Shuttle Wars, Part 11 posted.

[DutyCat]

The basic build up of the Monogram orbiter is done. Link

.

I'll post some stills on the blog when I get a chance.

Now it is time to move on to the Revell Orbiter and see what we can do with it.

Thanks for watching!

-Gil

[Pinky coffeeboat]

You must be relieved that that's over with!! Time to buy yourself some new tubes of putty and get ready to tackle the Revell kit...

The curious thing about the Monogram kit is that when it was first made (early to mid 80's), Monogram were also making some very nice aircraft kits too. If we think about their kits from the 1/48 scale series (P-47, Mustang, F-101 Voodoo etc..) they were incredibly well detailed for the time and even stand the test today - except for some peoples dislike of their raised panel lines.

So what went "wrong" with the shuttle kit? Why the huge inaccurate windows, the almost total lack of surface detail and the bad fit? Anyone have any clues?

Good luck with the Revell kit :D

[DutyCat]

So what went "wrong" with the shuttle kit? Why the huge inaccurate windows, the almost total lack of surface detail and the bad fit? Anyone have any clues?

You are correct about Monogram aircraft kits of the era. Although minor fit issues and raised panel lines were the norm for the day, the Monogram kits were well researched and stand up even today. A 1/72 Space Shuttle engineered with same care as one of their 1/48 jets would be quite something.

I think the windows in the orbiter were deliberately over sized so that a person might be able to see the inside a little better. The fact that the bay doors won't close and the MLG doors are nowhere near flush when closed seems to tell us that it initially was mean't to be built "wheels down." Then they go and package it with the tank and SRB's, which are decent except the tank halves don't fit well. The best thing is the orbiter shape is mostly correct. Everything else is fixable.

[Jay Chladek]

Well, it all comes down to judgement calls as to how a model company does something. Revell's 1/72 orbiter predated Monogram's by about a year or so (1979-80 timeframe is when both kits came out). Revell's tile detail was a selling point for them, although it was inaccurate since it seems to have been inspired by Enterprise's fake TPS from its roll out (the Revell tiles are too large in size). In fact, the Revell orbiter was going to be issued as Enterprise (it was in the catalog literature) until they made an 11th hour decision to do it as Columbia instead since that was going to be the orbiter intended for the first flights into space. Most of Revell's space kits do tend to suffer from "prototype syndrome" as in the rush to get a kit to market, they choose details that are closer to mockups while Monogram tends to hang back and wait for better data, THEN they release a kit to the market.

The guess about Monogram's orbiter having oversized windows so the interior could be seen does make sense. As I look at Monogram's windows, I also have to wonder if maybe a kit designer there got a little back door inspiration from the film "Moonraker" as those shuttle models had oversized windows as well (which is one reason why I chose a Monogram orbiter to do up as a 1/72 Moonraker). Revell went with the lift off flight deck piece to showcase its interior. Monogram didn't do that (and they probably decided not to lest somebody accused them of copying someone else's work). In terms of shapes and details, Monogram's kit I think is a tick better, but it takes individual building skill to make both models really shine.