Care to go "scale" with your next Mercury?

[jharding58]

Crow's Nest Models has released the window version to complement the porthole version previously available. There is of course an small premium for these 1/32 scale gems - but if you want to go really scale...

http://www.crowsnestmodels.com/

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Mercury-Capsule-with-windown-132-scale-from-Crows-Nest_p_1878.html

[Mark II]

Looks real nice, :) but it's a bit beyond my budget.

[ghrocketman]

Even if they took $100 off the $179.95 price, it is still priced RIDICULOUSLY HIGH.
Get REAL.
Somebody in their pricing dept. needs to put down the CRACK PIPE and come down to REALITY.

[Doug Sams]

Crow's Nest Models has released the window version to complement the porthole version previously available. There is of course an small premium for these 1/32 scale gems - but if you want to go really scale...

http://www.crowsnestmodels.com/

http://www.culttvmanshop.com/Mercury-Capsule-with-windown-132-scale-from-Crows-Nest_p_1878.html Pricing aside, if I wanted to scratch up a Redstone to go with, where would I start? Dividing the 70" diameter Redstone rocket by 32, I get 2.188".

BT-70 is pretty close at 2.217", about 30/1000 larger. Is that close enough? Is there something better?

ST-20 is 2.04" OD, probably not a very good fit.

BMS shows a coupler for BT-70, C70-34 @ 2.172" OD, only off by about 15/1000 (smaller). With some effort, I could get a good finish on that. And, with maybe a layer of light glass, could get it even closer to 2.188".

What else would one consider?

Doug

.

[GregGleason]

Well, they look like good kits.

That said, you can get the Atomic City 1/12th scale Mercury for $50-$70.

This smaller scale is nice, but a bit pricy for me.

I wonder if there is any interest in Mercury/LES kit and priced it at $45 to fit a BT80 Redstone (1/26.923 scale)?

Regarding styrene, anyone remember the kit seen below?

My dad built these for me in the mid 60's (thanks Dad!) when I was a wee lad.

Greg

[GregGleason]

Doug you are right about the scale. It's not too far off from the 1/34.146 scale of the later Estes offering.

The OD would need to be 2.1875" so a wrap or two of 3 oz fiberglass might do it. I would definitely set it up for a 24mm MMT.

The airframe length would need to be 21.5125", with the total length being 31.26875" (don't you just love spreadsheets? :D ).

Greg

[MarkB.]

Guys,

I agree $180 is a little steep, but if you haven't built a plastic model lately, they have sky rocketed in price. Kids don't build models any more. (sound familiar?)

Here's an example:

$35.00 1/32 Revell Apollo Command module (the good one with the clear panels)
$40.00 Resin SIM Bay
$30.00 Resin interior
$10.00 Resin Hatch
$10.00 Decal Sheet
$80.00 Photo Etch antenna and details + resin Apollo 8 astronauts
$10.00 Bare-Metal Foil

So $215 without lights for the ultimate Apollo capsule. $180 for the ultimate Mercury might not be that outrageous after all.

But I ain't pay'n that . . . .

[Bill]

Regarding styrene, anyone remember the kit seen below?



As a matter of fact...

There is a small hobby shop in an old house in a small town I often pass through to visit family. Almost every time I go by there, it is an odd hour and they are closed. Last month, my trip was delayed by dense fog and I managed to catch them open. Picked up that kit ($9.95) as well as the larger 1/24" Gemini ($14.95) and somehow managed to resist doing the jump for joy dance until I was out the door and out of sight around the corner.


Bill

[Raygun]

Wow, too much money for anyone!
You have to be unreasonable in you pusuit within this hobby for a scale subject at that price. But one could justify that it's good for study and info gathering and not to build at all let alone for flight. I would see it as a model for informational purposes. But I would seriously consider the source. I judge it harshly for that fact that it is of a small scale for that price. I have never seen it up close so i wouldn't know what level of detail is achieved. The flipside to the argument is, does their interpretation at 1/32 scale align with yours?
At 1/32 scale,I DONT want scale info thats deserving of 1/12 shrunken at almost 1/3x sized so it can be crammed crammed into 1/32 scale meant for aircraft subjects, so 1/32 or even 1/35 scale is also a question one should consider.

I would like to second the notion that scratchbuild is the way to go.
I make tons of shroud inter-stages, and a capsules are easy.
Scratchbuilding allows more freedom to experiment with materials and scale detailing, so from my humble perspective much more rewarding. Even fine scale plastic modelers sometimes scratchbuild to improve on their subjects. Also, one relies less on molds designed from someone and sources they don't even know. I don't mind plastic models from kits( I originally started out a plastic modeler), I just wish they weren't cost prohibitive these days.
I'm a big Plastruct freak now, using ABS. Plastic stock per linear foot is not that expensive as from plastic from model kits. I think everyone is getting ripped off there because of a specialty subject that is interpreted. Remember, it's an interpreted rendition. A representation of the real thing.
Basically you can build anything from plastic and wood stock.

[GregGleason]

As a matter of fact...

There is a small hobby shop in an old house in a small town I often pass through to visit family. Almost every time I go by there, it is an odd hour and they are closed. Last month, my trip was delayed by dense fog and I managed to catch them open. Picked up that kit ($9.95) as well as the larger 1/24" Gemini ($14.95) and somehow managed to resist doing the jump for joy dance until I was out the door and out of sight around the corner.


Bill

Score! Please post pics when you have it built.

I had a "Score" moment came about 7-8 years ago when I found the Steven's re-release of the Revell Saturn V, 1/96th scale at an LHS. That kit was one of my most prized possessions as a kid. I asked the CFO if that was in the budget, so when she said "Yes" I paid the almost $100 for it. To me it was worth every penny. :)

Greg

[luke strawwalker]

As a matter of fact...

There is a small hobby shop in an old house in a small town I often pass through to visit family. Almost every time I go by there, it is an odd hour and they are closed. Last month, my trip was delayed by dense fog and I managed to catch them open. Picked up that kit ($9.95) as well as the larger 1/24" Gemini ($14.95) and somehow managed to resist doing the jump for joy dance until I was out the door and out of sight around the corner.


Bill

WEEEeeeellll... Just WHERE is the old house small town hobby shop??? (grins)

Later! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

Wow, too much money for anyone!
You have to be unreasonable in you pusuit within this hobby for a scale subject at that price. But one could justify that it's good for study and info gathering and not to build at all let alone for flight. I would see it as a model for informational purposes. But I would seriously consider the source. I judge it harshly for that fact that it is of a small scale for that price. I have never seen it up close so i wouldn't know what level of detail is achieved. The flipside to the argument is, does their interpretation at 1/32 scale align with yours?
At 1/32 scale,I DONT want scale info thats deserving of 1/12 shrunken at almost 1/3x sized so it can be crammed crammed into 1/32 scale meant for aircraft subjects, so 1/32 or even 1/35 scale is also a question one should consider.

I would like to second the notion that scratchbuild is the way to go.
I make tons of shroud inter-stages, and a capsules are easy.
Scratchbuilding allows more freedom to experiment with materials and scale detailing, so from my humble perspective much more rewarding. Even fine scale plastic modelers sometimes scratchbuild to improve on their subjects. Also, one relies less on molds designed from someone and sources they don't even know. I don't mind plastic models from kits( I originally started out a plastic modeler), I just wish they weren't cost prohibitive these days.
I'm a big Plastruct freak now, using ABS. Plastic stock per linear foot is not that expensive as from plastic from model kits. I think everyone is getting ripped off there because of a specialty subject that is interpreted. Remember, it's an interpreted rendition. A representation of the real thing.
Basically you can build anything from plastic and wood stock.

Don't forget paper modeling... some AMAZING stuff I never thought possible being done in paper...

Here's one... http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/pasa-paper-aeronautical-space-administration/12058-apollo-astronaut-moon-35.html

later! OL JR :)

[wilsotr]

Don't forget paper modeling... some AMAZING stuff I never thought possible being done in paper... Yep. You can always do your own Mercury capsule in paper, like this ...


http://www.spacecraftreplicas.com/

[Mark II]

Pricing aside, if I wanted to scratch up a Redstone to go with, where would I start? Dividing the 70" diameter Redstone rocket by 32, I get 2.188".

BT-70 is pretty close at 2.217", about 30/1000 larger. Is that close enough? Is there something better?

ST-20 is 2.04" OD, probably not a very good fit.

BMS shows a coupler for BT-70, C70-34 @ 2.172" OD, only off by about 15/1000 (smaller). With some effort, I could get a good finish on that. And, with maybe a layer of light glass, could get it even closer to 2.188".

What else would one consider?

Doug

.LOC 54mm coupler stock. 2.17" OD.

[Raygun]

Don't forget paper modeling... some AMAZING stuff I never thought possible being done in paper...

Here's one... http://www.papermodelers.com/forum/pasa-paper-aeronautical-space-administration/12058-apollo-astronaut-moon-35.html

later! OL JR :)

Yep no question about it. Its amazing! I admire the tenacity for anyone using a predominant medium in their repertoire.You actually will your way into making the material do amazing things.