ANH Pyro X-Wing References - Mainly: Red 6 Search

More circumstantial evidence for my theory that original ILM fuselages (both hero and pyro) may well turn out to be more drawn-out looking than this pyro casting, and it connects with Nighteyes' front canopy width bug. Take this image of Red 3 below. For my purpose, treat it as a flat 2d shape. Now, using a protractor, measure the angle between the lower forward fuse outline and the upper forward fuse outline. I make it about 8 degrees. Standing back from my pyro, and viewing it from the same angle, I'm getting about 11 degrees. This would account for the steeper, stunted feel I always get from the pyro and the V3 from this angle.

Now, I'm aware of camera distortion effects, but whether it could account for this discrepancy I doubt, especially since it's an effect I get from every image of ILM Xs at this angle, regardless of camera lens, distance or date, while the V3 and Cerney from this angle betray the steep, stunted look in photos as well as by eye, a look I have yet to see in any ILM photo.

I may be wrong, though, of course. So it may be an interesting exercise to try and photograph our pyros such that this angle of 8 degrees obtains. I suspect it can't be done, not without resorting to a greater degree of distortion than we see in this Red 3 photo.
 
I've been swamped with other sculpts, movie reviews and being invited to the cinema... but hopefully I'll have some sort of update by this weekend. :cheers
 
Colin Droidmilk said:
More circumstantial evidence for my theory that original ILM fuselages (both hero and pyro) may well turn out to be more drawn-out looking than this pyro casting, and it connects with Nighteyes' front canopy width bug. Take this image of Red 3 below. For my purpose, treat it as a flat 2d shape. Now, using a protractor, measure the angle between the lower forward fuse outline and the upper forward fuse outline. I make it about 8 degrees. Standing back from my pyro, and viewing it from the same angle, I'm getting about 11 degrees. This would account for the steeper, stunted feel I always get from the pyro and the V3 from this angle.

Now, I'm aware of camera distortion effects, but whether it could account for this discrepancy I doubt, especially since it's an effect I get from every image of ILM Xs at this angle, regardless of camera lens, distance or date, while the V3 and Cerney from this angle betray the steep, stunted look in photos as well as by eye, a look I have yet to see in any ILM photo.

I may be wrong, though, of course. So it may be an interesting exercise to try and photograph our pyros such that this angle of 8 degrees obtains. I suspect it can't be done, not without resorting to a greater degree of distortion than we see in this Red 3 photo.
Click to expand...

Would these 2 give you a better idea? I left them large for better viewing
 
What I like about your analysis Colin is that you are actually measuring. We seem to always agree on what is happening with these, but I mainly work by eye only. Its nice to know this sensitivity to the subtleties can be quantified as well. I haven't decided what to do with this canopy, otherwise I'd be trying to match that angle.

If any part of this canopy is original its the rear... we can see the pores of the foam resin and the center seem inside. In fact it looks like alignment was an issue. The rest however, with the two 'pegs' (perhaps a necessary casting artifact?) underside and the seemingly intentional small cut in both topside/front makes it suspect in my mind.

One thing I've been noticing is how tight the cockpit feels in the ILM Xs, mainly in relation to the pilot. While adding length before the nose works wonders for the sleek proportions I am wondering if this actually adds more length than any of the originals. Granted an extra few mms doesn't hurt but maybe this AND canopy slimming is the way to go... who knows. If only we knew how the Hero noses meet the bottom of the styrene fuselage. Flat surface to flat surface would mean more consistency for all X wings, but again it is unknown.
 
Last edited:
Didn't notice this till just now. When I get back in town, I'll post some better photos I took of the Edlund master pattern. It didn't sell the first time around so it fell to me to get it mounted on some sort of base. I took some more photos of it then.

Gene
 
Nighteyes said:
What I like about your analysis Colin is that you are actually measuring. We seem to always agree on what is happening with these, but I mainly work by eye only. Its nice to know this sensitivity to the subtleties can be quantified as well. I haven't decided what to do with this canopy, otherwise I'd be trying to match that angle.

If any part of this canopy is original its the rear... we can see the pores of the foam resin and the center seem inside. In fact it looks like alignment was an issue. The rest however, with the two 'pegs' (perhaps a necessary casting artifact?) underside and the seemingly intentional small cut in both topside/front makes it suspect in my mind.

One thing I've been noticing is how tight the cockpit feels in the ILM Xs, mainly in relation to the pilot. While adding length before the nose works wonders for the sleek proportions I am wondering if this actually adds more length than any of the originals. Granted an extra few mms doesn't hurt but maybe this AND canopy slimming is the way to go... who knows. If only we knew how the Hero noses meet the bottom of the styrene fuselage. Flat surface to flat surface would mean more consistency for all X wings, but again it is unknown.
Click to expand...

Thought you might like to see how my canopy experiments are coming. Using a bit of what Mike Salzo calls 'smoke and mirrors' I managed to get a slightly narrower look than the kit canopy. The top pane is 2 mm narrower at the front. Every mm counts in the old X canopy slimming game lol...still pretty rough, though. It's tricky. The rear canopy roof is wrong in the profile, still not parallel; have to cut out yet another one...
 
Last edited:
GKvfx said:
Didn't notice this till just now. When I get back in town, I'll post some better photos I took of the Edlund master pattern. It didn't sell the first time around so it fell to me to get it mounted on some sort of base. I took some more photos of it then.

Gene
Click to expand...

Whoa. It will be most helpful to us. Thanks!

Colin, I like it already. How about a top view? Every mm does count indeed. I changed my mind again I think the extra width is on the fuselage port side. lol. Follow the panel line and it is much more curved on that side and I'm not liking that taper there in front of the canopy.

Too Much Garlic, we'll keep you on page 1 till Porkins is ready.
 
Thanks. There's a top view in my post 237. It may be a little wide at the back...something's odd as it doesn't line up to the rear canopy; I probably made it too symmetrical.

Regarding this possible overmuch taper thing in front of the canopy, I might have a lot to say about that when I get some batteries for my camera, and try and take shot after shot of this pyro fuse lined up to match shot after shot of ILM in similar angles of view to what I was going on about in post 281... What's intriguing to me is that this is something that never bugs me with MPC (!) when viewed from this angle. What's also odd is that the cerney pyro and V3 don't look too steep or too stunted in profile, only in this upper view/profile angle. Very odd. And I fear no extending of the fuse is going to fix it, whatever it is...it's some subtle thing to do with the entire shape, seems to me...

Here is one photo I took before my camera died. It shows the pyro casting viewed from this same angle. Quite simply I suspect that from this angle the pyro casting fails to match original ILM in the relationship between two crucial lines: the top outline of the stern flank and the top outline of the forward fuselage. I strongly suspect that with ILM, pyro and hero, ( and MPC!), the angle between the two lines is shallower. ( by 'angle' I mean the angle as seen on the screen in 2d). If I'm right, I suppose the anomaly must have arisen during the pyro's restoration... This is why I'd love to see some long distance shots of that auction pyro from this angle, to see if that one looks the same as ours in this dept. Uh... Gene... you got any...? Pretty please...
 
OK, took a while to find the folder, but I found them. Sorry that pesky ruler keeps showing up. No matter what I did, it was always in frame :unsure.

This is what was auctioned off. I just mounted it onto a piece of black acrylic -
attachment.php


I tried to take all of these with as long a lens as possible to prevent distortion. For the most part, the parts are on the floor and the camera is about 6' above them. You can piece the others below to get an idea of the overall length - they all overlap.

As time permits, I'll resize and post some shots of the canopy area and the back end.

gotta go now.

Gene
 
What's with the ruler in every shot, man? Lame!

Thanks for the extra shots of this Gene. Still kicking myself hard for not picking it up during the first auction, when it didn't even sell. :unsure
 
I know right. Didn't it not sell for $1500? We cold have had a bidding war! lol.

Bring on the canopy pics Gene and thanks again for the rare look at this stuff.

Thanks
 
Nighteyes said:
I know right. Didn't it not sell for $1500? We cold have had a bidding war!........
Click to expand...

I think it went for more than that. After it didn't sell the first time, it was decided to create a better presentation. So it was mounted (not glued, it can be removed) to the black plex. Did something similar to Toht's skull from Raiders - bought a case and secured it to some plex rod. Both sold the next time around. In case you are wondering, I haven't come across any other bits save for a charred nose with a bunch of lead shot glued in it. (I don't have photos.)

Regarding the next set of photos - again, I tried to make these as orthographic as my camera and time would allow. The ruler insisted on being in every shot (sorry :rolleyes), but the red marks are metric (for you Brits and Aussies - and Julien). I could post them bigger, but that's just going to slow things down on my end and hog the RPF's server. There's not much more detail to be seen. Also, note that the fuselage is warped. You can see it when you look at the base. So take all of that in mind. The pieces were stored loose, and they are hollow, so that means the warpage can be in any direction.

Funny thing is, I've played with this X-wing, played with a real TIE fighter, helped match the color of the TIE for eFX, built a Capt CBoard X-wing for a co-worker (who's himself a vet of SW), but I don't have one for myself. I have an assembled fuselage that I took a reference photo of, but I still haven't finished it. (And I was one of Scott's first customers). Ahh, well, maybe this will be the catalyst to get me going on mine.......

Gene
 
Last edited:
Fantastic photos Gene! This must be what you were telling me about a while back! (y)cool:thumbsup

BTW... How have you been? Did you ever get moved?
 
GKvfx said:
(for you Brits and Aussies)
Click to expand...

:cry

Thanks for the pics Gene ! Those are very interesting, now there is no doubt Eaves/Frank's castings comes from this master. Panel lines match perfectly (except the fact Eaves probably rescribed, using the original as guide, unfortunatly his work was not as sharp as what we can see on the master...).

We can also notice the forward part of the fuselage is longer than the one we get, Eaves removed a good portion of the fuselage when he chopped the nose off making it looks more shorter, like Blue Leader / Red 2 than any other heros (or pyro of course).


Oh and since we're already the 30th here, happy birthday Gene ! Have a great day ! :)
 
Kuhn Global said:
Fantastic photos Gene! This must be what you were telling me about a while back! (y)cool:thumbsup

BTW... How have you been? Did you ever get moved?
Click to expand...

Yeah, moving all that stuff was a pain. Between Edlund's warehouse and my own stuff, I spent the entire summer looking at boxes. And I'm still looking at them (I just don't have to move them as much.......

MonsieurTox said:
.........Oh and since we're already the 30th here, happy birthday Gene ! Have a great day ! :)
Click to expand...

Huh? Been sniffing the primer again Julien? :lol But yes, I forgot to mention our esteemed Paris Bureau and their love for all things metric.

Gene
 
This thread is more than 4 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

BrundelFly
The Dave Jones Pyro Xwing
Replies
0
Views
449
BrundelFly
BrundelFly
darthbooth1978
AMT/MPC ESB/ROTJ X-Wing studio scale miniatures
Replies
2
Views
457
division 6
division 6
joez2391
John Eaves Tie Fighter and X-Wing Production Model history
Replies
3
Views
629
PHArchivist
PHArchivist
G
More AT-AT Part References Needed!
Replies
0
Views
326
GazChurchend
G
N
Need help with my new Studio Scale X wing
Replies
12
Views
1,256
Jkirkon
Jkirkon
Back
Top