Y-Wing Building

The "Jerry" is a two-legged, one-man walker type of thing first put out by Nitto in 1984 in their SF3D series, so it can be scratched off the list. A lot of kit parts were used for the patterns (Saturn V exhausts everywhere!). A really cool series that got reissued a few years back. Hobbylink Japan still has some listed, too.


Pretty neat! Looks like they did indeed use the kettenkrad links down by the feet.
Agreed...I've already deleted it from the list (which I have yet to put on a website, but soon, soon...).

And thanks, Jamie..I'll keep lookin'.
I don't mean to sound a little, well... however I sound, I mean well. This thread has been setting pretty much idle because everyone is talking about the same old kits over and over again. The Kettenkrad parts are absolutely, without a doubt, the CORRECT ones. The Kettenkrad has parts for the 5' MF, the TIE Fighter, and probably others as well. I know I'm not doing my part with ID's but I'm a little tied up now... if we expect to make any progress, we need to go forwards.
Granted, there ARE parts in some of the kits that were used that have not been mentioned yet, but you just have to search for them and use your own discretion. But looming over the same old parts from the same old kits gets a little old.
Has anyone found anything NEW? a NEW part from an old kit or a NEW kit entirely???
There's new, and there's "new to you".

I regret if I've been posting info that's old news to those in the know, but I'm documenting stuff that had yet to be irrevocably confirmed (or at least illustrated) in this thread. No one had posted pics of the "hook things on the front of the bike" or the "track links" before, or if they did, the links are long since broken...and no one had illustrated or explained just where those links were supposed to go. (All this time I had been thinking they'd look like typical tread plating, so I never realized they were those wing doodads next to the engines until I saw the kit parts. So that was a "new discovery", for me at least.)

So for those whose Y knowledge does not extend outside of these "walls", then this is new stuff, or at least long-needed clarifications of old, vague, contradictory and scattered postings.

Just trying to boil it down, spell it out...I hope I'm not too much of a nuisance to the old timers, but I like to think my postings might be helpful to those just joining us. The quicker they're up to speed, the sooner they might find something the rest of us have missed.

That's the goal, anyway!
Flintlock wrote:

"Granted, there ARE parts in some of the kits that were used that have not been mentioned yet, but you just have to search for them and use your own discretion. But looming over the same old parts from the same old kits gets a little old."

I totally agree. I think it's silly and pointless for EVERY part to be pondered over from kits that have long been established as donor kits. Misinformation seems to be running rampant these days. People posting GUESSES and theories. If you don't have the kit in your hands with the CORRECT part in the kit, don't post. It's a waist of time.

"Has anyone found anything NEW? a NEW part from an old kit or a NEW kit entirely???"

What never fails to amaze me is the wide range of kits and kit manufacturers that ILM used. It is totally crazy.

Actually MANY new discoveries have been made and continue to be made.
Since only a few individuals here actively finance the search for old kits it has become a policy to not publicly post new information.
Sad and unfortunate, but no one else posts useful info any more, 3-4 individuals shouldn't be expected to carry the full work load of research.
This subject has been beaten to death several times already.

There is no point in trying to guide Treadwell, he will post freely no mater what the subject content. I find alot of what he posts to be rather amusing these days. Keep it coming Jay!
Actually if you re-read the thread you'll find it rife with misinformation. Much of the "well established" information is in your heads, guys, not in this thread--or if it is it's mixed in with dead ends and erroneous info. I'm just trying to separate the good leads from the bad. Naturally, I will not always succeed. (And FWIW, I've been buying kits out the ass.) I reiterate that I respect the reasons behind the withholding of info--but to do so and then gain amusement from the resultant stumbles by those without that knowledge is rather perverse.

May I continue to entertain you, as my bumbling has brought a lot of clarifications and new (to the thread) info. As long as that trend continues, I am content to be your jester.

Speaking of wasting time...
I find it amusing for just that reason. The whole going around in circles. Definitive lists.... crap. Move on already.
The whole point of this and the other threads is supposed to be the furthered continuation of found donor kits, technique,dimensions,progress etc.
Not 30+ threads about the various parts on a kettenkrad etc,or "the kit list, version 12.1 has been updated". It's redundant.
People know about the ESCI 1/9th Kettenkrad. Newbies, buy the kit , open it , get out your reference material and discover what parts were used. (For example Jay don't get bent.)

BTW you wouldn't stumble around so much if you didn't jump the gun as soon as you thought you had discovered something new. I see you making the same mistakes that myself and many other's made early on. Jumping the gun is a big one. That's the main reason much of this thread is misleading. Be 100% positive of part discoveries. Do more home work before you post.

Advice: One of the best things I ever did to figure out what kits were available during ANH for instance. Was to track down as many 1975-60's era, dealer kit catalogs,also actual books on the subject.
They generally have pictures of all the kits, I have found it very helpful. It takes the guess work out of what was around at the time.
"I believe only five are needed for the Y, as the "hole" on the side of the neck protrusion is on the port side only."

Misinformation again.
I wasn't really talking about anyone in particular... It's just that I thought all the info was here, somewhere in the thread... you just got to read through it. Many times lists are put together that have many errors in them, because the person putting the list together doesn't have any of the kits and can't see what parts are what. The entire essence of what we are doing is not an exact science. We are dissassembling what was assembled long ago by looking at photographs. I feel that some kit parts should be the exact same ones as what's on the real thing because it wouldn't be a Y-Wing otherwise. At the same time there are parts that vary from kit to kit and often times these parts are found in more than one kit anyway. If you want to do this, you're going to have to fork out the cash and do your own investigating and do what you think would be the best for you. Sure, you can use our findings as a guide in the right direction... but it is not possible to get an exact, 100% true replica of a single model unless you own the actual model. So why not get the darned thing as close as you want it with the parts guide this thread provides, and make the rest something unique to the one you make?
If you want an EXACT replica of a particular, single Y-Wing model, get pictures of that Y-Wing only, and go at it... it will probably take you many many years to get every part exactly true to the original... then what about the body? are you going to get the exactly right shape? the exact right size? Paint Job? We don't have the resources to do that. and we can't get them. ever.

I know not every one aligns with my way of thinking, but here is how I am going to attack my project:
I'm going to look at all the Y-Wing photos and see what parts are the same in every model. THOSE are the parts that I will worry about first. Then I will look at what is different about them and DECIDE which of these differences I like best and build those into mine. I may even use some parts that werent even used on any of the originals... whatever works good. Then the rest that doesn't look like there is much hope of being identified, I will wing it from there... and then I will paint it however I wish. Think about the THEORY of these ships... they are all unique somehow, and not every one belonged to Gold Squadron.

All I am saying is that if you are hoping for an exact, you're not going to get it because YOU are building it and not one of the ILM guys from 1976, and we are going backwards from what they did... they already had all the parts and they just stuck them on there. And we cannot do the exact same thing they did. You can do the best you can, though... Which is what I thought this site was here to help people to do...
</SPAN><TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Newbies, buy the kit , open it , get out your reference material and discover what parts were used.</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Let's just eliminate the entire Studio Scale Modeling Forum, then, and just put up a single page with that statement.

A forum is for DISCUSSION. The response to "Hey, I think I found Part X, what do you think?" would be "that's not it, keep looking", as you did last week, not "stop posting erroneous information" as you did today.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>Quote:<HR></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS=$row_color>BTW you wouldn't stumble around so much if you didn't jump the gun as soon as you thought you had discovered something new. I see you making the same mistakes that myself and many other's made early on. Jumping the gun is a big one. That's the main reason much of this thread is misleading. Be 100% positive of part discoveries.</TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE><SPAN CLASS=$row_color>

Do as you say, not as you've done? It was BECAUSE of "hey whattaya think" posts early in the thread that a lot of parts were identified. Naturally, due to false discoveries, that leaves much tying of loose ends to do, which is what I've been attempting. But through mistakes we learn; and please note that where I slip in part identification, it is not presented as undeniable fact, but as theory or belief, and I'm always happy to be corrected. But you cannot demand that every post be free from error because no one on this planet is above that.

So when, exactly, was it ordained that this thread shall no longer be about discussion about the Y, but, rather, bona fide discoveries of parts that no participant has ever found? That is impossible to do unless one is a mind reader, because what folks have found they're keeping to themselves.

Which, AGAIN, is fine! But you can't have it both ways. If you're gonna sit on info, then you can't complain about posts about stuff you already know.

And ya know what? This thread isn't just about you. This isn't the Jamie modeling forum. There are gonna be threads that are not of use to you...but get over it, because they might be of use to someone else. Your argument boils down to "don't post stuff that doesn't benefit ME, and by the way you have to guess just what meets that criteria, so be sure to wear kevlar for whenever you waste my time!"


I sincerely hope one day I post a discovery that is helpful to you. I really do. But until that time comes, I like to think that I'm helping someone.

And Flint, I agree with everything you said. I don't see how my efforts at discussion are in opposition to that approach, however (I know you didn't say they were, but....).
Amen, brother Flintlock.

These ships are open to a lot of interpetation once you get the consistent parts in place and the body shape as close to correct as you can. They will NEVER be spot-on.
Take the Slave One for instance. You may match all the parts used on that single scale ship but you can only come CLOSE with the paintchips and damage. I am not out to forge the likeness of a "prop" but to make a static model of a fictional vehicle. Basically an homage to a spacecraft. That's why the figure inside will resemble the costumed actor in the film as opposed to the generic "driver" in the original prop. Because that's what I want to see inside!
The definative list thing that always occurs in these threads is inevitable with one this long and cannot be helped, so let's not attack poor Tread with his. But maybe he could simply do this on his own page and give us a link as to follow now and again. just a thought!

Agreed, that is already the plan; no more list postings. But I thought continued discussion of the Y belonged here.
Good points Ron.
I disagree about the ability to get these models exact though. Although we can not build the models the "EXACT" same way ILM did as far as material might go for the bodys. One can build a 100% acurate body and detail it with the "EXACT" parts used. You just have to be dedicated to the job. Referance material.... it is out there.
Off the top of my head I need something like 30 parts for the Y left to find. Majority of which are very small parts. Not bad when you consider the couple hundred individual parts on it.
"But I thought continued discussion of the Y belonged here."

It does belong here.

People are just get tired of seeing the same old information posted again and again. The basic ground work has already been covered.

You are the so called "new blood", cover some new ground.
Just a sugestion.
I will endeavor to do so. Please remember, though, that without a crystal ball I am unable to determine when stuff that is new to the thread is not new to those reading it.
Darkside, these 30 or so parts you have left... are you certain? do you have reference pictures that show every single part? If so, then it is possible to get pretty darned close. But there are also parts that are different on each model... and there are spots where original parts have fallen off...
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
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.