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

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

An X-Wing fuselage with a production pedigree is a lot like a similarly sourced Darth Vader helmet. If you're a true nerd - and let's face it, our clubhouse here was created for the truest of nerds - there's just no substitute for the asymmetries of the handcrafted originals.

You know it when you see it, and the Eaves/Cerney pyro casting is the real deal. It's definitely the same fuselage that produced the Icons pattern that I picked up ten years ago, and it has definitely been cleaned up since then, as Frank already mentioned in another thread. I can tell these are from the same source right out of the box though, because all of the paint chipping is identical, among the many other tells.

It turns out the wings have been cleaned up as well, compared to the older wing patterns I have. You'll notice crisp and correct Holgate & Reynolds brick sheet on the engine box ramps and all new Sealab parts have been applied to the box itself. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion as these areas were already quite soft on the originals. If Eaves renovated the wing patterns himself, he didn't bother to replace the Sherman/mystery box gun mount subassemblies, so there's an interesting mix of old and new on these castings.

I agree though, that the main attraction here is that gorgeous production-sourced fuselage and canopy. Already working on my first pyro-to-hero fuselage conversion and hope to have some updates to my hero build thread in the coming weeks.

Really looking forward to everyone else's builds as well!

 

[Nwerke]

No argument. It's exactly like the asymmetries of a face.

I spotted one or two tells that are present on your piece and the new one, and others that appear to be gone, but I'm not surprised you'd have found a few more, lol.

Aha. I spotted that the wings were new moulds - different pour orientation compared to the pieces Frank made previously - and spotted the new brick sheeting. I didn't spot that the Sealab pieces were also new. Dammit, I was using those for comparative scale, ha ha! Obviously that goes out the window. I assume Frank did this cleanup on castings of the wings - unless he got the pieces back from Eaves?

Overall, dimensionally, these wings are bang on to the V3 but presumably the originals were a little larger. Yes? Anyone? Oh well; all it does is pull them down to the same generational remove as the fuselage, I guess.

Anyway, many thanks for that, Beaz. What's your feeling about the nose, btw - it's lost the humpbacked look of the originals, yeah? Sanded down?

 

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

Yeah, the renovated nose strikes me as a bit thin, but that was just as true on my older copy of the same fuselage. And obviously someone along the way puttied over the original nose slot. I'm interested in the spare nose that Frank made for us. Just eyeballing the thing, it appears to be from another source, but I haven't yet had the time to pull out the calipers to verify.

I'm not sure how much, if any cleanup Frank did of the patterns he got from Eaves in order to make the 1630 castings for MR. My understanding from reading his messages on the subject here is that he didn't actually clean these up at all, but that could've changed in between his discussing them here and his production of these new castings.

Paging BrundelFly...

 

[Nwerke]

PS did you notice, on the separate nose piece, that the cut edges are clearly urethane foam?! Glorious!!

The separate piece is more of a banana than the moulded-in one, clearly has been breathed on a bit less. And yet it still has that sleeker profile. I'm in the dark on that one. How many patterns of production nose were there?

 

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

I imagine there was a single nose pattern, but each one had to be custom fit on each hero model, with that awkward resin-to-styrene interface of the separate upper and lower fuselage halves, and the differences in the resulting steps along that midline. I'm sure that explains why the nose-fuselage junction and the resulting shape of each nose is more or less different for each hero.

On the pyros one nose casting was obviously attached to the source pattern in its own way. So the nose on these Eaves-Cerney castings should be identical to the ones on the pyro build-ups we've seen. Clearly it's similar, but different. Would be interesting to understand how much it has been reworked over the years.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

For all us not up on all the details... a few pictures describing what's got you in a jazz would be cool. :thumbsup

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

A couple of pics - not very representative - took these to show Martyn last night. I'm trying to find the form of the humped nose, as Martyn aptly called it, and also looking at possibly scratching a canopy as the kit one isn't as narrow as what I'm seeing in the Red 3 pyro tabletop top shot. Also, the kit canopy needs some work to get a fit, and I just wanted to dive right in and see how the canopy lines work with the forward fuse plane when they're nice and tight in that cockpit. So I got to work with some styrene... All these pics have that something that I always felt was missing from the V3 canopy lines. I achieved it here because the fuselage is more accurate.

 

[TheRealMcFly]

Gene shared photos of the inside of the Pyro master pattern. Have to concur with Beaz on the nose... only one original version. Important to note in profile it would appear like the Red 3 hero. No added styrene on the fuselage bottom half for that angled look bottomside. Here is one (two?) sitting on their workbench.

Likewise, knowing more about what was changed along the way would be great. We can see on the older versions (like yours Beaz and DaveG's) that the droid strip is cast with the fuselage itself. Beaz, as the original nose is still attached to yours it would really be helpful knowing an exact length for those of us swapping it back on there. I think that Gene's photos of the Pyro fuselage master indicate some slimming of the original nose before it was duplicated.

Also, is this canopy the original canopy? I too noticed the foam texture on the nose, and there is some of this on the canopy underside as well. Regardless, I don't think we can truly trust this as an accurate width, as it too would have been halved along the mid-line and reassembled. Do we know the extent of the damage before the halves went together? Indeed, there is no substitute for the asymmetries of the original. A shame this was partially crushed and reassembled.

Still, LUCKY someone had a try at fixing it and the foresight to preserve something recognized for its significance. While its not the ultimate Hero reference, it is a lot of fun.

EDIT: Nice work Colin. Can't wait to see more.

 

[Scott Graham]

Here are scans from that Christmas 1977 Estes catalog. I found someone had scanned the catalogs and put them online here:

Ninfinger Productions: 1977 Estes Christmas Catalog

Not much to see there regarding the x-wing. It would be nice to see better quality pics of the pages though.

I too ponder the fate of Red Leader. We could speculate that it was gifted. Then again that armature hiding in plain site in the group shot looks to have the wire harness individually labeled. To me this would indicate some sort of unfortunate reverse engineering. It could just as easily be an earlier prototype or the other Hero we've never seen.

I know the name of one man who reportedly took hundreds of photos of the models immediately after the films initial success. A Charlie Webb is credited as photographer from the Estes visit to Van Nuys. He is not currently available the usual online stalking methods. It's all in the Estes Christmas catalog from 1977.

What do you guys think of these kits. Frank mentioned the original canopy being discarded. While DaveG's earlier cast appears to have an original I feel that the canopy is much too wide. Then again Pyro construction could just as easily add width along with slimmer builds.

 

[TheRealMcFly]

Yep that's the same one I found. Not much luck in finding a hardcopy unfortunately.

Looks like Red 2. It's an educated guess but I think that's what the Maxi Brute X was based on. It has matching short turkey feathers and we know Red 2 was the visual ambassador for all things X early on. You can even see photos of it above that workbench in the photo I posted.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Terrific! A new picture of Red 2. Thanks, men! Oh, and thanks too for your comment, Nighteyes.
That Estes guy took 500 photos?? He must be tracked down...

 

[jedimaster]

I have a question. On franks pyro we have a cavity for the droid to sit in yet on the original pyro's there was none. Anyone know when or by whom this was added?

 

[Nwerke]

Paul, what do you mean by added styrene/angled look? Edit: you mean the rear edge of the nose block on the underside, as in my pic below?

I'm not sure about slimming of the pyro master; it could just be the angles it was shot at. Certainly, Red 6 from the front looked like its nose was VERY Roman; you see that effect to varying degrees in a lot of other shots too. Either way the nose slot was a fair bit longer than it is now.

I believe the Eaves fuselage was assembled before it was damaged, so unless the canopy was one of the damaged areas it should be about right. Its width is easily fixed with hot water and without noticeable bowing - see pics below.

However, it likely WAS damaged, given the heavy filling and unfinished re-scribing of the upper panel. The thin area for the rear window is more heavily filled on one side than on the other, too.

Colin, don't think I see what you're seeing in the Red 3 pyro pics, sorry mate!

Simon, good question. It's there on Beaz's piece too, even though the droid strip was still moulded in at that point. We know from Tread's pics that on at least SOME pyros the R2 was just sat on top of the fuselage, no socket. Were earlier, "nicer" ones given hero-style cutout sockets? Or was this done at the same time as the nose block rework?

OK, as promised I took some pics, alongside a V3 for comparison. They're here:

Index of /~nipngnwm/Xwing

Samples:

 

[ILMwannabe]

Just a quick, rough comparison between pictures of Pyro casts and the Salzo V3.1 (in gray, 3rd from top) if anyone is interested . . .

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Just a quick, rough comparison between pictures of Pyro casts and the Salzo V3.1 (in gray, 3rd from top) if anyone is interested . . .

I'm interested. Thanks. Nothing quite matches the Edlund master, of course...

 

[Nwerke]

That's the warping of the underside to blame, IMO. "Drawn in" might be a better way to put it.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Martyn, your bottom view fuselage comparison pic confirms my idea that the Cerney is less squat than the V3 in this view. The Cerney presents a narrower-based 'triangle' than the V3. This wider-based 'triangle' of the V3 is what had me eating my liver every time I looked at a top or bottom view of any ILM X, pyro or hero. I was always convinced the V3 was more squat, more 'triangular' in this view, that ILM was somehow a narrower-based - (or wider-tipped, same thing) slightly more rectangular form (bear in mind that the V3 is missing its side mounting panels in the photo).

As to the Red 3 pyro canopy top pane being the same proportions as this pyro casting... well, there's some madness and blindness going on somewhere, sunshine...heh heh...

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

That's the warping of the underside to blame, IMO. "Drawn in" might be a better way to put it.

Ah you caught my post before I retracted! I went too far in claiming this comp. showed a more slender Edlund, but it's certainly quite different from all the others (and I don't mean the warp!). I mean that dear old elusive nose!

 

[TheRealMcFly]

Ah you caught my post before I retracted! I went too far in claiming this comp. showed a more slender Edlund, but it's certainly quite different from all the others (and I don't mean the warp!). I mean that dear old elusive nose!

Ah yes, the nose. How they ever arrived at a shape that could look so different in ever photo really makes you wonder what the heck is going on.

Thanks for the photo comparison ILMwanabee. The 'hump' that has been described seems more apparent on the Edlund master when compared to our Pyros. To my eye, it looks as though it has been only lightly slimmed there. It was described that these guys spent a long time making the nose a shape that didn't look obscene. Perhaps this exposed resin on the master are the same or some of the described modifications. I'm not sure they succeeded lol.

Any subtractive modifications to the nose hump would result in a slimmer look and decreased depth/length of the notch. I think Colin's on the right track adding some material there. To me the hump is created by a flat spot on the front of the nose, or maybe I should say flatter or flatish.

Nwerke's got that canopy on there good!:thumbsup

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

He has, yes. Some more pics. Some canopies: the Frank, the rushed-paintjob Red4 which is a good match for it taper-wise, and the Red 3 pyro which is far more tapered than both ( sorry, Martyn, but it is, lol.) And finally, a near-as-damnit ortho profile of the Frank with a load of blu-tac shoved on the nose.

So, yeah, Nighteyes, it's not just the noses, what about all these canopies?