Building X-Wing 1/24 : Help!!

Discussion in 'Studio Scale Models' started by -... . .- --.., Dec 3, 2001.

  1. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    Treadwell,

    Regarding this pic and your questions on this area:

    [​IMG]

    </SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>what are the parts colored blue, yellow and green? -what is the red-colored part missing from Frank's version?</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
    Dunno. I wouldn't encourage you to spend too much money tracking them down, though! The "X" shaped bit may have originally come from a kit, but it's so non-descript and so easy to make from scratch, why bother searching? This may be counter-intuitive, but the more distinctive and irregular a part, the easier it is to find. Which is good news for us, because they're also the hardest to recreate from scratch. As for the simple shapes, well you might find a half-dozen candidates for the "X" part in the middle of that Me-109 engine block thingy there, but how would you ever know which one is the "right" one? The engine block thingy itself is easy to spot, 'cause it's very distinctive and there's only one kit that has that particular part in it.

    As for the wee-tiny greeblies, same deal. Really small, sparsely detailed, you're better off making them yourself. You could knock out masters for those two purpley parts and the one red one in ten minutes, tops.

    <TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>is it me, or does the teal-colored Harrier engine part look a bit different in these two photos? A result of the 90s Harrier retooling, perhaps?</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>

    All those parts look slightly different owing to distortion in the casting of this area. Compare any of those parts. This particular greeblie cluster was really popular at ILM. It shows up all over the place on other models - X-Wing, Y-wing, Death Star trench, etc. What does that say? Well, it says that those aren't original parts you're looking at on the Red 3 hero model, but at least second-generation recasts. And remember, the casting technology that ILM used in 1975 didn't produce near perfectly crisp copies, like Frank's materials do. Back then, shrinkage and distortion, and bubbles were obviously a bigger problem.

    For more evidence, just look closely at the other Harrier part on that hero R2 strip, the one that sits behind the Hurricane engine part. Not only is the entire part slighlty deformed, the cylindrical section is partially missing due to a bubble in the casting as well.

    HTH,
     
  2. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Whoops, I guess I won't be able to go back and edit the older versions of the list after all. :)

    Thanks for the move, beaz!

    Edit:
    Since photopoint went blotto and wrecked the pic links in the uneditable posts above, here's the pic again so future readers can follow along:

    [​IMG]
     
  3. EchoLeader

    EchoLeader Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    941
    Beaz, that looks like the same part used on the TIE Bomber wings. It's the shock absorbers that seen in front and and back of the cross member on the wings. At least the parts for the TIE Bomber comes from the Hanomag kit also.

    Very interesting.

    Rolando
     
  4. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Nice find, thanks for sharing! Would that detail be unique to Red 2?

    Also a belated thanks for the R2 strip comments. I only just now noticed them...every time I scanned the thread and saw that pic I thought it was my own post. :)

    I agree about scratch-building simpler parts. Just doesn't hurt to have the "real" ones when possible (and affordable), is all.

    In fact, I could swear Frank once posted that the x-shaped yellow part was a specific tank axle, but damned if I can find the post.
     
  5. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    [edit, complete list removed for the sake of brevity. See below for a summary of all changes made to the list since its first posting.]
     
  6. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    In case any of this warrants discussion, (and to help anyone trying to determine what has been added/changed) here is what has been changed in the list since I first posted it weeks ago. Many clarifications were added by myself based on my own observations, and, of course, many were contributed by you good folks!

    Airfix 1/24 AV-8A Hawker Harrier:
    retail price is $85, and the parts for the R2 strip are #'s 17 & 18

    Airfix 1/24 Hawker Hurricane Mk II:
    The Mk1 version seems to be more plentiful currently, and it does have the required part: #12, right behind R2. Also, (I haven't even put this in the list yet), cockpit instrumentation pieces appear in the X cockpit...or, at least in the ICONS version.

    Airfix 00 Scale (1/72) Panther
    you can easily get it for under $10, and the 00 and 1/72-labeled versions are identical. Comes in bags, blisters and boxes. (rather Grinchian, that)

    Frog Armstrong 1/72 Whitmore Whitley MKV:
    landing gear parts for the engine are #16 (two per kit); they're in a fragile area of their parts tree--beware kits in banged up boxes or without boxes altogether.

    Hasegawa 1/700 Waterline Series USN Ticonderoga A/C Carrier:
    elevator part for the R2 strip is #43

    Holgate and Reynolds HO scale brick:
    #1014, currently available via Walthers catalogue at your train hobby shop for $5/sheet

    Monogram 1/32 8Rad Panzerspahwagen
    part for the rear is #91 or #92 (pick one)

    Monogram 1/32 Sherman M4A1 "Screamin' Mimi"
    cat#4200, tow hooks for engine detail are part #23, four per kit

    Revell 1/32 F-4J Phantom II
    the 4E definitely does not work..unless there's a removable-engine version I don't know about. Turkey feathers are different, too.

    Tamiya 1/35 German Hanomag Sd.Kfz. 251/1 Armored Half-track:
    rod-like part used in trailing edge wing recesses (at least on Red 2)

    Tamiya 1/35 Matilda
    road wheel, part #14 (sixteen per kit), cut in half and placed on either side of R2 strip

    heat sinks are available at www.alliedelec.com. search for Allied stock# 619-0040
     
  7. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    </SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Would that detail be unique to Red 2?</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
    Nope. Looks like the pyro model patterns used the same part. The Red 3 hero obviously had a different part here, but I don't know about the other heroes just yet.
     
  8. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    We talkin' the same place on the model as the 8rad part C-9 cylindrical doodads in other models? If so, which other models? [​IMG]
     
  9. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    Yes, the 8Rad canister and the Hanomag shaft are interchangeable. The hero Red 2 has the Hanomag part, hero Red 3 has the 8Rad part, and I THINK the hero Red 5 had the 8Rad part, but I'm not sure.
     
  10. kitbasher

    kitbasher Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    566
    Just to add my two cents: The Monogram Screamin Mimi kit was NOT used on the X-wing... u-shaped hooks like that are common to many, many armor kits and the ones in the Mimi kit aren't the right ones. Save your money. Also, the Tamiya Matilda does NOT have the correct part(s) for the R2 strip. I know that Frank used the small roller wheels for his casting, but regrettably these are not accurate. The Matilda is still worth getting if you are building a Y-wing, of course. Finally, this is just informational, the Ticonderoga kit was not out in 1975, so technically the elevator part it not from that kit. However, the Saratoga and Lexington are sister ships of the Ticonderoga (if memory serves here), and those kits were indeed out at the time. So you can actually use either one of those as a donor kit for the elevator part. The Ticonderoga kit currently available MAY be from the same mold with some additional kit-specific parts, but if you want the correct "vintage" part, get one of the older kits.
     
  11. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    [​IMG][​IMG]

    Hmm...not quite exact I agree, but it's pretty close. All the other tow hooks I've come across have had a much deeper "U" shape. (Granted, it's not like I've seen every kit there is, or even close to it...)

    On the other hand, Mimi parts don't show up on other ILM models (TMK), so that alone would suggest another kit supplied them. But I think the Mimi would certainly do in a pinch, if one was inclined to seek it out for such a minor part donation.

    Or maybe they're just teeny weeny headphones. :)
     
  12. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Early posts in this thread referred to differences between the Airfix Saturn V and the Revell/Monogram. I could never glean just what those differences were, until I had the parts themselves (well, the old kit and Frank's castings of both).

    So, in the interest of finally documenting the info, here 'tis:

    [​IMG]

    Keep in mind that the parts were not resting on the scanner in exactly the same way, so some stuff that looks like it might be in a different position isn't.

    However, I forgot to put arrows by those two lower box details, but you can see those were moved, too.

    I think there might be stage 1 differences, too, but I'll tackle that in the Y thread (eventually).
     
  13. JamesDavis

    JamesDavis New Member

    Trophy Points:
    2
    Treadwell,

    I have the Smithsonian re-issue of the Saturn V and the parts look just like the originals you posted. The cast pieces you have must be from the Monogram kit.

    I also sent you some info concerning some Phantom engine discrepencies.
     
  14. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Wow, strange. The change must've been very recent, because Frank assuredly did not use the Monogram.

    In fact, one of my Saturns was still shrinkwrapped, and although it had the older box art, there was a 1994 promotional sticker on the shrinkwrap. Naturally I was concerned it wouldn't match the 70s version but it does (based on the other castings of Frank's that are not pictured above, and ILM model photos).

    So the retooling must've taken place sometime AFTER the switch to Smithsonian repackaging.
     
  15. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    The parts on the left that Frank cast are indeed from the old Monogram 1/144 Saturn V. ILM used both the Airfix & Monogram kits almost interchangably, as the parts were nearly identical. I have several of both and can confirm that the pyro models used the Monogram part. Haven't checked the hero models yet, but it's my understanding that some of them used the Monogram parts as well.

    You can still buy the old Monogram kit, only now it's Revell/Monogram.

    HTH,
     
  16. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Oh! :)

    I defer. :)
    I will edit the post and picture above.
     
  17. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    </SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>So just to clarify, then, you guys have (or have seen) the actual Revell/Monogram parts? </TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
    I have several of both the Monogram and Airfix Saturn Vs. In fact, I have an original vintage issue of each kit sitting right here beside me. The parts that are marked 24 & 25 are in fact parts 24 and 25 from the Monogram Saturn V kit. No ifs, no ands, and no buts! [​IMG]
     
  18. Flintlock

    Flintlock Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    Beaz, I know you say "no if's and's or but's", 'however' [​IMG] the first one I bought was the Monogram Saturn V and they looked a little off. When they reissued the Airfix for Smithsonian Models, I got that kit and they looked like the exact ones. I always thought the Monogram was a new kit. There is also a Revell Saturn V but I believe that it is the EXACT same model as the Monogram. And again, the Smithsonian rocket is the exact same one as the old and newly re-released Airfix kit. Is there something I am missing?

    P.S. I have 2 Monogram Saturn V's, 2 Airfix Saturn V's
     
  19. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Well he wasn't saying that the Revell/Monogram is identical to Airfix, he was just correcting my false assertion that the differences I posted about above were between different Airfix releases.

    Both he and Frank have said that Monogram parts show up in ILM X-Wings as well, but I haven't found any yet. Reds 2 and 3 both have Aifix parts, for example...but I've only just started looking at my source material with this in mind.
     
  20. -... . .- --..

    -... . .- --.. Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,460
    [​IMG]

    Guys,

    The Monogram kit is from the late sixties, just like the Airfix kit. The instructions in my first edition Monogram kit are copyrighted 1968. The current Revell/Monogram kit is the same as the old Monogram kit. Revell and Monogram merged several years ago. The Smithsonian kit is just a repackaged Airfix kit. Both the Monogram/Revell kit and the Airfix/Smithsonian kit were around when the miniatures from ANH were being built, and I believe both were used in making at least some of the models.

    Check this out:

    [​IMG]

    This is a pic of the Monogram Saturn V parts that Bill George used on his Maxi-Brute conversion. See that engine bell part on the left? The one with the two forks? In all the pictures I've seen of the hero models, I've noticed subtle differences in the smaller engine bells from engine to engine. I believe it's because sometimes the Airfix bells were used, and sometimes perhaps the Monograms bells were used.

    For example, look on page 112 of the SWC. First look at the big pic of Red 1. Look at the top half of the lower righthand engine and note the shape of the small engine bell. Airfix. Now, look at the pic on the bottom of Red 5. This time look at the lower half of the upper righthand engine. Look at the shape of the small engine bell in there. See a difference? I'll have to see if I can find some time to dredge up better pictures, but that's the general idea.

    Also there's the fact that Bill George himself used the Monogram kit in his Maxi-Brute conversion. He wasn't around ILM for ANH, but he does presumably have access to the models that still exist from that era, as well as some of his co-workers who built them. Of course, it's also entirely possible that he simply chose the wrong Saturn kit.

    In any event, unless I can find a clear reason to use the Monogram parts, I'll most likely stick with those from the Airfix kit, which are obviously more predominant on the hero models.

    HTH,
     
  21. JamesDavis

    JamesDavis New Member

    Trophy Points:
    2
    When I first got my Smithsonian, I noticed the parts were all white and compared it with pics on Starship Modeler. I noticed that guy ( I don't believe he's BG) photographed the Monogram part but used the Airfix parts on the model itself.
     
  22. Boba Fett 1138

    Boba Fett 1138 New Member

    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hey guys ,
    hey Frank,
    I`v been reading this thread for a while and decided to coment on some things.

    Frank I molded the Icons Xwing & R2 as well,..LOL after I re built them when I was working for Icons and spent 2 months fixing the casting we got from the ORIGANAL molds .
    it was NOT taken from a Exploded one as previosly mentioned BUT from a rather nice casting we got from a old ILMer
    Yes the origanal r2 is not as nicely detailed as the one that
    I built and was put into the Icons one .
    That was at lucasfilms request they didnt was the fans to see how some of the film models are not as nice as you would expect them to be . And so that no one would try to re-sell one and try to claim it was a film used model.
    In doing our research with them they only had in their files 7 pics that were of Lukes X wing ,
    and sadly they some how lost the origanal model of it long ago.

    Max

    : (</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Migrate wrote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color><FONT COLOR=yellow>Originally posted by Cerney1:</FONT>

    Well.....I have molds of the ICONS R2 as well. Hate to admit it...but could not resist molding him when I had the ship for a while. Sold it...wish I hadnt,

    The real R2....needs some cleanup....but...something genuine about him. Might offer both togther as a set. Few of us are about to do this head on...and will be offering parts...stay tuned....

    Frank Cerney</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>
     
  23. JPolacchi

    JPolacchi Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,671
    Hi everyone.....out of curiosity.....was the 1/9 Kettenkrad used to kitbash the X-Wing?I could be wrong,cause my kit part identification skills are'nt as tight as others....but after looking through my kettenkrad kit for the y-wing parts used...it seems that from the highlighted pictures at the top of this thread..the terquoise highlighted part..it looks like a kettenkrad part Ive seen..like a carburator or something like that.I could be wrong,and I appologize for that....cause the part could be from any number of kits used on the studio model....but it just looks strangely familiar.Maybe let me know if I am correct in my assumption,cheers-John
     
  24. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Sorry, which pic are you referring to?
     
  25. JPolacchi

    JPolacchi Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,671
    From the two photos that are scanned on this page at the top (pg 36)....the R2 strip detail...there's a highlighted blue/green part that looks like a carburator......or something like that....my eyes tell me kettenkrad,but like I said,I could be wrong...be nice if I were'nt for once.I only been able to able to recognize a few kit parts on some of the filming minatures built.However, unless i have the kit&part in front of me to oogle over...most other times I really have'nt a clue,Im just trying the best i can-John
     
  26. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Lots of people have their forum display settings customized, so no everyone is going to see the same thing on page 36, if they even have a page 36 using their settings.

    However:

    [​IMG]

    The blue/green parts are already identified as from the Airfix 1:24 Harrier. It's the purple, red and green parts that are in question.
     
  27. Boba Flint

    Boba Flint Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,390
    I'm still working on my CC X-Wing, and as I've said before it will be Red 2. I've started to put some markings on the ship. I've noticed that on Red 2, as well on other X-Wings, there are these little tiny black squares all over the ship. I am putting those on my ship. Does this make any difference? Am I mad, obsessed, stupid for doing this?






    btw this is just a stress reliever post.
     
  28. Rogue Studios

    Rogue Studios Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    931
    Has the yellow part been id'd...I think it's a a cap off a felt marker that has been rounded off...no biggie I know most people scratch them but if you look on a felt pen cap the white thingy on the inside look just like that except not rounded off. oh well my 2 cents
     
  29. Flintlock

    Flintlock Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    Someone said we needed amber pill vials for the engines. Does anyone know a good place online to get them, and what size???
     
  30. Clerval

    Clerval Sr Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    1,341
    That yellow cap piece also looks similar to two bits of Falcon cockpit detail, though I may be remembering teh 5 footer... perhaps if someone has leads as to the details there, they may be able to help with that cap.
     
  31. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    where can I get a cc x wing ? I just found out about it how big is it
     
  32. Flintlock

    Flintlock Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    1,241
    ...any word on those vials?
     
  33. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    has anyone found out what kit the spade type thing on the back of the wing is under the hummel jack ?
    I strongly urge you all tolook at a 1/72 long tome howitzer

    take care
     
  34. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Thanks, will do!

    I'm not familiar with the term "long tome". Is that a model manufacturer or a kind of of howitzer?
     
  35. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    sorry miss spelling its long tom m59 155 mm cannon
    its first designation was m1a1 developed in the 30's and used until the 60's I am pretty sure italery had and has a 1/72 scale kit I think the 1/35 would be too big I just recently read a review of the afv kit and the part in question on thekit is over an inch long so I don't think its the right one so I plan to get the 1/72 one
     
  36. Miniaturizer Ray

    Miniaturizer Ray Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    706
    Does anybody have any thoughts about the Hummel part that's used on the front of the wings? Not the jack that's also on the back, the other part with the hole? The parts on the X-Wing seem different: The "wall" is thicker (and there's a little extra detail - which could easily be a separate part, of course - too). Could the Hummel kit have been retooled? The jack part is a little bit different, as well - the little "C-Beam" part that sticks out is rounded on the X-Wing (the ILM guys could have modified the part to make it look that way).

    Given the price of the Hummel, I'm a bit leery of buying it if the right parts are actually in a different kit...
     
  37. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    I'll check my scans of the kit and see if I can find a good ref pic for comparison. Might be a few days.

    In the meantime, in another thread it was mentioned that a 1/72 M1 Abrams tank was used. To my knowledge this hasn't been mentioned in this thread before.
     
  38. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    I hate to say this but the abrams was not available them as it was still in testbed form
    and the other part on the wing front with the hole and the ridged detail in it that is the other half of the hummel jack

    hope this helps
    take care
     
  39. Miniaturizer Ray

    Miniaturizer Ray Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    706
    Look at this:

    [​IMG]

    This is Red One from Chronicles compared with beaz's picture of the Hummel part. Look how much thicker the wall appears to be. Also notice how the X-wing part appears to have two extra rivets (as well as the aforementioned extra greeblie), but they could just be air bubbles.

    I wondered if maybe it was an optical illusion based on the lighting and the angle that the model was photographed at, but I don't think so. Although I don't have the Hummel kit, I do have Scott's X-wing kit, and I can't make the part look like the picture no matter how I position it.

    So, again, unless Scott's part isn't the same as the part from the kit, either the Hummel kit was retooled at some stage, or the ILM guys thickened the wall up, or the part is from a different kit (I don't know anything much at all about big tank kits, or tanks in general, so I don't know how likely this last option is).
     
  40. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Good analysis. I was wracking my brain last night trying to make the part in front of me and my source pics match up. I see what you mean about the thickness of the raised border, and the rivets.

    In fact, the other Hummel jack half isn't 100%, either. It, too, has a bit of a raised border in reference pics but the Hummel part has none.

    The parts are close enough for my tastes, but you've raised some interesting possibilities. As you say, they either aren't from this kit or it was retooled. Anyone have a copy of this kit that was produced in '75 or so?
     
  41. Miniaturizer Ray

    Miniaturizer Ray Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    706
    Check these out... http://www.homepurchaseprogram.com/readpage.html

    Seems like most of the R/C Bandai German tanks have jacks that are similar, but not identical to, the Hummel jack. Look at this one in particular:

    [​IMG]

    The Sturmgeschütz IV. It's really dificult to make out at that resolution, under the camo, but I can almost see that being our part, with the extra detail that's missing from the Hummel part.
     
  42. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    Good find. If not the Hummel, I wonder if the "right" kit will also have all the other "Hummel" parts ID'ed on the Y-Wing, etc.

    As for me, considering the cost, I'm just gonna stick with the Hummel I already have. [​IMG]
     
  43. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    hey guys I tryed my bandai kits king tiger and panther not a match there either just to letyou know the hummel is very close I am going with that

    take care
     
  44. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    The Hummel jack IS the part used. The re-issue has not been re-tooled. I have the original release.
    As with MANY donor parts on these models you have to "think outside the box". The small box deal has been shaved down etc. You also have several layers of paint on the models that distort the details. Parts and panels combined into assembly's etc.
     
  45. Miniaturizer Ray

    Miniaturizer Ray Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    706
    Are you a gambling man, Jamie?

    I'll bet you the cost of the Bandai Stug that it has the correct parts, not the Hummel...
     
  46. DARKSIDE72

    DARKSIDE72 Sr Member

    Trophy Points:
    2,105
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The hummel jack scan isn't angled properly, nor is the part modified. But you get the idea.
    The rear is obvious.
    The 1/15 STUG jack (last picture) is completely wrong.

    Either state facts around here, that is PROVE without a doubt your information is 100% correct or keep the amateurish speculation to yourself. Guessing doesn't cut it. At least post pictures that merrit a discussion or an investigation.
     
  47. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    easy...
     
  48. Miniaturizer Ray

    Miniaturizer Ray Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    706
    A StuG:

    [​IMG]

    Your "StuG" jack looks more like the Tiger jack (I think it was the Tiger - I'm not really interested in memorizing what the wrong parts look like). It certainly seems to be mounted on a StuG, in the same position as the fuel can in the above image. Whether it's mounted on a Bandai StuG or not is a different matter; the Bandai box art has a jack like my picture. Checking out websites devoted to R/C tanks, it seems that the Bandai kits have been heavily reworked over time, apparently. Perhaps your jack is from a StuG kit, but not from the one that ILM used. Alternatively, perhaps the jack ILM used is from a Hummel, but you were the one that claimed that the Hummel part hadn't been retooled. Notice how the two smaller circular bits on the Hummel jack appear to be a little too close together compared to the part on the X-wing, and notice how the bits in the StuG picture above appear to be slightly further apart.

    Another StuG jack, this time mounted the other way around:

    [​IMG]

    Notice the thicker wall and the extra details. Again, it's hard to tell from the low resolution of the image, but it looks as though the extra details are holes. Look at the Red One image I posted, and it's easy to imagine that the details on there are laid over holes. There's no evidence of any holes in the Red 2 picture that you posted (thanks for that, by the way, I wish you'd post more like it) but I think that the hole is for stowing the jack handle. The detail on the Red 2 part might be the jack handle. Notice also on your Red 2 picture that the large hole with the teeth doesn't have any lip around it - the hole goes right to the edge of the wall. The Hummel part has a lip.

    "Either state facts around here, that is PROVE without a doubt your information is 100% correct or keep the amateurish speculation to yourself. Guessing doesn't cut it. At least post pictures that merrit a discussion or an investigation."

    Everything I've stated is a fact, based on careful observation of the images that I've found. Your claims ("extra layers of paint make the part look that way" for example) seems more like "guessing" to me. There's really never been any need for your unfriendly tone.

    I could easily be wrong - the StuG models that I've posted pictures of could have been accurized. Maybe the actual kit part isn't the right one. So, I'll say it again. How about a gamble: The price of the kit? If I'm wrong, you make several hundred dollars. If I'm right, you get the right parts for the X-wing, and just maybe some more parts for your Y-wing. How can you lose?
     
  49. Treadwell

    Treadwell Master Member RPF PREMIUM MEMBER

    Trophy Points:
    4,325
    You make some fine good points, Ray. I think it's a valuable thing to re-examine even the most accepted "facts" from time to time--sometimes new discoveries can result.

    The thicker border is rather convincing to me. It doesn't look like it's the result of paint or casting mushiness. Fairly crisp on that X-Wing pic--if recasting/painting had built it up THAT much, it would be much more rounded and there wouldn't be much detail left on the teeth in the hole. Plus, the border in Jamie's ref pic is butted up to the outer edge of the hole, which is not the case on the Hummel.
     
  50. boatbuilder1

    boatbuilder1 Well-Known Member

    Trophy Points:
    930
    you guys are really duken it out here wow
    the stug was on the ilm kit racks I can't show you pics of the rack as they are not in my possesion but I can tell you the kit as well as quite a few large scale bandai kits
    example
    m60 a1
    king tiger
    panther
    1/24 scale
    the stug
    the hummel
    kettenkrad
    bmw r 75
    the list goes on amd on
    I have made it one of my chares to gather any and all info about the ilm kit racks I have some good ref pics but will not post them sorry butI have workedhard for this info
    if anyone wants a peak at them email me
    I am not saying the stug isthe right kit here but just verifing it was on the kit racks at one time

    over and out
     

Share This Page