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 18-12-2005, 04:37 AM   #1
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default Scale of Airfix/MPC/AMT-ERTL kit (or SCALE: 1999)

Don't know if this is the place to post this or not, as I've just joined and haven't read every single board yet, but I figured it was as good a place as any... (I guess it could always get moved later if necessary.)

I've always thought that the Eagle in this size was about 1/100 scale. I never believed the old 1/76 designation, since I'd built model tank dioramas in that scale and knew that a 1/76 human figure was too large for the doorway on the passenger module. (The top of the doorframe only comes up to the figure's neck or chin.) Now that 1/76 scale seems to have been effectively phased out in favor of the more popular 1/72 scale, the "too large" problem becomes even bigger. (No pun intended. No, really, I didn't mean to... oh, never mind. )

I thought that the little figs that came with the "oversized control room" part of the Moonbase Alpha kit looked about the right size, and eventually found them to be about 1/110 scale when compared to similar-sized figs from various old Revell real-space rocket kits. I've also thought about 1/96 scale being close enough... heck, maybe the old 1/76 designation was a typo that was supposed to be 1/96! Anyway, in my own mind, I just figure "approximately 1/100 scale" works.

I've got a few more comments/ideas, but thought I'd just throw these out there for starters. Any comments?
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2005, 04:40 AM   #2
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Whoops! Looks like I started a new topic. Just ignore the stuff where I ponder about this being the right place to post. (I was on the 'accurizing the Airfix kit' board.)
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2005, 04:50 AM   #3
Eagle
Commander Ret.
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7,723
Default

Don't panic - your initial dimentia will descend into utter madness as you become more and more addicted to the place!

No doubt someone will be along shortly with an answer to your question.

The scales here http://www.eagletransporter.com/alleagles.asp are probably some way out.

I don't really care for scale much - as long as it's an Eagle
Eagle is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2005, 05:10 AM   #4
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Ah, yes, saw that page, which is partially what prompted me to bring up the topic here.

I like the term "micro-Eagle" for those cute little things that came with the Alpha kit (and were about twice as large as they should have been compared to the launch pads). Speaking of the micro-Eagles, I've been super-detailing them, as much as one can do so without going blind anyway. No, I'm not Dremmeling out the support spine or anything, but I am carefully carving out the engine bells & fuel cylinders, as well as the landing feet. I've also scratchbuilt different pods (cargo, flatbed & lab). Basically, I'm trying to make all the Eagle variants (including one with no central pod) that won't take up a ton of shelf space. (Ah, shelves, if only I had a few dozen more... and a large enough place to house them!) I eventually plan to make a "large" hanger to display them all, but of course that'll only be about 6" x 8".

I'm already addicted to this place, by the way. Didn't take long, did it?
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2005, 07:30 AM   #5
john_trek
Astrophysics Technician
 
john_trek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 313
Default

The Eagle scale question has been discussed here recently, but I don't recall which post it was buried in.

I think most everyone agrees that 1/72 is not realistic for the 12" Eagles. I'm modeling my Hanger Bay as if the Eagles were HO scale, which puts them at 1/87. If you place a HO figure inside the main Eagle Hatch, the figure is slightly taller than the door. This matches the series... if you watch the DVDs closely the actors stoop slightly to pass through them. And it allows me to buy HO scale ladders, stairs, handrails, figures....

1/100th or 1/110th ... whatever the figures from the Moonbase kit scale to... is also fairly reasonable. That scale actually makes the Eagle slightly bigger than it was supposed to be: on the outside, per what the original model makers were assuming. But if you consider the oversized cockpit set, and those wide corridors from the nose to the passenger module, then 1/100th is more realistic for fitting it all in there.

And if I recall correctly, the guy who made the really nice Eagle cutaway poster ... Robert Baldassari ... assumed an Eagle length greater than 100 feet.
http://www.space1999.net/~eagle/index.html
john_trek is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 18-12-2005, 04:35 PM   #6
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Darn... I had a reply, but got kicked off when I tried to post. One more time.

I saw the Eagle hangar pics you've posted, john_trek. The 1/87 scale doesn't look bad, and certainly gives you an edge by being able to buy pre-made ladders & stuff.

As for Roberto Baldassari's blueprints & cutaway poster, I recall that he also was concerned about the Eagle's size, noting that door & ceiling height would have been far too short if the old 1/76 scale designation were to be believed. (He actually had to "fudge" his plans just slightly in order to reconcile the interior sets with the exterior model; he added an extra storage rack to the connecting corridor & passenger module. Doesn't look bad at all, in my opinion!)

I always wanted to scratch build an interior to fit inside a 12" Eagle, but I've got to finish other projects before I start that one. (When I do get around to it, I should first photocopy reduce the blueprints to fit, just to make the job slightly easier.)
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 18-12-2005, 04:56 PM   #7
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

It's a long discussion which recurs many times but your estimation of 100th scale is not a bad guess. Without getting into the arguments involving sets which (a) don't fit the exterior and (b) contradict each other anyway, the 44" studio model is considered 1/24th scale, the 22" is 1/48th scale and the 11" model is 1/96th scale.

Roberto Baldasarri's posters were based on the interior sets and he did a fine job fudging them into the exterior but he had to increase the "real" size of the Eagle to do it. This was at odds to other on screen evidence such as shots of the landing party leaving the Eagle where the tops of the heads of six feet tall people (we assume) were at the same height as the lowest attitude thrusters on the leg pods. Based on the overall impression the series gave for the Eagles taking into account all the contradictory evidence, the model sizes quoted above are IMHO the correct scales but you won't make the sets actually fit.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2005, 04:16 AM   #8
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Interesting points so far, guys. Thanks!

As a slight aside, I had been wondering about the scale of the Dinky Eagles, which happen to be about the same size as the rather poor Japanese kit from... shucks! Was it Imai? Arii? Anyway, the one that's supposedly 1/110 scale. (That kit looks more like a model version of the old Mattell toy, rather than a model of a real Eagle. Of course, the Mattell toy didn't have wheels, but I digress...)
I figured, again based upon the size of the exterior hatch (and even the smaller 'interior' hatches on the ends of the passenger pod & service modules) that the Dinky Eagle scale is around 1/144. That is a somewhat popular model aircraft scale, which in recent times has seen the release of model armor (tanks). Getting figures & accessories in that scale shouldn't be too difficult. (Hangar project, here I come!)

All of my scale guesstimates assume a door height of 6 feet on the Eagles (which would account for taller people having to duck slightly, as john_trek pointed out). Of course, that means a bit of fudging/stretching (like Baldassari did) to get the interiors to fit, but I personally don't mind doing that.

I hope I'm not coming across as someone with a superior attitude about the scale issue, by the way. (You know, like "I'm right because a 6 foot door scales out to 1/n scale.") It's difficult to convey via typing a sincere interest at problem solving as it applies to a hobby!

Finally, I should start calling myself 'CR, master of parenthetical notation.' Sheesh! The worse part is that I actually speak that way, though only I see the parentheses when I talk.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2005, 04:41 AM   #9
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Something regarding 1/76 & 1/72 scales: I've noticed that a lot of 1/76 scale kits (mostly tanks and related armor) are being re-released as 1/72 these days. While I like the idea of having a universal scale for both aircraft & armor, I'm a little bothered by the merging of two different scales as one. Sure, the casual observer may not notice (nor care about) the slight size discrepancies between two "1/72 scale" Tiger tanks, even though one of them is truly 1/76 scale, but there is a size difference.


Umm.. I guess I'm really splitting hairs here, aren't I? Sorry, it's late where I am, and I'm tired. Guess I should go and actually build something instead of thinking/reading about it!
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 19-12-2005, 08:33 AM   #10
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

I have issues with HO/OO kits anyway. They can't be both. one is 1/87th the other is 1/76th. I'm afraid us Brits are to blame. "O" guage used to be the most popular model railway guage before the war but as electric motors got smaller, a more affordable size of model railway was developed called "HO" which meant "Half O guage". Unfortunately we weren't convinced in Britain that we could get these new electric motors into such small locomotives so we developed our own guage "OO". It uses the same identical size track but the bodies of the locomotives are enlarged and overscale for the width of the track hence the two effective scales.

The argument about the size of an Eagle will probably rage on so it's whatever size your mind's eye sees it. All you have to do is determine what length you want it to be in real life and then divide the length of whatever model you have in front of you into that figure and there's your scale.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 19-12-2005, 11:06 AM   #11
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2005, 12:29 AM   #12
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

Oh, sure, throw that pic in my face!

That's still one of the coolest matte paintings they used in Series 1, but I wonder, wouldn't the people be too tall for the door (if we could see the door)?
Saaaay... maybe that's where the 1/76 designation for the 12" model came from. The doors really do only come up to a person's neck!


edited to add:
I should say matte photos, rather than paintings, since there was a photo of the Eagle from that same angle. I saw it posted osomewhere on The Catacombs website.
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2005, 12:47 AM   #13
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

I agree. FX work is all smoke and mirrors. The shuttlecraft in TOS Star Trek was half as big again on the inside as it was on the outside. It's not intended to stand close scrutiny. It just has to look like it fits. They often make them bigger just so it's easier to get the film crew in. That's why it's dangerous to latch on to just one thing to establish the scale of these things.

I agree that's a good old fashioned CGI free FX shot. If you look closely, you can see the rear pod is a duplicate of the front one. The rear pod is printed up as if full size and mounted on the set. The rest of the ship is a smaller photo mounted on a piece of glass in front of the camera which is how the actors appear between the pods. Clever stuff and all in camera.
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 20-12-2005, 02:47 AM   #14
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

If you look closely, you can see the rear pod is a duplicate of the front one.

Oh, yeah! I never actually noticed that before, but it's obvious once it's pointed out.
I, too, love the "old days" before CGI; given enough time and effort, some really great effects were achieved. That's not to say that CGI is evil, but nowdays I'm less wow-ed by sfx because I know they're done with a computer. There's no longer the "How'd they do that?" reaction anymore.
On the other hand, there are times when I wouldn't mind seeing some sfx gaffs fixed with a little CGI editing. I'm talking about the really expensive CGI that actually looks real, not like animation. Space: 1999 could benefit from it, as long as the CGI artist doesn't go nuts and completely replace all the model shots with CGI.
As an aside, Space: 1999 was an early influence in my lifelong hobby of sf model building, so I tend to prefer miniature work in tv & films. (Another aside, my dad got me interested in military modeling.)
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2006, 05:47 PM   #15
MkIXHawk
Communications Officer
 
MkIXHawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Kent, UK
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CR
Interesting points so far, guys. Thanks!

As a slight aside, I had been wondering about the scale of the Dinky Eagles, which happen to be about the same size as the rather poor Japanese kit from... shucks! Was it Imai? Arii? Anyway, the one that's supposedly 1/110 scale. (That kit looks more like a model version of the old Mattell toy, rather than a model of a real Eagle. Of course, the Mattell toy didn't have wheels, but I digress...)
I figured, again based upon the size of the exterior hatch (and even the smaller 'interior' hatches on the ends of the passenger pod & service modules) that the Dinky Eagle scale is around 1/144. That is a somewhat popular model aircraft scale, which in recent times has seen the release of model armor (tanks). Getting figures & accessories in that scale shouldn't be too difficult. (Hangar project, here I come!)
Alternatively, your local Models Shop may well have Model Railway supplies in 'N' gauge.

again, this is a hybrid gauge/scale with british outline being 1/148 and US/Continental being 1/160. but the smaller difference in rations compared to that of OO/HO means that the two different items can work together
MkIXHawk is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote

Old 03-01-2006, 03:58 AM   #16
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

I'd considered 1/160 scale for figures, but thought it just looked a little too small. Of course, 1/148 is close enough to 1/144 to be the same scale! (The British versus US scale for 'N guage' may explain why I've sometimes found the relative size of human figures that are labelled 'N guage' to be different sizes, depending upon what company/country had manufactured them.)
I'm mostly stuck with 1/160 scale stuff here in the US. Still, some accessories such as ladders and railings in (or close to) 1/160 could be used as 1/144 if one doesn't look too closely. Plus, 1/144 scale models seem to be gaining popularity here; planes have been around for a while, but tanks are starting to show up, too. Should be able to get some interesting parts & accessories!

I'm rambling on a bit, aren't I?
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2006, 05:44 PM   #17
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

I've done some more research into scale, with the aid of a little file I forgot I had called ScaleMaster. I used it to confirm a few things regarding the scale of human figures from various kits.
The Revell Apollo-Soyuz kit (and thus presumably the Apollo-Eagle kit up for bid around this time) is definitely 1/96 scale. It has two seated astronauts (well, actually one astronaut & one cosmonaut) which resemble tiny versions of the Revell 1/24 scale Gemini astronauts. I was presuming that the 3/4" Apollo-Soyuz figs represent 6' tall humans for the calculations.
There are, as I'd mentioned a long time ago when I started this thread, some old Revell rocket kits in 1/110 scale (namely the Jupiter C and the Atlas-Mercury 'John Glenn' kits). They even have figures, which happen to be the exact same size as the Alphans from the Moonbase Alpha kit, 5/8" tall on average. Again assuming 6' height for the most of the figs, ScaleMaster confirms the 1/110 designation.
So we know at least that the Alphans area 1/110 scale.
I've mentioned elsewhere at this forum (and in PMs & e-mails off the forum) that the Glencoe re-release of Lindberg's 'Lunar Lander' has three astronauts. Glencoe states that the scale is 1/96, but the astronuts are the exact same size as the Alphans, so they at least are 1/110 scale. (The actual spaceship may be 1/96 scale.)

Now, back to the 12" Eagle... I'd assumed that the door height was 6' as well, but finally was able to dig out my Eagles and take more precise measurements. If the 3/4" door is indeed 6 feet tall, the 12" Eagle works out to be... (wait for it...) 1/96 scale! I double-checked the 1/110 figs against the door height (physically laying them in place) and they actually look a little shorter than the door. Can't believe I'd forgotten that, but oh, well. I had been satisfied with the "approximately 1/100 scale" thing I mentioned so long ago, so I wasn't as concerned about the minor size discrepancy.
On the other hand, the 1/96 scale Apollo-Soyuz figs do look a bit better compared not just to the door, but to the overall Eagle, and are closer to the sfx shot DX-SFX posted from "ATAP." The 1/87 scale figs in john_trek's hangar diorama-in-progress also look similar in size to that sfx shot. (I know, I shouldn't obsess over the door but it's the one thing we can use to reconcile the models with the sets to some degree... even though the models differed from the full-size sets. Sorry!)
Oh, the Apollo-Soyuz figs, when attached to their sprue/tree, can be placed in front of the 12" Eagle CM, and line up perfectly with the windows. They look good, size-wise, and seem to scale down reasonbly accurately from the 1/24 Gemini 'nauts used in the large-scale studio Eagle CM.

So which figures can one use with 12" Eagles? Ideally, it seems the 1/96 scale ones. However, I think some latitude could be had here, going as small as 1/110 and as large as 1/87. As has been said before, "whatever looks good" seems to be the rule of the day.

BUT...

Ignoring components and going with what the studio model makers assumed, the 11" studio model is 1/96 scale, as DX pointed out some time ago. So that makes the 12" models & replicas 1/88 scale, just a hair smaller than 1/87. Looks like john_trek nails it!

Sorry for apparently going 'round and 'round about this, and creating more contradictions than I'm solving. I'm just trying to brainstorm and get as much info out as I can, so each of us can make informed judgements...
And then just go ahead and do what we want in spite of it all!
CR is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2006, 05:51 PM   #18
doon
Communications Officer
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey U.S.A
Posts: 854
Default


CR, Yous is too much, nice work
doon is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2006, 06:34 PM   #19
DX-SFX
Chief Medical Officer
 
DX-SFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,094
Default

So if Nick Tate is 5' 10 3/4"......?
DX-SFX is off duty   Bookmark and Share Reply With Quote
Old 26-01-2006, 08:29 PM   #20
CR
Science Officer
 
CR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: wandering the universe
Posts: 5,472
Default

D'OH!!
CR 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 01:56 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