I agree with you. Looking at your comparison photos between the MB and the pyro, I don't know how you couldn't make the argument that they took measurements at the very least from an original fuselage.
Production-Sourced Star Wars Pyro X-Wing Fuselage Pattern
- Thread starter -... . .- --..
- Start date
Check out this thread.Page 8,post#156.
http://www.studioscalemodelers.com/forums/thread-176-page-8.html?highlight=Maxi-Brute
Dave
http://www.studioscalemodelers.com/forums/thread-176-page-8.html?highlight=Maxi-Brute
Dave
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
Since this thread isn't really about the Estes Maxi-Brute X-Wing, I would actually prefer that you simply link to that stuff at studioscalemodelers.com in this thread, at most, instead of copying and pasting text from there to here.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Last edited:
JMChladek
Sr Member
The primary reason for the slightly oversized nose on the Maxi-Brute was likely due to the need for the kit to have a body tube inside to handle the rocket motor and recovery system. A 22 mm diameter D sized engine is needed to get the thing off the pad, so that is the inner diameter Estes needed to go with. I suppose they could have slimmed down the nose ever so slightly, but they needed a bit of a cushion for strength to handle the stresses of flight.
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
I think you're right. And they probably had to make any number of tweaks to the geometry of the rest of their fuselage pattern in order for that thing to actually fly.
JMChladek
Sr Member
Surprisingly, on the Maxi-Brute with the exception of the slightly oversized nose they did keep the proportions pretty close otherwise. Except for the fact that the engines lacked the greeblie bits on them to keep the weight down, the only non-scale allowance for flight were four stabilizing fins on the engine exhaust tubes. I am amazed at how much work they did and how quickly it was done as I seem to recall Estes got their models out before MPC got their styrene X-Wing kit released. Of course, Estes didn't have to tool up as much plastic either as the majority of the wing and gun construction involved balsa wood, tubes and cardboard.
On their standard 18mm engine powered X-Wing, they bloated the fuselage a bit relative to the rest of the dimensions to get the 18mm body tube to fit inside (similar to what Kenner did with their toy, but not as pronounced). I had one and the thing flew okay, but its parachute was a bit smaller than it should have been (needed to fit inside the body tube) and it wasn't a matter of IF it would break parts on landing, but rather how many.
Now to bring it full circle to "prop" status, I recently watched the Star Wars Holiday Special (I know, eye bleach moment) and the "wood carved" X-Wing model that the Wookie father is carving looks very much like an Estes standard X-Wing fuselage painted in wood color.
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Now we are talking !
Glad to see you back on it Kevin !
Maybe you could keep a casting with all the dings, airbubbles etc to keep an archive of it.
If you're planing to clean up all your castings, just save time and do it once and for all !
Keep up the good work !
Glad to see you back on it Kevin !
Maybe you could keep a casting with all the dings, airbubbles etc to keep an archive of it.
If you're planing to clean up all your castings, just save time and do it once and for all !
Keep up the good work !
I think you're the kind of person who wants authenticity, so I'd say stay with it as is.
MonsieurTox
Master Member
Smooth !!!
I guess keep the miscribbed lines that were on the original pattern, but remove the paint chipping and the seams where pieces have been glued back together !
Now put that canopy on !
I guess keep the miscribbed lines that were on the original pattern, but remove the paint chipping and the seams where pieces have been glued back together !
Now put that canopy on !
imaginager
Sr Member
Being one who has stepped back from this hobby (but who still appreciates your exacting work), I find that my perspective has somewhat changed in the rivet-counting arena. But that aside, your thread is about a pattern (as opposed to recreating a specific model)? My assumption is no models will be built from this pattern for the original intended purpose: on-screen pyrotechnics. So, the spirit of the pattern is to capture and duplicate the best elements of the models that issued from it for the purpose of creating display models. Seems like the metrics for such a model (in order of importance) are correct proportions, scribe detailing/panels, and construction technique(s). It's almost counter-intuitive to invest hundreds of hours recreating something that was originally assembled as quickly as possible for a very short service life. All of that said, you're the customer. Make yourself happy!
-... . .- --..
Sr Member
Thanks Allan, you also <still> have me figured out better than I do myself.
I do want to build the most accurate pyro fuselage pattern so that I can mold and cast multiple pyro models and then at a minimum, build replicas all of the "hero" pyro models. And I'm also striving to have the basis for another go at a the elusive hero fuselage, rendered from the same source material.
I do want to build the most accurate pyro fuselage pattern so that I can mold and cast multiple pyro models and then at a minimum, build replicas all of the "hero" pyro models. And I'm also striving to have the basis for another go at a the elusive hero fuselage, rendered from the same source material.
