# You're kidding. Right?



## Rattrap (Feb 23, 1999)

Megahobby is listing a new "Star Trek 50th Anniversary" kit, but don' get your hopes too high.

You see, this new release is the old AMT 1/48 F-104 Starfighter in special "Tomorrow is Yesterday" packaging. 

Wish I were kidding. I'm not. It's listed on the Megahobby new releases.

So, what's next? Captain Kirk's Piranha or Leonard Nimoy's Chrysler?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How about a Saturn V from _Assignment:Earth?_


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Rattrap said:


> Megahobby is listing a new "Star Trek 50th Anniversary" kit, but don' get your hopes too high.
> 
> You see, this new release is the old AMT 1/48 F-104 Starfighter in special "Tomorrow is Yesterday" packaging.
> 
> ...


Don't see it. Link?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

https://www.megahobby.com/products/...-is-yesterday-f-104-starfighter-1-48-amt.html

Here is the link.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Wow, I guess people will buy anything!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Well, I won't be buying it.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How about a 1/350 F-104?

http://www.shapeways.com/product/F4UCQE5W6/1-350-f-104-starfighter


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Old news. This was discussed before. It's the ancient HAWK kit. Nothing more to see...


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

seaQuest said:


> Old news. This was discussed before. It's the ancient HAWK kit. Nothing more to see...


From the other thread, Jamie was quoted as saying it's actually the Lindberg F-104 with a 1:2500 Enterprise for some forced perspective.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ah, marketing!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Hey, it's thinking outside the box. 

I like F-104's and I like the Enterprise. For less than $25 I'll probably buy one.

BTW I already have the 1/350 F-104 from shapeways for the same reason.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Thats kind of cool.

Just because its an old tool doesn't mean you cant have fun with it.

If it has the correct markings, it enables you to create a forced perspective scene.

Also, some people buy kits just for the packaging.

Look at people buying old Aurora boxes.
I also have a friend who collects boxes just for the box art.
There is even a market for 'fictional' Aurora subjects.

While not something I expected, the box itself will be unique in the future.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I think it's an interesting way to really think outside of the box. The novelty of it alone is bound to get some sales.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

^^^^

Agreed. And John, this sounds right up your alley.

The Wondefest judges wouldn't know what to do with this.....

As they try to keep military models out of the show, by not judging them favorably.

Yes, this is a military subject, but with markings from a sci-fi show.

I hope someone builds one and enters it.

A shadow-box would be really cool.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

So...Round 2 takes possibly the worst kit of the F-104 produced and pairs it with a small, inaccurate kit of the TOS Enterprise to create a "new" kit for the 50th anniversary. Yeah, that makes sense. 

Heck, the box art looks way better then what you'll actually get in the box!

While I can appreciate that R2 can only do so much this year regarding Star Trek, this just seems like more of an afterthought than a serious kit. A "Let's just throw something together that won't cost us a bunch and maybe we'll make a few bucks." kind of deal. 

This and the umpteenth re-release of the the 18" Enterprise is a low point for R2 in the Star Trek line IMHO.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

mach7 said:


> Hey, it's thinking outside the box.
> 
> I like F-104's and I like the Enterprise. For less than $25 I'll probably buy one.
> 
> BTW I already have the 1/350 F-104 from shapeways for the same reason.


How is that Shapeways F-104?

I got mine from the Bandai 1/350 Gamera kit.

Surprising, it scaled out well.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

It's not bad. It does not have much detail but I expected that.

I'll try and post some photos of it tomorrow night when I get home.


----------



## sg-99 (Jan 11, 2009)

As a collector and builder of models this is a great kit for the collector and builder, if they use the current box art the box art is done by Douglas E, Graves and for the price of kit, worth it for the 1/48 Bluejay 4 decal sheet. It will be a unique kit to have with the line up of star trek ship, Round 2/AMT could easily produce the Stuka from Enterprise and even Amelia Earhart plane from Voyager if they wanted to do a series of star Trek planes.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

spock62 said:


> So...Round 2 takes possibly the worst kit of the F-104 produced and pairs it with a small, inaccurate kit of the TOS Enterprise to create a "new" kit for the 50th anniversary. Yeah, that makes sense.
> 
> Heck, the box art looks way better then what you'll actually get in the box!
> 
> ...


This kit release seems to me to be the result of some desperate flailing around trying to find something to toss the fans on the 50th Anniversary. Round2 I think had something, perhaps the Galileo kit, being readied for that special event and when that got shelved there was nothing to replace it. 

I am growing weary of the cynical ploy of shoving existing product, be it a DVD or model kit, into 'special commemorative' packaging and expecting eager fans to gobble it up, rolling their eyes in gratitude.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Holy crap! I thought this was an April Fool's joke. Round 2 is seriously doing this? After cancelling the Galileo???

To me this is far worse than Dragon's pathetic entry into the Star Wars market. This is beyond not doing basic research because 'trying is just too dang hard.' 

This is punking. This is cynical, vile, gross marketing based on the mentality that "those fools will buy anything that says Star Trek."

Congrats, Round 2. You've succeeded in creating the worst ever Star Trek model kit. Worse than the Kazon torpedo. Worse than the Scorpion.

What's next? They throw a plastic cube in box and release it as "The Beacon from the classic episode "The Corbomite Maneuver!"


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Hunk A Junk said:


> What's next? They throw a plastic cube in box and release it as "The Beacon from the classic episode "The Corbomite Maneuver!"


Somewhere there is a warehouse filled with fuzzy dice awaiting a promising future...
(more applicable since the beacon was a blurry)


----------



## TIEbomber1967 (May 21, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> Somewhere there is a warehouse filled with fuzzy dice awaiting a promising future...
> (more applicable since the beacon was a blurry)


Perhaps not dice, but the cuboctahedral block from the episode "By Any Other Name".
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...ision/latest?cb=20110327211710&path-prefix=en
But since those are made of a light chalky substance, most of them will be damaged in the packaging while still on the store shelves.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Hey, I like the Shapeways 1:350 F-104! Imagine THAT parked in the LIS Derelict! ROFL! Or a diorama with _that_ escorting the 1:350 J2 in for a landing!

Isn't this Round 2 release "reaching" a bit? I dunno. _Somebody_ will do good with it, I'm sure...

Doug


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Holy crap! I thought this was an April Fool's joke. Round 2 is seriously doing this? After cancelling the Galileo???
> 
> To me this is far worse than Dragon's pathetic entry into the Star Wars market. This is beyond not doing basic research because 'trying is just too dang hard.'
> 
> ...


Of course, the $100.00 lighting kit will be sold separately from the kit!!!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Sad thing is that when those F-104 kits don't fly off the shelves some suit will look at the sales figures and conclude that the fans are just not that interested in 'new' Star Trek kits anymore.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Sorry in advance for the long winded reply!



sg-99 said:


> As a collector and builder of models this is a great kit for the collector and builder, if they use the current box art the box art is done by Douglas E, Graves and for the price of kit, worth it for the 1/48 Bluejay 4 decal sheet...


I would agree that if you're a _*collector*_, then this latest kit is something you'd want in your collection, since all you care about is the box art. And if that floats your boat, go for it. 

But, and I'm speaking for myself here, as just a builder and not a collector of box art, what's _in_ the box is of interest to me. While the decal sheet may have some worth, I doubt it's worth the price, especially considering the sub-par kits included (and to be honest, the 1/2500 TOS Enterprise is not much of a "kit" to begin with).



Richard Baker said:


> This kit release seems to me to be the result of some desperate flailing around trying to find something to toss the fans on the 50th Anniversary. Round2 I think had something, perhaps the Galileo kit, being readied for that special event and when that got shelved there was nothing to replace it.
> 
> I am growing weary of the cynical ploy of shoving existing product, be it a DVD or model kit, into 'special commemorative' packaging and expecting eager fans to gobble it up, rolling their eyes in gratitude.


Exactly, Round 2 could not/would not invest in any new-tool Trek kits in time for the 50th Anniversary, for whatever reasons, which left them in a bind. The powers that be in the company realized, too late, that they were going to miss an opprotunity to cash in on the anniversary and wanted to come up with something to put out. Reissuing old kits with "50th Anniversary" stickers is easy and cheap, so that's how they rolled. Hopefully, 2017 will fair better for Trek kits at Round 2.



Hunk A Junk said:


> Holy crap! I thought this was an April Fool's joke. Round 2 is seriously doing this? After cancelling the Galileo???
> 
> This is beyond not doing basic research because 'trying is just too dang hard.'
> 
> ...


No, it's not an April Fool's joke, but if it is a joke, it will be on Round 2 when they realize just how poorly this kit sells. I'm starting to think that the people in charge of the company don't have a clue as to what Star Trek is and what people want. If it weren't for Round 2 employees like Jamie Hood, all we might see are reissues.

As for people buying anything that says "Star Trek", I doubt there's enough of them to justify kits like this, but, maybe I'm wrong.

Funny, Round 2 has done Trek kits like this before, one's based on an episode of TOS, with much better results. One was the Tholian Web Enterprise, which, even though it uses the old 18" kit, does include nicely done Tholian ships, a background and it's molded in glow-in-the-dark plastic, so it looks like the Defiant of the episode in question. The other, the Space Seed Enterprise with Botany Bay, was also a neat kit. The 1/1000 TOS Enterprise is only second in accuracy to the 1/350 version and the included Botany Bay was nicely done too. 

As for the latest kit, it might have been better if Round 2 used the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise and made a new-tool, accurate, small scale F-104 (say around 1/144) with a special stand and cardboard background. _That's_ a kit I would have paid for!


----------



## TUFFONE (Dec 21, 2004)

I really like that...I'm in for one. Great idea!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Sad thing is that when those F-104 kits don't fly off the shelves some suit will look at the sales figures and conclude that the fans are just not that interested in 'new' Star Trek kits anymore.


This, above all, I agree with 100%. That's the beancounter method of judging the value of a release. It holds a company hostage. I've seen it in play for DECADES, the false comparison value judgement. 

"this didn't succeed, so we can't do THAT" (but the THAT which is discarded would have had a significantly greater chance of succeeding)

But on this specific issue, I really, honestly, am on both sides of the fence!

I don't think this kit is going to do the numbers desired, because it's so damn 'inside baseball' for the mass market. That kit box needs to spell out there's a small Enterprise included, or if it does say that, needs to be bigger. 

On the other hand, I really do applaud Round 2 for taking a chance like this. It's low-risk (due to existing tooling). It gets another kit with the Star Trek brand on a shelf. 

Myself, as much as I know it upsets and angers some here, I would have preferred a release of the original AMT Galileo kit, maybe with value added parts like figures and a display base. I know, I know, the wound of the delayed new-tool Galileo burns and this repop would also seem somewhat a slap in the face but I think at least that would begrudgingly gain favor with time. It seems they did a decent job with their 'value added' Bridge kit and that was also a fairly crappy kit. Yeesh, who DIDN'T buy two of them to try and kludge a whole Bridge back in the day? 

Hey, nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy a kit of an airplane with a tenuous connection to the show we love.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I don't think this kit is going to do the numbers desired, because it's so damn 'inside baseball' for the mass market. That kit box needs to spell out there's a small Enterprise included, or if it does say that, needs to be bigger.
> 
> On the other hand, I really do applaud Round 2 for taking a chance like this. It's low-risk (due to existing tooling). It gets another kit with the Star Trek brand on a shelf.
> 
> ...


Your right, the box should state how big the Enterprise will be. Something tells me the small size (4.5") will be a turn-off.

What "chance" is Round 2 taking? A new box and some decals for the F-104? We don't even know if it will include a stand. Talk about "low-risk"! As for getting another Trek kit on the shelf, wouldn't it be better to get new-tool kits or at least heavily retooled kits on the shelves, rather than this hastily cobbled together kit?

I can understand about reissuing the original Galileo kit with upgrades, but the Bridge kit isn't the best example. While they did include extra stations, seats, etc., it's still a very inaccurate kit. Would have been better if they had just created a new-tool kit, like they decided with the Galileo. Oh, wait...never mind! 

And yes, no one at Round 2 can force their customers to purchase the F-104/Enterprise kit. But, by choosing the crappy Lindberg kit and the really small Enterprise kit, they have almost guaranteed low sales. 

To be clear, I love the _idea_ of the kit, it's just the _execution_ that is underwhelming. If they at least had a decent kit of the F-104, then maybe I'd reconsider. But as it stands now, I'll pass.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

R2 is taking a chance because it costs money to make the solicitations, to mock up the box, and of course to shoot the plastic into the molds and package and ship. If they sell zero kits, it's a really bad day for them. 

And I mentioned the 'added value' Bridge kit because it's my understanding that the old AMT Galileo is just as inaccurate, so while adding parts (display base and figures at the very least, I'd lobby for new landing gear as well) would seem to be the old 'lipstick on a pig' complaint, there WOULD be some value and pleasure to be had by some in such a release. 

I don't think anybody pitched a bitch when R2 re-released that terrible, nightmarish, deceptive and just plain junk Exploration Set instead of a new tool 1/1 scale authentic to the show prop models set. Tell me THAT wasn't just a 'for the sake of nostalgia' pity release! 

(BTW, I would buy stryene plastic kits of Star Trek props in a heartbeat! I love the DST/Art Asylum toys but there could be better, and more variety)


----------



## Kremin (Sep 26, 2012)

They couldn't be any worse than these,https://www.amazon.ca/Starship-Enterprise-Jellyfish-Klingon-Cruiser/dp/B00DE6O940 I saw the D7 in poundland today


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Kremin said:


> They couldn't be any worse than these,https://www.amazon.ca/Starship-Enterprise-Jellyfish-Klingon-Cruiser/dp/B00DE6O940 I saw the D7 in poundland today


HAW! I actually bought that Klingon ship for a friend as a Christmas stocking stuffer! 

So, 'poundland', do I assume correctly that's akin to our 'dollar stores' here in the U.S. where everything is a Dollar and it's a sad place where deadstock stuff goes?

It's really strange how these places are becoming universal. I understand even Japan has '100 Yen' stores that do the same thing.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> HAW! I actually bought that Klingon ship for a friend as a Christmas stocking stuffer!
> 
> So, 'poundland', do I assume correctly that's akin to our 'dollar stores' here in the U.S. where everything is a Dollar and it's a sad place where deadstock stuff goes?
> 
> It's really strange how these places are becoming universal. I understand even Japan has '100 Yen' stores that do the same thing.





Yes. There's loads of these places cropping up but I have had a few good things in them. I picked up a few Dr Who figures for a pound each about a year ago. 

As for the Trek kit I'm in 2 minds about it. Ok it doesn't appear to be a very good kit but like the Eagles maybe if enough of these old kits sell we'll get more new tools. That said couldn't they use some more up to date toolings.......or don't they have any they could use for this release?


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

How cool would it have been if Round 2 had scaled down the 1/350 TOS Enterprise tooling and re-isssued the 1/650 scale kit with the new tooling? A really accurate 18" Enterprise would look great and fit so much better on my model shelves. 

Sigh...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> Ok it doesn't appear to be a very good kit but like the Eagles maybe if enough of these old kits sell we'll get more new tools.


Not sure if you meant the F-104 or the small (1/2500) TOS Enterprise. Jamie did say that they might do a new-tool (i.e. accurate) of the 1/2500 TOS Enterprise at some point. As for the F-104, I wouldn't count on it. The only reason R2 has any military kits is due to their purchases of the AMT/Lindberg/Hawk lines. I've never heard them express any interest in doing new-tool military kits. But, stranger things have happened!



SUNGOD said:


> That said couldn't they use some more up to date toolings.......or don't they have any they could use for this release?


Regarding the F-104, the only tools they have are the Lindberg and maybe Hawk, both aren't the greatest. I think AMT had an 1/48 F-104, but that may have been another companies mold, so R2 probably doesn't have that in house. Currently, the best 1/48 kits of the F-104 are from Eduards (enhanced Hasegawa) and Hasegawa. Unfortunately, R2 doesn't have access to any of those kits.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trekkriffic said:


> How cool would it have been if Round 2 had scaled down the 1/350 TOS Enterprise tooling and re-isssued the 1/650 scale kit with the new tooling? A really accurate 18" Enterprise would look great and fit so much better on my model shelves.
> 
> Sigh...


That's almost word for word what I suggested to Jamie Hood on the R2 Collector Blog (a couple of times I might add). I suggested a scale of either 1/500 or 1/600. My argument was similar to yours, modelers would have space for it (smaller then 1/350, but not as "small" as 1/1000) and the price would be more affordable (compared to the 1/350 version). While he didn't rule it out, he said the main focus was on their three established "standard" scales; 1/2500 (Cadet Series), 1/1000 Snap Kits & 1/350.

I think they're missing an opportunity here, but who am I?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> That's almost word for word what I suggested to Jamie Hood on the R2 Collector Blog (a couple of times I might add). I suggested a scale of either 1/500 or 1/600. My argument was similar to yours, modelers would have space for it (smaller then 1/350, but not as "small" as 1/1000) and the price would be more affordable (compared to the 1/350 version). While he didn't rule it out, he said the main focus was on their three established "standard" scales; 1/2500 (Cadet Series), 1/1000 Snap Kits & 1/350.
> 
> I think they're missing an opportunity here, but who am I?


Well, yeah, that's...

I mean, I would have voted for 1/700 scale, to be compatible with waterline ships and junk like that but I'm, as I've noted before, crazy. 

The only reason to have a standard (or 'standard') scale is the intent to do other ships in that scale. It's wise to consider existing scales but not mandatory. I, for one, have no problem with a new TOS Enterprise kit in any reasonable scale.

And one should consider the rest of the world. If Japan is a desired market, one should know and understand that giant kits are rare and special things, there's just not a ton of room in most homes. It's not a stereotype, it's reality. A 1/700 scale Enterprise, new tool, taking the best of the 1/350 and adding in data from the current Smithsonian Restoration Project and elements of Shaw's research could have the potential of being an 'evergreen' seller just like the original AMT kit. 

Smaller size, lower price, everybody wins. But I whined about that during the ramp-up to R2's 22" Eagle kit.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

I really like the idea. The 1:350 TOS Enterprise is RIPE for this! Add the Shapeways 104...and, there are many possibilities, if you stay at that scale! Teslabe proved that, when he made the 1:350 Jupiter 2 with a working fusion core, and it's completely self-contained! 

Isn't this the episode with Gary Seven and his black cat Isis? I'll have to research this. Shapeways is too good to pass up their 1:350 stuff! The 1:350 TOS Enterprise has proven to be a stellar contender (see Capt Han Solo's), and Round 2 has given us a great idea! 

I'll tell ya where Round 2 lost me. Cancelling the 1/32 Galileo. Not a very optimistic look at the state of things. Moebius just blew me away with the new LIS Derelict! Plus the 1/6th Robot! All new tooling! Now a brand new 1/32 Proteus is underway! And Round 2 _does this??_ Right. Yep. 

Round 2 has the 1:350 TOS Enterprise and the 1:350 Archer Enterprise, and they are impressive! The sales on those alone ought to put them in the green. These are new tooling! Cancelling the 1/32 Galileo makes absolutely NO sense to me.

That's the only gripe I have about Round 2. They kinda stepped on it, with this release, though. But remember, they are NOT marketing to people like ME! I KNOW better. And I can DO better! Others may be pleased with this. Me, not so much. I love the IDEA, though!

Doug


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Just a few other thoughts to consider:

The kit is being marketed as the_ "Star Trek Original Series Tomorrow is Yesterday - F-104 Starfighter"_. So, Round 2 has now decided to put out Trek kits where the main item is *not* really a Star Trek subject. The main point of the kit is not the Enterprise (especially at 1/2500!), but a military subject. Seems kind of odd. What's next, taking an old AMT twenties Ford and putting it in a Star Trek box calling it the _"A Piece of the Action" Get-Away Car"_? 

The F-104 shown on the box is configured incorrectly. Based on the episode (original and latter, CGI enhanced version), the F-104 shown does not have external tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBxObGKFIM 
Hopefully, Round 2 will pickup on this before the kit is released.

Lastly, the Lindberg kit is very inaccurate as discussed on this forum: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234923582-lindberg-148-f-104c-to-xf-104/ 

Round 2 must realize this kit will have limited appeal, namely to people who have fond memories of the original episode (i.e. mostly modelers 50+). These same modelers usually want their kits to be accurate, the F-104 kit used is not.

Like I said before, and interesting idea, but executed poorly.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I mean, I would have voted for 1/700 scale, to be compatible with waterline ships and junk like that but I'm, as I've noted before, crazy.
> 
> And one should consider the rest of the world. If Japan is a desired market, one should know and understand that giant kits are rare and special things, there's just not a ton of room in most homes. It's not a stereotype, it's reality. A 1/700 scale Enterprise, new tool, taking the best of the 1/350 and adding in data from the current Smithsonian Restoration Project and elements of Shaw's research could have the potential of being an 'evergreen' seller just like the original AMT kit.
> 
> Smaller size, lower price, everybody wins.


I agree that a super accurate, smaller than 1/350 TOS Enterprise would be a good seller. But, not at 1/700 scale. That would make the new kit smaller than the original AMT 18" kit, which seems like going backwards. I understand your reasoning concerning the Japanese market, but who says that's Round 2's main market? Wouldn't that be the US? To me, a new-tool, accurate TOS Enterprise should be no smaller than 1/600 scale (like what Revell of Germany did with their kit). 

If Star Trek is that big in Japan, maybe a company like Bandai (which used to make Trek kits) should pickup the license and produce kits that fit Japanese homes.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> I agree that a super accurate, smaller than 1/350 TOS Enterprise would be a good seller. But, not at 1/700 scale. That would make the new kit smaller than the original AMT 18" kit, which seems like going backwards. I understand your reasoning concerning the Japanese market, but who says that's Round 2's main market? Wouldn't that be the US? To me, a new-tool, accurate TOS Enterprise should be no smaller than 1/600 scale (like what Revell of Germany did with their kit).
> 
> If Star Trek is that big in Japan, maybe a company like Bandai (which used to make Trek kits) should pickup the license and produce kits that fit Japanese homes.


I only cite the Japanese market as one example. From what I gather, R2 is no longer using Platz as a 'reseller' and now distribute direct into the Japanese hobby market, so it's clearly of SOME consideration I would think. 

And 1/700 isn't that much smaller than the original AMT kit, and has the advantage of letting one make a display of the Starship Enterprise and the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise on the same shelf instead of taking up a whole room. 

but as I said, any new tool kit of the Enterprise in a reasonable scale is jake with me. 

(watch, R2 will suddenly announce they've got the tooling for the old Gamescience Starfleet Battles gaming miniatures and start whipping them out)


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I only cite the Japanese market as one example. From what I gather, R2 is no longer using Platz as a 'reseller' and now distribute direct into the Japanese hobby market, so it's clearly of SOME consideration I would think.
> 
> And 1/700 isn't that much smaller than the original AMT kit, and has the advantage of letting one make a display of the Starship Enterprise and the Aircraft Carrier Enterprise on the same shelf instead of taking up a whole room.
> 
> ...


Again, I understand what your getting at with the 1/700 kit, but, in this country at least, I don't think it would work. Seems everyone on these forum's want new, _bigger_ versions of original Sci-Fi kits, not smaller ones. If Round 2 was to release a new, accurate 1/700 TOS Enterprise, I'm sure it would sell, but the outcry over the small scale would be deafening. I think a bigger scale would sell better for them. But, if they did give us a 1/700 version, I'd buy it since it would be better than the old AMT 18" :thumbsup:


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

So the embezzlement of around $350,000.00 from Round 2 by a Round 2 employee, dating back to 2005, is not reason enough for the company to try to make some money any way it can? 

Or was that story just an April Fools joke a year or so ago?

Anybody know if it was true or not?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Bruce Bishop said:


> So the embezzlement of around $350,000.00 from Round 2 by a Round 2 employee, dating back to 2005, is not reason enough for the company to try to make some money any way it can?
> 
> Or was that story just an April Fools joke a year or so ago?
> 
> Anybody know if it was true or not?


There are persons here that I trust that seem to be very knowledgeable about that situation, so I tend to believe that it indeed happened. 

$350k, even over a period of a few years, is serious money. One might assume that's maybe 2 all-new tool kits that didn't get made. I'm guessing it's impossible for them to recoup that money, it's just gone. 

And you're right, they need some solid sellers to not only make up for that hiccup, but to help cushion the blow of the recent buying (re-acquiring) the Johnny Lightning brand. 

My Marketing 101 tells me that getting ANY new kit on the shelf (which denies space to someone else's product, see also the potato chip and soda pop aisles in any supermarket) is a positive. This is a very cost effective release so the margin should be decent. 

Is it the right call to give this a try? Absolutely. Is it the right KIT? MMmmmmm, well, probably not. Again, a 'value added' repop of the old crunchy Galileo Shuttlecraft would probably be a better seller, hurt feelings and anger over the delayed new-tool Shuttlecraft notwithstanding.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Bruce Bishop said:


> So the embezzlement of around $350,000.00 from Round 2 by a Round 2 employee, dating back to 2005, is not reason enough for the company to try to make some money any way it can?
> 
> Or was that story just an April Fools joke a year or so ago?
> 
> Anybody know if it was true or not?


The embezzlement incident was reported in the local (where Round 2 is located) paper at the time, I believe a link was posted either here or another forum. And I seem to recall Jamie Hood mentioning it. So yes, it really happened.

As for making money anyway it can, IMHO there's a right way and a wrong way. Adding a "50th Anniversary" sticker on an old Enterprise kit is one thing, marketing an old, inaccurate F-104 kit as a Star Trek kit is another. I'm sure some will purchase it, but I bet most won't. I'm not a big believer in a company just putting out _anything_ to deny space for another companies product. To me, that only works if your product is _good/desirable_ to begin with. I don't believe this kit falls into that category.

I like Steve H's idea better, reissue the original Galileo with better decals and maybe some parts to make it more accurate. At least that kit is a Star Trek kit, not a military kit with a Star Trek label applied to it. But, I guess they're trying to sell more Lindberg kits to recoup the $$$ spent on acquiring the brand.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Bruce Bishop said:


> ...the embezzlement of around $350,000.00 from Round 2 by a Round 2 employee, dating back to 2005...


That makes me sick. Now I understand. Humanity. To see this confirms my belief that we are stuck with these kinds of..."_people_". I wish I did not have to share the planet with them...

Doug


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Opus Penguin said:


> https://www.megahobby.com/products/...-is-yesterday-f-104-starfighter-1-48-amt.html
> 
> Here is the link.


Isn't that DEG (Doug Graves) artwork?

Hope he was properly paid for it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Jim NCC1701A said:


> Isn't that DEG (Doug Graves) artwork?
> 
> Hope he was properly paid for it.


Why wouldn't he be? I've not heard of R2 swiping art from people.

I love how insane that picture is. I know it's 'cheating' for dramatic effect and all, but can you IMAGINE how dirty, that is turbulent, the air is around the Enterprise? Heck, it might not have been the tractor beam that shredded the plane, just battering and buffeting from the close approach! 

(even if they were using force fields to make the hull aerodynamic as was the idea in ST:TNG, that air is STILL being deflected off a massive machine)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Radiodugger said:


> That makes me sick. Now I understand. Humanity. To see this confirms my belief that we are stuck with these kinds of..."_people_". I wish I did not have to share the planet with them...
> 
> Doug


It's shockingly common place. Usually there's two mindsets at play:

1. "It's not fair I don't get paid as much as those other people and I work hard and they go off to various cities and it's not fair I need this they'll never notice"

or 

2. "Ha, these people aren't as smart as I am. They spend money like water and I'm so clever they'll never notice"

Once in a great while it's someone in a REALLY bad situation (often sudden catastrophic medical bills. Those are the source of so MANY poor choices) and they think theft is the only solution but mostly, those two above pretty much covers it.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Yes, the embezzlement was bad, but it happened gradually and _nobody at Round 2 noticed for years-_ I really do not think it impacts that much in production plans.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> Yes, the embezzlement was bad, but it happened gradually and _nobody at Round 2 noticed for years-_ I really do not think it impacts that much in production plans.


I dunno. Seems a pretty convenient excuse to toss at investors (or whoever) to explain whatever may need explaining. 

"we couldn't do (insert task) because of that money being gone! And the money we spent buying a copy of Quicken so it didn't happen again!"


----------



## deg3D (Mar 2, 2009)

spock62 said:


> The F-104 shown on the box is configured incorrectly. Based on the episode (original and latter, CGI enhanced version), the F-104 shown does not have external tanks:
> Hopefully, Round 2 will pickup on this before the kit is released.


Respectfully, you are incorrect, spock62. There are five stock clips of different 104s used in the original episode's opening sequence, three of which the 104 seen does not match my configuration, this I will concede. However, based of the narrative and edit cut of the actual deployment of Capt. Christopher, the fourth clip used is of a 104 taxiing out and it does in fact have external tanks and missiles (as well as the clip before (#3), it showing two 104s being readied and manned, both with tanks and missiles), and this is the “version” I chose to use as reference for my model, for two reasons: 1.) I found it to be the most interesting configuration as seen in the five clips used (with tanks and missiles on the wing-tips, and 2.) again, following the narrative and edit thereof, it is the logical choice for a direct reference choice, as well as being that it is the clearest shot we get of Christopher's 104 to use as reference as seen after his call to deployment. And again, IMO, the most interesting version. It is not uncommon, esp. back in those days, for producers to pay zero attention to mis-mix-matching stock footage clips, as no-one (the average viewer of the time) was paying any attention to such things, back then.

As to the TOS-R version; while my friends, and TNG-R Trek colleagues, Michael and Denise Okuda did a fine job overseeing the TOS-R CGI remastering, the 104 model created by CBS Digital is a complete mess (even using the second clip of FG-914 as their tag on their model, which does NOT work with the edit flow, at all), and thus, IMO, a moot point completely in regard to being any kind of Trek canon reference. Frankly, their model made me cringe. One reason I had tirelessly researched every detail of the Christopher's 104 for my model, as seen in the used clip (#4) that I chose as reference. I even found additional reference of the exact 104 (easily confirmed per its squadron designation tag FG-926), although the other shots I did find were sans the e.tanks and missiles. Nevertheless, as 926 appears in the eps., that loaded up configuration is quite evident. As such, my depiction (previously seen in the 2012 “Star Trek: Ships of the Line” calander) is bang-on in regard to being accurate, not only of the 104 itself, but also in regard to Trek established canon. I don't mess around, with Trek or aircraft or modeling, brother. You can see for yourself in this opening clip.

(Seems I can't post links yet, but just watch it again if you like, there is a clip of the opening sequence on YouTube.)

LLP | deg


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

spock62 said:


> Just a few other thoughts to consider:
> 
> The kit is being marketed as the_ "Star Trek Original Series Tomorrow is Yesterday - F-104 Starfighter"_. So, Round 2 has now decided to put out Trek kits where the main item is *not* really a Star Trek subject. The main point of the kit is not the Enterprise (especially at 1/2500!), but a military subject. Seems kind of odd. What's next, taking an old AMT twenties Ford and putting it in a Star Trek box calling it the _"A Piece of the Action" Get-Away Car"_?
> 
> ...


Let's take this idea, and see what might come next:

Do they have a Roman Gladiator kit in their backlog? Perhaps a 'Bread and Circuses' Gladiator kit.

How about a 'The Return of the Archons' stagecoach?

The coup de gras could be a whole line of 'Patterns of Force' kits, representing the Ekosian military machine.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Here is the link to the video, deg3D.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkqLwLGqyoM

The clip with the F-104 is at 2:36 on the timeline.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

deg3D said:


> Respectfully, you are incorrect, spock62. There are five stock clips of different 104s used in the original episode's opening sequence, three of which the 104 seen does not match my configuration, this I will concede. However, based of the narrative and edit cut of the actual deployment of Capt. Christopher, the fourth clip used is of a 104 taxiing out and it does in fact have external tanks and missiles (as well as the clip before (#3), it showing two 104s being readied and manned, both with tanks and missiles), and this is the “version” I chose to use as reference for my model, for two reasons: 1.) I found it to be the most interesting configuration as seen in the five clips used (with tanks and missiles on the wing-tips, and 2.) again, following the narrative and edit thereof, it is the logical choice for a direct reference choice, as well as being that it is the clearest shot we get of Christopher's 104 to use as reference as seen after his call to deployment. And again, IMO, the most interesting version. It is not uncommon, esp. back in those days, for producers to pay zero attention to mis-mix-matching stock footage clips, as no-one (the average viewer of the time) was paying any attention to such things, back then.
> 
> As to the TOS-R version; while my friends, and TNG-R Trek colleagues, Michael and Denise Okuda did a fine job overseeing the TOS-R CGI remastering, the 104 model created by CBS Digital is a complete mess (even using the second clip of FG-914 as their tag on their model, which does NOT work with the edit flow, at all), and thus, IMO, a moot point completely in regard to being any kind of Trek canon reference. Frankly, their model made me cringe. One reason I had tirelessly researched every detail of the Christopher's 104 for my model, as seen in the used clip (#4) that I chose as reference. I even found additional reference of the exact 104 (easily confirmed per its squadron designation tag FG-926), although the other shots I did find were sans the e.tanks and missiles. Nevertheless, as 926 appears in the eps., that loaded up configuration is quite evident. As such, my depiction (previously seen in the 2012 “Star Trek: Ships of the Line” calander) is bang-on in regard to being accurate, not only of the 104 itself, but also in regard to Trek established canon. I don't mess around, with Trek or aircraft or modeling, brother. You can see for yourself in this opening clip.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but your explanation doesn't hold up when you watch the original episode. Look at the YouTube video link I provided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBxObGKFIM
At the beginning of the clip, the F-104 that takes off has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. At approx 2:10 on the video, Capt. Christopher's aircraft is shown intercepting the Enterprise. It has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. I know the opening sequence at the air base show F-104's with external tanks, but I would think that the scenes showing Christopher's plane in flight, pursuing the Enterprise is the one that would be "canon". Granted, your depiction showing the external tanks makes for an interesting picture, but, based on what I just wrote, an incorrect one.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Very interesting discussion! Thank you guys! I learned something _again_ about Star Trek! And now we have the thoughts behind the model's creation! Thank you! You can almost guess my next question:

Can't the modeler just leave OFF the external fuel tanks, if they felt it is not canon? I have to laugh, though...an F-104 could not get anywhere _near_ the Enterprise, due to the gravity effect the structural shielding makes keeping the ship in one piece that low in the atmosphere!

Sheesh. I gotta watch that show, now!

Doug


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Radiodugger said:


> Can't the modeler just leave OFF the external fuel tanks, if they felt it is not canon?


Sure you can, like any kit, it's your model to do with as you want.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

edge10 said:


> Let's take this idea, and see what might come next:
> 
> Do they have a Roman Gladiator kit in their backlog? Perhaps a 'Bread and Circuses' Gladiator kit.
> 
> ...


Actually, I do recall SOMEBODY had some Gladiator kits back in the day, was it Pyro or maybe Revell? A Gladiator Vs. Capt. Kirk kit might be fun. Mind, Figure kits seem to be a money pit in our day and age unlike the heyday of Aurora.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Sorry, but your explanation doesn't hold up when you watch the original episode. Look at the YouTube video link I provided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBxObGKFIM
> At the beginning of the clip, the F-104 that takes off has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. At approx 2:10 on the video, Capt. Christopher's aircraft is shown intercepting the Enterprise. It has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. I know the opening sequence at the air base show F-104's with external tanks, but I would think that the scenes showing Christopher's plane in flight, pursuing the Enterprise is the one that would be "canon". Granted, your depiction showing the external tanks makes for an interesting picture, but, based on what I just wrote, an incorrect one.


Well, if you REALLY want to stir the pot, do you make the kit based on that stock footage-

OR

Do you do the heavy lifting of actually researching where the Enterprise was over North America, which base would be tapped by Air Defense Command to launch interceptors, the proper markings for an F-104 of that time and place and the exactly correct load-out of the flight.

Heck, 1966, it might not have been a F-104 set up, more likely a F-106 with a nuclear tipped missile. 

Dang, I've got all those books on Cold War weapons and timelines and SAC and stuff, I should dig around a little now that I think of this...

Discuss!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would to see a diorama of the F-104 being torn apart with a bright blue light from above and gold sparkles in the cockpit.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Steve H said:


> I dunno. Seems a pretty convenient excuse to toss at investors (or whoever) to explain whatever may need explaining.
> 
> "we couldn't do (insert task) because of that money being gone! And the money we spent buying a copy of Quicken so it didn't happen again!"


I am so tired of hearing this excuse! The company I work for lost over $300,000 when a major client went bankrupt leaving us in the lurch. We kept things going as planned and we only have a staff of seven.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The underwing tanks would be for a long range mission. Christopher's flight was a point-defense interception, exactly the thing the 104 was built for. So the plane would have been clean, with only wingtip Sidewinders. You don't go into a possible fight with all that extra weight and explosive liquid hanging under you.

Otherwise, though, the illustration is very beautiful. My favorite starship and my favorite Starfighter.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

What was on screen is the only reference that can be used in my view.

Also, I discount the redone effects. In my opinion they don't count. They were done too far after everyone who had anything to do with the original series could have any input as to what they wanted with the original episode. 

Having said that here are the important F-104 shots:














































Sidewinders on the wingtips and fuel tanks under the wings for takeoff.

One could make the argument that Capt Christopher jettisoned the fuel tanks at some point during the intercept. because they are not there in the inflight shots.

But one glaring error. US Airforce procedures would NEVER launch 1 fighter on an intercept. There would ALWAYS be 2. Fighters never go anywhere alone. 
I suppose the argument could be made that the 2nd F-104 had a turnback for some mechanical reason, but that is never heard in the radio transmissions. 

And I agree, in 1969 the intercepting aircraft would probably have been a F-106 with a Ginnie nuke air to air missile.

ADDED:

Also The Omaha installation could only be Offutt AFB. SAC headquarters. No Interceptors there. Of course the F-104's could have come from another base, hence the tanks for takeoff and not for the intercept.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Well, yeah, that's...
> 
> I mean, I would have voted for 1/700 scale, to be compatible with waterline ships and junk like that but I'm, as I've noted before, crazy.
> 
> ...


1/700 scale is the what I would have preferred as well.

Its so unfortunate that there is sooooooo much water under the bridge now in terms of what could have made a good size line of Trek kits.

Years, and years......... and, years, ago, when Polar Lights first announced the 1/1000 scale kit, I started a thread (maybe my first thread) titled "Cancel the 1/1000 Enterprise kit".
It garnered over 1,200 views in less than 24 hours.

In it, my argument was for the aforementioned 1/700 scale.

With the 1/1400 scale Enterprise 'D' kit out already out for a number of years, 1/700 was a natural halving on the way to 1/350 (which did turn out to be a reality). Making a nice neat lineup of scales. 1/350, 1/700, 1/1400, 1/2800, able to cover a very wide range of fictional ship sizes.

1/700 was already a well established scale in naval warship models and some Sci-fi kits released by Ban-dai (Space Cruiser Yamato).

To date, it was the only scale in which ALL the Enterprises could have been modeled (CV-6 Tamiya, CVN-65 Revell, all the way to Enterprise 'E' which would have been the same length as the current 1/350 Refit kit, at 36").

At the time, people were complaining about the Excelsior kit (which coincidentally was already 1/1000-ish scale) as being too small.
1/700 would have offered a larger version of that subject as part of that line-up. So now, sadly we'll never see a larger version of the Excelsior or Ent 'B' as the next appropriate scale for TMP era ships is 1/537. 

1/700, while only slightly smaller than the 1/635 18"er, could have been a great kit with the more accurate detail.

Now the wrench in the detail, is that I really like the size of a 1/500 TOS Enterprise. Sort of a 'not too big, not too small' size.
But again, too much water under the bridge (before Jamie took over the Trek kit line) as there are already existing kits in the off 1/537.

If I had access to the Guardian of Forever, would I go back and stop WWII, 9/11, or keep Trump running for President?
No. I'd go back to the the creation of first Enterprise kit and influence its scale and detail.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

mach7 said:


> What was on screen is the only reference that can be used in my view.
> 
> Also, I discount the redone effects. In my opinion they don't count. They were done too far after everyone who had anything to do with the original series could have any input as to what they wanted with the original episode.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't take the numbers on those planes on the ground as 'canon' for the acutall plane that intercepted the Enterprise.
Those were simply 'establishing shots' and hence represent ANY plane on the ground. Not our 'hero' plane.

And the shots of the plane in the air, are too blurry to see any numbers for sure. So by default, the remastered shots are the most 'canon' as they are part of the official content by the license holder.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Steve H said:


> I love how insane that picture is. I know it's 'cheating' for dramatic effect and all, but can you IMAGINE how dirty, that is turbulent, the air is around the Enterprise? Heck, it might not have been the tractor beam that shredded the plane, just battering and buffeting from the close approach!
> 
> (even if they were using force fields to make the hull aerodynamic as was the idea in ST:TNG, that air is STILL being deflected off a massive machine)


[Geek mode engaged]

Wake turbulence is of greatest concern when the generating aircraft is "heavy, clean, and slow". I'd give the Enterprise one out of three there (heavy), and while it would be slow by Enterprise standards, it wasn't portrayed as such by F-104 standards, so I think it's reasonable to rule out "slow". 

In either case, as you pointed out, it's certainly "dirty" enough to create a rather turbulent flow, though as a result it won't be as intense as it would be if it were clean and generating more organized vortices. So it'd likely be bumpy, but comparatively unthreatening from a structural integrity and control sense.

Additionally, in the absence of wind, wake tends to travel downward and outward from the generating aircraft, which appears to put the F-104 in that picture both too high and forward for wake to be a concern. 

Where they had the F-104 in the actual episode during approach would have been more likely to encounter wake turbulence, but that's something they obviously didn't consider for the show. 

[Geek mode disengaged]


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I am so tired of hearing this excuse! The company I work for lost over $300,000 when a major client went bankrupt leaving us in the lurch. We kept things going as planned and we only have a staff of seven.


Hey, don't shoot the messenger! 

I know what you mean, but we're both knowledgeable enough to understand that if a company (or a key person in a company) doesn't want to do something, they will work their a**es off to not do it. Which is of course a paradox but that's reality in the business world.

Look around. Almost everyone is engaged in at least one 'planning to fail' action. They think that it will magically get a short term increase in business but it further destroys the long term health of the company. There are SO MANY companies that are just completely embedded with "Oh, we can't do THAT!!" thinking it's a wonder anybody keeps their doors open. 

I mean, even R2. The market is GLUTTED with die-cast car makers. Mattel owns the lion's share with Hot Wheels and Matchbox. So R2 works hard to regain the Johnny Lightning brand, because... a few thousand people remember it from the '60s where Hot Wheels totally 'owned' them in just a couple of years? So now R2 has to fight to retain the 2 feet of peg space they hold in a product aisle that's 30 feet long. 

*sigh*


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

The least Round 2 could've done -- the LEAST -- would be to include a small scale Enterprise and a stand to display both vehicles together. Perhaps with the fighter angled upward and the smaller Enterprise posed above it as if it was in the distance. THAT I could've begrudgingly accepted as a lazy but barely passable "Star Trek" kit. It's pathetic that even that would've reguired too much effort.

Repopping a non-Trek military kit in a box and labeling it a Trek kit is an insult. Coming so soon on the heels of the Galileo cancellation it's the kind of cheap, desperate, and dickish move I'd expect from a far lesser company.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Mach7 and Flyingbrickyard, I think this is gonna be meat for your table. I'm gonna throw a scenario out here and you can fix what I get wrong. 

OK, I assume the Enterprise is over the middle of North America, due to the conventions of the style I'm guessing they're traveling west to east. 

There would be a huge 'flap' over this. A massive object on radar, it didn't pass the DEW, Mid-Canada or Pinetree Early Warning Radar lines. Probably painted by the western Air Defense Identification Zone radar or they may have been pinged as they crossed over to the Eastern ADIZ. the Nike missile sites were probably on alert. I'm thinking the intercept was launched from Whiteman AFB. Enterprise was lucky, they were heading for the dense concentration of a few dozen Nike-Ajax missile sites. If they hadn't gotten back to orbit, that could have been messy. 

Huh. More I think about it, just getting the gun camera film from the F-104 wouldn't be enough to cover up the sheer size of the flap created. Enterprise would have been painted by every targeting and search radar possible. 

But then again we have to remember the times. UFOs were all over the place, if you go by historical reports. Planes got set up all the time and found nothing, or so they say.


----------



## deg3D (Mar 2, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Sorry, but your explanation doesn't hold up when you watch the original episode. Look at the YouTube video link I provided:
> At the beginning of the clip, the F-104 that takes off has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. At approx 2:10 on the video, Capt. Christopher's aircraft is shown intercepting the Enterprise. It has no external tanks, just missiles on the wing tips. I know the opening sequence at the air base show F-104's with external tanks, but I would think that the scenes showing Christopher's plane in flight, pursuing the Enterprise is the one that would be "canon". Granted, your depiction showing the external tanks makes for an interesting picture, but, based on what I just wrote, an incorrect one.


Well, let's just say it doesn't hold up for -you-. But I can see your point, but feel it carries no more merit one way or the other given the five clips shown (of which the link you posted doesn't even show all of the clips). It a crap-shoot of choice and opinion. What was the bird with the tanks and missiles shown for then and supposed to be if NOT meant to depict Christopher? A random shot of of another 104? Why? That makes no sense to the narrative or the production sense thereof. This is a case of splitting hairs based on loose production values of the time based on what they had available to use; a mix of 104 clips. I feel my choice is easily perfectly acceptable, as a fan, and as the artist. And apparently, so does CBS. So, I'll go with their agreement with mine over your own as merely a fan.

You are of course free to make your model per whatever version of the clips you so choose and I won't knock your canon of it. I would appreciate the same in return in regard to model choice, thanks.


----------



## deg3D (Mar 2, 2009)

mach7 said:


> What was on screen is the only reference that can be used in my view.
> 
> Also, I discount the redone effects. In my opinion they don't count. They were done too far after everyone who had anything to do with the original series could have any input as to what they wanted with the original episode.
> 
> ...


Right on, brother. We reach. 

deg


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Hunk A Junk said:


> The least Round 2 could've done -- the LEAST -- would be to include a small scale Enterprise and a stand to display both vehicles together. Perhaps with the fighter angled upward and the smaller Enterprise posed above it as if it was in the distance. THAT I could've begrudgingly accepted as a lazy but barely passable "Star Trek" kit. It's pathetic that even that would've reguired too much effort.


I believe thats exactly what they are doing.

Jamie has said that its the 1/2500 Enterprise along with the old Lindberg
1/48 scale F-104 in a forced perspective display. 

While Jamie has not said this, I expect the display would have some kind of photo backing. probably clouds/sky.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

deg3D said:


> Well, let's just say it doesn't hold up for -you-. But I can see your point, but feel it carries no more merit one way or the other given the five clips shown (of which the link you posted doesn't even show all of the clips). It a crap-shoot of choice and opinion. What was the bird with the tanks and missiles shown for then and supposed to be if NOT meant to depict Christopher? A random shot of of another 104? Why? That makes no sense to the narrative or the production sense thereof. This is a case of splitting hairs based on loose production values of the time based on what they had available to use; a mix of 104 clips. I feel my choice is easily perfectly acceptable, as a fan, and as the artist. And apparently, so does CBS. So, I'll go with their agreement with mine over your own as merely a fan.
> 
> You are of course free to make your model per whatever version of the clips you so choose and I won't knock your canon of it. I would appreciate the same in return in regard to model choice, thanks.


Like others have said, my take is that the planes shown on the ground, the ones with external fuel tanks, are not Capt. Christopher's and are shown as establishing shots of the base. These establishing shots are shown _before_ the Enterprise is detected by the bases radar. Only after the base detects the "UFO" in its radar, do they send up Capt. Christopher's plane to intercept. Here's where the confusion sets in. The next shot is of a F-104 taxiing. This plane has external tanks. But, the F-104 shown after that, the one taking off, has no external fuel tanks. Then we see Capt. Christopher in the cockpit flying towards the Enterprise. So, from the point of takeoff to just before it is destroyed, Capt. Christopher's F-104 is shown to have no external tanks. That's the way I see it, and apparently, so do others. Whether or not the plane taxiing (w/external tanks) was supposed to be Capt. Christopher's plane is unknown. All I know is from the point of takeoff, we see his plane with no external tanks.

As for the argument made by others that maybe Capt. Christopher jettisoned the tanks after takeoff, this is proved false based on what's shown on screen. As I explained above, the shot of Christopher's F-104 taking off to intercept the Enterprise clearly shows it has no external tanks, just Sidewinders on the wing tips.

I'm going by what I see. But, as you wrote, your choice _could_ be perfectly correct if you assume that one of F-104's in the beginning shot's is Christopher's. But, based on what I wrote, my explanation could be correct too. I'm not knocking your CGI rendering, you obviously put a lot of work into it. Just saying that what I see when I watch the episode contradicts with your take on how the F-104 looked. I might just be a fan and not an artist, but I do have a pair of eyes. And my eyes tell me there are no external tanks on Capt. Christopher's F-104.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ultimately it's just a collection of stock shots that was used. 
So you can make any call you want. 

I respectfully disagree. For me the shot of the 2 F-104s in the bunker while the alert klaxon sounds is clearly meant to establish that Capt Christopher's
is in one of them. 

This works for me.

The next question, Will people be painting the wings white or aluminum?

I believe the -104s initially had white wings but buy the late '60s had natural finish on the wings.

Also, as mentioned what base would Capt Christopher depart from? 
Interceptors are usually based along borders and Offutt AFB is in the middle of the country.


----------



## deg3D (Mar 2, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> Here is the link to the video, deg3D.
> 
> The clip with the F-104 is at 2:36 on the timeline.



Ha, coolness, Trek Ace! I forget about the Active Duty stuff we did. Thanks for the reminder. 

deg


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Mach7 and Flyingbrickyard, I think this is gonna be meat for your table. I'm gonna throw a scenario out here and you can fix what I get wrong.
> 
> OK, I assume the Enterprise is over the middle of North America, due to the conventions of the style I'm guessing they're traveling west to east.
> 
> ...


Good points.

I'll have to check, but I'm not sure the DEW was operational in 1969.

Also, I don't think Whiteman ever had fighters based there. 

The surface to air missiles would not be released over a boggy, but there would be a lot of radar sites that would have tracked the Enterprise. Lots of evidence that something was there.

Interestingly I like the fact that the shields can be used to create stealth.


----------



## deg3D (Mar 2, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Like others have said, my take is that the planes shown on the ground, the ones with external fuel tanks, are not Capt. Christopher's and are shown as establishing shots of the base. These establishing shots are shown _before_ the Enterprise is detected by the bases radar. Only after the base detects the "UFO" in its radar, do they send up Capt. Christopher's plane to intercept. Here's where the confusion sets in. The next shot is of a F-104 taxiing. This plane has external tanks. But, the F-104 shown after that, the one taking off, has no external fuel tanks. Then we see Capt. Christopher in the cockpit flying towards the Enterprise. So, from the point of takeoff to just before it is destroyed, Capt. Christopher's F-104 is shown to have no external tanks. That's the way I see it, and apparently, so do others. Whether or not the plane taxiing (w/external tanks) was supposed to be Capt. Christopher's plane is unknown. All I know is from the point of takeoff, we see his plane with no external tanks.
> 
> As for the argument made by others that maybe Capt. Christopher jettisoned the tanks after takeoff, this is proved false based on what's shown on screen. As I explained above, the shot of Christopher's F-104 taking off to intercept the Enterprise clearly shows it has no external tanks, just Sidewinders on the wing tips.
> 
> I'm going by what I see. But, as you wrote, your choice _could_ be perfectly correct if you assume that one of F-104's in the beginning shot's is Christopher's. But, based on what I wrote, my explanation could be correct too. I'm not knocking your CGI rendering, you obviously put a lot of work into it. Just saying that what I see when I watch the episode contradicts with your take on how the F-104 looked. I might just be a fan and not an artist, but I do have a pair of eyes. And my eyes tell me there are no external tanks on Capt. Christopher's F-104.


Fine by me. You can have it any way you like. However, you are still fully incorrect, from a filmmaking/production POV, and that is what this is ultimately. And from how you make claim, you do not understand what is what in regard to filmed narrative storytelling and editing practices thereof. 

Only clips 1 and 2 with 914 taxiing are what are considered the base establishing shots. We then cut to the radar screen and the actors. Establishment is over at that point. From that point on, clips 2-5 respond to the narrative. They are not establishing shots. They are the progressive depiction of Christopher being deployed, per the call to action by the actor, then cutting to the klaxon, and then Christoper seen first manning his 104, then taxiing out, then taking off. They are all -meant- to be him.

The producers of the time just didn't care about any inconsistency of stock shots (and likely were not even aware of any inconsistency given the uber-fast pace of television production, they just let the editor make the call and went with it). To them, they are just shots of 104s, simple as that, thus good-to-go. Details, shme-tails, no-one is going to notice for 50 years! And those will only be peeps that know anything about the aircraft used, which is a minority. The stocks clips move the narrative forward perfectly per the needed edit, and the details of the 104s shifting configurations, not even a bother for the production standards of the time. Fact is, we are both right. I just understand why we are both right, while you just seem to wanna be the only one right. And that's just not the case. Except maybe from your own perspective. Nothin' more to be said. Out.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> Good points.
> 
> I'll have to check, but I'm not sure the DEW was operational in 1969.
> 
> ...


My references say the DEW line was operational in 1960.

There were ADC SAGE sites all over the place, I'm sure the alarms that went off when the Enterprise appeared woke up a whole bunch of people at NORAD.

And you're right. The size and speed of the Enterprise would have warranted eyeballs, hence the setup for the episode. 

You might be right about Whiteman. The more I think about it, maybe there weren't any dedicated interceptor squadrons around the middle of the U.S. because it would be assumed the threat would be coming in from the coast or across the Pole. I'll need to do more research. Oh darn. 

My original thought had been the fighter (s) might have scrambled from Kincheloe AFB but that's just Michigan pride leaking into the thought process.  I think by the mid-'60s the F-104 had been replaced by the F-106 there anyway.

I was then thinking of maybe a scramble from an Air National Guard base but ADC wouldn't vector from there for a looky-loo, and besides, THEY would likely be fielding the F-102 at that point. Bleah. 

And yeah, if you have control of energy fields that can warp space and deflect high speed particles and energy weapons, spoofing the crude radar of the time should be no trouble at all.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And for the record, I consider the F-104 to be one of THE iconic high speed high altitude interceptors of the Cold War. It just LOOKS fast, like it's impossible for it to be slow. It may be that idea of 'If it looks right it flies right' that is sometimes talked about (regardless of how much a widowmaker it was deployed). Sleek and deadly.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

deg3D said:


> Fine by me. You can have it any way you like. However, you are still fully incorrect, from a filmmaking/production POV, and that is what this is ultimately. And from how you make claim, you do not understand what is what in regard to filmed narrative storytelling and editing practices thereof.
> 
> Only clips 1 and 2 with 914 taxiing are what are considered the base establishing shots. We then cut to the radar screen and the actors. Establishment is over at that point. From that point on, clips 2-5 respond to the narrative. They are not establishing shots. They are the progressive depiction of Christopher being deployed, per the call to action by the actor, then cutting to the klaxon, and then Christoper seen first manning his 104, then taxiing out, then taking off. They are all -meant- to be him.
> 
> The producers of the time just didn't care about any inconsistency of stock shots (and likely were not even aware of any inconsistency given the uber-fast pace of television production, they just let the editor make the call and went with it). To them, they are just shots of 104s, simple as that, thus good-to-go. Details, shme-tails, no-one is going to notice for 50 years! And those will only be peeps that know anything about the aircraft used, which is a minority. The stocks clips move the narrative forward perfectly per the needed edit, and the details of the 104s shifting configurations, not even a bother for the production standards of the time. Fact is, we are both right. I just understand why we are both right, while you just seem to wanna be the only one right. And that's just not the case. Except maybe from your own perspective. Nothin' more to be said. Out.


Wow, you really are a petty little man. Guess it's easy to crap on someone through a keyboard. Really tired of wasting time with you but, for the last time....

So, I _"do not understand what is what in regard to filmed narrative storytelling and editing practices thereof"_? Never said I did and I really don't care. All I've been saying is that while I can understand your position on the external tanks, my position is valid too. It's not about me being right. It's about what I see in the episode from the point Capt. Christopher's plane leaves the runway. His F-104 has no external tanks, period. You're assuming that the producers intended the taxiing F-104 (w/tanks) as Christopher's. I don't. Like you mentioned we could both be right. It just seems that you're much more defensive about your position since you depicted the plane with tanks (in your computer rendering) and my position challenges that depiction.

That's really what this is about, not about me not understanding you or just wanting my way, it's about you. It's about you getting upset because you took my comment about how there shouldn't be tanks on the plane as a slight against your art. I wasn't putting your computer image down, just stating my observations based on what is shown in the episode.

You're right about another thing, there's nothing more to be said.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Wow. That went South quick...

In the big picture, it really doesn't matter, if you can leave OFF the tanks in your model. Myself? Yeah, leave 'em off. Other than that, the Hawk/Lindberg 104 is a pretty good model, no? At 1/48, I can see some detail work could be done. Not sure about the Enterprise...

See, I like to take _a lemon_ and make...a meringue PIE! LOL! :tongue:

Doug


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

When an artist creates an image, he/she often has an emotional investment, and can easily take criticism personally. I understand perfectly, Deg. Heck, I get bent outta shape when an engineer marks up a diagram I spent a long time on :lol:.

That said, and just to weigh in, I'd have gone with the in-flight shots of the 104 as reference, with no tanks, since that was the condition of the plane shown during the intercept. In any case, again, it's a lovely image you created.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Steve H said:


> And for the record, I consider the F-104 to be one of THE iconic high speed high altitude interceptors of the Cold War. It just LOOKS fast, *like it's impossible for it to be slow*.


It pretty much is. 

There's a blanket speed limit (with limited exceptions) in the NAS of 250kts below 10,000'.

The F-104 is one of those exceptions, because depending on configuration, it starts falling out of the sky at around 200kts. A no flaps landing is done at about 230kts, and with flaps usually around 190kts, IIRC. 

In short, there are a lot of aircraft out there that can't even reach the speeds required just to get a Starfighter off the ground.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> It pretty much is.
> 
> There's a blanket speed limit (with limited exceptions) in the NAS of 250kts below 10,000'.
> 
> ...


I didn't know the envelope was THAT tight. whew. But what can you expect? It BARELY has a wing, said wing is so thin I don't see how there's enough surface to actually generate lift, the body doesn't contribute anything towards generating lift, it's an expression of "you can make a brick fly if you put enough power behind it" but it's NOT a brick, it's a needle. 

And Lockheed didn't take 20 years to get it made, either. 

As to the box cover kerfluffle. Geeze. Can't we at least celebrate the fact we can HAVE box art again and it's not just a boring photo of the built model? I remember those years of 'truth in advertising' nonsense where you HAD to show the toy (and that was the genesis of it for model kits) in a 'realistic' play environment so no 'flying' without being held by a child, no laser blasts, all action must be shown to be under the control of a person. 

Model kit box art went by the wayside because some people thought that a child would be fooled into thinking that 'all that other stuff' would be included in the box (like sky and clouds and flak puffs and ground equipment and you know, the 'props' that make a picture exciting).

At least it never got so bad that a box for a B-17 didn't have a large disclaimer saying "WW II not included"


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As I recall, the pilot's manual for the 104 had a troubleshooting section, and the solution next to most of the listed problems was "eject". :lol:


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

So, other than Looking Glass, what other kind of aircraft were stationed at Offut/SAC?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

John P said:


> As I recall, the pilot's manual for the 104 had a troubleshooting section, and the solution next to most of the listed problems was "eject". :lol:



Yup,

Handgrips.......raise
Triggers..........squeeze

answers a lot of questions in that kind of aircraft.

When I flew the T-38 that was the corrective action for a spin, and may other situations.


The T-38 was one of the aircraft that had a waiver for 250 below 10,000ft
We would go 300kts. at 250 you just could not maneuver well, she felt like the Enterprise in the Earths atmosphere. Sluggish and slow to respond.

Steve,

You are correct, I was wrong about the DEW line.


Seaquest, I think Offut had B-47s for a while.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Offut was also home to the Atlas-D ICBM, for a time. I assume they stopped being an ICBM base when the Atlas was withdrawn from service.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Getting back to the upcoming Round 2 kit, check out this sites review of the Lindberg kit. It's the last Lindberg release of the kit, before the Round 2 purchase, but it looks to be exactly the same as the current Round 2 reissue:

http://www.model-making.eu/products/Lockheed-F-104C-Starfighter-Firepower-Series.html

Notice what the kit doesn't include? Under wing mounted fuel tanks. Wing tip mounted fuel tanks are included and could be modified for under wing use, but, out of the box, you can't build the kit with tanks mounted below the wings. So, you can't build the kit as shown on the box for those who would want to build it that way. Maybe they'll give instructions on how to modify the wing tanks for under wing use (at least one of the fins on the tanks has to be modified and the mounting slots has to be filled), but it's a lame way to go about it.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Getting back to the upcoming Round 2 kit, check out this sites review of the Lindberg kit. It's the last Lindberg release of the kit, before the Round 2 purchase, but it looks to be exactly the same as the current Round 2 reissue:
> 
> http://www.model-making.eu/products/Lockheed-F-104C-Starfighter-Firepower-Series.html
> 
> Notice what the kit doesn't include? Under wing mounted fuel tanks. Wing tip mounted fuel tanks are included and could be modified for under wing use, but, out of the box, you can't build the kit with tanks mounted below the wings. So, you can't build the kit as shown on the box for those who would want to build it that way. Maybe they'll give instructions on how to modify the wing tanks for under wing use (at least one of the fins on the tanks has to be modified and the mounting slots has to be filled), but it's a lame way to go about it.


Well then, seems they need to modify that box art. I'm no expert on the F-104 but I don't think the wing tip tanks are the same as the pylon mounted tanks, any kludge together deal would be... ill advised. Or so it seems to me. 

Now I do know there's any number of Japanese plastic kits of underwing stores, but again, and I defer to the experts, I am under the impression that the F-104 had their own specific underwing tanks. Kinda like how you didn't see the tanks of a F-105 Thunderchief hanging from other planes.  (at least not that I can recall, that is)


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Looks like the box art is changed- F-104 doesn't have the tanks and Enterprise is smaller in corner of box. Also box says kit includes Enterprise. See CultTVMan's site for more info.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The new image - that ventral fin is way too far forward.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

And it's the wrong tail number.

914 instead of 926


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

They should at least include both sets of numbers so that the modeler could build the one taxiing at the beginning of the episode (914), or the one intended to represent Captain Christopher (926).


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

What a joke. R2 has jumped the shark and fed it to Star Trek fans. What a joke.
Yeah how many old Hawk and Lindeberg tools can they put in a Trek box? Did you see the RETAIL price for this? It's over at R2 for Trek folks...


----------



## Godholio (Nov 27, 2015)

mach7 said:


> Ultimately it's just a collection of stock shots that was used.
> So you can make any call you want.
> 
> I respectfully disagree. For me the shot of the 2 F-104s in the bunker while the alert klaxon sounds is clearly meant to establish that Capt Christopher's
> ...


There were and are fighters based throughout the country. Yes, most are on the coasts, but even now we've got them in the midwest. Oklahoma has fighters, and in the 1960s Lincoln AFB (now Lincoln ANG Base at the airport) had fighters. F-86s until 1964/65 when they switched to RF-84s (photoreconnaissance variants of a fighter, but nothing that would be used as an interceptor.

I'll admit I haven't seen this episode in a long time, but does it actually say the F-104s were launched from Omaha? Offutt AFB didn't (and doesn't) have fighters, but it did host the headquarters of Strategic Air Command, which owned fighters (despite being famous for bombers) around the country and would certainly have been involved in any intercept, even though the aircraft were launching from another location (and even if they weren't necessarily SAC fighters...this would've been important enough to bring them in).

Someone mentioned F-106s...that would be a more likely interceptor, but F-104s were still in the ANG at the time, so an F-104 intercept is plausible.

F-104s had notoriously poor range, so a real intercept would almost certainly have involved taking off with external tanks which would be jettisoned en-route, prior to the actual intercept.



Steve H said:


> I didn't know the envelope was THAT tight. whew. But what can you expect? It BARELY has a wing, said wing is so thin I don't see how there's enough surface to actually generate lift, the body doesn't contribute anything towards generating lift, it's an expression of "you can make a brick fly if you put enough power behind it" but it's NOT a brick, it's a needle.


There are several reasons why the USAF didn't use it for that long (it was on active duty for less than two years!), and why the Luftwaffe crashed lost about 1/3 of theirs and Canada lost about 1/2.



seaQuest said:


> So, other than Looking Glass, what other kind of aircraft were stationed at Offut/SAC?


Various C-135 variants (like Looking Glass), tankers, and B-47s (which left in 1967).

Just some random thoughts from someone involved in this sort of thing (albeit 40 years later).


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Would they have actually jettisoned tanks if they didn't have to? Unless you're sure you're over the desert, you might kill somebody down there.

In any case, both the takeoff and the intercept showed a clean 104 with sidewinders, no tanks, in the episode.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dang, the stock footage doesn't even have Sidewiders! Here's the stock footage sequence from Trekcore:

http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_003.JPG
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_004.JPG
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_011.JPG
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_039.JPG
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/1x19/Tomorrow_is_Yesterday_046.JPG

So, 914 taxiing with tip tanks (never had underwing tanks!!) (and she's wearing a TAC badge), and takeoff and cruise clean. That last shot (Buzz number ?69)looks like there's something on the port wingtip (empty rail, maybe? Datapod?)

The remastered version shows a bad CGI of 914 during the intercept, sidewinders and no tanks. But the original stock footage shows ?69 clearly during the intercept. So I'd go with 914 taxiing simply being the establishing shot of the base, not intended to be Christopher's plane, and ?69 being Christopher's plane.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The opening shots are of 914 parking after a flight. These are before the radar operator saying he has a target. I believe the shots of 914 taxiing/parking are just to establish the setting. 


After the AirForce Capt calls for the intercept there is a shot of an alert hanger/bunker with 2 104s. The alert klaxon is sounding and activity is around the 104s. These have under wing tanks and sidewinders on the rails. I believe that Capt Christopher is in one of those jets. The shot is clearly supposed to be the intercepting aircraft.

The next shot is of FG-926 taxiing fast. It has under wing tanks and sidewinders on the wing tips. It's flaps/slats are down for takeoff.
This shot is clearly supposed to be Capt Christopher taxiing out 

The next shot is of a clean F-104, no tanks or sidewinders, taking off.

Air Force doctrine would not send an unarmed, under fueled single aircraft on an intercept. As I posted earlier fighters NEVER go anywhere alone in anger, they ALWAYS have at least 2. We could assume that Capt Christopher's wingman had a maintenance turnback, but there is nothing to support this in the story. There is only 1 F-104 shown taxiing out (FG-926).

So, for me the obvious conclusion is, as Roddenberry has said, the story/drama comes first facts second.

The story required only Capt Christopher, so no wing man.

The story required a cool looking fighter, budgetary requirements prohibited filming the scenes exactly as the wanted.
Lots of stock footage exists. Time is short, get it close. It's going to be seen twice, once 1st run once (maybe) a summer repeat.
Use what we have, make it look good, get it to NBC.

So for me, Capt Christopher took off, alone, in FG-926 with sidewinders and underwing tanks. The shot of a clean 104 taking off is in error. this was due to the points i listed above. The fuel tanks were jettisoned sometime after takeoff but before the intercept over a safe area. Capt Christopher intercepted the Enterprise with sidewinders only. BTW they would be useless against the Enterprise. As heat seakers they would track in on the impulse engines and be vaporized by the fusion exhaust of said engines.

This works for me, we all have different takes.

So I will build mine as FG-926 (if the decals allow) with sidewinders only.

I look forward to what others will come up with.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Just imagine the balls it takes to fly up to an unknown the size of the Enterprise and attempt to fire upon it with two sidewinders. Yes, those were his orders, but you gotta know running through his head were all sorts of things as he prepared to fire.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

John P said:


> ...and ?69 being Christopher's plane.


It was FG-969 (62969). [Note: This number is now correctly 52969. See post #117.]


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> It was FG-969 (62969).


FG-926 with a TAC shield on the tail.










This is from the original DVD release. The one with 2 episodes per disk. Original effects.

This is a screen shot taken after the alert klaxon/hanger and before the single 104 taking off.


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm sure they didn't much care about any of the footage being the same at all. Look at all the shows, movies etc. from the 50's and 60's and you will see all kinds of inaccuracies especially shots of rockets taking off. Me personally I could care less if it said NCC 1701 on the side of the plane and had tanks, missiles or not. No one filming or editing the show back then gave any thought to some old guys 50 years later stressing out over the mistakes made on the show. It was supposed to be viewed for entertainment back in the day.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I do find this conversation more interesting than the Grid Line debate.


----------



## FlyingBrickyard (Dec 21, 2011)

Richard Baker said:


> I do find this conversation more interesting than the Grid Line debate.


Are you saying the F-104 didn't have Grid Lines? >


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

FlyingBrickyard said:


> Are you saying the F-104 didn't have Grid Lines? >


Oh, you can see them at times but I've heard they were just penciled in..


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

mach7 said:


> FG-926 with a TAC shield on the tail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was replying to John's reference of the original "in flight" plane (969), not the one taxiing, of which the numbers are obvious.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

By the way. Since we're at it. I thought it was rather cheap that the CBS Digital team never bothered to composite a proper 'sky' behind Captain Christopher in the cockpit. On the original, it was too expensive. But, come on, guys. 40 years later and it still didn't happen?

Anyway, I thought that I would take a modern stab at it and show what I think the final shot _should_ have looked like. 

Below: A comparison between the original stage photography as shown originally (_and_ the remaster) and my own take.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> By the way. Since we're at it. I thought it was rather cheap that the CBS Digital team never bothered to composite a proper 'sky' behind Captain Christopher in the cockpit. On the original, it was too expensive. But, come on, guys. 40 years later and it still didn't happen?
> 
> Anyway, I thought that I would take a modern stab at it and show what I think the final shot _should_ have looked like.
> 
> Below: A comparison between the original stage photography as shown originally (_and_ the remaster) and my own take.


While I agree that it would have been nice to have a proper sky in there and everyone admitted that as well, because it had a lot of movement, that it wasn't in the budget. 
This episode admittedly already had a bunch of CG shots sucking up budget.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

That'll teach me to use Trekcore as a reference. I guess they skipped some scenes.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> I was replying to John's reference of the original "in flight" plane (969), not the one taxiing, of which the numbers are obvious.


I see. my bad.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

I understand that Round 2 is including a resin cast pilot that looks like actor Roger Perry in the kit.









OK, I'm just here to cause trouble! >


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Happy Birthday to Roger Perry!

He turned 83 today, May 7th, 2016.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Here is a clearer photo of the 'third' F-104 (the in-flight plane) from _Tomorrow is Yesterday, _FG-969 (tail number 62969). 

[Note: New evidence has revealed that this number is now actually 52969. See post #117.]


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Here is a clearer photo of the 'third' F-104 (the in-flight plane) from _Tomorrow is Yesterday, _FG-969 (tail number 62969).


Never saw this photo before, thanks for posting it.

Just a few fun tidbits: the plane shown looks to be the A version (C versions had an in-flight refueling probe attached to the side of the fuselage, along with other enhancements). 

Also, this plane has no missiles on it, yet it was sent up to intercept the "UFO". Guess the pilot could have used the M61 autocannon to shoot it down if needed. But, didn't Spock say it _had missiles_ (possibly _nuclear_ tipped!)? Based on what I've read, only models with the centerline pylon could carry a nuclear weapon. The C model was the first to have a centerline pylon, so this F-104 shown above would not have been able to carry nuclear weapons. 

Like others said, the producers obviously weren't concerned with inaccuracies, since most people in the '60's probably wouldn't notice the errors.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I had a thought, so I dove into 'These are the Voyages' vol. 1 to check, and sunnovagun, no, ZERO discussion of the Air Force footage! Nothing. No mention of where it was sourced from or anything. 

Huh.

It may well be 'stock' footage available to Desilu, it might have been film shot by another studio that they were able to lease, it may have been promotional footage from Lockheed or the Air Force direct, I don't know. but my question is, did they tap into Matt Jefferies contacts for that? Because as has been said, USUALLY the procedure is to grab whatever stock footage is in the library that matches the action, and to heck if the plane changes from a F-86 to a F-100 to a F-106 (in Andrews test aircraft paint) launching a missile to some drone (likely a T-33) exploding in mid air.

(as stated, the lack of refueling probe crosses out the footage coming from 'The Starfighters'  )

Even tho the footage is a bit mis-matched (tanks, no tanks, missile tips, no missiles) it's alot more consistent than my example above.

Say, can anyone make out the tail badge on -969? Wouldn't that show what field they scrambled from? Or is that just an overall ADC badge?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The source for the previous image labeled the "969" plane as tail number "62969". With the image's resolution, it did appear to be number 62969, and I reported it as such. However, with this larger and sharper version of the same photo, the tail number clearly reads as "52969".


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Here is the color version of the badge of another F-104. It is a golden horseshoe surrounding an "ace of spades" card being pierced by a red arrow (or missile), within a blue circular field. The photo is listed as being in Taiwan.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

^ That emblem on the vertical stabilizer represented the 83rd Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. The "red arrow or missile" is actually a lightning bolt. Here's a slightly clearer image on a different aircraft:










And their patch:










Sometimes my Google-Fu is strong.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Beautiful!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Zombie_61 said:


> ^ That emblem on the vertical stabilizer represented the 83rd Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. The "red arrow or missile" is actually a lightning bolt. Here's a slightly clearer image on a different aircraft:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't want to snip the images because they're so interesting. Excellent job, your Google-fu is strong! 

I'm always fascinated in the iconography of unit badges. They usually try to SAY something more than just "this picture means us here", and I'm not at all sure what the visual message IS there. I know there's a tradition that the playing card Ace of Spades is seen as the 'death' card, and I recall tradition says if you nail a horseshoe with the ends down that's bad luck because the luck is pouring out, lightning bolt usually means speed and power, aggressive power, so is the 'takeaway' of that patch "mess with us and it's gonna be a bad day for you"? 

Myself, thinking on the concept of 'sympathetic magic' I wouldn't think it would be a smart idea to brand my aircraft with a 'bad luck' symbol lest that become part of the airplane. 

And sometimes these things are just pictures.


----------



## mhvink (Aug 24, 2010)

So the 83rd Fighter Interceptor Squadron was in operation as such from 8 Feb. 1957 until 1 July 1963, when it was inactivated. The 83rd FIS was based out of Hamilton AFB, California, flying the F-104A/B Starfighter from 1958 to 1960 and Operated from Toa Yuan AB, Taiwan, September 1958 – December 1958.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Here is a clearer photo of the 'third' F-104 (the in-flight plane) from _Tomorrow is Yesterday, _FG-969 (tail number 62969).
> 
> [Note: New evidence has revealed that this number is now actually 52969. See post #117.]



Can you explain where you got the photo and why you think its the same aircraft in the episode? 
I'm not doubting, just curious.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> Can you explain where you got the photo and why you think its the same aircraft in the episode?
> I'm not doubting, just curious.


I am not an expert in any way on how AF aircraft serial numbers were assigned, but I don't think it was policy to have potential confusion caused by similar numbers, different only by the first two digits, i.e. 62969/52969, given that the 'buzz number' writ large used the last three digits on the fuselage.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> ...I'm always fascinated in the iconography of unit badges. They usually try to SAY something more than just "this picture means us here", and I'm not at all sure what the visual message IS there. I know there's a tradition that the playing card Ace of Spades is seen as the 'death' card, and I recall tradition says if you nail a horseshoe with the ends down that's bad luck because the luck is pouring out, lightning bolt usually means speed and power, aggressive power, so is the 'takeaway' of that patch "mess with us and it's gonna be a bad day for you"?
> 
> Myself, thinking on the concept of 'sympathetic magic' I wouldn't think it would be a smart idea to brand my aircraft with a 'bad luck' symbol lest that become part of the airplane...


The "horse shoe" could be a magnet. And the lightning bolt is often used to represent radio or radar waves, as well as magnetism.

And haven't you ever heard of an "Ace" pilot?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve H said:


> I am not an expert in any way on how AF aircraft serial numbers were assigned, but I don't think it was policy to have potential confusion caused by similar numbers, different only by the first two digits, i.e. 62969/52969, given that the 'buzz number' writ large used the last three digits on the fuselage.



The 1st 2 numbers are the year the contract was let, and the last 3 are the sequence the aircraft was ASSIGNED for production. assigned, not built.

so 52969 was was contracted to be built in 1952 and it was the 969th ordered under that contract.


I should clarify,

The 1st 2 numbers are the fiscal year that funds were allocated, and the last 3 are the sequence it was delivered in the year of production.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> The 1st 2 numbers are the year the contract was let, and the last 3 are the sequence the aircraft was ASSIGNED for production. assigned, not built.
> 
> so 52969 was was contracted to be built in 1952 and it was the 969th ordered under that contract.
> 
> ...


Yes, that's what I recall, and then they changed that at some point in the '60s. 

Upshot, that says to me no Starfighter could have a serial number of 62xxx circa the '60s.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Yes, that's what I recall, and then they changed that at some point in the '60s.
> 
> Upshot, that says to me no Starfighter could have a serial number of 62xxx circa the '60s.



I think the G models could have been. I'll have to check. The tail looks too small to be a G.

The Air Force still uses the same system of tail numbers.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robn1 said:


> The "horse shoe" could be a magnet. And the lightning bolt is often used to represent radio or radar waves, as well as magnetism.
> 
> And haven't you ever heard of an "Ace" pilot?


You forgot the smiley 

Yeah, could be, but not. A magnet 'icon' would be red/white to show the N/S aspect (this is a traditional representation). Clearly a horseshoe, lightning bolts used to show radio waves aren't pointed at both ends (see also SAC shield) and I doubt that card is meant to signify ace pilot status, not with a 'weapon' lightning bolt thru it. 

So, yeah.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

robn1 said:


> The "horse shoe" could be a magnet.


The 83d Fighter-Interceptor Squadron was an adjunct to the 83d Fighter Weapons Squadron. They both used the same iconography, but for whatever reason the Fighter Weapons Squadron's artwork was slightly more detailed. It is indeed a horseshoe.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

mach7 said:


> Can you explain where you got the photo and why you think its the same aircraft in the episode?
> I'm not doubting, just curious.


It is exactly the same plane used for the in-flight shots in the episode. The B&W pic is from the internet. The plane as shown in the episode is sans the fighter squadron logo, as it was involved in earlier sidewinder missile weapons testing, which is where the footage comes from that was used in the episode.

Here is a shot of 52969 taxiing before takeoff for the weapons test. Note the Sidewinder missile mounted on the launch rail.










Here is a familiar shot of the same 104 (from the same source footage used in the episode).










In this last shot, we see a few seconds off from what was seen in the episode, as the right Sidewinder missile is fired (the left side missile had previously been fired).


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> You forgot the smiley


No, I didn't :smile2:


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

I think I've figured out the symbolism of the badge.
The open end of the horseshoe is facing down, so their luck is running out.
The Ace of Spades is the death card.
The lightning bolt is weapons fire.
Meaning: their job is to tempt fate.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

or rain down bad luck and destruction!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Either one works. The 104 was a potent weapon system but it could be difficult to fly. Hence the unofficial nickname of the widow maker.

If you were a Soviet Bear bomber and saw the 104 intercepting you, your day was done!


----------



## eagledocf15 (Nov 4, 2008)

If it is the old HAWK or Lindberg kit, I will be using the Hasegawa kit with the decals. I hope it includes all the F-104s that were in the series to choose from!


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Who makes the _chrome_-plated F-104? I just saw one. _Schweet!_ That would be worth buying for this scenario.

Doug


----------



## scooke123 (Apr 11, 2008)

Radiodugger said:


> Who makes the _chrome_-plated F-104? I just saw one. _Schweet!_ That would be worth buying for this scenario.
> 
> Doug


HAWK did a chrome version back in the day - more a gimmick than anything. You have to look at all the seam lines, sometimes spotty plating too. I built a couple chrome models in my youth and never thought they looked that realistic.
Steve


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I especially like Hawk's chrome plated Westland Lysander, which was a _fabric_-covered WWII observation plane. :lol:


----------

