# MPC Space:1999 Eagle. So, just how bad is it?



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And what would it take, what tweaks could be made to the existing kit to make it better?

This is a spinoff of the thread discussing Round 2's announcement they had plans to reissue the entire line of MPC's old Space: 1999 kits. 

Now, I am in no way an expert on the Eagle. I liked the old MPC kit just fine but even in those pre-internet days it was pretty obvious the kit had some flaws, simplifications for the assumed younger and less skilled kit builder. 

To my eyes, and from memory, what I saw was:

The 'service modules' front and back are solid, not cages surrounding something. Huge problem. 

The main spine lattice was flat on the inside surface, a limitation of the mold technology. 

Something seemed off about the engine cluster. I knew it was simplified and clearly missing some pipes but anything else, no idea. 

Landing gear was simplified. 

And that's all I could see wrong, back in the old days. So here I seek education. What all is REALLY wrong, what did my uneducated eyes miss? 

Now, in the thread discussing R2's announcement there's all manner of offhand comments about the MPC kit, all in the vein of 'everybody knows', such as the nose of the Eagle kit is completely off, just a non-starter in some eyes. OK, well, still looks like an Eagle to me. 

So then let's play a game. You, yes YOU are tapped to help R2 decide what to do. The money is tight, a complete all-new tool Eagle is not in the cards for the near future but you CAN tool up some replacement parts. What would be fixed? Can't do everything so forget interiors for the cockpit and passenger module. 

To me, just replacing those solid 'service module' units with something closer, something with a core and a cage, keep the kit 'end plates' if we must. So, something like 2 parts for the 'core', 4 parts for the cage. 

I think that all by itself could result in a much better looking 'out of the box' Eagle. 

What would YOU do? 

Discuss?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I'll have to look at my Eagle kit and think about it. I know when I was a kid, black paint did fine for the cages. I wanted to see if I could make the landing gear pads spring loaded and the shape of the gear module suggested the pads were fully retractable. I'd also wondered about using a CO2 capsule to send gas through the engine bells. I was really into Special Effects back then.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

The nose (beak) is pretty inaccurate and not very well moulded. 

The spine's a bit inaccurate but the moulding isn't too bad

The pod's ok but could benefit from being moulded in clear plastic for the windows and some extra end detail

The cages need replacing with new interior detail

the 4 landing pods and feet are ok but could benefit from added framework and detail

The engines aren't too bad either


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The molded in side thrusters on the nose module need to be replaced with separate pieces and the 4 nozzle thrusters on the gear pods could use a 'hole' on the ends to make them more accurate.
Just out of curiosity what's wring with the shape of the nose section, is it the contour or just bad molding or what???
And unless I'm mistaken that about covers it all unless......


----------



## crowe-t (Jul 30, 2010)

The other problem with the spine is it's too wide and needs to be narrowed a bit. 

The nose appears a bit flatter then it should but considering the other problems with the kit, it doesn't look bad at all.

The passenger pod looks to be a little too narrow and has a bit too much slope on the top sides. Again, considering the other problems this isn't too bad either.

I think if the spine was narrowed and new, open, cages(with details inside) were tooled it would be a much better kit.

Even with all it's problems with a good paint job it still looks like the Eagle, much like the old AMT TOS 18" Enterprise kit.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

The landing leg pods when viewed from the top should be a square, not the rectangle seen in the MPC kit. Also, the pods should be mirror images on the left and right. The MPC kit has all pods identical. The main spine is too wide overall and way to wide at the top. So, the angle of the side spines is way off. The cages of the main pods are too small and too vertical. As well as needing to be opened up. The landing gear is lacking needed detail. Same with the engine area. The cockpit pod shape needs correcting, but the biggest problem is the shape of the layered panels. Those are the worst issues.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Three things I'd fix:

1. The Command Module is slightly too small in relation to the rest of the ship.

2. Open the "cages" and provide the necessary detail for the parts inside of them.

3. The support frame (a.k.a. the "spine") is not only too wide, but the "tubing" is too thick.

Everything else I could live with.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

crowe-t said:


> Even with all it's problems with a good paint job it still looks like the Eagle, much like the old AMT TOS 18" Enterprise kit.


I never really noticed that the old AMT TOS 18" Enterprise kit looked like an Eagle 

Seriously, I think you're right in the comparison: the Eagle kit resembles the original about as much as the old AMT Enterprise kit resembled the 1701 studio model.

I started accurizing the kit years ago using the Product Enterprise Eagle as a guide and the dimensional inaccuracies are monumental.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

The big problems for me are the flat part on the spine, the closed cages, and the over-simplified landing gear. The nose seems decent enough to me, but I could see where it would be a lot better if the thrusters were separate pieces.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I can live with the command module and the spine. The biggest thing is the service module. The cage really needs to be opened up. The landing gear supports also need a rebuild.

Thats the big stuff.

I can also fix those on my own, its just elbow grease, but it would be nice not to have to,


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Seriously, I think you're right in the comparison: the Eagle kit resembles the original about as much as the old AMT Enterprise kit resembled the 1701 studio model.


Hey don't forget they used a model of the AMT 18 inch Enterprise in atleast 1 episode entitled 'The Doomsday Machine so it's a bit more accurate than the Space 1999 Eagle because as far as I know the MPC Eagle kit was not used in any episode of the show.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I really like the model. Puts your skills to the test to improve it. I made a lot of modifications on mine. 

I rounded the nose, added detail to the engines by adding the proper tubing and I even put some hub caps in the bells to match studio miniature.

Next, the cages were opened and interior boxes added with greeblies added.

I also drilled out each of the cages for the landing pads, put in the hinges and extended the struts. (Sorry, that photo is a bit blurry!) Some custom decals finished it out.

I was very pleased with how it turned out with some extra TLC!!


----------



## iamjafi (May 14, 2009)

Overall, it's really not a bad kit. Built strictly out of the box, with a little careful painting, its a pretty nice representation.

However...

If I could add a couple of sprues of improved parts, I'd include:

1. Improved landing gear with molded scissor hinge thingys. If it didn't add too much cost, I'd replace the bottoms of the pods with open gear frames.
2. End panels for the passenger pod. An optional laboratory or winch pod would be nice.
3. Inserts for the engine nozzles.

Much as I'd like to open the framework, that would probably add too much to the cost. Everything else can be corrected with a little effort.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

iamjafi said:


> Overall, it's really not a bad kit. Built strictly out of the box, with a little careful painting, its a pretty nice representation.
> 
> However...
> 
> ...





They might actually just get away with tooling up one side of the framework cage which could then be joined together as it's the same pattern on each side so that could cut down on costs. 

Not much point in adding new parts if they don't do the framework as that's one of the kits biggest problems (if they ever do add new parts to it of course).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

That was my thought, the 'service modules' are, as far as I recall, identical front and back, left and right, so if you tool up the parts on one sprue you just include two sprue in the box. So the way I break down the parts, you've got left and right cage parts that surround a 'core' that could be two to four parts (super simplified). Use the existing 'end cap' parts. 

I had forgotten the landing gear pods on the kit weren't square. 

What about the bottom of the passenger module? At the very least it would be improved with separate nozzles and landing gear bits, right?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Took some better pictures today. Built it about 15 years ago.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

R2 just might include end detailing for the passenger pod in the form of decals. Besides I thought it already had detailing but now that I stop and think about it I don't recall any on the Eagle I had long ago.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> That was my thought, the 'service modules' are, as far as I recall, identical front and back, left and right, so if you tool up the parts on one sprue you just include two sprue in the box. So the way I break down the parts, you've got left and right cage parts that surround a 'core' that could be two to four parts (super simplified). Use the existing 'end cap' parts.
> 
> I had forgotten the landing gear pods on the kit weren't square.
> 
> What about the bottom of the passenger module? At the very least it would be improved with separate nozzles and landing gear bits, right?








That's it. They could get away with just tooling one half of the cage framework and just putting 4 of them in the kit. They could be joined together in the middle (no need for locating pins) over the core detail piece which is also as far as I recall the same both front and back. They could also mould the 8 fasteners (that fasten onto the spine) onto the top of the framework to give a more positive gluing point.

As for the bottom of the passenger pod/module that looks fine to me and is one of the better detailed areas of the kit.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> R2 just might include end detailing for the passenger pod in the form of decals. Besides I thought it already had detailing but now that I stop and think about it I don't recall any on the Eagle I had long ago.






Decals are a rubbish substitute for real detail but that's what they'll probably do.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I would like to take a moment to thank everyone for the positive, energetic replies so far. Well done!

See, I had a secret. I had hopes that discussion here might be turned into a 'shopping list' for Jamie at R2, that people actually mentally invested in the Eagle could point out pluses and minuses of the old MPC Eagle, what areas to focus on, and ponder just what COULD be done to alter the tooling and make SOME kind of corrections and improvements.

Will he view this thread? Will it start wheels turning? Could there be synergy between customers and producer? I dunno but it seemed worth a shot. Hey, it's more productive than just saying "that kit sucks AND blows!" right?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

No kit "sucks" to me and even if they did, I just don't buy them. I certainly wouldn't complain about something I really have no control over, I put that energy and passion into making my kit build the best I can. If a kit has to make concessions due to molding constraints or to keep kit cost down, I do what I can to change it to my individual liking. :thumbsup:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RSN said:


> No kit "sucks" to me and even if they did, I just don't buy them. I certainly would complain about something I really have no control over, I put that energy and passion into making my kit build the best I can. If a kit has to make concessions due to molding constraints or to keep kit cost down, I do what I can to change it to my individual liking. :thumbsup:





Ah well we can all go home then. No manufacturer should ever try and improve their kits because they're all great and we can all improve them.

Maybe there should be no kits so everyone can just scratchbuild their own.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SUNGOD said:


> Ah well we can all go home then. No manufacturer should ever try and improve their kits because they're all great and we can all improve them.
> 
> Maybe there should be no kits so everyone can just scratchbuild their own.


Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> The molded in side thrusters on the nose module need to be replaced with separate pieces and the 4 nozzle thrusters on the gear pods could use a 'hole' on the ends to make them more accurate.
> Just out of curiosity what's wring with the shape of the nose section, is it the contour or just bad molding or what???
> And unless I'm mistaken that about covers it all unless......








It's not terrible but it's not quite the right shape (too long at the back), the side panels don't line up that well and it also doesn't attach to the cage like the tv miniatures and is really simplified in that area.

I think the sprue attachment is right on the end of the nose too which is a bit irritating.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SUNGOD said:


> It's not terrible but it's not quite the right shape (too long at the back), the side panels don't line up that well and it also doesn't attach to the cage like the tv miniatures and is really simplified in that area.
> 
> I think the sprue attachment is right on the end of the nose too which is a bit irritating.


I just sanded mine a bit more bluntly and the character of the larger miniatures came out. I seem to remember pictures of the smaller miniatures looking more like the MPC nose, but they were not used for close-ups, so went for the look of the big boys.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

If they do use decals for missing detailing, which is most likely ugh!!, then one could always use the decals as a guide to correctly detail what's missing.
As for the tip of the command module being attached to the sprue all one needs to do is putty and sand.
Steve H, since it's your idea to send Jamie a message and ask him to read this thread then we'll let you have the honors.:wave:


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> If they do use decals for missing detailing, which is most likely ugh!!, then one could always use the decals as a guide to correctly detail what's missing.
> As for the tip of the command module being attached to the sprue all one needs to do is putty and sand.
> Steve H, since it's your idea to send Jamie a message and ask him to read this thread then we'll let you have the honors.:wave:






It's a shame they can't just ditch the awful decal idea and just tool up a few new parts. It won't be a substitute for an all new tool Eagle but it would still probably be welcomed by most Eagle fans.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve H said:


> ...the 'service modules' are, as far as I recall, identical front and back, left and right, so if you tool up the parts on one sprue you just include two sprue in the box...


I think they're all different. The front modules have connections for the command module at one end and the door at the other, while the read modules line up with the engine packs aft and the door fore.


----------



## iamjafi (May 14, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> I think they're all different. The front modules have connections for the command module at one end and the door at the other, while the read modules line up with the engine packs aft and the door fore.


Actually, the engines connect to an end cap and the CM has one molded on. The cages are separate. Can you guess what's on my workbench right now?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> I think they're all different. The front modules have connections for the command module at one end and the door at the other, while the read modules line up with the engine packs aft and the door fore.


Yes indeed, which is covered by the end cap pieces, the nose piece and the engine block piece. 

I'm not aware of significant detailing differences INSIDE the cages, the impression I have is there are tanks for the vernier thrusters and some greebly that could be omitted for simplicity or left for an aftermarket PE set to supply...

See what I did there?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> If they do use decals for missing detailing, which is most likely ugh!!, then one could always use the decals as a guide to correctly detail what's missing.
> As for the tip of the command module being attached to the sprue all one needs to do is putty and sand.
> Steve H, since it's your idea to send Jamie a message and ask him to read this thread then we'll let you have the honors.:wave:


Sink me, *I* don't know the man and he doesn't know me from Adam! I was thinking someone here, one of the posters, who has an established relationship and thus would be taken seriously might put a word in. I'm just another idiot ignorant jerk on the internet, right?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

What I have gathered from their posts in the past, Round 2 people stop by and peek in here, just as Moebius and the people who do work for them. If there is something of vital importance to get clear, as far as facts go, they will post, but I think they are a bit tired of the "clicky" and "snipey" atmosphere here and have found better ways to gather modelers opinions and input on their products.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

RSN said:


> What I have gathered from their posts in the past, Round 2 people stop by and peek in here, just as Moebius and the people who do work for them. If there is something of vital importance to get clear, as far as facts go, they will post, but I think they are a bit tired of the "clicky" and "snipey" atmosphere here and have found better ways to gather modelers opinions and input on their products.






I'm not going to get into a debate about that but whilst forums like this exist people are going to talk about the negatives and positives of the various manufacturers outputs. And most of the comments about companies like Moebius or R2 are positive anyway.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SUNGOD said:


> I'm not going to get into a debate about that but whilst forums like this exist people are going to talk about the negatives and positives of the various manufacturers outputs. And most of the comments about companies like Moebius or R2 are positive anyway.


I agree, and support the comments, positive and negative, even when I don't share or agree with them. But I have been told this personally by the people who run the show. Some may not like to hear it, but that does not change the facts.

I like to focus on positives and I am just grateful that kits are being produced and rereleased as best that they can so I can flex my modeling muscle. If they are reading this, I hope that is what they take away from here.

Model on!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I want to give R2 my money, no matter how limited it is. I can find ways to give them more money if these re-pops are better than just 'shoot some plastic in the molds' stuff. I'd drop $40 USD for a new-tool 1/72 scale Eagle. I wouldn't spend more than $19.99 for a simple repop, regardless of how fancy the decal sheet. That's my plus/minus spread.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Sink me, *I* don't know the man and he doesn't know me from Adam! I was thinking someone here, one of the posters, who has an established relationship and thus would be taken seriously might put a word in. I'm just another idiot ignorant jerk on the internet, right?


It was just a suggestion.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> It was just a suggestion.


And it's a fine suggestion! If I had more confidence I'd gladly do it. I have tilted at many windmills over the years. 

But I do know how the game is played. Someone who is 'in' with Jamie and company has a voice that carries much more weight, and will be actually listened to. Simple reality.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Last night I went looking for any kind of kit build ups for the Eagle on Starship Modeler and found one for the Amt/Ertle reissue of the MPC Eagle and the guy looks to have done a decent build. Just click on the link marked 'other sci-fi spaceships' then the one for Space 1999 and scroll all the way to the bottom.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

irishtrek said:


> Last night I went looking for any kind of kit build ups for the Eagle on Starship Modeler and found one for the Amt/Ertle reissue of the MPC Eagle and the guy looks to have done a decent build. Just click on the link marked 'other sci-fi spaceships' then the one for Space 1999 and scroll all the way to the bottom.






I think the real question is not whether a half decent build can be done of it but whether it would be worthwhile R2 doing a few new parts to enhance it. 

After all not all modellers are capable of making it look like the original miniatures.


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

I tried, several years ago, to modify one of my S:99 Eagle. At that time, I didn't have the skills that I have now, plus the patience to modify a kit. If I would want to built another one today, it would be with a lot more details and closer to the studio model then the one I did back in 2005. There's some much stuff to modifiy on the original S:99 Eagle that not all modelers want to spent that much time on a kit. If MPC ever want to sell such a re-issue kit to old modelers (like me that know what was Space 1999!!!!), they will have to modify the original kit big time. There's so much to modifiy to make it accurate, or at least, closer to the studio model. The closer it is to the studio model, the happier will be, RIGHT? 
So if they empty those front and rear cages, make a box inside those cages with details on them, just that it a major improvement. It's a real pain to empty them believe me without cutting your self with your Exacto!!!! Also, add some tubbing to the engines, as closest as possible to the studio model. Don't forget the plates with holes inside the main thrusters. Then the landing gears detailing would be a real bonus. Some modelers mentionned the shape of the Command Module. And then, the detailing of the pod will have to get a nice detailed access door to each end. The rest, that include decals, we, modelers, can take care of it on our own or they can be purchased from experts that sell decals (made with their ALPS printer). 

Steph


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> I think the real question is not whether a half decent build can be done of it but whether it would be worthwhile R2 doing a few new parts to enhance it.
> 
> After all not all modellers are capable of making it look like the original miniatures.


And, let's be honest, that opens up the other timeless debate, to wit: make a kit of the filming miniature, OR make a representation of a 'real' Eagle,and 'clean up' those things that happen when building an old-school miniature, the slightly uneven bits, the little things that happen when shaping complex parts out of wood by hand, and the things they SHOULD have done but for some reason didn't do. Such as the obviously designed but never shown retractable landing gear, or something, ANYTHING to represent the 'module to module docking lock' that was used a number of times before they made the 'science' module with the extended docking arms.

(and how the heck was the door supposed to work on that thing?! There's no place, no pocket for the door to slide into!)

I of course am not interested in building a model of the filming miniature, I want to make the real Eagle.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> And, let's be honest, that opens up the other timeless debate, to wit: make a kit of the filming miniature, OR make a representation of a 'real' Eagle,and 'clean up' those things that happen when building an old-school miniature, the slightly uneven bits, the little things that happen when shaping complex parts out of wood by hand, and the things they SHOULD have done but for some reason didn't do. Such as the obviously designed but never shown retractable landing gear, or something, ANYTHING to represent the 'module to module docking lock' that was used a number of times before they made the 'science' module with the extended docking arms.
> 
> (and how the heck was the door supposed to work on that thing?! There's no place, no pocket for the door to slide into!)
> 
> I of course am not interested in building a model of the filming miniature, I want to make the real Eagle.





When a manufacturer makes a new plastic kit of a certain spacecraft I always hope they'll make a kit of what's on screen rather than just copying the studio models which are often crude close up.......so I agree there. I mentioned the filming miniature in this instance because the Eagle filming miniatures (particularly the larger Eagles) were very highly detailed compared to some filming miniatures.

Panel lines are one of the more noticable things in regards to this. Some studio models just have panel lines drawn on in pencil but I'd rather the model manufacturers include *real* finely engraved panel lines and not just a bare surface.....so the model's more like a real ship


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

f1steph said:


> I tried, several years ago, to modify one of my S:99 Eagle. At that time, I didn't have the skills that I have now, plus the patience to modify a kit. If I would want to built another one today, it would be with a lot more details and closer to the studio model then the one I did back in 2005. There's some much stuff to modifiy on the original S:99 Eagle that not all modelers want to spent that much time on a kit. If MPC ever want to sell such a re-issue kit to old modelers (like me that know what was Space 1999!!!!), they will have to modify the original kit big time. There's so much to modifiy to make it accurate, or at least, closer to the studio model. The closer it is to the studio model, the happier will be, RIGHT?
> So if they empty those front and rear cages, make a box inside those cages with details on them, just that it a major improvement. It's a real pain to empty them believe me without cutting your self with your Exacto!!!! Also, add some tubbing to the engines, as closest as possible to the studio model. Don't forget the plates with holes inside the main thrusters. Then the landing gears detailing would be a real bonus. Some modelers mentionned the shape of the Command Module. And then, the detailing of the pod will have to get a nice detailed access door to each end. The rest, that include decals, we, modelers, can take care of it on our own or they can be purchased from experts that sell decals (made with their ALPS printer).
> 
> Steph






I tried a few times before the PE Eagles came out to open up the cages. Bit of a nightmare and I must have cut myself a couple of times. Even then I wasn't pleased with the results because unless you sand the inside they look way too thick. Then you have to be careful you don't thin them too much and even if you successfully do that they still don't look right when you look inside the cage framework as they'll be flat. The uneven surface inside complicates things too.

Along with new detail for the landing gear that's one thing they should definitely do at the very least. 

Again they'd only need to tool up one side of the cage as it's the same at the front and back. Same with the landing gear.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I had no problems opening my cages up and the detailed connecting walkways I put in look spot on through them. A very good effect. Realistically, one will never be able to 100% recreated a studio miniature, so for me that is never a goal. 

I strive to make the best representation possible to satisfy my eye. It is a hobby for me after all, if I stressed out over every time I failed to match a one-of-a-kind filming miniature detail, it wouldn't be a hobby, it would be a pain in the neck. Just sayin'.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

SUNGOD said:


> Again they'd only need to tool up one side of the cage as it's the same at the front and back. Same with the landing gear.


Actually, the mounting points for the engine bells on the bottom of the forward and rear cages are not centered they are off-center. Both sides, with the cages opened up, would have to be molded with the corresponding off-center mounting points in order to make a complete cage.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> When a manufacturer makes a new plastic kit of a certain spacecraft I always hope they'll make a kit of what's on screen rather than just copying the studio models which are often crude close up.......so I agree there. I mentioned the filming miniature in this instance because the Eagle filming miniatures (particularly the larger Eagles) were very highly detailed compared to some filming miniatures.
> 
> Panel lines are one of the more noticable things in regards to this. Some studio models just have panel lines drawn on in pencil but I'd rather the model manufacturers include *real* finely engraved panel lines and not just a bare surface.....so the model's more like a real ship


Exactly so. 

After all, there needs to be maintenance panels, test points, 'lift here' reenforced spots...

And I'd like to see some kind of better pod attachment setup. Something that takes into account some of the 'open face' pods like the Heavy Crane pod, the radioactive waist transport pod and maybe other, non-canon but logical pods. Surely a laser tank transporter/recovery pod makes sense (maybe originally designed for transporting heavy earth...er...moon soil moving machines?).

So, unlike the usual 'hang a clip on the pod and let it dangle from the frame' system maybe something involving retracting pins at the interface surfaces. I assume the 'real' Eagle pods had a number of latches that mated to latches on the spine. Not real sure if the 'open face' platform pods had realistic mount points. 

Blah blah blah. I love this kind of thing.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Exactly so.
> 
> After all, there needs to be maintenance panels, test points, 'lift here' reenforced spots...
> 
> ...







I'm not sure how I'd do a better pod attachment to the spine (agree the kit attachment isn't very good and snaps easily) but what you say could be a good idea. 

Only problem is though............if R2 were ever to tool up some new parts to improve the kit they'd most probably do as little as possible.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve H said:


> ...And I'd like to see some kind of better pod attachment setup...


The neodineum (sp?) magnets are easily obtained and would make a great replacement. Mount them at the top of the cage assemblies with matching magnets slightly lower in the pod and you're good to go. (Mount the pod magnets lower so that they are trying to lift the pod up, but it's stopped by the spine.)


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> The neodineum (sp?) magnets are easily obtained and would make a great replacement. Mount them at the top of the cage assemblies with matching magnets slightly lower in the pod and you're good to go. (Mount the pod magnets lower so that they are trying to lift the pod up, but it's stopped by the spine.)


Mmmm.

Magnets are an idea, and likely a good idea for an unaltered MPC Eagle. 

Something tells me that metal pins that slide out of the service module end plates and into whatever pod structure would make for a more stable, solid unit.

Barring nano-machined functioning micro capture latches of course.


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

With all these things to be modified on a possible Eagle re-issue, RC2 are probably scared like hell to go forward. Don't forget, they would probably go for a 30-40$ model so forget all the gizmos (laboratory pod, full interior, pilots ...) that we would love to get on a re-issue version. Maybe they will do like Monogram did with their BG Viper re-issue a couple years ago, not many mods but just enough to sell the kit. 
When I opened up the cages on my Eagle, I did get scared pretty bad one time, so bad that I finished this job with a leather glove. An Xacto blade is dangerous..... 
PE did a nice job on their 12'' Eagle, the details are very nice (I have one BTW) . Maybe RC2 can call them up and ask them for some tips .....
Steph


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I think the "easy" solution might be a release of the original kit unchanged.

Then release an add on pack that might address some issues like the cages, landing pods, and engines. 

They could include some extras like another pod and extra thrusters.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

f1steph said:


> With all these things to be modified on a possible Eagle re-issue, RC2 are probably scared like hell to go forward. Don't forget, they would probably go for a 30-40$ model so forget all the gizmos (laboratory pod, full interior, pilots ...) that we would love to get on a re-issue version. Maybe they will do like Monogram did with their BG Viper re-issue a couple years ago, not many mods but just enough to sell the kit.
> When I opened up the cages on my Eagle, I did get scared pretty bad one time, so bad that I finished this job with a leather glove. An Xacto blade is dangerous.....
> PE did a nice job on their 12'' Eagle, the details are very nice (I have one BTW) . Maybe RC2 can call them up and ask them for some tips .....
> Steph


What does RC2 have to do with it any more???? After all they _no longer_ own the MPC brand or the PMC molds. you must be thinking of Round 2 Models or R2 as they are more commonly referred too.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> I think the real question is not whether a half decent build can be done of it but whether it would be worthwhile R2 doing a few new parts to enhance it.
> 
> After all not all modellers are capable of making it look like the original miniatures.


I posted that for any one who may be interested, after all every one of us is capable of making our own decisions.:wave:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> I think the "easy" solution might be a release of the original kit unchanged.
> 
> Then release an add on pack that might address some issues like the cages, landing pods, and engines.
> 
> They could include some extras like another pod and extra thrusters.


That would be a solution, if we work on the assumption that they HAVE to get the MPC Eagle onto shelves ASAP in order to generate income on the license.

All things considered I'd be very surprised if R2 could get it into production before December. I think we're looking at 2014 no matter what. 

(if they were using an American plastic injection molding company, just locked the tooling in and shot plastic, they could do it faster. ah well.)

Thing is, here's where the logic breaks down. If R2 were to make an 'upgrade' kit that takes into account everything we've discussed, it seems to ME that ends up being like 80% of just doing a completely new tool Eagle. So why not do an all-new tool kit and leave the MPC kit as-is for vintage nostalgia?

Mind, they could go to the 'print on demand' idea that I guess Moebius is using (HA! but they still can't get their 1/35 Chariot and Space Pod to market!  ) so there's a potential option. Dunno how cost-effective that would be.

Shoot, what we need is a 3D printer that can deposit tool steel-quality metal and build the tooling for replacement Eagle parts ourselves. Wouldn't that be nifty?


----------



## f1steph (Jan 9, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> What does RC2 have to do with it any more???? After all they _no longer_ own the MPC brand or the PMC molds. you must be thinking of Round 2 Models or R2 as they are more commonly referred too.


Yes that's what I was thinking about, sorry for this brain fart... hihihi

As for a 3D printer, yes indeed it would be nice to have one . But they are pricy. Maybe in 10 years, they will be afortable. But by time,, who will still remember old TV shows like S:99 or UFO other that old farts like us... Ahahahaha...

I wonder how many kits will they have to sell before starting to make money? Take the Moebius Moonbus re-uissue for an exemple. Was it a success for Moebius? Anydoby knows? But there again, if I remember correctly, it's the same kit as the original back in the '60's. So maybe the same thing will happen for an Eagle re-issue...... 

Steph


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

f1steph said:


> ...I wonder how many kits will they have to sell before starting to make money? Take the Moebius Moonbus re-uissue for an exemple. Was it a success for Moebius? Anydoby knows? But there again, if I remember correctly, it's the same kit as the original back in the '60's. So maybe the same thing will happen for an Eagle re-issue...


As I understand it Moebius' Moonbus kit was "re-tooled and improved" and not a simple reissue using existing original Aurora molds, so I don't think that's a good "apples to apples" comparison. Perhaps it would be better to ask if Round 2 made a profit on any of the kits _they've_ reissued without having done any modifications; considering the sheer number of such kits, I'd guess the answer is "yes" or they wouldn't continue to do so.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I don't know if I would call the Moebius moon bus retooled.

Of the top of my head the only thing they changed was the option of the flat
windshield. Everything else was the same.

I think the moon bus must have been somewhat of a success, it got us a new Orion spaceplane.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

mach7 said:


> I don't know if I would call the Moebius moon bus retooled...


They made a completely new set of molds.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> They made a completely new set of molds.


Hey Paul, on a different subjuct since I see your on, how are the etch and possible lights for the JJ Prise coming?


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> They made a completely new set of molds.


Yeah, wasn't this a case of 'reverse engineering' from a vintage kit?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

That's my understanding. The molds were gone.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> They made a completely new set of molds.


They took the Aurora kit and made a new tool from it. Like what Polar Lights did with the LIS robot, Spindrift, and the old Seaview.

I believe Moebius did the same with the Voyager.

So it was a new tool, but an exact copy of the old kit. They just updated the windshield.


----------



## OzyMandias (Dec 29, 2004)

I like the old kits. I only ever built the Airfix Eagle and Hawk, so I'm not sure if there is any difference between them. 

The least expensive way to spruce up the Eagle would be to provide a better decal sheet, and including some weathering decals. The Airfix kit only has two Alpha Moonbase badges and the black arrow designs that behind the RCS assemblies on the landing legs. 

With a careful paint job, and some TLC, the end product looks pretty good to my eye.

If Round2 were to add new parts, perhaps making the top half of the front and rear cages a two part assembly that fits the bottom half. One part could be the interior and then a hollow cage to go over the top of it. They would go a long way to improving the accuracy of the model and only two new parts, which could be doubled in the kit...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Obviously R2 will choose what they think is the best route but I can't make my mind up if I think it would be worth them adding some new parts to the old kit or just forgetting that and doing a new one.

Probably the latter I'd say. Here's what I think would need replacing on the old kit though.........




NEW BEAK/COMMAND MODULE 

NEW CAGES WITH INTERIOR DETAIL

NEW SPINE

NEW DETAIL FOR THE LANDING GEAR 

NEW LITTLE THRUSTERS FOR THE 4 LEGS

NEW DETAIL FOR THE PASSENGER POD ENDS (PASSENGER POD COULD ALSO BE MOULDED IN TINTED TRANSPARENT PLASTIC SO THE 12 LITTLE WINDOWS CAN BE MASKED OFF.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Mind you.......the best of both worlds is to have new parts for the old kit plus a newly tooled larger Eagle of course.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> Mind you.......the best of both worlds is to have new parts for the old kit plus a newly tooled larger Eagle of course.


Yes. 

Larger would clearly be popular, I imagine 1/48th scale would be reasonable in that regard. 

Still, I would greatly enjoy a new-tool Eagle in 1/72 as well.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Yes.
> 
> Larger would clearly be popular, I imagine 1/48th scale would be reasonable in that regard.
> 
> Still, I would greatly enjoy a new-tool Eagle in 1/72 as well.







I know it's not a kit but don't forget there *is* an accurate Eagle in 1/72......the PE ones. The prices have gone up but I wouldn't be surprised to see a reissue at some point. 

The great thing about the Eagles as we know that could be much easier for manufacturers is...................they're made up of many repeating patterns. That surely must bring the costs down a bit


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

An Eagle in 1/48 scale would be 18-19 inches in length, not much difference in size from a 22 inch Eagle kit.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> I know it's not a kit but don't forget there *is* an accurate Eagle in 1/72......the PE ones. The prices have gone up but I wouldn't be surprised to see a reissue at some point.
> 
> The great thing about the Eagles as we know that could be much easier for manufacturers is...................they're made up of many repeating patterns. That surely must bring the costs down a bit


Well, until there is a reissue of the Product Enterprises Eagle, it's out of my reach for the foreseeable future. 

But yes, you're right. With some clever planning and engineering work I think it could be a surprisingly minimal mold kit. The service modules are the same (as far as I've ever seen) except for how they are capped-forward by the command module, aft by the propulsion units. So make one service module master and put two sets in the box. I think the landing gear pods are all the same but 'handed' in some way in the detailing, I imagine there could be a way to make one master landing gear pod with a separate 'detailing' part and thus include 4 sets in the box. Command Module parts, Propulsion unit parts (make one master, include 4?), Landing gear parts (one master, include 4?), the main spine lattice (should be one piece for strength I would think) and the passenger module. 

I dunno, maybe having all those small molds would end up making things more complicated than I am aware. I'm just thinking of the new kinds of injection molding machines that the Japanese have developed, the kind Fine Molds even made a kit of a few years back, and I dunno, some crazy fantasy of bringing the work back to the USA and blah blah.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Well, until there is a reissue of the Product Enterprises Eagle, it's out of my reach for the foreseeable future.
> 
> But yes, you're right. With some clever planning and engineering work I think it could be a surprisingly minimal mold kit. The service modules are the same (as far as I've ever seen) except for how they are capped-forward by the command module, aft by the propulsion units. So make one service module master and put two sets in the box. I think the landing gear pods are all the same but 'handed' in some way in the detailing, I imagine there could be a way to make one master landing gear pod with a separate 'detailing' part and thus include 4 sets in the box. Command Module parts, Propulsion unit parts (make one master, include 4?), Landing gear parts (one master, include 4?), the main spine lattice (should be one piece for strength I would think) and the passenger module.
> 
> I dunno, maybe having all those small molds would end up making things more complicated than I am aware. I'm just thinking of the new kinds of injection molding machines that the Japanese have developed, the kind Fine Molds even made a kit of a few years back, and I dunno, some crazy fantasy of bringing the work back to the USA and blah blah.


I can't believe how expensive the PE Eagles have gotten. Considering that I bought my first (and only) PE Eagle back in 2004, they've been out of production for quite some time. I bought mine for about 50.00 and was able to buy a Lab Pod separately on eBay for 30.00. It looks like I missed my chance on getting a Rescue Eagle at a reasonable price a long time ago. I'm still very happy with the PE Eagle. Unless someone comes out with something at least as good, or better, I've got what I want for the time being.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

irishtrek said:


> An Eagle in 1/48 scale would be 18-19 inches in length, not much difference in size from a 22 inch Eagle kit.


That is so, isn't it? Remember, I'm not against a larger all-new tool Eagle, I just PREFER a smaller scale. Barring that, I'd prefer it be in one of the 'standard' scales.

A question, and I'm not wanting to sound like a total a** (which I am well aware I often do). What's the deal, the 'hangup' if you will, about specifically a 22 inch Eagle? Is it because that's half the size of the main filming model? Does that work out to a specific scale? Or does stating a specific size make it easier to visualize what it might look like on the shelf? 

My fear is, too large a kit is a giant risk. Big kits cost big money. Retailers are getting spooked as they see the curve of kit prices going up and customers going down. I fear that if an all-new tool Eagle kit ends up in the $100 range there's going to be few takers at the retail level, IN AMERICA, and that may spell the end of the idea. 

Then again, some companies seem to be doing insane things. There's a company in China (I assume) that is bringing out a 1/32 scale B-17. that's just nuts. (and yet god help me I instantly think of a giant diorama involving a crashed B-17 and a German patrol investigating it...)

So I have no idea I suppose. If R2 is thinking globally and works with Platz in Japan they can do anything and it'll sell.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Steve H said:


> What's the deal, the 'hangup' if you will, about specifically a 22 inch Eagle? Is it because that's half the size of the main filming model?


It's just that it was one of the original studio model sizes. There were 44" Eagles (3), 22" Eagles (2) and 11" Eagles (2) used on the show. There was also a 5.5" version. Not sure how many, maybe just one.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> That is so, isn't it? Remember, I'm not against a larger all-new tool Eagle, I just PREFER a smaller scale. Barring that, I'd prefer it be in one of the 'standard' scales.
> 
> A question, and I'm not wanting to sound like a total a** (which I am well aware I often do). What's the deal, the 'hangup' if you will, about specifically a 22 inch Eagle? Is it because that's half the size of the main filming model? Does that work out to a specific scale? Or does stating a specific size make it easier to visualize what it might look like on the shelf?


I have no 'hangup' about a 22" Eagle, I was just pointing something out to every one here., and a 22' Eagle would be 1/39- 1/41 scale. For any one who might be interested.
And I think we all can be an a-- at times.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Well, until there is a reissue of the Product Enterprises Eagle, it's out of my reach for the foreseeable future.
> 
> But yes, you're right. With some clever planning and engineering work I think it could be a surprisingly minimal mold kit. The service modules are the same (as far as I've ever seen) except for how they are capped-forward by the command module, aft by the propulsion units. So make one service module master and put two sets in the box. I think the landing gear pods are all the same but 'handed' in some way in the detailing, I imagine there could be a way to make one master landing gear pod with a separate 'detailing' part and thus include 4 sets in the box. Command Module parts, Propulsion unit parts (make one master, include 4?), Landing gear parts (one master, include 4?), the main spine lattice (should be one piece for strength I would think) and the passenger module.
> 
> I dunno, maybe having all those small molds would end up making things more complicated than I am aware. I'm just thinking of the new kinds of injection molding machines that the Japanese have developed, the kind Fine Molds even made a kit of a few years back, and I dunno, some crazy fantasy of bringing the work back to the USA and blah blah.






I'm far from an expert on tooling up parts/moulds etc but I wonder if some new parts could be done on just one small new sprue and then multiples included in the kit. The parts I think would need replacing are pretty small with the exception of the spine. Mind you even though it's a bit inaccurate.....I could probably live with the original spine too as it's quite well moulded.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

The 22" Eagle miniature was used a lot more often than you'd think. A good many of the liftoff/landing shots were of the 22" model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

seaQuest said:


> The 22" Eagle miniature was used a lot more often than you'd think. A good many of the liftoff/landing shots were of the 22" model.


Yep. If memory serves, the 44" Eagle was way too heavy to 'fly' old-school style, it was pretty much limited to hanging off a pipe stand or sitting on a set.


----------



## Nocoolname (Jul 2, 2013)

Hi Steve

For me its not where to start, but where to stop. Fixing the most obvious flaws - the nosecone, the spine and the landing gear - would make for a much better Eagle, but then I'd always want to go further and have a go at the cages, but doing the cages would make me want to have a go at the walkways and then the passenger module and then the engines and then... 

This is how my AMT build has gone. My intentions started fairly modest, following some of the tips from Jim Small's accurizing instructions, like the spine and passenger pod, but then I kept doing a little more, then a little more, including getting custom etch parts made to enhance the kit. 

I've so far managed to modify the command module (I couldn't get hold of one of Jim Small's excellent replacements ) into a detachable version (ala the episode "Dragon's Domain") that connects to the main body with magnets and is done in a style inspired by Roberto Baldasari's artwork. I also created more accurate cages and scratch built walkways and then added custom etched doors. Just got the rest of my etch done (cost about the same as a laptop or 6-8 Eagle kits at top auction prices so not for the cost conscious - ouch!) and will be putting together the rest of the kit soon. I've added a few pictures below of progress to date. Cheers for now.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Nocoolname said:


> Hi Steve
> 
> For me its not where to start, but where to stop. Fixing the most obvious flaws - the nosecone, the spine and the landing gear - would make for a much better Eagle, but then I'd always want to go further and have a go at the cages, but doing the cages would make me want to have a go at the walkways and then the passenger module and then the engines and then...
> 
> ...


Hi hi and welcome aboard! 

Very nice work, I salute your craft and skill! But seeing your service module corridors another sad and obvious flaw appears.

Them doors have nothing to slide into, do they? 

I kind of wish they had used the doors from the SHADO Moonbase, the curved double pressure doors between modules and corridors. Those seemed VERY realistic.


----------



## Nocoolname (Jul 2, 2013)

Hi Steve, 

I totally agree on the walkways. Sadly, a design flaw of the original Eagle it would seem. I've not seen any other model able to correct it. I've thought about adding a couple of angled segments either side of the bottom of the walkways to provide the illusion of somewhere for the doors to slide into but technically it would only allow the door to open half way at max. I guess I just have to live with what I've got and trust that these particular doors run on 'magic'! 

Cheers for now


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Nocoolname said:


> Hi Steve,
> 
> I totally agree on the walkways. Sadly, a design flaw of the original Eagle it would seem. I've not seen any other model able to correct it. I've thought about adding a couple of angled segments either side of the bottom of the walkways to provide the illusion of somewhere for the doors to slide into but technically it would only allow the door to open half way at max. I guess I just have to live with what I've got and trust that these particular doors run on 'magic'!
> 
> Cheers for now


Not only no place for the doors to go...oh, I'd better pop in a Space:1999 DVD and check this...OK, good, glad I looked. I was going to say "there's no room for the spacesuit alcove or any of the other stuff in the service module corridor"and that would have be stupid of me, as the suit alcove and other material is part of the passenger module. 

But, there's still stuff in there, stuff We really don't see. I assume there's a tiny bathroom and a small food prep area and likely some survival and emergency gear (nothing different than anything on a long range bomber, like the B-36). Common things that the flight crew may need regardless of whatever module is slung. 

I know there are some fan blueprints out there, I hear some very well drawn ones, but anyone who thinks that the only place you need a bathroom is in the aft service module, they're not thinking in a real-world way. 

I also note the 'travel tube' car and the landing pad docking 'jetway' never seems to be used the way it was designed.  (and just what were those other two doors on the 'jetway' for? Again, they have no place to slide the door to)

But I nitpick. It's still cool.


----------



## The_Engineer (Dec 8, 2012)

Last year I was looking at some photos of the interior eagle, the forward section. On either side there is a vertical white light panel - and I was thinking perhaps these are doors that swing open. One could be a bathroom and the the other one could be more storage or something else (stove, frig?).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The_Engineer said:


> Last year I was looking at some photos of the interior eagle, the forward section. On either side there is a vertical white light panel - and I was thinking perhaps these are doors that swing open. One could be a bathroom and the the other one could be more storage or something else (stove, frig?).


I would assume any food service would tend to be simple, like TV dinners and/or MRE-style. Add water, maybe some heat. 

The head would likewise be basic. I strongly doubt a shower but maybe the ability to have a 'sponge bath'. 

I'm guessing there's a jump seat (more than one?) for the gal who was playing hostess for the commander on the way up (Breakaway).

Fuels and motors must have improved. Like with 'UFO', a flight to the moon seems to be an 'hours' thing and no longer 'days'.

I noted another technical error, or maybe it's not. Shouldn't there, by all rights, be TWO doors separating the cockpit from the service module?

OTOH if there is NOT I think that makes separating the nose of an Eagle a fairly extreme measure.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> I would assume any food service would tend to be simple, like TV dinners and/or MRE-style. Add water, maybe some heat.
> 
> The head would likewise be basic. I strongly doubt a shower but maybe the ability to have a 'sponge bath'.
> 
> ...


The set on the show did not have the connecting corridor between the cockpit and the center module, the door opened directly to the center bay. The sets were designed and built to tell a story and not to be a blueprint for people to build it for real. Sometimes we let our over analyzing get in the way of just enjoying the fun the filmmakers intended! :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> The set on the show did not have the connecting corridor between the cockpit and the center module, the door opened directly to the center bay. The sets were designed and built to tell a story and not to be a blueprint for people to build it for real. Sometimes we let our over analyzing get in the way of just enjoying the fun the filmmakers intended! :thumbsup:


Acccctually, for the first season they DID have the service module corridor in place. You can clearly see it in 'Breakaway' and it's there all season.

Season 2, it went away and the cockpit opened into the passenger module. I assume this was done to speed the action, reduce the lighting and otherwise just make it smaller. 

I *think* the service module corridor flats got re-purposed, I'm sure there are experts who could cite or knock down this.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> Acccctually, for the first season they DID have the service module corridor in place. You can clearly see it in 'Breakaway' and it's there all season.
> 
> Season 2, it went away and the cockpit opened into the passenger module. I assume this was done to speed the action, reduce the lighting and otherwise just make it smaller.
> 
> I *think* the service module corridor flats got re-purposed, I'm sure there are experts who could cite or knock down this.


I am lucky I remember that much. Haven't seen the show in about 30 years.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

One problem addressed...
http://www.shapeways.com/model/1193302/07041304.html?li=shortUrl


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

swhite228 said:


> One problem addressed...
> http://www.shapeways.com/model/1193302/07041304.html?li=shortUrl


Well, that's rather nifty. 

It's 'grown' as one solid piece? Amazing. 

So the intent is to be 'plug and play'? Just cut off the large square piece where the kit pad pegs into and glue this part over the hole thus created?

Very clever. I may well have to order some of those.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

I've been following that project for a while, can't wait to see pics of the printed parts (but I'm not waiting for that to place my order)! Now if I could just find my darned Eagle...

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Again we all know the kit can be made to look a bit better by a lot of work but the question is would it be a good idea for R2 to add a few new plastic injection parts. 


It wouldn't be a substitute for a larger new tool Eagle but it would probably get more people to buy a reissue than just a straightforward reissue. I also think photoetch, resin etc is no substitute for some new plastic parts.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> Again we all know the kit can be made to look a bit better by a lot of work but the question is would it be a good idea for R2 to add a few new plastic injection parts.
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a substitute for a larger new tool Eagle but it would probably get more people to buy a reissue than just a straightforward reissue. I also think photoetch, resin etc is no substitute for some new plastic parts.


I believe the phrase I want is "Ditto"... or maybe "Me Too", or what's a more current internet thing... "THIS"


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I believe the phrase I want is "Ditto"... or maybe "Me Too", or what's a more current internet thing... "THIS"


I think you're actually looking for "QFT" (Quoted For Truth).


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Zombie_61 said:


> I think you're actually looking for "QFT" (Quoted For Truth).


Are you sure? Not "Om nom nom"? Not "Do Want"?


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

Some of the kit producers at Round-2 are just too lazy to retool some
of the classic kits to make them more accurate as they should,they
retooled the classic TOS Klingon Battle Cruiser recently to be more 
accurate,why couldn't they have done the same for the Eagle Transporter?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

WOI said:


> Some of the kit producers at Round-2 are just too lazy to retool some
> of the classic kits to make them more accurate as they should,they
> retooled the classic TOS Klingon Battle Cruiser recently to be more
> accurate,why couldn't they have done the same for the Eagle Transporter?


Well, it's not really an apples to apples comparison. The Klingon Battle Cruiser was pretty accurate to start with, Round 2 just made some minor changes to address a few issues, such as the inaccurate grills in the "wing" leading edge. The changes made didn't require a major redo of the kit. 

The Eagle kit, on the other hand, has many inaccuracies with almost every area needing to be redone. If they were to do that, they might as well do a new mold kit, like their doing for the TOS Galileo Shuttle. Since their considering producing a new, 22" Eagle, I'm assuming they didn't feel it worth the time or money to do an extensive update to the original MPC Eagle kit and just reissued it instead.

Also to say that "some of the kit producers are just too lazy" suggests that decisions regarding which kits to upgrade/reissue/create rests solely on the people who produce the drawings, molds, etc. I would think those decisions are ultimately made by upper management, i.e. the owner!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Not only that but Star Trek is also a hell of a lot more popular than Space 1999, not that I'm putting the show down just pointing out that ST is more popular.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

spock62 said:


> Well, it's not really an apples to apples comparison. The Klingon Battle Cruiser was pretty accurate to start with, Round 2 just made some minor changes to address a few issues, such as the inaccurate grills in the "wing" leading edge. The changes made didn't require a major redo of the kit.
> 
> The Eagle kit, on the other hand, has many inaccuracies with almost every area needing to be redone. If they were to do that, they might as well do a new mold kit, like their doing for the TOS Galileo Shuttle. Since their considering producing a new, 22" Eagle, I'm assuming they didn't feel it worth the time or money to do an extensive update to the original MPC Eagle kit and just reissued it instead.
> 
> Also to say that "some of the kit producers are just too lazy" suggests that decisions regarding which kits to upgrade/reissue/create rests solely on the people who produce the drawings, molds, etc. I would think those decisions are ultimately made by upper management, i.e. the owner!





As I said updating the old kit isn't a substitute for a new tool larger kit but a few new parts could improve it quite a lot and I don't think every area of the old MPC/Airfix Eagle would need to be redone. 



The engines aren't too bad (needs some frames and circles for inside the engine rears)

The main passenger pod ain't too bad (just needs maybe a door each end and to be moulded in smoked transparent plastic so the windows can be masked off).

The 4 landing pods ain't too bad (just need some extra detail underneath and on the landing gear plus thruster nozzles could do with replacing....all small parts)


and all that's really left is the cages and interior detail and I'd prefer a new beak/command module too). The spine I'm in two minds about.


Apart from the cages and beak most of the parts are quite small and they're all repeating patterns which could possibly be done on 1 new sprue of parts.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> Not only that but Star Trek is also a hell of a lot more popular than Space 1999...


Which is probably why Round 2 puts more time and effort into existing and new-mold Star Trek kits and is being cautious with putting the same effort into Space 1999 kits. Still, I've got my fingers crossed for a accurate 22" Eagle!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

spock62 said:


> Which is probably why Round 2 puts more time and effort into existing and new-mold Star Trek kits and is being cautious with putting the same effort into Space 1999 kits. Still, I've got my fingers crossed for a accurate 22" Eagle!




There's no doubt Star Trek is much more famous than 99 BUT...........we're talking about a kit aimed at a certain age group. A certain age group who are probably the main builders of models like these (like the Enterprise) and an age group (a large portion of) who would probably put the Eagle near the top (if not the top) of factual spaceship favourites. 

99 might not be as famous as Trek but the Eagles themselves are still highly popular, well remembered, recognisible and well loved.

Plus there might be a new series Space 2099.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

SUNGOD said:


> ...Plus there might be a new series Space 2099.


At which point we may be looking at a totally new Eagle kit.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> At which point we may be looking at a totally new Eagle kit.







I hope so and that's certainly what every Eagle fan wants............but a few tweaks to the original kit by R2 could still be a good idea.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I think you misunderstood me ... I meant a TOTALLY NEW EAGLE kit. Not a new kit of the old Eagle that we all know and love, but a kit of an Eagle that bears as much relationship to the Enterprise that the JJ Prise has.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> I think you misunderstood me ... I meant a TOTALLY NEW EAGLE kit. Not a new kit of the old Eagle that we all know and love, but a kit of an Eagle that bears as much relationship to the Enterprise that the JJ Prise has.





I see. Obviously that remains to be seen. The way things are now though I'd say a totally new kit of the original Eagle is more likely.

For a start the new Eagle might be some ugly monstrosity that not many people like plus it's mainly us old gits that build kits at the moment anyway.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

If R2 were to do a new Eagle kit I wouldn't mind a 22" and a 12" kit both if for no other reason than to place the old MPC kit side by side with a new and more accurate 12" Eagle, just for the hell of it.
as for an Eagle from 2099 make it a bit more sleek looking and in the same scale as the old MPC kit.:wave:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would like to see much more of the 2099 Eagle before putting it on my want list- a lot of the 'updated' classic designs just do not reflect what made the original so great.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> At which point we may be looking at a totally new Eagle kit.


Plus a new license.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

SUNGOD said:


> I see. Obviously that remains to be seen. The way things are now though I'd say a totally new kit of the original Eagle is more likely.
> 
> For a start the new Eagle might be some ugly monstrosity that not many people like plus it's mainly us old gits that build kits at the moment anyway.


What Paul is talking about is the idea of remastering S:1999 ala what Paramount has done with Classic Trek, and one of the things that would be 'sweetened' would be all the effects, going completely CGI with them which would allow for not only 'improving' designs but erase 'mistakes' so on. 

which, IMHO, would be a huge mistake as often the effects outshined the writing. (mainly second season. again, IMHO). Oh, there were times where the limitations of filming could be done a bit better but me, 'flying' a real model always looks better than CG.

I imagine what would be wanted would be a 'New Galactica' (where the new Vipers looked like they were evolved versions of what was seen on the '80s show) kind of pass on the Eagle, refining it, tweaking it, maybe overall along the lines of what was done with 'New Captain Scarlet'. This is what a new kit would be from, a 'Not-Eagle' Eagle. Probably more aerodynamic, wouldn't surprise me if it looked more like a Hawk with streamlined landing gear pods. Might be nice, might be fun, but not the Eagle. 

Am I in Positive Track with you, Paul?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Actually I was talking about the rumored Space: 2099 reboot.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

There have been some illustrations of the 1999/2099 reboot circulating. The Eagle has the same general shape but one change was filling in the Gemini-style cockpit cutouts with bulging tear-drop windows. Most of the other changes are not as clear.
Personally, while I like the idea of having the control cabin filling the beak more (instead of being crammed against the back wall), it just does not the same appeal.
Back on topic- the MPC kit does have some big flaws and a lot of imperfections. Still, I would rather kitbash a few as is and wait for a real accurate larger edition than have them spend time and treasure fixing it. Unless it is a complete retool people are still not going to be happy with it and the money spent trying to fix it could go to developing other SciFi kits.
Round 2 is trying to freshen up older kits with some new decals and an occasional parts tree. The Scifi marker is small these days and I am glad they are making an effort to keep kits on the shelves and focusing on a selective group of new ones to produce. They had some serious mis-steps at first (the premature announce of a large Akira still bothers me), but with the way they handled the TOS-E is very encouraging.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> As I said updating the old kit isn't a substitute for a new tool larger kit but a few new parts could improve it quite a lot and I don't think every area of the old MPC/Airfix Eagle would need to be redone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The engines/passenger pod probably need the least amount of work. Everything else is a major redo or a replacement. Don't get me wrong, I would love for Round 2 to do an extensive update to the old kit. But, for what ever reason, Round 2 doesn't feel updating the old kit is worth the time/expense.

As for the popularity of Space 1999, I'm sure most of us on this board would list it pretty high. But, when considering modelers overall, would that be the case? Obviously, Round 2 is asking the same question, which is why their hesitant to do a new 22" Eagle. Also, I'm willing to bet most modelers are not as obsessed with accuracy like those of us who post here, so they would be more then happy with the reissued Eagle, warts and all.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> Actually I was talking about the rumored Space: 2099 reboot.


OK, so I read the post over in the 'movies' section wrong?

See, I started my reply comparing Eagles in a 'reboot' way (and wrapped it up as you can see with the Galactica/NuBSG ref) but then changed it after skimming the article which seemed to be more focused on a 'remastered' Space:1999, so I altered and....

So confused. 

(for the record, I was underwhelmed by New Captain Scarlet and have had no desire to seek out the episodes, and I note they haven't seen fit to even try and 'push' that here in the U.S. , so THAT for CG remakes.  )


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

mach7 said:


> Plus a new license.





Yes and it would probably be a lot more expensive than a licence from the old series.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Steve H said:


> OK, so I read the post over in the 'movies' section wrong?
> 
> See, I started my reply comparing Eagles in a 'reboot' way (and wrapped it up as you can see with the Galactica/NuBSG ref) but then changed it after skimming the article which seemed to be more focused on a 'remastered' Space:1999, so I altered and....
> 
> ...





I thought new Scarlet was good (except the Rhino didn't looks as nice as the SPV). They ruined it over here though by sticking it in the middle of some crappy kids programme on Saturday morning.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

spock62 said:


> The engines/passenger pod probably need the least amount of work. Everything else is a major redo or a replacement. Don't get me wrong, I would love for Round 2 to do an extensive update to the old kit. But, for what ever reason, Round 2 doesn't feel updating the old kit is worth the time/expense.
> 
> As for the popularity of Space 1999, I'm sure most of us on this board would list it pretty high. But, when considering modelers overall, would that be the case? Obviously, Round 2 is asking the same question, which is why their hesitant to do a new 22" Eagle. Also, I'm willing to bet most modelers are not as obsessed with accuracy like those of us who post here, so they would be more then happy with the reissued Eagle, warts and all.




I think you'll probably find that people aren't that enthusiastic about a straightforward reissue of the old Eagle and would prefer it to at least have a few new parts.

Whether doing an extensive update would be worth it I don't know but the kit would still be improved quite a bit with a few new parts like I (and others) have said.

It would be something until hopefully we get an all new tool kit one day


----------



## Nocoolname (Jul 2, 2013)

Hi folks! A minor update on the progress of my build. Not a huge amount done unfortunately due to lots of other activities. I've used the new photo etch parts to re-do some of the earlier components, such as the walkways, and have added etched and other detail to existing parts such as spine connecting brackets for the cages, connecting brackets for the engine plasma accelerators and detail for the landing pods. I've also put together the parts for the 'feet' and the main parts for the passenger pod. Thanks to a very kind person I now have the beautiful command module from Jim Small which I will modify to include the door and rockets. I've provided a few photos below. Things are going to be busy for the next few weeks so it might be a while before I check back in. Cheers for now!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Nocoolname said:


> Hi folks! A minor update on the progress of my build. Not a huge amount done unfortunately due to lots of other activities. I've used the new photo etch parts to re-do some of the earlier components, such as the walkways, and have added etched and other detail to existing parts such as spine connecting brackets for the cages, connecting brackets for the engine plasma accelerators and detail for the landing pods. I've also put together the parts for the 'feet' and the main parts for the passenger pod. Thanks to a very kind person I now have the beautiful command module from Jim Small which I will modify to include the door and rockets. I've provided a few photos below. Things are going to be busy for the next few weeks so it might be a while before I check back in. Cheers for now!


Wow! Looking really authentic :thumbsup:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

That does look impressive. Way to go.


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

Can Paragraphix produce those photoetch enhanment parts for the Eagle
kit by order or are they manufacturing them now?Cuz,I got an Eagle kit
of my own that can sure use that.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

NoCoolName: I sent you a pm several days ago. I'd love to chat with you.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

WOI said:


> Can Paragraphix produce those photoetch enhanment parts for the Eagle
> kit by order or are they manufacturing them now?Cuz,I got an Eagle kit
> of my own that can sure use that.


The Eagle etch is under development.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Paulbo said:


> The Eagle etch is under development.


Thank you, Paul. Can't wait to see what you come up with.


----------

