# R2 announces new tooling 1/72 Eagle



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Round2 will be showing a 14" 1/72 scale Eagle from Space:1999 at Wonderfest 2019 this year.

Find the whole story here with several photographs of the test shot.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Well, that 1/72 Eagle sure looks might fine!


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

I have some customizing plans for a few of those, things that I could not afford to do with the 22 inch Eagles.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

On a side note CultManTV reports Round2 is releasing a prebuilt 22" Eagle II variant with different engine pods, and engine tank placement.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

May I say about darn time? 

Now how about that idea of an 'Eagle Pod accessory kit', a box that lets you build the cargo platform/winch platform/science pod/boosters and so on? Just so one didn't have to buy a new Eagle when the inevitable 'variation' kit is offered.

ETA: I would like it if the pod had optional 'extended' support struts and a different 'not like the studio miniature' way of securing the pod, but it's too late for those changes from the sound of things. le sigh. Regardless, it looks very nice. I suspect they'll sell a ton of them.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think Round 2 is just going to sell Eagle Pod variations as full kits for as long as they can. It would really make sense for them to do so with the 22" kit considering cost and space restrictions but they have not done so after all this time yet.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I think Round 2 is just going to sell Eagle Pod variations as full kits for as long as they can. It would really make sense for them to do so with the 22" kit considering cost and space restrictions but they have not done so after all this time yet.


Oh I expect you're right, and from a business standpoint it's logical. But it only makes sense as long as there's a stock standard 'as seen on TV' Eagle available. Go ahead with freighter Eagles, science Eagles and whatnot, but either keep the standard passenger pod in that kit or the 'standard' Eagle as a companion kit.

Thing is, no other variation of the Eagle will sell as well as the standard version. It's a fact of life. If they discontinue the standard Eagle in favor of, say, the 'science pod' Eagle they'll be lucky to sell half as much. Which might be fine from a cost benefit standpoint but it's gonna tick off all those people two years from now faced with $200 scalper prices for the standard kit.

Because, see, not everyone who might want an Eagle is 'tuned in' like we are here. They'll miss out of the initial release. I hope R2 is planning to make more than 10,000 units for the first run because those will go FAST.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Cool. The Future is now old man.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

terryr said:


> Cool. The Future is now old man.


In retrospect though, our idea of the future is all ways - the just passed present. - Ron Swanson


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The future is fantastic! At least it will be when we finally have an accurate 1/72 eagle!

Has anyone heard if the landing gear will have springs?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

mach7 said:


> The future is fantastic! At least it will be when we finally have an accurate 1/72 eagle!
> 
> Has anyone heard if the landing gear will have springs?


If you'll read what Jamie posted the your questions will be answered. The landing gear will NOT have springs, but the kit will come with 2 sets of landing gear legs for 2 different positions, in flight or sitting on the ground.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

irishtrek said:


> If you'll read what Jamie posted the your questions will be answered. The landing gear will NOT have springs, but the kit will come with 2 sets of landing gear legs for 2 different positions, in flight or sitting on the ground.



Thanks, 

This will be a great addition to the fleet! It's on pre order at Cult.

EDIT:

I read through the blog and the comments. I asked Jamie what the prebuilt eagle II is. 
Is it a model of one of the other filing models? a reimagining of the eagle? something else?


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Wasn't Eagle 2 the 'standard' eagle that Alan flew? Like the Galileo 7.

And the second one built for the show.

https://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/eagle/w2meagle2.html


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

irishtrek said:


> If you'll read what Jamie posted the your questions will be answered. The landing gear will NOT have springs, but the kit will come with 2 sets of landing gear legs for 2 different positions, in flight or sitting on the ground.



The Round 2 site says that it will have springs, but they well be 'softer' so the lighter model will sit right.


David.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> Thanks,
> 
> This will be a great addition to the fleet! It's on pre order at Cult.
> 
> ...


Eagle 2 is simply the second of the 44 inch filming models, very similar to Eagle 1 but details and panels on the leg pods were different as well as details in the cages and the piping on the engine section. Eagle 3, built for the second series, had some noticeable shape and proportion differences from the other two. IIRC there were also two 22 inch filming models, an 11 inch model and a 5.5 inch model.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

Krel said:


> The Round 2 site says that it will have springs, but they well be 'softer' so the lighter model will sit right.
> 
> 
> David.


He is talking about the prebuilt there:



> We have been reviewing test shots that will be used in this year’s Space:1999 prebuilt product… drumroll, please… a 22″ Eagle II. The model will feature a slightly different engine bottle arrangement and all-new shoulder pods. The springs will be a bit “softer” to compress more fully as we see in the show. Just showing some pics of the assembled test shots isn’t that appealing, but we intend to have a fully factory-decorated piece at the show to show off exactly what the final product will look like.





> The 1/72 Eagle should retail at about $50usd, could be higher or lower depending on your retailer. The legs won’t feature springs, but there will be two sets of legs in “landed” and “flying” positions.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Over at collectorblog Jamie confirmed that eagle 2 is the 2nd filming model used. They did not redo the cage interiors, just the pods and the engine area.

I asked if this would be available as a kit in the future or will it only be a pre built item.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Pics of the test shot sprues are up:

Space: 1999 Models: New 1/72 scale Eagle kit Pt. 1 | Collector Model


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Wowsers!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Fozzie said:


> Pics of the test shot sprues are up:
> 
> Space: 1999 Models: New 1/72 scale Eagle kit Pt. 1 | Collector Model


Looks really nice. So, comments. as are expected 

I love how James states the selling points of a 1/72 scale Eagle kit (size, price, that sort of thing), exactly what many of us said how many years ago now, when the 22" was on the way? But better late than never.

The comment that working oleo struts aren't possible, I think the folk at Bandai or Wave or Hasegawa could prove that wrong. I have seen very tiny knuckle joints. Movable fingers even. But to be fair R2 doesn't have Bandai's technological base. 

I'm sure I'm alone in this but I really am kind of sick of "it must look exactly like the filming miniature!!! Or it's crap!!" thinking. Would it be so terrible to design a door for the back of the command/cockpit module and a mating surface on the forward service module? Would it be terrible to come up with some form of attachment for the pod that didn't involve a 'steel' bar and screws? Design the kit as if it was a *gasp* real vehicle? (I know, some HATE that idea)

It's nice they're being coy about other pods. But you know, why? Again with the unnecessary secrecy? 'Oh no! it leaked we're gonna do a science pod kit later! That will completely kill sales of the stock, standard, everyone wants one Eagle!!' Really? I rather doubt that.

So in a similar vein, how strong do you think this kit will be sans pod? Because attach that cargo/winch platform and you're not getting the same structural support.

I'm thrilled this kit is coming out. I just wish it was out sooner, like a couple years ago.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

With the base it looks to be 217 parts, they have simplified the spine assembly, 2 pieces (top and bottom) instead of the 26 parts of the 22 inch kit. 
Other parts were also simplified,
The cage assemblies are only 4 parts,
the main engine baffle is molded into the 2 part bell, 
no clear windows on the CM or passenger pod,
no pilot figures for the CM, 
the 4 thruster quads are one piece assemblies and 
the 4 main landing gear are molded as fixed assemblies, no springs, you have the choice of either landed or in flight modes for the landing gear. 
The passenger pod parts are integrated into the sprues for other parts so don't expect to see stand alone pod kits. 

I am excited for this kit and will probably buy several since I want to recreate some of the designs I created using the original MPC kit in the 1970's, something that was not feasible with the price of the 22 inch kit. I also plan to adapt the landing gear struts I created for my 33 inch Eagle to work with this one, only a few minor tweaks will be needed. I hope the weathering and panel decals will come with this model instead of being an add on, if not I will just weather it like I did both of the 22 inch Eagles I built.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

it's completely feasible that any extra production might include a different pod on it's own trees AND keep the passenger pod, or the parts for that might be its own chunk of tooling and a new pod slotted in. Which I would strongly dislike. 

Interesting about some of the simplification. I wonder if that's going to affect the look.


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

What? No detailed cockpit? ( as he runs for cover ) VERY NICE NEWS INDEED!! WHOOHOO!!


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Steve H said:


> it's completely feasible that any extra production might include a different pod on it's own trees AND keep the passenger pod, or the parts for that might be its own chunk of tooling and a new pod slotted in. Which I would strongly dislike.
> 
> Interesting about some of the simplification. I wonder if that's going to affect the look.


Here is a look at a built up test shot from Wonderfest, looks pretty good to me:



















This image shows a good size comparison to the original Airfix/MPC kit:


----------



## fluke (Feb 27, 2001)

HEY! Much bigger! VERY COOL!...I hope someone is planning a back wall for the cockpit ...that would be swell! If the pod windows were open with inserts clear or not that would make painting much easier as well.


----------



## StarCruiser (Sep 28, 1999)

Looks like a "must buy" to me!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

That's a lotta parts! !


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I do find it interesting that they placed Pod pieces along with Eagle pieces on the same sprue- I was hoping they would keep all the pod parts on a single tree which could be swapped out with another type pod or sold separately...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well I can think of a nice 'accessory' kit. Something that could be sold as an add-on like the different versions of the 11 foot Enterprise miniature. How about this: replacement command module with windows cut in and back details for 'escape craft' display, cockpit interior, pod interior, extended pod legs, 'Eagle 2' replacement surface details.

I imagine Paul will make a PE fret that includes a template to allow for perfect cutting of the windows in the command module in addition to his usual brass magic.

Other pods need to happen. I still lobby that selling them, ALL of them in one box is the best way to satisfy both the builders and the retailers. Wouldn't it be nice if then R2 could sell bagged individual pod kits via their site? Need just a winch pod? Done. Want an extra passenger pod? done. Well, that's impossible given the way they cut the tooling...damn.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

That's what we wanted the Airfix/MPC kit to be.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

John P said:


> That's a lotta parts! !


It is still about a hundred less than the 22 inch Eagle kit plus there is a lot of duplication of parts in the kit. The 22 inch kit was fairly simple to build due to the duplication of the various sub assemblies, this kit should be even easier since the largest sub assembly, the spine, has been reduced to two parts compared to the 26 parts of the 22 inch spine.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Some more new photos from Round 2, first the two part spine, there is some minor webbing at the tops of the triangles on the spine, this is due to the limitations of injection molding and is easily cleaned up with a sharp #11 blade:










And a close look at the parts for the passenger pod, it would be possible to add an interior and Round 2 suggests making the floor part removable with either magnets or screws so that any future add-ons (such as side boosters) can be easily added.




























The last image shows the bottom of the pod with the variations of attaching the provided dome display base or, as in the center, not using it at all.


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I do wish they did something besides the terrible screw mounting for the passenger pod--it's the worst part of the 22" kit.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

JeffBond said:


> I do wish they did something besides the terrible screw mounting for the passenger pod--it's the worst part of the 22" kit.


But but but it HAS to be like that! Exactly like that! Otherwise it can't possibly be an accurate representation of the actual filming miniature! And ONLY an accurate representation of the original filming miniature is acceptable! It would be a disaster to not have that, the kit would be on everyone's !DO NOT BUY! list!

Besides, the Eagle isn't real. Treating like it was an actual, real vehicle is just wrong. That's fantasy. It must be built as a replica of the filming miniature in every way or it's wrong. 

Mind, the 22" model is a huge failure because it doesn't have the places where wires were attached to 'fly' it on stage. EPIC FAIL ROUND 2!

>

(sad thing is, some of these comments are all too real to some in our community. )


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

JeffBond said:


> I do wish they did something besides the terrible screw mounting for the passenger pod--it's the worst part of the 22" kit.


I don't mind the screw, I even incorporated a version of the screw mount into the passenger pod of my 33 inch Eagle. With a touch of imagination, it could easily be the umbilical connection between the Passenger Pod and the Eagle.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> ...Besides, the Eagle isn't real. Treating like it was an actual, real vehicle is just wrong. That's fantasy. It must be built as a replica of the filming miniature in every way or it's wrong...


Attachment points for the pods, cockpit hatches, etc. are things that were never seen on screen. We know such things must exist on the "in universe" Eagle, but with no on screen image to work from these things would have to be made up. So what should it look like? Should it be based on your imagination, or mine or someone else's? We all have a different idea of what it should look like, and whatever a kit maker comes up with is going to disappoint someone. 

The only sane way to go is what R2 has done, follow the on screen Eagle as close as possible, which if nothing else is unquestionably accurate. If _you _don't like it, then it is up to _you _to make _your _kit into what _you _want it to be.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robn1 said:


> Attachment points for the pods, cockpit hatches, etc. are things that were never seen on screen. We know such things must exist on the "in universe" Eagle, but with no on screen image to work from these things would have to be made up. So what should it look like? Should it be based on your imagination, or mine or someone else's? We all have a different idea of what it should look like, and whatever a kit maker comes up with is going to disappoint someone.
> 
> The only sane way to go is what R2 has done, follow the on screen Eagle as close as possible, which if nothing else is unquestionably accurate. If _you _don't like it, then it is up to _you _to make _your _kit into what _you _want it to be.


That's just it. The 'steel bar and screw' is the quick and dirty solution that met the needs of filming. Being able to swap out a pod, or open it to replace the Freon cans for the vertical thrusters because, you know, the shots have to get done.

If a scene called for showing the 'real' attachment mechanisms for the pod they would have indeed built that in great detail (like the separation sequence for the command module of the Ultra probe and to some extent the same thing for the Eagle), but I sadly suspect it would end up just not matching the miniature in any way. See also the ultra clunky 'refueling arm/grab', the vanishing pod based docking tunnel and those regretful doors on the ends of the 'science pod' extensions. So I know we just have to roll with it sometimes. It is what it is. 

But it COULD be a little different. Like resizing the hatches on the pod ends and service modules to match the appx. 6 foot height of the sets and all that.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

Steve H said:


> But it COULD be a little different. Like resizing the hatches on the pod ends and service modules to match the appx. 6 foot height of the sets and all that.


But that would change the proportions of the model from what we see on screen. Better to admit that the scale is actually 1/100. In closeups and composite shots, the doors were obviously about 1.8m tall, so use that as a base scale indicator, rather than the astronaut figures scavenged from the Monogram Gemini kits just because they were about the right-ish size. For the original Airfix kits, the figures from the Main Mission portion of the Moonbase Alpha kit were about the same scale as the Eagle. I've got an old 1/100 scale Lunar Module kit from which I want to scavenge the descent stage for a Tranquility Base diorama with the new Eagle model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Owen E Oulton said:


> But that would change the proportions of the model from what we see on screen. Better to admit that the scale is actually 1/100. In closeups and composite shots, the doors were obviously about 1.8m tall, so use that as a base scale indicator, rather than the astronaut figures scavenged from the Monogram Gemini kits just because they were about the right-ish size. For the original Airfix kits, the figures from the Main Mission portion of the Moonbase Alpha kit were about the same scale as the Eagle. I've got an old 1/100 scale Lunar Module kit from which I want to scavenge the descent stage for a Tranquility Base diorama with the new Eagle model.


Exactly, sir! Thank you.

The Revell (sorry! pedantic me  ) Gemini astronauts were used mainly as a 'baseline' for matting in live action shots over the windows. Were there ever any show-used shots of the cockpit lit to show the static figures? 

Of course the Eagle has the same problem as so many spacecraft of the visual media. Sets too large for the apparent volume, doors that can't possibly work, or change dramatically from set to miniature (I'm looking at you with the side eye, Science Pod  ) so a person has to choose which line in the sand one will draw. I'm inclined to fall on the side of re-scaling the Eagle as we really don't see people next to the ship too often. At best it's that pod exterior wall with its magic stairs. 

Of course it doesn't matter. We all build what we like. LOL! the 'miniature über alles' group would shriek "SCALE?! There is no scale. it's not real! It's 44 inches!!"


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Steve H said:


> Of course it doesn't matter. We all build what we like. LOL! the 'miniature über alles' group would shriek "SCALE?! There is no scale. it's not real! It's 44 inches!!"



I got into trouble when I suggested (based on the size of the passenger pod side door) that the 22 inch Eagle was actually 1:55 scale not the stated 1:48 scale. The reasoning behind the 1:48 scale for the 22 inch kit is that the 44 inch Eagle used the Gemini 1:24 scale astronauts in the cockpit, that means that Eagle must be 1:24 scale. To keep the astronauts from ducking (we never see the cast do that on the full size set) when they go through the pod side door on the 44 inch model the scale would have to be 1:27.5! To avoid argument I just now use 11, 14, 22, 33 and 44 inches when discussing the various versions of the Eagle instead of scale.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

Time to get cagy with this:

http://www.collectormodel.com/mpc/4790-space-1999-models-new-1-72-scale-eagle-kit-pt-4/?fbclid=IwAR2g9qYRgP-RnsgXOxqPzreQIKwJQnXm0ufTwlD4EmregDjaQ7N1ie5sBRA#sthash.x2nMQTq8.dpbs


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

krlee said:


> Time to get cagy with this:
> 
> Space: 1999 Models: New 1/72 scale Eagle kit Pt. 4 | Collector Model




Hmmm. That looks...intimidating. It almost seems to me you'd want to leave off those 'shelf' parts off until you've got the 'inner' bit of the cage in place, which would help align the shelves properly. I don't know.

It sort of seems that ease of assembly has been sacrificed. I would call this a 'skill level 4' kit.


----------



## Owen E Oulton (Jan 6, 2012)

krlee said:


> I got into trouble when I suggested (based on the size of the passenger pod side door) that the 22 inch Eagle was actually 1:55 scale not the stated 1:48 scale. The reasoning behind the 1:48 scale for the 22 inch kit is that the 44 inch Eagle used the Gemini 1:24 scale astronauts in the cockpit, that means that Eagle must be 1:24 scale. To keep the astronauts from ducking (we never see the cast do that on the full size set) when they go through the pod side door on the 44 inch model the scale would have to be 1:27.5! To avoid argument I just now use 11, 14, 22, 33 and 44 inches when discussing the various versions of the Eagle instead of scale.


I have a casting of the 44" command module for which for years I've been planning to build a full interior in 1:28 scale to do a crash diorama with the rear door open and footprints leading away in the lunar regolith, entitles "Alan carter Rides Again!" The casting apparently was pulled off a Chris Trice master, and so is extremely accurate. It's three pieces (top, bottom and rear). I too had done the calculations and come to the conclusion that the 22" was 1/56 (a common gaming scale) and the 44" was 1/28 scale.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> That's just it. The 'steel bar and screw' is the quick and dirty solution that met the needs of filming. Being able to swap out a pod, or open it to replace the Freon cans for the vertical thrusters because, you know, the shots have to get done.
> 
> If a scene called for showing the 'real' attachment mechanisms for the pod they would have indeed built that in great detail (like the separation sequence for the command module of the Ultra probe and to some extent the same thing for the Eagle), but I sadly suspect it would end up just not matching the miniature in any way. See also the ultra clunky 'refueling arm/grab', the vanishing pod based docking tunnel and those regretful doors on the ends of the 'science pod' extensions. So I know we just have to roll with it sometimes. It is what it is.
> 
> But it COULD be a little different. Like resizing the hatches on the pod ends and service modules to match the appx. 6 foot height of the sets and all that.



Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there. Resizing things to fit a 6' human?
You sir, are completely insane. That would mean that all those 'scales' that we were told over the years wouldn't mean squat.

I mean, they used 1/24 scale Gemini astronauts. So then the model MUST be 1/24th scale...…….
Therefore, that means then that the pod door is only 5'6" (or thereabouts) and that EVERY actor would have to stoop to go through the door.


It doesn't matter that only 6'4" Martin Landau had to stoop going through the door and that every other actor could go through without stooping, or at most, a head dip.


I mean, if we were to actually believe that the 6' tall pod door on the set was 6' tall in reality, then all those eagle scales would be completely different.

Meaning if you measured the door on the kit and scaled it for 6', then the scales would all be different than commonly stated.


Like the "1/48" 22" Eagle kit would in reality have to be 1/53 scale.
Or this new "1/72" Eagle kit would in fact be 1/80 scale.

But...… for some reason, because even though they might have INTENDED the miniatures to be 1/24 scale and put those astronaut pieces in there, we have to accept that reasoning and dismiss all other more relevant visual cues.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

IIRC Kirk & company had to crouch to get out of the Galileo shuttlecraft but could walk around inside with no problem even though the roof was lower than the sides and sloped downwards toward the rear


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

ClubTepes said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there. Resizing things to fit a 6' human?
> You sir, are completely insane. That would mean that all those 'scales' that we were told over the years wouldn't mean squat.
> 
> I mean, they used 1/24 scale Gemini astronauts. So then the model MUST be 1/24th scale...…….
> ...


Well, if you're going to put it THAT way, clearly my logic is fatally flawed. 

Now can you help me with explaining how the hatches on the service module, or on the ends of the lab pod, or even at the crossbars of the boarding tube on the launchpads work? >


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Well, if you're going to put it THAT way, clearly my logic is fatally flawed.
> 
> Now can you help me with explaining how the hatches on the service module, or on the ends of the lab pod, or even at the crossbars of the boarding tube on the launchpads work? >


Hey man. Its only a tv show.


Yeah, the eagle design has a ton of issues.
design and scale.

Some are super obvious and others not so much.
But those clinging to the 'scale' based on the simple idea of putting two model pieces in a miniature (especially when they are never seen on screen) and putting that above a more tangible visual of actors clearly not crouching down to go through a door is kind of funny.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

About the size of the hatches on the passenger and science modules, I don't know. How the ones they work? The passenger module egress hatch is a wall slider (obviously). The ones on the ends of the pod, like the one going into the pilot module (which on the kits don't even have flat hatches!!), don't have enough room to slide all the way into the walls. 

I would hazard the externally mounted hatches on the science pod may be ones that are locked in place until a boarding tube or other Eagle can lock on and a mechanism grabs the hatch on a part of the perimeter to move it aside (kind of like the TMP Travel Pod hatch). 

Just a guess.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

The way I would fix the science pod triangle extension door problem would be to the cut the triangle extension in half and widen it by twice its original size. Have the doors on the rear side and have the new extra space on the forward end so the doors can slide forward to open all the way. I would also fix the problem (what people call the forward and rear 'cages'/corridors) by also widen the corridor to double its original size and have the forward (to CM) door and the rear (to passenger pod) door cut in half (so door is in 2 parts with each half sliding left or right) to open. That fixes the problem on having extra space for the doors to open and it fixes the problem on fitting the set into the exterior. However this causes the landing leg boxes to be pushed further out.


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

How about hinged doors?...:nerd:


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

As long as it's airtight....


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

Holy cow.... 

I never though it would ever happen , a REAL 1/72 Eagle with no mods to be done...... it can't be true...... Gee, I'll have to buy one..... even if I've said that my last two Eagles that's I've built were the last ones 'cause there's sooooo much scratchbuilt needed to correct all the flaws on the old kit.... .... It's gonna be a blast to built since we don't have to modify EVERYTHING..... I don't like the screws holding the pod tho..... I'll modify that for sure....When will it be available BTW ?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

It would seem to me that using magnetic radiation one could attach the pod without using the screws. 

But if "Breakaway" taught us anything, magnetic radiation is dangerous.


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

mach7 said:


> It would seem to me that using magnetic radiation one could attach the pod without using the screws.
> 
> But if "Breakaway" taught us anything, magnetic radiation is dangerous.



That's a good idea..... I'll see once I'm there... Let's hope that Simmonds doesn't come with this kit....


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

I've noticed that there's a detail missing on the engine cruciform. It should be surrounded with round tubing. Maybe they can fix this before production. If not, we will have to do this ourself, nothing major. The rest looks awasome, finally....... 



Here's what I'm talking about:


The new 1/72 Eagle engine:


http://www.collectormodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Engine-9.jpg


And here's the studio Eagle 1 engine section:


https://photos.app.goo.gl/A5LRriy3nMhCAyYB9


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

f1steph said:


> I've noticed that there's a detail missing on the engine cruciform. It should be surrounded with round tubing. Maybe they can fix this before production. If not, we will have to do this ourself, nothing major. The rest looks awasome, finally.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The additional plumbing is easy to add, I've added it to one of the 22 inch MPC/Round 2 kits.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

f1steph said:


> I've noticed that there's a detail missing on the engine cruciform. It should be surrounded with round tubing. Maybe they can fix this before production. If not, we will have to do this ourself, nothing major. The rest looks awasome, finally.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By the same token they don't have the extra framing inside the main engine group, particularly around the 'core' which, of course, is a mounting point for a pipe stand.

Seems an odd thing to omit since without that the completed kit is not a 100% faithful recreation of the 44" filming miniature. :wink2:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

If I recall, weren't those pieces added in season 2 to give the rear engines their exhaust streams? There were also feeder tubes running under the main spine framework. Maybe they were replicating the season 1 eagle, or felt those tubes were only to aid the engine effect and not something they wanted to replicate? I'm sure there's a reason it was not included. Just don't know what it is.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yes, found more info at the SmallArtworks site where they detail the restoration of the first 44" eagle.

"These "plumbing" tubes and parts around the engine section on the model as they exist today barely resemble the configuration that was in place when the model was originally built. This area of the model underwent extensive modifications throughout the run of the series."









"Below is a picture of an unfinished 44" Eagle replica under construction by Small Art Works for a customer, showing what the "plumbing" or piping configuration would have looked like when the #1 Eagle model was originally built. (Special thanks to Chris Trice and Daniel Prud'Homme for the information necessary to accurately construct this replica.)"









Read the whole story on the restoration here. smallartworks.ca


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Not sure why the pics aren't working?? The URLs are correct. Anyway, just look through the article to see what I mean.


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

See below


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

jheilman said:


> Not sure why the pics aren't working?? The URLs are correct. Anyway, just look through the article to see what I mean.


For some reason, the links are going to a secure server, and the images aren't there. 

http vs https

http://www.metropolisgrafix.com/Uploaded/22.jpg

http://www.metropolisgrafix.com/Uploaded/SAWreplica.jpg



















Even though I know my images are going to http, when I click view image, it goes to https.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Excellent article jheilman. Thanks for the link!


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

edge10 said:


> For some reason, the links are going to a secure server, and the images aren't there.
> 
> http vs https
> 
> ...


Yes, the last upgrade to HobbyTalk to an https format base has resulted in most (but not all) http links to be blocked for security concerns/reasons. I dont like it either - the system actually even blocks older images stored here with http urls as well (?) But, the need is for those older 'unsecure' sites to upgrade themselves to an https format and the links would meet the new secuity protocols and be allowed.

You can upload your images as attachments (> go advanced > manage attachments) and if the image fits within the size restriction of less than 500k you can show them here that way.

I was able to go back and save your url image files in the hittp format as attachcments in one post and didnt notice any new images. So try this method in the future and it should work for you again (and others.)


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Thanks for the info.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I just sent of payment to CultTV for the eagle. Hopefully I will have it in about a week.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> I just sent of payment to CultTV for the eagle. Hopefully I will have it in about a week.


Same here. Hard to believe. :surprise:

The old MPC models will pale in comparison, I'm sure. The boost to 1/72nd scale from 1/96th will be interesting to compare with the old models.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Once I have it in my hands I'll do a side by side comparison, like I did for the Hawk and the 2001 Orion and Moonbus.

I'm expecting this kit to be very nice!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Once I have it in my hands I'll do a side by side comparison, like I did for the Hawk and the 2001 Orion and Moonbus.
> 
> I'm expecting this kit to be very nice!


Cool :thumbsup: The Hawk is already in 1/72nd. It will be interesting to see how it compares at the same scale.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yah, apparently the old MPC Hawk was way out of scale with the old eagle. The new Hawk is very close to the size of the old one.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

mach7 said:


> I'm expecting this kit to be very nice!


If you've built the 1/48th Eagle, you'll notice the 1/72 Eagle is very similar. The parts layout is closely resembles the larger kit. There are some differences such as no interior for the cockpit. The exceptions are few and the kit should build up into a very respectable and accurate version of the Eagle.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I'm about 3/4 through the 22 inch eagle. its a great kit. I've been following James Small's build on collector model. it looks well done.

At this time, before I have it, my only possible complaint would be the landing gear. I would have loved springs but I expect that it would have driven the cost way up. 

If thats the only issue, life is good! :wink2:


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> I'm about 3/4 through the 22 inch eagle. its a great kit. I've been following James Small's build on collector model. it looks well done.
> 
> At this time, before I have it, my only possible complaint would be the landing gear. I would have loved springs but I expect that it would have driven the cost way up.
> 
> If thats the only issue, life is good! :wink2:


With some aluminium tubing, brass bits and using the 22 inch landing gear as a reference it will be easy to add the springs to the 14 inch eagle.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

The MPC Eagle was a huge favorite of my childhood. I think I built 6 of them over the years. I still have my last one next to my Product Enterprise eagle. I remember an evening back in the day when I built 4 eagles assembly-line style. Very little attention to detail and very little painting. I was young. They are all gone now. I used to take photos of my eagle models with fireworks in and around them to simulate the ever exploding eagles. They were sacrificed for art. :grin2:


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

mach7 said:


> Once I have it in my hands I'll do a side by side comparison, like I did for the Hawk and the 2001 Orion and Moonbus.
> 
> I'm expecting this kit to be very nice!


There's a comparison picture on Cult's site

https://www.culttvmanshop.com/Space-1999-Eagle-NEW-KIT--172-scale-from-MPCRound-2-_p_4762.html

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

My two kits arrived yesterday. The parts are very nice and well detailed. It's great to finally have a true 1/72 version of the Eagle.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I received mine yesterday. Krlee has posted photos of the parts breakdown in his build thread.

1st impression is WOW! A very nice kit. 

Hopefully tomorrow I can get some comparison photos up tomorrow.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> My two kits arrived yesterday. The parts are very nice and well detailed. It's great to finally have a true 1/72 version of the Eagle.


Kind of true 1/72.

It really depends on how big you consider the Eagle to be...…

Cue, endless debate.

Its more like 1/80 in my book.


----------



## Milton Fox Racing (May 27, 2014)

Is your book from Readers Digest by chance?

:jest:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> Kind of true 1/72.
> 
> It really depends on how big you consider the Eagle to be...…
> 
> ...



Yah, I think its easier to just call them by their lengths. 

22 inch

14 inch

12 inch

And of course krlee's ultimate 44 inch!


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> Yah, I think its easier to just call them by their lengths.
> 
> 22 inch
> 
> ...


I have a 33 inch Eagle, I have yet to take the plunge into building a 44 inch one!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Doh! Sorry. 

Your 33 inch eagle is still magnificent!


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

mach7 said:


> Doh! Sorry.
> 
> Your 33 inch eagle is still magnificent!


No problem, I almost hit the "buy it now" on a CM for a 44 inch Eagle over the weekend but I stopped myself, I'm not ready to go down that road just yet!


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

In for 1 via my LHS.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Kind of true 1/72.
> 
> It really depends on how big you consider the Eagle to be...…
> 
> ...


The original Eagle kit from Airfix/MPC is supposed to be 1/80 scale I think.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

irishtrek said:


> The original Eagle kit from Airfix/MPC is supposed to be 1/80 scale I think.


I think that your 1/80 scale has as much validity as anyone else's opinion.

It really comes down to 'how big do you think an Eagle is' argument/discussion.

I believe that scales and sizes were certainly intended with good intentions, but the various aspects of production that typically happen and the fact that no one thought that people were going to analyze this stuff to death, lead to typical compromises of time, budget etc.

The 1/24 44" Eagle is really 43"
The 1/48 22" Eagle is really 23"

Even in the miniatures built for the show, weren't consistent in their scales/sizes.

For some people, the fact that they put 1/24 scale astronauts in the big miniature is 'proof' of the size.

For others, its something else.

For me, on the Eagle, I think the best scale reference is between the actors and the side door set piece.
You have an actors tangible height in direct and close proximity to the side door of the Eagle.
That side door appears to be exactly 6' tall.
Which is what I then base my calculations from.

Others may agree or disagree and that is all good.
For me, the 6' door when compared to Eagle blueprints, translated into an Eagle that is 94 feet long.

Based on that, the old Eagle kit measures right in at 1/96 scale, which was a pretty common scale in those days and the door on the kit scales right back down to 6' as well. 

People may argue that some of the old kits proportions are off and they are not incorrect. 
But really looking at some of those issues, its evident that some compromises were made in changing angles for 'draft' issues in keeping parts count down. The side walls of the cargo module are simply moved 'down' because there was a need to increase the sloping roof line to maintain detail in that area.
Again, at that point in time, it was thought at only kids built sci-fi models and no one analyzed it to death. 

Unfortunately, the Eagle is a lot like other spaceships built for movies and TV.
The intended sizes of the ship, doesn't translate well when you have to build a full size set piece or 'fit' a set inside a miniature space etc.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> [T]he old Eagle kit measures right in at 1/96 scale, which was a pretty common scale in those days and the door on the kit scales right back down to 6' as well.


That's what I've always figured for the old MPC kit. :thumbsup: Works out kind of close for the scale differences with the 1/72nd and 1/48th scale models as well.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

krlee said:


> I have a 33 inch Eagle, I have yet to take the plunge into building a 44 inch one!


Where did you get a 33" Eagle?

That's right about 1/32 - 1/35 scale.

Cool.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Club Tepes, are you referring to the side door on the pod or one of the other doors?? I ask because not every door on the old MPC kit are the same height.


----------



## krlee (Oct 23, 2016)

ClubTepes said:


> Where did you get a 33" Eagle?
> 
> That's right about 1/32 - 1/35 scale.
> 
> Cool.


It is based on the old Mattel toy with a lot of scratchbuilt modifications.










This is the build log showing all of the work that went into it:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10217407850006845&type=3


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

ClubTepes said:


> I think that your 1/80 scale has as much validity as anyone else's opinion.
> 
> It really comes down to 'how big do you think an Eagle is' argument/discussion.
> 
> ...


The problem I have with spaceship doors is that if they are not tall enough, then you get into situations where tall people are constantly ducking while they're walking through a door (and thereby occasionally getting into accidents when they hit their head). In my headspace, it makes more sense to have spaceship doors being 6.5 - 7 feet tall to avoid that problem (you also have to take into account people wearing spacesuits which adds bulk so not only height but width as well). I had a similar issue a few months back when over at the Trekbbs site, someone was creating a 3d model on the refit Enterprise and mentions the travel pod docking ports are suppose to be 6 foot diameter doors. There was a brief discussion about scaling that to 7 feet would mean that the Refit's length of 305 meters would be much larger and I sort of agree with that (since others have pointed out the cargo deck/shuttle landing bay seen in TMP wouldn't quite fit into a 305 meter size. Of course, that opens the can of worms on the many debates about the TOS and Refit Enterprise length over the years (which I always find interesting). :grin2:


----------

