Travel the dunes with the LEGO� Star Wars™ Ultimate Collector Series Sancrawler™

FBTB - From Bricks To Bothans

Follow us: RSS
News? Questions? Comments? Email!

Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter and 7191 UCS X-wing Fighter

The official Lego set review forum. Please read the Guidelines before posting!

Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter and 7191 UCS X-wing Fighter

Postby Staff » Wed May 01, 2013 2:57 am


000
Back when Lego started making Star Wars sets I was still in my "dark age" so I missed out on a lot of the early releases. Even by 2000, when the original UCS X-wing came out, I still wasn't ready to throw that kind of money at a single set. After a few years of re-embracing the hobby I wound up paying a good deal more for a used second hand kit, worrying that if I didn't pick one up then I would only face higher prices down the line. I never got around to building it but I was satisfied to have it on standby. Fast forward to last February and the new Red Five announcement. Suddenly that old set I had for the most part forgotten about became relevant again. Like everyone else I was surprised to see Lego redesigning such a large model, and curious how they'd stack up against each other. With that in mind, Ace managed to procure a copy of the new set for me on the condition that I would review both at the same time. So. Here we are.




Please note that the review sets we received were volume sample sets provided by the LEGO Shop marketing team. They were nearly complete, missing some sticker sheets, and without retail packaging which did not affect the outcome of the review.


I'd like to start off by comparing the boxes, but unfortunately I don't have either of them. As I said my 7191 was purchased second hand and the 10240 sample did not come with one so we'll just have to compare the stock images for now.
7191box
Two very different approaches. The old being very dramatic and stylized, the new simply showing you exactly what you're in for. The actual model is shown on the back of the box for both, as well as some close ups to highlight various features. Standard fare. What's interesting is the change in labeling: 7191 Ultimate Collector Series X-wing Fighter vs 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter. This new set technically isn't part of the UCS line. At least according to the box. But then again, 10225 R2-D2 isn't either if the boxes are your metric, while the shop at home site disagrees. So is it or isn't it? Seems obvious that it should be, but then why not put it on the box? In truth it doesn't really matter, it's just one of those details that I know collectors will argue about to no end. That's just what we do.Moving on to the builds themselves, both models are broken down into distinct sections. 10225 jumps right into the gearbox mechanism while 7191 starts with the nose, but otherwise the sub assemblies and orders are the same. We'll start with rear section since it's the core to both of the fighters.


001You can see right off the bat how fundamentally different the designs are. The old style relies on a series of small toothed gears to move the connection points apart, resulting in a lot of free movement because the teeth don't mesh perfectly. Each point of contact compounds the amount of play, and when combined with the natural flexibility of plastic you're left with a very soft range of motion. I'm sure I'm not explaining that very coherently, but the result is a floppy mess. Take a look at the blue Technic bushings jutting out from the sides. Those are supposed to support the wings. The ones on the bottom, that are facing directly sideways. When the wings are attached to those the weight simply forces them down at an angle, stressing the whole assembly. Turning the knob on the back will raise the lower wings but the entire gearbox remains under strain. It feels like it could shear off a sprocket at any moment and is altogether unpleasant. Meanwhile, the new version relies on a set of large four point ball sprockets that provide significantly better support.
002The mechanism is much simpler and fairly similar to the newer system scale X-wings (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been a while since I've built one but that definitely felt familiar). Instead of rubber bands to hold the wings together as on the smaller versions you have two pairs of Technic shock absorbers, so you don't have to worry about it deteriorating and going limp. The wings mount to a single pivoting assembly of lift-arms that counterbalance each other, lessening the strain on the system.
003What you're left with is a smaller and more effective core. The knob on the back does not have a start and end point like with the old model. If you spin it too far you just start the open/close cycle again. This completely eliminates the risk of damaging the sprockets by over-tightening. You can set the wings at any angle between full open and closed and they will stay balanced with ease. The old model is very finicky about when it will actually raise or lower each wing. Sometimes it will hold the bottom horizontal until the last second and drop it completely, sometimes one side will separate before the other. It's a mess. Just based on this section alone I'm already very impressed with the new set. Now that we've got the technical bits covered, lets take a look at the completed rear fuselages.
004The old school style of 99% studs up building leaves you with an awkward brick shaped module. Thirteen years of progress and some new curvy slopes with studs out lend to a much better profile that starts to resemble the actual ship design. And then when you turn them sideways...
005Something seems off. It's definitely more accurate to have a flat backside, and they did a nice job of recessing the wing adjustment knob this time, but the older version with the added slopes looks slightly better to me. I guess that's just a mater of preference.
006The greeblies on top are a bit sparser now, but they don't stick up as much as before so I think it's a decent compromise. All together it's a much smoother and more "starshipy" feeling construction, and this is just the boring part of the ship that you hardly get to see.
007The changes to the main fuselage are just as stark. The old style seems so cubist in comparison. The color blocking doesn't help the already rough design. The new build is so much sleeker without straying too much from the appearance of the source. We're still stuck with a predominately rectangular cross-section, which most certainly doesn't match up to the source, but that's a hard shape to pull off within the constraints of official building methods and the result is close enough to satisfy me.
008You can see how the old model used a pair of flag pieces to try to mimic the hexagonal profile it should have, but just for that one spot. In reality it should carry down the length of the nose. The problem is with the required angles being so slight I can't imagine them pulling it off without some new specialized parts or "illegal" techniques that would weaken the structure, so I'm willing to overlook that discrepancy. You might notice from the photo above that the new model is slightly narrower here due to dropping the flags. Don't worry, that's being handled by the rear section and will clear up once the two halves come together. Before we get to that, we need to address the nose.
009Big improvement as far as size and shape, and I like the pocket a lot more than the red indentation. But as much as it's been improved on the new model, it still doesn't look quite right.
010
From the side you can see there is a lot of room for improvement. The flat tip, the symmetric top and bottom profile, the mixed tones for no reason... it's all wrong. The old version does a better job with the back edge because it carries the same basic angle to the top rather than zig-zaging, and if you squint the slopes along the front look better, but the jagged edges ruin any praise it might have earned. The new style is smoother at least, but it's hard to call it good when looking at it from this angle. When AOFLs have started redesigning the nose a month before the set even goes on sale you know that you have a problem.


011 012


With the front and back sub-assemblies connected and and it starts looking like complete fuselage, the ire subsides. The nose still needs some work but it doesn't ruin the ship. And at least it doesn't look like a Rancor was chewing on it like the old style.
013Here's a closer look at what I mentioned above. That extra bit of shaping attained by the flags on the old model is accomplished by the large smooth sloped element on the update. The transition between the front and rear sections new feels relatively smooth. I'm sure you could sneak in a tile or two to ease the step down in width a bit more, but it doesn't stand out as a flaw to me. The main attraction in this shot however is the canopies. The only element completely unique to either kit and unique from each other.
014First off, and as politely as I can put it, I hate these canopy stickers with a passion. Stickers in general are a commonly contested addition to any set. I'm not against them in general. I think they're quite nice in moderation and are really handy for builders who want to spice up custom models. I would have loved to get the rest of the stickers this set was supposed to come with. But in this specific situation, a large transparent element at the focus point of the model, I consider it unacceptable. Maybe it's just my luck. Maybe I'm flaunting my own incompetence. But without my own anti-static clean room to apply them there is no way to get to a transparent sticker of this size properly centered on the canopy without trapping a bit of dust or an air bubble and basically ruining the appearance. I'm grateful that whoever I bought the old kit from never removed it because they did a better job than I could manage, but it's still a far cry from factory printed. I know the excuse. This is cheaper. But honestly, for a set like this, on such a critical element, leaving it up to chance? It should be worth it.
015Obligatory rant aside, the new sticker just isn't as good as the old one. The blue doesn't match anything on the model. The grey edging on it doesn't have enough contrast to stand out unless you get up crazy close. I miss the bit of red caution striping at the top. Nothing about it improved. The canopy itself has several changes: it's a full stud longer while holding the same height, making the slope even slighter than before. The top now has studs for no particular reason other than to turn the three sticker process into four. And now has click hinges built into the design, which is a nice thought considering the original hinge was a bit awkward, but somewhat disappointing considering the actual cockpits didn't hinge from that point at all. I know making two special elements that hinge together is too much to ask, but hey, why not, they saved all that money by opting for stickers right? Alright I'll let it go now.
016That last bit of canopy related awkwardness, which happens to bother me the least, is the proportions. If you compare the length of the leading edge at the very front to the length across the top it should taper inward, not out. This is a problem with both sets because of the rectangular cross-section I mentioned earlier. When viewed from above, the real models only had a very narrow flat strip centered on the top of the main body, and the sides taper off to form an irregular hexagon cross-section. The Lego models are a simpler shape, so the two front tips of the canopy need to align with the flat vertical sides. If they didn't, and instead kept a truer outline from above, you'd end up with a jarring misaligned seam on either side that wouldn't look right from any angle. So while I'm well aware that this solution is very inaccurate, I'm fine with it because it looks good on these models. That aside, I prefer the stouter old canopy without the studs on top. With that in mind, I thought I'd try something out just for fun.

017 018


The original canopy actually fits quite nicely on the new model, and the old grey doesn't mismatch any worse than the blue, so a hybrid of the two is quite viable. But that's skipping ahead a bit. Moving onto the next set of sub-assemblies...
019The wings are very close in size. The new ones are only slightly longer front to back thanks to an extra plate to fill in the gap by the rear nozzle better. The engines are integrated on the original model but separate on the new one, so for demonstration I've simply set it on top where it would wind up after assembly.
020On both models the full width of each wing is 22 studs. The intakes on the new model are slightly larger, very slightly, but unfortunately they look smaller due to a couple of different factors. They're mounted closer to the center-line of the ship. This makes the wings look bigger in proportion and they aren't as spread out once fully assembled. The exhaust nozzles are significantly larger on the new model as well, so from all sides the proportions work against them. It's not terrible, but noticeable.
021The undersides of the wings aren't anything special. The old version put a little bit of effort into dressing them up with some vents/screens. The new model just relied on the connecting lift-arms to break up the monotony of plate undersides. In this view it's easy to see how much of a difference the larger exhaust nozzles make.
022Both models have two styles of canons to mimic the stripped barrels on Luke's X-wing. The old model used ribbed tube and smooth spacers on alternate wings, the new uses the same Technic connectors on each but in alternating colors. It's closer to the prop, but not quite right. I guess even the lightest blue parts would stand out too much. Lego makes some strange color choices sometimes. Like the body of the canons switching from grey to white. If they made the whole ship grey like it should be it would be pretty bland, so instead it's predominately white and they're left with deciding where to drop in some highlights. Creative license I suppose. The tips are a little bit shorter now. Narrower too, but overall they look bigger. It's a difficult detail to get right and neither model is close enough to be happy with. But they get the job done better than a 2x2 inverted dish.
023The stands are both pretty simple. The old with a cross shaped footprint, the new with an H. The datasheet sticker will be bigger and fill a single 8x16 tile instead of an array of 12 1x8s.
024Both are meant to be displayed with the model leaning back, but the old one will also hold it's position fairly well with the model level. This is more thanks to the square receiving port in the model being closer to it's center of gravity than in the new version. You can reverse the new stand 180° and the model will be almost level, but you'll need to switch the card to the opposite side if you want to display it that way. Or you could add some weight into the front end of the fuselage to bring the center of gravity forward. The stand is the last sub-unit to build in both sets, so all that's left is the final assembly.

025 026
027 028


Unfortunately I was not given the complete sticker sheets for the new model, so it will seem a little bare in comparison. But try not to let that bother you to much as I go through the details on the two now that the ships are complete.

029 030


I mentioned the greeblies on top earlier but here you can see them a bit better. The old style is really busy but looks pretty good, although it sticks up above the rim in several places. R2 sits quite high in the droid socket too. The new model is a bit more sparse, but everything is tucked into the frame very nicely and R2 is less exposed. I would have liked a little bit more in there. Maybe even a mere rod or two across the sides where the old shooter parts used to be. The engine connections seem more natural at least, the original seemed to be tacked on and forgotten about but the new blends very well at the size change. Bother are properly offset, something that I wasn't so sure about when I first saw the redesign.

031 032


Taking a look at the rear you can see again just how much larger the new exhaust nozzles are compared to the old. The Scala vases were a perfect shape for the tips, but they were too small so the whole end shrunk to match them. I was worried about how stable the octagon clip setup would be but it turns out the flaps rest nicely against the transparent pink bits simulating the engine glow. The new flat back to the fuselage still doesn't seem right and the inset details aren't quite as nice as they used to be. At least the knob blends in better.

033 034


The wing markings have tightened up with half stud offsets and less tan throughout, and I consider the the change from red to dark red an improvement. I don't like that the tiles are raised now but it's a trade off I can deal with. From this view I'd say the large grey slope would probably look better as white, but I'm sure the sticker will help dress it up as with the original.

035 036


One of the drawbacks to the new wing mechanism is a much larger space between the wings when they're spread out. You can adjust them to any angle you like at least, but it's only at the full spread that the rotating bit inside makes a nice vertical wall and the engines rest snug to the body.

037 038


One more issue I noticed with the old model is the canopy would not close completely. I rebuilt the section several times to see if I just wasn't pressing things together tightly enough, but noting seemed to solve it. I'm betting that was part of the reason they decided to add the click hinges to the new version. Meanwhile, the engine intakes are as undersized as ever. The T shape in them is perfect and the lack of red round part was was a very wise choice, and if you don't go looking for screenshots to compare you can probably convince yourself these actually look good. To me, they're just good enough. Sadly I don't think there are any five-stud cylinder elements that could solve the problem quickly. I'm sure someone out there will come up with a solution because this is one of the reoccurring complaints I've noticed for both sets.

041 042


Looking into the cockpits you'll be disappointed to find the trench run printed slope has been replaced with a generic console design. I'm not sure but I think that might have been switched to a sticker, to be added to the huge targeting computer that I had to remove to take the pic above.

043 044


The old seat was a bit roomier, and had a simpler joystick too. Kind of hard to get in to with R2 in the way though, the canopy doesn't open too far unless you pull him out. That's no longer an issue with the new model. Oh, and that fancy printed slope over the controls has been changed to a sticker too, not simply omitted.

039 040


Taking a peek from below and the smoothness of the new one stands out once again. The proton torpedo tubes have inexplicably lost their cone tips, but the design is basically the same. They're just shorter and sunk in slightly farther now.

045 046


The storage unit is on almost every X-wing model Lego has made but I can't seem to remember it being used in the films ever. The old one was a poorly integrated inverted canopy. Looks OK from the side but head on it's much to narrow. The new hinged part blends much better.

049 050


You don't have quite as much storage space now, but honestly, what would you be putting in there on this model? There are no loose accessories to worry about. Strikes me as an odd feature but at least it was improved.

I originally wanted to try swapping the wings from one to the other but the construction didn't really make that as straight forward as I'd expected. But that's a good thing, because the old wing system completely sucked. I pulled the wings off the side so I could compare the overall sizes.

051 053
052 054


Reminds me of your Ugly Fighter contest from years ago. You can easily see how close these are to each other. It's basically the same size. The only real changes are proportions in a few places. The new canopy is longer as noted earlier, but it sits farther forward now too. The new nose is smaller and smoother. The body is sleeker everywhere. Engines are pulled in closer to the fuselage and all in all it looks like a much tighter build. And it is. The new ship is surprisingly solid. I can't count how many times the old model fell apart while doing this review, just by picking it up and moving it around. I accidentally dropped the new model on the table and it only lost the bottom exhaust nozzles. Definitely swooshable now.

055 056


This shot made me notice how much cooler the new one looks once complete. Don't get me wrong, the old model certainly doesn't look bad. Just a little dated. Rough color blocking and very angular. The nose is the worst offender but just look at the wings. The new one has a kind of flow to it. The grey at the engine intakes swoops back across the wing into the red markings and forward again at the edges and out to the cannon tips. I don't know if that was intentional or not, but I like it a lot. Now that I've seen it from this angle I don't miss the details left out from the lack of stickers.


057 058


From below you get the same wing pattern, and no more tan under the cockpit. You can also see how much farther forward the stand fits in, which helps explain the poor weight distribution.


The last thing I need to address is the wing deflection. I could go on and on about the mechanism some more and how much better the new version is compared to the old, but the pictures speak for themselves.
IMG_4252 IMG_4265Do the wings still droop? Yes. I think that's unavoidable with something this size made from Lego. But the improvement is obvious with the wings together. It's less of an issue with the wings expanded though.
IMG_4243IMG_4253 But like I mentioned above the old model has a tendency to fall apart far too easily, so it's trading one problem for another. Apart from that complaint, I'd have to say that the profile of the old one looks better here. The gap between the wings on the new model is just too large, and the bottom set of wings end up much lower than they should be. Two steps forward, one step back. Unfortunately the wings aren't the only things suffering from this problem either.

IMG_4250 IMG_4245
IMG_4263
IMG_4258


The cannon tips are just as bad, if not worse, on the new model. The lighter crescents should put less strain on the barrels but I think the additional connections to make the stripped portions are to blame for the loss of support. So that's disappointing. You'll notice again that the lower wings drop too low now. On the bright side, the sag really only stands out when you view them head on or directly from the side.

IMG_4244 IMG_4257


Both look quite nice in the standard attack position and leaning them back on their stands will help alleviate the issue even further. Theoretically. Time may wreak havoc on those axles eventually. In which case I'd recommend alternating the upper an lower cannons periodically, like the tires on your car. But who does that. Really.

In the end I can safely say that the new model is superior in most regards, although not without it's own flaws. I don't regret buying the original even at the inflated price I paid because I didn't know there would be a better option down the line. Now that the updated version is here I wouldn't even bother with the old one unless it was back down at the original $150 price point or better. It just doesn't hold up. Figuratively or literally. For $50 more you do only get 259 more pieces, but as someone pointed out in the forum when you account for inflation from 2000 to 2013 you're getting a better deal now. You also get a better looking ship and a far sturdier build. If you have more patience than me though, you might want to hold off until 2026 when the next version should be available... that should be sufficient time to address these lingering complaints. At the very least they might cave and throw in a printed canopy. But if that plan sounds unreasonable to you I would definitely recommend this set.

And finally, I'll included full turn around shots of both models from head on and above and both opened and closed configurations, because who doesn't like copious amounts of photos at the end of a long winded review?

IMG_4243 IMG_4244 IMG_4245 IMG_4246 IMG_4247
IMG_4252 IMG_4251 IMG_4250 IMG_4249 IMG_4248
IMG_4253 IMG_4257 IMG_4258 IMG_4259 IMG_4260
IMG_4265 IMG_4264 IMG_4263 IMG_4262 IMG_4261
IMG_4312 IMG_4311 IMG_4310 IMG_4309 IMG_4308
IMG_4303 IMG_4304 IMG_4305 IMG_4306 IMG_4307
IMG_4302 IMG_4301 IMG_4300 IMG_4299 IMG_4298
IMG_4293 IMG_4294 IMG_4295 IMG_4296 IMG_4297





 

10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter goes on sale at LEGO Shop@Home on May 4th

---
Permalink: http://www.fbtb.net/2013/05/01/side-by-side-review-10240-red-five-x-wing-starfighter-and-7191-ucs-x-wing-fighter/
Staff
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby onions » Wed May 01, 2013 3:03 am

Odd. One thing I remember from the old version is that the wings actually had an upward sweep when in flight mode, and not downward like yours does.

Gonna have to finish reading this tomorrow.
onions
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:45 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Solo » Wed May 01, 2013 3:09 am

When I first built it they did sort of V upward when together, but when expanded it looked like a K so I knew the gears were off by a tooth. You just can't win.
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Haderach1976 » Wed May 01, 2013 6:41 am

Thanks for this wonderful review. I really enjoyed it, you did a great job.
Haderach1976
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby etcknight » Wed May 01, 2013 10:16 am

Great review! I really enjoy the side-by-side comparisons of the "old vs new" models. I too hate the old model's gear / wing mechanism. I also like the change from red to dark red. Personally though, I overall prefer the old 7191. Of course, I mostly prefer the older models anyways - because there's more of a "Lego" feel to them compared to some of the newer models. But, that's personal preference. ;)
Image
etcknight
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:21 pm
Location: Sunny So Cal

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Haderach1976 » Wed May 01, 2013 1:49 pm

I have to admit that I'm a little worried about those cockpit stickers to the point I might not even apply them. I will be so disappointed if I botch the job :( I'd probably end up buying another sheet of stickers and trying again :P
Haderach1976
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby paulmison » Wed May 01, 2013 3:03 pm

Haderach1976 wrote:I'd probably end up buying another sheet of stickers and trying again


According to the Brickset review the set comes with two canopy cockpit sticker sheets for that very reason.
paulmison
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:38 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Solo » Wed May 01, 2013 4:56 pm

Well that's handy. If the sample I was given had a second sticker sheet I certainly would have tried again (and probably made it worse). Good review. Very nice photos too. Also,
Basically there is not a hope in hell of getting the sticker on satisfactorily, straight and without air bubbles or fluff under it.
...
•There is no chance at all that you'll be able to apply the canopy stickers perfectly, unless you do so in a vacuum, so bear that in mind before buying: if you can't live with the model without the canopy sticker applied, don't buy it.
Huw knows my pain.
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Faefrost » Wed May 01, 2013 10:17 pm

Haderach1976 wrote:I have to admit that I'm a little worried about those cockpit stickers to the point I might not even apply them. I will be so disappointed if I botch the job :( I'd probably end up buying another sheet of stickers and trying again :P


I wonder how controversial it would be to just mask and paint the canopy, instead of using those stickers? That looks to be a very easy canopy to mask off.
Faefrost
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:19 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Joedward » Wed May 01, 2013 11:51 pm

Fantastic review Don. It's great to see them both side by side.

You're right in that the new one is, overall, better, and yet there are still so many aspects of the old that I prefer. Including the nose. They tried to be sensible with the nice slope pieces, but even with its flaws, I still prefer the old one. It's jagged and unseemly, but it seems to fit with the model as a whole. Same goes for the trailing edge of the fuselage. It might not be as accurate on the old one, and there are too many corners, but it works better.

The profile shots are maybe the most interesting. I think by tinkering with the gears enough on the old one you can get them tbe wings much closer to an X than a K, but it is a huge amount of effort to keep going back to taking it apart and put back together.
The new one looks ever so slightly crazy with the wings open aswell. That gap is ridiculous.
But oh well. I'm sure it won't stop me buying the set, and it won't bother me enough to try to change it from within.

If nothing else, I look forward to swooshing this one.
~Ed
(that's Mr. Ed to you)

(T!!!!!!!T=:|[\########################################
Joedward
 
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:30 am

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Solo » Thu May 02, 2013 12:32 am

You can always just not open the new wings all the way and get basically the same angle, but I can understand liking the look of the old one still. But after building them both and handling them so much I never want to deal with that fragile mess again. It will wind up cannibalized for parts. The new one will remain mostly intact with a few modifications.
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby captain sambuca » Thu May 02, 2013 12:21 pm

This is a great and thorough article, I really enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

But this one phrase really stuck out:

"After a few years of re-embracing the hobby I wound up paying a good deal more for a used second hand kit, worrying that if I didn’t pick one up then I would only face higher prices down the line. I never got around to building it"

It makes me sad how people can do this, that they can fixate over a bunch of bricks and be prepared to pay over the odds for a set and then never even build the thing.

To me, the whole point of lego is the building, not the owning. It makes me sad when people get those two the wrong way round. We are seeing it more and more in our society, and I think the world would be a better place if we moved away from that. I've been a teacher for fifteen years now, and even in that small space of time I've noticed how fewer and fewer kids are saying "playing lego" as their hobby. It's now just "collecting lego" or worse still, "my hobby is shopping", or "my favourite thing is getting presents".

We are involved in a creative hobby, us lot.

Dear reader: I hope that is you. We are creators, not just consumers. Creators. The world is ours.

Anyway. Great article. I bought that UCS set back in the day, it was on special offer for sixty quid. I thought it was pretty impressive for sixty quid. Couldn't get much for that now!

I've been building x wings for thirty five years, and that one hit the spot. But I'm glad to say it didn't stand on the shelf for long enough to gather much dust.

Build well.
captain sambuca
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:29 am

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Solo » Thu May 02, 2013 2:40 pm

It makes me sad how people can do this, that they can fixate over a bunch of bricks and be prepared to pay over the odds for a set and then never even build the thing.
...but I did build it. That's it there in the review. You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't buy it just to keep it in a box, I always wanted to build the set, I just didn't have any place I'd be happy with displaying it until recently. I knew if I built it when I only had one bedroom to myself or a small apartment it would eventually get damaged or disassembled out of necessity. Now that I have a house and I've finished remodeling my office I have a place for it. That was the plan all along. It was just an issue of timing and space.

As far as the collector vs builder mentality, that's a whole different discussion worthy of a thread to itself.
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby onions » Thu May 02, 2013 8:06 pm

Solo wrote:One more issue I noticed with the old model is the canopy would not close completely.


I remember this being an issue as well back in the day. The solution was to place a tile in front of the windscreen much like what the 10240 version does.
onions
Founder
Founder
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:45 pm

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby Andi » Fri May 03, 2013 1:55 am

Great review, Don. Thanks.
I unfortunately sold my copy of 7191 at a time where I got way less than I paid for it... So I am looking forward very much to get the new one. I'm picking it up today at lunch break.
~Andi
Image
Flickr
Andi
 
Posts: 691
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:23 am
Location: Germany *female Lego Fan*

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby spacysmoke » Fri May 03, 2013 11:40 am

The storage unit is on almost every X-wing model Lego has made but I can't seem to remember it being used in the films ever.


The storage unit is seen in ESB when Luke is leaving for Cloud City from Dagobah. Oh, and the storage unit on 10240 is more accurate than the old one.
Last edited by spacysmoke on Fri May 03, 2013 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
spacysmoke
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:11 am

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby captain sambuca » Fri May 03, 2013 12:32 pm

Don't sweat it Solo: I'm not trying to get at you.

It was a brilliant review- I raise my hat to you!

And you are right: it raises a whole bigger issue about building vs collecting/displaying.

We might as well argue about which way up we should crack our eggs in the morning, or whether attacking hoth was a critical error for the empire or what have you.

It still makes me sad though, that kids want to collect, rather than build. If you can think of anything to help turn that tide I would love to know.
captain sambuca
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:29 am

Re: Side By Side Review: 10240 Red Five X-wing Starfighter a

Postby FirstCircle » Thu May 09, 2013 9:25 pm

Don,

Thanks for the very informative review.

I was curious to see if LEGO would improve on the original model. It seemed like an odd choice anyway (to redo an existing UCS), but LEGO has been obsessed with Red 5 for the length of the license and it sells well, so waddya gonna do?

After reading your review, It looks like I am more pleased with the original. I thought they would do more slopes (like the 8097 Slave 1) to make the nose and fuselage less blocky. Guess not so much. Overall, I like the greebling of the first as well. I just always disliked the nose. The thrusters seem to be a vast improvement, however.

Solo wrote:When I first built it they did sort of V upward when together, but when expanded it looked like a K so I knew the gears were off by a tooth. You just can't win.


Yeah. I had that problem too. The weight of the pieces collectively bows the gears. You have to overshoot it... the gears have to assembled to make a (for lack of a better description) "K", when the wings are put on the weight pulls them into a nice "X" in Attack Position, but when closed the wings slightly tip up in a "V". But I had to jigger the bricks around the lift assembly open then put the gears back in just one tooth higher... but I had to do that twice.

I guess I am just very patient. XD

I'd like to handle the new one to see the opening mechanism. I rather liked the old one (once all the technic gears were aligned properly... *sigh*) as a small twist gently popped the wings open and closed. That beige on the turning mechanism was corny, though. On second thought, the beige everywhere was corny.

Yep. Those are my thoughts.

Thanks again, Don.

Word is bond, son.
My BrickLink store, Jabberwocky's Emporium.
FirstCircle
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:28 am
Location: Southern California, U.S.


Return to Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DanCS123, dWhisper, phoenixhawk and 12 guests