Question for studio scale X-wing experts.

So this may have been answered but I am about to bite the bullet and buy a studio scale X-Wing and I am between an original Captain Cardboard kit or the Galactic Resin kit. I know the Captain Cardboard is molded off an original pyro and the Galactic Resin is based off the Maxi Brute. Other then that what are the differences? Just having a hard time deciding and thought I would ask for some input. Thanks in advance!

I'm far from an expert, but there are rumors that Galactic Resin is recasting at it's finest.

The captain cardboard kit is not molded from a pyro. The fuselage nose area is thinner in proportion to what an x-wing should be.

I don't know much about the galactic resin version. It seems to have a fuller forward fuselage. The galactic resin y-wing isn't very accurate in the details, but I don't know about the x.

While I am NOT an expert on x-wings, or casting/recasting parts, I'll tell you what I know about the GR x-wing.

I have heard a couple of people acuse GR of being a recast, but I dont believe it is.

For reference, I currently own:
1)a built Salzo V3.1
2) an Icons x-wing
3) 2 Captain Carboard x-wing kits, one of which I am building now. One is a new casting from Scott, the other several years old.
4) an unbuilt Salzo V4

A year or two ago, I received the Icons x-wing in horrible shape. Pretty beat up, as well as the typical wing warpage. I contacted Ray Perez of GR, and asked him if he would cast a complete set of s-foils for me. I wanted everything, essentially, but the laser cannons, and the fuselage to use to restore the Icons ship. Ray made the parts, and I restored my x-wing, and it now is a nice piece in my collection.

Since then, I have had the opportunity to aquire several other x-wings, mentioned above.
I have compared parts I received from GR directly with the x-wing kits I have now. Dimensions are similar, but not the same, between the two Salzo models and the GR. Even my untrained eye can see casting flaws in different places between the Salzo and GR. The Saturn cans, and the Phantom engines are an example here. I see different flaws in different places between the models. I know very little about resin casting, but I would think I that if one directly copied parts from someone else, the same flaws would show up between parts.

There are several differences in construction technique too. Similar, (as I imagine one would expect with 2 models of the same subject), but NOT the same.
There are several detail differences too. One example is (I don't know the correct term for this part, so bear with me) the parts embedded in the trailing edge of the wings. Salzo uses a separately molded piece, and a brass rod to fill the recess. The GR wing, the assembly is molded into the recess. The detail difference is very apparent. The chips are different, as are the details on the inside of the wings. Similar, but different.

There is virtually no similarity between the CC and the GR wings...not even close. They are completely different dimentially. Saturn cans and F4 engines are the same, but I see flaws in different places between them. Hell, there are casting differences between the 2 CC models!

I cannot speak for the GR fuselage, but I do understand it to be, from several sources, based on the Maxi Brute fuselage. I do not own either one to compare.

People can say what they want about the GR x-wing, but my direct comparison of the parts I have convince me that it is NOT a recast.

I have a Captain Cardboard and compared to a hero or pyro I find the fuselage height isn't quite tall enough, so I'm padding out both halves of the fuselage with styrene sheet. The fuselage also dips down where it meets the nose on top which need correcting, and the nose is small compared to Red 2, which I'm hoping to get a bit closer to.

My raw Captain Cardboard


Areas I'm bulking up to get closer to the Hero Red 2


I can often spot a GR by looking at its cockpit, as it's isn't as tall as the Salzo v4 and the area below the cockpit and the centre line is taller. I can spot a v4 as the nose is thicker on the bottom half of the fuselage near the nose.

GrahamT said:

I have a Captain Cardboard and compared to a hero or pyro I find the fuselage height isn't quite tall enough....

Click to expand...

Nor is the CC even close to be wide enough. And the nose....

Jkirkon said:

Nor is the CC even close to be wide enough. And the nose....

Click to expand...

Oh that's interesting, I've never noticed that.

It's more the side view that bothers me though, it looks off, whereas the front elevation doesn't jump out as much.

As you can imagine, I'll be posting my finished X in the "general" section, as this section is about getting closer to the originals.

What about the Nexus X-wing? I guess you can't get those now?
http://www.nexus-models.com/x-wing-124-model.html

The other day I was working on my CC, (building it essentially OOB, as I enjoy it for what it is), and I was struck about how SMALL is looks as compared to my Salzos. I broke out the calipers, and was amazed about how much they differ in all dimensions.

The CC nose is especially horrible...out of proportion with the rest of the fuselage entirely. Nice model, but totally out of proportion.

The Nexus is very cool with the motorized armature and Adurino controller. Expensive.
There is a gentleman on this site who has one and started a build thread on it awhile back. Looks like a VERY nice model.

Guess i will chime in a bit...

The only thing from the GR kit that looks "borrowed" to me, was the phantom engine parts. There are some distinct markers that look like they came from the CC, my V1 or V2. There may be another small part here or there. I have stated before that as the pattern owner, I have no problem with that since they are pretty much donor parts, if i was asked i would have said ok.

Captain Cardboard does sometimes still sell copies of his original kit, it's more of a legacy kit than anything else at this point. He does so with my blessing as the pattern owner, i think he uses sales from it to buy materials to help fulfill his outstanding kit orders for his 2001 stuff. I would not want to stand in the way of that with other GK supporters waiting in the wings for those 2001 kits, so it's fine if you see him selling some on ebay or his site.

Jason and I are updating the V4 to be a V4 Blue Leader/Red 2 dedicated kit. The usual V4 will get a remold too, but there will be an additional option to have a Red2 dedicated kit, with the correct panel lines/torpedo tubes etc for Red 2. Think like May time frame.
mike

In my humble opinion we are all recasters. If you've put any part from a kit that you didn't scratch build yourself into a mold you are a recaster. Plain and simple. I love this community, but hell if you are reproducing any studio scale model it's not yours to begin with. I'm thankful for all of you recasters that have given me the opportunity to have some great recreations of the originals I grew up loving.

Because it absolutely bugs the crap out of me, I took the liberty of measuring the F4 engines of the CC V1 (I think it's a V1), GR, and Salzo V3.1.
They all have different measurements.

CC F4 engine cans 3.755"
GR F4 engine cans 3.722"
V3.1 F4 engine cans 4.022"

The CC, and GR cans are pretty close in length, but some differences in casting flaws I saw make me doubt it's a recast.

Ok this is awesome getting a lot of great info here. The CC kit I was looking at is on eBay he is selling five of them for $325 each.

I'd consider the CC to be the least accurate of the studio scale x-wings. It IS a nice model, but if you want the most accurate x-wing out there, you'll want a Salzo V4.

In these pics you can see the size difference between the CC fuselage and the Salzo V4. The difference is actually quite dramatic.

My honest opinion is that the Salzo is the more accurate kit by FAR, but the CC is an easier model to build.

I may be biased, but the new V4 Red2/Blue1 Mike will be coming out with will be worth the wait. Bigly, best, huge, etc

moffeaton said:

I may be biased, but the new V4 Red2/Blue1 Mike will be coming out with will be worth the wait. Bigly, best, huge, etc

Click to expand...

I need another x-wing like I need another hole in my head, but I might have to get one of the new V4's...

Guess I'll add what little I can to this X-Wing love-fest...



- - - Updated - - -

And before you ask ;
--Maxi-Brute (any question there?)
--Mike's version ****-if-I-know-cause-I-can't-remember
--Beaz's Icons (comped in)
--Your standard, everyday CCX
--Hasbro FX toy
--And so on, and so on...

WOW - That's a really helpful comparison...
... and the one from PHArchivist.

Makes me think I should "re-skin" the whole fuselage in styrene, maybe with a new cockpit included, not separate.

That would also help with the other thing I was worried about: how to re-sculpt the proton tubes Red 2 size. It;s easier to start from a shape cut from styrene, than Dremeling the shape into the raw resin.

THANKS ALL!

Jkirkon said:

In these pics you can see the size difference between the CC fuselage and the Salzo V4. The difference is actually quite dramatic.

My honest opinion is that the Salzo is the more accurate kit by FAR, but the CC is an easier model to build.


View attachment 700279View attachment 700280

Click to expand...

If you change the fuselage that much, the stock s-foils from CC aren't going to look right. Those proportions are going to have to change too.

Just food for thought...

Personally, I'd build it as-is.

Was mentioned before - this is more of a legacy kit now. A marker point in the history of the hobby and the subject, and an indication of how far we've come. For what it's worth, it is - at least a bit, and dare I say - historical...