Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [space-modelers] 1/48 Revell vs Monogram LEM

Expand Messages
  • Mat Irvine
    In message , Scott Brotherton writes ... Monogram had the advantage of time - it s LM
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      In message <029e01c8dae8$fc507be0$6601a8c0@RADIO>, Scott Brotherton
      <jsb_mla@...> writes
      >Hello All,
      >
      >I saw a Monogram 1/48th Apollo 11 LEM kit at my local hobby store this weekend.
      >Looking at the photos of the model, on the side of the box, it looked like it
      >was more accurate then the Revell version. One of our members posted photos of
      >his modifications to the ascent stage to correct the area where the docking
      >target is. The photos on the box seemed to have the proper contours in that
      >area. Matter of fact they made it stand out in the photo by covering the area
      >in gold foil. Wrong for the real thing, but it made me notice. Now to my
      >question, and I do not need all the details, but was the Monogram always more
      >accurate in its representation than the Revell model, or is it possible that
      >Monogram updated the kit?
      >
      >Scott Brotherton


      Monogram had the advantage of time - it's LM was issued in 1970, the
      Revell LM in 1967 - what a difference three years make...


      mat

      Mat Irvine

      mat@...
      www.smallspace.demon.co.uk

      Creating Space AND Scale Spacecraft Modelling - available...
    • ian davies
      I have both kits - and I would say the Revell one is excellent for demonstrating an Apollo Lunar Mission - while the Monogram kit with the new extra detail
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        I have both kits - and I would say the Revell one is
        excellent for demonstrating an Apollo Lunar Mission -
        while the Monogram kit with the new extra detail sets
        being issued by New Ware can be used to model any of
        the six Lunar module's Apollo's 11-12, 14-17
        Though with extra research and work the revell one can
        come up very satisfactory two. Its all presonal
        preference at the end of the day!




        __________________________________________________________
        Not happy with your email address?.
        Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
      • TB
        ... Has anyone ever attempted to combine the movable landing gear off the Revell kit with the Monogram kit so the Monogram LM has actual stowed or deployable
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 1, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          "ian davies" wrote:
          >
          > I have both kits - and I would say the Revell one is
          > excellent for demonstrating an Apollo Lunar Mission -
          > while the Monogram kit with the new extra detail sets
          > being issued by New Ware can be used to model any of
          > the six Lunar module's Apollo's 11-12, 14-17
          > Though with extra research and work the revell one can
          > come up very satisfactory two. Its all presonal
          > preference at the end of the day!

          Has anyone ever attempted to combine the movable landing gear off the Revell
          kit with the Monogram kit so the Monogram LM has actual stowed or deployable
          landing gear? Even going a step further and using the entire Revell Apollo
          LES/CM/SM/SLA/LM totally upgraded to an accurate Block 2 configuration? I
          know it would take some considerable kit bashing, but it would be nice to
          see or build a 1/48 scale Apollo that one could demonstrate all phases of a
          lunar mission.

          T.B.
        • JMChladek@aol.com
          Glenn did a full accurization of a Revell CSM to Block 2 standards years ago for an Apollo 13 diorama that appeared in FSM, but he used the Monogram LM in
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 1, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Glenn did a full accurization of a Revell CSM to Block 2 standards years ago
            for an Apollo 13 diorama that appeared in FSM, but he used the Monogram LM
            in place of the Revell one. I would say if you plan to make the gear struts on
            the LM deployable, expect to lose something in scale accuracy due to the
            spindly nature of LM landing legs. Something that can withstand the rigors of
            demonstration and still look scale probably would need some out of scale items
            on it or would be pretty fragile when done.

            JMC


            In a message dated 7/1/2008 11:09:27 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
            partyslammer@... writes:

            Has anyone ever attempted to combine the movable landing gear off the Revell

            kit with the Monogram kit so the Monogram LM has actual stowed or deployable
            landing gear? Even going a step further and using the entire Revell Apollo
            LES/CM/SM/SLA/LM totally upgraded to an accurate Block 2 configuration? I
            know it would take some considerable kit bashing, but it would be nice to
            see or build a 1/48 scale Apollo that one could demonstrate all phases of a
            lunar mission.

            T.B.





            **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
            fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • sasa_uhlik
            Hello Scott, Definitely go with the Monogram. It is far more accurate and to all what were already said you can also use New Ware s LM detail set. HTH Sasa U.
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 2, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello Scott,

              Definitely go with the Monogram. It is far more accurate and to all
              what were already said you can also use New Ware's LM detail set.

              HTH
              Sasa U.

              --- In space-modelers@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Brotherton"
              <jsb_mla@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello All,
              >
              > I saw a Monogram 1/48th Apollo 11 LEM kit at my local hobby store
              this weekend. Looking at the photos of the model, on the side of the
              box, it looked like it was more accurate then the Revell version. One
              of our members posted photos of his modifications to the ascent stage
              to correct the area where the docking target is. The photos on the
              box seemed to have the proper contours in that area. Matter of fact
              they made it stand out in the photo by covering the area in gold foil.
              Wrong for the real thing, but it made me notice. Now to my question,
              and I do not need all the details, but was the Monogram always more
              accurate in its representation than the Revell model, or is it
              possible that Monogram updated the kit?
              >
              > Scott Brotherton
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.