The Y-Wing "Green Leader" Project - NOW OPEN SOURCE!
- Thread starter DaveG
- Start date
Due to overwhelming demand I will be doing a second run of the Armature parts for the Y. Information is here:
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=258238
http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=258238
3d-builder
Sr Member
Re: The Y-Wing "Green Leader" Project
Love the thread....
Love the thread....
Hey Dave,
I think I recall a long time ago you had mentioned that if we were going to add some thickness to the wings to add some styrene to the top rather than the bottom. I was wondering what your thinking for that was? I meant to ask when you originally wrote it, but now can't find it. The reason I ask is my initial inclination is to add it to the bottom to create a little more of an offset with the large tube along the back of the wing and will seem to fit the height of the Harrows assembly and Hurricane engine blocks better. Am I wrong in this thinking? Thanks.
I think I recall a long time ago you had mentioned that if we were going to add some thickness to the wings to add some styrene to the top rather than the bottom. I was wondering what your thinking for that was? I meant to ask when you originally wrote it, but now can't find it. The reason I ask is my initial inclination is to add it to the bottom to create a little more of an offset with the large tube along the back of the wing and will seem to fit the height of the Harrows assembly and Hurricane engine blocks better. Am I wrong in this thinking? Thanks.
I'm trying to remember why I said the add it to the top... hmmmm. :confused
I guess there's two ways to think about adding thickness to the wing plate; 1) add it to the entire piece or B) add it to just the exposed areas between the main fuselage and the engine cans. The first way would be easier (provided you haven't already assembled the armature. Just laminate an over sized piece of styrene sheet and trim flush to the acrylic after the cement dries. In that case the relationship of the bottom of the wing plate to the fuselage and cans would remain the same, you would have in essence raised the top surface a bit. If you first assemble the armature, then add styrene plates you'll need to cut accurate pieces to fit, but then could in effect lower the bottom surface in relation to the fuselage.
It really doesn't make a huge difference and you can do it what ever way works best for the desired end result. The slots in the 3D printed fuselage and nacelle cores were made to clear a full 1/4" thick wing plate (my original plan was to have them water jet cut out of 1/4" aluminum plate but that was too $$$). The plex measures about .215" thick so you could add a layer of .030" styrene and get back close to 1/4". I have seen a reference photo that calls out the actual thickness of the casting as .230". Again, I think the original intent was 1/4" thick but what you go for is up to you.
I also mentioned that you'll need to add about .060" to the leading edge to better fit the Hurricane engine blocks (which were sanded down quite a bit on the original model to fit). On mine I added the strip after the armature and fuselage had been assembled, but I'm not planning to add any sheet to increase the overall thickness.
I guess there's two ways to think about adding thickness to the wing plate; 1) add it to the entire piece or B) add it to just the exposed areas between the main fuselage and the engine cans. The first way would be easier (provided you haven't already assembled the armature. Just laminate an over sized piece of styrene sheet and trim flush to the acrylic after the cement dries. In that case the relationship of the bottom of the wing plate to the fuselage and cans would remain the same, you would have in essence raised the top surface a bit. If you first assemble the armature, then add styrene plates you'll need to cut accurate pieces to fit, but then could in effect lower the bottom surface in relation to the fuselage.
It really doesn't make a huge difference and you can do it what ever way works best for the desired end result. The slots in the 3D printed fuselage and nacelle cores were made to clear a full 1/4" thick wing plate (my original plan was to have them water jet cut out of 1/4" aluminum plate but that was too $$$). The plex measures about .215" thick so you could add a layer of .030" styrene and get back close to 1/4". I have seen a reference photo that calls out the actual thickness of the casting as .230". Again, I think the original intent was 1/4" thick but what you go for is up to you.
I also mentioned that you'll need to add about .060" to the leading edge to better fit the Hurricane engine blocks (which were sanded down quite a bit on the original model to fit). On mine I added the strip after the armature and fuselage had been assembled, but I'm not planning to add any sheet to increase the overall thickness.
Last edited:
A little reminder about the castings - as the molds get a little older I'm having to use a bit more mold release to ensure being able to get the parts out. It's REALLY IMPORTANT that you thoroughly scrub the parts with soap and water (I like to use TSP, Trisodium Phosphate a standard household cleaner and degreaser) so that the paint will stick and to use a lacquer based primer, even if you are going to use water based modeling paints. A light wet sanding with 400 grit sandpaper wouldn't hurt either, just be careful not to round over any of the sharp edges on the castings.
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
Since the Green leader build can incorporate any aspect of any Y-wing I thought I'd add in a part I'd I feel is correct, I haven't seen it on any maps yet but looks obvious
in the lower right just behind the astromech you and see a cylinder standing up
in the abstance of any other suggestion this struck me as being the dust cap off a Schrader valve
You can see an identical shape in front of the astromech for the Tie Killer
Here are some similar shaped caps as an example
in the lower right just behind the astromech you and see a cylinder standing up
in the abstance of any other suggestion this struck me as being the dust cap off a Schrader valve
You can see an identical shape in front of the astromech for the Tie Killer
Here are some similar shaped caps as an example
Big Dog
Active Member
Vacformedhero,
I had similar thoughts when I first saw that piece on the Y! It definitely looks like a screw cap no doubt about it. It has been ID'd though in the Green Leader ID thread, and I have incorporated the ID into my map of the Red Jammer's neck in my ID thread. The part is taken from the Bandai 1/15 Hummel.
I had similar thoughts when I first saw that piece on the Y! It definitely looks like a screw cap no doubt about it. It has been ID'd though in the Green Leader ID thread, and I have incorporated the ID into my map of the Red Jammer's neck in my ID thread. The part is taken from the Bandai 1/15 Hummel.
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
Cool, another expensive kit part , jez ILM weren't thing of pernickity model makers 40 years down the road, did they not realise , you could run a styrene kit stock exchange
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
Big dog I'd be interested in seeing that part on the Hummel sprue
Hammer3246
Sr Member
Vacformedhero
Sr Member
thanks hammer that's spot on
A friend here on the forum requested a pattern for cockpit glass. The shooting models didn't have clear windows (too hard to deal with reflections from the bluescreen in those 'pre-digital' days, but adding clear glass can look cool on a display model. I have uploaded a .pdf pattern file to the repository that can be cut from clear thin sheet material. You will have to trim the edge based on the thickness of the clear sheet that you choose.
CyberGolem
Active Member
THis is a bit off track but I'd like to tip my hat to everyone on this thread. It's been a treat to follow.
Y oh Y is the Y-Wing So Beautiful?
There's more to this question than a romantic love of an old movie, a growing sense of nostalgia as we grow older, or an individual model builder's subjective perceptions on the subject.
No, as I will demonstrate here, the Y-Wing is OBJECTIVELY beautiful, because it follows one of the most classical forms of mathematical beauty known to all history's and cultures: proper proportionality.
Proper proportionality is actually why some guys like "Botticellis" while other guys prefer "Twiggies" -- that's the subjective side of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. But in BOTH cases, skinny or fat, what the eye craves is proper proportionality, and proper ratios, among the pieces that make up the whole. In other words, the subjectivity (fat or skinny) of beauty is actually an objectively measurable fact when looked at from the mathematical aspect of proportionality.
One of the most classical proportionality ratios is the golden number, or phi, or the golden proportion, or what's called The Fibonacci Ratio. It occurs all through nature, all through your own body, and all through the layers of the universe from the microcosm (DNA double helixes) to the macrocosmos (spiral galaxy structures). Heck, it's such a big deal, that the sequence of numbers its based on (The Fibonacci Sequence) it's even got its own Wikipedia page... and there are TED talks (and hundreds of other videos) demonstrating how often and how elegantly the Fibonacci numbers show up in nature, design, art, architecture, and etc. To my knowledge, as of yet, there is no one who has pointed out what must be very obvious to you all...
And this is my claim: The Y-Wing is so Beautiful precisely because it reveals Fibonacci ratios among its parts-to-the whole proportions in a surprising number of ways. The 1:1.618 ratio shows up:
1. In the width of the vessel from outer engine to inner hull's proportions
2. In the overall width of the vessel from outer engine to outer engine, demarcating the location of where the inner hull should begin
3. In the overall length of the vessel, demarcating where the head's proportionality in relation to the fuselage body length should be
4. In the placement of the rear thrusters in relation to the overall engine length
5. In the overall length of the engines, from the tip of the L'eggs pantyhose container to the rear of the rear vector thrusters, demarcating where the end of the modified LEM shroud should be.
Consider these pictures, using a Fibonacci gauge manufactured for orthodontists, and accurate to .25mm. This gauge, overlaid on the overhead shots of the ILM Gold 2, and the Fine Molds model based on the ILM original, show these remarkable ratios. Thus, the ILM Y-Wing is beautiful because she is so Fibonacci...
What this means for you, studio scale model builder, is quite simple: build it in any scale you want, any way you want, with any nernies you want, in any combination you want, in any size you want. By having the proper proportionality, you can build yours "fat" or "skinny" or "long" or "short" till your heart's content. But your eye won't be satisfied unless it conforms to the elegance of the Fibonacci ratio built into the originals, and these pictures should help guide you away from obsessing about lengths and widths and thicknesses of anything, so long as what you really care about is the relationship of the parts to the whole. What matters is NOT whether the ILM original had a wing thickness of 5.7mm or 7.1mm or any such thing -- what matters is whether your individual choice is then followed through with a proper proportionality throughout.
And if you don't have your own Fibonacci gauge, I suggest you buy one or make one, or else simply follow the pictures knowing the following formula: the gauge measures A:B:C such that the Shorter length (A) is to the Longer Section Length (B) in the same proportion as the Longer Length (B) is to the Overall length (C). This is mathematically arranged as the 3:5:8 ratio, which when boiled down, reduces to a 1:1.618 ratio, so whatever number your working with, you can know it's the "right length" if it's proportional to the next section, so on Picture Three, for example, you'd know if the Fuselage Head to Fuselage Body Ratio was correct if the Fuselage Head was equal to 1 and the Fuselage Body was equal to 1.618
If you want a really good quick-and-easy education on the subject, get the book The Golden Section by Scott Olson and get a set of Fibonacci calipers or else make your own (for a LOT less money) by following this furniture maker's guide from Fine Woodworking.
I hope this helps you bring your Y-Wing projects to beautiful fruition. It's certainly been a help to me.
One final note: Did ILM consciously use this as their guide in building the Y-Wings? Of course not, they just followed the standard guide of "It looks right." But the argument is that the Fibonacci ratio is so hardwired into our species brains that "what looks right" to the eye is, more often than not, something that conforms unconsciously to this very specific ratio.
There's more to this question than a romantic love of an old movie, a growing sense of nostalgia as we grow older, or an individual model builder's subjective perceptions on the subject.
No, as I will demonstrate here, the Y-Wing is OBJECTIVELY beautiful, because it follows one of the most classical forms of mathematical beauty known to all history's and cultures: proper proportionality.
Proper proportionality is actually why some guys like "Botticellis" while other guys prefer "Twiggies" -- that's the subjective side of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. But in BOTH cases, skinny or fat, what the eye craves is proper proportionality, and proper ratios, among the pieces that make up the whole. In other words, the subjectivity (fat or skinny) of beauty is actually an objectively measurable fact when looked at from the mathematical aspect of proportionality.
One of the most classical proportionality ratios is the golden number, or phi, or the golden proportion, or what's called The Fibonacci Ratio. It occurs all through nature, all through your own body, and all through the layers of the universe from the microcosm (DNA double helixes) to the macrocosmos (spiral galaxy structures). Heck, it's such a big deal, that the sequence of numbers its based on (The Fibonacci Sequence) it's even got its own Wikipedia page... and there are TED talks (and hundreds of other videos) demonstrating how often and how elegantly the Fibonacci numbers show up in nature, design, art, architecture, and etc. To my knowledge, as of yet, there is no one who has pointed out what must be very obvious to you all...
And this is my claim: The Y-Wing is so Beautiful precisely because it reveals Fibonacci ratios among its parts-to-the whole proportions in a surprising number of ways. The 1:1.618 ratio shows up:
1. In the width of the vessel from outer engine to inner hull's proportions
2. In the overall width of the vessel from outer engine to outer engine, demarcating the location of where the inner hull should begin
3. In the overall length of the vessel, demarcating where the head's proportionality in relation to the fuselage body length should be
4. In the placement of the rear thrusters in relation to the overall engine length
5. In the overall length of the engines, from the tip of the L'eggs pantyhose container to the rear of the rear vector thrusters, demarcating where the end of the modified LEM shroud should be.
Consider these pictures, using a Fibonacci gauge manufactured for orthodontists, and accurate to .25mm. This gauge, overlaid on the overhead shots of the ILM Gold 2, and the Fine Molds model based on the ILM original, show these remarkable ratios. Thus, the ILM Y-Wing is beautiful because she is so Fibonacci...
What this means for you, studio scale model builder, is quite simple: build it in any scale you want, any way you want, with any nernies you want, in any combination you want, in any size you want. By having the proper proportionality, you can build yours "fat" or "skinny" or "long" or "short" till your heart's content. But your eye won't be satisfied unless it conforms to the elegance of the Fibonacci ratio built into the originals, and these pictures should help guide you away from obsessing about lengths and widths and thicknesses of anything, so long as what you really care about is the relationship of the parts to the whole. What matters is NOT whether the ILM original had a wing thickness of 5.7mm or 7.1mm or any such thing -- what matters is whether your individual choice is then followed through with a proper proportionality throughout.
And if you don't have your own Fibonacci gauge, I suggest you buy one or make one, or else simply follow the pictures knowing the following formula: the gauge measures A:B:C such that the Shorter length (A) is to the Longer Section Length (B) in the same proportion as the Longer Length (B) is to the Overall length (C). This is mathematically arranged as the 3:5:8 ratio, which when boiled down, reduces to a 1:1.618 ratio, so whatever number your working with, you can know it's the "right length" if it's proportional to the next section, so on Picture Three, for example, you'd know if the Fuselage Head to Fuselage Body Ratio was correct if the Fuselage Head was equal to 1 and the Fuselage Body was equal to 1.618
If you want a really good quick-and-easy education on the subject, get the book The Golden Section by Scott Olson and get a set of Fibonacci calipers or else make your own (for a LOT less money) by following this furniture maker's guide from Fine Woodworking.
I hope this helps you bring your Y-Wing projects to beautiful fruition. It's certainly been a help to me.
One final note: Did ILM consciously use this as their guide in building the Y-Wings? Of course not, they just followed the standard guide of "It looks right." But the argument is that the Fibonacci ratio is so hardwired into our species brains that "what looks right" to the eye is, more often than not, something that conforms unconsciously to this very specific ratio.
Last edited:
