CCX remodeling ! into X-WING RED2

[atom]

Hi! Kh39 Thank you for your comment.

You are an expert about X-wings more than me, there may be few difference between RED2 and other X-wings if you say so.

I do not have any reference pics to show you because I am out of town for my business now, as you know. Therefore I will make a comparison pics of “RED2 and other X-wings” after going home on this weekend. Please wait for my answer until this weekend.

I know that beaz says that lower fuselage is made by vacuum form. Of course I agree with him. ILM uses two motors to open wings of HERO X-WING, and the motor is installed to wing armature.
I have had a experience that casting a fuselage by the top and bottom division before. At that time, I thought that if I did not thin the thickness of the fuselage to around 2 mm, the motor on wing armature would interfere inside the fuselage when opened wings. Therefore it is logical that ILM made a lower fuselage a vacuum form.:thumbsup

 

[ILMwannabe]

Apparently there were several versions of the lower and upper fuselages built for the reasons stated earlier. The first one (Blue 1/Red 2) and Red 5 had a lower fuselage that was more shallow, whereas Red 3 (which I suspect was the last "hero" built in 1976) has a taller lower fuselage, at least in the back. Note how the "differential gear housing" of the Monogram 1/32 Panzerspähwagen Sd.Kfz 232 kit is much closer to the bottom edge of the fuselage on the Red 2 and 5 hero end plates.

Surprisingly, the upper fuselage of Red 2 is also very different, at least at the back, as can be seen in side-by-side comparisons. It almost looks like the Maxi Brute! In fact, the back end of Red 2 is the most unique of all in many respects.

The lower nose of Red 3 was also unique. The upper laser cannons were changed on Red 2 sometime after it was repainted from Blue to Red. They were also changed on Red 3. And of course, there are 3 different photon torpedo tube locations.

What do you think guys?

 

[Scott Graham]

That's some good detective work!

 

[ILMwannabe]

That's some good detective work!

Thanks Scott, but credit goes to all the RPF members who have contributed tons of valuable information here over the years.

So don't get rid of your Estes Maxi Brute yet if you want to build a Red 2!:lol

The shape of the back of the Maxi Brute is similar to the real Red 2 (not the "found" objects, just the angles). Perhaps it was Red 2 that Estes had access to when they measured up an ILM model (?)

As Atom said, Red 2 is a very strange bird indeed.

What I always wondered is how they squeezed in the pilot, cockpit, lights and wires later (when they converted it from a Blue prototype to a Red "hero"). It's hard to pry apart resin and plastic (without damage) after it's been glued! :confused

 

[moffeaton]

If you look at the canopy frames, they were broken out and replaced (kind of poorly)

 

[ILMwannabe]

Indeed! You brought that up in another X-Wing post about a year or two ago - that was the first that I heard of it. As I recall you also posted an extreme close-up picture which shows evidence thereof, and someone else found a black and white picture which shows one of the cockpit frames missing while at EMI studios in England, if I'm not mistaken.

There's also been speculation that it was also damaged when the ultra thin glass that they tried to use didn't work out (because of reflections) and had to be removed.

I saw your SS Blue Leader build by the way - outstanding job Jason! And thanks for the decals. I received them last month and they are superb.

 

[kh39]

Atom,

So,what I mean is if the fuselage is made by vacform,the location of proton topedo does not prove that two fuselage pattern were made in my opinion.



ILMwannabe,

Yes,there are some defferences.Each fuselage has it's own characteristics.
As you said the shape of the rear is one which is very interesting,but I rather look at the basic shape of the fuselage.

I attach the picture I composed my pyro kit fuselage on to the real red 2.
I can't find a big difference.Of course this doesn't prove enough since camera's lense,distance from the camera to the model are different.

I really hope there weren't two peterns of fuselage. I'm tired of thinking of the proportion.

 

[ILMwannabe]

Fascinating! Beaz your inputs always carry a lot of weight because I've read your posts, seen your pictures, and know that you are truly one of the X-Wing X-perts! And you also possess a wealth of reference materials and props - many thanks for sharing your knowledge!

As per your input it does follow that since the hero lower fuselage was vacuformed of thin plastic, they would not be able be able to "cast" the photon torpedo tubes since these were fairly deep - unlike the pyros which did have them already cut in.

It could be the lens, the angle, a thousand things, but to my eyes the back of Red 3 always looked significantly "taller" to me than 2 and 5. Overall, 2, and 5 look more "square" from the back, while 3 looks more like a tall rectangle. And the shape of the "facet shim" on Red 2, when viewed from the back, seems to be missing one of the "angles" on the upper half. In other words, described as polygons, Red 2 seems like a polygon of 7 sides, while the others seem to have 9 sides.

And of course there were the stories of all the trouble they had with the wing mechanisms and the adjustments that followed.

Then again you did not say that one is not more shallower than the other, but rather that it was caused by individual cuttting, sanding and assembly.

Thanks again for your highly valued input!

 

[TheRealMcFly]

Hey atom, those cannons look great and I like that backplate.

Beaz really put some time into that post and it totally sums up why we see these variations.

The tops and bottoms don't appear to join very well. Maybe one guy fit the top into the bottom overlaping the styrene along the upper's edge and another guy made his line up. Bam. A potential 2mm difference in height between two parts that were hand trimmed. The backs of the hero fuselages make me think they just creased the plastic to meet itself. Facet shim or glue tab.

We don't know how many they saw but we do know Estes did photograph the Red 2 hero. BUT we also don't know for sure how they derived their fuselage. The MaxiBrute X has a significantly shallower bottom than the Pyro pattern and is very different. Maybe they took their photos and a few measurements and built their own when they got home. It's all there in the 78 Christmas Catalog...
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/estesxmas77/77estxmas.pdf

 

[atom]

Thank you for participating in an argument about the individual difference of the fuselage, everybody.

ILMwannabe, The comparison pics of the rear section which you made was very interesting. I wanted to make the comparison pics which you made. Thank you.

Beaz, The attached pics of yours are decisive. I was able to understand the theory that individual difference of the fuselage was born by the modeling method of modeler oneself even if they used the same master pattern. I Agreed.:thumbsup

Kh39, Your Pyro-RED2 looks just like a prop. I was surprised. Good job!:thumbsup

Nighteyes, Long time no see. Thank you for attaching an article of The MaxiBrute X-WING. Very interesting. I have an empty box of The MaxiBrute X-WING. There was a paper pattern of the wing in the box and I scratched the wing of RED2 in reference to it. It was my guess, Estes measured a wing of RED2 and might make a paper pattern of it.

I am going to return to the making of the rear plate. Thanks a lot.:thumbsup

 

[ILMwannabe]

Thank you for participating in an argument about the individual difference of the fuselage, everybody.

No "argument" here, just pointing out the differences and posing different theories and speculations about their possible causes. I'm just kidding - I know you meant more like friendly debate - that's what these great forums are for.

I can't wait to see your new back plate!

And thanks again for the awesome modeling knowledge and keen observations shared by all here! It is greatly appreciated! Thanks to their contributions modelers are making better and more accurate X-Wings than ever before.

P.S. - Atom - how are you going to duplicate the bubbles on your Red 2 back plate?:lol

 

[atom]

No "argument" here, just pointing out the differences and posing different theories and speculations about their possible causes. I'm just kidding - I know you meant more like friendly debate - that's what these great forums are for.

I can't wait to see your new back plate!

And thanks again for the awesome modeling knowledge and keen observations shared by all here! It is greatly appreciated! Thanks to their contributions modelers are making better and more accurate X-Wings than ever before.

P.S. - Atom - how are you going to duplicate the bubbles on your Red 2 back plate?:lol

Hi! ILMwannabe!
Of course you are right.
Sorry, my English was poor.
I do not want to argue if I can do it.
However, it is a pleasure to talk about X-wing with the people of all over the world.

I trimmed the parts today.:thumbsup
I had a bad feeling about this!
Because those kit parts are expensive or vintage parts, the failure was not permitted for me. I got a cold sweat! :confused

Hey! How to make bubbles on the rear plate like RED2?
That's impossible. Even for a computer!:lol

 

[ILMwannabe]

Looks fantastic! I know the charm of the SS models is the "worn" look, imperfections, and bubbles. But that now familiar collection of parts looks really great when the actual "found objects" are used, and everything is crisp and clear! It's nice to see for a change.

 

[-... . .- --..]

That's looking really good atom. You are a much braver man than me, as I wimped out and made castings of those Hummel parts. Decided I might need them if I ever build a 5-foot Falcon, which is highly unlikely today, but who knows what tomorrow will bring...

Since I also needed two of the smaller, half-round Hummel parts at the bottom of your pic, and you only get one per kit, I decided to cast that as well, rather than spend another $300 on it!

 

[kh39]

Very clean!what tool did you use?

 

[atom]

Thanks! ILMwannabe!
The casting of the rear plate seems to take time a little more.:thumbsup

beaz, At first I intended to cast all parts. However, the casting will take time. So I casted a half-round Hummel parts only. I thought that it would be exciting to assemble rear plate with real kit parts, as if I became a ILM model builder. Of course the cold sweat appeared when I thought if I would fail to cut parts precisely, this plan would go for nothing. :confused

5-foot FALCON!:eek
You may know, generally we japanese people have no space to build a 5-foot falcon or display it in a house. That's joke. lol lol:love

kh39, Thank you for your comment.
I used "TAMIYA MODELING RAZOR SAW"
It's very useful tool!:thumbsup

 

[Tsophika]

That looks great, atom. I think you have nothing to worry about since your cuts look quite precise! I love seeing these builds with original parts like that.

 

[atom]

Hi! Tsophika!
Thank you for comment.

It is the test fitting of the Saturn rocket parts. End cap is a original CCX parts. I will make new end cap later.:thumbsup

 

[atom]

Hi! everyone!

I assembled the rear plate today.
As you see, this is very much complicated form, I do not believe I can cast this well.:cry

Yoda: "That is why you fail."
"Do or Do not. There is no try."
:thumbsup

 

[-... . .- --..]

Wow, that looks beautiful atom! I'm really enjoying following your progress.

You can definitely make a good mold of that pattern, even better than the ILM guys did. You will probably want to start with a thin brush layer of your RTV first, to make sure it gets in between all of the parts. Then you can pour a thicker layer over that first coat and it will solidify into a single mold.