Tarkas

I remember that story -- and the ships. Large and black, with cylindrical hull and big, flat boxy engines on curved pylons, IIRC. Plus a T-tail? Will have to look and see if I can find any pictures. One of Mike Noble's excellent depictions of an XL5-era spacecraft that was pleasantly different from the WSP stuff, but of similar design ethos. Good story, too.

Yes, but only part... If it was a complete prop (if any survived), there might be a point to it, but one of 16 on the model? At that price? That's gouging, pure and simple, and one can only hope that no-one will take the seller up on it. Talk about having more money than sense...

Well, as far as I can tell from various sketches and a teaser film clip that have turned up in various places on the net, the new TB2 is quite similar to the original, but with with a few changes that I don't like. Basically, they look to have flattened it on the sides, so, for example, the booms joining the front and rear fuselages are something like rectangular in cross-section rather than the semi-ellipse that the original had. It makes her look blocky, which is not a compliment. The aerodynamics will not be as good, and neither will the structure. But it could be worse: the latest version of the new TB3 is dreadful! IMO, of course. The engines have also become blocks and the fins/pylons are not there at all! That was always one of the most elegant pieces of TB3's design, and first the movie and now the new series have ruined it. I know that the art team on each new version of a film or series will demand to have their input on this sort of thing -- to paraphrase Bones McCoy, "I know designers; they love to change things!" -- but someone in the production office should keep them under control, and it would help if they got someone in who knows a bit about air- and spacecraft, too (I'm available... ). As it is, the new TB3 is a prime example of change for change's sake. Not good.

I think I'm disappointed . You're doing a terrific job recreating the original 32-inch filming model, and more power to you for that; it's always been the "real" TB2 IMO, all the other ones being sort of squashed by comparison -- too short, not broad enough, and generally losing the elegant lines of the 'bird as we see her in the launch sequence -- but then you go and cover one of the hatch openings under the cockpit! You're not going to really recreate the original as we see it taxiing down the runway from the Cliff House to the launch ramp, with both sets of hatches obviously open, showing light shining through the fuselage? What a shame. <Removes tongue from cheek with retractable crowbar > Seriously, I'm joking. This is a brilliant job and I look forward to watching it progress -- but TB2 does have those hatches missing in that sequence, and I've always wondered why. Was that where the strings went to pull her along the runway? A surprising lapse on the part of Derek and co., but it was a very early shot, so perhaps they weren't quite up to speed yet, and didn't realise that their little gaffe would be seen so often. Kind of like TB1 rotating through 90 degrees coming down the ramp as it moves to its launch pad. Interestingly, I just checked my DVD of Thunderbirds Are Go!, for which they re-shot all the launches, and both those bloopers are fixed: TB1 no longer turns as she goes down the ramp, and TB2 has the hatches on both sides covered over with what looks not too different to your clear plasticard -- or it might have been painted a light grey. So keep up the good work in the knowledge that you're improving on what even the original SFX team did the first time!

A while ago, I got the Airfix 1/48 Bf 109E kit with the RAF and Japanese markings. I intend to build it as the former version and I'd like to accompany it with a Spitfire that it flew against in the various comparative trials that the A&AEE undertook. The question is, does anyone know which Spitfire(s) took part in the trials -- marks, serial numbers and any markings (code letters, etc.). I've tried to look, but without luck to date. Any references or suggestions would be gratefully received. Thanks in advance.

I'm planning a build of the Tamiya 1/350 USS Enterprise and I want to model her as she was c.1975 -- the Vietnam evacuation cruise, in fact. Can anyone point me towards references that detail the changes made to the ship between then and the later, post-1979 refit version that the kit portrays? First thing: I know about the island rebuild, and have that in hand. But what about the rest of the ship? I've looked at references like the Detail and Scale book and one of the photo CDs that WEM sell (I'm still waiting on the other; frak, they can be slow sometimes), plus various websites, but I can't find any detailed descriptions of the ship as she was in '75. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance.

At 250 feet long, TB2 in 1/144 would be just under 21" in length. TB1 would be either 8.33" or 9.58" long, depending on whether you accept the figure of 100 feet or 115 feet for her length; the former was the one most often quoted in the 1960s and the latter emerged in the 1990s. Zero X in 1/144... Gack! The only figure I've ever seen for her length (on the Thunderbirds Wiki) puts it at 1190 feet, so the model would be over 99" long -- that's over a foot longer than the original large filming model! Finagle only knows what the price would be.

Lovely work. One very minor correction that you could easily make without messing up what you've already done is that TB4 had the word "Thunderbird" on its rear above the "4" just as it had on the sides. Other than that, I think it looks great. I understand what prowler0000 and others are saying about her looking too clean, but I don't miss the weathering, which I think the SFX people overdid, especially on TB2. From a practical PoV, as a craft that is usually operating in salt water and then coming out into the pod, I'd expect her to be washed off on a regular basis, which would remove a lot, if not all, of the grime, so a clean model may not look exactly like what was seen on screen, but is more "realistic". The trick is to have the finished model (both filming and yours) not looking toy-like.

I think there's several reasons: If you really look at the images, half the time, if not more, they don't agree with one another, the result of having multiple filming models of different sizes that occasionally got refurbished, and whoever was in charge of continuity (if anyone) didn't bother to ensure that the models looked the same. Thunderbird 2 is the worst that way, but TB4 has its moments -- so which representation is "accurate"? Published material doesn't help: I can quote you 3 different lengths for TB1, all of which come from "official" sources (merchandise). Most TB kits were originally designed for kids, and so they were distorted to add toy features -- firing missiles, motorised wheels, battery packs, etc. Which leads to: The manufacturers generally don't give a rusty half-credit piece (© I. Asimov ) for getting SF stuff right -- or didn't, back when most kits were made; some still don't. "Near enough is good enough" is the attitude; the primary target for their wares is kids, and we modellers are a very small niche market that they don't think is worth much, either in terms of potential sales or the amount of effort they want to put into satisfying our wants. Hence the general lack of consistent scales, short-cuts in kit engineering, and simplified paint schemes (if any) and markings, all of which help to keep costs down for the kid market. So it's a combination of history, marketing, lack of interest and difficulty in getting it right in the first place. Things are improving, courtesy of the example set by early garage kits, but we're still behind the curve, so to speak. Markings and paint schemes are getting better, but a lot of them are being put on old kits that manufacturers keep flogging because they're readily available. Improved kits are hard to find because the makers don't give them large production runs, at least partly to ensure that what they do produce will sell. Of course, to be fair, the manufacturers are on a hiding to nothing because some modellers will criticise them whatever they do. No matter how "accurate" a kit is, someone will complain that it's wrong compared to a still photo or film clip that they have, not appreciating that the original model may have been changed for whatever reason during production. For all that, I'd really like a set of good TB models in a consistent scale. 1/144th would be nice, though it does mean that TB3 would be nearly 2 feet long...

Various press releases and supplementary publicity material has announced some of the voice casting for the new series, and mentions several of the characters. Nowhere is there any mention of Jeff, which is a pretty major omission. Tin-Tin has apparently become Kayo for some obscure legal reason, and I'm not even sure that the character is still female. I know that a 30-minute show can be good, but one of the things that made Thunderbirds the best of all the puppet series (okay, IMO) was that it was twice as long. This allowed for more complex storylines and, again IMO, more characterisation without taking away from the action. In a remake where episode length is barely 40% of the original -- 20-22 minutes vs 50, a product of increased ad time over the last 50 years -- something's got to give. I think New Captain Scarlet showed that cutting even 3 minutes from a nominally half-hour show can affect the stories because there just isn't the time to do everything. And I hope that I'm not overly judgemental about Thunderbirds Are Go! (new series title, if you didn't know). I'll be there to watch it if ITV make it possible to do so (again, NCS shows how they can, and do, mess up a series with lousy timeslots, hacking it into pieces to stick in a Saturday morning kids' variety show, etc.) and I'll form a proper opinion on the basis of what I see then. I'm just concerned about what I hear and see about the new series, which does not lead me to think that the source material is being treated with much respect. We saw what that could lead to in the 2004 film, and I don't want a repeat of that. Even Thunderbirds: 2086 would be preferable. Oh, and bzn20, 30 minutes includes ads since the series is being made for ITV. Lady P and Parker will be there; David Graham even has the voice role for Parker (though not for his other characters -- IIRC, Kyrano is also not going to be part of the series). And I quite agree about the way in which the extra time allowed for a build-up to the rescue. Maybe we should hope for some 2-parters?

Yeah, I'm still kicking myself for not getting one of the Comet Miniatures Anastasia models back when CM had a big range of white metal SF stuff (and there wasn't much else available). Got the TB1, the SkyDiver and the separate Sky 1, but didn't get the Annie.

I'm less so. The more I find out about this new series, the less I like what I hear. Only 20-22 minutes per episode -- well, there goes most of the characterisation that made the original so good, or reduces it to knee-jerk reactions from cardboard cut-outs. The Tracys have been messed about like nobody's business -- no Jeff?!?!? -- and the one Thunderbird that we've seen is almost as bad; the "new" TB1 looks like the original strayed into a Mad Max film, with bits bolted on and sticking out at all angles. For Finagle's sake, guys, this is supposed to be a hypersonic aircraft (so is TB2, for that matter); I know real vehicles designed for those speeds are pretty bland to look at, but at least pay a little respect to genuine engineering! WETA may be known for first-class work, but it doesn't matter how pretty the SFX looks if the story and characters (including the vehicles) are rubbish, and that's what I'm afraid of here. You think the 2004 film was bad? Well, it was, but this new series could be worse.

I believe it's actually the other way around. The Round House came first and Derek seized on it as inspiration for TB5 when he needed an idea for the design in a bit of a hurry. Or so he says in his book 21st Century Visions, and the story is repeated in other references like Chris Bentley's Complete Book of Thunderbirds, though that may simply be quoting Derek's story. Getting back to the model, I think it looks great. The panel lines are a bit heavy to my mind -- they were never that visible on screen -- but that may be a result of the size of the "trenches"; if you want to make them visible at all, they end up as you have them. I repeat, the whole scene is an excellent piece of work. Very well done.

Ii-ii-ii-ii-im-mm-mm-pressive! I'm going to bookmark this thread for reference when I start mine. I have most of the same after-market stuff, plus the Trekmodeller guide to the original multi-coloured paint job -- which is frightening! Having said that, I've found a local source for pearlescent paint in spray cans in the right colours, and they'll even ship them to you despite the stupid new Royal Mail restrictions, so I'm going to give it a try... eventually. Great work on your part. Looking forward to seeing more as and when.

As hendie said, looking good, especially the Round House. One minor possible correction concerns the cooling fins and the retro-rocket ring immediately in front of it. As I recall from a lot of photos, etc., they're actually a sort of quite dark blue-grey colour with yellow ends on the fins as provided on the decal sheet. The main hull colour looks to need a bit more red to it, but that may be a trick of the light in your photos. Regardless, I'm following this with some interest. Keep up the good work.

Wonderful to see a shot of #10. I have fond memories of flight trials in that bird in early 1979. She certainly didn't look like that then, not least because she was instrumented up the wazoo -- huge great pitot probe out the front and Finagle only knows what else -- and full of air conditioning test gear as well. We spent one sunny afternoon hunting patches of warm air in the hills around Nowra to test the latter -- it was 31 degrees C, but the AC guys wanted something hotter if they could get it -- with the occasional break when we went out to sea to dunk the dipping sonar and record all sorts of flight data for validation of a simulator model. We gave a few local residents something of a shock when we would appear from behind one hill and gently descend into a valley to see how hot the air was, then disappear over the next hill. Getting back to the ship model, I'm intrigued to see the differences between the Lusty and the Ark. Are there any readily available references that describe (and hopefully illustrate) the differences between the three Invincible-class ships?

Yet another non-ship-builder with a Lusty in the stash here... who hopes that mine, when I get a round tuit, will turn out as well as yours. One minor question: almost every review of the kit I have read, here and on other forums, mentions problems with the hull warping. You don't (not specifically, anyway ). Were you lucky enough not to have any worries that way or have you just not mentioned them? Or was that what you meant by "the parts do fit... sort of"? Either way,

Very nice model -- and highly appropriate as a "what if" because, of course, the A400 was originally going to be powered by 4 turbofans, but Airbus changed their minds and went for TPs instead. When I first saw the photo, for a minute there, I thought the engines were vectored-thrust -- one of those louvred concepts that were around a while ago. Sort of a modern-day HS.681? Now, that would be a what-if to think about...!

Well, if he hadn't, no-one would have been able to tell it was Sly... and that seemed to be the primary reason for the film in the first place, so we couldn't have that, could we? And then there was Rico -- weren't he and Dredd supposed to be fellow clones? You'd never know it to look at them, just like Picard and whatisname from ST Nemesis (though I could more readily accept the latter pair than Sly and the other guy).

Very nice work so far. I'm a little dubious about the Hornet decals because they look to be a copy of the markings of the Phantom FG.1s of 892 Squadron on Ark Royal, c.1978. The problem with that is that those were special markings applied to the F-4Ks (and at least one USMC F-4N IIRC) reflecting the fact that the Squadron was serving on the RN's last conventional carrier -- hence the big Omega on the fin. 892 wasn't reformed with Sea Harriers but, even if it had been, I doubt that they would have kept the Omega marking (they might have replaced it with an Alpha to represent the resurrection of FAA fixed-wing operations). So the F-18K is a great idea, but I would have expected different markings. The ship still looks great, and so do the fighters. I am sorely tempted to turn my lllustrious kit into an RAN Invincible-class carrier with F-18s and maybe A-4Gs...

I think I'd like it a little bigger... Though I do find the scale interesting: 250 mm for TB3's 287 feet comes out to very close to 1/350. Considering that a lot of Aoshima's SF models (including the one mentioned right at the start of the clip) are to established ship scales (must be all those Yamato kits ) like 1/700 and, yes, 1/350, this could just be one more model in those series. I'd much prefer a standard aircraft scale like 1/144. How about a 2-foot-long TB3? And a 21-inch TB2 and 9.6-inch TB1? I'd want them.

The big question for me is, what length are they using for the TOS ship? I know this is a point that has caused heated debate/flame wars at times, but I'm one of those fans of TOS who reckons that the original Galactica -- probably the most impressive TV SF ship ever in terms of sheer presence on the small screen -- is considerably larger than the remake version, with a length of 6080 feet, or one pre-SI nautical mile, as compared to 4105 ft for the re-imagined ship. So I'd be hoping that the Moebius version would be comparable in length with the Revell/Monogram kit at just under 18 inches. Against that, I'm aware that various people have calculated other lengths for the Big G, but AFAIK, they are all (including my chosen length) based on dodgy extrapolations of comparative lengths from screen shots, and the margin of error in each case is huge! So my preference is for a figure that expresses the ship's presence on screen, backed up by Glen Larson's quote that the Galactica is "a mile long". YMMV, and I don't want to get into an argument about it. Anyone have any idea of the size of the model?