TIE fighter models side by side

Dedalus5550

Sr Member
For a while, I’ve been trying to pull out one of my Fine Molds/Bandai 1/48 TIE fighters and my MPC Darth Vader TIE fighter but house projects Just keep the stash blocked off. I want to compare these to each other. Can somebody take a shot of them, specifically, the balls, next to each other, whether they are put together or not?
Mike Todd
 
Unfortunately, Bandai didn't make a 1/48 TIE kit.

I haven't found any pictures or videos comparing the two, but from the videos of the Fine Molds kit, it is much smaller than the AMT Vader's TIE.

This video shows the AMT Vader's TIE vs the new 1/32 TIE:

 
Also some more comparisons in scale on this video around the 13 minute mark. There is a TIE fighter and TIE interceptor in the same scale that look slightly smaller than the Darth Vader TIE but didn't quite catch the maker, so not sure if it's the Fine Molds version you're looking for.

 
Here an annotated image of three TIE kits to show size differences. All we need is same for the new AMT 1/32 and the Fine Molds (and I suppose one of the Bandai 1/72 kits would be useful) to round it out. The pilot figure is a standard 1/48 scale figure of confirmed proportions (from a Monogram aircraft kit, it is very accurate for a 5'10" sized human being...)
 

Attachments

  • TIE kit comparison.jpg
    TIE kit comparison.jpg
    208.9 KB · Views: 111
The pilot figure is a standard 1/48 scale figure of confirmed proportions (from a Monogram aircraft kit, it is very accurate for a 5'10" sized human being...)
To clarify, are you saying the new AMT TIE is 1/48 or the Revell kit? I only ask as the latest dimensions in the TIE Fighter Owner's Workshop Manual put the wing size at 7.24 metres (I assume front to back) making the Revell TIE 1/72, which seems a decent match for the pilots scrambling in Alkenzi air base as seen in Andor.

Screenshot 2024-01-23 at 19-25-52 TIE Fighters Launch From Alkenzi Air Base Scene - Star Wars ...png
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0187_crop.jpg
    DSC_0187_crop.jpg
    248.5 KB · Views: 38
To clarify, are you saying the new AMT TIE is 1/48 or the Revell kit? I only ask as the latest dimensions in the TIE Fighter Owner's Workshop Manual put the wing size at 7.24 metres (I assume front to back) making the Revell TIE 1/72, which seems a decent match for the pilots scrambling in Alkenzi air base as seen in Andor.

View attachment 1781558
The new AMT Tie is 1/32 scale.
 
I know, and I'm really not looking to tread on anyone's toes. It just wouldn't surprise me if the AMT kit would in fact turn out to be 1/48 or whatever. From what I can tell, Star Wars model scales can be all over the place. A previous TIE wing dimension was 6.2 metres as posted by Jonathan Campbell at Rebel Scale.
The scale of the AMT is based upon the actual size of the original studio model.
I know, and I'm really not looking to tread on anyone's toes. It just wouldn't surprise me if the AMT kit would in fact turn out to be 1/48 or whatever. From what I can tell, Star Wars model scales can be all over the place. A previous TIE wing dimension was 6.2 metres as posted by Jonathan Campbell at Rebel Scale.
The AMT kit is based upon the original filming models.

You should discuss this model with star-art.
 
Please note the kit numbers in my pix are for the original AMT kits, which are the old "1/48-1/51" scale kits, originally issued as a dual pack, and recently reissued as a single with retooled 'wing' panels. I don't have the lovely new tool kit, marked as '1/32 scale' which really is a nice rendition of the filming miniature, with a non-ILM cockpit included that attempts to replicate the movie cockpit sets in detail.

It is important to understand that there is no irrefutable 'scale' for these models since there was never any feature on the full size sets/props to link to same to the filming miniatures. So it falls to the ol' Mk1 Eyeball! Unlike the X & Y Wing craft, which have a 'scale feature' in the Astromech droid domes, and hence can be linked to the real, known dimension of the full size R2D2 'droid' prop. So it is very simple to scale any X or Y-Wing model just by measuring the droid dome.

Just no such luck with TIEs, so it is a literal crap-shoot.
Does that help?
;^)
Regards, Robert
 
Please note the kit numbers in my pix are for the original AMT kits, which are the old "1/48-1/51" scale kits, originally issued as a dual pack, and recently reissued as a single with retooled 'wing' panels. I don't have the lovely new tool kit, marked as '1/32 scale' which really is a nice rendition of the filming miniature, with a non-ILM cockpit included that attempts to replicate the movie cockpit sets in detail.

It is important to understand that there is no irrefutable 'scale' for these models since there was never any feature on the full size sets/props to link to same to the filming miniatures. So it falls to the ol' Mk1 Eyeball! Unlike the X & Y Wing craft, which have a 'scale feature' in the Astromech droid domes, and hence can be linked to the real, known dimension of the full size R2D2 'droid' prop. So it is very simple to scale any X or Y-Wing model just by measuring the droid dome.

Just no such luck with TIEs, so it is a literal crap-shoot.
Does that help?
;^)
Regards, Robert

I absolutely understand it's a crap shoot with regards to episodes IV, V and VI. In a way I'm glad the recent Andor and Mandalorian scenes showing live action pilots in relation to their TIEs gave me some idea of how much to mutilate my Revell pilot to whittle him down to a reasonable scale (even though the front canopy diameter's too large for R1, Mando and Andor).
 
In the process of developing the new AMT 1/32 kit it was necessary to work out the dimensions of a hypothetical “real” TIE fighter. There is a rather long story behind this so I won’t go into it here. Suffice it to say, however, that over time various licensees have been given different figures representing the height of a “real” ship. This has resulted in conflicting scales for products from different companies.

No matter what numbers other companies may have been given in the past, the current “official” designation from Lucasfilm is that the filming models are 1/24 scale. The new AMT 1/32 kit was therefore based on this figure. That means it is 75% the size of an original filming model (since 1/32 scale is 75% of 1/24 scale).

The height of any TIE fighter model kit wing times the scale factor of the model should equal the height of a real TIE. Since the AMT 1/32 TIE is roughly 13.5 inches tall, a hypothetical “real” TIE fighter would be just under 36 feet tall.

To calculate the correct scale of any other TIE fighter model kit, take the height of the real ship and divide it by the height of the model:

  • The FineMolds “1/48” TIE wing is 155mm tall making it 1/70 scale.
  • The Bandai “1/72” TIE wing is 123mm tall making it 1/89 scale.
  • The MPC Darth Vader’s TIE is very close to 1/2 the size of the 1/24 filming model making it roughly 1/48 scale.
 
I guess (and it's only my opinion) if you make a IV/V/VI studio model then yes, stick to those figures. Absolutely, I see the reasoning. I hope to make an R1/Mando/Andor version from scratch and feel the size shown in those shows should apply, so I suppose I was asking the wrong question in this thread. My apologies.
 
In the Hunk a Junk cinematic universe, the Sci-fi Modeling Prime Directive states: "Do not discuss scales. Not now, not ever. These vehicles aren't real. The word "fiction" is right there, people, so let it go. Do your best. Don't argue or debate it. Nothing "official" ever stays official. Oh, and this definitely also applies to issues of color. Embrace subjectivity and breathe. It'll be okay. These rules exist to keep you sane."

They should really shorten those Prime Directives...

;)
 
I have no grief with any scale assigned to any TIE model kit, since it is all "made up". My personal 'TIE journey' has led me to specific choices, as is with most modelers playing in this particular 'sandbox'. In short, my findings are logical but subjective and follow my own 'paradigm' for the TIE fighter concept.

Basic size comparisons of the older kits illustrates just how variable things may be. Consider the below measurements for the 'standard' TIE fighter (I include the First Order 'Special Forces' TIE just as a curiosity...)
KIT ..................Kit Wing Height (mm)....Scale Height if 1/48......AMT Differential
AMT(old)...................151...................................23.779 ft...................................----
Fine Molds (48)......157...................................24.724 ft...................................96%
Revell (85-1875)....185...................................29.133 ft...................................81%
Revell (FO/Sf).........177...................................27.874 ft...................................85%

The Fine Molds is a very nice depiction (even has a tiny Sherman bogie to glue on the rear!) with accurate and complete detailing. The old AMT kit is almost as good, being very accurate as well, especially with the new retooled wings of the correct shape. The FM kit is only 4% larger, with the cockpit ball being almost the exact match for the AMT kit. Both kits have the fictional cockpits, neither really accurate to the ANH cockpit sets, but the included 1/48 scale pilots fit nicely within the cockpit envelope, which just feeds my 1/48 constant scale collection motivation & so my adoption as my standard 1/48 scale "size" for a TIE.

The Revell 85-1875 'snap & play' kit has a pilot that matches the proportions of both the AMT and FM kit, with the Revell cockpit being a near exact (if larger) copy of the AMT cockpit. All three kits are good models of a standard TIE and can be recommended as good choices. None are of the same degree of accuracy as the new AMT "1/32" kit, however, from what I've seen on the forums so far. Understandable, given it is new production with extensive research put into its design.

A couple of footnotes about my 'journey', if I may. Consistent and with an exact 'viewport' diameter match to the AMT kit is the Estes TIE X-1 model. The Estes kit is essentially a detailed X-1 that is engineered to accept a rocket engine up the "whazzoo". It is injection molded and has separate detail parts and an opaque viewport, easily replaced with one from the AMT kit. The engine section may be a bit out of proportion because it is sized for the engine, however it is not off by much. A rocket tube is inserted into the removable viewport so the TIE 'wings' serve as the rocket's fins (not all that well apparently, since it is said to be a poor flyer... probably why it was on sale at 'K&B Toys' discount outlet!)

MPC released an TIE Interceptor kit that is the same cockpit size as the AMT kit, which Round 2 took advantage of to upgrade as a reissue, combining the more detailed AMT kit parts with the Interceptor 'wings' - an idea I'd already realized as a kit-bash with the original kits. Unfortunately, the molding on the TIE/i wings isn't quite as good as the AMT parts, but it still works nicely.

So, I have taken a modeling path that gives me two (three?) variants of the 'standard' TIE fighter, an X-1 and TIE/i and, a FO TIE/sf from the Revell kit if I assume it is a larger craft to accommodate enlarged volume for a two-man crew, hyperdrive engines and a ventral gun turret. Additionally, converting the old MPC X-1 kit to a TIE bomber works out to be 'in scale' as well. Other possible projects are a Striker and TIE/d (droid?) scratch/conversions... guess the 'journey' isn't over yet!
 
So, to respond to Dedalus5550's request, TIE comparisons for the X-1 Advanced TIE kits. Note that the Revell Snap & Play TIE is essentially compatible with the Revell X-1 TIE kit, which is just slightly smaller than the MPC X-1 kit. The ESTES X-1 is compatible with the AMT and Fine Molds 1/48 scale kits with a cockpit ball that is almost exactly the same. Both the Revell and ESTES X-1 kits are obviously based on the MPC kit since they have the same detailing issues (ESTES kit mods for fitting a rocket tube aside...)
 

Attachments

  • TIE kit comparison_2.jpg
    TIE kit comparison_2.jpg
    330.9 KB · Views: 60

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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.
Back
Top