Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum


Go Back   Space 1999 Eagle Transporter Forum > Main Mission > Launch Pad

Notices

SPONSORED BY
&

Reply Bookmark and Share
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-06-2017, 01:56 AM   #1
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default (Real) Eagle scale vs R2 22" model scale ????

I don't know if this topic has come up here but I know over the years there's been some discussion around the net about how long a real Eagle would be. I found this topic over in the Space 1999: Catacombs:

http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/...aglescale.html

And was planning on trying to find similar info on the net but I never got around to it. The most stated length for a real Eagle is 76 feet although there's arguments on it being larger: 84-88 feet, 96 feet, 100 feet, 102-111 feet. Recently, I was looking at the R2 22" Eagle model kit and the stated scale of 1/48. Some quick calculations work out to 88 feet (22" * 48 = 1,056" / 12 = 88 feet). Personally from the info on the catacombs alone, I feel that a real Eagle would be at least 100 feet long. The argument to me is where the length falls between 100-111 feet.

Going by the R2 22" Eagle kit, I was playing around the numbers to see what the scale would be if you go by 100 - 104 feet range. I used ScaleMaster and under 'Scale' > model size (22") & subject size (102 feet) = scale is 1/56. I feel this is more closer to what I believe is a better scale factor. However, this comes down to a personal chose - ie - what do you believe should a "real" Eagle length be? (Side note: the model is listed as 22" long, however I don't know what the exact length it actually is. Know that and plugging that more accurate number into the equation would produce a more accurate scale number). Anyone have any other info or viewpoints?
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2017, 04:15 PM   #2
Richard Baker
Eagle Pilot
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warrior, Alabama
Posts: 527
Default

IIRC wasn't the 22" filming miniature determined to be 1:48 scale due to the fact the astronauts used in the cabin were recycled 1:48 scale figures from a 1:48 Gemini model kit?

I don't think anything on the Eagle matches the only thing we have to really go by for determining size- the interior sets. The pod interior and doors do not match filming model, the cockpit is totally whacked (pilots sit below the floor line, not only would you not see out the top windows but the windows would be about a foot from your face).

I have seen many descriptions attempting to lock down the size of a full scale Eagle and all of them make excellent points. I think this is the case of what looks appropriate to your own eye...

Just about every Anderson vehicle has some contradictions in size- from Stingray, Thunderbird 2 to Skydiver it is had to reconcile how large each craft is, it often varies from scene to scene. That is just part of his universe
Richard Baker is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2017, 12:15 AM   #3
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default

One of the biggest problems is the many discrepancies between the interior built sets and the exterior model. With the passenger pod, catacombs has a picture of the forward wall with the interior superimposed and you can see the angle of the roof doesn't match between the two and the floor on the interior set goes lower than the exterior (to fix that error you would have to make the exterior of the passenger pod taller which also helps with the space for the stairs under the side doors).

Two of the most glaring problems (for me) is the forward and rear Eagle sections (most people call them the "walkways", although I don't like that term) and the back end of the Command Module. I can't understand why they built the model with such a super thin corridor (about 3 feet wide in real life measurements) with a door stuck on the end of it. There's not enough space for what we see in the interior set and there's no way the door can slide open. I have said many times that that section needs to be about double the width in order to solve those 2 problems. (If someone were to take the forward and rear corridor pieces and put them together side by side, that's how big it should have been.) The back end of the Command module is too round with no door on the outside. Most people fix this by flattening the back end and adding the door (which is the correct thing to do).

With the pilot and copilot chairs sunk down into floor, you don't realize the problem by watching the show. I didn't see it until I saw the Product Enterprise 22" Eagle model and the pilot figures where raised by 2 steps up in order to get the head level so you can see them through the cockpit windows. As to the 1/48 scale figures (in the cockpit) - these are in a "sitting down" position. Has anyone got a 1/48 scale figure in a standing position and compared it to the Passenger pod side doors, the front doors and the height of the interior of the Passenger pod as well was the height of the "walkways" and see if the scale is correct?

Last edited by Tech_Designer; 20-06-2017 at 12:19 AM.
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2017, 01:07 PM   #4
Richard Baker
Eagle Pilot
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warrior, Alabama
Posts: 527
Default

Pod side doors are too short for a person to step through without stooping.
IIRC later shows removed the walkway corridor set between the cockpit and pod so you just stepped through one into the other.
Richard Baker is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2017, 04:13 PM   #5
Slate Mcleod
Communications Officer
 
Slate Mcleod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,260
Default

Well I used 1/72 scale figures with mine and think they look the perfect size. The 1/48 pilots are way too large, I wish they had produced 2 sizes in the kit. However we have to remember that this is a 22 inch sized replica of the 44 inch STUDIO model rather than a model of the actual spacecraft itself.




Last edited by Slate Mcleod; 20-06-2017 at 04:15 PM.
Slate Mcleod is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 20-06-2017, 11:13 PM   #6
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default

Kind of confirms that the 1/48 scale is not correct. Also interesting that it could go past the 1/56 scale that I thought it be and go up to 1/72! Slate, your lunar buggy looks great, where did you get it?
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2017, 11:25 PM   #7
Slate Mcleod
Communications Officer
 
Slate Mcleod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech_Designer View Post
Kind of confirms that the 1/48 scale is not correct. Also interesting that it could go past the 1/56 scale that I thought it be and go up to 1/72! Slate, your lunar buggy looks great, where did you get it?
The buggy is one Sean Huxter's (P Marlowe on here) it's a lovely little 3D print he did via Shapeways, cheap and cleans up and paints real well. It's marketed at 1/48 also as its in scale with the Eagle 22 inch - just not the pilots ! I had to print my own decals for it. You have to buy the wheels and chassis seperate but only about £20, decal paper a mere £5 for five sheets. As you can see it scales up perfect to that 1/72 Astronaut and the Eagle if you think about the height of the Pod doorway. Larson designs also do one but regards the shape personally I think Sean nailed it better, but both are good. Larsons just a tad smaller in length but requires less clean up as its resin not a 3D print. But at this size, clean up is 10 mins with some wet & dry anyway, so I would say just personal choice. I have pre ordered the NWA2 diarama so will be real interested how the actual Round 2 version of the buggy
scales up - or down - in comparison. Supposedly astonauts come with this kit - that will be real interesting what size they are!

https://www.shapeways.com/product/2C...ionId=58349722

Last edited by Slate Mcleod; 20-06-2017 at 11:49 PM.
Slate Mcleod is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2017, 11:42 PM   #8
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default

Thanks Slate. I came across that very model the other day and was thinking about picking it up. It has other options about more detail and I couldn't see a difference between them. I was wondering if they make 1/60 figures and see how that compares with the 1/72 (since 1/60 is mid-way between 1/48 and 1/72 scale).

edit:I found the wheels and the seats:

https://www.shapeways.com/product/FM...ionId=61703263

I heard about that accessory set that R2 was planning to release but like a few others, I just wanted the lunar buggy only.

Last edited by Tech_Designer; 21-06-2017 at 12:06 AM.
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2017, 09:17 AM   #9
Scifitodd
Forum Supporter
 
Scifitodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 379
Default

The Round2 22" eagle is exactly half scale of the 44" original screen used eagles, the 44" eagles were determined to be Studio scale, using 1/24 materials to create the models they branded them as 1/24 scale which would make the 22" eagle 1/48 scale. That's what determined the scale and nothing else. Read below for Round2's explanation for the assigned scale.

The kit will measure 21 5/8” long, which is exactly half the length of the 44” (43 1/4") filming miniature that was used during filming of the show. The “true” length of the ship has always been a point of contention. Like the Galileo shuttle in Star Trek, it has the Tardis-effect of being bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Most glaring is the fact that the doors on the personnel pod aren’t to scale with the doors martin Landau stepped through. The case can be made that the ship was longer. We landed on this length for two reasons. 1) 1/24 scale modeling materials were used to create both this miniature as well as the surrounding environments such as the MBA interior shots of the Eagle hangar. So, if you want to scratch build the environment to match the show, going exactly ½ scale from that is ideal. 2) From the development budget standpoint, the kit parts would have outgrown the amount of tooling we had estimated. Even just a couple inches longer threw everything off and driven up the price of the tooling to the point we could not have managed it. In the end, we figured the market would accept a kit in the area of 2’ long that was properly detailed even if the scale stated on the box was to be ignored. In order to sidestep the debate, I generally refer to it as the 22” Eagle and only state the scale for the benefit of the parties that require us to assign a scale.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Eagle-blog-2.jpg (137.4 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg Eagle-blog-3.jpg (29.9 KB, 10 views)
__________________
Scifitodd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Scifitodd is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2017, 09:38 AM   #10
Scifitodd
Forum Supporter
 
Scifitodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 379
Default

One more photo.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FullSizeRender.jpg (118.6 KB, 13 views)
__________________
Scifitodd
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Scifitodd is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 26-06-2017, 10:05 AM   #11
Boldman
Astrophysics Technician
 
Boldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 480
Default

Scale on SciFi models has always been approximate as there isn't a real thing to measure accurately. For the Eagle, we are building a model of a model so being accurate to the original model works for me. We also need to remember it was a TV series and not reality so if things don't fit inside so be it.

Personally I'm not interested in building "accurate" stage sets inside my model, as this is a half-scale model of the 44" I'm happy to try to accurately represent the 44" - well except I do tend to add extra lighting
Boldman is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:02 AM   #12
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scifitodd View Post
One more photo.
That was the photo that I was referring to earlier, where the floor needs to be lowered on the exterior and the angle of the roof doesn't match. I always wanted a modified Eagle model that would be less of the studio models and more of a 'real' Eagle with most or all of the interior. This issue has been bugging me for years. I thought about building my own Eagle model with the full interior, however that would require some changes. About 7 years ago I started to do some pictures on it. I'm starting from the interior and working my way out to the exterior. I have to make changes to the exterior in order to make it fit and also I'm making some aesthetics changes. I just have some drawings of the interior and I don't know if it would ever go beyond that to a building stage.

Last edited by Tech_Designer; Yesterday at 12:04 AM.
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 10:04 AM   #13
Slate Mcleod
Communications Officer
 
Slate Mcleod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Merseyside, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech_Designer View Post
That was the photo that I was referring to earlier, where the floor needs to be lowered on the exterior and the angle of the roof doesn't match. I always wanted a modified Eagle model that would be less of the studio models and more of a 'real' Eagle with most or all of the interior. This issue has been bugging me for years. I thought about building my own Eagle model with the full interior, however that would require some changes. About 7 years ago I started to do some pictures on it. I'm starting from the interior and working my way out to the exterior. I have to make changes to the exterior in order to make it fit and also I'm making some aesthetics changes. I just have some drawings of the interior and I don't know if it would ever go beyond that to a building stage.
Century Castings do an excellent pod interior kit that is more in scale...

Slate Mcleod is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM   #14
Richard Baker
Eagle Pilot
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Warrior, Alabama
Posts: 527
Default

That is a fantastic interior kit!
Richard Baker is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:31 PM   #15
Tech_Designer
Travel Tube Technician
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slate Mcleod View Post
Century Castings do an excellent pod interior kit that is more in scale...
I have that kit and it's great, although it has a few minor inaccuracies. The problem is that's the only part of the Eagle that you can do the interior. You can't do the forward or rear Eagle sections (because of the thin corridor) and can only do part of the command module (the rear wall). I have seen a couple of people that are building a large Eagle model (one is 52") that has the full interior and they had to make some changes to the exterior to accommodate that. I was thinking of doing the same.
Tech_Designer is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site and contents are copyright © Bernard Walsh 2010 all rights reserved, no reproduction of material in any form without written permission email: Bernie.walsh@mac.com