# R2 Space:1999 Eagle repop?



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Mentioned in another thread.


mach7 said:


> I asked Jamie at R2 on the blog about this.
> 
> "I know this is off topic, but Does MPC own the Space 1999 molds?
> 
> ...


As much as I'd love to see these kits on shelves again, I'd prefer a more accurate styrene Eagle. Something at least as accurate as the Product Enterprise replicas.









Thoughts? Would a reworking of the MPC molds make a more accurate Eagle, or is it so far off that starting over would be best?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I built a few in back in the day, and I have one in my build pile.

It's not a bad kit. The big thing it needs is to have the 2 service modules opened up. If memory serves, I believe the landing gear could use some work.

But out of the box it builds a nice looking kit.

R2 could rework the landing gear, and maybe sell a parts pack to fix the service modules, supply parts for the extended mission module, add the external boosters, and supply parts to build a crane/winch mission module used to move the nuclear waste containers. 

That would give them a lot of bang for the buck. Sell the repop of the original for $30-35, and sell the parts pack for maybe $20-25. That would limit the new tooling costs and make everybody happy!

The Hawk looks great, but I think that kit has a bunch of issues.
But I would buy 2-3 if they reissue it.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yeah, opening up the pods was a biggie. I did that on an MPC a long time ago and it took forever. Back before I had a Dremel. 

I think the basic shapes are off, but not _really_ bad. I have an MPC on the shelf next to my Product Enterprise Eagle. You can certainly see the differences in contours and detail. I like the idea of reissuing it with some upgrades. The engine section could use some work too. 

I must have built at least 6 of these over the years. You can see one of them here in glorious Polaroid quality.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

A completely new tool would be the way to go. Even the product enterprise eagles have thier problems. It would be great to see a half size 22" 'er come to fruition (in styrene), if done with respect to the original('s).
All of the main craft from the exeptional Gerry Anderson show UFO would be my personal grail kits, but a nice Eagle would be welcome.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

jheilman, I love the old photos! especially the freddy sparks!

Hunch, 

I agree with everything you say but that won't happen.

Look at what we had to go through to get the big TOS Enterprise to be ok'ed, and that is from TOS Trek. A known large fan base that always buys trek stuff.
As much as I love the 1st season of Space 1999 and UFO, the interest is just not there.

I think the best we can hope for is a re-pop and parts pack set.

That would be ok for me, but I'm sure others might feel different.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

As much as I would like to see the Eagle reissued let's be realistic here people, in order for the Eagle to be reissued R2 has to have the licensing from Gerry Anderson and I doubt we will se a parts pack for a reissue of the Eagle.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jheilman said:


> Mentioned in another thread.
> 
> 
> As much as I'd love to see these kits on shelves again, I'd prefer a more accurate styrene Eagle. Something at least as accurate as the Product Enterprise replicas.
> ...


Developing an "accurate" Eagle would, as far as I'm concerned, be easier to do with all-new tooling.

The CAD word would be relatively simple... far more so than, say, the TOS 1701. Most of what's present in the Eagle is made up of flat surfaces, cylindrical surfaces, or revolved surfaces. Only the "command module" would be difficult at all, and it's not THAT difficult.

But to get an accurate Eagle from the MPC tooling would mean totally reworking every single part. Sometimes it just makes more sense to start over... it's less labor, and the tooling would be "virginal" when you start producing off of it.

I'd love to see a "mass market," accurate Eagle. And a Hawk. And (from a separate but semi-related tele-movie) the Antares. There's a lot of Anderson (non-super-marionation) stuff which was excellent for the day and still stands up, design-wise, today. While these can be found in garage-kit form today, in extremely high-quality versions... those cost far more than I'm willing to pay.


----------



## zike (Jan 3, 2009)

It should be noted that the Eagle was not an MPC kit.

It was an Airfix kit reboxed by MPC for the American market. This was very common during the MPC era. They reboxed a great many Airfix kits including a large number of aircraft kits. MPC reboxed everything from Airfix's 1/72 B-29 to their big 1/24 scale planes like the P-51.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Let's have a newly tooled kit instead of that Airfix/MPC monstrosity.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I have one of the original repops from the late 90s still in the box. Once I got the PE Eagle, I didn't need to build it since I already had a more accurate display model. If they got the specs from PE (if they were willing), there's already a template for a more accurate kit.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Ertl/AMT reissued the Eagle about 12 years ago. Its a crappy kit for sure


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I can't be that harsh. It's inaccurate, but no more so than the AMT TOS Enterprise. And, it was the only game in town except for expensive resin kits. I do love my PE replica though.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

I would prefer that if R2 does issue an Eagle kit it would be a retool instead of a re-issue, perhaps in the 16 to 18 inch range. The old Airfix/MPC kit was good but it has way to many issues to be made accurate. The shape of the nose, service module cages,the passenger pod, the four side pods, the landing gear, the "backbone" the engine tanks and engines are all off to some degree. With a lot of work it can be made into a good representation of the Eagle but I would probably pass on just a re-issue. 
The Hawk is far more accurate than the Eagle and requires only some minor dressing up to make a decent replica. I would love to see a re-issue of the Hawk since it was ignored when the Space:1999 kits were re-issued in 1999.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yeah, I just don't think a completely new kit is a possibility. Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jheilman said:


> Yeah, I just don't think a completely new kit is a possibility. Hope I'm wrong.


Tooling it would be almost trivial, compared to most other kits out there. But the part count would be pretty high, in order to do it right. Lots and lots of very, very simple parts.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

djnick66 said:


> Ertl/AMT reissued the Eagle about 12 years ago. Its a crappy kit for sure


That tells me that Round 2 already has the rights.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Captain April said:


> That tells me that Round 2 already has the rights.


I hope they do, but fear it might have expired. 

Jamie is not saying if they have the tooling.

I would think a re-pop would be the first step. If it sells then maybe.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

mach7 said:


> I hope they do, but fear it might have expired.
> 
> Jamie is not saying if they have the tooling.
> 
> I would think a re-pop would be the first step. If it sells then maybe.


I think that the original tooling was pretty worn-out, anyway. The later shots off that tooling showed pretty significant "mismatch" between the tool halves, as I recall. The tool would need to be reworked and fixed up. And it would still be the dramatically "inadequate" kit that's always been out there.

An Eagle model without the "cages?" I'd never buy one again. With the soft, squishy detail of the MPC/Airfix kit? Not really acceptable to me. I can be done better, and it should be done better.

No, for me, it has to be a fully new tool. I have zero interest in a repop of the old kit, anymore than I have interest in a repop of the Galileo.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I'll have to pull my '90s kit out and look at it. 
I hope it's not that bad.

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE a big eagle.

I just don't think anyone would be interested in tooling a big kit that would 
end up costing $100+ for a series with a limited fan base.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

mach7 said:


> I'll have to pull my '90s kit out and look at it.
> I hope it's not that bad.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE a big eagle.
> ...


From what I remember about the 1999 reissue it was identical to the 1975 models except the color of the plastic, I don't remember any flaws that did not exist in the original issue. With A LOT of work, the Airfix/MPC kit can be made presentable:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

R2 may have the molds, but do they have the lisencing to do a reissue?????
As for a reissue I would be satisfied because it can always be upgraded to a better looking model. 
And for those on here who prefer an all new tool I think your standards are a bit too high, no offense. Besides where's the challenge of build an accurate kit??????


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shweeeeeeet.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

New tool, 1/72 scale= best solution.

Old kit re-worked within the limits of do-abilty (and yes, that may actually be impossible but let's put it on the table)= reasonable compromise, aftermarket may 'fill the gaps' to get a better end result.

Old kit with zero changes, but at least accurate, complete decals = most likely to happen due to risk/return equations. 

As some have stated, of course the MPC Eagle kit is kinda raggy by today's standards and the increased knowledge we have, same as the AMT Enterprise. Yet they're both SO iconic, so embedded in the bloodstream of so many of us from our collective youth, I just couldn't be angry if a straight-up re-pop happened. Oh, I'd be sad for lost opportunities, of course. I could see, with all-new tooling, at least two releases, maybe three. Basic Eagle, 'science' Eagle (with the docking pod and boosters and stuff) and a deluxe "all that Eagle" kit with ALL the pod variations.

Now, mind, we're NOT the only market. Japan would gobble up an all-new tool Eagle like it was candy. I'm sure a few thousand would sell in England, if R2 has a partner there. 

This may be more doable than we all think. 

I mean, would YOU have expected R2 to crank out the upcoming 1/144 Forbidden Planet C57-D ship? I sure didn't expect it!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> R2 may have the molds, but do they have the lisencing to do a reissue?????
> As for a reissue I would be satisfied because it can always be upgraded to a better looking model.
> And for those on here who prefer an all new tool I think your standards are a bit too high, no offense. Besides where's the challenge of build an accurate kit??????





If everyone thought like that there'd be no new tool kits. Just the same old crap constantly recycled. It's nice sometimes to do up an old dog of a kit to make it look better (nice job btw kenlee) but there's nothing like opening the box of a newly tooled more accurate kit.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> If everyone thought like that there'd be no new tool kits. Just the same old crap constantly recycled. It's nice sometimes to do up an old dog of a kit to make it look better (nice job btw kenlee) but there's nothing like opening the box of a newly tooled more accurate kit.


Actually, there are some nice Anderson kits available NOW in styrene for a fair price from Aoshima. All T-birds but damn good kits. 
Lets see, theres the 
Fireflash thats a bit pricey- 50 ish
New reissues of 
Thunderbirds 1 and 2 (nice kits, best ones accuracy wise)
The mole (very nice)
and the 
TB2 launch bay kit thats really cool if you dont mind a little work.
Make sure you get the Aoshima versions to get the nice representations.
They also put out a Fab 1 thats nice but now out of production for a while and tends to get pricey.
All great examples of what can be done when someone CARES.:thumbsup:
But thats it for accurate Anderson examples, so get'em while you can...
JW


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Oh, and KENLEE- nice job digging out those cages! Looks sweet, a lot of work there!:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> If everyone thought like that there'd be no new tool kits. Just the same old crap constantly recycled. It's nice sometimes to do up an old dog of a kit to make it look better (nice job btw kenlee) but there's nothing like opening the box of a newly tooled more accurate kit.


As long as it's not too acurate and is still something of a challenge to build I could not agree more.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> As long as it's not too acurate and is still something of a challenge to build I could not agree more.


A kit can be very, very accurate and still be a challenge to build.

For me, it's never fun fixing things that I'd rather not have to focus on, instead of the parts I WANT to focus on.

Case in point... TOS gridlines. I'd really prefer to never have to fill them in, in the first place. It's not "fun" to have to spend hours upon hours filling, sanding, etc. The fun, for me, will be upgrading shapes (for areas I'm deviating, purposefully, from the 11' miniature), creating interior setpieces (behind every window) and so forth.... getting the internal lighting, internal structure, etc, all done.

For an EAGLE, I want the PARTS to be accurate to the primary filming miniature (realize that there were several filming miniatures, and they weren't all perfectly identical) I don't want to have to go in and totally re-create the command module because it's the wrong shape or has (in scale) 6" thick, rounded-edged plating all over it, or so forth.

I want my kit to be a starting point, not a finished model... but I want that starting point to be the CORRECT starting point, not someplace I'll have to backtrack from in order to get to what ought to be the real starting point.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Just focusing on the 44" miniatures, there were 3, 2 built by Wag Evans. The second was delivered identical to the first with the exception of the CM, which was made from a mold of the first, however, somebody decided the two should be distinguishable when compared, so detail was jimmied off and replaced by Terry Reed. The 3rd was built by Derek Freeborn, and takes after #1, but Freeborn's model has significant contour differences. The Airfix/MPC kit was based on #2. MPC had their own set of molds cut by Airfix. 

In 1999, I re-jiggered two AMT re-pops with Evergreen tubing, sheet styrene, and metal-oleo landing gear, along with the same aftermarket decals jheilman used. It wasn't that difficult. I also used detail bits from the Revell Mercury/Gemini repop for detail within the cages.

When AMT repopped the 1999 kits, the license was held by Carlton International. Granada merged with them and became Granada International, now, the license holder is iTV Global. Round 2 would have to negotiate with them.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

seaQuest said:


> ... along with the same aftermarket decals jheilman used.


That's kenlee's Eagle up top. Not mine.:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> A kit can be very, very accurate and still be a challenge to build.
> 
> For me, it's never fun fixing things that I'd rather not have to focus on, instead of the parts I WANT to focus on.
> 
> ...


Very well said.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

Captain April said:


> That tells me that Round 2 already has the rights.


It can always be reissued as a generic space ship. Remember Monogram reissued the Aurora Invaders ship as the "UFO" and the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea Flying Sub became the "Alien Sub" or something like that. 

And its not like rights are a huge issue anyway... pretty much every kit AMT/MPC/Polar Lights puts out is licensed... Ford, Chevy, Paramount, Universal...


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

And the Moebius Moonbus was not licensed. No 2001 ID on the kit.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Well then in that case, let the repops commence!!!!!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yeah, none of the Fujimi spinner/sedan kits are licensed either.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

This thread got me wanting another Product Enterprise eagle. Wow, checking eBay and they have become pricey. Think I'll be content with one. I would like the lab pod variant or the freight pod, but some were going for $300-$500 and up!

Makes one think there is still a fairly strong market for a new, accurate eagle kit??:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

jheilman said:


> This thread got me wanting another Product Enterprise eagle. Wow, checking eBay and they have become pricey. Think I'll be content with one. I would like the lab pod variant or the freight pod, but some were going for $300-$500 and up!
> 
> Makes one think there is still a fairly strong market for a new, accurate eagle kit??:thumbsup:


Yeah, we're past due for whatever company picked up Product Enterprises (wasn't it the folk who currently make Doctor Who toys?) is past due getting Eagles back onto the marketplace.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Makes me regret not picking up a couple more a few years back.


----------



## paustin0816 (Nov 8, 2006)

Yeah I'm bummed I never picked one up now they are way too pricey, love to have one


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I never picked up commisioner Simmons eagle and they were the cheapest as nobody wanted the orange one I guess. Now its the last one I need and goes for mega bucks so I'm pretty p'od I cant finnish off my collection. It was fun when they went for 60 bucks, but now?


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

kenlee said:


> From what I remember about the 1999 reissue it was identical to the 1975 models except the color of the plastic, I don't remember any flaws that did not exist in the original issue. With A LOT of work, the Airfix/MPC kit can be made presentable:


Presentable? Your Airfix/MPC Eagle is downright BEAUTIFUL!!! 

Excellent job. The narrowed spine looks perfect.

Is the spine scratch built or did you narrow the kit's spine?


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

crowe-t said:


> Presentable? Your Airfix/MPC Eagle is downright BEAUTIFUL!!!
> 
> Excellent job. The narrowed spine looks perfect.
> 
> Is the spine scratch built or did you narrow the kit's spine?


I used the sides of the kit spine with Evergreen tubing cut to reconnect the two sides back together. I considered building the cages from scratch but just used the dremel tool with a grinder bit and a sharp # 11 blade to open up the kit pieces. Other changes I made was adding detail to the ends of the passenger pod, drilling out each of the 4 bells on all of the thruster quads. I detailed the landing gear, including narrowing the footpads by 2mm, re plumbed the engine section, I threw out the kit spheres there and used beads from Michaels that were the right size. I also built a cargo platform that holds 6 nuclear waste canisters that can be swapped out with the passenger pod.


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

kenlee said:


> I used the sides of the kit spine with Evergreen tubing cut to reconnect the two sides back together. I considered building the cages from scratch but just used the dremel tool with a grinder bit and a sharp # 11 blade to open up the kit pieces. Other changes I made was adding detail to the ends of the passenger pod, drilling out each of the 4 bells on all of the thruster quads. I detailed the landing gear, including narrowing the footpads by 2mm, re plumbed the engine section, I threw out the kit spheres there and used beads from Michaels that were the right size. I also built a cargo platform that holds 6 nuclear waste canisters that can be swapped out with the passenger pod.


Thanks for all the information on what you did. You did a great job and it significantly improved the overall look of the kit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> That tells me that Round 2 already has the rights.


So any new info on this?

I was thinking too it's possible someone could own the molds but have the rights to produce the kit expire.

It would be nice to hear from R2 on this and a possible Hawk Repop or retool.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't think there's any news to be had. As much as you and I and dozens of people here would love an Eagle repop, let alone the wet dream of an all new tool Eagle, there's just not much 'mainstream' interest, compared to the big beasts (R2's) Star Trek and (Revell's) Star Wars. 

Mind, there's a good international market potential. England would buy a goodly number and Japan would go ape-s**t for it, so that's a factor to consider. 

Now, if R2 could get a 'global' license from whoever owns ITC's library so they could crank out all manner of Gerry Anderson kits ala what Moebius has been doing with Irwin Allen properties, THAT could be interesting. I suspect that may just not be affordable.


----------

