Lunadude's U.S. One

[lunadude]

(original post: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:28 pm)

I started by holding it all together, on my table, and ogling the whole thing. Then I started drinking in the surface detail. Mmmm.

The last several evenings have been spent trimming, puttying, and sanding. There are some bubbles and some warts, but very few. I did have to dremel off two hefty "posts" from the underside of the conning tower's head. I am guessing they were pouring artifacts. The trickiest part has been some of the panel edges, near the molding seams, they are a little uneven.

Since the weather has been cold and wet, I've had to wait to prime it.

As, I clean it up, and scan it's surface, I have started to compare it to the image from the film. This kit seems to be mainly based on the design drawing, rather then the filming miniature. I'm all good with that. Anyway, I'm looking at how to modify the model to more closely reflect the movie model.

At the moment, I think some minor surface changes, and a good paint scheme, should do it. So, my cleanup prepares me for the mods.

To those ends, I've created a base drawing of the model. I'll be doing color studies and surface design on it.

Here's my start...

[Model Man]

(original post: 26 Nov 2007 03:15 pm)

Sad to hear about the bubbles and warts! I found nary a bubble and no other blemishes. Though a few of the panel lines were distorted by the molding process...

The tower base is the most aggregious and unsightly error. I eyeballed and sliced away at it, held it up against the ceiling light at the movie angle, sliced some more until I got it as close as I could without damaging the upper portion. I now have a slight slope running along the length, but I am happy. (Will post a new pic in a few days on my wip) Looking at my first picture there and the most recent in my WiP a minute ago blew my mind! Night and day! Much more elegant now.

There are definitely panel inaccuracies as well, but I like the model alot!

When I say inaccuracies, I am referring to the five seconds of film, not any drawings or books done after the fact. Even initial studio artwork is going to be different than what was built and filmed.

Good idea on doing the drawing first! Part of the reason why I paint over my models so much is that I do all my tests on the surface itself. A problem arises, I wipe it all out with new paint. However, the plus side is the wysiwyg factor. The copper I tried does things in the light that no drawing can ever capture.

I look forward to your color studies Lunadude! I've got some basic ideas for mine, but it's all the details spread across the hull that are holding me up now. I have to sit down with some choice reference frames and go from there. I will post those too. I think some drilling may still be in order.

[lunadude]

(original post: 26 Nov 2007 03:35 pm)

Fixing imperfections and inaccuracies is where the fun is. That is how each modeler gets to use license. I am going to aim at the "spirit" of the design, rather than exact reproduction.

I like the model a lot too.

I love the WYSIWYG aspect, but fear the paint buildup. The copper must have been very interesting. I've been considering a dusty rust color, not too chromatic.

[lunadude]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 12:42 am)

This evening's progress.



Critique welcome.

[Steven Pietrobon]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 12:48 am)

I believe the drawings were done before the models were made, so the modelers could know what they are making. Makes no sense to have drawings done after. Your drawing looks very good though. I believe there is a number on the side, where you have two small black circles next to each other in a gray rectangle. Check out the photos I posted in the reference section.

[lunadude]

(original post: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:55 am)

I am not springing for an HD player, but I may spring for an HD version of the film. A nice freeze-frame should shed so much light on this.

[Model Man]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 04:22 am)

That's definitely the idea! Nice detailing!

The number is '34' Steve was asking about and I am very sure that the gray box in the upper right of the aft module is not an open slot as modeled, but a gray plate with the grayer #4. I will have time this weekend and will give you the best frame reference I can get demonstrating my reasoning on this.

I wrote above 'not any drawings or books done after the fact'.. I don't know where Bizony got his material. I have never seen the book, nor heard of it before a few weeks ago when it was alluded to at AC. I had subsequently read somewhere that (some) drawings in the book were recreated for the book. So no, it doesn't make sense to do concept drawings after the fact, unless you are trying to recreate/restore material for that book. If the book contains original concept design, then that is the ref that the modelers built from. And from there, as with all concept art, the result is different from the generating thought. If SK destroyed all the concept work as well, then it could make some sense to recreate those destroyed drawings.

[McTodd]

(original post: 27 Nov 2007 03:08 pm )

The problem, I think, with film models is that with fictional subjects, preparatory drawings are used only as a guide to the effects modelmakers. They might establish the overall shapes and proportions from the drawings, but when it comes to the exact detailing (raised panels, panel lines, greeblies, etc.), these can be at some variance from the drawings. Of course, for the effects modelmakers that isn't a 'problem' - but it is a problem for hobby modelmakers after the fact, as they now have a 'real' prototype to try to reproduce, with all of the problems of accuracy faced by any ship, plane or AFV modelmaker (more, arguably, as the nature of the 'real' thing is vaguer than, say, a Tiger tank).

Obviously, you strive to be as accurate as possible, but for subjects like these, there is only so far you can go and you have to go for the 'feel' of the thing or, as lunadude so aptly puts it, the 'spirit' of the original.

Ace drawings, BTW!

[lunadude]

(original post: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:09 pm )

Hmmm...

Since the higher resolution images show a significant difference between the Mad Dog Resin kit (based on the preproduction design sketch), and the shooting model, I'm working on a middle ground. Same strategy, going for the "spirit" of it, just going to tweak my mods plan.

Got some good reference for the decals though!

Maybe a new starboard side image update this evening.

[lunadude]

(original post: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:34 am)

Updated approach.



Critique welcome.

[Model Man]

(original post: 30 Nov 2007 12:54 pm)

Nice work!!!

[LeeStringer]

(original post: 30 Nov 2007 09:45 pm)

really nice!

[lunadude]

(original post: 30 Nov 2007 11:15 pm)

Thanks.

Hey, I'm having second thoughts on the little flag on the aft, rechecking the photos, it just looks like a dark box with a darker box inset. The double national marking looked strange, but the German one has both a flag and a Iron Cross.

What do you think about it?

[Model Man]

(original post: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:09 am)

I didn't notice one on the stbd side, but did see the one on port.

Looking at my space shuttle kit, that has Nasa's logo on the port wing, a big flag on the stbd wing and then two more flags, one on each side of the cargo bay. Not that the shuttle is a real reference for this, excepting in so far as it is the only real spaceship we have going.

[lunadude]

(original post: 01 Dec 2007 10:58 pm)

I plan on changing the conning tower's base and neck. I also want to put an RCS quad on the fore of the sensor array.

Here is a comparison of kit and proposed change.

(Click for larger version)


Critique welcome.

[Steven Pietrobon]

(original post: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:26 pm)

On the starboard side, you can just make out the darker box in the top left of the dark box. On the port side, the darker box is also in the top left of the dark box. Here's an enhanced photo of the starboard flag. If you sqint a bit, you can just make out the stripes. Is that a serial number above the flag? 6229? The port side unfortunately only shows a blur.



Your US flag seems much too large. You have the flag height about 27% of the side height. I estimate the flag height to be about 16.5% (1/6) of the side height.

[lunadude]

(original post: 02 Dec 2007 11:58 pm)

Good observation and feedback.

Yes, it does look like the flag. I will modify the shape ratio.

The reason I questioned it, was the placement/orientation of the flag. In aerospace (planes and spacecraft) applications, the flag always has the leading edge facing forward. Both these flags are facing what I consider to be aft. Strange.

And yes, "6629" does seem to be above it.

The details just keep getting better!

[Model Man]

(original post: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:04 am)

Looks like a plan! Feels a lot better this way, don't it?

I was thinking the aft line of the tower is even with the aft line of the module below it... Either way is likely good. I simply extended the aft slope of the base with putty and kept the tower where it was regardless of accuracy in my case.

I'm thinking about slicing that underside nipple off the prow (but keeping the top one). It doesn't appear to be there in the pix...

[lunadude]

(original post: 03 Dec 2007 12:13 am

I don't see a bottom nipple either. Thought it was hiding in the shadow, nipples do that sometimes ( ). Easy enough to remove.

[Steven Pietrobon]

(original post: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:53 pm)

Those US Flags look like they came from the Airfix 1/144 Saturn V kit, but this kit was released in 1969, which would have been too late. The Monogram kit came out in 1968, also too late.