# 22 inch Eagle building tips



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Here some things I have discovered so far in my build:























































Please feel free to add any others that you find or tips that may help others.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

You are a pioneer and a frustration-saver! Great catches on these! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I would like to add that I greatly appreciate the photos with callouts, everything is so much easier when you can actually see the 'action'. 

Will this also count as the 'accuracy' thread? I'm wondering about that 'engine support' grid, I'm thinking it should be more like the one attached to the back of the Command Module, two vertical braces instead of one in the middle, because of the support rod tube that's the 'secret part' of the middle of the engine cluster. 

OTOH I don't know if the smaller filming miniatures HAD that support rod tube, it may have been something only the 44" model had. Thoughts? speculations?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> You are a pioneer and a frustration-saver! Great catches on these! :thumbsup:


Agreed! Thanks very much!

Should this thread be made a sticky?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> I would like to add that I greatly appreciate the photos with callouts, everything is so much easier when you can actually see the 'action'.
> 
> Will this also count as the 'accuracy' thread? I'm wondering about that 'engine support' grid, I'm thinking it should be more like the one attached to the back of the Command Module, two vertical braces instead of one in the middle, because of the support rod tube that's the 'secret part' of the middle of the engine cluster.
> 
> OTOH I don't know if the smaller filming miniatures HAD that support rod tube, it may have been something only the 44" model had. Thoughts? speculations?


Not sure if the 22 inch filming model had the support rod through the engine cluster like the 44 inch model had. The engine support grid has two vertical and two horizontal braces in this model as can be seen here on my assembled engine support structure:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> Not sure if the 22 inch filming model had the support rod through the engine cluster like the 44 inch model had. The engine support grid has two vertical and two horizontal braces in this model as can be seen here on my assembled engine support structure:


Yes, I could see that in the instruction pic you posted. You can see that the single vertical support in the back part would be a severe hindrance in threading a pipe stand mounting rod, yeah? 

I mean, I understand the 44" filming miniature was made from soldered brass tubing and all, but given the weight of the miniature (30-some pounds, right?) I would have a hard time believing the stand would hang ONLY on a stem reaching just into the middle of the engines cluster. 

but maybe this discussion...I don't know. Would this count to making the new model more accurate (because the 44" miniature clearly DID have something going on back there as a designed mounting point) or is this just speculation discussion?


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Many thanks for the tips!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Excellent!!


----------



## arvison (Mar 14, 2002)

Let me add my thanks for the Eagle building tips. This will save a lot of us from a lot of aggravation in attempting our builds! Great work and a great service you are providing!


----------



## kangg7 (Jun 21, 2000)

I would like to add my thanks to the discussion. The round 2 blog showed a couple of these things, but your post has helped to verify and make more clear what round 2 was showing. Especially the thruster cluster part.
also , the change of construction order makes sense.
I'm very interested to see if there are other tips that will help.??


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Here is one I had forgot about since I plan to glue the nose in place on mine, thanks to Robert Hobby on the facebook Space:1999 props and ships group for this image:


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Here is another idea that I have about attaching the nose section:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Just wanted to echo what others have said, thanks for the tips, they will be a BIG help when I start my build!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Another instruction sheet error, this was spotted by roger Sorensen and posted on the Space:1999 Props and Spaceships facebook Page:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hey, I know that guy!

I think it may have been a mistake to use that old school 'comput-or' font for the instruction sheet. It's cute and a wink and a nod but it can be kind of confusing where one needs clarity. 

(yes, I know there's an actual name for the font from the old Letraset days,so what we all know what I mean.  )


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Not really necessary to do this but I did it on mine anyway:


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Yes, I could see that in the instruction pic you posted. You can see that the single vertical support in the back part would be a severe hindrance in threading a pipe stand mounting rod, yeah?
> 
> I mean, I understand the 44" filming miniature was made from soldered brass tubing and all, but given the weight of the miniature (30-some pounds, right?) I would have a hard time believing the stand would hang ONLY on a stem reaching just into the middle of the engines cluster.
> 
> but maybe this discussion...I don't know. Would this count to making the new model more accurate (because the 44" miniature clearly DID have something going on back there as a designed mounting point) or is this just speculation discussion?


Don't really know what that pipe through the center of the engine cluster was but it does seem a little flimsy to serve as a mount for filming. The pictures I found of the teardown and restoration of the 44 inch Eagle 1 filming model clearly shows that the pipe does not extend into the corridor section.




























Looking around I did find a photo of Brian Johnson attaching one of the 22 inch filming models to a stand using the center post mount, but I have found nothing that shows the 44 inch model mounted that way.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Excellent research Mr. Wolfe! I'm glad to see that there is, indeed, a pipe in the middle of the engine cluster. 

But the unanswered question is, did the back wall of the engine service module, the wall butting up to the cluster, have a hole in it? Was there a space on that back frame that the rod could have gone through into the module or did it have that one vertical bar like the new kit? I note that this appears to be the Year Two modification where they ran the freon tubes to the nozzles which may well have altered the use of the mounting point there. 

(I know I'm asking questions that nobody seems to have thought of in otherwise quite thorough dissection of the miniature. I'm a goof.  )

Man, I don't know. Do YOU think that the way the brass tubing was all soldered together it would be strong enough to support the entire model from that short area? Hanging everything from the engine cluster frame?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Excellent research Mr. Wolfe! I'm glad to see that there is, indeed, a pipe in the middle of the engine cluster.
> 
> But the unanswered question is, did the back wall of the engine service module, the wall butting up to the cluster, have a hole in it? Was there a space on that back frame that the rod could have gone through into the module or did it have that one vertical bar like the new kit? I note that this appears to be the Year Two modification where they ran the freon tubes to the nozzles which may well have altered the use of the mounting point there.
> 
> ...


None of the photos in that series from the teardown and restoration show that the tube had ever extended into the module, it appears to stop at the vertical bar. I think the intention was to mount the model using that tube but I find no evidence that it was ever done, perhaps it was realized after construction that the model was too heavy to mount that way. There is a video in the special features on one of the bluray season 1 discs that show the 44 inch model mounted to a stand that is attached to the rear half of the spine and being filmed from below. I think that is the only way, other than hanging from the wires, hanging from the crane in the Eagle hangar and sitting on either a launch pad or planet surface that the model was ever filmed. I could be wrong, won't be the first or the last time if I am.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Anyone doing any .... I guess they would be called ... aztecing masks for this model?


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Steve H said:


> Hey, I know that guy!
> 
> I think it may have been a mistake to use that old school 'comput-or' font for the instruction sheet. It's cute and a wink and a nod but it can be kind of confusing where one needs clarity.
> 
> (yes, I know there's an actual name for the font from the old Letraset days,so what we all know what I mean.  )


Countdown.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

seaQuest said:


> Countdown.


Well, OK...I don't know what good it'll do but...

5...4...3...


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Decided I'm going to install the cockpit LEDs and battery pack in the beak, with the switch inside. I'll use a magnet to make the beak removable and just pop it on and off whenever I want to flip on the lights. Seems like a simpler solution that Jim Small's modification of running wires to a battery pack hidden inside the forward section of the main hull (whatever that area is officially called).

I'm also planning to replace the clear cockpit windows with microscope slide glass. I have a glass grinder for stained glass that I'll use to grind the curve. The glass is very thin and there's no distortion. I did this for my 4-window Seaview and I can see the control room interior perfectly.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> Anyone doing any .... I guess they would be called ... aztecing masks for this model?


Does the Eagle even have an aztec pattern???


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Funny thing is that were actual computer fonts- one of which was used on the show, which had certain blobs and shapes designed to remove any confusion as to what character they represent.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

hunk a junk said:


> i'm also planning to replace the clear cockpit windows with microscope slide glass. I have a glass grinder for stained glass that i'll use to grind the curve. The glass is very thin and there's no distortion. I did this for my 4-window seaview and i can see the control room interior perfectly.


Want!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> Does the Eagle even have an aztec pattern???


Not as such, it's more the Mike Trim 'random shaded area' sort of deal, there's no pattern, it's just something done to various area. It's just to throw some contrast to the surfaces, if I interpret correctly.

Still, some pro made masks would probably be welcomed by those wanted to copy the look.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Anyone know a good place for dry transfer detail sheets? I want to add plenty of very small squares, dots and other graphic details all over the ship like was done here: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=11149

I'm hunting, but if anyone has some links, let me know.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Anyone know a good place for dry transfer detail sheets? I want to add plenty of very small squares, dots and other graphic details all over the ship like was done here: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=11149
> 
> I'm hunting, but if anyone has some links, let me know.


I used the Paint program in Windows 7 to create this decal sheet for my "Moon Hopper". I also created on the same decal sheet some gray scale and other light color segments that I cut up and used to add panel detail.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207806522219651&set=a.10207516140240283.1073741855.1192467616&type=3&theater


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for, BWolfe, but my printer isn't great and I'm hoping there are some commercially-available sheets that have similar shapes and details. I want my Eagle to have a real world look, with lots of panels, rivets and details. Something like this: http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/merc/print/ivmpostere8.jpg I also like the sci-fi airshow version: http://www.scifiairshow.com/#!EA05.jpg/zoom/c9zp/c11au


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Opus Penguin said:


> Anyone doing any .... I guess they would be called ... aztecing masks for this model?


yup. as soon as I get my kit, it's off to the races


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Anyone know a good place for dry transfer detail sheets? I want to add plenty of very small squares, dots and other graphic details all over the ship like was done here: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=11149
> 
> I'm hunting, but if anyone has some links, let me know.


Chris Trice scaled those Letraset markings down and they're included on the kit's decal sheet.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

seaQuest said:


> Chris Trice scaled those Letraset markings down and they're included on the kit's decal sheet.


Isn't that great? Chris is my new best friend!


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

I am certainly no 'Space 1999/Eagle' aficionado by any stretch and I'm sure many of you are so let me ask: What are the metal 'snap' looking things on the upper railing seen in pic below?

Thanks,
Carl-

Edit: I enlarged the picture and saw they are nuts, but still, what are they for?


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

hal9001 said:


> I am certainly no 'Space 1999/Eagle' aficionado by any stretch and I'm sure many of you are so let me ask: What are the metal 'snap' looking things on the upper railing seen in pic below?
> 
> Thanks,
> Carl-
> ...


The look to be securing the clamps for the upper framework to the body underneath.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Opus Penguin said:


> The look to be securing the clamps for the upper framework to the body underneath.


Yes, I see now, there are 'tabs' on the opposite side. Like you said, used to screw into to hold the structure together.

Carl-


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Very happy with this kit. Thank you Round2! This might be helpful to some: but there was some excess release oil on some of the parts of my kit, the gray parts particularly, so a little more diligence with the cleaning might be called for.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> yup. as soon as I get my kit, it's off to the races



Cool. Put me down for a set, Lou. Seems like you could try to model them after the filming model but also provide a lot of various squares, rectangles, stripes and "L" shaped masks so you can customize as you see fit -- there doesn't seem to be a standard for how the actual models were detailed -- every one was different.

My plan was to do a partial assembly, paint everything primer grey, and then put the vinyl masks on top of grey primer -- shoot the whole thing with white primer (or insignia white) and then peel off masks to reveal grey areas (small squares and stripes throughout) and then, on top of that, give the grey marking a light misting of white to make them a little more subtle and/or weathered. 

Once that's done, then I'll go over entire model with a grey or black wash to bring out crevices and little details for an even more weathered look.

t


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for, BWolfe, but my printer isn't great and I'm hoping there are some commercially-available sheets that have similar shapes and details. I want my Eagle to have a real world look, with lots of panels, rivets and details. Something like this: http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/merc/print/ivmpostere8.jpg I also like the sci-fi airshow version: http://www.scifiairshow.com/#!EA05.jpg/zoom/c9zp/c11au


Have you seen this version of the Eagle? Talk about detail and rivets and the like:

https://www.google.com/search?q=geo+"space+1999"+eagle+poster


----------



## muldokken (Jan 5, 2010)

hey guys, so has anyone thought about what to put in the pod? anyone one know of some stuff to go in there that would be the right scale?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

muldokken said:


> hey guys, so has anyone thought about what to put in the pod? anyone one know of some stuff to go in there that would be the right scale?


Welcome to one of the Great Scale Debates in sci-fi model building. 

The kit is nominally 1/48 scale, based on the figures in the cockpit, which is meant to replicate the 44" Filming Miniature, which was nominally 1/24 scale. 

However, based on the visual evidence of the show, and how tall actors are, and how large the passenger pod door is in relation, it can be argued that the 'real' scale of the new kit is something like 1/52 or even possibly 1/60th. Again, depending. If one accepts a smaller scale then all the hatches at the ends of the pod and the service modules, as well as inside the cockpit, need to be redone to reflect that change. (and I happen to think there may well be a market for that, either photoetch or resin. Ah, if I had any skill in that area...)

But if you rescale the kit and put smaller pilots in the cockpit, then it won't look like what's seen on the screen the few times they matted in live action footage of actors. 

Choices have to be made, and someone will always say 'that's wrong' no matter which was you go. The question then becomes, do you worry about the opinions of strangers, or do you go with what makes you happy? 

Kinda sorta the whole life on the internet in that nutshell, huh?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Been doing some paint tests...tried Dupli-Color Pure White, Tamiya Insignia White, and Vallejo Air White Grey over Tamiya white and grey primers.

Vallejo Air White Grey over the white primer came the closest to the color of the model's "white" plastic and, ironically, was closer to the color of the Dupli-Color's cap than the actual Dupli-Color's color turned out!

Over the grey, it gave a very nice "paneling" color. 

So, at this point in my tests, Vallejo Air White Grey (71.119) is in the lead.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Welcome to one of the Great Scale Debates in sci-fi model building.
> 
> The kit is nominally 1/48 scale, based on the figures in the cockpit, which is meant to replicate the 44" Filming Miniature, which was nominally 1/24 scale.
> 
> ...


I always go with what makes me happy, based on the passenger pod door, the scale is 1/55.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

A few more tips:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Glad to hear that clipping some coils does indeed give a better look. 

OK, on the landing gear...um...what to call it, strut support frame? The thing you put new pins on. Does that part NEED those pins to align properly? What if you just trimmed the pins off then placed that not-quite-flat part on some sandpaper on a flat surface and grind it down a bit, then just glued it to the pod? doesn't the landing foot shaped cutout work to keep the alignment correct?


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Glad to hear that clipping some coils does indeed give a better look.
> 
> OK, on the landing gear...um...what to call it, strut support frame? The thing you put new pins on. Does that part NEED those pins to align properly? What if you just trimmed the pins off then placed that not-quite-flat part on some sandpaper on a flat surface and grind it down a bit, then just glued it to the pod? doesn't the landing foot shaped cutout work to keep the alignment correct?


You don't really need the pins but my ocd insisted that they had to be there.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

BWolfe said:


> You don't really need the pins but my ocd insisted that they had to be there.


I dig. 

OK, so is anyone going to add the supposed landing lights at the outside corner of the landing gear pods, per the feature found on 44" Filming Miniature Eagle #2?

For that matter, what about identification/formation/anti collision lights? Not a thing seen in the show but certainly logical to consider.


----------



## Xenodyssey (Aug 27, 2008)

Steve H said:


> I dig.
> 
> OK, so is anyone going to add the supposed landing lights at the outside corner of the landing gear pods, per the feature found on 44" Filming Miniature Eagle #2?
> 
> For that matter, what about identification/formation/anti collision lights? Not a thing seen in the show but certainly logical to consider.


I've been thinking about landing and navigation lights myself. Has anyone done a CGI Eagle with them?


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Since the Eagle takes its inspiration from the 2001 moon bus and the NASA lunar landers, neither of which had navigation lights, I can see why they didn't bother adding them to the models. I think the argument could also be made that on spacecraft the navigation lights are kind of pointless given the vast distances and high speeds the vehicles travel. When something is zipping faster than a bullet through an area of space the size of the moon, nobody is going to see the ship, let alone blinky lights. At the same time, the flight corridors around Alpha base could occasionally be crowded enough to warrant a landing flasher or two. If I were to add lights, I would take a cue from the movie OUTLAND and add a beacon and perimeter of lights on the cargo pod that activate only when landing. That said, people should add whatever lights make them happy! :thumbsup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez2XfvN8XSc


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Since the Eagle takes its inspiration from the 2001 moon bus and the NASA lunar landers, neither of which had navigation lights, I can see why they didn't bother adding them to the models. I think the argument could also be made that on spacecraft the navigation lights are kind of pointless given the vast distances and high speeds the vehicles travel. When something is zipping faster than a bullet through an area of space the size of the moon, nobody is going to see the ship, let alone blinky lights. At the same time, the flight corridors around Alpha base could occasionally be crowded enough to warrant a landing flasher or two. If I were to add lights, I would take a cue from the movie OUTLAND and add a beacon and perimeter of lights on the cargo pod that activate only when landing. That said, people should add whatever lights make them happy! :thumbsup:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez2XfvN8XSc


Um, I would check your historical references again, both the LM and Command Module had at the very least identification lights, I'm pretty sure the Gemini capsule did as well.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Um, I would check your historical references again, both the LM and Command Module had at the very least identification lights, I'm pretty sure the Gemini capsule did as well.


I've only spent a little time looking around, but I don't see anything on Gemini. On Apollo I found: "The fairing externally contained a retractable forward-facing spotlight; an EVA floodlight to aid the Command Module pilot in SIM film retrieval; and a flashing rendezvous beacon visible from 54 nautical miles (100 km) away as a navigation aid for rendezvous with the Lunar Module (LM)." Recently (after 2011) the Cygnus and Space X cargo capsules have LED lights for docking at the ISS.

The shuttle definitely lacked navigation lights. "The Space Shuttle orbiter did not carry anti-collision lights, navigational lights, or landing lights, as the orbiter always landed in areas that had been specially cleared by both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Force." "When an orbiter landing was carried out at night, the runway was always strongly illuminated with light from floodlights and spotlights on the ground, making landing lights on the orbiter unnecessary and also an unneeded spaceflight weight load."

Again, this wasn't an exhaustive search. Maybe you have better sources. It doesn't seem, however, that they had aircraft (or Enterprise) style navigation and anti-collision beacons with colored port and starboard lights, etc. All of which means exactly nothing to any modeler who wants to add lights to their Eagle. It's their model.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Welcome to one of the Great Scale Debates in sci-fi model building.
> 
> The kit is nominally 1/48 scale, based on the figures in the cockpit, which is meant to replicate the 44" Filming Miniature, which was nominally 1/24 scale.
> 
> ...


This is something I've been yelling at the wind about for years.
The set side door to the Eagle is 6' tall, resulting in a Eagle that is 94 feet long.
If you use this figure, the new kit is 1/53 scale.
Also, based on this, the original kit was a dead nuts 1/96 scale.

As said on another thread, that it would be nice to have the Moonbus kit (1/55) and the Eagle in the same scale.
Well, if you scale the Eagle to match the 6 foot height of the side door, then those two kits are darned close in scale.

Anybody got a standing 1/48 scale figure who could snap a shot of it next to the door to help illustrate my point?


----------



## Bugfood (Jan 9, 2010)

I suppose this is relevant to post this in this thread (though threads, they are a blooming!), but does anyone know of any specific aftermarket plans?

Any resin?

Any etch?

I know I've mentioned this in previous posts on the Eagle, elsewhere, but one of the things I'm curious about is whether anyone will be tackling the 'logical' version Command Module backdoor (i.e.: one that matches the standard Alpha door)

Also: stair sets (maybe in etch?) for the Passenger Module.

To be clear: I don't really want to raise anyone's hackles about those specifics, but am curious what definitive aftermarket may be on the way (...if that isn't a contradictory sentence!).

I will be late to this, but I hope to be getting at least one Eagle for my birthday, around Easter.

EDIT: I obviously shouldn't forget the 3D printed market. This is the 21st century, after all. I see that peeps on Shapeways have already been busy: (there's a Moonbuggy in there somewhere).

*BF*


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

ClubTepes said:


> This is something I've been yelling at the wind about for years.
> The set side door to the Eagle is 6' tall, resulting in a Eagle that is 94 feet long.
> If you use this figure, the new kit is 1/53 scale.
> Also, based on this, the original kit was a dead nuts 1/96 scale.
> ...


Like this? I had already guesstimated the scale of the Eagle to be 1/55 scale, (didn't actually do the math, just measured the door and thought 1/55 based on the height of the door).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Visual aids are visual. 

That astronaut shows me that my theory, that one COULD rationalize the Eagle at 1/48th scale if one is willing to accept an interior that would be MUCH more cramped than depicted in the show's sets, holds to be possible.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Which would make more sense since NASA and any space agencies do not build for comfort but for practicality. I could see the interior Eagle actually being more cramped.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

That 1/48 scale Moon Buggy has been on Shapeways for a while mostly to go with the RU and PE 1/48 Eagles.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I have seen at least one post where the very stiff landing strut springs were cut down to make it sit lower. 
It got me thinking, maybe the springs are stiff enough to handle extra weight of the optional metal parts pack?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> Visual aids are visual.
> 
> That astronaut shows me that my theory, that one COULD rationalize the Eagle at 1/48th scale if one is willing to accept an interior that would be MUCH more cramped than depicted in the show's sets, holds to be possible.





Opus Penguin said:


> Which would make more sense since NASA and any space agencies do not build for comfort but for practicality. I could see the interior Eagle actually being more cramped.


I guess I see it the other way around.

The show is the show. 
People aren't bending over to get through doors.

For me, its a question of what makes more sense.
The actors have actual recordable heights.
The sets have actual recordable dimensions.

If you go with the idea that the model is 1/48 scale, then EVERYTHING else physical about the show is changed. Martin Landau must now be 5'5" and doors are 5'4", etc.

However, if you rescale ONE THING (the model) to fit every other physical thing about the show, then it all works.

This is a TV show from the 70's where they weren't expecting people to analyze it to death. And hence while efforts might have been made to make things fit in conception, they didn't turn out that way in production.

Even their models didn't agree with each other in terms of scale.
The "1/24 scale" model was less than 44 inches and the "1/48 scale" model was 23 inches. So right there, their scaling wasn't consistent.

So JUST because they threw in a couple of 1/24 scale astro-naught figures, does not really make it 1/24 scale.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

In watching the show I noticed they step down to go out the external pod doors (while stepping up to exit the command module) so there must be some kind of step there just before they exit. How does this impact the scale if this is the case?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think it is more a matter of the door height of the external pod doors on the filming model not agreeing with the height of the door on the set the actors are using.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Richard Baker said:


> I think it is more a matter of the door height of the external pod doors on the filming model not agreeing with the height of the door on the set the actors are using.


That's (one of) the argument(s) about the scale - that the 2 doors of the passenger pod don't match. The design on the doors are also opposite, on the model, the design bulges outward (making it impossible for the door to slide open) whereas the design on set door bulges inwards. There's various arguments on what the 'true' size of the Eagle would be. Most people take it to be about 76 feet (based on the models). The other size that makes sense is about 100 Feet (based on the sets?) (I think it's 96-104 feet?).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

ClubTepes said:


> I guess I see it the other way around.
> 
> The show is the show.
> People aren't bending over to get through doors.
> ...



Well, you know I essentially agree with you, if you had read my entire post I was making arguments for BOTH sides of the Scale Debate. 

So, baseline. The 44" Eagle was NOMINALLY crafted to 1/24 scale because that's a standard scale used in miniature construction, it was usually a standard during the Anderson/APF days. Being hand crafted there's as much 'by eyeball' as 'by measured off the plans' that went on. It always happened. 

The 1/24 scale Gemini Astronauts (and did anyone ever check if that kit was true 1/24 or maybe it, also, was a bit off?) are in the cockpit for no other reason than to act as 'registration marks' for times when it was desired to superimpose live actor footage onto cockpit windows. I'm still not sure if they used superimposition on the model or a photo cutout that footage was projected on, given how static the 'in space' shots were I am inclined to go with the photo cutout on those. Both techniques were used quite a bit in filming 2001, so it was known. 

Again, the most perfect solution to the Great Scale Debate is paint the windows black.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

They used a photographic cut-out mounted on glass in front of the cockpit set. No optical burn-in was used.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

seaQuest said:


> They used a photographic cut-out mounted on glass in front of the cockpit set. No optical burn-in was used.


A black and white photo.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Opus Penguin said:


> In watching the show I noticed they step down to go out the external pod doors (while stepping up to exit the command module) so there must be some kind of step there just before they exit. How does this impact the scale if this is the case?


There is a slight ramping of the floor.

There is a 4' wide central portion that runs the length of the pod, which is higher and it ramps down to the doors.

There are plenty of pictures (I don't have time to find them at the moment) of actors standing at the door and it is clearly 6' tall.

On the kit, this door is 1.357" tall.

If you use 1/48 scale, this makes the door 65.136" (5' 5.136"). 
Shorter than almost every cast member.

If you use a door height of 6' (72") then the scale of the kit is roughly 1/53.0582167 scale. 

There is another scale test that everyone can do on their own as well if they want. 
Part number #J14 (The two, doored end caps, for the two main boxes are 1.685" tall.
Again, at 1/48 scale, this would give a total dimensional height of only 80.88" (6' 8.88") this is an external dimension that hasn't even allowed for an interior space yet. And again, Martin Landau at 6' 2 1/2" (according to imdb.com) has plenty of head room.

There is also a great article over that the catacombs website that goes into the Eagle scaling.
Their go to length is 100' where everything fits.
So I'm usually willing to play somewhere between 94' (minimum length) and the 100' that the catacombs argues.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

robn1 said:


> A black and white photo.


Are you sure thats B/W?

The Alpha logo has color. (not that they couldn't have colored logo after they printed the B/W).


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

I have a couple of questions about the decals. First, the black decals for the landing gear, they goon the bottom of the landing gear housing, not the landing gear themselves correct? Also, does anyone know where all the additional un numbered decals go on the ship?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Who are you callin' a goon? 

I believe they do *go on* the bottom of the landing gear box. You might be better off though, to either paint that black on and leave an unpainted area in the center, or cut the center out of the decal when applying so that you have a gluing area for the landing gear assembly.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

or you can wait a tiny bit for the vinyl.

but I'd probably paint it


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> or you can wait a tiny bit for the vinyl.
> 
> but I'd probably paint it


Lou, are you doing masks for the rescue pod


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Another helpful hint:


----------



## enterprise_fanatic (Aug 4, 2014)

When a person stares at a picture enough time you see something you didn't see before.

In Robn1's post #65 I noticed a few "somethings"

1. The two astronauts seen thru the command module are sitting too far apart.
2. If you look real close at the picture you will see the double row of rectangular shapes behind the astronauts heads.

If Round 2 was trying to duplicate that look in 22" Eagle they kind of goofed. If you look at BWolfe's recent post #72, you'll see that the astronauts are sitting above the afore mentioned row of rectangular shapes.

Most people will not be looking dead on at the completed Eagle, they will be looking at it a more downward angle. So if the placement of the astronauts is where Round 2 suggested then all people are going to see are their boots. Personally I'm lowering mine to a lower position, even if I have to cut off the unseen legs at the kneecap.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

enterprise_fanatic said:


> When a person stares at a picture enough time you see something you didn't see before.
> 
> In Robn1's post #65 I noticed a few "somethings"
> 
> ...


You probably are going to have to cut the legs off the figures. Of course that duplicates the filming model, so... 

I think, just looking at Wolfe's pics, a quick and dirty 'out of the box' solution may be to not use the peg part, but rather take a piece of sprue tree, cut it to the same length, cement it at the lowest part of the slot, then glue the figure onto it. Then fill in the remaining part of the slot on the wall. (well, OK, glue the replacement sprue peg in, fill the remaining part of the slot, glue the figure on. There, better?  )

Pretty sure doing that would require chopping off the legs of the figures. 

Or, of course, paint the windows black.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

I was going to do mine sans pilot figures.

Fill in the slots, voila.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

ClubTepes said:


> I was going to do mine sans pilot figures.
> 
> Fill in the slots, voila.


But are you going to include a partial empty seat? I'm fairly sure you'd be able to see some of the seat back. I doubt there's a 1/48th-ish dentist's chair out there but who knows...


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Steve H said:


> But are you going to include a partial empty seat? I'm fairly sure you'd be able to see some of the seat back. I doubt there's a 1/48th-ish dentist's chair out there but who knows...


No, but I'm sure I can make a 1/53 scale one from scratch.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Building tip for those not buying the aluminum bell accessory set. Instead of spraying the engine bells silver or some version of aluminum, what I do it to spray the bells with black primer (available for under $3 at any home improvement store) and then apply silver Rub'N Buff with a small sponge brush, letting it ride over the surface ridges. Then I use an old soft towel to wipe and buff the bells until they shine. It avoids a uniform silver look and, to my eye, looks way more realistic and in scale than even the authentic aluminum bells. It gives the appearance of metal that gets used.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

I forgot about that stuff. I haven't used Rub 'N Buff since the 70s.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> I forgot about that stuff. I haven't used Rub 'N Buff since the 70s.


I love the stuff. When I want some worn edges on a spaceship, I put a little on a toothpick and scratch along the edge and viola! -- instant paint scrape. I also used the copper Rub N' Buff when I did the deflector dish on my TOS Enterprise.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I love the stuff. When I want some worn edges on a spaceship, I put a little on a toothpick and scratch along the edge and viola! -- instant paint scrape. I also used the copper Rub N' Buff when I did the deflector dish on my TOS Enterprise.


That sounds better than the technique of spraying an edge metallic, wetting the surface, sprinkling salt on the metallic, spraying the color coat, and picking the salt off.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> That sounds better than the technique of spraying an edge metallic, wetting the surface, sprinkling salt on the metallic, spraying the color coat, and picking the salt off.


It can good results, especially on smaller scale ships. For chipping effects, I'll paint the base color and weather the ship before going back with a brush to dab on pure white here and there followed by some Rub N'Buff on a toothpick. The effect looks like the paint has flecked off, exposing the primer and the metal underneath. Simple and easy to control.

For my Eagle, I'm weathering it as if it's three of more years since the moon left Earth's orbit. Since replacement parts are likely scarce and maintenance crews were less concerned with keeping the ships pretty, I'm adding more worn metal edges, exhaust streaks and moon dust. The moon is a messy place!


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Consider this...the first season took place within one Earth year (342 days). The second season plays out over the course of five years. By "The Dorcons" the Eagles weren't looking half-bad.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> Consider this...the first season took place within one Earth year (342 days). The second season plays out over the course of five years. By "The Dorcons" the Eagles weren't looking half-bad.


I'm taking liberties with the canon of the show. I would assume that cut off from Earth and facing a lot of other survival challenges, keeping the Eagles pretty would be a low priority. If the show were being done today, I think we'd see the maintenance crews using scrap parts, cannibalizing crashed Eagles and jury-rigging the heck out of these ships just to keep them flying.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I'm taking liberties with the canon of the show. I would assume that cut off from Earth and facing a lot of other survival challenges, keeping the Eagles pretty would be a low priority. If the show were being done today, I think we'd see the maintenance crews using scrap parts, cannibalizing crashed Eagles and jury-rigging the heck out of these ships just to keep them flying.


That makes sense, esp. as time passes. My thought was that Alpha had all the manufacturing ability on-site, the main stumbling blocks being critical raw materials and most of all, people. 

I'm sure somebody did a body count over the course of the show, there's no way there are still 311 people on the base. 

The Moon is a harsh environment. That lunar dust is horribly abrasive (per the Apollo missions), maintenance and repair of the base would have to be an ongoing effort and there's a failure curve when required man-hours of work can't be met. 

And of course all the times aliens show up and blow up stuff. 

Frankly, it seems to me that after a couple of years life would be fairly bleak on Alpha. Our people would become hard, paranoid, worn down to nubs with very sharp edges. 

*brrr* that's depressing. In a way, Year Two was heading that way. Clothing is heavier, many wear jackets. There was talk about how much of the living space had moved underground. And so on. 

So, yeah, What I would see in terms of Eagle maintenance, prime attention would be to keeping moving parts clean and free of lunar dust, as well as connectors and attachment points. The rest gets a courtesy dusting and wiping.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

jaws62666 said:


> Lou, are you doing masks for the rescue pod


yes. straight edge strips for the rescue pod (my favorite version)

I'm not sure about door masks for the VIP pod, tho


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Hunk A Junk said:


> what I do it to spray the bells with black primer (available for under $3 at any home improvement store) and then apply silver Rub'N Buff with a small sponge brush.


Flat primer? Or something glossy? I ask because I thought about using the same technique (I have a complete set of Rub'n'Buff here), but I am not sure which basecolor should be used best.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Flat primer? Or something glossy? I ask because I thought about using the same technique (I have a complete set of Rub'n'Buff here), but I am not sure which basecolor should be used best.


I think it's a matter of preference. Glossy primer gives a slightly more streaky effect in the final "metal" -- which can look good as as a more used look. The flat primer gives a slightly more uniform look because the Rub N' Buff has something to grip on to and it spread more evenly. The good thing about Rub N' Buff is that if you see a spot where it's not quite metallic enough, just add some more and buff away. So glossy or flat, I'd suggest add a little at a time and build up the opacity and uniformity until it gets to something you like.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Guys, the moon is abundant with minerals, especially iron and titanium. We saw the Alphans mining something called milgonite, so we know they mine. All that decaying nuclear waste is a power/heat source, just as in The Martian. I'd think they were pretty well off.
http://www.permanent.com/lunar-geology-minerals.html


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I think Alpha would prioritize, even if they were 'well off'. After the weekly attack they would need to get as many Eagles space worthy as possible for next weeks episode. The Eagles are like trucks- some parts are critical and need to be cared for well, other parts are OK with some grime and wear. 
When I build mine I am going to try and have some parts newer, some parts older than the main craft, maybe some blast marks which would stop abruptly at a new replacement panel.
It is going to be fun to give a model like this some history...


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

If you plan on leaving the passenger pod windows clear don't make the same mistake I made. The eight openings in the bottom of the passenger pod for the legs and engine bells are large enough to allow a dusting of paint through to the inside of the windows, plug those holes before painting!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RonH said:


> Guys, the moon is abundant with minerals, especially iron and titanium. We saw the Alphans mining something called milgonite, so we know they mine. All that decaying nuclear waste is a power/heat source, just as in The Martian. I'd think they were pretty well off.
> http://www.permanent.com/lunar-geology-minerals.html


Yes, of course, even water seems to be in useful amounts with some work, but there's a critical material that likely isn't on the Moon. Hydrocarbons. Oil. Oil to make plastics (and there's a LOT of plastic on Alpha  ), hydrocarbons that can be rendered into some basic form of food. 

OTOH, aluminum is plentiful.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Yeah I always figured that underground complex was capable not only of maintaining the Eagles, but could also build them from scratch using materials mined right there on the Moon. Self-sufficient, sustainable. 

Sorry about the paint snafu, looking great otherwise.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

It's an interesting thought experiment to contemplate the cleanliness and maintenance habits of the fictional crew of a fictional moon base on an absurdly implausible free trajectory trip out of Earth's orbit, but I think it all boils down to "do I want my Eagle to look exactly like the ones on the show or am I willing to take liberties?" I look forward to seeing both.

Another tip: The center roof section of my passenger pod (part C32) was slightly warped, making it necessary to wrench it into position when gluing. The kit is designed for this piece to sit flush up against the two roof window pieces (parts G30) with basically a butt joint keeping them together (the only so-so engineering in the kit). I added some thick styrene strips to make a lip on the inside edge of the window pieces so that the center roof had some support and more gluing surface. I also added two support columns connecting the middle of the window pieces to the floor of the passenger pod to prevent flexing.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

BWolfe said:


> If you plan on leaving the passenger pod windows clear don't make the same mistake I made. The eight openings in the bottom of the passenger pod for the legs and engine bells are large enough to allow a dusting of paint through to the inside of the windows, plug those holes before painting!


But, will a q-tip be able to reach the windows?? Years ago Radio shack sold a pack of q-tips that had small wooden dowels that were longer and would probably reach but I think they stopped selling them long ago.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> But, will a q-tip be able to reach the windows?? Years ago Radio shack sold a pack of q-tips that had small wooden dowels that were longer and would probably reach but I think they stopped selling them long ago.


I think you can get long-handle cotton swabs at medical supply or even drugstores.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

BWolfe said:


> If you plan on leaving the passenger pod windows clear don't make the same mistake I made. The eight openings in the bottom of the passenger pod for the legs and engine bells are large enough to allow a dusting of paint through to the inside of the windows, plug those holes before painting!


I think your only realistic option is to bite the bullet and open up the box. Cutting away the middle roof piece is probably your easiest option both in terms of getting if off and putting it back with minimal clean up. Even if you screw it up, you can replace the roof with a flat piece of styrene and no one will ever know. It might give you the chance to also paint the backsides of the windows black if you have nothing inside the box for people to look at anyway.


----------



## Modelmkr (Feb 6, 2016)

*More instruction corrections*

Just picked up the kit from my LHS as they finally got their shipment in!


After pouring through the part numbers on the sprues and carefully scouring the instructions I found the following errors to correct (a few of these have been mentioned previously). I'll list the step number to make the corrections in and whether it is a part number or referencing a previous sub assembly step... here goes:

STEP 9:
- Part K15 should read K15A

STEP 10:
- Part K15A should read K15B

STEP 13:
- Part K17 should read K17A

STEP 15:
- Assembly 9 should read 10

STEP 28:
- Should indicate X2 for this whole step (ie make two of these).

STEP 38:
- Assembly 35B (passenger pod lift thrusters) should read 37B
- Assembly 35C (front/ rear main lift thrusters) should read 37A

Step 39:
- Assembly 37A (main engine bells) should read 37C

There may be more but these, coupled with those already mentioned, should make for a clearer instruction.


Marc B.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

seaQuest said:


> I think you can get long-handle cotton swabs at medical supply or even drugstores.


Yes you can, we buy them in bulk where I work - they are vreat for cleaning print beads on our large format commercial printer.

If you have problems finding them let me know and I can mail you a dozen or so...


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

Great tips Wolf, 

I got mine a few days ago, can't wait to start mine!


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

This may not apply to all of the Eagle Kits, but I noticed it on mine and had to fix it:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Wolfe, I'm a little unclear on how what you did helps. Why not glue a piece of sheet plastic across the entire tab? 

Conversely, is there another construction step that might actually locks the pods in place?

I assume it's built the way it is in order to copy the 44" filming miniature and maybe allow for the builder to leave the pods removable if they choose.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Wolfe, I'm a little unclear on how what you did helps. Why not glue a piece of sheet plastic across the entire tab?
> 
> Conversely, is there another construction step that might actually locks the pods in place?
> 
> I assume it's built the way it is in order to copy the 44" filming miniature and maybe allow for the builder to leave the pods removable if they choose.


I used the strips so it would be easier to sand them down slightly to get a snug fit without being too tight.

There is nothing that locks the pods in place. I have thought about using a single screw to hold each pod in place but determined that would be too fiddly to get the screw in place inside the cages.

I agree, it was probably engineered so that the pods could be left loose, but they are too loose. If you tilt the model any at all they just slide out, that is why I did this to mine, to get a snug fit.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Too loose, Lautrec?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

the local Hobbytown finally called the other day telling me the model I ordered had come in.
On the one end of pieces d11 and d12 there are 2 round holes and an oblong hole, what's the oblong hole for???


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

seaQuest said:


> Too loose, Lautrec?


I see what you did there.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

irishtrek said:


> the local Hobbytown finally called the other day telling me the model I ordered had come in.
> On the one end of pieces d11 and d12 there are 2 round holes and an oblong hole, what's the oblong hole for???


That is where the two parts N79 from step 35 go, these pieces fit through the center of the engine framework and represents one of the mount points on the original filming model.


----------



## enterprise_fanatic (Aug 4, 2014)

BWolfe said:


> That is where the two parts N79 from step 35 go, these pieces fit through the center of the engine framework and represents one of the mount points on the original filming model.


Yes, but what goes into the remaining two holes? 

I know that they are hardly noticeable when the engines are attached but I can still see them. So I cut a thin piece of styrene to size, put an oblong hole in it for N79, and "vi-o-la" no more holes.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Yes, but what goes into the remaining two holes?


Wondered about that myself, perhaps something planned for a future issue of the model?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

enterprise_fanatic said:


> Yes, but what goes into the remaining two holes?
> 
> I know that they are hardly noticeable when the engines are attached but I can still see them. So I cut a thin piece of styrene to size, put an oblong hole in it for N79, and "vi-o-la" no more holes.


Actually if you take a gander at step 12 you'll see that part b10 has 2 short pegs that go into those 2 holes and b12 is for the command module.


----------



## BWolfe (Sep 24, 2013)

irishtrek said:


> Actually if you take a gander at step 12 you'll see that part b10 has 2 short pegs that go into those 2 holes and b12 is for the command module.


Totally forgot about that, keep forgetting that the front and rear walkway sections are identical except for the nose and engine attachment points.


----------



## tardis1916 (Mar 24, 2004)

I found that adding a small tab to G30 will allow the top of the pod stay even with the top.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zpoy1c62s3rn6bs/2016-02-15 01.01.15.jpg?dl=0


----------

