Flandy

Oh no, another T65 x-wing!

Recommended Posts

This started out as a 9493 that I picked up second hand, but complete. I was surprised how crude it looked after more recent sets, so I began tweaking it here and there, and then it just sort of got out of hand, and I don't think there are two bricks of the original set still in their original configuration! I'm not a quick MOCer by any standards, I tend to come back to things and tweak a bit, rummage through the spares, get inspired by others builds etc. There are plenty of things I could have done for greater accuracy, but I wanted it to be a tough build, and whilst there are techniques that would allow the shaping to be more screen accurate, they tend to be quite fragile, which is a compromise I was unwilling to make.

Anyways, on with the pics

ML2ADV7.jpg

AQrxpKq.jpg

WiDCRSF.jpg

3leWUGR.jpg

0lr9Ugl.jpg

The wings open and close in much the same way as in the originally set, though much of the mechanism has been messed about with and changed. The knob for opening has been relocated to the rear, and the rubber bands have been made a little more discrete, though I think if any further development on this happens, i may ditch it and revert to the wing mechanism used by many other x-wing MOCs.

n0cMOQP.jpg

Tried to get the shaping on the underside as close as possible without it being too fragile, I think the shape is ok, but the slope section could do with being a little more secure. It doesn't fall off, but it's only connected at the rear.

Ln7KXcw.jpg

znv3cx1.jpg

Fxkp2OR.jpg

The gap in the underside is to accept the stand which is designed to hold the ship at an angle so it looks a little more dynamic.

IEsG8GQ.jpg

yPbvcY9.jpg

xjlxBy2.jpg

So yeah, it's not finished, I keep doing things to it when I find different or better solutions to things. I feel the rear of the fuselage might be a stud too long, so that's something I might look into. The greebling could be more accurate, but that's not a major worry. I realise the shaping is a little more rounded than some, but it's also a little less "studdy" too. I'd like to incorporate some landing gear but at this point I wanted to make sure it looked right, and the stand makes gear less vital for display. Overall I'm quite happy with it, but I'm also open for suggestions  on improvements.

 

 

Edited by Flandy
$@&#ing photobucket!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks beautiful, great use of SNOT! I love the underneath it looks really smooth! The greebling on the top really adds to the moc's looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After Rogue One, I needed to see some T-65 X wing's! Really great model, I love the way you've shaped the underside, and I like the use of barrels as exhausts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it! One of the most beautiful looking x-wings I've seen. I love the studies look, and the structural integrity is a bonus!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  This is beautiful.  Love the belly of this beast.  So smooth.  It looks like a traditional model kit, and that's a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The back profile seems a bit to roundish. It's more angular irl (lol, 'irl' always soudns weird regarding fictional items). Anyway, wonderful design. That underside is slick :) I like these MOCS whoch don't go overboard in weird fragile techniques and rather maintain solid structure while still being accurate enough. Good job!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, krisandkris12 said:

I like these MOCS whoch don't go overboard in weird fragile techniques and rather maintain solid structure while still being accurate enough. Good job!

Totally agree.  Insane accuracy is one thing, but I prefer a model people can actually touch, and handle.  Some models look like they would fall apart if you looked at them too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow, so many kind words, thanks everyone.

On 23/02/2017 at 6:33 PM, legoSWfan said:

Very nice MOC, very smooth, maybe a bit too clean but I love it !

I've gone for the factory fresh look for this one, I might build another a bit more battle worn one in the future though.

On 23/02/2017 at 6:56 PM, Ellisss_2 said:

Looks beautiful, great use of SNOT! I love the underneath it looks really smooth! The greebling on the top really adds to the moc's looks.

Many thanks

On 23/02/2017 at 7:04 PM, Tariq j said:

After Rogue One, I needed to see some T-65 X wing's! Really great model, I love the way you've shaped the underside, and I like the use of barrels as exhausts.

The underside is very satisfying, especially as the shelf it's currently sat on is above me as I type and so I can only really see the underside unless I stand up!

On 23/02/2017 at 8:46 PM, jamiejme said:

I love it! One of the most beautiful looking x-wings I've seen. I love the studies look, and the structural integrity is a bonus!

Wow, high praise indeed! The integrity was important given my 9 and 11 year old nephews like playing with my lego, and whilst there is some fun to be had reassembling, it's nicer when things stay intact!

On 23/02/2017 at 10:11 PM, gcanik said:

Very well done, like the SNOT use.

Cheers!

17 hours ago, roadstermatt said:

that's a beautiful looking x-wing nice work

Much appreciated, thanks

16 hours ago, Bart said:

I like it!

:sweet:

10 hours ago, kibosh said:

Wow.  This is beautiful.  Love the belly of this beast.  So smooth.  It looks like a traditional model kit, and that's a good thing!

Thank you very much, I really wanted it to be sturdy, accurate, and look like LEGO could have designed it.

5 hours ago, krisandkris12 said:

The back profile seems a bit to roundish. It's more angular irl (lol, 'irl' always soudns weird regarding fictional items). Anyway, wonderful design. That underside is slick :) I like these MOCS whoch don't go overboard in weird fragile techniques and rather maintain solid structure while still being accurate enough. Good job!

I would agree with that, I tried to make it more angular, but every different way I tried it, it turned out quite fragile, so I went for the curved slopes. It's something I may look into further in the future. I'm still very much learning this MOCing and love discovering nw techniques. Anyway, thanks!

4 hours ago, kibosh said:

Totally agree.  Insane accuracy is one thing, but I prefer a model people can actually touch, and handle.  Some models look like they would fall apart if you looked at them too long.

I have nothing but respect for some of the crazy accurate creations out there, but I agree that there is a lot to be said for having a robust model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice! I like the way you built the transition from the slopes to the cylinders. Is it your work or was it part of the original design?

If you plan to update it, you may want to consider moving the slope under the cockpit toward the rear of the spacecraft. I think it would go a long way toward making it look even better (from the side, that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gray_Mouser said:

Very nice! I like the way you built the transition from the slopes to the cylinders. Is it your work or was it part of the original design?

I think it's my own work, I looked at alot of other x-wing mocs and didn't see one that quite nailed it in terms of accuracy of shape and lack of gaps. After a bit of playing around (my favourite part of this whole process, I love having a bunch of parts and just trying different combinations) I came up with that. I don't think it's the same as anyone elses, but after a while the lines between invention and inspiration get blurred!

14 hours ago, Gray_Mouser said:

If you plan to update it, you may want to consider moving the slope under the cockpit toward the rear of the spacecraft. I think it would go a long way toward making it look even better (from the side, that is).

This is very true. that sloped section was 4 studs long originally, but started at the same point at the rear, and then I lengthened it to 6 studs so the front edge moved forward. I may move it a stud back, but any further and it'll lose completely the alignment with the two 10x3 wedges on each side. If I move the wedges further back, I loose a stud to mount those two side plates on the side of the fuselage just in front of the engine inlets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not like it at first. I looked at it again and I changed my mind. Some elements of your model are very nice but the parts that I don't like still kill it for me as a whole

In my opinion changing these would improve the model:
- Canopy piece. Lego got the angles all wrong. Even a brick built canopy looks better.

-The big wedge pieces that cover the sides of the middle body are a good idea but I think your model is too small for this piece to work

-The nose cone. This official lego nose cone is terrible. Its too flat and too wide. My brick build nose cone has its issues as well but it still work better on any minifig scale X-wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it.  The challenge with using LEGO as "modeling" medium is balancing scale accuracy, structural integrity/playability, and piece/color availability.  Given that minifig are too fat for their height, scale is always a challenge when building at "minifig scale".  The other challenge is canopy selection.  In general, LEGO has to produce canopies that work well in the rest of the "system" thus their designs are never quite perfect for any "true to scale" build.  Everything is always a compromise.

I think your rendition stikes a great balance between those compromises and looks like it passes the swooshable test.  The only thing that I would criticize is the roundness of the rear end.  I have found myself wishing for angular versions of the pieces you've used.  This piece might work better for the backend and then you could construct an angular bottom using 1x2 wedges and tiles.

Thanks for sharing!

drc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyutyu said:

I did not like it at first. I looked at it again and I changed my mind. Some elements of your model are very nice but the parts that I don't like still kill it for me as a whole

In my opinion changing these would improve the model:
- Canopy piece. Lego got the angles all wrong. Even a brick built canopy looks better.

I agree that the lego canopy is all out of proportion when compared to the actual item, but if the canopy was accurate, it would require some tricky and less durable construction techniques to line up correctly without gaps all over the place. A brick built canopy can acheive a more authentic shape, but three things bug me about them. Firstly, they look kind of messy, being constructed from so many random parts, secondly they're just a frame, no glazing, and third, they are fragile. There's no way they'd pass the nephew test!

4 hours ago, Tyutyu said:

-The big wedge pieces that cover the sides of the middle body are a good idea but I think your model is too small for this piece to work

I have to dissagree on this one, I gess it's personal personal taste, but to me it seemed to be an excellent fit for the required shape and not dissproportionate

4 hours ago, Tyutyu said:

-The nose cone. This official lego nose cone is terrible. Its too flat and too wide. My brick build nose cone has its issues as well but it still work better on any minifig scale X-wing.

You're right, it is not terribly accurate, I would be interested to see your solution. The one thing in the existing nose cone's favour is it's durability.

4 hours ago, drclark said:

I like it.  The challenge with using LEGO as "modeling" medium is balancing scale accuracy, structural integrity/playability, and piece/color availability.  Given that minifig are too fat for their height, scale is always a challenge when building at "minifig scale".  The other challenge is canopy selection.  In general, LEGO has to produce canopies that work well in the rest of the "system" thus their designs are never quite perfect for any "true to scale" build.  Everything is always a compromise.

I think your rendition stikes a great balance between those compromises and looks like it passes the swooshable test.  The only thing that I would criticize is the roundness of the rear end.  I have found myself wishing for angular versions of the pieces you've used.  This piece might work better for the backend and then you could construct an angular bottom using 1x2 wedges and tiles.

Thanks for sharing!

drc

 

Many thanks! As stated the rear is something I may look into soon, but as yet I haven't found a solution that works to my satisfaction. I'd love there to be a flatter version of those curved slopes. Everything at this scale comes down to compromise, I wanted this to come accross as a much more accurate system scale toy, rather than a miniature UCS display only model. All things being equal, I'm quite happy with it, but as always with these things, it's not finished and there are always going to be new ideas to try out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tyutyu said:

In my opinion changing these would improve the model:
- Canopy piece. Lego got the angles all wrong. Even a brick built canopy looks better.

Totally disagree.  The brick built canopies are terrible unless you're building a technic model.  They just look unfinished.  I would much rather work with a polished looking canopy and go from there, inheriting whatever limitations they may impose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly look at my MOCs so durability is nice to have but not high priority. Sure if you need to make it strong, then your model Flandy is perfect by the looks of it. I am not saying I am happy with brick built open air flimsy cockpits but it is the only way I can get the angles that I am aiming for and I am crazy for them angles :)

I am on the same page as you kibosh, I am just not happy with TLG's X-Wing cockpits/canopys so far. The UCS cockpit was the better one of the uglies and now we have the UCS shape in minifig scale too but I still don't understand how could TLG stay with the shape that has opposite angles from the front and top view compared to the real thing. From the side view it is ok but still not perfect.

Flandy you can check my wip X-wing and other Star Wars stuff here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/137178302@N07/


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet! I have the official T70's and think any official version of the T65 is not good enough to sit next to the T70's (that is rather well made!). This MOC is what the T65 should have been in this scale, nothing less. Well done indeed! It's pretty much the smaller scale's opposite to the Red Five version of UCS X-wing - things made right, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st class X-wing !  Fantastic work and looks perfect to me apart from maybe a few random dark and light grey/blay tiles could be placed on the wings/nose/fuselage etc to fulfill the 'used universe' look (that's just my opinion though) It is truly a great MOC you have built.

 

:classic: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jemakrol, Lobot-omy, thank you very much for your kind words! I've been tweaking it here and there and have got the nose structure a bit smoother, and moved the underside hump further back. I'll take some pics later.

Jemakrol, it's funny you mention the UCS x-wing, I have that on the shelf above and it's amazing how wrong it is! The nose shape is much worse than mine, it's surprisingly lumpy in places, and the engines are too small. I'll do a side by side pic.

Lobot-omy, I may dirty it up a bit for greater accuracy, but while I was building and designing it, I found it easier to guage the shape while it's all one colour. Quite nice to see a factory fresh one though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.