that's it. There'll be no more Eagles full stop. 

You'll be doomed to forever build the old MPC kit for the rest of your life.


----------



## Bwain no more

I have a friendly wager with a friend that Monarch will release their Moonsuit kit BEFORE R2 stops selling Eagle kits. So by my estimate, you've got at LEAST another three years, LOL. BTW, I also have a side bet concerning whether or not we see R2 release this in a tin. At first my buddy thought that was a silly bet, but then I realized he thought I meant "lunch box" which, OF COURSE would be ridiculous! I would NOT bet with him about a glow in the dark version, because I think that is a no-brainer! Also, I THINK I might have already seen the glow version on a 2016 order form, and I did not want to take advantage of insider information... 
Tom


----------



## SUNGOD

Bwain no more said:


> I have a friendly wager with a friend that Monarch will release their Moonsuit kit BEFORE R2 stops selling Eagle kits. So by my estimate, you've got at LEAST another three years, LOL. BTW, I also have a side bet concerning whether or not we see R2 release this in a tin. At first my buddy thought that was a silly bet, but then I realized he thought I meant "lunch box" which, OF COURSE would be ridiculous! I would NOT bet with him about a glow in the dark version, because I think that is a no-brainer! Also, I THINK I might have already seen the glow version on a 2016 order form, and I did not want to take advantage of insider information...
> Tom




You've probably got a good point there but I think it'll be a teeny, weeny bit more than 3 years before the Moonsuit.  The Moonsuit and other Monarch kits might be out in the year 2050 (if we're lucky) and the Eagles will probably still be on sale around then.


----------



## Bwain no more

SUNGOD said:


> You've probably got a good point there but I think it'll be a teeny, weeny bit more than 3 years before the Moonsuit.  The Moonsuit and other Monarch kits might be out in the year 2050 (if we're lucky) and the Eagles will probably still be on sale around then.


I am generally NOT a very religious person (maybe the season is working it's magic on me) but never underestimate the power of prayer. I'm going to light a candle right now! :thumbsup:
Tom


----------



## Bugfood

Am starting to hear rumours that - in order to get the kits shipping - the scale has been dropped to 1/49th.

More, as we get it, right here...



*BF*


----------



## Bwain no more

Bugfood said:


> Am starting to hear rumours that - in order to get the kits shipping - the scale has been dropped to 1/49th.
> 
> More, as we get it, right here...
> 
> 
> 
> *BF*


And JUST when the 1/48 decals from Cartograf finally arrived too! * :freak:

Tom

* ALLEDGEDLY arrived, don't hold me to that...


----------



## phicks

Bwain no more said:


> I have a friendly wager with a friend that Monarch will release their Moonsuit kit BEFORE R2 stops selling Eagle kits. So by my estimate, you've got at LEAST another three years, LOL. BTW, I also have a side bet concerning whether or not we see R2 release this in a tin. At first my buddy thought that was a silly bet, but then I realized he thought I meant "lunch box" which, OF COURSE would be ridiculous! I would NOT bet with him about a glow in the dark version, because I think that is a no-brainer! Also, I THINK I might have already seen the glow version on a 2016 order form, and I did not want to take advantage of insider information...
> Tom


Ben Kenobi voice: "Monarch. Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time."


----------



## kekker

Haven't seen it posted yet, but over at Fine Scale Modeler one of the video reviews is of the Eagle kit. That's a BIG box! Aaron Skinner does the review and fondles all the parts. Looks pretty good!


----------



## SUNGOD

kekker said:


> Haven't seen it posted yet, but over at Fine Scale Modeler one of the video reviews is of the Eagle kit. That's a BIG box! Aaron Skinner does the review and fondles all the parts. Looks pretty good!






I haven't watched that as they want you to download yet another version of Flash.


----------



## SUNGOD

Bwain no more said:


> I am generally NOT a very religious person (maybe the season is working it's magic on me) but never underestimate the power of prayer. I'm going to light a candle right now! :thumbsup:
> Tom





I think I'll do the same. 


*"Ew Lord.......doth make it so we can have at least 1 newly tooled Monarch kit before the year 2050 and said Eagles in abundance"

"Please tryeth so that we might bask in Monarch and Eagle fruitfulness with our bread and wine!"

Amen!*


----------



## seaQuest

Bwain no more said:


> And JUST when the 1/48 decals from Cartograf finally arrived too! * :freak:
> 
> Tom
> 
> * ALLEDGEDLY arrived, don't hold me to that...


That doesn't matter to me. I'll still defile them with one or two coats of Testors Decal Bonder. After all the hubbub when the Moebius Viper Mk. II decals were problematic, I don't take chances.


----------



## fluke

HA! That was funny! :thumbsup:



phicks said:


> Ben Kenobi voice: "Monarch. Now that's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time."


----------



## RonH

Timeless Hobbies has a "confirmed import date" of January 23 - 28. We'll see. Apologies if this has already been posted. I did read back a month-or-so.


http://www.timeless-hobbies.com/space-1999.html


----------



## seaQuest

^^^ Is that Tony James?


----------



## morrihl1

I received an email early this morning (12/31) from Tower Hobbies saying that the Eagle kit is in stock.


----------



## Bugfood

morrihl1 said:


> I received an email early this morning (12/31) from Tower Hobbies saying that the Eagle kit is in stock.


It's a typo.

Should read "the Beagle is in shock".

They have a pet Beagle. He saw an overlarge squirrel. So...

*BF*


----------



## robiwon

Hopefully HLJ gets theirs soon. Money in the bank for my ore-order.


----------



## BWolfe

I sold enough of the J2 ceiling beam kits in the month before christmas to pay for two of them, just waiting to hear from CultTVMan so I can pay for them.


----------



## jaws62666

BWolfe said:


> I sold enough of the J2 ceiling beam kits in the month before christmas to pay for two of them, just waiting to hear from CultTVMan so I can pay for them.


I talked to Steve today and he still has no news. Tower hobbies had some today but they are out again.


----------



## Trek Ace

I received a shipping notice that my three kits are on the way!

Happy New Year!

What's that old phrase? Let's party like it's 1999!


----------



## jaws62666

Trek Ace said:


> I received a shipping notice that my three kits are on the way!
> 
> Happy New Year!
> 
> What's that old phrase? Let's party like it's 1999!


Shipping notice from where?


----------



## Trek Ace

Tower.


----------



## seaQuest

Trek Ace said:


> Tower.


Tower is Great Planes. As a distributor, they had the advantage of shipping them out first.


----------



## John P

robiwon said:


> Hopefully HLJ gets theirs soon. Money in the bank for my ore-order.


HLJ? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy from a US seller (shipping wise) like Cult or SSM?


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> HLJ? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy from a US seller (shipping wise) like Cult or SSM?


I was gonna say...


----------



## robiwon

My mistake, pre-ordered from Hobbylinc, not HLJ. I keep confusing the two! LOL


----------



## John P

Ah!


----------



## StarshipClass

Has anyone gotten a notification to pay for his preorder yet?

I'm assuming, if not, those will go out in the next few days?


----------



## Opus Penguin

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Has anyone gotten a notification to pay for his preorder yet?
> 
> I'm assuming, if not, those will go out in the next few days?


CultTVman on his site states they will be going out shortly. I expect we will see them in the next couple of days.


----------



## Bwain no more

Bear in mind, Cult has hundreds of these to ship and he is a one man (well, one man, one woman) operation, but when he gets them, they WILL go out pronto. :thumbsup:
Tom


----------



## seaQuest

Bwain no more said:


> Bear in mind, Cult has hundreds of these to ship and he is a one man (well, one man, one woman) operation, but when he gets them, they WILL go out pronto. :thumbsup:
> Tom


Hundreds? Plural? 
:freak:


----------



## seaQuest

I talked to Brett at MegaHobby yesterday and he mentioned being concerned about being shorted on his order.
Tower's already sold out.


----------



## StarshipClass

Opus Penguin said:


> CultTVman on his site states they will be going out shortly. I expect we will see them in the next couple of days.


Great to hear! That's where I ordered mine from. Got my $$ ready! :thumbsup:


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Waiting confirmation that payment is due for the completion of my pre-order.
:freak:  :lol: :woohoo:

(There aren't any smilies to show how anxious I am right now)


----------



## phicks

fluke said:


> HA! That was funny! :thumbsup:



I was only joking, but I see this morning on Facebook that Monarch has announced it is shutting down. Best wishes to all involved.


----------



## StarshipClass

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Waiting confirmation that payment is due for the completion of my pre-order.
> 
> (There aren't any smilies to show how anxious I am right now)


I know the feeling, brother! :drunk: :wave: :roll:


----------



## Fozzie

Just completed my check-out with CultTVMan for my pre-order. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass

And done!


----------



## BWolfe

Paid for mine!


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

Completed payment for pre-order. What a way to start the new year. :woohoo:


----------



## seaQuest

I paid my pre-order at time of purchase through PayPal.


----------



## HabuHunter32

Paid for my pre-order yesterday through paypal.:thumbsup:


----------



## seaQuest

Now I'll wait for a notice that says I preordered too late and they ran out of stock.


----------



## robiwon

Still waiting for Hobby Linc to get theirs.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

The latest from CultTVman

_January 2:

"We will begin shipping the new 22-inch Space 1999 Eagle this week.I have sent out payment notices to everyone that has preordered. Please contact me if you have not received the payment notice.Right now, it looks like the first orders will ship out Wednesday or Thursday. This is subject to change. We have a lot of orders to send out so please be patient. We expect it will take a week or more to ship everything. You will receive a shipping confirmation when your order has been mailed. Please don't contact us to ask when your order will ship. We'll send them out as quickly as we can. 

Thank you for your patience!"_


----------



## Trek Ace

My kits are scheduled to be delivered on Wednesday.

I'm really looking forward to receiving them. I always thought that the work of Brian Johnson and his crew was exemplary, and this is one of the most iconic spacecraft designs ever created. I am so pleased that a commercial plastic kit company has finally made a serious effort to recreate a model of this craft with the size and detail it deserves.


----------



## robn1

Any word on the Beagle? I hope he's doing okay.


----------



## KUROK

Just paid CultTVMan for my pre-order. Looking forward to this "holy grail" kit!


----------



## Steve H

robn1 said:


> Any word on the Beagle? I hope he's doing okay.


Last time I saw him, he had somehow gotten on top of his dog house, and I guess someone thought it would be funny to put a WW I style pilot's helmet and goggles on his head. I have no idea what any of that is about. He's just SITTING there!


----------



## fluke

Snoo ooo ooopy ...snoo oooo ooopy.....Snoopy wont ya come home ..come home come home.....snooo oooo ooopy snoopy snooo ooooee oooopy ....snoopy come home. :tongue:


----------



## seaQuest

Got mine this afternoon. And from my LHS, no less. Priced at $109.99, which is less than the total of my pre-order. Which I have to get up at 5a tomorrow and cancel.


----------



## jheilman

Uh, pics??


----------



## SUNGOD

Yeah....a few pics wouldn't be too shabby!


----------



## seaQuest

If I had any idea how to post pics from an Android phone (running V5, Lollipop) I would be happy to. I've posted a couple pics in SciFiTodd's Facebook group including a couple misprints I found on the instruction sheet.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

SeaQuest, your one of the lucky ones. "Steve" CultTVman latest post says that there is a delay in sending out orders:

_"January 5: Eagle Update - There is a slight delay in shipping. It looks like the kits will not arrive until Thursday or Friday."_

Steve, we've waited this long what's a few more days. :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon

I got a response from Hobby Linc in response to my email referencing if they knew when they would receive their shipment of Eagles. Standard automated response of whatever the website shows as the status is all we know.

Think I'm ready to cancel with them and take my chances with the local hobby shop.


----------



## teslabe

seaQuest said:


> Got mine this afternoon. And from my LHS, no less. Priced at $109.99, which is less than the total of my pre-order. Which I have to get up at 5a tomorrow and cancel.


If I may ask, who in LA had the kit in stock and was there more then one???


----------



## Trek Ace

My Eagle kit is "out for delivery". So, it should be there when I get home around 4pm.

As to teslabe's question about the LA shops that might have the model, I would check with Burbank House of Hobbies, Kit Kraft or Brookhurst to start. I won't make it to the shops again until Friday or Saturday. So, I can't check until then.


----------



## irishtrek

If the LA area is getting them this week then why not the Portland area?? Grrrr.


----------



## robiwon

I wonder if shops/on line stores are getting them based on the number of pre-orders? The highest pre-order places get them before others? If Hobby Linc doesn't get them in by Friday I'm canceling my order.


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> I wonder if shops/on line stores are getting them based on the number of pre-orders? The highest pre-order places get them before others? If Hobby Linc doesn't get them in by Friday I'm canceling my order.


Consider the logistics chain. The kits ship from China, there's likely a split between cases going direct to large accounts-distributors who order for resale, then there's the cases that go to R2's warehouse to be broken down for smaller distributors, assuming there's any smaller distro companies left.

If a place, physical or online, gets their product from a smaller distributor or direct from R2, they'll have a slower delivery sched compared to those that got their cases direct. There delivery will depend on if there is other merchandise being shipped to that location. I doubt many places put a rush priority to get the Eagle ahead of any other merchandise. 

Plus, then, you've got a small place having to unpack cases of product, sort, box, label, notify, ship... Online, that's often a one or two man job, right? It's not Amazon. 

So, if a LHS got the Eagle in, that may well be because they have a good relationship with a local distro and they made getting that kit on the shelf a priority. That's a good shop to my eyes. Otherwise, is it such a crime to wait a few days for everything to work thru the system? Is this truly the age where instant gratification isn't fast enough?

I mean, do what makes you happy. If an online order isn't cheap enough that paying a bit more to have it now matters, do what pleases you most. 

But honestly, it doesn't have to chap your shorts that much, right? It's just a thing.


----------



## robiwon

Yes, it chaps my shorts. Sorry, I don't like waiting.


----------



## teslabe

Trek Ace said:


> As to teslabe's question about the LA shops that might have the model, I would check with Burbank House of Hobbies.


Thanks Trek Ace, may have to take a trip to Burbank this week.


----------



## iamjafi

I just swung (swang?) by Burbank's at lunch and scored one. Guess what I'm doing this weekend?


----------



## Steve H

robiwon said:


> Yes, it chaps my shorts. Sorry, I don't like waiting.


And I don't blame you! You're itching to unbox the thing and get to gluing! I grok!

All I'm saying is there are practical and logical reasons, FOR RIGHT NOW, for there to be delays and hiccups in getting the kit to people. Next week, no excuses. 

Do what makes you happy.


----------



## robiwon

I might give them another week, lol.


----------



## Trek Ace

*Ladies and Gentlemen - The Eagle has landed!*

A rather large box containing three huge kits was on my doorstep when I returned home.

I managed to wrangle one out of the box. Here are the first pics:



















More to come!


----------



## Trek Ace

There's nothing like opening a new, eagerly anticipated kit for the first time. I feel like I'm a kid of 39 again! I placed a ruler inside for scale.



















I love the box art on the side panels. Although, I don't remember the VIP pod being entirely orange. I thought that there was just a horizontal orange stripe along each side, with the rest of the pod being the normal skin color.










The paint and decal callouts are located on the bottom box sides, as was done with the 1/350 _Enterprise_ kit.


----------



## Trek Ace

More pics of side panel illustrations.



















Here's a pic comparing the scale of the beak with that of a 1/96 Eagle.










Did I mention that I was excited to get started?

I can't wait for the metal accessories to come out. One of the three kits will be a "Hero" with all of the bells (yes, pun intended) and whistles!


----------



## Neverendingmods

Thanks for posting those pictures!


----------



## seaQuest

teslabe said:


> If I may ask, who in LA had the kit in stock and was there more then one???


It was Smith Brothers Hobby Center in Northridge. David only ordered one. Burbsnk's House of Hobbies got a quantity in. They may have somd in stock beyond their pre-orders.


----------



## seaQuest

I'll point out that Smith Brothers and Burbank's received their stock from Great Planes, Tower's parent company.


----------



## seaQuest

robiwon said:


> I might give them another week, lol.


Rob, don't do anything until you have something better in hand.


----------



## teslabe

seaQuest said:


> It was Smith Brothers Hobby Center in Northridge. David only ordered one. Burbsnk's House of Hobbies got a quantity in. They may have somd in stock beyond their pre-orders.


That's funny and the last place I would have thought would have it and I work so close to them, but as you said they had just one kit, nice score and thank you for the info.......:thumbsup: I do have one coming from CultTVman, can't wait....


----------



## irishtrek

The box looks to be about the same size the old AMT/ERTL Trek kits came in.


----------



## Trek Ace

The box is close in proportion, but is somewhat larger, measuring 20"x12"x4". It's between 3 & 4 times the volume of the old, large box _Star Trek_ kits. Big!!!


----------



## Zombie_61

irishtrek said:


> The box looks to be about the same size the old AMT/ERTL Trek kits came in.


Yeah, but Round 2/MPC packs 'em tight. When you bought one of the old AMT/Ertl Trek kits, most of the box was filled with _air_. :lol:


----------



## scotpens

Steve H said:


> . . . is it such a crime to wait a few days for everything to work thru the system? Is this truly the age where instant gratification isn't fast enough?


Damn right it is. I want my Eagle YESTERDAY! :tongue:


----------



## edge10

See the oppression inherent in the system!


----------



## mhvink

edge10 said:


> See the oppression inherent in the system!


"Bloody Peasant!"


----------



## enterprise_fanatic

mhvink said:


> "Bloody Peasant!"


Next time don't order it rare. 

Oh wait a minute you said peasant not pheasant, oops my bad. :jest:


----------



## irishtrek

Zombie_61 said:


> Yeah, but Round 2/MPC packs 'em tight. When you bought one of the old AMT/Ertl Trek kits, most of the box was filled with _air_. :lol:


The old AMT Trek kit of DS9 is the only one that came close to being packed I think, ant the box for that one was deeper than the others.
Also the boxes used for the old kits were 18" by 12" by 3".
Any body know when the Portland area hobby shops will be getting this in???


----------



## seaQuest

Zombie_61 said:


> Yeah, but Round 2/MPC packs 'em tight. When you bought one of the old AMT/Ertl Trek kits, most of the box was filled with _air_. :lol:


The STTNG Klingon Battle Cruiser (K'vort class?). The one with the detachable nose. Box could've easily been reduced by half.


----------



## ClubTepes

Can you post accurate height measurements of the two door styles please?
(Side door and tapered door)

Thank you.


----------



## phicks

seaQuest said:


> The STTNG Klingon Battle Cruiser (K'vort class?). The one with the detachable nose. Box could've easily been reduced by half.



The oversized boxes were on purpose; to be easy to see, and to leave no space for competitors on the shelves.


----------



## irishtrek

phicks said:


> The oversized boxes were on purpose; to be easy to see, and to leave no space for competitors on the shelves.


Actually there were 6 that needed the large box because of the size of certain pieces.
The refits saucer
The E-D saucer
the Reliant saucer
the hull of the Defiant
TOS cut away saucer
and the Runabout.
All the others were just plain over sized.


----------



## robiwon

I've lost a lot of interest in this kit sadly. I canceled my pre-order thru Hobby Linc. I'll pick one up at a hobby shop or at WonderFest this year. I have more than enough kits to keep me busy for a while.


----------



## Scifitodd

robiwon said:


> I've lost a lot of interest in this kit sadly. I canceled my pre-order thru Hobby Linc. I'll pick one up at a hobby shop or at WonderFest this year. I have more than enough kits to keep me busy for a while.


Awe Robert, don't let Hobbylinc do that to you. I won't ever advertise for them again that's for sure!


----------



## robiwon

Don't worry Todd, I'll still get one. 

I still have this one to keep me busy!


----------



## robiwon

Order #63539554 Status
CURRENT STATUS: Order Canceled
The completion of this order has been canceled. Please remember that we do not charge for an order until that order is shipped, so if you have any shipments that have not been sent you will not be charged for them.
Shipment #1 
Shipment Cancelled
1/48 Space 1999 Eagle Transporter	$81.99

Quantity 1
Price: $81.99 
0 in Stock. Additional quantities due date unknown
Item #: MPCMPC825-06 
Sub-Total : $81.99
Item Total : $81.99
Shipping & Handling : $9.54

Total : $91.53


----------



## seaQuest

0 in stock, hmmm?
Somebody forget to pay their last Great Planes bill?


----------



## ClubTepes

Trek Ace said:


> More pics of side panel illustrations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a pic comparing the scale of the beak with that of a 1/96 Eagle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention that I was excited to get started?
> 
> I can't wait for the metal accessories to come out. One of the three kits will be a "Hero" with all of the bells (yes, pun intended) and whistles!


YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Nice to see someone else calling the old kit 1/96.


----------



## gaetan

It looks more like the Product Enterprise 12 "diecast to me than the kit...

Gaetan:wave:


----------



## Scifitodd

gaetan said:


> It looks more like the Product Enterprise 12 "diecast to me than the kit...
> 
> Gaetan:wave:


I'm pretty sure it's the kit that Jim Small built. They wouldn't use a PE photo, they would catch so much stuff over that!


----------



## robn1

Scifitodd said:


> I'm pretty sure it's the kit that Jim Small built. They wouldn't use a PE photo, they would catch so much stuff over that!


I'm pretty sure Gaetan was referring to the 1/96 Eagle.


----------



## jheilman

Yes, the PE Eagle on the hobby mat from Trek Ace.


----------



## Trek Ace

Yes, that's a PE Eagle for the size comparison. I always considered the original MPC kits, PE diecasts and Warp kits to be 1/96. Frankly, I don't know where all of the "1/72 scale" came from when marketing these kits, but it was always wrong.

More pics coming!


----------



## Trek Ace

Okay, it's Friday, and I am able to finally return to the Eagle kit.

Here are some photos of the parts trees. Many of the trees are multiplied by two to four times in the kit. In this instance, I will only show one of each.

First up are the beak and cage boxes:










Next are some cage, pod and gear box parts. Note the flash on the runners and parts. I'm always surprised to find a lot of flash on new kits. It's not a big deal - easy to clean up.










More cage and gear parts, plus fuel tanks/engines.


----------



## Trek Ace

On to more cage parts with a pilot and cockpit back wall.










Pod and spine parts:










Landing gear and engine parts in gray. The bag contains the clear parts for the beak and pod, as well as the metal springs and screws.


----------



## Steve H

Thanks for the pics! Looks to me cutting some of the parts free from their sprue might take a bit of care, I hope the instructions are absolutely clear about which way some of those cage parts fit together. It looks like it would be real easy to mess that up...


----------



## HabuHunter32

Thanks for the pics. Flash on new kits is nothing new. Try building any Revell of Germany I/144 airliner kits or 1/72 German subs. Even when they were first released they had flash. Not just the old US Revell reissues but the new ROG kits as well. Incorrect mold pressure settings on the injection machines perhaps on new kits and expected wear on older molds. 

One of my first jobs back when I was still in High School was at a Zinc Die Casting factory and incorrect mold pressure settings would cause flash on the castings. The same basic tech as plastic injection molding except Zinc metal not plastic.

I am not an expert. Just a possible conclusion.

Mike


----------



## HabuHunter32

New message at Culttvman :

January 8: Eagle Update - Eagles have arrived. :thumbsup:

Mike


----------



## Scifitodd

It just dawned on me, this is the 22" eagle kit I've always wanted. It's mine and it is absolutely amazing. I'm so happy it's finally here.


----------



## morrihl1

Thoughts on the white paint to be used? Does the kit offer any more guidance than "paint it to match the molded color"?


----------



## Daikaiju1

Ford Diamond White car paint was used in the studio models.


----------



## John P

An annoyed-looking postman just lugged the box up my steps and plopped it on the porch. :lol: It's... big!


----------



## morrihl1

Looks like Dupli-Color BFM0229 Oxford White Ford is their version of Ford Diamond White?


----------



## crowe-t

Oxford White is a different color than Diamond White. It looks to be more gray looking. A friend used Dupli-Color Pure White which is much closer to Oxford White. Neither of these colors have the slight green color shift of Ford Diamond White.

I spoke with a guy that mixes automotive paint and he told me a slight bit of yellow and black are added to make Ford Diamond White. In fact the yellow color used is a slight green-ish yellow color.

I have a sample of Ford Diamond White sprayed on styrene and I used Testors Acryl Flat White with a drop of Yellow Zinc Chromate added. It's just about spot on to the Diamond White sample. From an inch away it looks exact. I didn't add any black since the Testors white doesn't look to be the brightest white and also the Eagle I painted was only 12 inches long so the color should be slightly lighter for the scale effect.

Here's the formula for Ford Diamond White. There is very little yellow and even less black added. The trick is to use a green-ish yellow or the color won't look right and use about a drop of yellow per 1 ounce of white.

*DBC90631 Diamond White 

Paint Code: ZA 

Quantity : 1 Pint 
Code ----------- Color------------Cumulative----Parts 
DMD 1684------White-------------686.0----------686.0 
DMD 641--------Yellow------------690.7------------4.7 
DMD 1683-------Black-------------692.0----------- 1.3 *


----------



## Dr. Brad

AAUGH - I didn't really want of these kits until I read this thread. I can feel my will power caving....


----------



## Scifitodd

Dr. Brad said:


> AAUGH - I didn't really want of these kits until I read this thread. I can feel my will power caving....


This is the kit your looking for, move along, move along to the hobby shop, let him pass...........lol


----------



## Hunk A Junk

I know that Diamond White requires 4.7 parts DMD 641 Yellow, but I'm throwing caution to the wind and using 4.6 because I want my Eagle to stand out as something a little bit different.

I'm a rebel that way.

:tongue:


----------



## Scifitodd

Does this photo of the paint can Jim used on his build?


----------



## jaws62666

Got my shipping notice today from Steve at Cult. 2 day priority. Should be here Tuesday or Wednesday


----------



## LARSON DESIGNS

Got mine today, now going to do a lunch pad for it.


----------



## Scifitodd

LARSON DESIGNS said:


> Got mine today, now going to do a lunch pad for it.


Jeez Chris, that will be friggin huge! Mine is like 4'X3' and it takes up nearly a whole table.


----------



## Proper2

Scifitodd said:


> Jeez Chris, that will be friggin huge! Mine is like 4'X3' and it takes up nearly a whole table.


Wow, impressive!


----------



## Fozzie

CultTVMan says my Eagle has shipped! :thumbsup:


----------



## Owen E Oulton

So, what condiments do you use on your lunch pad? I'm assuming a cross drawn in ketchup (or catsup for you Southerners)...


----------



## BWolfe

This was in my e-mail from CultTVman when I got home from work today, not in time for this weekend but I am all set for next weekend, besides my Lost In Space bluray set arrived today so I am all set for this weekend!

Thank you for shopping at the CultTVman Hobbyshop. Your order has been shipped!


----------



## HabuHunter32

Steve shipped mine today also! :thumbsup:

Also bought the dvd Megaset for a great price off evilbay to put me in the proper mood. 

Mike


----------



## irishtrek

On a slightly different note, went to ebay earlier this evening and typed in space 1999 model kits looking for an old MPC hawk kit and discovered at least 2 listings for a 1/48 scale MPC Eagle going for about $125.00 and one of the posters was selling not 1 but 4. Didn't take long for them to show up on ebay.


----------



## spock62

Scifitodd said:


> Jeez Chris, that will be friggin huge! Mine is like 4'X3' and it takes up nearly a whole table.


So, I'm guessing your a bit of a Space 1999 fan?


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> So, I'm guessing your a bit of a Space 1999 fan?


No, it's just that when he used his lunch pad, he likes to have his food spread out a little, so nothing touches, dig? I mean, I sure hate if corn bleeds over into my mashed potatoes...


----------



## Scifitodd

spock62 said:


> So, I'm guessing your a bit of a Space 1999 fan?



Just a smidge! Lol I have a web page with my collection of 1999 and Trek. 
Www.scifitodd.com


----------



## BWolfe

Looks like I may get my Eagle tomorrow, good thing that I don't have to be back to work until Tuesday!

COLUMBIA
SC, 29201

Arrived at USPS Destination Facility	January 10, 2016 - 4:20 pm

Departed USPS Destination Facility	January 10, 2016 - 5:07 pm


----------



## Trek Ace

I just purchased the metal tubing for fabricating the replacement oleo struts. I just need to pick up the small washers/spacers and I'll be ready to start!


----------



## John P

I have officially placed mine in the "I'll get to it some day" stash.


----------



## mach7

It looks like mine is out for delivery!


----------



## BWolfe

Heard the doorbell ring at 11:00 AM, this was on the porch when I got downstairs, the rest of my day is set!


----------



## RonH

Mine just arrived as well. Thank you, Mr. Iverson ! I even got a nifty little Culttvman pin.


Been going thru my references. I'm thinking about modifying my second kit as Eagle 2.


----------



## BWolfe

RonH said:


> Mine just arrived as well. Thank you, Mr. Iverson ! I even got a nifty little Culttvman pin.
> 
> 
> Been going thru my references. I'm thinking about modifying my second kit as Eagle 2.


I got the pin also, I am amazed at how fast this arrived, got the shipping notice late saturday, checked the tracking number last night and saw it had already passed through the Columbia SC sort facility and it was here today, USPS seem to currently have their act together.


----------



## BWolfe

I did a size comparison to an original 1976 MPC Eagle model, you can easily fit three of the original assembled kits in the box that the new kit comes in:


----------



## Opus Penguin

Mine should be there when I get home from work!


----------



## Dr. Brad

I have to stop reading this thread! Too much styrene goodness in this kit!


----------



## spock62

Scifitodd said:


> Just a smidge! Lol I have a web page with my collection of 1999 and Trek.
> Www.scifitodd.com


WOW, that's some seriously nice work you have there!

I also just received my 22" Eagle. After debating wither or not to purchase one (due to cost), I decided to take the plunge and order one from Tower Hobbies on 12/27. A few days later, on 12/31, it was ready for shipment. From day of order to today, it took 16 days to receive the kit (longer then usual due to New Years holiday/weekend). Plus they had coupons for free shipping & $15 off the price (cost ended up being just under a $100). Not bad in my book!


----------



## seaQuest

I'm so glad to see people getting their Eagles.


----------



## SUNGOD

Trek Ace said:


> Okay, it's Friday, and I am able to finally return to the Eagle kit.
> 
> Here are some photos of the parts trees. Many of the trees are multiplied by two to four times in the kit. In this instance, I will only show one of each.
> 
> First up are the beak and cage boxes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next are some cage, pod and gear box parts. Note the flash on the runners and parts. I'm always surprised to find a lot of flash on new kits. It's not a big deal - easy to clean up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More cage and gear parts, plus fuel tanks/engines.




I'm surprised at the flash too but as you said that should clean up ok by the looks of it. Also one other little nitpick.........I don't remember seeing that sprue attachment right on the nose tip in previous photos of the sprues. 

It doesn't look as bad as the sprue attachments on the old MPC/Airfix kit and awful Imai kit (which were right at the front of the nose tip whilst this is more to the side) but I was hoping they could avoid any sprue attachments in that area altogether.

Still looks like a great kit though.


----------



## Scifitodd

Hey guys, here is mine! No touching please.........:tongue::thumbsup:


----------



## Scifitodd

spock62 said:


> WOW, that's some seriously nice work you have there!
> 
> I also just received my 22" Eagle. After debating wither or not to purchase one (due to cost), I decided to take the plunge and order one from Tower Hobbies on 12/27. A few days later, on 12/31, it was ready for shipment. From day of order to today, it took 16 days to receive the kit (longer then usual due to New Years holiday/weekend). Plus they had coupons for free shipping & $15 off the price (cost ended up being just under a $100). Not bad in my book!


Thank you, I am a huge 1999 fan, I may go a bit overboard but hey, it's fun!


----------



## irishtrek

Jamie posted a new blog this morning pointing out a couple of flaws in the tooling. And the metal parts are about a month behind the scheduled release date.


----------



## TonyT

Got my shipping notice from CultTVMan, Steve! Can't wait to grock this kit...and build it!!


----------



## Richard Baker

I love looking at those sprues and spotting the original donor parts!

I will eventually get one of these kits- until then I will be watching the builds develop and be living vicariously through others


----------



## Trek Ace

I'm in the process of making my own oleo struts from metal square and round tubing. I only plan to have the metal engine nozzles on one of the three kits. I may opt to go with the metal rc thrusters if they become available in a reasonable time.


----------



## Fozzie

My Eagle has landed! Wow, what a big box...! :hat:

(From CultTVMan.)


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Now that people are getting their kits and starting to build, isn't it time to make a sticky thread like the 1:350 TOS Enterprise thread? It'd be helpful to have a dedicated thread for everyone's tips building this sucka.


----------



## Opus Penguin

Hunk A Junk said:


> Now that people are getting their kits and starting to build, isn't it time to make a sticky thread like the 1:350 TOS Enterprise thread? It'd be helpful to have a dedicated thread for everyone's tips building this sucka.


Agreed on this suggestion.


----------



## Steve H

thirded.


----------



## seaQuest

Fourthed.


----------



## robiwon

Fifted


----------



## irishtrek

In the R2 blog Tuesday Jamie posted a pic of one of the windshield pieces showing it distorted along with the 2 pieces for the command module which has not 2 but 4 openings for where the windshield goes. So my question is how many clear pieces come with the Eagle for the windshield, 2 or 4???


----------



## robn1

The pics I've seen showing the parts sprues show four clear windows for the beak.


----------



## Steve H

I've noticed something... I dunno, peculiar to me, seeing pics of a friend's build.

Context, I'm one of the people who felt that making this kit as an intentional replica of the original 44" filming miniature was not the best choice, my two sore points being the faux Revell Gemini astronaut figures (I wanted actual Moonbase Alpha spacesuits, a mild resculpt) and the horrid 'filming necessity' passenger pod attachment system which, on the filming model consisted of a largish wood screw bored thru a stick of perspex at either end of the top of the pod. Perfect for being able to do quick swap-outs of the pod to replace Freon canisters, klunky and not at all 'realistic' for a display model (IMHO). It was said that the slab and screw was what the kit was going to have and to just suck it up and deal with it, but later there was a statement there would be an alternate attachment method as well.

So I see it seems odd, instead of the slab and screw, it looks like they've molded the slab into the spine lattice, trying to make it look an intended part of the vehicle, but I think you still have to drive a screw thru the slab into the top of the pod. 

So, what's that about? Not only is it now NOT like the 44" filming miniature*, that makes swapping out a pod more difficult, not to mention that the plastic is going to strip out pretty quick if one changes pods again and again.

(*mind, they crossed the line of 'not the miniature' when they made the decision to sculpt detail into the interior command module wall. A move I agreed with and approve of, FWIW.  )


----------



## Trek Ace

I'm having fun fabricating replacement metal oleo struts for the landing gear. I'll have just as much fun coming up with an alternate solution for attaching the pod.

My advice would be just to get the kit and enjoy the heck out of it - and make it your own.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

I've never had any doubt that I'd be creating my own magnetic attachment solution for the center pod, so it never mattered to me what R2 did. I'm looking forward to seeing what other people do.


----------



## crowe-t

When I build my 22" Eagle I'll use Neodymium magnets to connect the Passenger Pod. This way I can remove it a million times if I want. I did this with a 12" Eagle and it works perfectly. I glued 2 magnets inside the passenger pod with super glue that aren't seen and one on each end of the spine. I covered them with a slice of styrene tube and capped them off to disguise them. They don't stick out and look like part of the model. 

Actually the slabs that are attached the the Round 2 22" Eagle spine look almost the same as the studio model. The studio model used brackets that are just a bit shorter. This can be replicated on the MPC Eagle with 2 small strips of metal and will look exactly like the studio model. Round 2's approach was to make each slab go from one support rod to the next making them a bit longer and stronger which makes perfect sense.

Since this is a model and not a toy making a switch or something similar to have the passenger pod removable would most likely make this kit look toy like. I'm sure Round 2 had this in mind and the screws would allow the pod to be removed if necessary. It's a display model and not a toy. I like the idea of using the magnets. It's easy to add them and works very well.


----------



## seaQuest

Steve, there *is* a mild resculpt on the Gemini astronaut figures. There's an Alpha pressure suit chestpack on them and decals to go with the chestpacks.

I believe there is an alternate pod attatchment, however, it requires gluing the pod in place permantly.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Steve, there *is* a mild resculpt on the Gemini astronaut figures. There's an Alpha pressure suit chestpack on them and decals to go with the chestpacks.
> 
> I believe there is an alternate pod attatchment, however, it requires gluing the pod in place permantly.


Ya know, I gotta say, yes you're right about the astronauts. I think I had seen that in one of the pictures upthread, I think it was the painting guide panel, and it didn't click, my brain slid right over it. So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. 

And gluing the passenger pod to the spine is kinda sorta always the default attachment method, right?  I should have been more clear and said something defining it as 'different attachment method that still renders the pod removable at will' or something. 

The trick there is, can a way be found to do it that allows for various 'platform' pods to work as well? It's easy in context of a real life Eagle (latches and grabs), tricky in a small model.


----------



## irishtrek

One could always make their own slabs as they appear on the 44" Eagle.


----------



## crowe-t

Steve H said:


> Ya know, I gotta say, yes you're right about the astronauts. I think I had seen that in one of the pictures upthread, I think it was the painting guide panel, and it didn't click, my brain slid right over it. So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
> 
> And gluing the passenger pod to the spine is kinda sorta always the default attachment method, right?  I should have been more clear and said something defining it as 'different attachment method that still renders the pod removable at will' or something.
> 
> The trick there is, can a way be found to do it that allows for various 'platform' pods to work as well? It's easy in context of a real life Eagle (latches and grabs), tricky in a small model.


Steve,

I mentioned above I used Neodymium magnets on a 12" Eagle's Passenger Pod and it worked out great. Neodymium magnets are very strong and come in a lot of different sizes. You can find them cheap on E-Bay.

Mike.


----------



## The_Engineer

I was planning on ordering this model kit but I let things slide and didn't place a pre-order. I'm glad people who have bought this are posting information on it and their builds. After reading the latest blog: MPC Models: The Eagles Have Landed - Tuesday January 12, 2016

http://www.collectormodel.com/

There are 6 errors found with the first batch of kits. The first 3 errors are being fixed with errors 4 and 5 (I think) are too expensive to fix and therefore won't be. The 6th error (the screws) were not self tappers - I'm not sure if these will be changed or not. They mentioned that there is going to be a second and third batch of kits. If these errors are going to be corrected in the second batch - I wanted to wait until these are being sold to get one. How do I know when a website has stock that it is the corrected second batch and not the first batch?


----------



## RonH

My windows aren't "wavy". Anyone else?


----------



## Fozzie

Since I have a 22" PE freighter Eagle, I'm going to do my R2 22" kit as a Rescue Eagle. I'll be following Jim Small's advice on how to do the stripes (available on his Small Artworks FB page--THANK YOU, JIM!).

Anyone else doing theirs up as a Rescue Eagle?


----------



## Trek Ace

One of mine will be a rescue Eagle. With the other two being a standard passenger pod and a VIP pod. I am also scratchbuilding freighter/winch pods using both photo references and the PE freighter pod as a source to work from.


----------



## kojen

Now has (probably) the first 22" Eagle landed in Sweden! 
I will follow you guys and yours tips and tricks.


----------



## seaQuest

RonH said:


> My windows aren't "wavy". Anyone else?


Nope. And I haven't run across the other problems, either.


----------



## TonyT

Just got my kit today! Wow, what a nice kit...first impression of giving the parts a quick look without taking them out of the bags. I'm giddy!


----------



## BWolfe

A look at the window defect, not really wavy, it appears clear at first glance but the one on the right in this photo has a bizarre lensing effect.


----------



## Steve H

BWolfe said:


> A look at the window defect, not really wavy, it appears clear at first glance but the one on the right in this photo has a bizarre lensing effect.


Hm. Well, since it's one of the pair, and I assume that since it's one tool that's 'double shot' for the number of required parts, does it work out that one could put the two 'wavy' windows on the bottom of the Command Module, since on average that's the ones gonna be painted black anyway? Or does the 'handed' nature of the parts foil that idea?

I assume that regardless of the recent discovery that one of the 44" Filming Miniatures may indeed have had lower quadrant clear windows, most folks will go ahead and black them out because that's what we saw on TV.


----------



## John P

Like I said, I think I'll come up with some sensor/camera-looking greeblies to put behind the lower windows.


----------



## BWolfe

Steve H said:


> Hm. Well, since it's one of the pair, and I assume that since it's one tool that's 'double shot' for the number of required parts, does it work out that one could put the two 'wavy' windows on the bottom of the Command Module, since on average that's the ones gonna be painted black anyway? Or does the 'handed' nature of the parts foil that idea?
> 
> I assume that regardless of the recent discovery that one of the 44" Filming Miniatures may indeed have had lower quadrant clear windows, most folks will go ahead and black them out because that's what we saw on TV.


You could swap the the windows around but you would have to recreate the window frame detail on the window that you reverse. Not that big of an issue for me so I will probably just ignore it.


----------



## Richard Baker

BWolfe said:


> You could swap the the windows around but you would have to recreate the window frame detail on the window that you reverse. Not that big of an issue for me so I will probably just ignore it.


Wouldn't upper left be an exact match for lower right?
(And upper right swap with lower left)


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> Wouldn't upper left be an exact match for lower right?
> (And upper right swap with lower left)


It should be, given it looks like there's only the one tool and they put two sprue trees in the box for the 4 windows. 

but that probably also negates my idea of having the two 'wonky' windows on the bottom half, unless one cuts off the mounting tab. 

I guess from what Wolfe is saying there are different faces for the windows and the nominal 'outside' face has framing detail? So that seems to be an issue to my idea as well.


----------



## irishtrek

Richard Baker said:


> Wouldn't upper left be an exact match for lower right?
> (And upper right swap with lower left)


That's what I intend to do when the local HT USA calls to tell me they got it in.


----------



## Scifitodd

kojen said:


> Now has (probably) the first 22" Eagle landed in Sweden!
> I will follow you guys and yours tips and tricks.


Lots of builds going on in my FB group!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/space1999propsandships/


----------



## irishtrek

Now if we can convince Moebius to do a 1/48 scale moon bus.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> Now if we can convince Moebius to do a 1/48 scale moon bus.


And a Discovery, Aries and a larger more detailed Orion.


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> And a Discovery, Aries and a larger more detailed Orion.


Nah, a 1/48 scale discovery would be waaaayyyyy to big as well as the Orion. Now then an Aries depending on just how bit a 1/1 scale would be just may work.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> Nah, a 1/48 scale discovery would be waaaayyyyy to big as well as the Orion. Now then an Aries depending on just how bit a 1/1 scale would be just may work.




I didn't necessarily mean 1/48th.


----------



## John P

Stargazer does a 1/144 Ares, which is about the size of a softball. So a 1/72 Ares would juuust the right size for my shelves.

But didn't Moebius say they won't be doing any more 2001 subjects?


----------



## muldokken

well,got mine put together with mods...not to tear it all back down to do the detailing.most all of it is held together with magnets so i decide to add some lights or whatever i can,got to love earth magnets hears a pic so far


----------



## irishtrek

John P said:


> Stargazer does a 1/144 Ares, which is about the size of a softball. So a 1/72 Ares would juuust the right size for my shelves.
> 
> But didn't Moebius say they won't be doing any more 2001 subjects?


That's too bad. A 1/48 scale moon bus would have been nice to go along with the Eagle. Not to mention the possible kit bashing ideas.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> That's too bad. A 1/48 scale moon bus would have been nice to go along with the Eagle. Not to mention the possible kit bashing ideas.




It is too bad but I wouldn't imagine a new 1/48 Moonbus would have been first on their list anyway as they put a lot of effort into reissuing the old Aurora kit and it was fairly detailed. I'd like to see a clear edition of that though so it would be easier to light it up by masking off the lights etc.

If we ever get more 2001 kits I'd imagine the most famous ship (the Discovery) would be the first choice.


----------



## irishtrek

A Discovery in 1/144scale???


----------



## Steve H

irishtrek said:


> A Discovery in 1/144scale???


From Moebius? I would doubt that. I would bet on a disappointing small kit, maybe 1/500 scale, in a classic Aurora Longbox style, at a $50 MSRP.

Why, yes, I was underwhelmed by the Jonny Quest 'Dragonfly' kit, why do you ask?


----------



## ClubTepes

irishtrek said:


> That's too bad. A 1/48 scale moon bus would have been nice to go along with the Eagle. Not to mention the possible kit bashing ideas.


Actually, isn't the existing moonbus kit something 1/55?

That should be fine, as the Eagle kit is really more like 1/53 (depending on the length you give it).


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> From Moebius? I would doubt that. I would bet on a disappointing small kit, maybe 1/500 scale, in a classic Aurora Longbox style, at a $50 MSRP.
> 
> Why, yes, I was underwhelmed by the Jonny Quest 'Dragonfly' kit, why do you ask?




I think they only do larger kits of subjects they've always wanted to see in plastic like the Seaview. Whilst it was great to see the Moonbus reissued........their Orion was half hearted. Didn't like those decals being used for panel lines so I was underwhelmed by that.


----------



## Opus Penguin

I would love to see a 2001 Discovery the same length as the Moebius large Seaview.


----------



## irishtrek

ClubTepes said:


> Actually, isn't the existing moonbus kit something 1/55?
> 
> That should be fine, as the Eagle kit is really more like 1/53 (depending on the length you give it).


I think it's more like 1/64. I think.


----------



## John P

irishtrek said:


> A Discovery in 1/144scale???


Stargazer makes one of them too!


----------



## Richard Baker

Moebius was able to release the two 2001 kits leveraged on the fact they were existing models already sanctioned- the Moonbus was retooled from a sample kit with some additional parts and the Orion was more loosely based on the original kit.

Anything further to do with 2001 as modeling subjects is a complete mess. There are a number of parties involved with the license, surrounded by lawyers and they have zero motivation to even start discussions. It took a very long time for even a couple of books on the subject to be released. 

I wish it was different, bit this situation has been like this for many years and I doubt anything will change. I am just glad there are a handful of GR companies producing resin kits.


----------



## Nocoolname

Got my kit but I think it'll be some time before I build. In the meantime I was thinking of trying to upscale my CAD designs for the command module, walkways and passenger pod interiors from my 11" builds to 1/48, though I'm still not sure what medium I could transfer them to since I didn't really get on with the FUD prints I tried before and the other plastics seemed a bit coarse so it may not be worth the bother. In terms of etch, I'm not sure what could be added to the 'outside' of the model that isn't already there, but I think, with the help of some bending tools, it is perfectly feasible to create pretty much all of the interior spaces, from a fully detailed cockpit complete with instrument panels, through to the walkways, pod interior and rear engine section. The chairs may be a little tricky due to small curves but other than a bit in the foreword walkway and the two 'storage'? areas in the pod (which may be achieved by bending the parts) the rest of the detail looks fairly flat and may lend itself well to etch, either as individual parts or a combination of parts built up. Could probably add stairs and maybe an external laser turret to boot. I think it's one for the experts (Paulbo) to consider. It would make BIG albeit amazing set if it worked.


----------



## Opus Penguin

So who is going to do a cutaway :tongue:?


----------



## lunadude

Opus Penguin said:


> So who is going to do a cutaway :tongue:?


Oh, I like that idea.


----------



## irishtrek

Opus Penguin said:


> So who is going to do a cutaway :tongue:?


If you got one then go for it, after all you asked.:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD

If the Eagles are selling well (I hope they are of course) I wonder if we'll see other 99 stuff fastracked.....like an Ultraprobe?


----------



## Xenodyssey

Or a Hawk or a Superswift.


----------



## John P

I would think the only other thing that might be viable is a Hawk. The other stuff is too obscure for general sales. Plus the Hawk has that "Cool, it's a fighter!" vibe.


----------



## Richard Baker

A Hawk would be a great followup kit- it was, like the Eagle, once a styrene kit as well. I have a 1/48 resin one which I hope to build someday, it parked next to the new Eagle would be a great display.

I can also see a small accessory set with moon buggy, some correct astronauts and a few props as possible. The other subjects, as mentioned above, are a bit obscure to most people and I don't think R2 would spend time and treasure on a kit with low sales potential. Look how they went about deciding on this eagle- using the old kit repops to measure interest. Many people said they wanted a big Eagle kit, but when the repop sold well R2 knew the talk was being backed up with action.


----------



## JeffBond

I'm sure it's been pointed out but the Eagle's modular nature must also have been a huge selling point for R2--considering the kit's size and complexity, they only had to invest in a fraction of the amount of tooling and molds that they would have with any other equivalently complex subject. At least the Hawk is a much simpler subject--I do hold out hope they could put that out as a companion piece.


----------



## mach7

I asked Jamie over at the blog about future Space 1999 kits. He said that it is a possibility given the fact that the eagle is already into it's 3rd run and selling very well.

The Hawk is the logical next step along with an eagle accessory kit. But I suggested a Space 1999 exploration set, a commlock and stungun. That suggestion was not shot down.


----------



## Scifitodd

mach7 said:


> I asked Jamie over at the blog about future Space 1999 kits. He said that it is a possibility given the fact that the eagle is already into it's 3rd run and selling very well.
> 
> The Hawk is the logical next step along with an eagle accessory kit. But I suggested a Space 1999 exploration set, a commlock and stungun. That suggestion was not shot down.


The exploration kit was discussed at WonderFest last summer, but was low on the list of kits. You're probably gonna see the Hawk or the Metamorph eagle if anything happens next. :thumbsup:


----------



## Hunk A Junk

For what it's worth (if anyone is counting raised hands), I would prefer an Ultraprobe over a Hawk any day. The Hawk's command pod, especially the size of the cockpit windows, just never looked right to me. The Ultraprobe, on the other hand, as a masterpiece of Martin Bower design. For my money (and I'm willing to spend it), aside from the Eagle the Ultraprobe is the signature Space:1999 design.


----------



## SUNGOD

Hunk A Junk said:


> For what it's worth (if anyone is counting raised hands), I would prefer an Ultraprobe over a Hawk any day. The Hawk's command pod, especially the size of the cockpit windows, just never looked right to me. The Ultraprobe, on the other hand, as a masterpiece of Martin Bower design. For my money (and I'm willing to spend it), aside from the Eagle the Ultraprobe is the signature Space:1999 design.




Same here and I don't think the Ultraprobes too obscure at all. I think it's fair to say that at least 95% of people buying these new Eagles are older fans who grew up with the show and what 99 fan wouldn't buy an Ultraprobe? Ok maybe some wouldn't but I bet most 99/Eagle fans will snap antything that comes up. I'm not even a big Hawk fan but I'd still buy a newly tooled kit.


----------



## SUNGOD

mach7 said:


> I asked Jamie over at the blog about future Space 1999 kits. He said that it is a possibility given the fact that the eagle is already into it's 3rd run and selling very well.
> 
> The Hawk is the logical next step along with an eagle accessory kit. But I suggested a Space 1999 exploration set, a commlock and stungun. That suggestion was not shot down.






3rd run. That's great news and I wonder how many they've sold so far?


----------



## Opus Penguin

Would love to see an exploration set.


----------



## Steve H

Opus Penguin said:


> Would love to see an exploration set.


Add me to the pile. That Galaxy Quest set seems to have done decent (different company of course).


----------



## SUNGOD

I wonder what Eagle will be next? Personally I hope it's the nuclear waste pod variant.


----------



## seaQuest

Most likely will be one with a lab pod and spine booster. Jaime Hood at Round 2 monitors the Facebook group and that's the version that's most wanted.


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> I wonder what Eagle will be next? Personally I hope it's the nuclear waste pod variant.


Heck all one's gotta do is get some tubing the right size and a sheet of plastic and start scratch building.


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> Most likely will be one with a lab pod and spine booster. Jaime Hood at Round 2 monitors the Facebook group and that's the version that's most wanted.




Actually on that survey a while back I seem to remember the nuclear pod got more votes than all the others apart from transporter pod.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> Heck all one's gotta do is get some tubing the right size and a sheet of plastic and start scratch building.





I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. And anyway..........I want a factory made one. There's nothing like opening a styrene kit box and looking at all the ready made pieces.

I think they'd be stupid not to do all the pods anyway.


----------



## John P

They'd be stupid not to risk tens of thousands of dollars on things that only a few hundred people want? Yeah.


----------



## Steve H

John P said:


> They'd be stupid not to risk tens of thousands of dollars on things that only a few hundred people want? Yeah.


Well, now, let's look at this from the same perspective that allowed for the creation of this Eagle kit, modular tooling and duplicated parts trees.

This is all from the viewpoint of my quasi-educated eyes, mind. I can't tell if something is 2.4 mm different from one pod to another, OK? 

So, then. Lab pod. It's a modified passenger pod, so we need the two 'docking wings' and 4 smaller versions of the main landing gear pads, right? Oh, wait, aren't there extra lift nozzles under the docking wings? Yeah. There's also some planted on detail and the module ends are different for some odd reason. OK, so that means tooling for one docking wing, one pod end piece, one lift nozzle, two pod landing gear pads and the repetitive plant-on detailing parts. All this to be fitted onto the standard kit passenger pod. So that seems do-able. 

Cargo/crane pallet, that COULD get away with using the passenger pod bottom parts with added detail for the floor, plus the support braces and the same landing gear pads from the lab pod. This would be the tricky bit, as the pads for the cargo pod look to be square, not cross shaped. The lab pod pads could be designed as multiple parts so you could omit the bits that make them cross shaped. Then there's the crane fitting for the pallet, it looks like much of that is also duplicated pieces that could be reduced to a single tooling that would be double shot. 

The spine booster rockets, I think that's a large enough unit that breaking it down to duplicated parts is possible. that's some savings. 

Vertical booster rockets, again, make one, duplicate 4 times. 

It COULD be done. Probably the best way to monetize that would be offer a 'super deluxe' Eagle kit, then once that's in production R2 could make a 'fanboy special' on their website of just the passenger pod and all the new extras, this way they don't risk the retail rejection factor. 

Hm. They'd also likely need to spin up new aluminum engine and RCS bells for this, for those that want them. 

I think it's actually practical if tried this way. If they try to increase the ROI on the Eagle tooling by MULTIPLE re-releases to sell different pods they're going to suffer the inevitable fate of diminishing returns, a fate that I think damaged Product Enterprises somewhat with their Eagles. The more 'extra stuff' you have to design and make to help push the sales of each Eagle variant, the more that impacts the expected savings of re-used tooling. 

Blah blah blah. I know. I'm just saying, from a pure numbers look, there IS a way to give the fans what they want. So it seems to me.


----------



## Radiodugger

Hi guys! Doug here. 

3rd run? So all the mistakes are corrected? Well, the ones that _can_ be anyway? I still have the Robot, Chariot, FS-1 and Seaview kits ahead of me! Yikes. Thanks guys! Good building!

Doug


----------



## irishtrek

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. And anyway..........I want a factory made one. There's nothing like opening a styrene kit box and looking at all the ready made pieces.
> 
> I think they'd be stupid not to do all the pods anyway.


What I posted was just for starters, ie just the basics.


----------



## SUNGOD

John P said:


> They'd be stupid not to risk tens of thousands of dollars on things that only a few hundred people want? Yeah.




Well I take it you're being slightly tongue in cheek saying that because of the ?

I think it's fair to say most Eagle fans will want all the pods and I'd be very surprised if R2 aren't going to miss the opportunity to get as much out of the moulds as possible. Just like Hasegawa releasing differing variants and boxings of the same aircraft etc.


----------



## SUNGOD

irishtrek said:


> What I posted was just for starters, ie just the basics.




I see......I think?


----------



## lunadude

I've seen some images of a cargo pod that Brad Hair is kitting. I don't see it in his store yet.
http://www.bradhairproductions.com/index.html


----------



## Fozzie

I think, at the very least, a lab pod module version will be made.


----------



## SUNGOD

Fozzie said:


> I think, at the very least, a lab pod module version will be made.




They should all be made. This is a new plastic Eagle kit and it'll be very half hearted if all the pods aren't done. I think as with the rest of the kit it could be planned with minimal tooling costs as there's some repeating patterns/pieces on the different pods.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Well, now, let's look at this from the same perspective that allowed for the creation of this Eagle kit, modular tooling and duplicated parts trees.
> 
> This is all from the viewpoint of my quasi-educated eyes, mind. I can't tell if something is 2.4 mm different from one pod to another, OK?
> 
> So, then. Lab pod. It's a modified passenger pod, so we need the two 'docking wings' and 4 smaller versions of the main landing gear pads, right? Oh, wait, aren't there extra lift nozzles under the docking wings? Yeah. There's also some planted on detail and the module ends are different for some odd reason. OK, so that means tooling for one docking wing, one pod end piece, one lift nozzle, two pod landing gear pads and the repetitive plant-on detailing parts. All this to be fitted onto the standard kit passenger pod. So that seems do-able.
> 
> Cargo/crane pallet, that COULD get away with using the passenger pod bottom parts with added detail for the floor, plus the support braces and the same landing gear pads from the lab pod. This would be the tricky bit, as the pads for the cargo pod look to be square, not cross shaped. The lab pod pads could be designed as multiple parts so you could omit the bits that make them cross shaped. Then there's the crane fitting for the pallet, it looks like much of that is also duplicated pieces that could be reduced to a single tooling that would be double shot.
> 
> The spine booster rockets, I think that's a large enough unit that breaking it down to duplicated parts is possible. that's some savings.
> 
> Vertical booster rockets, again, make one, duplicate 4 times.
> 
> It COULD be done. Probably the best way to monetize that would be offer a 'super deluxe' Eagle kit, then once that's in production R2 could make a 'fanboy special' on their website of just the passenger pod and all the new extras, this way they don't risk the retail rejection factor.
> 
> Hm. They'd also likely need to spin up new aluminum engine and RCS bells for this, for those that want them.
> 
> I think it's actually practical if tried this way. If they try to increase the ROI on the Eagle tooling by MULTIPLE re-releases to sell different pods they're going to suffer the inevitable fate of diminishing returns, a fate that I think damaged Product Enterprises somewhat with their Eagles. The more 'extra stuff' you have to design and make to help push the sales of each Eagle variant, the more that impacts the expected savings of re-used tooling.
> 
> Blah blah blah. I know. I'm just saying, from a pure numbers look, there IS a way to give the fans what they want. So it seems to me.







I think there is a way too but from what I remember the PE Eagles sold very well but then PE had a disaster with the awful Shado Mobile paint job, their SPV wasn't very good and they had a few other disasters too including a fire which destroyed a lot of their stock so I think the Eagles were far from the problem.


----------



## seaQuest

Jaime Hood has told us on the Space:1999 Props and Ships Facebook page that they won't do separate pod-only accessory kits. Only full Eagle variant kits. A Lab Pod-Spine Booster variant could be a ways off considering Jaime is now focused on the retooled U.S.S. Excelsior repop and the new Galileo Shuttlecraft in addition to R 2's usual aircraft, automobile, and what-have-you kit subjects. 

Besides, the aftermarket could fill pod variant wants before R 2 gets around to 'em.


----------



## Scifitodd

A member has all but finished his OOB build and it looks fantastic!


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> Jaime Hood has told us on the Space:1999 Props and Ships Facebook page that they won't do separate pod-only accessory kits. Only full Eagle variant kits. A Lab Pod-Spine Booster variant could be a ways off considering Jaime is now focused on the retooled U.S.S. Excelsior repop and the new Galileo Shuttlecraft in addition to R 2's usual aircraft, automobile, and what-have-you kit subjects.
> 
> Besides, the aftermarket could fill pod variant wants before R 2 gets around to 'em.







I don't have a problem with them bringing out only full Eagle variants. Especially if R2 makes more money out of it that way, as the more money R2 makes on these eagles the more likely it is we'll see other 99 kits.

As for the aftermarket well there's plenty of other things the aftermarket companies can do without doing the pods though. As I've said before plastic kit manufacturers shouldn't be pandering to the aftermarket companies.


----------



## Scifitodd

22" eagle transporter build video from Props & Ships!

http://s296.photobucket.com/user/Scifitodd/slideshow/22inch eagle builds on Props and Ships


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> I don't have a problem with them bringing out only full Eagle variants. Especially if R2 makes more money out of it that way, as the more money R2 makes on these eagles the more likely it is we'll see other 99 kits.
> 
> As for the aftermarket well there's plenty of other things the aftermarket companies can do without doing the pods though. As I've said before plastic kit manufacturers shouldn't be pandering to the aftermarket companies.


But there is a flaw in this thinking. All one has to do is consult history.

The Market (that is, the retailers who are the really really important part of the equation. vital in fact.) is very fickle. It also has a tight fist on the pocketbook, and is easily frightened and confused. 

There's only so much money and shelf space. When you have a Hundred Dollar model (plus or minus) a shop is sinking a LOT of their liquid capital into that one kit in hopes of selling it. The basic, stock Eagle is a reasonable investment. So, winner, and the fact that R2 says they're already on a 3rd production run says they're gonna recoup the costs much faster than expected. Good for them. 

So a store stocks a couple of kits, and they 'turn' so they order another. Now comes along the Lab Pod Eagle. It's got maybe 20% new tooling but would it be the same price? Logic says it should be as the Eagle tooling has been paid for but no, given all the turmoil in China I would wager it would retail for maybe $150. And the retailer has to choose, does he NEED another Eagle on the shelf when demand for that original one is doing OK? What the heck, he's gonna fulfill the special orders, he takes a chance on one for the shelf. And it sits. 

Then comes the cargo pallet version. Then, if R2 really wants to upset folk, a separate crane version. Each kit selling less and less.

When dealing with such expensive kits, that law of diminishing returns hits hard and fast. 

The best use of their resources would be a separate pod kit. By bundling all the variations in that one box they could get away with a $50 or so pricepoint. And THEN they could offer a super deluxe 'All Those Eagles!' set.

Look, R2 got REALLY lucky when they planned this Eagle kit. By the ship's modular nature, taking advantage of that in tooling design, they were able to make a really nice kit at a much lower tooling cost than might have been. The problem is that EVERYTHING ELSE from this point forward will end up needing unique tooling. Earlier upthread I pointed out how using the modular nature of Eagle stuff could be worked into different pods. If that was used to make a pod set they could get decent ROI on the whole thing. But if selling a Lab Eagle turns out to be a dog, under performing in sales, that kills everything else. 

And this plan makes everyone a winner. Retailers are rewarded because a pod set refreshes interest in the original Eagle kit. R2 is rewarded because each run of the basic Eagle kit increases the return on investment, and depending on how the Chinese factory does its bookeeping that ends up being even more beneficial. 

But hey, I can't possibly understand such things, right?


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> But there is a flaw in this thinking. All one has to do is consult history.
> 
> The Market (that is, the retailers who are the really really important part of the equation. vital in fact.) is very fickle. It also has a tight fist on the pocketbook, and is easily frightened and confused.
> 
> There's only so much money and shelf space. When you have a Hundred Dollar model (plus or minus) a shop is sinking a LOT of their liquid capital into that one kit in hopes of selling it. The basic, stock Eagle is a reasonable investment. So, winner, and the fact that R2 says they're already on a 3rd production run says they're gonna recoup the costs much faster than expected. Good for them.
> 
> So a store stocks a couple of kits, and they 'turn' so they order another. Now comes along the Lab Pod Eagle. It's got maybe 20% new tooling but would it be the same price? Logic says it should be as the Eagle tooling has been paid for but no, given all the turmoil in China I would wager it would retail for maybe $150. And the retailer has to choose, does he NEED another Eagle on the shelf when demand for that original one is doing OK? What the heck, he's gonna fulfill the special orders, he takes a chance on one for the shelf. And it sits.
> 
> Then comes the cargo pallet version. Then, if R2 really wants to upset folk, a separate crane version. Each kit selling less and less.
> 
> When dealing with such expensive kits, that law of diminishing returns hits hard and fast.
> 
> The best use of their resources would be a separate pod kit. By bundling all the variations in that one box they could get away with a $50 or so pricepoint. And THEN they could offer a super deluxe 'All Those Eagles!' set.
> 
> Look, R2 got REALLY lucky when they planned this Eagle kit. By the ship's modular nature, taking advantage of that in tooling design, they were able to make a really nice kit at a much lower tooling cost than might have been. The problem is that EVERYTHING ELSE from this point forward will end up needing unique tooling. Earlier upthread I pointed out how using the modular nature of Eagle stuff could be worked into different pods. If that was used to make a pod set they could get decent ROI on the whole thing. But if selling a Lab Eagle turns out to be a dog, under performing in sales, that kills everything else.
> 
> And this plan makes everyone a winner. Retailers are rewarded because a pod set refreshes interest in the original Eagle kit. R2 is rewarded because each run of the basic Eagle kit increases the return on investment, and depending on how the Chinese factory does its bookeeping that ends up being even more beneficial.
> 
> But hey, I can't possibly understand such things, right?





Maybe you're right but there again who knows. All I know is that to tool up a new Eagle and not get as many variants out of it as possible is probably not a good idea. That's why other companies like Tamiya, Airfix and of course Round 2 try and get as many variants out of their aircraft, tanks etc as possible. As I said with careful planning they could probably do all the pods using parts that have already been tooled up for other variants. Look at the way R2's done the transporter pod. I might be wrong but that to me it looks like they've made it so they can use certain parts from the transporter pod and add a few other sprues to do the rest of the pods. So hopefully it won't take a lot more expense.

And then it's obviously up to R2 to see whether they can make more money from selling the different variants or as some people want.....the other pods as separate. I really don't mind as long as they do *do* all the other pods.


----------



## Trek Ace

I imagine that they (Round 2) could do an accessory kit for the Eagle much like they did for the 1/350 original _Enterprise_ with the 1st and 2nd Pilot parts. It could have the freighter/winch pods, the lab pod, and the boosters - all in one kit. Or, as less-expensive, separate kits. Either way would seem to be a win-win.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Maybe you're right but there again who knows. All I know is that to tool up a new Eagle and not get as many variants out of it as possible is probably not a good idea. That's why other companies like Tamiya, Airfix and of course Round 2 try and get as many variants out of their aircraft, tanks etc as possible. As I said with careful planning they could probably do all the pods using parts that have already been tooled up for other variants. Look at the way R2's done the transporter pod. I might be wrong but that to me it looks like they've made it so they can use certain parts from the transporter pod and add a few other sprues to do the rest of the pods. So hopefully it won't take a lot more expense.
> 
> And then it's obviously up to R2 to see whether they can make more money from selling the different variants or as some people want.....the other pods as separate. I really don't mind as long as they do *do* all the other pods.


But it's a fool's game trying to compare R2 and the American plastic model market and Tamiya (Hasegawa, Bandai) and the Japanese plastic model market.

Japan has a robust enough retail and consumer base those companies can afford to crank out variants that share tooling. Look at all the support material! Numerous magazines, DOZENS of magazines. Not only on model building,two for models for sure, but reference support on various and sundry military subjects. Hundreds, maybe thousands of local neighborhood hobby shops filled with kits and paints and tools supporting the industry. That's not even touching on kits and supplies sold in department stores.

What do we have here in the U.S.? Maybe a few hundred hobby stores across the entire nation. Limited support from a couple of national chains. The last remaining national toy store chain (Toys R Us) stocking maybe a handful of kits. It's a far cry from the glory days of the '60s. 

So R2 managing to sell more than a thousand kits (note, I have no idea what the numbers are but usually production runs tend to be between 1000 and 5000 so if they are on their 3rd production run that damn good) with a MSRP of over $100 is pretty darn good. But they just won't do the same numbers with a new pod added repop. 

Mind, if they had gone ahead with an all new tool 12" Eagle, they might have been able to make that concept work. There, an 'all the other pods' accessory kit would have been less attractive in terms of ROI.

But what is, is. My concern is that if they end up waiting 2 years to do a lab pod Eagle, nobody is going to care and something else will pop up with more heat.


----------



## seaQuest

What if they're not pandering? What if aftermarket items pop up because they fill a void? To my mind, folks like Paulbo provide a necessary service, making things that the styrene molding process can't do adequately. I know of a few modelers who are holding off on building their Eagles until there's photoetch available.


----------



## seaQuest

Let's take into account that R2 has to deal with something they don't have to where military variants are concerned. That being coughing up money to ITV Studios Global Entertainment for the licensing fee and royalties on every kit sold. And, mind you, this is a company that was exploring crowdfunding projects because they had problems keeping their heads above water after an employee was found to be cooking the books and embezzling from the company. 
They may be off life support but they're still in the ICU.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> But it's a fool's game trying to compare R2 and the American plastic model market and Tamiya (Hasegawa, Bandai) and the Japanese plastic model market.
> 
> Japan has a robust enough retail and consumer base those companies can afford to crank out variants that share tooling. Look at all the support material! Numerous magazines, DOZENS of magazines. Not only on model building,two for models for sure, but reference support on various and sundry military subjects. Hundreds, maybe thousands of local neighborhood hobby shops filled with kits and paints and tools supporting the industry. That's not even touching on kits and supplies sold in department stores.
> 
> What do we have here in the U.S.? Maybe a few hundred hobby stores across the entire nation. Limited support from a couple of national chains. The last remaining national toy store chain (Toys R Us) stocking maybe a handful of kits. It's a far cry from the glory days of the '60s.
> 
> So R2 managing to sell more than a thousand kits (note, I have no idea what the numbers are but usually production runs tend to be between 1000 and 5000 so if they are on their 3rd production run that damn good) with a MSRP of over $100 is pretty darn good. But they just won't do the same numbers with a new pod added repop.
> 
> Mind, if they had gone ahead with an all new tool 12" Eagle, they might have been able to make that concept work. There, an 'all the other pods' accessory kit would have been less attractive in terms of ROI.
> 
> But what is, is. My concern is that if they end up waiting 2 years to do a lab pod Eagle, nobody is going to care and something else will pop up with more heat.




Why would "nobody care" if they waited 2 years to do a Lab pod (assuming that would be the first they'd do anyway)? Many people said a new tool Eagle wouldn't sell but touch wood.........here we are with an all new kit that hopefully seems to be selling well on it's 3rd production run.

I get the impression 1 or 2 people on here are deliberately talking down more pod releases for some reason. Why anyone would do that I don't know as we ought to be letting R2 know that we'll buy them all. And I think most people *will *buy them all even if they're released as full kits. Also why would anyone want to buy other pods if you haven't got more Eagles to display them?


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> What if they're not pandering? What if aftermarket items pop up because they fill a void? To my mind, folks like Paulbo provide a necessary service, making things that the styrene molding process can't do adequately. I know of a few modelers who are holding off on building their Eagles until there's photoetch available.




I think some styrene kit manufacturers do pander as they leave some things out inexplicably as if they think "we'll leave that out as the aftermarket guys will do that"

And that shouldn't be the case. It's one thing aftermarket guys doing small things like bringing out extra graphics or a few small accessories etc.............but not a whole flipping pod. Those should be part of R2's Eagle release programme. I want Transporter, Freighter, Nuclear and Laboratory Eagles in plastic. That's the whole point of bringing out new Eagle kits.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Why would "nobody care" if they waited 2 years to do a Lab pod (assuming that would be the first they'd do anyway)? Many people said a new tool Eagle wouldn't sell but touch wood.........here we are with an all new kit that hopefully seems to be selling well on it's 3rd production run.
> 
> I get the impression 1 or 2 people on here are deliberately talking down more pod releases for some reason. Why anyone would do that I don't know as we ought to be letting R2 know that we'll buy them all. And I think most people *will *buy them all even if they're released as full kits. Also why would anyone want to buy other pods if you haven't got more Eagles to display them?


As I said, you keep the new 22" Eagle in production. But I guess it depends on how much display space you have. Some people might not have the room for, or not want to dedicate the space to, 3 or 4 large Eagles. Swapping pods is certainly a viable display option. 

I will say, I guess if R2 chooses that the only way to sell different pods is to sell the complete Eagle with it, as long as they still include the stock passenger pod in there it's not so terrible.

Because, see, I would wager that at least 90% of Space:1999 fans that want to buy a large Eagle want the standard passenger pod. That's the Eagle they know. If that option goes away with the release of different podded Eagles, I would expect sales to decrease.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Let's take into account that R2 has to deal with something they don't have to where military variants are concerned. That being coughing up money to ITV Studios Global Entertainment for the licensing fee and royalties on every kit sold. And, mind you, this is a company that was exploring crowdfunding projects because they had problems keeping their heads above water after an employee was found to be cooking the books and embezzling from the company.
> They may be off life support but they're still in the ICU.


I assume you mean R2 had that employee problem, not ITV. 

Man, that's harsh. Not surprising, there's ALWAYS that kind of crap going on. Usually it's not revealed as such but the problems are obvious. Usually when a company is recovering from that sort of thing there's a risk of very bad choices being made under mistaken ideas of profitability. the stories I could tell of the deaths of several national companies...

Hopefully R2 manages to hang on. I would hate for them to end up bought out by someone who is completely ignorant of the market. (this, sadly,also happens all too often)


----------



## seaQuest

SUNGOD said:


> I think some styrene kit manufacturers do pander as they leave some things out inexplicably as if they think "we'll leave that out as the aftermarket guys will do that"
> 
> And that shouldn't be the case. It's one thing aftermarket guys doing small things like bringing out extra graphics or a few small accessories etc.............but not a whole flipping pod. Those should be part of R2's Eagle release programme. I want Transporter, Freighter, Nuclear and Laboratory Eagles in plastic. That's the whole point of bringing out new Eagle kits.


I think that people think that way after Moebius made a Viper Mk VII kit with a minimal cockpit and the aftermarket stepped up and made available a well-detailed cockpit. Frank discussed that. The Viper Mk VII cockpit was difficult to mold without raising the kit's price point. And Paulbo made an exquisite photoetch set to compensate. The OEM and the aftermarket complement each other, it's not pandering.


----------



## robn1

seaQuest said:


> I think that people think that way after Moebius made a Viper Mk VII kit with a minimal cockpit and the aftermarket stepped up and made available a well-detailed cockpit. Frank discussed that. The Viper Mk VII cockpit was difficult to mold without raising the kit's price point. And Paulbo made an exquisite photoetch set to compensate. The OEM and the aftermarket complement each other, it's not pandering.


I agree. Fine, thin, or complex shapes simply cannot be made with rigid steel molds. At the very least it would require multi part molds to allow for removal of the part which can double or triple the cost. Resin and/or photo etch makes these parts possible at an affordable price, and gives the builder the option not to spend the extra money if he doesn't want to. Some kit makers include resin or etch in their kits, but again it increases cost and leaves the buyer with no option.

Regarding the pods, releasing a complete Eagle with each pod variant doesn't seem cost effective to me. Some might want an Eagle with each pod, but as stated others may not have the space or funds for that. Separate pods, either sold individually or as a set, seems better to me. Better still a deluxe edition Eagle with all pod types in one box. I'd go for that.

But please, also bring on the Hawk, Swift and Super Swift :thumbsup:


----------



## Richard Baker

I could see Round2 issuing a 'Super Deluxe' kit with all the metal parts, pod interior, lighting and a Lab pod with the dorsal engine package down the road. 

I'd be willing to buy additional pods if sold separately, but no way would I buy a second Eagle just to get an alternate pod. Side from display limitations, the whole kit is too expensive to duplicate like that- I can get several smaller models that I really really want instead.


----------



## seaQuest

Richard Baker said:


> I could see Round2 issuing a 'Super Deluxe' kit with all the metal parts, pod interior, lighting and a Lab pod with the dorsal engine package down the road.
> 
> I'd be willing to buy additional pods if sold separately, but no way would I buy a second Eagle just to get an alternate pod. Side from display limitations, the whole kit is too expensive to duplicate like that- I can get several smaller models that I really really want instead.


Well, maybe if Jaime sees that offering pods as accessory kits is what modelers want, he can submit the idea to Tom Lowe and Tom'll change his mind.


----------



## Steve H

seaQuest said:


> Well, maybe if Jaime sees that offering pods as accessory kits is what modelers want, he can submit the idea to Tom Lowe and Tom'll change his mind.


Well, maybe those that seem to have 'inside' access can advocate for this in terms I've outlined, the cost/benefit view, the retailer reaction, the risk of diminishing returns and retailer fatigue over multiple $100+ kits.

Of course there's a lot of 'blue sky' in the general discussion but I think I've kept my thoughts on this subject pretty well grounded in reality. A Pod accessory kit makes the most people happy as well as refreshes sales of the basic Eagle kit. That increases ROI faster.

Heck, if the parts breakdown for the passenger pod was laid out so it's its own tool, that makes everything even easier. Modular construction is good.


----------



## SUNGOD

seaQuest said:


> I think that people think that way after Moebius made a Viper Mk VII kit with a minimal cockpit and the aftermarket stepped up and made available a well-detailed cockpit. Frank discussed that. The Viper Mk VII cockpit was difficult to mold without raising the kit's price point. And Paulbo made an exquisite photoetch set to compensate. The OEM and the aftermarket complement each other, it's not pandering.





Sometimes it is. I'd rather pay more for something complete than some half hearted attempt which Moebius and other companies have done on some occasions.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> I could see Round2 issuing a 'Super Deluxe' kit with all the metal parts, pod interior, lighting and a Lab pod with the dorsal engine package down the road.
> 
> I'd be willing to buy additional pods if sold separately, but no way would I buy a second Eagle just to get an alternate pod. Side from display limitations, the whole kit is too expensive to duplicate like that- I can get several smaller models that I really really want instead.




Come on that's just silly. People bought multiple Eagles when PE released theirs and the 22 inch Eagle is not that expensive and it's only twice the size of the PE ones. Nobody will convince me that they can't find space for a few full Eagles. They're fairly slimline things and just make some new shelves.

If R2 decide to release separate pods fine but if they think they can only release the whole kit with the new pods then that's fine too.

Don't forget the more money they make from these Eagles the more 99 kits we'll get.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

SUNGOD said:


> Nobody will convince me that they can't find space for a few full Eagles. They're fairly slimline things and just make some new shelves.


Even though you have just indicated that you're inflexible in your beliefs, let me tell you that I can't. Not just won't, but can't. I live in a nursing home due to a stroke several years ago and have only 13 square metres (140 square feet) in my room. As it is, my shelves (of which I already have too many and there is literally no room for more) are pretty much full, between models and 1/6 action figures. As of now, I have some models I'll never build due to space limitations, like the TMP and TOS 1/350 Enterprises. Add to that my limited disability pension, and $100.00+ models (even if the Canadian dollar wasn't in the dumps) are far and away out of my reach. Please, sir, with your incredible knowledge, tell me how I can get a bunch of 22" Eagles under these circumstances.


----------



## Steve H

Owen E Oulton said:


> Even though you have just indicated that you're inflexible in your beliefs, let me tell you that I can't. Not just won't, but can't. I live in a nursing home due to a stroke several years ago and have only 13 square metres (140 square feet) in my room. As it is, my shelves (of which I already have too many and there is literally no room for more) are pretty much full, between models and 1/6 action figures. As of now, I have some models I'll never build due to space limitations, like the TMP and TOS 1/350 Enterprises. Add to that my limited disability pension, and $100.00+ models (even if the Canadian dollar wasn't in the dumps) are far and away out of my reach. Please, sir, with your incredible knowledge, tell me how I can get a bunch of 22" Eagles under these circumstances.


Well, first up, I'm saddened by your situation and wish you well.

I think Sungod is simply blinded by his desire. I can't blame him, it must be frustrating to want something so badly, to seem to have it within reach, and here people like me go and rain on the cornflakes, trying to find a logical solution to very real roadblocks. I sincerely feel R2 will make a huge mistake moving forward with a plan to release different pods (and I assume accessories such as that hypersonic glider and so on) as complete, individual separate Eagle kits. A large box $100+ kit is NOT the same as 12" toy Eagles, a package roughly the size of a hardcover book. It's not just the shelf space of the 'end user' that's a concern, it's the shelf space (and the available money) of the retailer. 

You HAVE to take into account that retailers are just not as savvy as we are about such things. They accept, for example, that Hasegawa will crank out 5 or 6 different kits of the F-4 Phantom, including cheap re-pops such as special decal limited releases because that's easy and clearly advertised and promoted. There is decades of history in that.

But remember how Mobieus complained about how soft sales of their Jupiter II kit were? That was market confusion at work, Mobieus did a really poor job in not emphasizing that their all-new kit wasn't just a re-pop of the Polar Lights (R2) Kit which was still on shelves. 

I'd like to know how well the 'deluxe' version of the old MPC Eagle (with resin add-on parts) has done compared to the original kit. I suspect that there was some resistance due to both the significantly higher pricepoint as well as the mixed media parts. FWIW, I haven't seen this kit on a shelf anywhere in my area, but they have the MPC Eagle, the Moonbase Alpha kit and even that horrid 'The Alien' show car. 

If R2 chose to copy what they did with the old Eagle kit and release the new 22" Eagle with mixed media Lab Pod and Booster, they'll kill the market completely for any further variations. Sungod won't get his dream. The only path to continued success I see is an accessory kit, maybe even two of them, of different pods and add-ons in styrene plastic.


----------



## seaQuest

I'd buy another full Eagle if it's a Lab Pod w/ Spine Booster in polystyrene. I'd LIKE to see that kit with shoulder pods tooled to represent 44" Eagle #2 for accuracy's sake, but won't kvetch if they don't do that. I'd be hard pressed to buy a full Eagle w/ Winch Pod. I'd buy a garage kit Winch Pod first.


----------



## Richard Baker

SUNGOD said:


> Come on that's just silly. People bought multiple Eagles when PE released theirs and the 22 inch Eagle is not that expensive and it's only twice the size of the PE ones. Nobody will convince me that they can't find space for a few full Eagles. They're fairly slimline things and just make some new shelves.
> 
> If R2 decide to release separate pods fine but if they think they can only release the whole kit with the new pods then that's fine too.
> 
> Don't forget the more money they make from these Eagles the more 99 kits we'll get.


Just plain silly?
When I moved into my wife's home I had to lose literally 95% of my possessions- simply no room to put them into a fully furnished home. I have a room downstairs which I use as a workshop/cave thing but there is no space even for the TOS Galactica I am building unless I move something else into storage first.
I gave up a lot to be with her and had to make a lot of adjustments. She fully supports my hobby and teaching our son my techniques, but displays for me are a zero sum game. One goes out, another goes in.
There are so many kits like the big Seaview, the 1/350 TOS-E that I crave but will probably never own due to space limitations.

I am envious of those who can build and display what they want with no problems...


----------



## John P

Si, I have room for exactly one Eagle - maybe - on the shelf over the TV, next to the Lunar Models Seaview. If I move some other stuff around. Maybe.


----------



## spock62

seaQuest said:


> I think that people think that way after Moebius made a Viper Mk VII kit with a minimal cockpit and the aftermarket stepped up and made available a well-detailed cockpit. Frank discussed that. The Viper Mk VII cockpit was difficult to mold without raising the kit's price point. And Paulbo made an exquisite photoetch set to compensate. The OEM and the aftermarket complement each other, it's not pandering.





robn1 said:


> I agree. Fine, thin, or complex shapes simply cannot be made with rigid steel molds. At the very least it would require multi part molds to allow for removal of the part which can double or triple the cost. Resin and/or photo etch makes these parts possible at an affordable price, and gives the builder the option not to spend the extra money if he doesn't want to. Some kit makers include resin or etch in their kits, but again it increases cost and leaves the buyer with no option.


For Frank to say that it was "difficult" to mold the Viper MkVII's cockpit accurately is hard to swallow. Other manufacturer's do it all the time (i.e. aircraft kits). When I purchase a kit, I'm expecting a _complete_ kit, not a kit that requires aftermarket because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to do it right the first time! 

The MkVII's cockpit is basically 2 parts, the cockpit tub w/IP and the seat (control stick is molded in pilot figures had). The problem with the cockpit tub is that Moebius, for some reason, left off the port console and shifted the cockpit to the left, which leaves the seat left of the ships centerline and distorts the proportions of the IP. All Moebius had to do is mold the tub with the starboard and port consoles which would have placed the seat on the centerline. That and provide the keypad the mounts on the floor in front of the pilot. How hard/expensive would that have been?

As for the aftermarket, I think companies like Paulbo's do serve a purpose. But , I also think companies like Moebius rely on them a little too much to make up for what they won't provide in their kits.

The only people that "profit" from this sort of kit are the ones who really don't care about a complete cockpit and are fine with the kit as long as the exterior looks like the original (which the MkVII does). The rest of us, that want an accurate cockpit, end up shelling out for photoetch/resin that usually costs more then the price of the original kit. Not that good a deal in my book.


----------



## SUNGOD

Owen E Oulton said:


> Even though you have just indicated that you're inflexible in your beliefs, let me tell you that I can't. Not just won't, but can't. I live in a nursing home due to a stroke several years ago and have only 13 square metres (140 square feet) in my room. As it is, my shelves (of which I already have too many and there is literally no room for more) are pretty much full, between models and 1/6 action figures. As of now, I have some models I'll never build due to space limitations, like the TMP and TOS 1/350 Enterprises. Add to that my limited disability pension, and $100.00+ models (even if the Canadian dollar wasn't in the dumps) are far and away out of my reach. Please, sir, with your incredible knowledge, tell me how I can get a bunch of 22" Eagles under these circumstances.




Well I'm sorry to hear that but model companies can't please all of the people all the time and they can't not make larger kits as some people haven't got enough space. If they thought like that we'd just get tiny little kits. And I can't see how you think I'm inflexible. I've said whatever they do is fine as long as we get all the pods in styrene.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> Just plain silly?
> When I moved into my wife's home I had to lose literally 95% of my possessions- simply no room to put them into a fully furnished home. I have a room downstairs which I use as a workshop/cave thing but there is no space even for the TOS Galactica I am building unless I move something else into storage first.
> I gave up a lot to be with her and had to make a lot of adjustments. She fully supports my hobby and teaching our son my techniques, but displays for me are a zero sum game. One goes out, another goes in.
> There are so many kits like the big Seaview, the 1/350 TOS-E that I crave but will probably never own due to space limitations.
> 
> I am envious of those who can build and display what they want with no problems...



I've got my own space issues but I'll find room for a few of these. Try and be creative in where things go. One thing people can do is store things like this in large plastic storage boxes which can be stacked on top of each other. I've had to do that with many things.


----------



## Richard Baker

I have a lot of my stuff still stored in the large storage bins/tubs- only way I could find room for everything. My problem is displaying what I build- it is a zero sum game right now. If I finish one model and want to put it out to see, another has to leave and go back into storage to make room. I will need to put four other models into storage to allow room for a single Eagle, simply no room for two Eagles which is the point I am trying to get across. If R2 make some alternate pods available as individual kits without having to buy an entire Eagle kit, then I can use an existing Eagle still as a display and simply swap the pods ever so often.

It just got to me with the comment that my space limitations were 'just plain silly'. and implying I could make room for a fleet if I really wanted to. I would love to be able to do that sort of thing, but my house is going to have to grow an extra room first.


----------



## SUNGOD

Richard Baker said:


> I have a lot of my stuff still stored in the large storage bins/tubs- only way I could find room for everything. My problem is displaying what I build- it is a zero sum game right now. If I finish one model and want to put it out to see, another has to leave and go back into storage to make room. I will need to put four other models into storage to allow room for a single Eagle, simply no room for two Eagles which is the point I am trying to get across. If R2 make some alternate pods available as individual kits without having to buy an entire Eagle kit, then I can use an existing Eagle still as a display and simply swap the pods ever so often.
> 
> It just got to me with the comment that my space limitations were 'just plain silly'. and implying I could make room for a fleet if I really wanted to. I would love to be able to do that sort of thing, but my house is going to have to grow an extra room first.





Join the Club. 95% of my stuff is not on display but in boxes. In fact I bet most people haven't got the room to display everything and with the amount of stuff available which people collect these days it's simply not realistic to expect to display everything.


----------



## seaQuest

spock62 said:


> For Frank to say that it was "difficult" to mold the Viper MkVII's cockpit accurately is hard to swallow. Other manufacturer's do it all the time (i.e. aircraft kits). When I purchase a kit, I'm expecting a _complete_ kit, not a kit that requires aftermarket because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to do it right the first time!
> 
> The MkVII's cockpit is basically 2 parts, the cockpit tub w/IP and the seat (control stick is molded in pilot figures had). The problem with the cockpit tub is that Moebius, for some reason, left off the port console and shifted the cockpit to the left, which leaves the seat left of the ships centerline and distorts the proportions of the IP. All Moebius had to do is mold the tub with the starboard and port consoles which would have placed the seat on the centerline. That and provide the keypad the mounts on the floor in front of the pilot. How hard/expensive would that have been?
> 
> As for the aftermarket, I think companies like Paulbo's do serve a purpose. But , I also think companies like Moebius rely on them a little too much to make up for what they won't provide in their kits.
> 
> The only people that "profit" from this sort of kit are the ones who really don't care about a complete cockpit and are fine with the kit as long as the exterior looks like the original (which the MkVII does). The rest of us, that want an accurate cockpit, end up shelling out for photoetch/resin that usually costs more then the price of the original kit. Not that good a deal in my book.


Frank said they COULD have done the tub more accurately, however, it would've raised the price point, which he didn't want to do. And remember, Moebius isn't a big-time operation; Frank and Dave aren't becoming rich beyond the dreams of avarice with their company. Their margins are pretty slim. The difference in raising a price point could mean the difference between moving product or having people pick it up, look at the price, and say, "no way."


----------



## spock62

seaQuest said:


> Frank said they COULD have done the tub more accurately, however, it would've raised the price point, which he didn't want to do. And remember, Moebius isn't a big-time operation; Frank and Dave aren't becoming rich beyond the dreams of avarice with their company. Their margins are pretty slim. The difference in raising a price point could mean the difference between moving product or having people pick it up, look at the price, and say, "no way."


Yes, I know Moebius isn't big, I've been there. Whither or not Frank and Dave are becoming rich is irrelevant. As for raising the price point, this is always the argument used to defend Moebius, like they would have to raise the price by some ridiculous amount. Willing to bet it wouldn't have raised the cost by that much. 

Besides, Moebius _did_ provide a fairly complete cockpit in the MkII kit, don't see why they couldn't have done the same for the MkVII. Both kits retail for around the same price too.


----------



## Steve H

spock62 said:


> Yes, I know Moebius isn't big, I've been there. Wither or not Frank and Dave are becoming rich is irrelevant. As for raising the price point, this is always the argument used to defend Moebius, like they would have to raise the price by some ridiculous amount. Willing to bet it wouldn't have raised the cost by that much.
> 
> Besides, Moebius _did_ provide a fairly complete cockpit in the MkII kit, don't see why they couldn't have done the same for the MkVII. Both kits retail for around the same price too.


Without looking at both kits, I'm guessing that to make the Mk VII's cockpit correctly they should have broken it down to 4 walls and a floor plus panels instead of a tub, and that might have increased the parts count enough to require either an extra tool or bumped it up to a larger piece of tool steel which would indeed have raised costs. I'm afraid my respect for Moeibus' attention to detail and quality has slipped compared to what's been coming out from R2 lately, the overall brilliant work and more importantly the willingness to actually push the Chinese factory to do what they're told to do, paid to do and fix the mistakes they make. 

What do I know? R2 seems willing to engage their fanbase, Moebius doesn't seem to care. Just how it appears to me.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Well, first up, I'm saddened by your situation and wish you well.
> 
> I think Sungod is simply blinded by his desire. I can't blame him, it must be frustrating to want something so badly, to seem to have it within reach, and here people like me go and rain on the cornflakes, trying to find a logical solution to very real roadblocks. I sincerely feel R2 will make a huge mistake moving forward with a plan to release different pods (and I assume accessories such as that hypersonic glider and so on) as complete, individual separate Eagle kits. A large box $100+ kit is NOT the same as 12" toy Eagles, a package roughly the size of a hardcover book. It's not just the shelf space of the 'end user' that's a concern, it's the shelf space (and the available money) of the retailer.
> 
> You HAVE to take into account that retailers are just not as savvy as we are about such things. They accept, for example, that Hasegawa will crank out 5 or 6 different kits of the F-4 Phantom, including cheap re-pops such as special decal limited releases because that's easy and clearly advertised and promoted. There is decades of history in that.
> 
> But remember how Mobieus complained about how soft sales of their Jupiter II kit were? That was market confusion at work, Mobieus did a really poor job in not emphasizing that their all-new kit wasn't just a re-pop of the Polar Lights (R2) Kit which was still on shelves.
> 
> I'd like to know how well the 'deluxe' version of the old MPC Eagle (with resin add-on parts) has done compared to the original kit. I suspect that there was some resistance due to both the significantly higher pricepoint as well as the mixed media parts. FWIW, I haven't seen this kit on a shelf anywhere in my area, but they have the MPC Eagle, the Moonbase Alpha kit and even that horrid 'The Alien' show car.
> 
> If R2 chose to copy what they did with the old Eagle kit and release the new 22" Eagle with mixed media Lab Pod and Booster, they'll kill the market completely for any further variations. Sungod won't get his dream. The only path to continued success I see is an accessory kit, maybe even two of them, of different pods and add-ons in styrene plastic.



I'm not sure if you're blinded too then by your desire to see the pods sold separately and do you know for sure that was the reason for soft sales of the Jupiter 2? I wouldn't have thought they would do the Lab pod and booster as mixed media anyway (which probably wouldn't be a good idea). They probably did that as resin for the deluxe kit because they didn't want to go to the effort of tooling up new parts in plastic as the old kit is inaccurate anyway. That's why they gave us a new all styrene kit.

Again I don't really have a problem either way as long as we get the different pods and they're styrene.


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> For Frank to say that it was "difficult" to mold the Viper MkVII's cockpit accurately is hard to swallow. Other manufacturer's do it all the time (i.e. aircraft kits). When I purchase a kit, I'm expecting a _complete_ kit, not a kit that requires aftermarket because the manufacturer couldn't be bothered to do it right the first time!
> 
> The MkVII's cockpit is basically 2 parts, the cockpit tub w/IP and the seat (control stick is molded in pilot figures had). The problem with the cockpit tub is that Moebius, for some reason, left off the port console and shifted the cockpit to the left, which leaves the seat left of the ships centerline and distorts the proportions of the IP. All Moebius had to do is mold the tub with the starboard and port consoles which would have placed the seat on the centerline. That and provide the keypad the mounts on the floor in front of the pilot. How hard/expensive would that have been?
> 
> As for the aftermarket, I think companies like Paulbo's do serve a purpose. But , I also think companies like Moebius rely on them a little too much to make up for what they won't provide in their kits.
> 
> The only people that "profit" from this sort of kit are the ones who really don't care about a complete cockpit and are fine with the kit as long as the exterior looks like the original (which the MkVII does). The rest of us, that want an accurate cockpit, end up shelling out for photoetch/resin that usually costs more then the price of the original kit. Not that good a deal in my book.




Great points!


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> Without looking at both kits, I'm guessing that to make the Mk VII's cockpit correctly they should have broken it down to 4 walls and a floor plus panels instead of a tub, and that might have increased the parts count enough to require either an extra tool or bumped it up to a larger piece of tool steel which would indeed have raised costs. I'm afraid my respect for Moeibus' attention to detail and quality has slipped compared to what's been coming out from R2 lately, the overall brilliant work and more importantly the willingness to actually push the Chinese factory to do what they're told to do, paid to do and fix the mistakes they make.
> 
> What do I know? R2 seems willing to engage their fanbase, Moebius doesn't seem to care. Just how it appears to me.




That certainly seems to be the case lately. Unless Moebius get constant praise they don't seem to have much customer friendliness lately (as witnessed in the Moebius section of this site). More like contempt for their customers or potential customers (which many of us are or have been).


----------



## SUNGOD

spock62 said:


> Yes, I know Moebius isn't big, I've been there. Wither or not Frank and Dave are becoming rich is irrelevant. As for raising the price point, this is always the argument used to defend Moebius, like they would have to raise the price by some ridiculous amount. Willing to bet it wouldn't have raised the cost by that much.
> 
> Besides, Moebius _did_ provide a fairly complete cockpit in the MkII kit, don't see why they couldn't have done the same for the MkVII. Both kits retail for around the same price too.




It makes you wonder.


----------



## spock62

Steve H said:


> Without looking at both kits, I'm guessing that to make the Mk VII's cockpit correctly they should have broken it down to 4 walls and a floor plus panels instead of a tub, and that might have increased the parts count enough to require either an extra tool or bumped it up to a larger piece of tool steel which would indeed have raised costs. I'm afraid my respect for Moeibus' attention to detail and quality has slipped compared to what's been coming out from R2 lately, the overall brilliant work and more importantly the willingness to actually push the Chinese factory to do what they're told to do, paid to do and fix the mistakes they make.
> 
> What do I know? R2 seems willing to engage their fanbase, Moebius doesn't seem to care. Just how it appears to me.


Have to say, I feel the same way about Moebius, at least regarding many of their sci-fi hardware kits as of late. The way you described doing the cockpit is exactly how they did the MkII kit, and the results were very good. Too bad they decided to cut corners in the MkVII kit.

And as Sungod mentioned, Moebius loves to be praised (and many of their kits do deserve it, especially their figure and automotive kits), but they can't take any constructive criticism of their kits and treat those of us that make such points as irritants to be ignored.

Oh, I also think that R2 does a much better job overall than Moebius.



SUNGOD said:


> Great points!


Thanks!


----------



## Trek Ace

spock62 said:


> Wither or not Frank and Dave are becoming rich is irrelevant.


I sincerely hope that Frank and Dave do no wither, regardless if they become rich or not.


----------



## Owen E Oulton

SUNGOD said:


> Well I'm sorry to hear that but model companies can't please all of the people all the time and they can't not make larger kits as some people haven't got enough space. If they thought like that we'd just get tiny little kits. And I can't see how you think I'm inflexible. I've said whatever they do is fine as long as we get all the pods in styrene.


What I objected to was your statement that there was nothing anyone could say to justify not buying several Eagle models. How is that not inflexible? I was pointing out why I can't buy even one. I wish R2 well with their kit - it looks good, and I'd love to have one. Just not in the cards. If you have the ready cash and the space, good on you, but just don't look down on those of us who can't afford them. I'll just have to make do with my AMT Eagle and accurise it. I also have a resin cast of a 44" Eagle beak mastered by a well known Eagle scholar, which I'm going to make into a small diorama of a crashed and abandoned Eagle beak entitled Alan Carter Rides Again. By my best estimates the 44" Eagle works out to between 1/28 and 1/32 scale, so I'm going to build it with the door open and a full interior.


----------



## electric indigo

Available in Japan, too:

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10372098

Let's hope for another sales boost (= more possible new Space:1999 kits)


----------



## spock62

Trek Ace said:


> I sincerely hope that Frank and Dave do no wither, regardless if they become rich or not.


An English major I'm not. :wave:


----------



## Richard Baker

I do not think I can completely agree with decisions ANY of the model make all the time but all in all at this moment there is more attention to detail, fantastic part breakdowns and kits being engineered with lighting and other enhancements than I can remember ever seeing before.

I grew up with box scale kits which were deemed 'close enough' to their subjects to pass in a niche market with few choices. If you wanted an Phantom F-4 lit there was competition, multiple scales and price points. If you wanted a fictional subject there was one choice, take it or leave it.

Round 2 has disappointed me in the past, but when the box hits the shelf they have upped their game considerably. Both the 1/350 TOS-E and this new Eagle kit show exceptional engineering, careful research and I consider it a miracle to even be able to buy one. R2 has also chosen to raise expectations with early info releases and then delivered on those promises. Moebius was equally proactive in the past, but the constant barrage of complaints from armchair generals caused them to reconsider that. 

No kit is perfect, no marketing plan is perfect and no company is perfect. Given this I am still extremely grateful for the companies out there today though and consider this a true golden age of model building.

Wandering rant over, not back to the topic of discussion about he wonderful Eagle kit.


----------



## John P

Holy - there are tiny Lunar Modules on the Eagle! Look on the top of the part directly behind the cockpit module.
:lol: :lol:


----------



## SUNGOD

Owen E Oulton said:


> What I objected to was your statement that there was nothing anyone could say to justify not buying several Eagle models. How is that not inflexible? I was pointing out why I can't buy even one. I wish R2 well with their kit - it looks good, and I'd love to have one. Just not in the cards. If you have the ready cash and the space, good on you, but just don't look down on those of us who can't afford them. I'll just have to make do with my AMT Eagle and accurise it. I also have a resin cast of a 44" Eagle beak mastered by a well known Eagle scholar, which I'm going to make into a small diorama of a crashed and abandoned Eagle beak entitled Alan Carter Rides Again. By my best estimates the 44" Eagle works out to between 1/28 and 1/32 scale, so I'm going to build it with the door open and a full interior.




For gods sake I'm not looking down on anyone who genuinely can't afford them (what statement did I say....."that there was nothing anyone could say to justify not buying several Eagle models"? but I think there's some people on here who say they can't afford them but I wouldn't be surprised with a bit of saving etc they can. And when they say they haven't got any space for them.........what they really mean is they haven't got the space to display them. As I said join the club. 

I'd love to be able to display all my stuff or even more of it......but I can't. The only thing I can do is to swap things around. My house is pretty full of stuff and it's not just kits I collect so I haven't got much space myself.

But I'll find space for a few of these Eagles even if I can only display 1 or 2 of them at a time. And buying them will be spread out to.


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> *snip*
> 
> Moebius was equally proactive in the past, but the constant barrage of complaints from armchair generals caused them to reconsider that.
> 
> *snip
> Wandering rant over, not back to the topic of discussion about he wonderful Eagle kit.


This statement is the one that annoys me about them. Anyone with any sense and reason understand that the internet can be an ugly, uncouth place. Signal to noise is rare and slight. Those of us raised on AOL and Usenet fully understand.

Any company that chooses to disengage from its customer base because of 'haters' or 'armchair CEOs' (that fits better I think  ) is ignoring the vast resources and knowledge available. Where would they be without Mr. Kerr and Mr. Merriman and others? Fumbling around and likely making even more mistakes. 

They, and R2 are businesses. We are the customers. We vote with our money. I feel more comfortable dealing with a company that can be adult in their business, not act like a 6 year old who when confronted with a different opinion puts their fingers in their ears and screams about how unfair everyone is. 

Yes, all the noise is annoying. Yes, some people are more annoying than others. I have been accused of that any number of times.  I have also been calm, sane, rational and logical. 

I felt, and still feel, R2 could have made a bigger hit if they had released a new tool 12" Eagle, and used the sales of THAT to justify the 22" kit. They have not done that and sales of the 22" seem to be impressive, and for that I congratulate them and say maybe I was wrong. I still think a new tool 12" Eagle would meet tremendous acceptance. 

And the same way with the concept of an accessory kit of Eagle Pods. I really, honestly believe that's the BEST way to satisfy the demands of the few for variations without burdening the retail chain with multiple $100+ kits that would end up cannibalizing sales of other, future models.

I assume that even with re-used tooling, making a 22" Lab Eagle would be considered an entire new production and R2 would get billed much more than they think they would. The Chinese factories do things like that. So the thought of saving money and increasing the R.O.I. of the Eagle kit goes out the window. Making an accessory set and churning out more 'standard' Eagles avoids ALL of that and does, indeed, increase the R.O.I.

So, is this noise or is this signal? I believe the latter but your mileage may vary.


----------



## SUNGOD

Steve H said:


> This statement is the one that annoys me about them. Anyone with any sense and reason understand that the internet can be an ugly, uncouth place. Signal to noise is rare and slight. Those of us raised on AOL and Usenet fully understand.
> 
> Any company that chooses to disengage from its customer base because of 'haters' or 'armchair CEOs' (that fits better I think  ) is ignoring the vast resources and knowledge available. Where would they be without Mr. Kerr and Mr. Merriman and others? Fumbling around and likely making even more mistakes.
> 
> They, and R2 are businesses. We are the customers. We vote with our money. I feel more comfortable dealing with a company that can be adult in their business, not act like a 6 year old who when confronted with a different opinion puts their fingers in their ears and screams about how unfair everyone is.
> 
> Yes, all the noise is annoying. Yes, some people are more annoying than others. I have been accused of that any number of times.  I have also been calm, sane, rational and logical.
> 
> I felt, and still feel, R2 could have made a bigger hit if they had released a new tool 12" Eagle, and used the sales of THAT to justify the 22" kit. They have not done that and sales of the 22" seem to be impressive, and for that I congratulate them and say maybe I was wrong. I still think a new tool 12" Eagle would meet tremendous acceptance.
> 
> And the same way with the concept of an accessory kit of Eagle Pods. I really, honestly believe that's the BEST way to satisfy the demands of the few for variations without burdening the retail chain with multiple $100+ kits that would end up cannibalizing sales of other, future models.
> 
> I assume that even with re-used tooling, making a 22" Lab Eagle would be considered an entire new production and R2 would get billed much more than they think they would. The Chinese factories do things like that. So the thought of saving money and increasing the R.O.I. of the Eagle kit goes out the window. Making an accessory set and churning out more 'standard' Eagles avoids ALL of that and does, indeed, increase the R.O.I.
> 
> So, is this noise or is this signal? I believe the latter but your mileage may vary.




Not sure I'd agree that a Lab Eagle (or any of the other pods) would be an entirely new production. I think they've tooled it so they can just add another sprue or two to make the different pods. The basic structure is still there.

Agree about that statement though. I say what I feel on these forums and make no apologies for it and neither should anyone else. Whilst forums like this exist people like us are going to come on here saying both positive and negative things and if some model companies don't like it then maybe it's time they grew thicker skins. As long as people aren't being abusive there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Moebius don't post here any more but I don't think they've done themselves many favours by the way they've acted over the past few years virtually treating the people who post on here with contempt. If they were hoping people would stop posting on here it certainly hasn't worked.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Not sure I'd agree that a Lab Eagle (or any of the other pods) would be an entirely new production. I think they've tooled it so they can just add another sprue or two to make the different pods. The basic structure is still there.
> 
> Agree about that statement though. I say what I feel on these forums and make no apologies for it and neither should anyone else. Whilst forums like this exist people like us are going to come on here saying both positive and negative things and if some model companies don't like it then maybe it's time they grew thicker skins. As long as people aren't being abusive there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
> 
> Moebius don't post here any more but I don't think they've done themselves many favours by the way they've acted over the past few years virtually treating the people who post on here with contempt. If they were hoping people would stop posting on here it certainly hasn't worked.


Thank you, I think this is another case of me taking shortcuts when I should have laid down more context. 

The proposal is that R2 would take their existing 22" Eagle kit and refresh it by adding the parts to make it the Lab Eagle. This, in theory would lead to other specialty Eagles being made if it was successful. The rational is that by using the existing tooling of the 22" Eagle and adding parts they are increasing the Return On Investment of that original Eagle tooling.

Clear so far?

MY supposition is that the factory in China wouldn't go for that, they would snake bigger profit for THEM by overcharging on the new box, the new tooling of parts and the use of existing molds, citing fluxing exchange rates, oil prices and government mandates. The production would require a complete new contract with all that time and energy (which is money) that entails.

I know this because China practices a more 'robber baron' form of capitalism, rough and ready and eager to skim one more Yuan out of the deal. 

However, if R2 just kept the existing 22" Eagle in production as itself while tooling up an accessory set, they avoid all that and the total cost of production would be more in-line with projections. 

An accessory kit (or maybe 2. I'd like the Hypersonic glider and maybe some moonmobiles and who knows, a laser tank?) would be more accepted by the hobby industry, less confusing than "expensive Eagle kit and WAY more expensive Eagle kit" and gives everybody what they want, variety at the level they can afford. 

And R2 can keep cranking out 22" Eagles and increasing that ol' R.O.I.


----------



## seaQuest

John P said:


> Holy - there are tiny Lunar Modules on the Eagle! Look on the top of the part directly behind the cockpit module.
> :lol: :lol:


When you realize what they are, they stand out like a sore thumb. Then when you think about it, they came from the Airfix 1/144 Apollo-Saturn V. So these parts are 1/288 scale.


----------



## f1steph

There's also 2 black and one white parts (Gemini retro rocket and Retrograde explosive pack) on the passenger pod (on top of the side doors) that came from the 1/24 Gemini capsule. Those parts and a few others are also seen on the laboratory pod. 

Can you guys see any weird details that are on the passenger pod floor ? Some are visible of the original 44'' Eagle 1.


----------



## Richard Baker

When the sprue shots were posted for this kit I had a lot of fun going through and spotting donor pieces.


----------



## John P

:lol:!


----------



## seaQuest

John, believe it or not, they stand out even more when you hit the model with a base coat.


----------



## robn1

That LEM part is also on one of the studio Y-Wings.


----------



## swhite228

robn1 said:


> That LEM part is also on one of the studio Y-Wings.


And they are all over the Hawk studio model from Space1999.


----------



## SUNGOD

Because we usually don't get too much of a look at that area because of the framework I didn't actually know there were Lunar module parts there.


----------



## Steve H

SUNGOD said:


> Because we usually don't get too much of a look at that area because of the framework I didn't actually know there were Lunar module parts there.


Which is the point of them being there. They exist only to create interesting shapes and shadows within the cage frame. It looks 'busy'. 

Mind, I'm not sure they were used in the other 44" filming miniatures, the pics I was looking at looked more like tank parts, bogie wheel suspension from an early make of Sherman tank kinda sorta. 

Hasn't anyone ever 'rivet counted' all the model kit bits on the Eagles by now?


----------



## Owen E Oulton

John P said:


> Holy - there are tiny Lunar Modules on the Eagle! Look on the top of the part directly behind the cockpit module.
> :lol: :lol:


Fitting, since the Apollo 11 LEM was named the _Eagle_!


----------



## f1steph

John P said:


> :lol:!


Gee thanks a lot for taking this picture......

I'm really amazed to see that somebody made those teeny-weeny LM's.... 3D printing miracle maybe.... 

And nope, these little LM's aren't on the 44'' Eagle 1:

https://goo.gl/photos/24JhCKD2Gq8sJPvTA

And Eagle 2:

https://goo.gl/photos/6dweR2Xaz62rzHrT6

But I've just discovered that it there was also a 44'' Eagle 3 ? Is that true? I was under the impression that only two 44'' were built for the series, along with two 22'', one 11'' and a small 5''. 

Steph


----------



## WOI

Am I seeing right,are there 2 halves of the NASA Lunar Module placed
at the bottom of the connecting section of the Eagle Transporter?


----------



## irishtrek

WOI said:


> Am I seeing right,are there 2 halves of the NASA Lunar Module placed
> at the bottom of the connecting section of the Eagle Transporter?


One can see the 'tabs' that hold the spine in place so that image is from above and not underneath.


----------



## Steve H

f1steph said:


> Gee thanks a lot for taking this picture......
> 
> I'm really amazed to see that somebody made those teeny-weeny LM's.... 3D printing miracle maybe....
> 
> And nope, these little LM's aren't on the 44'' Eagle 1:
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/24JhCKD2Gq8sJPvTA
> 
> And Eagle 2:
> 
> https://goo.gl/photos/6dweR2Xaz62rzHrT6
> 
> But I've just discovered that it there was also a 44'' Eagle 3 ? Is that true? I was under the impression that only two 44'' were built for the series, along with two 22'', one 11'' and a small 5''.
> 
> Steph


I have found this very helpful: http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2memenu.html

hat tip to whoever pointed me there some threads back. 

There are doubtless other resources out there but this has been a very handy 'pocket guide' for me.


----------



## Steve H

Well, before we escalate to 'detail-gate' on this, I'd just suggest that the whole service module within the support cages suddenly seems under-detailed compared to the filming miniatures. Might call for some enterprising person to crank out some photoetch or resin add-ons.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Steve H said:


> Well, before we escalate to 'detail-gate' on this, I'd just suggest that the whole service module within the support cages suddenly seems under-detailed compared to the filming miniatures. Might call for some enterprising person to crank out some photoetch or resin add-ons.


I just went to the spares box and started adding small greeblies here and there. The leftover pieces from the Fine Molds Star Wars kids have great small pieces. To be honest, most of that detail gets very hard to see once the cages are in place. It makes it look a little busier, which is what I was going for. I also used a small pin drill and just started adding shallow "rivet" holes wherever there were blank places. With a light wash, the holes fill and viola -- rivets. Just don't bother counting them.


----------



## kekker

There's a good site here that shows the restoration of the 44"

http://davidsissonmodels.co.uk/eagle1.htm

There are a lot of recognizable details: B-29 engine cowling, US WWII bomb halves, running gear from an Italian tank, and lots of hemispheres and cylindrical tanks. Also a few things that look like pumps or electric motors.

there was another site that had even more pics from the restoration, basically detail shots of every component from just about every side. For the nitpicky. (Myself included, for the second one, anyway!)

Kev


----------



## Scifitodd

Hunk A Junk said:


> I just went to the spares box and started adding small greeblies here and there. The leftover pieces from the Fine Molds Star Wars kids have great small pieces. To be honest, most of that detail gets very hard to see once the cages are in place. It makes it look a little busier, which is what I was going for. I also used a small pin drill and just started adding shallow "rivet" holes wherever there were blank places. With a light wash, the holes fill and viola -- rivets. Just don't bother counting them.


Just out of curiosity, why add to a perfect kit?


----------



## seaQuest

Steve H said:


> I have found this very helpful: http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2memenu.html
> 
> hat tip to whoever pointed me there some threads back.
> 
> There are doubtless other resources out there but this has been a very handy 'pocket guide' for me.


This model represents 44" Eagle #1 as she appeared early in Series One. Look at the engine plumbing in more recent photographs. My thinking is that the plumbing was changed after a few crash scenes.

The reason you don't see Apollo LM parts anymore on #1 is that when the models were refurbished for Series Two, the detail parts on the walkways were pried off and replaced with new greeblies.


----------



## seaQuest

Also, if you look real hard (best view is a close up shot in the teaser of The Metamorph), the Command Modules were given little engine bells on the back.


----------



## f1steph

If you look at the episode ''Dragon's Domain'' (BTW, that épisode gave me the creeps for a long time when I was young, along with ''Force of Life'', when Anton Zoref gets carbonized and walks in the nuclear chamber... those bright eyes.......Brrrrr). Anyway, in ''Dragon's Domain, when Tony Cellini, Koenig's best astonaut pal, goes back to the Ultra Probe with an Eagle to kill the freaking cyclope squid, then he seperates the CM from the Eagle, you'll see two engine bells in the back. 

Ah... now I understand, Eagle 3 is mainly the Eagle with the laboratory pod..... Thanks for the link.... dammit I'm building my Eagle 1 with the laboratory pod instead of Eagle 3 detailing......... ?%$#@&*

Steph


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Scifitodd said:


> Just out of curiosity, why add to a perfect kit?


Because no kit, including this one, is perfect and, more importantly, I want customize it to make it even more detailed.


----------



## Steve H

f1steph said:


> If you look at the episode ''Dragon's Domain'' (BTW, that épisode gave me the creeps for a long time when I was young, along with ''Force of Life'', when Anton Zoref gets carbonized and walks in the nuclear chamber... those bright eyes.......Brrrrr). Anyway, in ''Dragon's Domain, when Tony Cellini, Koenig's best astonaut pal, goes back to the Ultra Probe with an Eagle to kill the freaking cyclope squid, then he seperates the CM from the Eagle, you'll see two engine bells in the back.
> 
> Ah... now I understand, Eagle 3 is mainly the Eagle with the laboratory pod..... Thanks for the link.... dammit I'm building my Eagle 1 with the laboratory pod instead of Eagle 3 detailing......... ?%$#@&*
> 
> Steph


Well, slight correction, according to that site. 'Eagle 3' is the name that's been given to the third 44" filming miniature which was built specifically for Year Two. Lab Pod optional. It appears to have some notable differences in the shape of the command module, some odd mis-matches for surface detail and the main, key but not visible difference, the tubing used was steel, not brass, because this model was specifically designed to crash. 

(hence, making all our jokes about poor training out of flight school quasi-canon.  )

Really, I think it's becoming obvious that seeking to make a specific model of a specific filming miniature is somewhat a mug's game, because things changed on an almost daily basis as things were reworked for specific shots, damage was being repaired, parts were swapped about without any actual tracking of what went where. 

Build it the way you want, build it the way your memory has it, build it to reflect a specific scene. There is no perfect all-in-one Eagle. IMHO, YMMV.


----------



## mach7

I think everyone is missing the obvious. The lunar modules are there as life boats! ;-)


----------



## JeffBond

The kit comes with a number of extra detail parts (the round Apollo plates and little hemispheres for the landing gear modules at least) because of the repeated sprues anyway.


----------



## f1steph

Now I remember a few closeups of a weird looking Eagle in season 2, it was in fact Eagle 3. Yeah it's true, the Eagle pilots probably learned to pilot this brick watching the Airplane's movies......

You're totally right, Steve H, that it's a matter of choice when we built an Eagle. You want to built it like in the series, that's fine. You want to built you're own way, that's fine also. The entire series is full of mistakes, errors, you name it. Like I've mention this before, the right hand wasn't talking to the left hand, the miniature builders were not talking to the filming set guys creating mismatchs between lots of things, especially the Eagle. The Eagle spaceship itself is a total nonsense. Well we can say that for most of sci-fi ships. 

Steph


----------



## Steve H

f1steph said:


> Now I remember a few closeups of a weird looking Eagle in season 2, it was in fact Eagle 3. Yeah it's true, the Eagle pilots probably learned to pilot this brick watching the Airplane's movies......
> 
> You're totally right, Steve H, that it's a matter of choice when we built an Eagle. You want to built it like in the series, that's fine. You want to built you're own way, that's fine also. The entire series is full of mistakes, errors, you name it. Like I've mention this before, the right hand wasn't talking to the left hand, the miniature builders were not talking to the filming set guys creating mismatchs between lots of things, especially the Eagle. The Eagle spaceship itself is a total nonsense. Well we can say that for most of sci-fi ships.
> 
> Steph


I agree for the most part, but I do feel a need to put out a little defense, because of the love. 

The Eagle is a supremely practical vehicle in some circumstances. Earth Orbit to Moon, jockeying stuff around the Moon, keep it in Space, everything works out well. It's just that pesky use in atmosphere and planetary landing that causes the bother.

I won't go into just how significant the fact that Earth clearly had gravity control technology and what that SHOULD have meant and allowed for. 

The conflict between set design and the miniature, that I put mostly on the art direction choices and the realities of filming even in the '70s. You need room for the camera and crew and the huge banks of lights. If one kept the proper scale of the Eagle miniature logic says that interior should have been cramped, tight, almost claustrophobic (and would be in today's shakycam/grimdark thinking) but the art direction called for 'kinda sorta like 2001' and open and bright. 

Consider: Eagle, three crew, NOTHING ELSE ONBOARD to get one man to Moonbase Alpha. You'd think they would have at least crammed some essential, critical supplies on board.


----------



## Nocoolname

f1steph said:


> If you look at the episode ''Dragon's Domain'' (BTW, that épisode gave me the creeps for a long time when I was young, along with ''Force of Life'', when Anton Zoref gets carbonized and walks in the nuclear chamber... those bright eyes.......Brrrrr). Anyway, in ''Dragon's Domain, when Tony Cellini, Koenig's best astonaut pal, goes back to the Ultra Probe with an Eagle to kill the freaking cyclope squid, then he seperates the CM from the Eagle, you'll see two engine bells in the back.
> 
> Steph


Something like this? I'm planning on building my 22" kit with the same type of CM and attachment along with full interiors for the Pod and walkways.


----------



## scotpens

mach7 said:


> I think everyone is missing the obvious. The lunar modules are there as life boats! ;-)


Lifeboats for whom? Mice?


----------



## Richard Baker

Steve H said:


> Consider: Eagle, three crew, NOTHING ELSE ONBOARD to get one man to Moonbase Alpha. You'd think they would have at least crammed some essential, critical supplies on board.


That's almost as crazy as using an empty Orion and Aries just to get Dr. Floyd to the moon...


----------



## Steve H

Richard Baker said:


> That's almost as crazy as using an empty Orion and Aries just to get Dr. Floyd to the moon...


Indeed so, and clearly that scene in 'Breakaway' is meant to be a callback to that, minus the microgravity pen gag. 

(Given the existing cover story in 2001, the Soviets HAD to have major raised eyebrows about the expense and use, right? )


----------



## Zombie_61

mach7 said:


> I think everyone is missing the obvious. The lunar modules are there as life boats! ;-)


I _knew_ I saw Jim Lovell's face in the window.


----------



## f1steph

Richard Baker said:


> That's almost as crazy as using an empty Orion and Aries just to get Dr. Floyd to the moon...


Maybe in '69, they though that fuel was gonna be dead cheap.... no economy crisis......


----------



## f1steph

Nocoolname said:


> Something like this? I'm planning on building my 22" kit with the same type of CM and attachment along with full interiors for the Pod and walkways.


Exactly. That's what I'm gonna do on my 1/72 Eagles. Until then, got to figure how the heck I'm gonna built the working landings gears.....


----------



## f1steph

Zombie_61 said:


> I _knew_ I saw Jim Lovell's face in the window.


Are you sure is was Lovell, and not Haise.....


----------



## Zombie_61

f1steph said:


> Are you sure is was Lovell, and not Haise.....


It could have been Swigert for all I know; my eyes are getting old.


----------



## electric indigo

In their latest blog post about the Galileo shuttle not happening, R2 mentions that the Eagle kit gives them a basis for three variations...


----------



## Scifitodd

electric indigo said:


> In their latest blog post about the Galileo shuttle not happening, R2 mentions that the Eagle kit gives them a basis for three variations...


Winch, lab and cargo pods! Sounds right!


----------



## Scifitodd

My 22" eagle, more pictures coming. First is a photo shop my good friend Rick did for me. This is a basic build not any lights or other add on's just a basic build straight from the box and painted. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H

Scifitodd said:


> Winch, lab and cargo pods! Sounds right!


Actually, I would expect that to mean Transporter (just released), Lab and Winch/Cargo pallet.

"Making the Eagle means three kits" see? Transporter is first of the three.

IF they continue on that path which I firmly believe would be a mistake, as stated before.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Actually, I would expect that to mean Transporter (just released), Lab and Winch/Cargo pallet.
> 
> "Making the Eagle means three kits" see? Transporter is first of the three.
> 
> IF they continue on that path which I firmly believe would be a mistake, as stated before.


Well, yes that's what I meant to say. Transporter, cargo/winch and Lab pods. The winch also can be used as the cargo pod, just remove the winch and add canisters.


----------



## Scifitodd

Steve H said:


> Actually, I would expect that to mean Transporter (just released), Lab and Winch/Cargo pallet.
> 
> "Making the Eagle means three kits" see? Transporter is first of the three.
> 
> IF they continue on that path which I firmly believe would be a mistake, as stated before.


I was at WonderFest with Jamie and Jim last year and I have kept in contact with them. We had several dinner conversations about this and what ever he decides to do, full eagle/pod kits or just various pod kits will sell. The company will make the best decision for them to stay profitable and that means the kits keep coming. The sky is the limit as long as sales support it. There were more than just eagles and pods discussed and that gives them the opportunity to do things like tanks, nukes, Hawk kit and more. Standby for action! I'm glad they have kept us in the loop as much as possible, asked for our suggestions and concerns. Not many do that. But they still have the last word and we won't always agree but hey, 40 years later they stuck their head into the lions mouth and shot us an eagle that is so bad ass I still can't believe it's real. I'm happy with that and whatever they do next.


----------



## WOI

irishtrek said:


> One can see the 'tabs' that hold the spine in place so that image is from above and not underneath.


I realize that.


----------



## electric indigo

Everybody seemed to have dropped the ball on their Eagle?


----------



## Richard Baker

I am watching the online builds- I have several kits in front of the Eagle right now and I need to sort out how I am going to go about enhancing mine.


----------



## SUNGOD

Don't forget there's people like me who haven't even got one kit yet let alone several. I'll probably be getting my first one late summer.


----------



## Scifitodd

SUNGOD said:


> Don't forget there's people like me who haven't even got one kit yet let alone several. I'll probably be getting my first one late summer.


Whaaaat? Whatcha waiting for SUNGOD?


----------



## Trek Ace

I have my Eagle in subassemblies. I am adding mounts to support the model and also lights in the beak.

I don't think I've ever done so much sanding on a kit. Every part of the spine and cages requires sanding to remove the seam lines so that the rods (or tubes) are smooth. Also, a lot of ejector pin marks that need to be filled and sanded. One of these days, I may actually get to the primer stage.


----------



## SUNGOD

Scifitodd said:


> Whaaaat? Whatcha waiting for SUNGOD?




Other things getting in the way I'm afraid but don't worry........there'll be Eagles on that bench of mine before far too long (mind you they're more available in the US and a bit scarce over here at the moment too).


----------



## electric indigo

MPC Models: And now for something completely different? | Collector Model


----------



## Hunk A Junk

What. The... :|

A pretty longwinded and bizarre way of saying "we're going to announce something soon" but okay.

So, I guess the speculation can begin. I'll go with Hawk kit. But...

What I think they should do is announce a smaller scale Eagle (1/72?) so they can do an Ultra Probe in the same scale. Wouldn't we all want an Ultra Probe over any other non-Eagle 1999 kit?


----------



## mach7

A hawk would be logical. I'm hoping they do a stungun/commlock kit also.


----------



## The_Engineer

I would love to get a Hawk and an Ultra Probe CM.


----------



## jheilman

Well, maybe they are making the nuclear waste pile covers that were the subject of the story? Diorama possibilities? I would love an accurate commlock and stun gun kit.


----------



## Richard Baker

That was a really stupid teaser about a future kit announcement.
Someone has way too much time on their hands and believes they are very clever.


----------



## Zombie_61

Based on that nonsense it could be a base kit of the nuclear waste disposal area for the 22" Eagle kit. Or the Moonbuggy. Or figure kits of the astronauts in their EV suits. Or a Commlock/Stun Gun combo kit. Or a kit of the moon. Or any one of a number of things that they'll announce, develop for a few months, then announce it's been cancelled.


----------



## Hunk A Junk

Zombie_61 said:


> Or any one of a number of things that they'll announce, develop for a few months, then announce it's been cancelled.


Ouch. But true.

MPS/Round 2? You earned our eternal thanks for making a great Eagle kit (and 1/350 TOS E), but you haven't so fully earned our loyalty after other cancellations/missed opportunities that you can get all cute like this announcement. If what you have planned isn't a wow (and a "crane pod" won't cut it), then this announcement will live in infamy as an head-shaking unforced error. 

Just make good products and leave the comedy to the professionals (hint: brevity is the soul of wit).


----------



## mach7

Actually I would bet on a new pod kit. Probably the cargo/winch version.


----------



## Steve H

Mind, that entire gag comic could be a massive mis-direct. 

OK, let us use history as a guide to speculation. It was stated some time back that there was a desire to increase the ROI on the 22" Eagle tooling by making at least one 'semi-repop', a reissue with a different pod. It was generally accepted that this would most likely be the 'science pod' as this seems to be the 'default other' look of the Eagle. I don't think I was alone in commenting that it would be more efficient and profitable for R2 to instead keep the original 22" Eagle in production and simply make an accessory kit of other pods (thus helping all those who can't afford or don't have room for multiple 22" Eagles on their display shelves).

Now, if that was the plan, there sure was nothing pertaining to a science pod Eagle in that message! 

So what lesson did R2 learn from making the 22" Eagle? That reduced tooling due to common parts (and modular construction) was a good way to help the return on investment. How can that lesson be applied in future kits?

Now I need someone to check me on these points. My understanding is that when R2/MPC re-released the Moonbase Alpha kit, they re-scaled the Eagles and included extra Landing Pads. I *think* that ended up its own sprue tree. 

If that is true, it wouldn't take much to design a somewhat scale Nuclear Waste cover, laser fence post, maybe the monitoring station, and a vac-form base. So then we have a companion Waste Area 2 diorama. That's one idea.

The others, per people talking:

Finally digging out that Banana Splits tooling and making a Moonbuggy kit (with Astronauts?)

Nuclear Waste Transport/Crane Eagle pod for 22" Eagle (with or w/o Eagle kit)

Same, but for the old MPC Eagle kit

And the way out there yet could well be, the WORST POSSIBLE and little potential sales kit, a large scale (1/8?) Alpha Astronaut figure kit, or maybe a smaller scale diorama of two astronauts and the waste cover. 

I highly doubt this bit of nonsense post was the tease for a Hawk kit.


----------



## Richard Baker

I have hoped R2 would go the route of issuing an alternate pod kit instead of a complete Eagle kit with a new pod sprue. A Waste Disposal set with pod, cover and fence section with figures would be a nice addition.
No way Am I going to be able to get another Eagle kit- it was through a friend that I was able to afford the one I have now. 

When I was in High School in the early 70's some guy approached the club I was in with a 'sure fire' marketing way to sell some stupid styrofoam bulletin board panels. The idea was to build 'buzz' by viral marketing (called something else in the pre-Internet days). A cryptic message would begin appearing everywhere and cause conversation, and after a few weeks everything would suppository build to such a frenzy when the truth was revealed these products would sell like hotcakes.
All it did was piss off the student body and when the grand revelation happened it became worse. I am getting flash backs to that fiasco with this overly cute and contrived teaser.
*Hey Round 2- treat us like adults* and just say something if you want to communicate with us. Say as much as you want but making us scroll down a sea of cute captioned images is insulting. The only thing missing was a kitten at the end holding it's tiny paws over it's mouth captioned "Iz haz a secrit"


----------



## LGFugate

Ummm...Guys, if you want to be treated as adults, then you need to treat R2 the same. criticizing their attempt at a little levity is only going to make them reconsider releasing anything to do with Space 1999, especially when they can just release another old kit and make more money.


Instead, how about just accepting the post as it was intended, and wait to see what they are going to do instead of the lame comments? I'm interested in just about anything they want to release from Space 1999, whether it be a Hawk or a kit of an Alphan in a space suit. I also found the humor in the little skit they put on there.


Larry


----------



## Richard Baker

If their humor is not embraced Round 2 may reconsider releasing any 1999 kits???


----------



## scooke123

Some people here take life waaaayyyy too seriously. It made me smile regardless of what they are releasing.


----------



## Steve H

LGFugate said:


> Ummm...Guys, if you want to be treated as adults, then you need to treat R2 the same. criticizing their attempt at a little levity is only going to make them reconsider releasing anything to do with Space 1999, especially when they can just release another old kit and make more money.
> 
> 
> Instead, how about just accepting the post as it was intended, and wait to see what they are going to do instead of the lame comments? I'm interested in just about anything they want to release from Space 1999, whether it be a Hawk or a kit of an Alphan in a space suit. I also found the humor in the little skit they put on there.
> 
> 
> Larry


Oh, I see the humor. It's a tad forced but there's nice 'inside baseball' digs like the Plastruct gag, so, yeah, I get it.

But thing is, the 'long slow burn' just isn't a viable marketing tool in our 'instant gratification isn't fast enough' world. Not if you're not CONSTANTLY supporting it across media platforms and viral marketing. 

Fans are a little raw lately. The meager support (i.e. NEW STUFF) for the Star Trek 50th, the postponement of the new-tool Galileo, people are looking for solid, positive news, not humorous tease.

And we've been down this road before. Big exciting Star Trek news? We're throwing together a 2-pack of a crappy Lindberg F-104 and our 1/1000 scale Enterprise! Isn't that just GREAT? (I give them full marks for the idea but 2 of 10 for execution)

I know, too early to know, but let me go on record that if the exciting news THIS time turns out to be, oh, I dunno, new boxes or a $200 resin set of add-ons, I don't think there's gonna be much good will over that.

Fumetti notwithstanding.


----------



## Captain Robert April

A stun gun/commlock combo set would be nice...


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> A stun gun/commlock combo set would be nice...


Indeed so! One of the very things I've mentioned in the past, discussing projects to take advantage of their license. 

I don't see anything in that photocomic that hints at such a thing however.


----------



## ClubTepes

Ohhhhh my Gohd.

No wonder Hobbytalk is regarded as the forum of grumpy, bitter, old men.

Hence another thread, "Why is it so dead around here lately".


----------



## Steve H

ClubTepes said:


> Ohhhhh my Gohd.
> 
> No wonder Hobbytalk is regarded as the forum of grumpy, bitter, old men.
> 
> Hence another thread, "Why is it so dead around here lately".


So then we just don't talk about it?

That doesn't help R2 at all, does it? Might say to them "Huh. no buzz. Maybe we gotta rethink this" yes?

Not that HT is THE ONE PLACE to properly gauge community interest and sales potential, ha, no way, but it's DISCUSSION and COMMUNICATION which any company needs to have. 

What's the old quote? "the only thing worse than being talked about, is NOT being talked about"


----------



## Hunk A Junk

ClubTepes said:


> Ohhhhh my Gohd.
> 
> No wonder Hobbytalk is regarded as the forum of grumpy, bitter, old men.
> 
> Hence another thread, "Why is it so dead around here lately".


Funny, but there's never -- and I mean N-E-V-E-R -- any bitterness about Bandai's efforts. Just praise. LOTS of praise. If there's any negativity it's because the company can't churn out our favorite subjects fast enough! To a slightly less extent the same is true for Moebius. Why? Because they're putting out decent, affordable kits sci-fi modeling fans want (okay, maybe not the Derelict. ;-P). This is because (especially in the case of Bandai) they're pushing the envelope of their manufacturing and design process. Even when Fine Molds made proportional mistakes on their kits (the Falcon), few reacted bitterly or like grumpy old men because it was still clear the company was making a huge effort. When Round 2/MPC puts out a great kit -- and they have -- there's plenty of gushing. But their missteps are still recent enough and big enough (the Galileo, the Sulaco, the Trek 50th anniversary whiff...) that they can't be offended if their "announcement humor" isn't met with knee-slapping screams of delight. People who participate in a forum like this are by definition detail oriented and anal about small stuff. That's why we're modelers! If a company doesn't understand and appreciate that, they're in the wrong business.


----------



## Richard Baker

Well yes, I supposed I am a grumpy old man. I am 58 and spent most of my life without the Internet. I do find most forms of viral marketing annoying and the main reason I do not watch YouTube reviews of model kits is that most of the time the person dancing in front of the camera is trying to entertain instead of inform.

Rather that drag this discussion in the wrong direction I am just going to leave it be and move on.


----------



## Steve H

Oh, I have bitterness over Bandai. That stupid Star Wars embargo. 

Another! "Dammit Bandai where are the 1/72 scale Gamilas fighter plane kits from Yamato 2199?!"

Another!! "Where's my Falcon (in 1/72 or 1/144) as seen in Star Wars?!?!?!?!?!"

Did I meet quota?


----------



## Trek Ace

I look forward to any new Space: 1999 kits that Round 2 will release. It looks as if they are teasing for a winch/freighter Eagle with nuclear canisters and such, which would be a most welcome addition.

As to the "Bandai embargo" - Bandai Star Wars kits have never been easier or less expensive than they are now to get here in the U.S. Frankly, I don't know what all of the complaining is about.


----------



## Steve H

Trek Ace said:


> *snip*
> 
> As to the "Bandai embargo" - Bandai Star Wars kits have never been easier or less expensive than they are now to get here in the U.S. Frankly, I don't know what all of the complaining is about.


Maybe I'm more sensitive to the issues involving imports and such, and you're right, as an embargo goes, it's fairly leaky. 

What the lack of embargo WOULD allow would be Bluefin Distro to sell Star Wars kits to the hobby trade at a steady, consistent, regulated (and a bit on the high end vs. actual exchange rate) price, making the kits much more accessible to 'spur of the moment' purchases. I can guarantee that Barnes and Noble would have a stack in every store. 

And besides which, resellers like Hobby Link Japan would have them at discounted from Yen price. Yes shipping is pain-in-the-butt costly but you amortize that by buying several items to fill a specific price shipping target. 

More kits being available means more people can buy them, build them, enjoy them. I wonder how many Star Wars fans out there that would build an X-Wing kit actually KNOW that the Bandai kits exist? We're dialed in because we r smrt.  But others? 

More kits, more chance someone will buy and build, we all win. Maybe even get some new people doing it. There's a scary idea.


----------



## Opus Penguin

My guess is the new announcement will be different cargo pods. With the story R2 put I think first release may be the nuclear pod carrier. I too would love to see a commlock and stun gun but I don't think that will be it.


----------



## krlee

Steve H said:


> Finally digging out that Banana Splits tooling and making a Moonbuggy kit (with Astronauts?)
> 
> Nuclear Waste Transport/Crane Eagle pod for 22" Eagle (with or w/o Eagle kit)


I think that those are probably the best bets.


----------



## Captain Robert April

I've got some bitterness over Bandai, namely over how frakking expensive their stuff is.


----------



## ClubTepes

Captain Robert April said:


> I've got some bitterness over Bandai, namely over how frakking expensive their stuff is.


How........ Expensive?????

Their stuff is and has been running cheaper than what Fine Molds was.

And you get more from Bandai.

Frankly, I was amazed at how much you get for the price.


----------



## Richard Baker

Captain Robert April said:


> I've got some bitterness over Bandai, namely over how frakking expensive their stuff is.


You get what you pay for - if you want inexpensive kits there is always Revell...


----------



## Steve H

Captain Robert April said:


> I've got some bitterness over Bandai, namely over how frakking expensive their stuff is.


That's mostly due to not being able to 'source' the kits firsthand, from, say, Hobbylink Japan. Plus the Dollar/Yen exchange rate is fairly horrible right now (somewhere around 104 Yen to the Dollar, which is quite a slide from the roughly 120 Yen/Dollar we were at not so long ago and a FAR cry from the 250 Yen/Dollar rate of the early '80s!), and overseas shipping is just crap, so one had to carefully add items to a shipment to 'balance' the cost some.

But if you boil it down to just the price of the kit, the 1/72 X-Wing is retailing at 2,400 Yen. Call it $24 for simplicity's sake. That's a hell of a kit for $24. Impressive engineering. Terrific looks. 

Is it any worse than paying crazy 'secondary market' prices for a Fine Molds X-Wing?


----------



## ClubTepes

Steve H said:


> But if you boil it down to just the price of the kit, the 1/72 X-Wing is retailing at 2,400 Yen. Call it $24 for simplicity's sake. That's a hell of a kit for $24. Impressive engineering. Terrific looks.


Absolutely. 

And then remember, that a Fine Molds was running about $35.00 - $40.00, and that was 10-15 YEARS ago.


----------



## Richard Baker

I am finding the Bandai Star Wars kits fairly cheap on eBay- just looking this morning

Mecha Collie X-Wing is $7.92 with free shipping,
1:72 First Order TIE Fighter is $21.62 with free shipping.

Deals can be better depending on when you look, but IMO those are some pretty good prices.


----------

