Help Deciphering decals for Vaders Tie Advance Correct ones

MonsieurTox

Master Member
Here is a N scale freaight car with the LT WT number larger then the other two numbers, so shows that these were out there like on the tie fighter

CAPY (nominal capacity) is the intended load-carrying capacity of the car, to the nearest 1000 pounds. This is determined by the structural strength of the car's underframe and the size of the journal bearings of the car's trucks.

LD LMT (load limit) is the maximum weight of lading that can be carried by the car, to the nearest 100 pounds. This is determined by subtracting the weight of the car when empty from the total allowable gross weight given the size of the car's journal bearings. The load limit for a car is usually a bit greater than its capacity; the two figures can be equal, but capacity can never exceed load limit.

LT WT (light, or empty, weight) is the weight of the car when empty.

i don't believe that the N scale is the right size because the decals are way to small, here is a size comparison

N scale seems good to me, the HO decals are about 2x too big.

- - - Updated - - -

That has to be the tiniest 1138 reference.

Craig

Are those pics of the original decal sheets ? The Danger looks spot on too !
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rbeach84

Sr Member
Still don't see where anyone has stated or determined the actual physical size of the decals on the TIE model... so how can anyone determine what scale MS sheet these stencils came from?
R/ R

- - - Updated - - -

The 1/24 Gemini decals are not correct (wrong font).

I don't agree with you regarding finding the correct decals, maybe it is not important in the general section but it is here, in the studio scale section, it is as important than getting the right parts.

Yeah it may be from MS decal sheet, or it may not, we need to find solid proof. Since those markings are standard on real life stuff, it is likely something that can be found in any train kit from this era.

All the ANH models were built in the US.
 
Last edited:

MonsieurTox

Master Member
Still don't see where anyone has stated or determined the actual physical size of the decals on the TIE model... so how can anyone determine what scale MS sheet these stencils came from?
R/ R

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

I have the SS TIE, I have the HO MS decals sheet, the decals don't fit the SS TIE because they are twice the size they should be, easy !
 

MonsieurTox

Master Member
Still don't see where anyone has stated or determined the actual physical size of the decals on the TIE model... so how can anyone determine what scale MS sheet these stencils came from?
R/ R

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, good luck with that attitude.

Thank you. :) "That attitude" is trying to be as close as possible, so I guess I'm not out of topic in this forum. :)

In this thread, Mark was trying to find the correct decals used on the X-1, not decals that are close. I have seen some discussions you had with other members regarding Studio Scale and accuracy and I respect your choice to use decals that are close, or resin or 3D printed parts when styrene parts were used ont he original models. However keep in mind that's not the case of most guys in this forum section. ;)
 

rbeach84

Sr Member
Thank you. :) "That attitude" is trying to be as close as possible, so I guess I'm not out of topic in this forum. :)

In this thread, Mark was trying to find the correct decals used on the X-1, not decals that are close. I have seen some discussions you had with other members regarding Studio Scale and accuracy and I respect your choice to use decals that are close, or resin or 3D printed parts when styrene parts were used ont he original models. However keep in mind that's not the case of most guys in this forum section. ;)

MT, I apologize for I must have taken your comment about "General modeling" wrongly and consequently taken slight offense. To me, this is *all* modeling & art (but not science), but I tend to be inclusive with my definitions - and assign equal standing to all efforts in this arena. As such, the idea that there is a 'general' modeling attitude that is somehow less correct rankled in light of my personal paradigm. But again, as is said, "that is just me" and so I do not speak for others.

My on-topic point is specifically that it may be impossible to identify the original source(s) used, in which case an identical but non-original source (such as 'Microscale sheet xyz' vice 'abc' - or even 'reproduction' graphics) would certainly be the way to proceed & also completely correct. As such, at least in my mind, there is no requirement to only use original parts, decals, etc. - only to be rigorous so (again, in my opinion) the result looks the same. It is impractical to be any more "exact" this since certain things are simply no longer made or to be found (or just out of reach from a financial standpoint.)

Again apologies as perhaps I also failed in being clear re: Mark's question; I never meant to imply that "close" would be the goal, merely that exactly the original decal sheet might be unavailable and as such a *matching* exact alternative should be fine - again, for practical purposes. The real benefit of identifying the original decal source is so to have a crystal-clear determination of how the original application looked so then the replica's application can be matched exactly.

I wonder if this little bit of discord is more about language than meaning, as you seem to stand in the same field of thought as I based on your post on the MF decals survey thread: here
I believe everyone involved certainly understands the reality (depressing as it may be) concerning availability of the original sources. However, I think consideration should also be given to the "spirit" of the original modeling projects without being overly pedantic; after all, these models were 'slammed & jammed' together for other than aesthetic purposes with many shortcuts being taken. The beauty is in what they achieved *in spite* of the limitations imposed on their work... in short, don't forget the joy of the forest for staring at one tree's bark! ;^)

Regards, Robert
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top