44" Eagle 5
- Thread starter Lee S
- Start date
IEDBOUNTYHUNTER
Sr Member
I can draw it for anything. I also have a lathe. I couldve made them in Aluminum. But thats not what was asked of me.
Sorry to interrupt the build. Ill just enjoy the progress from here on out.
Everyone doesn't have a lathe.
TazMan2000
Master Member
I, for one, would be interested in a set, definitely.
Either plain or with metal powder. If properly sanded beforehand, metalizer paints would offer a great finish.
TazMan2000
No I never heard of this phone book.
My thought was, if I'm going to built a 44" Eagle, I'm going to build ti once and build it right. Plus it's not a cheap endeavor no matter how you do it. Thus I spent 5 years buying the pieces as I could and went for the full aluminium engine bells. Yes they are not cheap, but only about 1/10th of what will be the total cost, thus worth it. I'm all for growing stuff and using aluminium power etc etc just not in this case 
MrHateAol
New Member
New to this thread and all, but WTF? Is it really such a big deal to use actual aluminum when printed parts are just as nice? We're not talking a vehicle with a lunch capacity and structural load bearing that will affect people's lives, we're discussing a model build.
3D printing, a technology I'm anxious to delve into (assuming I can ever successfully learn 3D software...) is just one more tool in the arsenal. It's no more cheating to do that than it is to use computers for animation, although 20 years ago even Disney was taking hits for doing that. Today it's the norm.
Space: 1999, even with their technologically evolved computer systems running (obviously..) Windows 98 ME edition, was about building the future, and making what was then something awesome, space travel, seem more commonplace, and yet still exciting. Isn't that what 3D printers can help us achieve?
Just because something may not be hand-made does not mean it doesn't take skill to create it.
Ray, you keep up with the 3D printing and keep showing what you can accomplish with it.
3D printing, a technology I'm anxious to delve into (assuming I can ever successfully learn 3D software...) is just one more tool in the arsenal. It's no more cheating to do that than it is to use computers for animation, although 20 years ago even Disney was taking hits for doing that. Today it's the norm.
Space: 1999, even with their technologically evolved computer systems running (obviously..) Windows 98 ME edition, was about building the future, and making what was then something awesome, space travel, seem more commonplace, and yet still exciting. Isn't that what 3D printers can help us achieve?
Just because something may not be hand-made does not mean it doesn't take skill to create it.
Ray, you keep up with the 3D printing and keep showing what you can accomplish with it.
MrHateAol
New Member
The original model had used it's brass tubing to run freon for the lift-off effects. It also had no interior modeling in the removeable pod so that that could hold the freon canisters to trigger. Does that mean that every model needs to follow that? Also, is there a requirement to do aluminum? Did I miss a manual that specifies Eagle etiquette?
I can appreciate the interest in wanting to make the model as film-accurate as possible, but unless there is a specific dictate that states the exact same techniques and materials must be adhered to without regard for other mediums that might crop up, shouldn't he be able to make the model he wants to make?
This literally goes to the ethical discussion of whether or not a forgery of the Mona Lisa is as valuable as the orginal regardless of technical expertise and final presentation. It could be a 99.9% accurate replication down to the very brush-stroke, and the second it's discovered to be a forgery the value plummets... therefor nullifying the concept that the artwork is it's own value, but rather a perceptive value of a potentially fickle and shifting viewing audience.
Regardless of the outcome of the model, you seem to have pre-judged the value of the final product based on a design variation that does not detract from the structural or artisitic intention of the work.
Which is more important? Construction materials or what the materials ultimately create?
I can appreciate the interest in wanting to make the model as film-accurate as possible, but unless there is a specific dictate that states the exact same techniques and materials must be adhered to without regard for other mediums that might crop up, shouldn't he be able to make the model he wants to make?
This literally goes to the ethical discussion of whether or not a forgery of the Mona Lisa is as valuable as the orginal regardless of technical expertise and final presentation. It could be a 99.9% accurate replication down to the very brush-stroke, and the second it's discovered to be a forgery the value plummets... therefor nullifying the concept that the artwork is it's own value, but rather a perceptive value of a potentially fickle and shifting viewing audience.
Regardless of the outcome of the model, you seem to have pre-judged the value of the final product based on a design variation that does not detract from the structural or artisitic intention of the work.
Which is more important? Construction materials or what the materials ultimately create?
LMFAOSchwarz
Sr Member
I'm not trying to stoke an argument here, but the current subject is intriguing.
I can't help but wonder what model builders of yore would have used if today's technology were available then. On the other hand, if with today's technology were available then, they opted to make bells with aluminum on a lathe, would that have been "wrong"? And what if some component were made with a piece of something (say, an outdated flashlight housing)that was no longer available? What to do then, throw in the towel, or fabricate a duplicate with whatever means would work?
About ten years ago, I built a model which in part utilized an asthma inhaler which is no longer on the market. If I wished to build another now, I'd be out of luck.
I can't help but wonder what model builders of yore would have used if today's technology were available then. On the other hand, if with today's technology were available then, they opted to make bells with aluminum on a lathe, would that have been "wrong"? And what if some component were made with a piece of something (say, an outdated flashlight housing)that was no longer available? What to do then, throw in the towel, or fabricate a duplicate with whatever means would work?
About ten years ago, I built a model which in part utilized an asthma inhaler which is no longer on the market. If I wished to build another now, I'd be out of luck.
MrHateAol
New Member
I actually have no intention to argue, even if I might have come across a little "strong" in my objection. In my opinion this site is supposed to be for informed and constructive debate, so if I came across otherwise I apologize.
The intent of the debate still stands however. Can the model be considered "studio-scale" if it utilizes parts form any other source, even if the final result is the same? Real or Memorex?
The intent of the debate still stands however. Can the model be considered "studio-scale" if it utilizes parts form any other source, even if the final result is the same? Real or Memorex?
LMFAOSchwarz
Sr Member
I agree with you. All of that is part of the intrigue of it all. An otherwise identical part, made of either plastic, brass, aluminum, whatever...is it the material or the appearance that make it what it is?
Yes, by definition. A model made out of cat poop is studio scale if it is in the same scale as the model used in the studio.
Whether or not most would consider it a worthy studio model replica is another matter.
Gentlemen, this is a fascinating discussion, but I have to say that I find it disrespectful to Lee to hijack his thread like this to argue over semantics, when someone could easily start a seperate thread to explore these very interesting issues.
Lee!! :eek
Staggeringly good start Mate! And I don't care if you build it from butter! If it makes you happy, you go for it, and you certainly seem to be doing just that! I am looking forward to following and supporting your build, as I am sure we all are...
Darren
Lee!! :eek
Staggeringly good start Mate! And I don't care if you build it from butter! If it makes you happy, you go for it, and you certainly seem to be doing just that! I am looking forward to following and supporting your build, as I am sure we all are...
Darren
Last edited:
MrHateAol
New Member
Gentlemen, this is a fascinating discussion, but I have to say that I find it disrespectful to Lee to hijack his thread like this to argue over semantics, when someone could easily start a seperate thread to explore these issues.
Lee!! :eek
Staggeringly good start Mate! And I don't care if you build it from butter! If it makes you happy, you go for it, and you certainly seem to be doing just that! I am looking forward to following and supporting your build, as I am sure we all are...
Darren
Well noted, and yes, you are correct.... on all points. Again, no disrespect was intended.
LMFAOSchwarz
Sr Member
Same here, and without further ado I will abandon my philosophical musings! :thumbsup
