41 replies to this topic

[lightningtiger]

Thanks for an excellent review 'Starstreak' - I prefer this one to MF midi though....very true to the shape of a real ISD....but 60 turbo lasers, ah....different sizes I guess !
I sadly don't collect midi-scale SW so this will be one I'll pass up....prefer to have the Imp. shuttle than this to tell the truth.
Keep on bricking everyone !

[Jammiedodger]

Great review Starstreak!
This set is outstanding in my opinion. The model looks quite accurate and the parts are quite useful if broken up!

If this goes on sale like the MF, I'll get a couple of them!

[Mr Hobbles]

Found out something interesting today.  I really like this model, and plan on buying it, but a diorama idea crossed my mind (Which, unfortunately, was quickly discarded).

A couple of these Star Destroyers, flying along side an Executor Super Star Destroyer, would be really cool.  So I looked up some stats and figured out that the Executor SSD is 12 times the length of a Star Destroyer (1,600m vs. 19km).  This would mean the SSD would be just under 3 meters long.

Then I discovered that the studio model used for filming the Executor in the movies was 282cm long.  This means that in proportion to the Executor, these little Lego beauties are studio scale! :D

[Fallenangel]

Would anyone like to tell me why this is on the front page when my review's been sitting in the forum for weeks?

And incorrect, Mr Hobbles; the Executor is eleven times the length of one Imperator-class Star Destroyer; in fact, for reference, the bridge tower on the Executor was made the same size as that on an Imperator-class. theforce.net covers this in great detail.

Quote

Within the last year another book, extensively illustrated and based on the actual film props of the Lucasfilm Archives has been released. From STAR WARS to Indiana Jones [SW2IJ], benefits from access to primary artefacts, and the text succinctly states:

... the flagship of Darth Vader, was conceived as eleven times the size of the original Star Destroyer of Star Wars. (For reference, the conning tower that rises from Executor was supposed to be as big as the original destroyer's conning tower.)

And I'm pretty sure I mentioned the size of a LEGO Executor in comparison to this set in my review.

[KimT]

fallenangel327, on 05 September 2010 - 09:54 PM, said:

Would anyone like to tell me why this is on the front page when my review's been sitting in the forum for weeks?

Because yours was being updated with new and better pics.
Thus when this one was available today, I put it on the front page.
No offense meant and I am truly sorry if you had updated the pics before this review was posted.
Then it's me missing that you did that.

[Mr Hobbles]

fallenangel327, on 05 September 2010 - 09:54 PM, said:

And incorrect, Mr Hobbles; the Executor is eleven times the length of one Imperator-class Star Destroyer; in fact, for reference, the bridge tower on the Executor was made the same size as that on an Imperator-class. theforce.net covers this in great detail.

My apologies, I didn't bother to calculate it exactly, I thought it was obvious that 1,600m didn't go into 19km.  

Edited by Mr Hobbles, 05 September 2010 - 10:50 PM.

[CloneTrooper234]

Great Review!!!  

[starstreak]

Mr. Hobbles-  I.... wouldn't have enough bricks to build the Executor Super Star Destroyer.  11x the size of the MID ISD?  Woah..

[Optimus]

I got this set a few days ago. It's definitely one of my favorites, I like the look of the set, the designer really did a nice job.

It should definitely be priced at $30 though.

Most of the pieces are tiny and there are no minifigures included. This set really did not have to cost $40 and is not worth it.

Like others have said, I'll probably pick up a few more when the price goes down because I like it so much.

[Admonisher]

Great review! After being so enchanted with the Midi-scale Falcon (which I got on clearance), I just couldn't wait on this one. And it's fantastic! Fun to build, and looks great on the shelf. But I found the model was even MORE fun once I built a tiny Blockade Runner to go along with it. Here are some pics (sorry for the resolution -- a Blackberry is the only camera I have at the moment).



You can even stick a little transparent red tiara into the vents to approximate an explosion. :P

Edited by Admonisher, 06 September 2010 - 04:10 AM.

[Diamondback]

Just got 8099--while it could have been more faithful to its subject, not bad for a "more affordable size" ISD. (still want want WANT the UCS! I collect various Star Destroyer merch) Would still buy it, would buy reissues as Errant Venture (in all-red) or other ISD variants or individual ships, and SOOOOO want an SSD to scale with this set despite that it'd be almost 10' long.

[Fallenangel]

Admonisher, on 06 September 2010 - 04:10 AM, said:

Great review! After being so enchanted with the Midi-scale Falcon (which I got on clearance), I just couldn't wait on this one. And it's fantastic! Fun to build, and looks great on the shelf. But I found the model was even MORE fun once I built a tiny Blockade Runner to go along with it. Here are some pics (sorry for the resolution -- a Blackberry is the only camera I have at the moment).

[snip]

You can even stick a little transparent red tiara into the vents to approximate an explosion. :P

Seeing as the Tantive IV should be less than a tenth of the Imperial Star Destroyer's length (150m vs 1600m) that model is much too large. I think it might have something to do with the fact that the hangar bay on this thing is a bit oversized.

[erik530195]

Brickdoctor, on 04 September 2010 - 08:39 PM, said:

But no one's going to swoosh the mammoth ISD.

Isnt it too heavy to do so? The MF is like 100 lbs, wouldnt it be the same?

[prateek]

erik530195, on 19 December 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Isnt it too heavy to do so? The MF is like 100 lbs, wouldnt it be the same?

According to Bricklink, the UCS ISD is 9.093 kg and the UCS MF is 10.2149 kg, so there's not that much of a difference. Considering their weight, a full grown man wouldn't have trouble swooshing either of them around

[Brickdoctor]

erik530195, on 19 December 2010 - 10:46 PM, said:

Isnt it too heavy to do so? The MF is like 100 lbs, wouldnt it be the same?

prateek, on 19 December 2010 - 10:49 PM, said:

According to Bricklink, the UCS ISD is 9.093 kg and the UCS MF is 10.2149 kg, so there's not that much of a difference. Considering their weight, a full grown man wouldn't have trouble swooshing either of them around

I hope you realize you replied to a post of mine that's a few months old, but anyways, the reason no one would swoosh the UCS ISD is because the entire hull is held onto the frame by a row of magnets. Swoosh to fast, and... boom.

[starstreak]

You guys are funny.  But if I remember right, doesn't the magnets NOT hold very well?

Brickdoctor, on 19 December 2010 - 11:07 PM, said:

I hope you realize you replied to a post of mine that's a few months old, but anyways, the reason no one would swoosh the UCS ISD is because the entire hull is held onto the frame by a row of magnets. Swoosh to fast, and... boom.

[Brickdoctor]

starstreak, on 19 December 2010 - 11:14 PM, said:

You guys are funny.  But if I remember right, doesn't the magnets NOT hold very well?

Actually I don't own the set myself, but I know that experience happened to someone; don't remember where I read it.