Beyond The Sprues
Current and Finished Projects => Physical Models => Scifi and Fantasy => Topic started by: ScranJ51 on May 02, 2016, 04:42:00 PM
-
79 SQN RAAF
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-1_zpsf1ad6ae6.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-1_zpsf1ad6ae6.jpg.html)
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-2_zps7f026e57.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-2_zps7f026e57.jpg.html)
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-3_zps83394d3a.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-3_zps83394d3a.jpg.html)
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-4_zps74faacb3.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/1-72%20aircraft/Angel-4_zps74faacb3.jpg.html)
-
:)
1/72 I presume.
-
Nice one
-
I really like the design!
... but I hate the Airfix kit! Why won't they spend a little effort on making a better version? :(
-
Nice one Scran! Now all they need in an RAAF version of Cloudbase to go with it.... >:D
:)
1/72 I presume.
Endlessly debatable...
The Airfix kit is allegedly 1/72nd scale, but it's actually significantly 'under-scale' compared to the alleged dimensions of the 'real thing'. Of course, since the 'real thing' is entirely fictional, and since movie/TV people are notorious for fudges and inconsistencies, you can argue about it 'til the cos come home. It definitely looks small when compared to other 1/72nd models though, particularly when you consider it's claimed capabilities, which are something like a mixture of an F-16 and an SR-71!* When RetroKit made their resin cockpit and pilot sets for the Angel, they provided two figures: a genuinely 1/72nd scale standing figure and a much smaller one that actually fits in the cockpit....
* Something I'll get around to one of these years is a 'realistic' 1/72nd scale Angel Interceptor: current planning has it based on an RF-101C Voodoo airframe with English Electric P.10 style ramjet wings...
-
Isn't that the problem with most scifi planes/ships/whatever in movies/TV that they are ludicrously undersized for their capabilities and/or extremely impractical too?
In this particular example (not being at all familiar with what it's supposed to do), I can understand that in real world, the landing skids on this one are influenced by X-15 and other high-speed experimental aircraft of the time. Which of course make perfect sense if you try to land on an unpaved salt lake bed, but much less so if landing on a prepared runway or an aircraft carrier. Nevermind that even if you had full VTOL capabilities, you couldn't taxi at all with those skids, so you would have to do even the smallest position changes by hovering - or be towed around and again, wheels would be much more practical for that, there might be a reason why most of the traffic is on wheels and not on skids...
The kit is well-done nevertheless and looks nice in those markings :)
-
It's always a treat to see a model spiced up with 'roos!
It looks so natural as a RAAF bird it's almost scary.
Nice work!
Brian da Basher
-
Isn't that the problem with most scifi planes/ships/whatever in movies/TV that they are ludicrously undersized for their capabilities and/or extremely impractical too?
Not only that, there's a quite a few cases where the interior sets don't match up to the exterior models at all!
In this particular example (not being at all familiar with what it's supposed to do), I can understand that in real world, the landing skids on this one are influenced by X-15 and other high-speed experimental aircraft of the time. Which of course make perfect sense if you try to land on an unpaved salt lake bed, but much less so if landing on a prepared runway or an aircraft carrier. Nevermind that even if you had full VTOL capabilities, you couldn't taxi at all with those skids, so you would have to do even the smallest position changes by hovering - or be towed around and again, wheels would be much more practical for that, there might be a reason why most of the traffic is on wheels and not on skids...
Landing pads/skids are a classic example of the Rule-Of-Cool winning far too often in popular sci-fi. Just about anything is better on wheels in practice. The weird thing is that many, if not most of the normal aircraft in the GA series had wheels, so it's not like there was a practical SFX reason for avoiding them.
The Angel Interceptors were general purpose fighter-bombers that operated over a huge patrol range, at hypersonic speeds, from a flying 'aircraft carrier' called Cloudbase. The skids engaged with tracks on the deck for a catapult launch that looks fairly sensible, and since all aircraft deck/hangar handing was automated, you might plausibly imagine them being moved around on pallets that the skids are also locked into.
However, it's the landing that was batshit-crazy: Cloudbase had 'landing platforms' on the back end that elevated to 45 deg, and the Angel approached them in a nose-up post-stall maneuver, aided by a forward-firing braking rocket at the tip of the tail fin, it's skids eventually hooking onto the platform! What could go wrong, huh? Why they didn't just do an arrested landing on that nice long deck is beyond me...
In the later animated (as opposed to puppet) series, they addressed quite a lot of this. The Angel Interceptors were much larger and more credible, and they landed and took off in sensible carrier-fashion from Cloudbase. At the front end of the deck there was a turntable elevator that delivered the aircraft to a conveyor-belt system that took it back ot the other end of the deck, refuelling and re-arming it as it went, before another tuntable elevator took it back up to the deck again for another launch.
-
OK - it is 1/72nd.
Re the size - for comparison:
beside a F-20 Tigershark
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/Models-2%20001_640x480_zps6piwcova.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/Models-2%20001_640x480_zps6piwcova.jpg.html)
beside a Spit PR19
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/Models-2%20002_640x480_zpsozv2cjhv.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/Models-2%20002_640x480_zpsozv2cjhv.jpg.html)
beside an F35 JSF
(http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/Models-2%20003_640x480_zpsocfkzg2g.jpg) (http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/Models-2%20003_640x480_zpsocfkzg2g.jpg.html)
|Hope that helps!
-
OK - it is 1/72nd.
Re the size - for comparison:
beside a F-20 Tigershark
But the point is that in the show, it seems to be considerably bigger than a Tigershark, more akin to an F-18 if anything.
-
OK - it is 1/72nd.
Ta - I actually have a 1/48 resin one (yep, bragging! ;))
Re the size - for comparison:
beside a F-20 Tigershark
([url]http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa319/scran-Aus/Models-2%20001_640x480_zps6piwcova.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s203.photobucket.com/user/scran-Aus/media/Models-2%20001_640x480_zps6piwcova.jpg.html[/url])
Hmmm...that gives me ideas. Maybe do as a light fighter in the same context as a F-5.
In fact, the Angel interceptor does bear a passing resemblance (IMHO) to some of the CAC concepts such as the XP-65:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/82a2d01f.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/XP-65%20etc/scan0010.jpg)
-
Alternatively, one might do the Angel Interceptor in a diorama with a SA-43 Endo/Exo-Atmospheric Attack Jet ("Hammerhead")...after all, the Hammerheads have already been seen on a RAAF base ;)
(http://spaceaboveandbeyond.tv/graphics/props/hh-fullsize.jpg)
(http://spaceaboveandbeyond.tv/graphics/behind/hammer03.jpg)
Maybe say the Interceptor was the RAAF's equivalent fighter?
-
Always amuses me how they build a sleek and 'aerodynamic' craft and then put a flat-panel gunship canopy on it... ;D
It's not, as most people think, for 'rule-of-cool' reasons: it's to make close-up filming easier, when the camera is outside the cockpit looking into it. A curved canopy would cause troublesome glints and reflections of the studio, whereas a flat panel can be taken out completely and the frame still leave the shape of the canopy defined.