Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Considering building a Soyuz after looking at the Machine 2 offering at Telford.  The display model on the stand looked rather grand. Simple questions really, is the Mac 2 kit any good? What does one have to do to make it into Tim Peaks' machine. Any good photo resources? 

 

Thanks in advance! :-)

 

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume you are talking about the rocket rather than the spacecraft?

 

Mach 2 are what they are. You need to be aware of the issues that go with their models before buying one. Having said that, I've not heard anything too bad about their rocket models so they may be doable.

 

Last year I bought the Maquette 1/144 model of the R7/Soyuz rocket at Scalemodelworld. It looks OK. It's certainly more accurate than the old Airfix kit which is not wide enough.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just started working on the Mach 2 Soyuz R7 kit, havent tried any test fitting as yet but I do have to say that the plastic it is made from is definately a bit on the rough side and will need a good sanding and cleanup first, as there is a lot of flash around where the parts join together.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies chaps. I posted this on my phone and now I'm on my PC I can see the dreaded auto-correct at work. How the heck can I turn that off on a Samsung S5? Even does stuff in capital letters for some reason...grrrr..... :unsure:.  For some reason I didn't get notification of replies so sorry for the late response.

 

Eric: Yes, I was talking about the Mach 2 Soyuz 'rocket vehicle' rather than the capsule as such. The one on the stand at Telford looked quite good but you never know how much work went into it. I understand Mach 2 don't have a 'shake and bake' reputation but if I can tame an Airfix Concorde then clearly I'm not afraid of the sanding sticks. :D I'm a bit of a 1:72 builder and like to keep a constant scale, so the Airfix Soyuz is out for me though it's nice to know the scale is a bit dodgy. I guess it was moulded before the iron curtain came down and access to measurements was probably by educated estimation. I was wondering if the Mach 2 kit could produce Tim Peake's launch vehicle or if there's too much variation in the machines? I see Helen Sharman's rocket is available as a kit but is out of stock at Hannants but other versions are in stock. I guess they're all the same mould, just different decals? In which case I'm no worse off as I'd need to make my own decals anyway for Tim Peake's bird.

 

Colbee: Any chance of an in-box review or similar? Information is very scant on the net about these kits, I don't think that many have been sold let alone built, If there was ever a small group build I think it would be double the number ever made! :rolleyes: Would love to see how it goes together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soyuz/R7 combinations are more or less the same as they have been since the original launches back in 1966 (unmanned) and 1967 (manned) flights began. Obviously, there have been subtle changes over the 50 years which mainly manifest themselves in colour schemes and some of the humps and bumps visible on the Soyuz craft itself and the aerodynamic shroud and devices that cover it during the launch phase.

 

 

The best thing is to look at as many photos as you can find of the particular mission you want to depict. Tim Peake's launch was on an R7/Soyuz TMA-M vehicle which has been recently (Summer 2016) been supplanted by the new TMA-MS version. Upgrades to the Soyuz craft on the whole don't affect the appearance of the carrier rocket and are often internal in nature (revised displays, upgraded computers etc).

 

Highly recommended is the Haynes Manual on the Soyuz which is written by Dr David Baker, an expert on Russian rocketry.

Edited by Eric Mc
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's encouraging Eric. Thanks for the advice on the Haynes manual, just checked a certain auction website and it's about £14, so that's going on the Christmas list. From memory I think the most obvious differences were the early escape tower rockets which I think became longer over time. I think I'll take your advice and study photographs. As long as there are no major changes in dimensions of the carrier rocket I think I'll cope beyond that. Any small lumps and bumps can be added from thereon in. Right, 1X Mach 2 Soyuz on Christmas list as well.....:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let is know the quality. I saw some of their rockets on sale at Telford but was reluctant to part with any cash as I am aware of the iffy nature of some of what they produce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some very recent footage (yesterday) of an R7/Progress rocket being moved to the pad and erected for a launch tomorrow. The rocket is essentially the same as that used for Soyuz. You might find the detail useful.

 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/11/29/russian-progress-cargo-capsule-arrives-at-launch-pad/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 9:34 AM, Eric Mc said:

Here's some very recent footage (yesterday) of an R7/Progress rocket being moved to the pad and erected for a launch tomorrow. The rocket is essentially the same as that used for Soyuz. You might find the detail useful.

 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/11/29/russian-progress-cargo-capsule-arrives-at-launch-pad/

 

Some really nice close-ups shots there. Also good to see how the launch gantry folds together. :thanks:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, the launch went wrong six minutes into the ascent - and the payload fell back to earth over Siberia. Just shows that after 50 plus years these rockets are still not 100% reliable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just announced that the London Science Museum has bought Tim Peake's Soyuz capsule for display. BBC didn't say whether it was the one he went up in or the one he came back down in.

Edited by Eric Mc
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was both. He went up to the ISS in it and returned to Earth in it.

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, colbee2004 said:

Quick update on the Mach 2 Soyuz. It is as bad as the reviews say. The finish on the plastic is appalling and its already turned into Quite a filler monster.

 

Thanks for the update Colbee. :thanks:Any chance of pictures? I'm prepared to bite the bullet if the kit is accurate as I think it may be the only game in town. I've got plenty of filler and sanding sticks.... ;)

 

Further updates appreciated if at all possible... :popcorn:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get some pictures done as soon as I can, but some may need to go in the chamber of horrors section lol. What I am really short of is good, close-up reference pictures of the rocket when it is fully assembled, can any of you out there possibly direct me to some suitable sources?

Many thanks in advance

 

Col

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Evening.

 

Sorry I haven't previously seen this thread.

 

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:01 PM, HP42 said:

 

Considering building a Soyuz after looking at the Machine 2 offering at Telford.  The display model on the stand looked rather grand. Simple questions really, is the Mac 2 kit any good? What does one have to do to make it into Tim Peaks' machine. Any good photo resources? 

 

 

Phil, I finished the Vostok I version of this last year. Here is the evidence!:

 

20161214_001841_zpsuexgpz8i.jpg 

 

I thought the kit was pretty terrible, and it took me forever, but in truth some of that was self inflicted. I found lots of bits and pieces missing from the boxing I had and I scratchbuilt quite a lot of the details: hatches and piping on the capsule shroud; Vernier motors on the Vostok itself &c. &c. I understand, only after the event, of course, that Mach2 are very good at supplying any missing bits. Had I known this before, I should have saved myself a lot of grief.

 

The main problem I found with the kit is the boosters (stage 1?) around the central rocket (stage 2?). The fit of the parts of each booster is terrible and I used masses of Magic Sculpt followed by Zap-a-gap and Zip-kicker and several sheets of wet and dry.

 

So, Col is not wrong:

 

On ‎08‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 7:30 AM, colbee2004 said:

Quick update on the Mach 2 Soyuz. It is as bad as the reviews say. The finish on the plastic is appalling and its already turned into Quite a filler monster.

 

(I think Colbee might be the esteemed secretary, and glorious leader, of the IPMS Wakefield chapter. (I did warn you Colin.)

 

The locating tabs for the boosters to the centre are inadequate and I reinforced that join with short lengths of sprue near the tops of the boosters and holes drilled in the central section to accept them. None of the  ducting on the boosters is rectangular because of the ducting being molded with the shells of each booster. I carved all of those off and replaced them with plastruct rectangular and square section rod. I also added an aluminium tube which is in the centre of the central section so that the stack can sit on a steel rod centred in the Perspex base. I didn't fancy the base supplied. The whole thing took me a year but it was a busy work year and I'm always a slow builder.

 

Having said all of which, I'm really glad I've made it and I am really happy with the finished article. The only other build I've seen is on line and by Matt Irvine. The grey I've used was Tamiya AS-10, based on Matt Irvine's review. The stencils are by New Ware and I think they add a lot. I needed to cut them up a lot to get them to fit. The finish is Tamiya Matt aerosol after an oil wash. The chrome is Alclad,

 

HTH,

 

Alan 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great build Alan, that looks splendid!

 

I'm tempted but realise it's a tough kit. Just bought some new sanding sponges so I might indulge in the new year. Still looking at the TM model. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for my sins, I am indeed the Sec at Wakefield. Many thanks for the heads up on the reference pictures. Still not easy to find though. The other thing I forgot to mention is the instructions are a confusing mess and a lot of guesswork is involved. I'll hopefully get some pictures taken and posted this weekend of the progress so far.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

Only taken me 4 years but I have a Mach 2 Soyuz on order. It's the Helen Sharman edition, Filing and sanding stuff at the ready...😎

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...