Review: 10030 UCS Imperial Star Destroyer
Posted 25 June 2010 - 03:00 PM
I bought this set with one of my very first paychecks earned with a real job. I had it on display for five years before finally succumbing to the lack of display area, and now it's pulled apart but still complete, waiting for me to some day move to a bigger house. Hopefully, in that new house I will also have room to display the UCS Death Star II and the UCS Millennium Falcon...
To counter the sagging, I actually built the two triangle frame parts directly on top of each other instead of facing each other: it add a lot of strength to the inner frame.
One tip though, for those who were wondering: the ISD and cats don't mix well. I have two cats, and they have both jumped on the ISD at one time, with the expected catastrophic results
WWAD: What Would Alldarker Do?
My Lego collection
Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:33 PM
I've had this monster displayed for about six years now, and have not run into any problems with the strength of the magnets. If the lower wings get bumped towards the back end, then yes, they do tend to unattach at the rear (heavy) end, but that doesn't really bother me as all you do is push them back up to connect.
Much more predominant in terms of a construction flaw is the sagging of the nose. I dismantled the set after about 1 1/2 years (before building it again - although I left the 32+ greebled plates built, wasn't going to do that twice ) to check out the structure, and was very alarmed at the dramatic 'bending' of four 16 stud technic beams (those that ZO6 highlighted in his review as the place to pick up the structure). Putting the beams on a flat surface, I measured 2.5-3mm of air between the middle of the beams and the surface. The weight of this beast exerts enourmous pressure, and due to the fact that the two support-feet are relatively far back, causes those beams to bend. So the sagging of the nose actually takes place between the two support-feet.
I added a third small support-foot (only had to shift a few plates 2 studs out on the lower wings to make space for the attachment to the internal skeleton), and four years later the structure is still straight as an arrow. By placing the mini Tantive on this extra support, it really isn't all that visible.
Otherwise excellently constructed and stable, just don't try and swoosh it .
For those of you still thinking of getting it, well...if you have the cash, I cannot imagine you'd be disappointed. It really is awesome, after six years I still enjoy admiring it
Posted 18 November 2010 - 12:32 AM
Haha, I had the exact same experience. About a year after I built mine, one of my cats jumped down on top of it from up on a bookcase. It sent pieces all across the room. To this day I still haven't found every piece. Fortunately the ones lost were pretty common and easily replaceable.
As for the sagging other people have mentioned, the set does sag. It's not horrible, but if you're looking at it from the side it is noticeable. When the set was destroyed in the accident mentioned above, after I rebuilt it the sag was gone(lasted for a month or so), so at least the strain on the pieces doesn't appear to cause permanent deformation to any of the Lego pieces, which is good.
Overall, it's a fabulous set. One of the best UCS sets for sure.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users