Bandai release schedule

B-Wing for me, please! Hey guys, it's a "B"-Wing, "B" as in "B"andai!!! So it's an obligation! ;)
w6oSAfF.jpg
 
This is why I want Keiko to hurry up and finish his TIE bomber scratch build. The minute he finishes and it's beautiful, Bandai will announce their version. :lol Seriously, someone start scratch building a 1/72 B-Wing, STAT!

As for what 5-gear version Bandai would make, they would definitely reconfigure the PG Falcon. They just need to replace the bottom 2 hull pieces, add a new sprue containing the extra landing gear, and make replacement pieces for the headlights and front of the jawbox. As much as that is, it's still easier than making an entirely new 1/72 kit of the 3-footer.
Yep right after I modified one of my 1/350 falcons with shapeway parts to the TFA version then they released one
 
Wrong way to go about it. If you want the version with extra gear boxes, you need to take one for the team by buying the current PG Falcon. Not so much to convince Bandai to make more stuff, but the Murphy's Law aspect. Right after enough people sell kidneys to get this version when they really wanted the ESB version, Bandai will pop out the "right" kit. See? I am right there with you. I much prefer the extra boxes. I added them to my MPC kit. But I had to get the PG kit in case it winds up being the closest I ever get. Then, the other day I HAD to get a second one when I saw the price at Hobbyworld ($302 shipped). Now I wait...

By the way, if Bandai does an extra box version, how will they do it? Accurately, I mean. A 32-incher version is a whole new kit all around, I think. A 5-footer version is the path of least resistance--and the kit has a separate front section on the underside--but that doesn't have the cleanest lines. A TFA ship, based on the CG model also has a lot of differences in details--whole new kit as well?
Mike Todd
The cost of the 1:72 Bandai Falcon would be most of my years budget for the hobby- no way can I afford to 'Take one for the team' and buy a kit I am not as interested in. I do think they have done an incredible job making the definitive kit of this subject and I am confident since they are selling enough kits that they will follow tradition and produce variants with additional tooling for the ESB, TFA & TLJ editions. It make take a while, but this way I can set aside a small amount each month towards it.
Being a single income family of four severely reduced the amount I can spend and the time I can have building, so right now I am living vicariously though others on these builds.
 
The cost of the 1:72 Bandai Falcon would be most of my years budget for the hobby- no way can I afford to 'Take one for the team' and buy a kit I am not as interested in. I do think they have done an incredible job making the definitive kit of this subject and I am confident since they are selling enough kits that they will follow tradition and produce variants with additional tooling for the ESB, TFA & TLJ editions. It make take a while, but this way I can set aside a small amount each month towards it.
Being a single income family of four severely reduced the amount I can spend and the time I can have building, so right now I am living vicariously though others on these builds.
agreed.. they will eventually release a 5 gear box version.. don't get me wrong I have the kit & it's great!!! But something is missing without those extra boxes.... besides there's not to many ships you can display it with IF?you wanted to be screen accurate..
Just basically the X-wing, Y-wing & TIE fighter
 
The cost of the 1:72 Bandai Falcon would be most of my years budget for the hobby- no way can I afford to 'Take one for the team' and buy a kit I am not as interested in. I do think they have done an incredible job making the definitive kit of this subject and I am confident since they are selling enough kits that they will follow tradition and produce variants with additional tooling for the ESB, TFA & TLJ editions. It make take a while, but this way I can set aside a small amount each month towards it.
Being a single income family of four severely reduced the amount I can spend and the time I can have building, so right now I am living vicariously though others on these builds.

I could probably scrap up money for it, but I don't think my paint job/weathering could do it justice. My skill set is just no there yet. It is way too expensive though!
 
To me, the five gear version is a design compromise necessitated by the realities of 20th century Earth engineering. The Falcon itself is a product of an endless set of compromises, but Lucas, Johnston, and McQuarrie designed the ship for three gears and it's only because of Lucas' desire to build the entire ship full-size that they had to add extra gear just to keep the set from falling apart. If in1978-79 they'd had better construction techniques, stronger materials, or if digital technology had existed that allowed them to digitally erase any support posts, the extra gear boxes never would've been added. I don't mind them, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who feels they make the ship look better, but to me they take away from the graceful arc of the lower hull.
latest.png
 
To me, the five gear version is a design compromise necessitated by the realities of 20th century Earth engineering. The Falcon itself is a product of an endless set of compromises, but Lucas, Johnston, and McQuarrie designed the ship for three gears and it's only because of Lucas' desire to build the entire ship full-size that they had to add extra gear just to keep the set from falling apart. If in1978-79 they'd had better construction techniques, stronger materials, or if digital technology had existed that allowed them to digitally erase any support posts, the extra gear boxes never would've been added. I don't mind them, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who feels they make the ship look better, but to me they take away from the graceful arc of the lower hull.
View attachment 778266
That is probably my favorite image of the falcon that there is. I remember it from one of those picture storybooks as a kid. I never had it, but I got it from the library all the time
 
I se your point about the original Falcon design, but sometimes circumstances can cause positive consequences. The Reliant was designed one way but approved upside down, they they had to rework the ship to work that way resulting in a mean, hunkered down adversary vessel. To me, and this is just my opinion, the Falcon looks more like an heavy, functional machine with the five gear configuration. A lot of Star wars ships down play the landing gear to the point of absurdity- the Naboo Cruiser sat on three tiny pointed struts, OK if you kept the repulsor-lifts on, but if you had to take the whole power grid off line it would either crumple the struts or sink into the ground.
 
I se your point about the original Falcon design, but sometimes circumstances can cause positive consequences. The Reliant was designed one way but approved upside down, they they had to rework the ship to work that way resulting in a mean, hunkered down adversary vessel. To me, and this is just my opinion, the Falcon looks more like an heavy, functional machine with the five gear configuration. A lot of Star wars ships down play the landing gear to the point of absurdity- the Naboo Cruiser sat on three tiny pointed struts, OK if you kept the repulsor-lifts on, but if you had to take the whole power grid off line it would either crumple the struts or sink into the ground.


I love the republic gunship. It has no time for landing gear.
 
It would be fantastic to have in 1:48 (or even 1:72) but I am afraid would would get flats for Troopers. It just not look right empty.

It had some great variants in the Clone Wars series, search lights instead of those sperical gun pods, wild hull color designs...
 
It would be fantastic to have in 1:48 (or even 1:72) but I am afraid would would get flats for Troopers. It just not look right empty.

It had some great variants in the Clone Wars series, search lights instead of those sperical gun pods, wild hull color designs...
Absolutely. Who wouldn't want two or three of them?

And it's so conducive to dioramas.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 
the Naboo Cruiser sat on three tiny pointed struts, OK if you kept the repulsor-lifts on, but if you had to take the whole power grid off line it would either crumple the struts or sink into the ground.

I thought those gear were appropriate to the design and function of the ship as a elegant diplomatic craft used to ferry royalty and politicians to and from populated planets. I assumed it wasn't designed with the intention of going to outer rim desert planets filled with scum and villainy. Repulsor-lift technology in the GFFA seems to be based on some sort of passive power force that works independently of a craft's main power. Luke's landspeeder had no need for struts or pads. Even when it was "off" and parked, it still hovered. The same is true for the star destroyer in Rogue One or even Cloud City. Would anyone live on a floating city that depended on an active power source to keep from falling out of the sky? The city's reactor likely powered the grid and held the city in a fixed position, but I bet that if the power failed the repulsor-lifts would keep the city afloat. Why some craft even have landing gear at all is pretty arbitrary, but being science fiction there's always a contrived explanation somewhere. :cheers
 
I thought those gear were appropriate to the design and function of the ship as a elegant diplomatic craft used to ferry royalty and politicians to and from populated planets. I assumed it wasn't designed with the intention of going to outer rim desert planets filled with scum and villainy. Repulsor-lift technology in the GFFA seems to be based on some sort of passive power force that works independently of a craft's main power. Luke's landspeeder had no need for struts or pads. Even when it was "off" and parked, it still hovered. The same is true for the star destroyer in Rogue One or even Cloud City. Would anyone live on a floating city that depended on an active power source to keep from falling out of the sky? The city's reactor likely powered the grid and held the city in a fixed position, but I bet that if the power failed the repulsor-lifts would keep the city afloat. Why some craft even have landing gear at all is pretty arbitrary, but being science fiction there's always a contrived explanation somewhere. :cheers

The crashed Star Destroyer on Jakku shows that there is some power source needed to keep it afloat like in Rogue One

So because Luke's speeder floats when not "powered on" , does not mean there is not a power source keeping it working.

Kind of like how your car clock for example keeps running when you car is "powered off" when you turn off the engine and take out the key, but disconnect the battery and the clock stops
 
I thought those gear were appropriate to the design and function of the ship as a elegant diplomatic craft used to ferry royalty and politicians to and from populated planets. I assumed it wasn't designed with the intention of going to outer rim desert planets filled with scum and villainy. Repulsor-lift technology in the GFFA seems to be based on some sort of passive power force that works independently of a craft's main power. Luke's landspeeder had no need for struts or pads. Even when it was "off" and parked, it still hovered. The same is true for the star destroyer in Rogue One or even Cloud City. Would anyone live on a floating city that depended on an active power source to keep from falling out of the sky? The city's reactor likely powered the grid and held the city in a fixed position, but I bet that if the power failed the repulsor-lifts would keep the city afloat. Why some craft even have landing gear at all is pretty arbitrary, but being science fiction there's always a contrived explanation somewhere. :cheers
The idea of capital ships in atmosphere has always bothered me. They should be built there and stay in orbit around planets. It's not like the enterprise should ever land.

Plus, having gravity being an issue is a great plot device. Just look at Exodus part 2 on BSG to see it done right.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
 

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