COMPLETED -- Converting the FX toy X-Wing

[Kuhn Global]

AHHHHHHH.

A THREE HEADED PILOT....

I just love side by side comparisons. It's funny how large the toy pilot looked inside compared to the CC pilot inside the CC X.... and yet they are the same size figures. Trippy.

 

[NEOGELION]

Wouldn't the VOTC Luke pilot figure be a slightly less buff scale? Maybe that would work better.

 

[paulcarson]

was thinking the same thing myself and at least the helmet is in scale and has the cool visor thing going on too.

 

[tgreco]

<div class='quotetop'>(NEOGELION @ Aug 15 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]1300917[/snapback]</div>

Wouldn't the VOTC Luke pilot figure be a slightly less buff scale? Maybe that would work better.
[/b]

there was also a POTJ luke pilot who was very slight in build (don't know if it's the same sculpt though)
http://www.jeditemplearchives.com/potj

anyhows, I was wondering, for a Death Star display base, there was a base that came with the Tie Fighter Models from ERTL, is it big enough for this? How does it look compared to the ICONs base etc...

just some thoughts as I wait for the progress update

 

[Flintlock]

<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Aug 15 2006, 03:30 PM) [snapback]1300873[/snapback]</div>

The ICONS guys took a POTF2 Kenner figure and recast it several times until it had shrunk enough for their liking.

I was thinking of doing something similar, but with dental alginate, which shrinks, if I read correctly.

...if I don't do the Harrier/Messer pilot bash.
[/b]

I also hear that if you put zippo lighter fluid (napthalene) in your rubber, your mold will shrink. I have never heard of dental alginate - where can I find out more about it? It could come in handy for my 1/48 Y Wing as long as I can shrink my SS Y Wing parts to half their sizes...

 

[Treadwell]

I haven't looked that much into it yet so I don't have much more info.

 

[yt]

[/quote]


anyhows, I was wondering, for a Death Star display base, there was a base that came with the Tie Fighter Models from ERTL, is it big enough for this? How does it look compared to the ICONs base etc...


[/quote]

That's creepy, I had the same thought. :love

 

[Treadwell]

I can take measurements tomorrow, but but the ERTL TIE base is pretty small for a SSish X-Wing. It would have to be affixed to a really heavy metal plate or something at that size.

It has a greebled surface that's quasi-Death Star but does not have any of the actual patterns or shapes used in the films. The ICONS base, while a bit crowded with detail, does. JDH's bases are a good match, too.

There are also aftermarket DS panels out there. I think SS modeler has a page on 'em.

 

[PHArchivist]

<div class='quotetop'>(yt @ Aug 16 2006, 11:27 PM) [snapback]1301884[/snapback]</div>

anyhows, I was wondering, for a Death Star display base, there was a base that came with the Tie Fighter Models from ERTL, is it big enough for this? How does it look compared to the ICONs base etc...

[/b]

It's nicely sized for the mid-sized ERTL X-Wing with overall display porportions similar to the Icons display. But too small for studio scale.

Though I have thought of using a cast (I have a mold of this base) of it for each siz of X-Wing model, allowing the base to help demonstrate the size differences.

Back on topic. Worked on the guns a bit more, and continued massaging the Maxi-Brute nose cone. Not much else to report.

No one offered up any thoughts on the MB engine cans shown in a previous pic. What do you guys think...?

 

[Treadwell]

Oh, I missed that the first time. I think that works great.

 

[PHArchivist]

Thanks Tread... I'm thinking it may be a "best option".

The Maxi-Brute cans literally slip right on and fit PERFECTLY with no modification to the toy. If the electronics are retained, then the engine lights would even still work.

The MB cans do have short-comings. The individual "feathers" (of the "turkey feathers") are too large and too few. The cans in general are a bit too big, but I feel too big is a better option than too small. And in using the MB cans you get a "pinch" in the overall engine (inherent to the toy) just before the cans widen out and then taper.

There are various other options, but all would take a lot more work:
--mold and re-mold a true studio scale complete engine to shrink it down (much work and a little "loose")
--Scratch build either the entire engine or at least new cans
--"Other"

Factoring the pros and cons, I think the MB cans (to recapitulate) may be the best bet...

But I'd still love outside opinions on the overall look of the porportions. Clearly I'm sold on using them, and my bias may be blinding me to how the strike someone "fresh" to the idea of uusing them.

Here's the pic again so you don't have to page back...

 

[tgreco]

couldn't you just replace them with Phantom engines of the appropriate scale? for the can's that is

(what was the piece made from on the studio models?)

anyhow's I just figured there are so many Phantom models out there, it should be easy to find one that
is the right size, and has the right details...

 

[PHArchivist]

<div class='quotetop'>(tgreco @ Aug 17 2006, 08:26 PM) [snapback]1302503[/snapback]</div>

couldn't you just replace them with Phantom engines of the appropriate scale? for the can's that is

(what was the piece made from on the studio models?)

anyhow's I just figured there are so many Phantom models out there, it should be easy to find one that
is the right size, and has the right details...
[/b]

That may be an option... Would depend on how "one-off" the size of the toy is...

 

[Treadwell]

and keep in mind there is only one turkey feather can per Phantom model.

 

[temponaut]

<div class='quotetop'>(PHArchivist @ Aug 14 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]1299851[/snapback]</div>

I continued to massage the lower hull... It takes a bit of work.[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>(Flintlock @ Aug 17 2006, 04:50 AM) [snapback]1301722[/snapback]</div>

I also hear that if you put zippo lighter fluid (napthalene) in your rubber, your mold will shrink. [/b]

:lol



Awesome thread, Archivist. I'll be following closely. :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

 

[tgreco]

<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Aug 17 2006, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1302596[/snapback]</div>

and keep in mind there is only one turkey feather can per Phantom model.
[/b]

unless I'm thinking of the wrong plane (or the wrong part)... there's 2 per model

 

[Kuhn Global]

I LOVED the Phantom jets.

 

[Hand Solo]

<div class='quotetop'>(tgreco @ Aug 17 2006, 05:25 PM) [snapback]1302648[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Aug 17 2006, 06:16 PM) [snapback]1302596[/snapback]

and keep in mind there is only one turkey feather can per Phantom model.
[/b]

unless I'm thinking of the wrong plane (or the wrong part)... there's 2 per model

[/b][/quote]


There's two per F4. You're correct. The Navy really does not prefer anything with less than two motors.

 

[tgreco]

that's because

H2O + Mach 1 = Big Hurt

 

[Hand Solo]

<div class='quotetop'>(tgreco @ Aug 17 2006, 05:37 PM) [snapback]1302660[/snapback]</div>

that's because

H2O + Mach 1 = Big Hurt
[/b]

Yes. If there's no punch-out.

Redundancy is the main reason. It's good to have a second engine in case one decides to go out.

Added thrust to get off the deck at the end of a catapult stroke is another great reason.